My "Tiger" OS X opinion...

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: kamper
lol :laugh: Cause MS really sat down and said "We like what OS X has and we want to use that technology" :roll: Sure they'll have similar technologies like searching and funkier desktop graphics but those are just indicative of what technology is becoming prevalent on the desktop, hardly anything that would qualify as "shagging". Longhorn will be a microsoft product through and through.

Edited bad for grammar

It is well known that Microsoft incorporates third party programs in their next release; example: Winzip - integrated zip on explorer, so it will not be new that other technologies that are already existant in other software will be incorporated into Longhorn. Nothing new here.

Originally posted by: Sunner


You know why I didn't dispute any points you made?
BEcause you didn't really make any points, you really just said "OS X sucks, so there", albeit with alot of fluff words in there.

So tell me, how is XP such a huge upgrade from Win2K then?
No major feature differences, support for some new stuff(mainly mobile stuff), newer versions of this and that, and Luna.
Windows version 5 vs 5.1(2K and Xp respectively), and then if you get XP-64, it's v5.2.

I recomend you read the original post again. I stated that there is too much hype on something that should not have been treated so. Hence, my admiration for marketing department on Apple. No such words as "Apple OS X sucks"; Its a good OS and the ones that use it normally fall in love with it, but there are some of us that can see it from another perspective.

drag:
you make it sound as if I was an MS fanboy. Not the case, and not really making a pro-WinXP statement, but defenetly making a "cheer-down" on Tiger. I know MS. I've used their software since Win 3.11 up until WinMCE;

In other words, to the ones that say: "OMFG!!!! Look at Tiger!! look at those features!! its the best OS ever!! OMFG!!"

I reply something like: Cheer down. Tiger is not the only OS that can do all you are saying, and its hardly the best at anything, and in my original post I mention the main arguments that Apple users and most reviewers have said to be "the best features in Tiger".

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Great to have an opinion of an Apple fanboy. Thankyou for participating in our forums!

BTW, fucktard, if you can read (which I hope you can at least do in an average manner) you will se "MY OPINION BASED ON ANAND'S REVIEW".

Don't mess with n0cmonkey, he's not elite for no reason...

n0cmonkey has a more accurate assessment, but you are still entitled to your opinion.

 

[Aenslead]

I know he is an elite member, but somehow those that get such title usually become smart-asses. That gives them no right to call anyone names even if they state something that is completly wrong. There is another Elite dude that posts at CPU/Overclocking forum that has similar tendencies of calling people names when he differs from their opinion.

I simply answered with the very same words he directed at me. I do not doubt n0cmonkery is a skilled security professional and what not, but as I said, that does not entitle him to call anyone anything no matter how flawed or contradictory his/hers opinions are.

 

[Sunner]

Ok, so it's the hype that's your problem with OS X.
So, why don't you have a problem with XP then? It was launched with the most massive advertising campaign ever seen in the computing industry(at the time at least), while the jump from WinNT 4.0 to Win2K was a far bigger one.

And you didn't answer my question as to why OS X/10.3 -> 10.4 is any different than Win2K/v5 -> WinXP/v5.1.

 

[hopejr]

