Developing an operating system like MacOS X is an enormous undertaking. There is simply no way to find all the bugs other than by releasing the software. Apple do a great job in fixing the bugs quickly. That said, I wouldn't trust a mission critical application to a version less mature than 10.x.4.
Running things in many different accounts might be a burden on the OS, it has to deal with multiple account settings simultaneously. Try using Spaces instead, treat each Space as a separate Log-in, your computer and Applications should run considerably faster. If you choose to go that route, quit all Apps in other accounts.
I really don't see how running something as a different user would be a lot worse at taxing your system resources than running an app in a different Space. Unix is supposed to be able to handle multiple users just fine, and each app is an app.
I really don't see how running something as a different user would be a lot worse at taxing your system resources than running an app in a different Space. Unix is supposed to be able to handle multiple users just fine, and each app is an app.
We attempted to use multiple accounts with fast user-switching as previously described to move between different clients and/or projects. Unfortunately, we found three major programs limited such activity because they needed a separate key for validation, otherwise, they would stop working or present inconsistencies if the apps were started in another account without quitting it in the first one.
In another case, opening an app in a secondary account corrupted some files and locked out the app entirely when the same app was inadvertently attempted to open the same file from another account.
Because our business is in designing and managing massive research databases, it is necessary that security be of the highest level. To achieve it, validation opening files with single or multiple licenses is necessary. However, our own development has shown that attempting to use multiple accounts on the same computer has caused major issues, i.e., slow downs, locking out the app entirely; in most cases, when the apps themselves were not designed to be used in a multi-user mode without authorization/validation. In the worst case, some apps had to be reinstalled.
Our best strategy was simply to turn off fast-user switching or limit accounts to specific apps as necessary.
Bottom line, it was not the OS that was the issue. It was the apps and our mode of using them.
Or, it would force Apple to test their shit properly before releasing it?
I'd say that with the flow of new hardware apple is dealing with these days relative to the PPC era, Apple does a good job finding as many bugs and problems before release as they do. They could certainly do better, but buddy, if your looking for perfection, or even something reasonably close, Then go get a Mac and quit whining about what doesn't quite work for you. Otherwise, welcome to the real world.
I'd say that with the flow of new hardware apple is dealing with these days relative to the PPC era, Apple does a good job finding as many bugs and problems before release as they do. They could certainly do better, but buddy, if your looking for perfection, or even something reasonably close, Then go get a Mac and quit whining about what doesn't quite work for you. Otherwise, welcome to the real world.
I don't begrudge any company releasing a buggy 1.0 product. That's just life in technology and most people know to steer clear of first releases of software and hardware if they're not keen on troubleshooting or if they need something for critical functionality.
However...
There are some things in Leopard that are just flat-out screwed up. I'm not talking slightly quirky, but rather full-blown bugs that stop some users in certain situations from upgrading to Leopard. Most casual users don't see them, but for those of us whose work places us face-to-face with them on a daily basis, it's frustrating. But it makes it worse that Apple has let these things go unfixed for so long after Leopard's release. There are certain bugs that should have been fixed in the .1 release. That they continue to exist after .2 is ridiculous.
I sure in the @#$* hope it does! Apple loves to talk these kinds of features up, but they really screwed up AD in Leopard. This is one of those features that is essential for Apple to retain a foothold in business settings and they just dropped the ball.
It's hard for me to believe that Apple would release a major operating system update with such a fundamentally broken Active Directory plug-in, but it's even harder to believe that they've let it go this freakin' long. If they don't fix it with 10.5.3, I'm going to be one very unhappy camper. I'm getting a little disgusted with all the workarounds I have to use and the Mac users I work with are getting very impatient to step up from Tiger (where AD works almost flawlessly, I might add.)
If you knew anything about programming, you would understand the problems of trying to fix something that is not an issue for most, isn't consistently replicable or is possibly affixed to conditions that only some would have or use.
In this case, you are demanding that Apple should make OS X comply with all the features of a foreign OS or not release it at all. In other words, play the game your way or you are going to take your bat and ball and go home.
1st quote: Sounds likt something like your brother(s) or sister(s) say about you?
2nd quote: I hope for your siblings' sake you was the first born.
3rd quote: For Apple or any developer, creating the perfect product is impossible. Just as your mother or your spouse would most likely sat about you.
Apart from the spelling... *sigh* could you please grow up? Are you venting on random people on the internet because you're not getting any, or what seems to be your issue? Tell me, I'm interested. On a second thought... keep it to yourself.
