Mac OS X Leapord

[citivolus]

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

Not a Mac hater here, but I do think it is slightly hilarious that apple has pushed all these different versions of their OS as upgrades when all they really contain are a few new apps that would have been powertoys in an MS OS.

To be perfectly fair, it is not claimed to be a new OS and is only a point release, 10.4.7(?) --> 10.5.0. Sure they use the codename Leopard but so what, MS had already used Chicago? Also the release hype it isn't any different from MS. XP is essentially a fresh face on NT with better hardware support and bug fixes. I'd argue that there have only been two real upgrades for both makers and the rest has been little more than bug fixes. Apple's break point is OS X and MS was WinNT even though they carried 9x at the same time.

In the end, Leopard may be about as much of an upgrade as Vista. Perhaps I'm just too hard to please or too much a skeptic.

[Jet]

OSX has gone from 10.1 to 10.4 in the same time XP went to XP SP2.

There is a huge difference beween 10.1 and 10.4. With the ilife applications and the transition to Universal applications, Apple continues to provide the customer (me) with measurable and beneficial upgrades to its OS and they will do it again with 10.5. I use both Windows and OSX but I am more productive in OSX than Windows and OSX has proven to be more reliable.

Apple chooses to make "incremental" upgrades to it's OS and I would suggest this is a safer approach and easier to manage from a OS Company perspective given all the issues we have seen in the news regarding MS trying to push Vista out the door.

Apple's OS strategy is OpenBSD with a proprietary GUI - Quite simple - Apple does not face the issues of attempting to (re)develop its core kernel as MS has faced.

As a I.T operations manager - Would you like to guess what platform I have the most issues with in terms of OS stability? Hazard a guess what platform I needed to apply an emergency patch over a weekend because the vender said it was critical and mandatory?

Unix and its early variants have been with us now coming up to 40 years. OSX, Ubantu, RedHat, Solarus and every other Unix Linux variant just plain rock.

[Sal]

Originally Posted by Jet

OSX has gone from 10.1 to 10.4 in the same time XP went to XP SP2.

There is a huge difference beween 10.1 and 10.4. With the ilife applications and the transition to Universal applications, Apple continues to provide the customer (me) with measurable and beneficial upgrades to its OS and they will do it again with 10.5. I use both Windows and OSX but I am more productive in OSX than Windows and OSX has proven to be more reliable.

Apple chooses to make "incremental" upgrades to it's OS and I would suggest this is a safer approach and easier to manage from a OS Company perspective given all the issues we have seen in the news regarding MS trying to push Vista out the door.

Apple's OS strategy is OpenBSD with a proprietary GUI - Quite simple - Apple does not face the issues of attempting to (re)develop its core kernel as MS has faced.

As a I.T operations manager - Would you like to guess what platform I have the most issues with in terms of OS stability? Hazard a guess what platform I needed to apply an emergency patch over a weekend because the vender said it was critical and mandatory?

Unix and its early variants have been with us now coming up to 40 years. OSX, Ubantu, RedHat, Solarus and every other Unix Linux variant just plain rock.

Jet, you make some very insightful points. I'm looking forward to the next upgrade, and I'm always an early adopter (for better or worse) with Apple stuff.

***

What's everyone's home computer set up?

-Sal

[citivolus]

Originally Posted by Jet

OSX has gone from 10.1 to 10.4 in the same time XP went to XP SP2.

Then we agree, Vista should be about the same as 10.5. Or so MS hopes.

Apple chooses to make "incremental" upgrades to it's OS and I would suggest this is a safer approach and easier to manage from a OS Company perspective given all the issues we have seen in the news regarding MS trying to push Vista out the door.

I think this is a byproduct of having a more modular OS. It is easier to make small improvements without sacrificing stability. Not that I'm saying XP isn't modular, it's just that MS's push to integrate everything makes it harder to make isolated improvements.

I use both Windows and OSX but I am more productive in OSX than Windows and OSX has proven to be more reliable.

As do I, unfortunately many of the apps I need still aren't available on OS X. Although that is changing every day there are still a few design tools that just aren't there.

[Jet]

Originally Posted by citivolus

Then we agree, Vista should be about the same as 10.5. Or so MS hopes.

I think this is a byproduct of having a more modular OS. It is easier to make small improvements without sacrificing stability. Not that I'm saying XP isn't modular, it's just that MS's push to integrate everything makes it harder to make isolated improvements.

As do I, unfortunately many of the apps I need still aren't available on OS X. Although that is changing every day there are still a few design tools that just aren't there.

I agree its a moving target and feature for feature will never be the same at any point in time. I do have a windows machine because of the same reason as you - Very specific programs that dont run on a mac.

I biggest feature of OSX 10.5 that I hope Windows will also include will be the Quartz seperation of the screen resolution from applications.

[Desert_Seg]

Anything based on BSD is a built on an extremely solid, and stable, platform. In fact, if you look at what runs on BSD (or a variant thereof) you realize how important it is. Most of the nation's Command and Control systems, most of the "Internet", most of our communications systems run on Unix.

Prior to August my hold up in moving to Mac (Apple OSX) was that Outlook files did not transfer and I really didn't want to run a dual boot / dual operating system. Unfortunately on my way to the US I suffered a catastrophic hard drive crash and lost everything (oh, the pain) post June 2005 (don't ask me about our incremental backups).

So, I've been out looking at Macs again and we are close to closing on a couple of new units.

As for Vista, I have been testing it and while it is a big improvement on XP, there are still flaws, especially when you realize that unlike Apple, whose core has always been Unix, every Windows upgrade (3.x, NT / 95, XP, and even Vista) is built around a new core and also has to be backwards compatible. This poses huge risks and support problem.

Apple OSX is more stable; Windows OS is more popular.

Steven

[Gihgehls]

Vista = Windows DRM. Honestly it seems as if the entire OS is just a platform to push more and more restrictive Digital Rights Managment (or is that Digital Profit Managment?) onto their customers.

I'm soooo tempted to install this copy of OSX for intel on my laptop.