Re: When people say Leopard is problematic...

Randy Howard wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:43:44 -0600, J.J. O'Shea wrote
(in article <0001HW.C39C53F00229237EF04906D8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

[ I agree with most of your comments without additions, so snipped a lot]


On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:50:31 -0500, Randy Howard wrote
(in article <0001HW.C39BC8E8002BF0D7F01846D8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):


Am I saying "Leopard is junk"? No, it is a rushed OS release but not a junk. It actually works flawlessly on G4 based machines I own.

It is less than flawless on my G5.

There are problems, not least with Safari and Flash. Time Machine is ridiculously slow. I _hate_ the menubar, and what they've done to the Dock.


It's not /just/ the menubar itself, for which there are solutions, but the pulldown menus themselves. Much as the transparency in dashboard bugs me, all of these issues /could/ be fixed if they allowed the user to adjust the amount of it for these things. A prefs screen to set (or disable completely) the mount of bleedthrough in both dashboard and the menus would be a huge win, imo.


However, Mail doesn't run wild on _any_ Mac I'm responsible for the way it does on his.


I haven't seen it either, although there are so many variations with SMTP servers, pop vs. imap, etc., that I can't possibly claim to have explored even a representative sample of the combinations.


I was expecting a really final or close to final/actually tested release from a commercial OS vendor, that was my big fault.

Yep. Microsoft is not the only company that puts out beta software as Major.0 revision. Next time, I'll sit back and wait for .3 or .4 before updating my OS.

Before Leopard showed, many people pointed out that the .0 version was, like the .0 versions of Tiger, Panther, and Jaguar, and the entire run of Cheetah,


likely to be buggy.


Yes, I know. I was one of them. But, I really thought Time Machine would be a nice feature, and that's the main reason I rushed into it. What a letdown that was. Oh well.


I have used Windows for almost a decade and Mac is the only platform that I got blamed for reporting issues.

Yeah, well, the RDF is very, very powerful. When Apple didn't sell an Intel processor based system, Intel was shit. The /second/ that Jobs said they were going Intel, those same people immediately thought it was a great idea.

I still prefer PPC. That's why my primary machine is _still_ an iMac G5, and will be for quite some time.


My main machine is still a G5 as well, but not because I want it to be that way due to the CPUs inside. It's because the Mac Pro isn't a reasonable upgrade. They're making a disgusting amount of profit on it, and watching the pricing for that to be corrected hasn't proved fruitful. :)


Sort of like UNIX was shit until they announced OS X and it was UNIX based.

Some of us used BSD-based machines for other things, notably as servers.


Not everyone is an RDF sufferer, so it wasn't a blanket claim.


Bingo, it's suddenly great. Same with 64-bit support, 64-bit GUI support,

64-bit support is useless unless you really, really, REALLY need to access a _lot_ of RAM. As I don't, I simply don't care one way or another.


That's not actually true, but for most people it is. There are some specific coding areas where it offers other advantages, but they are rare, I'll grant that. The point is, 64-bit Linux, or indeed any 64-bit solution was deemed "worthless" by the RDF crowd until Apple had it, then it was suddenly good again. Same old play...


being able to boot windows,

I still can't boot Windows on my personal Mac, and have not noticed the lack.



I don't, won't, and don't care, but others do. Windows was anathema, all these Mac users wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole, then suddenly Apple supports it (sort of), and these same people are booting into it, or running Parallels and calling it a feature now. Hypocrisy is apparently not something they recognize.


I can boot Windows on some of the Macs at the office, and have not noticed the appeal.


I have a windows machine still, which is used very rarely, and usually it is quiet in the corner collecting dust. That's plenty good, should the need arise.


RAID support,

Now _that's_ useful... or would be, if the software RAID built into Disk Utility could do RAID 5.


Total agreement here. That's been my beef since day 1. Yet, since putting more than 2 drives inside my Powermac requires surgery, I could almost understand them not supporting something that has been available even in open source software for a long time.

The new Mac Pro has an optional hardware RAID adapter that does finally support raid 5, but it's an extra 1000 bucks to play along. I may go down that path eventually, but building a linux box with off-the-shelf parts to get there for a fraction of the cost still makes more logical sense.


pragmatism beats religion any time

with Parallels I have two computers for the price of one

(plus the prices of Parallels and an OEM Windows dvd)

Hugh W


--
For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/

http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: When people say Leopard is problematic...
    ... I really thought Time Machine ... support, 64-bit GUI support, ... Utility could do RAID 5. ... The new Mac Pro has an optional hardware RAID adapter that does finally ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: A DBA philosopical question
    ... >> I didn't know Windows was possibly considered all bad. ... Oracle database servers, it is hard to believe Windows has no advantages. ... >>>Except with Apple's Xserve RAID units with their dual XOR engines ... ... > is a department that provides SA support. ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: HELP!!! MY SERVER IS HOSED!!!
    ... Program you can reveive FREE Business Critical Support from MS. ... production server down causing a work stoppage. ... probably was an RAID Controller upgrade. ... cannot get Windows to load at all. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Windows RAID
    ... RAID capability is already enabled by default. ... However, Windows ... on internal drives. ... reduce support calls. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Re: Raid 5
    ... | Windows ME and Windows NT 4.0 workstation, this is "over-kill." ... RAID 5 is solely based on the hardware. ... | RAID controller has RAID 5 support and the correct corresponding Windows XP ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)