OS X Leopard

[flar]

Leopard looks killer. I use Ubuntu Linux at office, home and laptop. I've used Linux exclusively for the past 4 years and can't see any reason to switch. It's great having a computer you can trust--no viruses, no crashes, it does what I want and is very predictable. No downtime, and once it's set up, no fiddling around. My laptop came with Vista so I tried it and found out first hand how badly it sucks. I can't stand using XP (even though its better than Vista) because it feels so crippled compared to linux. I could probably manage on a mac though.

 

[cacruden]

"It just works" for you - but that hasn't been the case for a lot of other users.

XP just works for me - but I'm aware that it doesn't for a lot of people.

This is getting boring.... "it does not work for a lot of people". Well, the UPGRADE did not work for a number of people, and they called customer service and were walked through what APPLICATION is causing the problem and told how to uninstall it.... Then they have to get an update from the application vendor. That is a majority of the reported problems. I do not know how many is a "lot", I don't know how you know how many a "lot" is.... BTW, how many is a lot? Is their computer dead? Did they have to rollback? Are you personally affected? (probably not since you are coming to all these conclusions without using the operating system). How many cases of each? - you seem to know more about this than anyone....

It's not as secure as it should be. Microsoft releases regular security updates for XP - I've had no security issues with it - does that let if off the hook?

Hmm, My father's computer was breached with at least 10 different infections of viruses and trojans (sister #2 likes using his computer to visit music sites).

I cleaned up a computer that a friend was using - removing viruses etc.

And these had some protection against viruses...

I don't see the Mac having the same problems.... In fact one such attack recently (trojan reported), the person had to visit the site, download a "codec" (disk image), and type in his login password to install the "codec". They seem to have to rely on the stupidity of mac users to infect the computer, Microsoft has always made it easy (ActiveX comes to mind).

PC's have a much longer lifespan than they used to. There's simply no pressing reason to upgrade, and MS hasn't put much effort in convincing people they need to either. They seem more focused on their entertainment division at the moment.

Actually, it is pretty hard (and stupid) to upgrade old versions of Windows because Vista is more piggish than XP by a considerable amount.

 

[syn]

This is getting boring.... "it does not work for a lot of people". Well, the UPGRADE did not work for a number of people, and they called customer service and were walked through what APPLICATION is causing the problem and told how to uninstall it.... Then they have to get an update from the application vendor. That is a majority of the reported problems. I do not know how many is a "lot", I don't know how you know how many a "lot" is.... BTW, how many is a lot? Is their computer dead? Did they have to rollback? Are you personally affected? (probably not since you are coming to all these conclusions without using the operating system). How many cases of each? - you seem to know more about this than anyone....

I find it amazing how difficult it is for die-hard Mac fans to admit when Apple screws up.

You can attribute most of the instances of crashes on Windows to the applications being run too.

Do the huge security holes get blamed on other as well?

Hmm, My father's computer was breached with at least 10 different infections of viruses and trojans (sister #2 likes using his computer to visit music sites).

I cleaned up a computer that a friend was using - removing viruses etc.

And these had some protection against viruses...

I don't recall ever saying that Windows was perfectly secure; far from it. However, if one has a legitimate copy of the software, downloads security updates regularly and uses some common sense when browsing their shouldn't be a problem.

I don't see the Mac having the same problems.... In fact one such attack recently (trojan reported), the person had to visit the site, download a "codec" (disk image), and type in his login password to install the "codec". They seem to have to rely on the stupidity of mac users to infect the computer, Microsoft has always made it easy (ActiveX comes to mind).

The same tricks are used on Windows users.

Security hasn't been much of an issue up until now since hackers haven't really paid much attention to them. Such attacks are going to become more common as Apple products become more pervasive. I hope Apple is up to the task.

Actually, it is pretty hard (and stupid) to upgrade old versions of Windows because Vista is more piggish than XP by a considerable amount.

It isn't that hard at all. As for being piggish, I haven't really noticed. If anything performance has improved on the system I have it on.