Or, it would force Apple to test their shit properly before releasing it?
With the millions of lines of code, and the millions of different setups on each persons Mac's out there, I don't see how Apple or ANY OTHER company, could create and release a bug free OS. It's just NOT going to happen!
Now if you like owning a Mac, playing with or using the finest computer on the planet ( a bit of a stretch, but ? ), enjoying being part of the cool part of the world ? sit back and enjoy your Mac.
I'm running a good size graphics business on Mac's and have for many years. I ALWAYS install the latest and great OS, on one Mac, and leave the rest alone. I do this so we can still get work done, while having at least one Mac, with all of the latest and greatest stuff on it for us to check out. But if all of these cool features have bugs ? it's not a big deal.
Yes I know everyone can't have an extra Mac around to do this with, but if you want to keep up with the Jones, and have the latest and great OS going, then deal with the few issues it's going to have.
Helll we have no one to blame for this, but ourselves. It's we that ask Aple to do this, or do that, or change this, or change that, or ? well you get the picture.
We attempted to use multiple accounts with fast user-switching as previously described to move between different clients and/or projects. Unfortunately, we found three major programs limited such activity because they needed a separate key for validation, otherwise, they would stop working or present inconsistencies if the apps were started in another account without quitting it in the first one.
In another case, opening an app in a secondary account corrupted some files and locked out the app entirely when the same app was inadvertently attempted to open the same file from another account.
Because our business is in designing and managing massive research databases, it is necessary that security be of the highest level. To achieve it, validation opening files with single or multiple licenses is necessary. However, our own development has shown that attempting to use multiple accounts on the same computer has caused major issues, i.e., slow downs, locking out the app entirely; in most cases, when the apps themselves were not designed to be used in a multi-user mode without authorization/validation. In the worst case, some apps had to be reinstalled.
Our best strategy was simply to turn off fast-user switching or limit accounts to specific apps as necessary.
Bottom line, it was not the OS that was the issue. It was the apps and our mode of using them.
Yes, I had to use same license key in each account with several apps and Aperture will not even run if running in another account so I have to quit it prior to fast switching.
I always set up an e-mail for myself unique to every account so I can receive mail from the client in that account. This makes life so much easier, same with FTPs related to each account.
Setting up a new account with all the licenses etc. is a pain, I agree, and there are no short cuts (like duplicate an account) and it crashes at a times.
With over 70 web sites to maintain I only do this for about half a dozen of my largest and most active accounts. I can't imagine having 70 user accounts!
But for the few I do this with it makes life so much easier.
Yes, I had to use same license key in each account with several apps and Aperture will not even run if running in another account so I have to quit it prior to fast switching.
I always set up an e-mail for myself unique to every account so I can receive mail from the client in that account. This makes life so much easier, same with FTPs related to each account.
Setting up a new account with all the licenses etc. is a pain, I agree, and there are no short cuts (like duplicate an account) and it crashes at a times.
With over 70 web sites to maintain I only do this for about half a dozen of my largest and most active accounts. I can't imagine having 70 user accounts!
But for the few I do this with it makes life so much easier.
After going through quite an extensive and exhaustive reboots, reinstalls, deactivation, reactivation and updating, we have decided against using fast user-switching. Some apps with single user licenses either slowed the process down, corrupted files or locked the application completely.
Originally, we tried to use Quickeys to automate the quitting process, but Quickeys required additional licenses for each account. As well, quitting apps in one account only to have to re-open them in the next account just slowed and complicated the process.
The big problem using fast user-switching was that we didn't know until we tested the application which would be an issue. In some cases, we might have over a dozen apps running at the same time. Some with problems, some without, and a couple that depended on having to open the app in the account that was used to initially install it.
Right now I am using a combination of Quickeys scripts and Smart folders to close or hide one client file(s) in their respective applications before opening or unhiding another client's file(s) as necessary. Most important I don't have to quit an application(s) or procure additional keys or licenses. Works faster and easier than using fast user-switching to navigate multiple accounts, especially when copying from application in one account to another account.
After going through quite an extensive and exhaustive reboots, reinstalls, deactivation, reactivation and updating, we have decided against using fast user-switching. Some apps with single user licenses either slowed the process down, corrupted files or locked the application completely.
Originally, we tried to use Quickeys to automate the quitting process, but Quickeys required additional licenses for each account. As well, quitting apps in one account only to have to re-open them in the next account just slowed and complicated the process.
