or, just to play devil's advocate, Apple has far, far fewer hardware configurations and total control over those hardware configurations to ensure full compatibility with the update than Microsoft does with Vista. The job Microsoft has to fix problems is significantly more complicated than it is for Apple.
Also, maybe one service pack is a bad example, but I'd say the difference between the original release of Windows XP and XP SP2 (read: two Service Packs) would easily be as huge as the switch from Tiger to Leopard. The sheer volume of new features, on top of all the security and bug fixes.
Microsoft doesn't typically roll out hardware compatibility updates with Service Packs, those come through driver updates. The argument about OS compatibility being easier on Apple's hardware because it is more controlled isn't necessarily true, though OS stability could be easily blamed on this.
However, for hardware that comes from Dell, HP, & Sony the stability claim doesn't make much since as Microsoft should be well aware of the hardware that these companies are putting out into the market.
In my personal experience, though Macs do goof up sometimes, it has never been anything major that couldn't be completely resolved in less than 15 min. For Windows it is almost never less than an hour ordeal. With Apple moving towards a fully certified Unix environment the stability should greatly increase as they are now conforming to a set of standards that Steve Jobs did not write...nothing personal.
That may be true, but I also don't think they're going to leave their new Air users out in the cold over the weekend without the wireless optical software for the other Macs.
You don't need to be running 10.5.2 to use Remote Disc. If you have 10.5.2 the software is already there, which means you don't need to use the installation disc, but if you are running an earlier version of OS X or Windows you will need the Remote Disc to install the appropriate software. Apple won't delay 10.5.2 just because it's a Friday as they've released plenty of updates on Friday before.
Buy a D300 and get Capture NX free...which works fine with Leopard.
Buy a new camera to get a free program. That's silly if that person already has one like it. Am I missing something here?
I'd think that Apple should be adding their support for that camera soon, it's about five months old now. I don't see the point in using the camera brand's photo program when Apple's programs usually do better overall, support for specific cameras notwithstanding.
Clearly, the MacBook Air will not ship until 10.5.2 is ready. However, Apple may also continue tweaking 10.5.2 until the MacBook Air is ready.
They have already started shipping, based on tracking info, people expect to start receiving them today.
I think we'll see it early next week. If they just released a build yesterday, there isn't much time to test today, and out of the eleven 10.4.x releases, only one was on a Friday.
Hmmm and Microsoft is STILL working to release SP1 for Vista in 6 months' time.
Vista SP1 is about 50MB as opposed to 380MB+ (excluding the drivers) for Leopard. Vista may be a pile of shit, but it is way better tested than Leopard in the current form. Of course, the real fix for Vista is Windows 7 and that is rumored to be due next year or the year after. It requires a memory foot print of about 500MB as opposed to the 800MB of RAM that Vista currently uses after booting up...
Yes, Vista is better tested no question. Leopard is today running on 5 million machines. Vista must be 20 million to 50 million or more.
That doesn't mean Apple does a bad job. Apple actually does a very good job. 10.5.0 should have been 10.5.1, which includes some essential fixes. That said, the Leopard release has met the mark on quality. Soon, it will deserve the label of "ultra-stable."
Vista SP1 is about 50MB as opposed to 380MB+ (excluding the drivers) for Leopard. Vista may be a pile of shit, but it is way better tested than Leopard in the current form. Of course, the real fix for Vista is Windows 7 and that is rumored to be due next year or the year after. It requires a memory foot print of about 500MB as opposed to the 800MB of RAM that Vista currently uses after booting up...
You're really making the assumption of "better tested" based on the size of an update? Based on what I've heard from users, Vista seems to have bigger and more serious problems than Leopard so far. It just looks like MS is better at making their update size smaller, or that they just aren't fixing as many things as quickly.
I just wish they would make Mail more stable. I've had to Force Quit Mail more times than I've had to shut down my Macbook. It only manages two POP e-mails and one Micrsoft Exchange E-mail, and it rarely closes out properly, which has become really annoying.
I might have to try out Entourage '08 to see if it's any more stable.
I just wish they would make Mail more stable. I've had to Force Quit Mail more times than I've had to shut down my Macbook. It only manages two POP e-mails and one Micrsoft Exchange E-mail, and it rarely closes out properly, which has become really annoying.