 

[cacruden]

I find it amazing how difficult it is for die-hard Mac fans to admit when Apple screws up.

You can attribute most of the instances of crashes on Windows to the applications being run too.

Do the huge security holes get blamed on other as well?

Well, now I am a die-had Mac fan.... that is new.... I have had my Mac for maybe three or four months.... I have a farm of Linux servers at home running Oracle, Websphere, and MQ. I have one Windows XP machine for visitors (currently turned off), and one Windows XP laptop (retired - turned off). I have not considered Vista - because my current polling - 8/10 people regret having it installed. I would have considered getting a Linux laptop if Dell had supported it on the hardware I had wanted it on .... but they did not at that time. I have used Windows XP for a long time - it is usable - but there are some small things that I really don't like (one is the registry). I guess if I am a fan of anything it is Unix -- which is why I picked the mac laptop this time -- it is an out of the box - supported Unix environment. If Microsoft took their UI and bolted it to Unix - I would be happier with it.

I don't recall ever saying that Windows was perfectly secure; far from it. However, if one has a legitimate copy of the software, downloads security updates regularly and uses some common sense when browsing their shouldn't be a problem.

The same tricks are used on Windows users.

Security hasn't been much of an issue up until now since hackers haven't really paid much attention to them. Such attacks are going to become more common as Apple products become more pervasive. I hope Apple is up to the task.

It isn't that hard at all. As for being piggish, I haven't really noticed. If anything performance has improved on the system I have it on.

Windows security is a problem - because you basically log in as root/Administrator - which gives you the ability to write to any files on the filesystem (including the operating system itself). If you create a user which does not have that access - you can't really do anything -- which is why any developer at Microsoft has Administration privileges. They have talked about having applications run in a sandbox (which would remove an applications ability to affect other applications and the operating system) but this is just planned of version 7.

But again (what I said earlier) - whatever works for you is what is really important. If Windows Vista works for you - great.

BUT you seem to have this need to put-down other operating systems -- without ANY first hand use of it. You are taking an article in a publication without investigating what they are actual saying - and how it affects people generally.

Your taking a few reports, and extrapolating that the release is crap - that everyone is having problems. I have not had any problems, and I know of no one that has had problems ... I know people that have installed Vista and had problems and the majority of them DO NOT like it. Do you know people that own macs and have had problems?

 

[MetroMan]

I used to be the go to guy for any PC related issues. In fact, I was a hardcore PC user for 15 years. Once I got tired of fixing all my friend's PCs and my own computer began to become infected with spyware and viruses despite my experience, I gave Mac OSX a try and I became converted.

My response to friends with PCs on how to fix their Windows problems: Get a Mac then come see me. The ones who have, have not required any help ever since.
A large number of those friends recently upgraded to Leopard and none of them have reported any problems.
They're your regular users that represent the vast majority of consumers who need not go further than iLife and iWork for all their major application needs. They also use some of the small developer applications that are widespread in the Mac community.

I use Aperture and Adobe CS3 and none of the applications have caused me any problems. A minor bug in Aperture does indeed manifest: the full screen tool HUD appears when I switch Spaces but this is just a minor annoyance.
Every other application has been working correctly.

My brother, who I always have heated debates about Mac vs PC, purchased Vista and has conceded that he must now go back to XP. His arguments are becoming more muted and I can see that he's considering getting a Mac after playing with Leopard on my MacBook Pro.

This can be a long debate so I say: if you're happy with what you use, great. But please don't criticize something you know little about. Unless you've had extensive experience with what you're criticizing, your arguments aren't valid.

I'm very confident that people with an open mind will consider Leopard to be a far superior OS than Vista. Countless PC magazines can attest to this.

 

[syn]

BUT you seem to have this need to put-down other operating systems -- without ANY first hand use of it. You are taking an article in a publication without investigating what they are actual saying - and how it affects people generally.

