AshMat Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 Ok, i read Leapoard's features. Can i jsut say, it looks almost just like OSX with some small tweaks. They need to stop acting like making a photo album is the bees fucking bollocks. The packaged software is useless shite unless you need video/sound editing software.
KKOB Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 Ok, i read Leapoard's features. Can i jsut say, it looks almost just like OSX with some small tweaks. They need to stop acting like making a photo album is the bees fucking bollocks. The packaged software is useless shite unless you need video/sound editing software. It's an extension of your digital life on your computer and the internet, hence iLife, so in that role it does well. OS X is already just about ahead of vista imo, but leopard adds a lot of cool new things to it, cover flow with files, quick look, stacks in your dashboard, more iChat and Mail stuff that is pretty cool, major improvements to finder, the ability to use .Mac to access shared computers on your home network over the internet and more besides. As the Apple site says, it's the largest upgrade to OS X.
gmac Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 but yeah they're making you pay $129 dollars (probably gonna be £80-100 here) for an upgrade to your OS, whereas Vista is a completely new (for MS) OS.
Guest Jordan Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 Not to mention Service packs (which is literally what each version of OSX has been so far) are completely free.
KKOB Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 but yeah they're making you pay $129 dollars (probably gonna be £80-100 here) for an upgrade to your OS, whereas Vista is a completely new (for MS) OS. i'm sure it's usually £80 here. It's your decision to upgrade or not, i think mr jobs man said about 62% of macs are running tiger. The improvement between each 2 OS equals about the same as the vista 'jump'. Don't matter since for me, having Tiger already installed on my mac when i got it, it's only about £50 with student discount to get all the gorgeous new useful features. Vista cost how much for home premium upgrade? and how much for all the other editions? Least Leopard is one price and one OS. You know what your getting and it's up to you whether you buy it or not. And after all, you get what you pay for.
Guest Jordan Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 Each MS OS comes out every 4-6 years Takeo, they don't just add gimmicks and small features. It requires totally rewritten and added code. Apple didn't even make the OSX core so they can't make huge additions each time, originally it was going to run on Windows NT (little known fact).
Jon Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 Is that all thats been announced? iPhone date, Leopard stuff and Safari for Windows? Shit.
Guest Jordan Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 Just one thing. How come if you have a G3 Mac you can't run this? How is that even fair?
motion Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 The new Apple site is horrible. That new nav bar at the top destroys web usability with its ambiguity, and the whole site is now far too cluttered.
KKOB Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 Just one thing.How come if you have a G3 Mac you can't run this? How is that even fair? G3 mac? What user who has a G3 mac isn't going to upgrade to an intel now anyway? The new Apple site is horrible. That new nav bar at the top destroys web usability with its ambiguity, and the whole site is now far too cluttered. Yeah i'm not too sure off it myself, like all the little vids for leopard though. Each MS OS comes out every 4-6 years Takeo, they don't just add gimmicks and small features. It requires totally rewritten and added code. Apple didn't even make the OSX core so they can't make huge additions each time, originally it was going to run on Windows NT (little known fact). Yep, every say 5 years, with 2 service packs free, i'm sure if you average it out the price of upgrading is the same, except if you upgrade a mac's OS you don't stab yourself in the eye by upgrading to the wrong edition. And yep, it's based on NeXTSTEP stuff which jobs man set up after being booted from apple, then Apple bought it or the company (can't remember) for i think just over 200 million. I may be wrong here, but thats what my brains is telling me atm. http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/technology/
Haver Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 This goes over most of the points I was going to make. "First of all, the design of the Macintosh has always been based on the requirements of the user." http://www.presshere.com/html/pd890701.htm Thought: Calendar.app might mean nothing to you, but it means everything to someone else.
AshMat Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Yep, every say 5 years, with 2 service packs free, i'm sure if you average it out the price of upgrading is the same, except if you upgrade a mac's OS you don't stab yourself in the eye by upgrading to the wrong edition. ] Or, you just ask which edition is right for you. And don't go buying the Premium version for your office.
