I am disappointed to read about this update and see no mention of correcting the latest issue with the 12" Powerbooks that have had the DVD player scrogged by a recent update. This is well documented and reported to Apple.
I haven't for one second regretted buying my first generation iPhone, neither have I regretted buying my first generation MacPro. So how is he a joke or a fanboy?
Nor have I. Though, one should always be more weary of a 1st generation of any product than later models that have been proven to be tried and true.
In this day and age product do tend to refresh much more quickly. But there are many that think the 2x a year average for Mac refreshes is not enough. At least we also have worldwide forums for discussions of problems and their resolutions, warranties for products if they are faulty, and legal resource if these issues are catastrophic and/or widespread.
It wasn't too long ago in the 20th century century that the buyer had little too no options if an item turned out to be faulty. I recall Stephen Hawking discussing that very thing in one of his books.
Like it or not, parts of Leopard are still deeply flawed which makes Apple's claims about the OS look dubious. It would be nice to see them bring Leopard up to its promised level of functionality with 10.5.3. I don't think expecting that by the third update is unreasonable. Do you?
Let’ see. Apple posts a workaround concerning Active Directory issues with Leopard connecting to a Windows using AD a few weeks after the introduction of Leopard.
However, aren't you the same person that recently responded to a question raised, i.e., "When will they stop passing off beta software for the real deal?" with, "When people stop whining about how long it takes to release the thing in the first place."
Then you add "I'm pretty cool with Leopard as none of the major issues I've read about affect me and my work, but I'm firmly in the wait-until-it's-ready camp. I'm not keen on being any company's paying guinea pig."
If so, and considering that you are well versed in programming, I find it quite disturbing that somebody would incorporate a new operating system in a multi-os environment, without significant pre-testing. And re-testing as the accompanying article sites. http://www.macwindows.com/AD.html#tiger
I, and yes I am a proud Mac fan-boy, contest any claim that Leopard is so deeply flawed. I am inclined to take the experts' opinions over yours. By the way, specifically what promised level of functionality that Apple promised that you are questioning?
And one more point. Apple has acknowledged the problem and is working to resolving it. Obviously, integrating a Leopard based system in a Windows environment using AD is an issue. However, it is minor one compared to what the Windows' environment consistently face daily connecting one WIndows pc to another Windows pc. I would bet the farm that Apple will resolve their issues before Microsoft fixes theirs.
If the issues are down to 17 and they claim dev is winding down, that's not a bad record - less than 6 months and three .x updates later? Here's hoping. Leopard has been a great change if you don't need classic, and common power user workflows are now a lot easier and timesaving. Quicklook, coverflow views, the PDF features, the improvements to Safari are second nature now. Solidify the finder window behavior and I won't ask for much more.
And yes, get AD back to Tiger reliability - the incidents are spotty but enough to drive you nuts if you're supporting more than a few machines.
Let’ see. Apple posts a workaround concerning Active Directory issues with Leopard connecting to a Windows using AD a few weeks after the introduction of Leopard.
However, aren't you the same person that recently responded to a question raised, i.e., "When will they stop passing off beta software for the real deal?" with, "When people stop whining about how long it takes to release the thing in the first place."
Then you add "I'm pretty cool with Leopard as none of the major issues I've read about affect me and my work, but I'm firmly in the wait-until-it's-ready camp. I'm not keen on being any company's paying guinea pig."