Your taking a few reports, and extrapolating that the release is crap - that everyone is having problems. I have not had any problems, and I know of no one that has had problems ... I know people that have installed Vista and had problems and the majority of them DO NOT like it.

That isn't what I said...in fact, I've said that it has some nice new features. I might get one myself.

It clearly has some serious flaws though, even if not every single person who owns one has experienced them. One doesn't need to experience them personally (I have used Leopard and didn't have a problem) to see that's the case. It's like me arguing XP and Vista don't have serious flaws of their own because I haven't really experienced them.

I seriously doubt these reports are being fabricated simply to discredit Apple.

Do you know people that own macs and have had problems?

Yes.

I've seen Macs all the way back to G3s crash relatively frequently. My friend who upgraded to Leopard loves it, though he hasn't enjoyed the same stability he did with Tiger.

I like Macs, and generally speaking I like the OS too. Leopards security (and other) issues are a big disappointment though.

 

[afransen]

I have another solution at work - kill anyone that suggests upgrading my Windows XP to Vista Microsoft Vista optimal platform requires 4GB of memory. Windows XP is closer to 2GB. Not many places sell a standard platform with 4GB, 2GB is typically the max - and often it is only 1GB. I have enough applications that require huge amounts of memory (i.e. Rational Application Developer, Oracle Enterprise Edition, etc.) -- and I don't need a bloated operating system in addition.

Based on polling that I have done - there are around 10 people I know of that have upgraded or bought computers with Vista installed. 8 have either stated that they are - or have removed vista and migrated back to XP. That is far higher (by far) than before. Each revision of Windows has been better than the last (up until XP) - and I have really never heard of that many people wishing to roll back before. Sales in Vista actually peaked and has declined of recent -- this is not normal either. Microsoft has a growing problem on their hands with Vista.....

The fact is that any new major release is going to have problems.... but the question is - how easy or long is it before those problems were dealt with. It has now been a year (?) since Vista's release - and there is still this sentiment about rolling back....

My home PC has 1.5 GB of RAM and runs dual boot XP/Ubuntu. I have never used virtual memory of this machine. Thus, I am skeptical of any claim that XP must use anything more than say 200 MB of RAM. I would have a hard time pushing it past 500 MB. Firefox has been a memory whore in the past, and I've only ever pushed 700 MB with it ("leaking" memory--actually stupid caching).

Most graphics intensive features are not worth the performance cost... either requiring expensive hardware for no good reason or slowing down overall performance for the odd time when said feature is handy. It's my personal opinion... I know most laypeople like the eye-candy (and this is who most OS's are pandering to).

 

[Hydrogen]

A vast majority of computer users are "laypeople" in that they are not computer experts or professionals.


Just curious then, but how is a company "pandering" by providing what would seem to be a general capability operating system to the general user?

 

[cacruden]

My home PC has 1.5 GB of RAM and runs dual boot XP/Ubuntu. I have never used virtual memory of this machine. Thus, I am skeptical of any claim that XP must use anything more than say 200 MB of RAM. I would have a hard time pushing it past 500 MB. Firefox has been a memory whore in the past, and I've only ever pushed 700 MB with it ("leaking" memory--actually stupid caching).

Most graphics intensive features are not worth the performance cost... either requiring expensive hardware for no good reason or slowing down overall performance for the odd time when said feature is handy. It's my personal opinion... I know most laypeople like the eye-candy (and this is who most OS's are pandering to).

Tried it at work (XP) ... during the bootup process (around 3 - 5 minutes) - it is around 290MB, after bootup background processes have all quit - it drops to 250MB .... while the computer is being used - it grows back above 300MB (due to internal caching etc.). [that is after killing the virus software]. I have asked one person that has Vista installed on a new laptop - who complains that the thing is a dog to check - and they say it is double that. I believe they bought a laptop with 1GB of ram, which is more than sufficient for the average user with XP.... but apparently not so with Vista (unless you go around and tweak the settings - but if you are going to disable all the new features - why go to Vista?).