KKOB Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Or, you just ask which edition is right for you. And don't go buying the Premium version for your office. I don't get why M$ offer all the different Vista versions, only one i can see worth getting is home premium. But it obviously works for M$ somehow.
theguyfromspark Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Microsoft produces all the different versions for all the different types of user that require the Windows OS: Students, Office Workers, Enthusiasts, Developers, Media Consumers, Light Users etc etc. OSX only needs one edition because there's only one type of OSX user: Elitist Smug Posers that create websites for their cats. I'm joking btw.
fex Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 I just watched WWDC, and must say that Leopard looks awesome, some really nice features, spaces, stacks, time machine and that new widget creatory thing. The new dock looks nice and reflective. And theres not a million different versions no home, no ultimate, making it easy for consumers. Looks like OSX just leapfroged right over vista
Guest Jordan Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 I just watched WWDC, and must say that Leopard looks awesome, some really nice features, spaces, stacks, time machine and that new widget creatory thing. The new dock looks nice and reflective. And theres not a million different versions no home, no ultimate, making it easy for consumers. Looks like OSX just leapfroged right over vista ... All they did was add some stuff into the UI and change a few features. How the hell is that a 'leapfrog'?
fex Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Because the changes help increase productivity, what's so fascinating about vista? What features does it really have that benefit me over OS X5? At the end of the day I can say Vista is just XP with UI tweaks. I couldn't give a rats ass if Vista is a complete rewrite of code and OS X5 isn't. Code means bugger all to me. What is important is how the OS runs alongside the applications and how it increases workflow.
Guest Jordan Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Because the changes help increase productivity, what's so fascinating about vista? What features does it really have that benefit me over OS X5? At the end of the day I can say Vista is just XP with UI tweaks. I couldn't give a rats ass if Vista is a complete rewrite of code and OS X5 isn't. Code means bugger all to me. What is important is how the OS runs alongside the applications and how it increases workflow. Believe me, if you've actually used Vista, theres quite a major difference. For one thing, shit loads a tonne faster due to Vista tracking what programs you use the most and caching it in your main ram, no other OS does this and it means that Vista loads programs faster than any other OS. For example, i have 3 gigs of ram, an entire 1 gig is in use for caching and the other 2 is for new programs or programs that need the extra ram and if you're low on ram, stick in a USB memory stick and use memory boosting and use it as virtual ram. Most of Vista's changes were never cosmetic, whats the point of changing how something looks drastically for no reason other than to alienate the user? Thats half the problem with Office 2007 and if you used XP for years like most people did, changing it up to much, so fast would only piss people off. Vista just added things that people don't really think about, but over all adds alot to the OS. There are some features that Apple is boasting, such as Time Machine thats already in Vista anyway.
fex Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Believe me, if you've actually used Vista, theres quite a major difference. For one thing, shit loads a tonne faster due to Vista tracking what programs you use the most and caching it in your main ram, no other OS does this and it means that Vista loads programs faster than any other OS. For example, i have 3 gigs of ram, an entire 1 gig is in use for caching and the other 2 is for new programs or programs that need the extra ram and if you're low on ram, stick in a USB memory stick and use memory boosting and use it as virtual ram. Most of Vista's changes were never cosmetic, whats the point of changing how something looks drastically for no reason other than to alienate the user? Thats half the problem with Office 2007 and if you used XP for years like most people did, changing it up to much, so fast would only piss people off. Vista just added things that people don't really think about, but over all adds alot to the OS. There are some features that Apple is boasting, such as Time Machine thats already in Vista anyway. So summing that up, there's no difference from XP to Vista for your average user. I've just stuck a Vista skin on my brothers XP partition and bam! Ive just installed Vista. True or not true? Edit: Sorry Vista has Widgets opps I meant gadgets..... argh fuck it what ever there called its the same thing
Guest Jordan Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 So summing that up, there's no difference from XP to Vista for your average user. I've just stuck a Vista skin on my brothers XP partition and bam! Ive just installed Vista. True or not true? Edit: Sorry Vista has Widgets opps I meant gadgets..... argh fuck it what ever there called its the same thing You're missing on some key, but small features GUI wise. Ribbons instead of just address bars, ability to make icons any size you want and preview videos inside explorer, setting up any 'virtual' folder you want from either searches of specific folders and can be accessed at any time through the favourite links side bar oh and quicksearch on the start menu is quite handy. The fact of the matter is, if you own a Mac, you're not gunna use Vista. And i own several PC's and a laptop. Three running Vista Ultimate, 1 running Vista Home Premium and a server running Windows XP SP2. I'd never run a Mac, because i'm not willing to give up decent gaming for one thing and the fact that all my programs i run now, probably wouldn't even work.