The big problem using fast user-switching was that we didn't know until we tested the application which would be an issue. In some cases, we might have over a dozen apps running at the same time. Some with problems, some without, and a couple that depended on having to open the app in the account that was used to initially install it.
Right now I am using a combination of Quickeys scripts and Smart folders to close or hide one client file(s) in their respective applications before opening or unhiding another client's file(s) as necessary. Most important I don't have to quit an application(s) or procure additional keys or licenses. Works faster and easier than using fast user-switching to navigate multiple accounts, especially when copying from application in one account to another account.
I admit I am limiting myself to about half a dozen apps in each account that are fine in this situation, only Aperture seems to be an issue of those I use. If I need anything else I use my main account and drop data in shared. The potential is certainly there but OS X needs to go a ways for this to be fully useable for sure. Of course if all apps were installed in the users application folder we might have more success, I suspect we are all using common apps.
Much as I would like to use MAIL I find it to behave in ways far to weird for my liking. So I installed Thunderbird almost immediately after buying my Mac. Thunderbird works well so I don't sweat MAILs issues.
What kind of issues? I have no issues with Mail, but have tried Thunderbird and find it to be a very incomplete apps in both aesthetics and functionality. Like Mozilla doesn't really care about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert
I would say it sounds like they want to get it out this coming week.
Since the last point update for Leopard, Apple has been pushing out new betas in rapid succession. They are definitely doing things differently. I think we had 3 or 4 builds of 10.5.2 that listed no known issues that came out before the official release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7
I definitely second that. This has proven to be very wise. With Apple, being an early adopter never pays.
That simply isn't true. I can name many Apple products that have I've had an excellent experience with out of the gate. Though, when you are an early adopter of any tech you are subject to undiscovered issues. That is life.
If you knew anything about programming, you would understand the problems of trying to fix something that is not an issue for most, isn't consistently replicable or is possibly affixed to conditions that only some would have or use.
Well, since I spend half my work-day knee-deep in code, I guess I might sort of know something about programming.
I've submitted bug reports to Apple about this. I can consistently replicate the problems I'm encountering with AD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
In this case, you are demanding that Apple should make OS X comply with all the features of a foreign OS or not release it at all. In other words, play the game your way or you are going to take your bat and ball and go home.
WTF are you talking about? All I'm asking is that Apple get their AD plug-in working like it was in Tiger. And as I said, I can tolerate that for a while, but we're up to the second revision of Leopard and the bastard thing is still as broken as it was on day one. There's no excuse for that.
BTW, you're revealing that you don't know much about this when you say that I'm demanding Apple make OS X "comply with all the features of a foreign OS." I'm not asking they comply with all the features of a foreign OS. Active Directory is just Microsoft's implementation of LDAP. That's not a hard thing for Apple to get right. They did it in Tiger. Leopard, not so much... and still waiting.
For Apple or any developer, creating the perfect product is impossible. Just as your mother or your spouse would most likely sat about you.
Apple loves to talk up their integration with Windows and how ready Macs are for the enterprise where Windows integration is a must. I'm not the one making those kinds of promises. Apple is, and they're delivering in a half-assed way with Leopard. The fact that you're trying to make me sound like some kind of troublemaker for wanting what Apple promises with Leopard makes you come off like some kind of apologist.
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?
H thanks for the thoughts , but the reason for the way I am doing this is that each log in is dedicated to a major account and all the data and assets (documents folder, music, photo folders etc.) are that client's alone. I have just found this way easier to keep everything totally separate. It's not a matter of space, I have two 30" Cinema Displays so plenty of screen space. These days even using Pro apps I find I am using a lot of iLife stuff too and having it all dedicated to a single purpose / client is sweet. I have a sneaky suspicion USB maybe involved here, either the scanner of the TM drive. I need to do some tests switching with both disconnected.
I run with multiple accounts active at once and have NEVER had a problem I could attribute to that.
I have in the past had problems with a firewire attached external drive. I ended up messing up that enclosure. The replacement I bought magically corrected all the weird issues I was having and runs faster, so I've decided it was a hardware issue with my previous enclosure.
I still run into many wireless problems, usually intermittent. I hope they make that more reliable.
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?
Comments
Thank heavens for the thousands that do. Otherwise,there wouldn't be a second.
Or, it would force Apple to test their shit properly before releasing it?
Bull!