See, here's the problem with trying to nail me with my posting history. Some of those comments are made as a home user and some are made as a professional user. Unless you know for sure from which perspective I'm posting, then you're going to have a hard time using my my own posts against me (which seems a little petty, IMO, but whatever.) And besides, it seems to me that you've taken some of my comments out of context and made some incorrect assumptions. Speaking of which...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
If so, and considering that you are well versed in programming, I find it quite disturbing that somebody would incorporate a new operating system in a multi-os environment, without significant pre-testing. And re-testing as the accompanying article sites. http://www.macwindows.com/AD.html#tiger
I do work in a multi-OS environment with lots of Mac and Windows users. Currently, the only Mac user on Leopard is me. I'm doing it for pre-testing purposes and will soon be working with one of the more technically adept employees to see how things go with him. Usually at this point, I would be worried about third-party software compatibility, not fundamental features of the OS still being broken. All the Mac users I work with are eager to try out Leopard and I can't even entertain the thought right now because it would be a support nightmare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
I, and yes I am a proud Mac fan-boy,
Duly noted. I'll try not to take your opinion quite so seriously from this point forward. You're basically admitting that you won't acknowledge where Apple has screwed up because it will damage your ego. Not sure why you're bothering to engage me in a discussion then if you have no interest in gaining an understand of how Leopard is, in fact, broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
contest any claim that Leopard is so deeply flawed. I am inclined to take the experts' opinions over yours. By the way, specifically what promised level of functionality that Apple promised that you are questioning?
How about the ability for users to change their network password. AD in Leopard has a very hard time with that. How about letting users change their login items (which Apple has acknowledged was a bug but remains unfixed)? How about... (insert other Leopard AD problems here.) And before you question the network policies that are in place, bear in mind that the Macs running Tiger do all this stuff without a hitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
And one more point. Apple has acknowledged the problem and is working to resolving it.
No actually, on some discussion forums, it's been shown that Apple has yet to acknowledge some of these gripes and often responds to bug reports with a dismissive "works for us" attitude despite the number of people running into the same problems too. That's what makes me worried about 10.5.3. I have a fear that Apple will let these things just continue to walk right by them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Obviously, integrating a Leopard based system in a Windows environment using AD is an issue. However, it is minor one compared to what the Windows' environment consistently face daily connecting one WIndows pc to another Windows pc. I would bet the farm that Apple will resolve their issues before Microsoft fixes theirs.
Pardon me, self-admitted Mac fanboy. Do you use Windows computers on a daily basis? I use Windows and Macs 50/50 every day and I can assure you without any fear of contradiction that Windows (XP, at least) beats the living daylights out of Leopard when it comes to this. Not so with Tiger, but Apple is apparently going to let Leopard just roll over and play dead.
And before you accuse me of being some Windows zealot, bear in mind that I've used and bought Macs at home exclusively for 15+ years. I'm no Windows fan, but I'm honest enough to admit when Apple has screwed up and demanding enough to expect better.
One error I have found is the force quit problem. Quite often apps hang on launch or just freeze up. In 10.4 days, I would just Force Quite. Now this often does not work. What is really weird is that doing
kill <pid>
as root from the command line still does not kill these rogue apps. It is as if Apple have done something to stop apps quitting. I don't just get this on one machine, I have various Mac and they all experience it from time to time. I have head various possible causes for apps hanging from .mac syncing, Time Machine on external discs and more but it is really annoying that I can't even force quit..
Does anyone know if the force quit issue has been fixed (or is being fixed)?
Very often I have an issue in 10.5.2 where I wake my MBP from sleep and some things stop working. They are most evident with Gmail notifier, the screensaver hot corners, shut down and restart failing to detect that I did in fact quit out of all my programs, and ARD not being able to connect to anything, among other things.
Regarding buying 1st generation Apple products, I've bought hundreds of Macs for 3 of the companies I've worked at over the years. Many have been 1st generation for no other reason than it's all we could get under Apple's enterprise purchasing program. Outside of some issues (lower RAM slot in some early PowerBook G4s, for example) we have had a pretty good track record. Of course there are some issues, but most are fixed down the road with recalls and AppleCare takes care of the rest.
I love Apple and having a stance of producing quality machines, but the argument that they can produce better stability because they program for specific hardware is getting thin.
I totally agree on this!
Apple makes great stuff, but many things could (should...) be much better IMHO.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant about Spaces.
Can somebody please tell me what Spaces can do that hiding and unhiding apps cannot accomplish?
(And no, distributing different windows from one application over multiple spaces is not anything that is really useful as long as Spaces keeps switching you to different spaces without you asking for it.)
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant about Spaces.