Ok guys, I've used every major release of Windows extensively (1, 2, 3, 3.11 which was quite different to 3, Win 95, 98, ME, NT 3.1, NT 3.51, NT 4, 2000 (5.0), XP (5.1), 2003 (5.3?), and some builds of Longhorn (6.0)) and recently started using Macs. The changes between 2000 and XP were cool, but not really as much those between 10.3 and 10.4. I have been using 10.4 since Friday, and before that I was using 10.3. Initially, 10.4 didn't seem much of an update, except they got rid of more of that awful pinstripe (sorry ThinLizzy, I hate the look of it). But, now that I've used it the last few days, it is a huge change from Panther. I especially like how Safari is really fast (pages are displayed almost instantly - never seen such speed on other browsers). Spotlight is really handy, even though I have a very organised filesystem, but it could be a little better (like index unix text files). Dashboard is great and I use it a lot. Mail has some nice improvements. Development is much better on 10.4 than 10.3. VoiceOver is far superior in my opinion than any of the other screen reader that I've used (I'm doing a project that takes advantage of it and researched screen readers to find the best). Dictionary is very handy, especially the ctrl+cmd+d shortcut key. Overall, I'm quite impressed with Tiger, and to me it's more than a simple upgrade. It's worth every penny.
As for kernel changes, IIRC, many of the Panther updates had new kernels too.
As for Recently Used programs/files, that's always been in OS X, under the Apple menu, and now they've added recently visited Network Shares. Anand's example was just to show off spotlight's smart folders.
And for a start menu like thing where all your apps are easy to find, the Applications folder can be dragged to the dock, and right-clicked on to get an "All Programs" menu.
BTW, this is all from my experience, not from reading a review.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
It is well known that Microsoft incorporates third party programs in their next release; example: Winzip - integrated zip on explorer, so it will not be new that other technologies that are already existant in other software will be incorporated into Longhorn. Nothing new here.

That's great. Incorporating a common compression algorithm is not shagging. What apple and darwin did to produce mac os x was shagging.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Ok, so it's the hype that's your problem with OS X.
So, why don't you have a problem with XP then? It was launched with the most massive advertising campaign ever seen in the computing industry(at the time at least), while the jump from WinNT 4.0 to Win2K was a far bigger one.

And you didn't answer my question as to why OS X/10.3 -> 10.4 is any different than Win2K/v5 -> WinXP/v5.1.

WinXP was released a while ago. Mac OS X "Tiger" was just released. I am speaking of what's right now right here. Yes, I did know that they are based on the same kernel and yes, it is the hype I am countering with my opinions... based on many reviews read and little experience in the OS itself.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Aenslead
It is well known that Microsoft incorporates third party programs in their next release; example: Winzip - integrated zip on explorer, so it will not be new that other technologies that are already existant in other software will be incorporated into Longhorn. Nothing new here.

That's great. Incorporating a common compression algorithm is not shagging. What apple and darwin did to produce mac os x was shagging.

I am sorry... please explain the term "shagging".

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
I know he is an elite member, but somehow those that get such title usually become smart-asses. That gives them no right to call anyone names even if they state something that is completly wrong. There is another Elite dude that posts at CPU/Overclocking forum that has similar tendencies of calling people names when he differs from their opinion.

I simply answered with the very same words he directed at me. I do not doubt n0cmonkery is a skilled security professional and what not, but as I said, that does not entitle him to call anyone anything no matter how flawed or contradictory his/hers opinions are.

I was a smart ass before I got the title.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Aenslead
I know he is an elite member, but somehow those that get such title usually become smart-asses. That gives them no right to call anyone names even if they state something that is completly wrong. There is another Elite dude that posts at CPU/Overclocking forum that has similar tendencies of calling people names when he differs from their opinion.

I simply answered with the very same words he directed at me. I do not doubt n0cmonkery is a skilled security professional and what not, but as I said, that does not entitle him to call anyone anything no matter how flawed or contradictory his/hers opinions are.

I was a smart ass before I got the title.

Why am I not surprised to know that...?

But seriously, what's with mixing insults? "fucktard"? Come on. Stick to... idiot... stupid, asshole, fucker, and all of that. I mean... that *really* sounds like elementary school insult.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Why am I not surprised to know that...?

But seriously, what's with mixing insults? "fucktard"? Come on. Stick to... idiot... stupid, asshole, fucker, and all of that. I mean... that *really* sounds like elementary school insult.

But it's funny. It's one of those things that makes the person you insulted stop and think for a second.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Why am I not surprised to know that...?

But seriously, what's with mixing insults? "fucktard"? Come on. Stick to... idiot... stupid, asshole, fucker, and all of that. I mean... that *really* sounds like elementary school insult.