I might have to try out Entourage '08 to see if it's any more stable.
Apple Mail in Leopard is very stable for me, both on MacBook Pro and G5.
You might want to check out the discussions in Apple Support to improve stability.
They have already started shipping, based on tracking info, people expect to start receiving them today.
I think we'll see it early next week. If they just released a build yesterday, there isn't much time to test today, and out of the eleven 10.4.x releases, only one was on a Friday.
I very much doubt that Apple will be shipping MacBooks Air with 10.5.1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
Yes, Vista is better tested no question. Leopard is today running on 5 million machines. Vista must be 20 million to 50 million or more.
Socialism is well-tested too, but it still doesn't work. How many times Vista has been tested doesn't impress me. Whether or not it can pass a reasonable test is much more interesting.
Watch out, you can easily get into an argument that Mac OSX's updates are like Windows' Hotfixes and Windows' Service Packs are more in tune with new versions of Mac OS X.
Not really a good description: a MS Service pack is like 7-10 point releases...like going from 10.4.0 to 10.4.8
Yes, Vista is better tested no question. Leopard is today running on 5 million machines. Vista must be 20 million to 50 million or more.
No one outside of redmond knows how many vistas have been activated, that is the closest thing to a real metric for this: can you really count all those licenses that have been force bundled and not used? and the huge number of corporate licenses that count as "sales" that happen automatically on the day of release to all MVLS/SA customers? and what about Technet and MSDN unused licenses? that a part of your 50 mill as well?
Using history as a guide, the 10.5.1 update came out 3 days after the last build (there were stil some minor issues left) and the 10.4.11 update came out 21 days after the last build was released (there was no known issues with that build).
The last Tiger update was released the day before Leopard which gives precedence that Apple will hold off a ready update. This is the 2nd 10.5.2 build that has had no known issues. As I've stated before, unless Apple has some marketing reason to delay this update there is no reason we shouldn't see this tomorrow.
Also, maybe one service pack is a bad example, but I'd say the difference between the original release of Windows XP and XP SP2 (read: two Service Packs) would easily be as huge as the switch from Tiger to Leopard. The sheer volume of new features, on top of all the security and bug fixes.
Wrong! In Leopard, there are huge under the hood changes: 64 bitness, Core Animation, Image Kit, significant changes in Objective-C runtime, Objective-C 2.0 with garbage collection and a number of other features, and so on... There are a lot of bundled applications and system components, including Finder, that went through significant changes or were rewritten from the ground up.
The release schedule (and the release cycle) of Mac OS X and Windows is so different that all these questions like "Is a point release a service pack or kind of a monthly patch, and the major releases like Tiger and Leopard ARE the service packs" are plain stupid.
Traditionally, when Apple sends a new OS version for production it starts working on an update immediately and it is released almost alongside the OS release. Then a chain of updates follows, which often may be viewed as bug release/feature enhancements and bug release sequence.
In general, Mac OS has a much faster development cycle and THIS is the major thread for Microsoft. Hypothetically, as an extreme example, a new processor architecture with significant advantages over the existing ones would be deadly for Microsoft. The only good news for them is that this is unlikely for now.
Regarding the update size, many seems don't take into an account that Leopard is a 4-way universal binary (32 bit Intel, 32-bit PowerPC, 64-bit Intel and 64 bit PowerPC). Tiger was not, and there were separate updates for Intel and PowerPC. Windows is not either.
the contents of both Apple OS updates and Windows Service Packs can be divided into four (or more) groups:
- bug/security fixes
- internal changes to existing OS and programs 'underneath' the UI.
- new UI options for existing programs (e.g., display settings for menu bar, dock, stacks, etc.)
- new capabilities for existing programs (e.g. Time Machine working with Air Disk/network)
i'm trying to remember if Apple ever released an entirely new program as part of an OS update. i don't think so ... but could be wrong.
and Apple has iTunes on its own much more frequent independent update sequence since it has so much to do with iPod/iPhone/Apple TV.
so ... let's wait for both the 10.5.2 and Service Pack 1 updates to actually be released soon, see what they both in fact contain, and THEN debate how a Mac OS update compares in scope to a Windows Service Pack. you know, based on the current facts ...