Can somebody please tell me what Spaces can do that hiding and unhiding apps cannot accomplish?
(And no, distributing different windows from one application over multiple spaces is not anything that is really useful as long as Spaces keeps switching you to different spaces without you asking for it.)
It can allow you to have different virtual desktops for different projects/needs. Though, while I think it's "neat-o" I've never found a need it for it in the last 15 years or so I've been familiar with it.
It can allow you to have different virtual desktops for different projects/needs. Though, while I think it's "neat-o" I've never found a need it for it in the last 15 years or so I've been familiar with it.
Yes, and if you had used it a while, you would have quickly realized that the automatic switching between different virtual desktops makes it unusable if there is at least one application you need to use in more than one virtual desktops. And chances are that you need the Finder in more than one desktop.
(Clicking on the Finder icon will transport you to the desktop which has open Finder windows if there are no open Finder windows in the current desktop.)
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant about Spaces.
Can somebody please tell me what Spaces can do that hiding and unhiding apps cannot accomplish?
(And no, distributing different windows from one application over multiple spaces is not anything that is really useful as long as Spaces keeps switching you to different spaces without you asking for it.)
How about eliminating the need to hide and unhide apps? I'm sure with .3, they will make all windows associated with a certain program stay in the space, as well as fix any problems related with it. Spaces was the top fix on the first few builds of 5.3, and I'm sure it's still within the top 3. Expect a lot more people to concede defeat and start using spaces by the time .3 is rolled out.
Mine will be 10 years old this year and still works. But only for nostalgia or the very occasional old game. However, and surprisingly enough, Mozilla 1.2 which was the last version compatible with OS 9 does its job pretty well even today.
Mine will be 10 years old this year and still works. But only for nostalgia or the very occasional old game. However, and surprisingly enough, Mozilla 1.2 which was the last version compatible with OS 9 does its job pretty well even today.
Mine would still be working if I hadn't sold it several years ago. And it ran OS X flawlessly. Albiet a bit slow, you know.
Comments
I haven't for one second regretted buying my first generation iPhone, neither have I regretted buying my first generation MacPro. So how is he a joke or a fanboy?
Nor have I. Though, one should always be more weary of a 1st generation of any product than later models that have been proven to be tried and true.
In this day and age product do tend to refresh much more quickly. But there are many that think the 2x a year average for Mac refreshes is not enough. At least we also have worldwide forums for discussions of problems and their resolutions, warranties for products if they are faulty, and legal resource if these issues are catastrophic and/or widespread.
It wasn't too long ago in the 20th century century that the buyer had little too no options if an item turned out to be faulty. I recall Stephen Hawking discussing that very thing in one of his books.
Like it or not, parts of Leopard are still deeply flawed which makes Apple's claims about the OS look dubious. It would be nice to see them bring Leopard up to its promised level of functionality with 10.5.3. I don't think expecting that by the third update is unreasonable. Do you?
Let’ see. Apple posts a workaround concerning Active Directory issues with Leopard connecting to a Windows using AD a few weeks after the introduction of Leopard.
However, aren't you the same person that recently responded to a question raised, i.e., "When will they stop passing off beta software for the real deal?" with, "When people stop whining about how long it takes to release the thing in the first place."
Then you add "I'm pretty cool with Leopard as none of the major issues I've read about affect me and my work, but I'm firmly in the wait-until-it's-ready camp. I'm not keen on being any company's paying guinea pig."
If so, and considering that you are well versed in programming, I find it quite disturbing that somebody would incorporate a new operating system in a multi-os environment, without significant pre-testing. And re-testing as the accompanying article sites. http://www.macwindows.com/AD.html#tiger
I, and yes I am a proud Mac fan-boy, contest any claim that Leopard is so deeply flawed. I am inclined to take the experts' opinions over yours. By the way, specifically what promised level of functionality that Apple promised that you are questioning?
And one more point. Apple has acknowledged the problem and is working to resolving it. Obviously, integrating a Leopard based system in a Windows environment using AD is an issue. However, it is minor one compared to what the Windows' environment consistently face daily connecting one WIndows pc to another Windows pc. I would bet the farm that Apple will resolve their issues before Microsoft fixes theirs.
