so is mac osx leopard going to be the new hotness when it's released?

D

DrummaBOIIIII

New member
considering vista is the new hotness, even though it's been out for over a year. i think it's only sutable that leopard becomes TNH when it's released
 
OS X on a PC is very stable. In fact, I'm posting on it right now. Vista x64 and OS X 10.4.8 dual boot. The only thing lacking is drivers for my wireless card on OS X. >.< Everything else works like a charm...

Although I'll have to reformat and reinstall OS X later this week, aparently OS X doesn't like NTFS very much and the only way to make it a bigger partition is to reformat the entire damn thing and reinstall the OS. I hate Apple.
 
Obviously not enough to completely give up on OSX, though. If I had a desktop I'd want to install OSX on, I'd have to have them on separate hard disc drives, just as I presently do on XP and Linux. At $75 apiece I'd give each OS its own 320GB SATA drive.
 
So, how do you guys who use virtualisation feel, now that MS has said that you have to use the $400 version of Vista if you want to use it within your Mac? I think it's outrageous.

On a side note, I think Apple should charge $99 for their next OS update since Vista doesn't charge for their updates and since it would make good sense to have the populace have two figures in their minds - $99 and $299 or $399. But at least if you dual boot the Mac user can get away with the cheapest Vista around, although if they really want the optimum they'll go with 64 bit Vista on their 64 bit Macs.
 
I don't think many people in this thread understand apple's philiosphy on OS's and Microsofts.
It seems like many people in here want to compare leopard to something like Windows Xp SP1 or 98 SE, which is simply not the case... leopard is not a update, but a new OS, sure it is still going off from 10.0 but that's how apple's OS always been.
Leopard is here going against Vista, do not sell Leopard short.
When apple shifts from OS9 to OS10, it is doing way more than reworking the code as the transition from Windows Xp--> Windows Vista is doing.. rather it is more of a shift from Windows 95-->windows 2000
 
I'm still at 10.2.8, which is not being supported, and see no reason to want to upgrade to 10.3 or 10.4 since it still doesn't have multiple desktops and the picture preview is not as nice as Window's version (or many 3rd party solutions). With Leopard I will finally be able to have multiple desktops, something which I use in Linux and in XP (powertoys). So, yeah, next go-round I'll pony up the $129 for Leopard.
 
not completely, because the loss in backwards compatibility would piss off businesses. that's the reason they've been keeping around aging architecture to begin with.

with windows 3.1, 95, and 98 they were consumer versions. around the time of 98 they released NT for businesses, better than the consumer versions but it lost a lot of backwards compatibility because it wasn't based on DOS anymore. consumers got XP later on built on NT.

Vista will probably end up being a transitional OS, like 98, and sometime in the middle of Vista's life they'll release a fully ground up new OS for businesses, and a few years later, when they've managed to get workarounds for a lot of backwards compatibility issues, move consumers to a new Windows based on that new framework.

people always forget that almost everything out there is running windows. self-checkouts and cash registers run windows. businesses would be pissed if suddenly their programs don't work on the newest windows, and that's the problem microsoft has with redesigns.

Apple's OSX was a complete redesign over OS9, and there were serious backwards compatibility issues, but since there weren't enough people to care it was ok for them to do it.
 
I would have loved for Leopard to come out when Vista did since I think that it is the much superior product. Yes, I'll be picking it up when it comes out. (Presently using 10.2.8)
 
actualy it is dummy! Everything from the kernal up is upgraded and reworked to optimise performance with the intel instruction set, while still providing legacy support for PPC machines. However again, we have already established that you don't know shit about this subject, so why you keep interjecting your ignorance into these threads is beyond me.
 
WHy do you find that funny?? Leopard is a new OS. Do you think it would take Apple this long to build an update to a pre-existing OS??? No way in hell! It's just taking longer because it is a new OS, and they have to build it to support both PPC and Intel architectures.
 
I don't think that Leopard is really a new OS, more like a BSD refinement, specifically the addition of multiple desktops and widgets, since the E17 dock is still there, although it does have an upgraded kernel and now supports Intel 64 bit cpus. Yes, I say the same thing about Vista - it too is a refinement of XP, with the addition of Linux AiGLX like multiple desktop control, widgets and DRM; skinning a GUI theme, Aeroglass, does not a new OS make.
 
Back
Top