But it's funny. It's one of those things that makes the person you insulted stop and think for a second.

Only thing you made me think was "what on heaven's name...?".

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Aenslead

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Why am I not surprised to know that...?

But seriously, what's with mixing insults? "fucktard"? Come on. Stick to... idiot... stupid, asshole, fucker, and all of that. I mean... that *really* sounds like elementary school insult.

But it's funny. It's one of those things that makes the person you insulted stop and think for a second.

Only thing you made me think was "what on heaven's name...?".

That's part of the point.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Aenslead

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Aenslead
It is well known that Microsoft incorporates third party programs in their next release; example: Winzip - integrated zip on explorer, so it will not be new that other technologies that are already existant in other software will be incorporated into Longhorn. Nothing new here.

That's great. Incorporating a common compression algorithm is not shagging. What apple and darwin did to produce mac os x was shagging.

I am sorry... please explain the term "shagging".

Well I didn't coin the term so I can try to define it but we'll have to get daniel1113's opinion.

Shagging is when the two companies/organizations/operating systems consentually get together and combine fundamental parts of their technology in order to give birth to something new that is not quite the same as either of the originals but is obviously a product of the two.

In the case of mac os and darwin, I'd call darwin a hooker because the bsd license basically says "whoever wants me can use me". Whatever contributions apple makes back to the bsd community is the price for the encounter. The catch is that apple/mac os was the female, since they were the ones who eventually gave birth to the kid, mac os x. That makes darwin a gigolo

Now the example of microsoft incorporating zip compression or apple ripping off konfabulator, that's more like sexual abuse.

 

[hopejr]

lol kamper

 

[Gulzakar]

I don't know why all the whiney little brats complain about osx boot time...oh no! I have to wait 30 extra seconds!!!

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Hello, everyone.

I read Anand's review on the Mac OS X "Tiger" and I found little reason to convince me that it was indeed a better OS than Windows. Little to none. I find it, pretty much based on Anand's words, as simply "another OS".

Performance:
It was very interesting to note that everyone claims that every new OS from apple is faster than the last one. I find this a very flawed statement.

First, OS X is NOT A NEW OS, it is simply a revision of the X series. In other words, it is something like a "Service Pack". Apple marketing department, who I deeply respect for what they have acheeved, have made it look as it was "a NEW OS". Its not, I repeat: its a revision. Its a ".4" instead of a ".3"; a NEW OS would be Mac OS- XI (or 11... whatever) which uses something completly different than the former. Yes? Maybe not many remember the transition from Mac OS 8 to X.

Well technically it is not a new OS.. it is a large update to the OS.. Perhaps more correctly it is a new version of the OS..

As far as your definition goes.. Windows XP was not a new OS.. Though everyone refer's to it as a different OS then 2k..

It is OBVIOUS that performance bennefits will come with a new revission, but we have been living on this on the PC since the Win95 days. Don't remember? Well, tech-savies will know that updated drivers will yeild a 2-5% increase of performance in whatever plataform; add that to a 10% from a new video card driver, and another 3% from a new IDE/S-ATA driver, and so on. It is well known that a computer with updated drivers can perform up to 20-30% faster than an identical setup but with out-of-date drivers. So nothing spectacular there. Apple can bundle the drivers in the new revision because... well... they only have 2 or 3 sets of hardware for their OS, whereas on the PC you have many... to say the least.

Computer performance does not come simply from driver updates. Much of OS/X is actually applications running on top of the OS. And those applications can be heavily tuned. The OS kernel itself can be updated/improved. Apple very well can tweak the kernel as much as they like reguardless of whether its a point release or not.

As well as the NT kernel scales, I bet Windows could perform better if Microsofts tweaks the kernel for the newer and higher end processors out today. Keep in mind, most of the work on NT's low level systems was done when a PII400 with 512kb half speed L2 cache and PC100 was mainstream..