And yes, get AD back to Tiger reliability - the incidents are spotty but enough to drive you nuts if you're supporting more than a few machines.
Let’ see. Apple posts a workaround concerning Active Directory issues with Leopard connecting to a Windows using AD a few weeks after the introduction of Leopard.
However, aren't you the same person that recently responded to a question raised, i.e., "When will they stop passing off beta software for the real deal?" with, "When people stop whining about how long it takes to release the thing in the first place."
Then you add "I'm pretty cool with Leopard as none of the major issues I've read about affect me and my work, but I'm firmly in the wait-until-it's-ready camp. I'm not keen on being any company's paying guinea pig."
See, here's the problem with trying to nail me with my posting history. Some of those comments are made as a home user and some are made as a professional user. Unless you know for sure from which perspective I'm posting, then you're going to have a hard time using my my own posts against me (which seems a little petty, IMO, but whatever.) And besides, it seems to me that you've taken some of my comments out of context and made some incorrect assumptions. Speaking of which...
If so, and considering that you are well versed in programming, I find it quite disturbing that somebody would incorporate a new operating system in a multi-os environment, without significant pre-testing. And re-testing as the accompanying article sites. http://www.macwindows.com/AD.html#tiger
I do work in a multi-OS environment with lots of Mac and Windows users. Currently, the only Mac user on Leopard is me. I'm doing it for pre-testing purposes and will soon be working with one of the more technically adept employees to see how things go with him. Usually at this point, I would be worried about third-party software compatibility, not fundamental features of the OS still being broken. All the Mac users I work with are eager to try out Leopard and I can't even entertain the thought right now because it would be a support nightmare.
I, and yes I am a proud Mac fan-boy,
Duly noted. I'll try not to take your opinion quite so seriously from this point forward. You're basically admitting that you won't acknowledge where Apple has screwed up because it will damage your ego. Not sure why you're bothering to engage me in a discussion then if you have no interest in gaining an understand of how Leopard is, in fact, broken.
contest any claim that Leopard is so deeply flawed. I am inclined to take the experts' opinions over yours. By the way, specifically what promised level of functionality that Apple promised that you are questioning?
How about the ability for users to change their network password. AD in Leopard has a very hard time with that. How about letting users change their login items (which Apple has acknowledged was a bug but remains unfixed)? How about... (insert other Leopard AD problems here.) And before you question the network policies that are in place, bear in mind that the Macs running Tiger do all this stuff without a hitch.
And one more point. Apple has acknowledged the problem and is working to resolving it.
No actually, on some discussion forums, it's been shown that Apple has yet to acknowledge some of these gripes and often responds to bug reports with a dismissive "works for us" attitude despite the number of people running into the same problems too. That's what makes me worried about 10.5.3. I have a fear that Apple will let these things just continue to walk right by them.
Obviously, integrating a Leopard based system in a Windows environment using AD is an issue. However, it is minor one compared to what the Windows' environment consistently face daily connecting one WIndows pc to another Windows pc. I would bet the farm that Apple will resolve their issues before Microsoft fixes theirs.
Pardon me, self-admitted Mac fanboy. Do you use Windows computers on a daily basis? I use Windows and Macs 50/50 every day and I can assure you without any fear of contradiction that Windows (XP, at least) beats the living daylights out of Leopard when it comes to this. Not so with Tiger, but Apple is apparently going to let Leopard just roll over and play dead.
And before you accuse me of being some Windows zealot, bear in mind that I've used and bought Macs at home exclusively for 15+ years. I'm no Windows fan, but I'm honest enough to admit when Apple has screwed up and demanding enough to expect better.
kill <pid>
as root from the command line still does not kill these rogue apps. It is as if Apple have done something to stop apps quitting. I don't just get this on one machine, I have various Mac and they all experience it from time to time. I have head various possible causes for apps hanging from .mac syncing, Time Machine on external discs and more but it is really annoying that I can't even force quit..