I will admit, I prefer (i.e. bias) ANY UNIX based operating system over Windows. On the other hand, if you use your computer for playing games etc. Windows is your best bet -- but I am not into playing computer games.... I find them too be too much of a waste of time.

 

[afransen]

A vast majority of computer users are "laypeople" in that they are not computer experts or professionals.


Just curious then, but how is a company "pandering" by providing what would seem to be a general capability operating system to the general user?

There's nothing wrong with not being an expert. I use many devices the intricate workings of which I don't know a lot about. My point is that a huge chunk of the effort put into the development of Vista was to provide for more sophisticated visual effects, which accomplish little more than look nice and require hardware upgrades. If that effort had been diverted into fixing more of the real problems with the underlying operating system, perhaps Vista would be more successful.

 

[syn]

My home PC has 1.5 GB of RAM and runs dual boot XP/Ubuntu. I have never used virtual memory of this machine. Thus, I am skeptical of any claim that XP must use anything more than say 200 MB of RAM. I would have a hard time pushing it past 500 MB. Firefox has been a memory whore in the past, and I've only ever pushed 700 MB with it ("leaking" memory--actually stupid caching).

Most graphics intensive features are not worth the performance cost... either requiring expensive hardware for no good reason or slowing down overall performance for the odd time when said feature is handy. It's my personal opinion... I know most laypeople like the eye-candy (and this is who most OS's are pandering to).

I had XP running on an 8-year old computer, with an AMD K6-2 400 MHz processor and 400 MB or RAM and it was fine (this is old RAM too...long before MB's could even accept even 1 GB of RAM). It actually improved the performance over Windows 98.

 

[syn]

A vast majority of computer users are "laypeople" in that they are not computer experts or professionals.


Just curious then, but how is a company "pandering" by providing what would seem to be a general capability operating system to the general user?

I don't think there's anything wrong with that...I just feel sorry for these users when their system runs into a problem and they're helpless.

 

[Hydrogen]

^I'm inclined to agree with you as I am one more person who still uses XP as opposed to Vista. I also have a Mac and find that operating system superior to XP for my own uses.

 

[Zephyr]

^... for my own uses.

 

[cacruden]

I was not alone in NOT wanting to upgrade to Vista....

Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista
Another survey highlights business concern about migration

By Denise Dubie

The majority of IT professionals worry that migrating to Windows Vista will make their networks less stable and more complex, according to a new survey.

Ninety percent of 961 IT professionals surveyed said they have concerns about migrating to Vista and more than half said they have no plans to deploy Vista.

"The concerns about Vista specified by participants were overwhelmingly related to stability. Stability in general was frequently cited, as well as compatibility with the business software that would need to run on Vista," said Diane Hagglund of King Research, which conducted the survey for systems management vendor Kace. "Cost was also cited as a concern by some respondents."

The survey, echoing one from Forrester last week, shows most IT professionals are worried about Vista and that 44% have considered non-Windows operating systems, such as Linux and Macintosh, to avoid the Microsoft migration.

"Clearly many companies are serious about this alternative, with 9% of those saying they have considered non-Windows operating systems already in the process of switching and a further 25% expecting to switch within the next year," the report "Windows Vista Adoption and Alternatives" reads.

Macintosh leads the pack of Vista alternatives, with support from 28% of respondents. About a quarter said they would opt for Red Hat Linux, with SUSE Linux and Ubuntu each garnering 18% of the vote. Another 9% cited other Linux operating systems and 4% were unsure.

IT professionals also said that virtualisation is one of the technologies making a move away from Microsoft possible. About two-thirds reported that the use of virtualisation has made it easier to implement an alternative.

Yet heterogeneous systems management could be a barrier to going with a provider other than Microsoft, the survey found. Respondents reported that challenges include the need to manage multiple operating systems (49%) and the need to learn a different set of management tools (50%). Sixty percent manage their Windows systems with tools that don't support non-Windows environments.

"Almost half of all participants (45%) cited challenges with system management in non-Windows operating systems as preventing them from adopting" alternatives, the report states.