You're a joke, even by fanboy standards.
Running things in many different accounts might be a burden on the OS, it has to deal with multiple account settings simultaneously. Try using Spaces instead, treat each Space as a separate Log-in, your computer and Applications should run considerably faster. If you choose to go that route, quit all Apps in other accounts.
I really don't see how running something as a different user would be a lot worse at taxing your system resources than running an app in a different Space. Unix is supposed to be able to handle multiple users just fine, and each app is an app.
I really don't see how running something as a different user would be a lot worse at taxing your system resources than running an app in a different Space. Unix is supposed to be able to handle multiple users just fine, and each app is an app.
We attempted to use multiple accounts with fast user-switching as previously described to move between different clients and/or projects. Unfortunately, we found three major programs limited such activity because they needed a separate key for validation, otherwise, they would stop working or present inconsistencies if the apps were started in another account without quitting it in the first one.
In another case, opening an app in a secondary account corrupted some files and locked out the app entirely when the same app was inadvertently attempted to open the same file from another account.
Because our business is in designing and managing massive research databases, it is necessary that security be of the highest level. To achieve it, validation opening files with single or multiple licenses is necessary. However, our own development has shown that attempting to use multiple accounts on the same computer has caused major issues, i.e., slow downs, locking out the app entirely; in most cases, when the apps themselves were not designed to be used in a multi-user mode without authorization/validation. In the worst case, some apps had to be reinstalled.
Our best strategy was simply to turn off fast-user switching or limit accounts to specific apps as necessary.
Bottom line, it was not the OS that was the issue. It was the apps and our mode of using them.
Or, it would force Apple to test their shit properly before releasing it?
I'd say that with the flow of new hardware apple is dealing with these days relative to the PPC era, Apple does a good job finding as many bugs and problems before release as they do. They could certainly do better, but buddy, if your looking for perfection, or even something reasonably close, Then go get a Mac and quit whining about what doesn't quite work for you. Otherwise, welcome to the real world.
I'd say that with the flow of new hardware apple is dealing with these days relative to the PPC era, Apple does a good job finding as many bugs and problems before release as they do. They could certainly do better, but buddy, if your looking for perfection, or even something reasonably close, Then go get a Mac and quit whining about what doesn't quite work for you. Otherwise, welcome to the real world.
I don't begrudge any company releasing a buggy 1.0 product. That's just life in technology and most people know to steer clear of first releases of software and hardware if they're not keen on troubleshooting or if they need something for critical functionality.
However...
There are some things in Leopard that are just flat-out screwed up. I'm not talking slightly quirky, but rather full-blown bugs that stop some users in certain situations from upgrading to Leopard. Most casual users don't see them, but for those of us whose work places us face-to-face with them on a daily basis, it's frustrating. But it makes it worse that Apple has let these things go unfixed for so long after Leopard's release. There are certain bugs that should have been fixed in the .1 release. That they continue to exist after .2 is ridiculous.
I sure in the @#$* hope it does! Apple loves to talk these kinds of features up, but they really screwed up AD in Leopard. This is one of those features that is essential for Apple to retain a foothold in business settings and they just dropped the ball.
It's hard for me to believe that Apple would release a major operating system update with such a fundamentally broken Active Directory plug-in, but it's even harder to believe that they've let it go this freakin' long. If they don't fix it with 10.5.3, I'm going to be one very unhappy camper. I'm getting a little disgusted with all the workarounds I have to use and the Mac users I work with are getting very impatient to step up from Tiger (where AD works almost flawlessly, I might add.)
If you knew anything about programming, you would understand the problems of trying to fix something that is not an issue for most, isn't consistently replicable or is possibly affixed to conditions that only some would have or use.
In this case, you are demanding that Apple should make OS X comply with all the features of a foreign OS or not release it at all. In other words, play the game your way or you are going to take your bat and ball and go home.
As shown, Active Directory is not a problem for all http://www.informationweek.com/news/...questid=613195
and for others just a matter of compromise and/or flexibility; http://lists.apple.com/archives/augd.../msg00033.html
For Apple or any developer, creating the perfect product is impossible. Just as your mother or your spouse would most likely sat about you.
1st quote: Sounds likt something like your brother(s) or sister(s) say about you?
2nd quote: I hope for your siblings' sake you was the first born.
3rd quote: For Apple or any developer, creating the perfect product is impossible. Just as your mother or your spouse would most likely sat about you.