Vista SP1 is about 50MB as opposed to 380MB+ (excluding the drivers) for Leopard. Vista may be a pile of shit, but it is way better tested than Leopard in the current form. Of course, the real fix for Vista is Windows 7 and that is rumored to be due next year or the year after. It requires a memory foot print of about 500MB as opposed to the 800MB of RAM that Vista currently uses after booting up...
Vista is better tested than Mac OS? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that statement is pretty far out there. Vista feels like OS 10.0. It is slow, buggy, and when it crashes it crashes hard. 10.5 was a little frustrating for me at first, but it turns out that was only because I've been Acrhive/Installing since, what, 10.3? My user profile has accumulated junk since that time. After seeing how fantastic Leopard worked on my bro's new iMac I re-installed Leopard and re-configured it from the ground up. It runs beautifully.
Vista has quite a way to go before it can be depended on by the average user. I imagine Leopard will see its shining moment with the soon-to-be-released 10.5.2. That is when I'll probably be recommending it to clients.
Leopard is built on the testing put into all the previous 10.x releases along with other devices which take advantage of it. Apple has been building on this new technology for years now. Vista re-works key elements of Windows and introduces a lot of virgin code which has been poorly tested (Vista was rushed out the door -- yes, despite the massive delay). That is fine. Microsoft has shown that they can make a system pretty stable given enough time (e.g. XP SP2, sans viruses and spyware), but it doesn't solve the future problem they are going to have to deal with: Windows revisions will continue to require major reworking of ancient WIndows code with plenty of new bugs, instability, and broken programs. Rather than build something new from the ground up (what they originally hoped to do) they have taken this route, and it is going to show in future releases of the OS.
That said, folks' concerns with Vista are usually associated with different subjects entirely.
Vista is better tested than Mac OS? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that statement is pretty far out there.....
I suppose it depends how one takes it. Vista having a much large users base, MS having more developers, and Vista being on the market a year before Leopard and in development longer would mean that it has considerably more testing done.
OR, once could say that since Leopard is built upon all other versions of OS X which is built upon NeXTSTEP which has a tried and true UNIX subsystem that Leopard is more tested.
Either way, it doesn't really matter because even the nicest looking structure is still crap if it's built upon a poor foundation.
Comments
or, just to play devil's advocate, Apple has far, far fewer hardware configurations and total control over those hardware configurations to ensure full compatibility with the update than Microsoft does with Vista. The job Microsoft has to fix problems is significantly more complicated than it is for Apple.
Also, maybe one service pack is a bad example, but I'd say the difference between the original release of Windows XP and XP SP2 (read: two Service Packs) would easily be as huge as the switch from Tiger to Leopard. The sheer volume of new features, on top of all the security and bug fixes.
Microsoft doesn't typically roll out hardware compatibility updates with Service Packs, those come through driver updates. The argument about OS compatibility being easier on Apple's hardware because it is more controlled isn't necessarily true, though OS stability could be easily blamed on this.
However, for hardware that comes from Dell, HP, & Sony the stability claim doesn't make much since as Microsoft should be well aware of the hardware that these companies are putting out into the market.
In my personal experience, though Macs do goof up sometimes, it has never been anything major that couldn't be completely resolved in less than 15 min. For Windows it is almost never less than an hour ordeal. With Apple moving towards a fully certified Unix environment the stability should greatly increase as they are now conforming to a set of standards that Steve Jobs did not write...nothing personal.
I hope this includes RAW support for the Nikon D3 and D300.... I only have 3 days left on the free trial of Capture One !
It does:
http://www.macbidouille.com/news/2008-01-24/#15689
That may be true, but I also don't think they're going to leave their new Air users out in the cold over the weekend without the wireless optical software for the other Macs.
You don't need to be running 10.5.2 to use Remote Disc. If you have 10.5.2 the software is already there, which means you don't need to use the installation disc, but if you are running an earlier version of OS X or Windows you will need the Remote Disc to install the appropriate software. Apple won't delay 10.5.2 just because it's a Friday as they've released plenty of updates on Friday before.
Buy a D300 and get Capture NX free...which works fine with Leopard.
Buy a new camera to get a free program. That's silly if that person already has one like it. Am I missing something here?
I'd think that Apple should be adding their support for that camera soon, it's about five months old now. I don't see the point in using the camera brand's photo program when Apple's programs usually do better overall, support for specific cameras notwithstanding.