Jasper Posted June 12, 2007 Author Posted June 12, 2007 ...All they did was add some stuff into the UI and change a few features. How the hell is that a 'leapfrog'? Okay jordan, you're clearly anti-mac. You're the entire opposite of Takeo (here comes a wink to you, Takeo: :wink:). OS X 10.4 Tiger introduced great new features and at school i'm using 10.3, and that really feels like a step back. Apple's updates aren't Service Packs. Service Packs barely introduce new features, they're just there to fight the newest malware on your computer. But the OS X updates are really quite good and the stuff they introduce with Leopard are great. It looks the deal, too, and it now has chosen an consistent design with all windows (Wich is Plastic, and it still looks great even though i've used it for years with mail). Apple leapfrogged over Windows because Vista just caught up with MacOS X 10.4 Tiger - wich means that adding anything is again an jump forward. But it just has great possibilities. Apple just showed off Leopard with grace. it looked the deal, it had great new features, a good look - it's another improvement on an already great operating system. Vista is on par with Tiger, but Leopard is just-that-step-ahead. You know, you said that every major OS release of Windows was a rewrite - but that isn't true. Microsoft just made a huge mess with their Longhorn development. XP shouldn't have been on the market this long (you can see what it does - people aren't eager to switch to Vista), but they messed up the first code and then chose to rewrite everything. But Apple rewrote an old OS (Tiger) last year - 80 million lines of codes, made for Intel processor. Isn't that a major rewrite? But they just made it so and didn't release it as a new OS. Microsoft has had three major rewrites of their OS - their old NT-system (95, 97, 98, Millenium Edition), then their CE-code (2000, XP) and now their Vista. You can't blame Apple for doing the Wow, but just now. Without a doubt they just jumped over Microsoft again, but heck - that's the purpose of being an underdog - you have to stay ahead of the rest, everytime again. Apple, on the other hand, knows marketing and didn't show of it's Wow a year before launch, they do it just months before it. And the hype machine keeps working. And iMacs G3 were released in 1998 - they can't even handle 10.4 properly anymore, so if you still have such a system, it's just time to switch over to a newer one, since you are way out of your time here. Don't forget that these are the first macs incompatible with a new OS - they made it work for the last four iterations. Those computers are just not good enough anymore. Now were's that beta copy I was looking for?
fex Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Ability to make icons any size you want I can do that in OS10.4 preview videos inside explorer I can do that in 10.5, videos, excel, word, PDF's, Presentations all without opening the app. I have OSX installed on my brothers PC, and extremely rarely do I use XP/Vista. And thats simply because I can do far more far quicker in OSX than in XP/Vista
Haver Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 Well, the average-user OS X upgrades (New Desktop, New Finder, Time Machine, Spaces, iChat, Quick Look, Safari plus) seem to add up to more than the Ribbons/Icon Size/Video Preview/Virtual Folder/Quick Search changes. Is that a fair thing to say? Apple is about delivering a computer experience that is as human as possible. Backing up isn't new, but Time Machine is new, and it'll be one of the if not the most intuitive and user-friendly ways to back-up. Preview isn't new, but Quick Look is new, and it'll be one of the if not the most intuitive and user-friendly ways to preview. My way of thinking is this: Windows is about speed, tech, fiddling about etc. and you get the problems that come with that (Security side stuff, General Confusion and Weirdness). OS X is about the user experience, solving problems of human-computer interaction and efficiency etc. and you get the problems that come with that (No games, no room for customization).
Guest Jordan Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 That pretty much sums it up Haver. Oh and Time Machine really isn't new, Vista already has file roll back and you can do as much as you want. It just seems like they've added a wizard to it.
KKOB Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 I concur with Haver, and Jaspers comments. The stuff you pointed out that made Vista a 'true' OS upgrade as opposed to the jump to Leopard isn't really worth mentioning since it's what was basically in Tiger. Leopard looks truely amazing, really cool and useful features which will make using OS X even nicer and at least one ups what Vista can do. Overall Leopard has just booted Vista in the bollocks a little, M$ will probs copy a few of the features like the quicklook thing if it can in Vistas service pack/updates but we'll see in time. And time machine = cool UI, spotlight search and ease of use, also all you have to do is click the Time Machine icon in the dock and boom, your away And i'm surprised that no ones mentioned that OS X is the first OS thats 64 bit capable and mainstream due to leopard only coming in the one version. As opposed to the 32 bit and 64 bit versions of each edition of Vista.
Recommended Posts