Apart from the spelling... *sigh* could you please grow up? Are you venting on random people on the internet because you're not getting any, or what seems to be your issue? Tell me, I'm interested. On a second thought... keep it to yourself.
Or, it would force Apple to test their shit properly before releasing it?
With the millions of lines of code, and the millions of different setups on each persons Mac's out there, I don't see how Apple or ANY OTHER company, could create and release a bug free OS. It's just NOT going to happen!
Now if you like owning a Mac, playing with or using the finest computer on the planet ( a bit of a stretch, but ? ), enjoying being part of the cool part of the world ? sit back and enjoy your Mac.
I'm running a good size graphics business on Mac's and have for many years. I ALWAYS install the latest and great OS, on one Mac, and leave the rest alone. I do this so we can still get work done, while having at least one Mac, with all of the latest and greatest stuff on it for us to check out. But if all of these cool features have bugs ? it's not a big deal.
Yes I know everyone can't have an extra Mac around to do this with, but if you want to keep up with the Jones, and have the latest and great OS going, then deal with the few issues it's going to have.
Helll we have no one to blame for this, but ourselves. It's we that ask Aple to do this, or do that, or change this, or change that, or ? well you get the picture.
Skip
We attempted to use multiple accounts with fast user-switching as previously described to move between different clients and/or projects. Unfortunately, we found three major programs limited such activity because they needed a separate key for validation, otherwise, they would stop working or present inconsistencies if the apps were started in another account without quitting it in the first one.
In another case, opening an app in a secondary account corrupted some files and locked out the app entirely when the same app was inadvertently attempted to open the same file from another account.
Because our business is in designing and managing massive research databases, it is necessary that security be of the highest level. To achieve it, validation opening files with single or multiple licenses is necessary. However, our own development has shown that attempting to use multiple accounts on the same computer has caused major issues, i.e., slow downs, locking out the app entirely; in most cases, when the apps themselves were not designed to be used in a multi-user mode without authorization/validation. In the worst case, some apps had to be reinstalled.
Our best strategy was simply to turn off fast-user switching or limit accounts to specific apps as necessary.
Bottom line, it was not the OS that was the issue. It was the apps and our mode of using them.
Yes, I had to use same license key in each account with several apps and Aperture will not even run if running in another account so I have to quit it prior to fast switching.
I always set up an e-mail for myself unique to every account so I can receive mail from the client in that account. This makes life so much easier, same with FTPs related to each account.
Setting up a new account with all the licenses etc. is a pain, I agree, and there are no short cuts (like duplicate an account) and it crashes at a times.
With over 70 web sites to maintain I only do this for about half a dozen of my largest and most active accounts. I can't imagine having 70 user accounts!
But for the few I do this with it makes life so much easier.
Yes, I had to use same license key in each account with several apps and Aperture will not even run if running in another account so I have to quit it prior to fast switching.
I always set up an e-mail for myself unique to every account so I can receive mail from the client in that account. This makes life so much easier, same with FTPs related to each account.
Setting up a new account with all the licenses etc. is a pain, I agree, and there are no short cuts (like duplicate an account) and it crashes at a times.
With over 70 web sites to maintain I only do this for about half a dozen of my largest and most active accounts. I can't imagine having 70 user accounts!
But for the few I do this with it makes life so much easier.
After going through quite an extensive and exhaustive reboots, reinstalls, deactivation, reactivation and updating, we have decided against using fast user-switching. Some apps with single user licenses either slowed the process down, corrupted files or locked the application completely.
Originally, we tried to use Quickeys to automate the quitting process, but Quickeys required additional licenses for each account. As well, quitting apps in one account only to have to re-open them in the next account just slowed and complicated the process.
The big problem using fast user-switching was that we didn't know until we tested the application which would be an issue. In some cases, we might have over a dozen apps running at the same time. Some with problems, some without, and a couple that depended on having to open the app in the account that was used to initially install it.
Right now I am using a combination of Quickeys scripts and Smart folders to close or hide one client file(s) in their respective applications before opening or unhiding another client's file(s) as necessary. Most important I don't have to quit an application(s) or procure additional keys or licenses. Works faster and easier than using fast user-switching to navigate multiple accounts, especially when copying from application in one account to another account.
...
I hope for your siblings' sake you was the first born.
What? Are you from New York?
After going through quite an extensive and exhaustive reboots, reinstalls, deactivation, reactivation and updating, we have decided against using fast user-switching. Some apps with single user licenses either slowed the process down, corrupted files or locked the application completely.