Clearly, the MacBook Air will not ship until 10.5.2 is ready. However, Apple may also continue tweaking 10.5.2 until the MacBook Air is ready.
They have already started shipping, based on tracking info, people expect to start receiving them today.
I think we'll see it early next week. If they just released a build yesterday, there isn't much time to test today, and out of the eleven 10.4.x releases, only one was on a Friday.
Hmmm and Microsoft is STILL working to release SP1 for Vista in 6 months' time.
Vista SP1 is about 50MB as opposed to 380MB+ (excluding the drivers) for Leopard. Vista may be a pile of shit, but it is way better tested than Leopard in the current form. Of course, the real fix for Vista is Windows 7 and that is rumored to be due next year or the year after. It requires a memory foot print of about 500MB as opposed to the 800MB of RAM that Vista currently uses after booting up...
That doesn't mean Apple does a bad job. Apple actually does a very good job. 10.5.0 should have been 10.5.1, which includes some essential fixes. That said, the Leopard release has met the mark on quality. Soon, it will deserve the label of "ultra-stable."
Vista SP1 is about 50MB as opposed to 380MB+ (excluding the drivers) for Leopard. Vista may be a pile of shit, but it is way better tested than Leopard in the current form. Of course, the real fix for Vista is Windows 7 and that is rumored to be due next year or the year after. It requires a memory foot print of about 500MB as opposed to the 800MB of RAM that Vista currently uses after booting up...
You're really making the assumption of "better tested" based on the size of an update? Based on what I've heard from users, Vista seems to have bigger and more serious problems than Leopard so far. It just looks like MS is better at making their update size smaller, or that they just aren't fixing as many things as quickly.
I might have to try out Entourage '08 to see if it's any more stable.
I just wish they would make Mail more stable. I've had to Force Quit Mail more times than I've had to shut down my Macbook. It only manages two POP e-mails and one Micrsoft Exchange E-mail, and it rarely closes out properly, which has become really annoying.
I might have to try out Entourage '08 to see if it's any more stable.
Apple Mail in Leopard is very stable for me, both on MacBook Pro and G5.
You might want to check out the discussions in Apple Support to improve stability.
They have already started shipping, based on tracking info, people expect to start receiving them today.
I think we'll see it early next week. If they just released a build yesterday, there isn't much time to test today, and out of the eleven 10.4.x releases, only one was on a Friday.
I very much doubt that Apple will be shipping MacBooks Air with 10.5.1.
Yes, Vista is better tested no question. Leopard is today running on 5 million machines. Vista must be 20 million to 50 million or more.
Socialism is well-tested too, but it still doesn't work. How many times Vista has been tested doesn't impress me. Whether or not it can pass a reasonable test is much more interesting.
Watch out, you can easily get into an argument that Mac OSX's updates are like Windows' Hotfixes and Windows' Service Packs are more in tune with new versions of Mac OS X.
Not really a good description: a MS Service pack is like 7-10 point releases...like going from 10.4.0 to 10.4.8
Yes, Vista is better tested no question. Leopard is today running on 5 million machines. Vista must be 20 million to 50 million or more.
No one outside of redmond knows how many vistas have been activated, that is the closest thing to a real metric for this: can you really count all those licenses that have been force bundled and not used? and the huge number of corporate licenses that count as "sales" that happen automatically on the day of release to all MVLS/SA customers? and what about Technet and MSDN unused licenses? that a part of your 50 mill as well?
Using history as a guide, the 10.5.1 update came out 3 days after the last build (there were stil some minor issues left) and the 10.4.11 update came out 21 days after the last build was released (there was no known issues with that build).
The last Tiger update was released the day before Leopard which gives precedence that Apple will hold off a ready update. This is the 2nd 10.5.2 build that has had no known issues. As I've stated before, unless Apple has some marketing reason to delay this update there is no reason we shouldn't see this tomorrow.
Also, maybe one service pack is a bad example, but I'd say the difference between the original release of Windows XP and XP SP2 (read: two Service Packs) would easily be as huge as the switch from Tiger to Leopard. The sheer volume of new features, on top of all the security and bug fixes.