Does anyone know if the force quit issue has been fixed (or is being fixed)?
Regarding buying 1st generation Apple products, I've bought hundreds of Macs for 3 of the companies I've worked at over the years. Many have been 1st generation for no other reason than it's all we could get under Apple's enterprise purchasing program. Outside of some issues (lower RAM slot in some early PowerBook G4s, for example) we have had a pretty good track record. Of course there are some issues, but most are fixed down the road with recalls and AppleCare takes care of the rest.
I love Apple and having a stance of producing quality machines, but the argument that they can produce better stability because they program for specific hardware is getting thin.
I totally agree on this!
Apple makes great stuff, but many things could (should...) be much better IMHO.
I totally agree on this!
Apple makes great stuff, but many things could (should...) be much better IMHO.
Agreed. Support for included HW should not be a common issue with Macs.
Try using Spaces instead...
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant about Spaces.
Can somebody please tell me what Spaces can do that hiding and unhiding apps cannot accomplish?
(And no, distributing different windows from one application over multiple spaces is not anything that is really useful as long as Spaces keeps switching you to different spaces without you asking for it.)
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant about Spaces.
Can somebody please tell me what Spaces can do that hiding and unhiding apps cannot accomplish?
(And no, distributing different windows from one application over multiple spaces is not anything that is really useful as long as Spaces keeps switching you to different spaces without you asking for it.)
It can allow you to have different virtual desktops for different projects/needs. Though, while I think it's "neat-o" I've never found a need it for it in the last 15 years or so I've been familiar with it.
It can allow you to have different virtual desktops for different projects/needs. Though, while I think it's "neat-o" I've never found a need it for it in the last 15 years or so I've been familiar with it.
Yes, and if you had used it a while, you would have quickly realized that the automatic switching between different virtual desktops makes it unusable if there is at least one application you need to use in more than one virtual desktops. And chances are that you need the Finder in more than one desktop.
(Clicking on the Finder icon will transport you to the desktop which has open Finder windows if there are no open Finder windows in the current desktop.)
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant about Spaces.
Can somebody please tell me what Spaces can do that hiding and unhiding apps cannot accomplish?
(And no, distributing different windows from one application over multiple spaces is not anything that is really useful as long as Spaces keeps switching you to different spaces without you asking for it.)
How about eliminating the need to hide and unhide apps? I'm sure with .3, they will make all windows associated with a certain program stay in the space, as well as fix any problems related with it. Spaces was the top fix on the first few builds of 5.3, and I'm sure it's still within the top 3. Expect a lot more people to concede defeat and start using spaces by the time .3 is rolled out.
Sounds likt something like your brother(s) or sister(s) say about you?
I fail to comprehend your comment. I'm simply noting that every system since the aluminum iMac have had graphics issues or flickering screens, etc.
Are you 13 years old?
I fail to comprehend your comment. I'm simply noting that every system since the aluminum iMac have had graphics issues or flickering screens, etc.
Are you 13 years old?
No, as mentioned above. he is a self-admitted Mac Fan-Boy, a term associated with the intellectually challenged.
I have 2 first generation Macs and have never had an issue with either. The statement I quoted is BS.
Same here. I'm sure my Macbook Air is still going to work 5 years from now. My G3 Wallstreet Powerbook lasted 6 or 7 years...
No, as mentioned above. he is a self-admitted Mac Fan-Boy, a term associated with the intellectually challenged.
Same thing go for the Microsoft Fan-Boys out there?
My G3 Wallstreet Powerbook lasted 6 or 7 years...
Mine will be 10 years old this year and still works.
Mine will be 10 years old this year and still works.
Mine would still be working if I hadn't sold it several years ago. And it ran OS X flawlessly. Albiet a bit slow, you know.
Mine would still be working if I hadn't sold it several years ago. And it ran OS X flawlessly. Albiet a bit slow, you know.
Yes, I know. Actually I still keep that 10.1.5 partition on the hard drive, mostly for the case when I need to run X11.