Originally, we tried to use Quickeys to automate the quitting process, but Quickeys required additional licenses for each account. As well, quitting apps in one account only to have to re-open them in the next account just slowed and complicated the process.
The big problem using fast user-switching was that we didn't know until we tested the application which would be an issue. In some cases, we might have over a dozen apps running at the same time. Some with problems, some without, and a couple that depended on having to open the app in the account that was used to initially install it.
Right now I am using a combination of Quickeys scripts and Smart folders to close or hide one client file(s) in their respective applications before opening or unhiding another client's file(s) as necessary. Most important I don't have to quit an application(s) or procure additional keys or licenses. Works faster and easier than using fast user-switching to navigate multiple accounts, especially when copying from application in one account to another account.
I admit I am limiting myself to about half a dozen apps in each account that are fine in this situation, only Aperture seems to be an issue of those I use. If I need anything else I use my main account and drop data in shared. The potential is certainly there but OS X needs to go a ways for this to be fully useable for sure. Of course if all apps were installed in the users application folder we might have more success, I suspect we are all using common apps.
What? Are you from New York?
Close. Was pulling an all-nighter in front of 4 monitors. Just didn't have my crew available to proofread at 4 am.
Much as I would like to use MAIL I find it to behave in ways far to weird for my liking. So I installed Thunderbird almost immediately after buying my Mac. Thunderbird works well so I don't sweat MAILs issues.
What kind of issues? I have no issues with Mail, but have tried Thunderbird and find it to be a very incomplete apps in both aesthetics and functionality. Like Mozilla doesn't really care about it.
I would say it sounds like they want to get it out this coming week.
Since the last point update for Leopard, Apple has been pushing out new betas in rapid succession. They are definitely doing things differently. I think we had 3 or 4 builds of 10.5.2 that listed no known issues that came out before the official release.
I definitely second that. This has proven to be very wise. With Apple, being an early adopter never pays.
That simply isn't true. I can name many Apple products that have I've had an excellent experience with out of the gate. Though, when you are an early adopter of any tech you are subject to undiscovered issues. That is life.
If you knew anything about programming, you would understand the problems of trying to fix something that is not an issue for most, isn't consistently replicable or is possibly affixed to conditions that only some would have or use.
Well, since I spend half my work-day knee-deep in code, I guess I might sort of know something about programming.
I've submitted bug reports to Apple about this. I can consistently replicate the problems I'm encountering with AD.
In this case, you are demanding that Apple should make OS X comply with all the features of a foreign OS or not release it at all. In other words, play the game your way or you are going to take your bat and ball and go home.
WTF are you talking about? All I'm asking is that Apple get their AD plug-in working like it was in Tiger. And as I said, I can tolerate that for a while, but we're up to the second revision of Leopard and the bastard thing is still as broken as it was on day one. There's no excuse for that.
BTW, you're revealing that you don't know much about this when you say that I'm demanding Apple make OS X "comply with all the features of a foreign OS." I'm not asking they comply with all the features of a foreign OS. Active Directory is just Microsoft's implementation of LDAP. That's not a hard thing for Apple to get right. They did it in Tiger. Leopard, not so much... and still waiting.
As shown, Active Directory is in a problem for all http://www.informationweek.com/news/...questid=613195 and for others just a matter of compromise and/or flexibility; http://lists.apple.com/archives/augd.../msg00033.html
For Apple or any developer, creating the perfect product is impossible. Just as your mother or your spouse would most likely sat about you.
Apple loves to talk up their integration with Windows and how ready Macs are for the enterprise where Windows integration is a must. I'm not the one making those kinds of promises. Apple is, and they're delivering in a half-assed way with Leopard. The fact that you're trying to make me sound like some kind of troublemaker for wanting what Apple promises with Leopard makes you come off like some kind of apologist.
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?
My advice is to never buy first generation hardware.
I have 2 first generation Macs and have never had an issue with either. The statement I quoted is BS.
H thanks for the thoughts
I run with multiple accounts active at once and have NEVER had a problem I could attribute to that.
I have in the past had problems with a firewire attached external drive. I ended up messing up that enclosure. The replacement I bought magically corrected all the weird issues I was having and runs faster, so I've decided it was a hardware issue with my previous enclosure.
I still run into many wireless problems, usually intermittent. I hope they make that more reliable.
You're a joke, even by fanboy standards.
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?