Wrong! In Leopard, there are huge under the hood changes: 64 bitness, Core Animation, Image Kit, significant changes in Objective-C runtime, Objective-C 2.0 with garbage collection and a number of other features, and so on... There are a lot of bundled applications and system components, including Finder, that went through significant changes or were rewritten from the ground up.
The release schedule (and the release cycle) of Mac OS X and Windows is so different that all these questions like "Is a point release a service pack or kind of a monthly patch, and the major releases like Tiger and Leopard ARE the service packs" are plain stupid.
Traditionally, when Apple sends a new OS version for production it starts working on an update immediately and it is released almost alongside the OS release. Then a chain of updates follows, which often may be viewed as bug release/feature enhancements and bug release sequence.
In general, Mac OS has a much faster development cycle and THIS is the major thread for Microsoft. Hypothetically, as an extreme example, a new processor architecture with significant advantages over the existing ones would be deadly for Microsoft. The only good news for them is that this is unlikely for now.
Regarding the update size, many seems don't take into an account that Leopard is a 4-way universal binary (32 bit Intel, 32-bit PowerPC, 64-bit Intel and 64 bit PowerPC). Tiger was not, and there were separate updates for Intel and PowerPC. Windows is not either.
- bug/security fixes
- internal changes to existing OS and programs 'underneath' the UI.
- new UI options for existing programs (e.g., display settings for menu bar, dock, stacks, etc.)
- new capabilities for existing programs (e.g. Time Machine working with Air Disk/network)
i'm trying to remember if Apple ever released an entirely new program as part of an OS update. i don't think so ... but could be wrong.
and Apple has iTunes on its own much more frequent independent update sequence since it has so much to do with iPod/iPhone/Apple TV.
so ... let's wait for both the 10.5.2 and Service Pack 1 updates to actually be released soon, see what they both in fact contain, and THEN debate how a Mac OS update compares in scope to a Windows Service Pack. you know, based on the current facts ...
I think most people prefer more frequent updates. Keeps things feeling fresh and always gives you hope that issues will be resolved soon.
Of course these are consumers I am referring to. MS is tied to the corporate world and they don't like frequent updates.
Vista SP1 is about 50MB as opposed to 380MB+ (excluding the drivers) for Leopard. Vista may be a pile of shit, but it is way better tested than Leopard in the current form. Of course, the real fix for Vista is Windows 7 and that is rumored to be due next year or the year after. It requires a memory foot print of about 500MB as opposed to the 800MB of RAM that Vista currently uses after booting up...
Vista is better tested than Mac OS? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that statement is pretty far out there. Vista feels like OS 10.0. It is slow, buggy, and when it crashes it crashes hard. 10.5 was a little frustrating for me at first, but it turns out that was only because I've been Acrhive/Installing since, what, 10.3? My user profile has accumulated junk since that time. After seeing how fantastic Leopard worked on my bro's new iMac I re-installed Leopard and re-configured it from the ground up. It runs beautifully.
Vista has quite a way to go before it can be depended on by the average user. I imagine Leopard will see its shining moment with the soon-to-be-released 10.5.2. That is when I'll probably be recommending it to clients.
Leopard is built on the testing put into all the previous 10.x releases along with other devices which take advantage of it. Apple has been building on this new technology for years now. Vista re-works key elements of Windows and introduces a lot of virgin code which has been poorly tested (Vista was rushed out the door -- yes, despite the massive delay). That is fine. Microsoft has shown that they can make a system pretty stable given enough time (e.g. XP SP2, sans viruses and spyware), but it doesn't solve the future problem they are going to have to deal with: Windows revisions will continue to require major reworking of ancient WIndows code with plenty of new bugs, instability, and broken programs. Rather than build something new from the ground up (what they originally hoped to do) they have taken this route, and it is going to show in future releases of the OS.
That said, folks' concerns with Vista are usually associated with different subjects entirely.
Vista is better tested than Mac OS? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that statement is pretty far out there.....
I suppose it depends how one takes it. Vista having a much large users base, MS having more developers, and Vista being on the market a year before Leopard and in development longer would mean that it has considerably more testing done.
OR, once could say that since Leopard is built upon all other versions of OS X which is built upon NeXTSTEP which has a tried and true UNIX subsystem that Leopard is more tested.
Either way, it doesn't really matter because even the nicest looking structure is still crap if it's built upon a poor foundation.