Also, Anand stated that the Tiger on a Dual G5 took 45 seconds to boot. WTF? My Duron @ 1.8Ghz/512Mb RAM w/integrated nVidia graphics boots in 25 seconds since I push the button! Not to mention my A64 rig gets to do it on 15 seconds. Some Intel mobo/cpu combos are said to boot WinXP even faster.

My take?
OS X Tiger is faster than previous incarnations: true.
Only Apple OS get faster every time a new version comes out: false.
OS X Tiger is faster than Windows XP SP2: NOT.

Personal opionion, not necessarily fact.

Pricing:
Paying for an update? Yeah, right.... I get SP for free from MS, and free driver updates, too!

As said before, this is far more then just a "service pack".. this adds 100+ features.. and numerous bug fixes..

Sure I don't agree with this style of updates, but the fact is, even Microsoft themselves would kill for a revenue streaming system like this.. $129 every 18months is heaven for any software company..

Eye Candy:
Yeah. Tiger is pretty. Yeah, by default. But anyone can make WinXP look even better. ItmPls showed all of us how GOOD WinXP can actually look. I myself have tried it, too, and as you can see in my signature, my desktop is as pretty as any OS X can be. Sure, you need 3 or 4 3rd party apps to make this possible, like Konfabulator, Icon X, Object Dock and StyleXP, but the point is simple: WInXP can be prettier than OS X, and that "eye candy" statement that Mac owners say they have over WinXP users is false.

Personal opionion again.. Many people here even prefer Windows 2000's look over XP's.. they like simple. But as n0c stated, you can compare a tweaked Windows XP to a default OS/X.. Your XP install needs 20+ minutes of work (If you know what your doing - where to look for stuff)... and for legality sense, $30-$50 to get started..

Ease of use:
It caught my attention when Anand mentioned that there is this special folder where all of your recent files are shown... well... that's not new at all. See the "Recent Documents" on the Start Menu? Who's copying who?

Ease of use?! Of one button mouse? No. Nu-huh. Anyone who likes the word "easy" will aquire a two button mouse imediately. I've used Mac OS X a couple of times, and... well... I like to find ALL of my programs in ONE SIMPLE MENU... not having to look for them in folders and folders. I mean, Win 3.1 is easier than that!

Havent used OS/X enough to judge myself.. but some things do look easier to do on a mac.. for the most part, it probably just takes getting used to the differences before you can really comment.

Conclusion:
I adore those Marketing guys at Apple. I mean... they KNOW their stuff. You gotta give it to them: make a simple ugrade look like it was the best OS to be released in years. The rest, well... you should have made up your mind already. I did.

BTW: I left out the security part on purpose. I mean, why would a SMART hacker want to attack an OS that only 2% of the computer users have and whose only personality is the very Mac they own?

Cheers.

 

[JDCentral]

In my opinion, OS X has done what no other operating system has -

It's brought Unix to the mainstream.

The OS installs easily, lets you configure everything you'd want to with it's GUI.

But when people ask me to compare it to Windows, I always ask "you ever write a shell-script in windows?".

That's where the power of OS X comes, to me. Now, if I use a windows machine it's crippling, as I don't have a good 'terminal' to work with.

Who cares how pretty it is? When it comes down to it, all that matters is how well your OS caters to what you want it to do.

 

[hopejr]

I think the usability and user friendliness of OS X is very real. My parents, having used Windows for years and never used a Mac before, bought an iBook last month while in the US. Yesterday they came back from their trip and wanted me to copy some stuff from their old Windows laptop to their iBook. I was surprised how well they'd set it up, including doing the upgrade from Panther to Tiger by themselves. They said it was really easy. They've seen me install Windows on PC's before, and said they'd never do that because it looked too hard. They'd gotten used to the OS X gui really fast, and had even configured it to their liking (even with their desktop wallpaper changing every 5 minutes). It took them months to work out how to do that sort of thing on Windows, and their theme on their Compaq never changed once in the last 3 years they had it.