backtop


Print 106 comment(s) - last by Pirks.. on Oct 22 at 5:31 PM


  (Source: Apple)

  (Source: Apple)
Apple sets a date for Leopard

The last time that DailyTech extensively covered OS X v10.5 Leopard was back in April. At the time, Apple announced that it would delay the introduction of the long-awaited operating system due to needs of the iPhone program. The delay forced OS X v10.5 to an October ship date instead of June.

"We now plan to show our developers a near final version of Leopard at the conference, give them a beta copy to take home so they can do their final testing, and ship Leopard in October," said Apple in April. "We think it will be well worth the wait. Life often presents tradeoffs, and in this case we're sure we've made the right ones."

"We can't wait until customers get their hands (and fingers) on it and experience what a revolutionary and magical product it is," the company continued.

The wait is almost over and eager Apple fans will be happy to know that OS X v10.5 will ship on October 26. Apple says that the revised operating system contains over 300 new features and “installs easily, and works with the software and accessories you already have.”

Some of the highlighted features include a revamped desktop, a new Finder which includes Cover Flow technology, Quick Look which gives full-scale previews of documents before opening them and Time Machine which creates incremental backups of files.

Pricing for Apple's OS X v10.5 may make some Windows Vista users green with envy. A single-user license of OS X v10.5 costs just $129.00 direct from Apple. A five-user license will set you back just $199.00.

Customers who pre-order OS X v10.5 today from Apple are guaranteed to have their copy on their doorstep on October 26.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

$129????
By DeepThought86 on 10/16/2007 11:14:52 AM , Rating: 5
Imagine if MS tried to charge $129 for service packs!! The uproar would be deafening. Apple gouges their customers by $129 EVERY YEAR and accelerates the obsolescence of their OS's to "encourage" people to upgrade. Where's the outrage?




RE: $129????
By stubeck on 10/16/2007 11:19:45 AM , Rating: 5
Tiger came out in 05. Leopard is coming out in 07. How is that "EVERY YEAR?"


RE: $129????
By Lonyo on 10/16/2007 11:37:15 AM , Rating: 5
By that logic, MS charging $390 should be acceptable, since XP came out in 01 and Vista in 07.

As it is, a Vista Home Premium upgrade is only $15 more than an OSX upgrade ($145 on Newegg), so despite the much longer time between OS's, the upgrade price is pretty much the same for MS and Apple.


RE: $129????
By stubeck on 10/16/2007 1:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
By what logic? I stated a fact of when the last two OS's from Apple were released, nothing more.


RE: $129????
By artemicion on 10/16/2007 5:59:49 PM , Rating: 3
I think he means that the 01-07 gap justifies a $390 OS cost, if you were to pro-rate the amount over the years it serves you . . .
Personally, I would agree that I dislike the frequency of "new" operating systems on Macs. Everybody has different tastes, but looking over the leopard features, I don't see anything that justifies $129 for me. Which, of course, isn't an issue as long as they don't discontinue support for 10.4 for at least a decent while . . .


RE: $129????
By stubeck on 10/16/2007 8:56:11 PM , Rating: 1
So basically he's going off on to something I've never talked about. Gotcha.


RE: $129????
By artemicion on 10/17/2007 12:08:16 AM , Rating: 2
yeah well, nitpicking his argument by pointing out the arguably superficial distinction between "every year" and "every other year" when his general thesis is obviously that he believes Apple releases new OS's too frequently doesn't exactly make you the master of debate.


RE: $129????
By stubeck on 10/17/2007 8:59:14 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see how a doubling of a time frame is nitpicking. I also never said I was the master of debates.


RE: $129????
By scrapsma54 on 10/17/2007 9:40:27 AM , Rating: 2
These questions remain:
Q: Why charge money for an "update/upgrade", when in reality the update is just features we may never use?
A: In terms of Updates, You are think in the box called Microsoft. Microsoft see's updates differently because they are not Apple.
Of course it is stupid to pay a premium for a petty update. Apple likes to make it hard on its customers and only promote the elite.
remember these were the people who some time ago required that you toss your old computer and get a new one,and considered it an upgrade.

Q: Apple products costs a lot but in reality the hardware is cheaper than it really is software should never cost more than $50 Per Gigabyte.
A: Apple designs the software for their computers and because apple products are not even competitive so prices will continue to hold up.
Part of the problem also is that Apple operates like family with a tradition that should never be broken. Apple should have dropped that a long time ago and
decided to make products that are affordable and practical in bulk by businesses and should have some degree of programabiliy.

Q: why no games?
A: #1 Open gL is tedious (not hard) to program to because it requires also
other programs to interface because Opengl has no input capabilities.
#2 Many game developers are already slaving over console titles, and pc titles and are aware that
Apple's platform base is not as big as the PC base. So less base less titles sold, which equals wasted time.

Q: Why no killer apps?
This is Apple, they want to maintain a clean and expensive Apple'y look to their computer. No little programs that inflict heavy contrast on the overall look of the computer.

Q: 300 Updates?
I look up lepard and nothing new is mentioned on their website


RE: $129????
By Spivonious on 10/16/2007 11:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well, this is like going from Win95 to Win98, or Win98 to WinME; they're all Windows 4.0.


RE: $129????
By Frank M on 10/16/2007 11:39:13 AM , Rating: 5
Now, don't be silly. Nobody would go from Win98 to WinMe.


RE: $129????
By Chris Peredun on 10/16/2007 12:22:00 PM , Rating: 5
I tried to install WinME once out of curiousity, just to see how bad it was.

When it bluescreened during the install, I figured that was a pretty good indicator of the overall experience.


RE: $129????
By JBird7986 on 10/16/2007 1:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO!!!


RE: $129????
By Spivonious on 10/16/2007 12:31:12 PM , Rating: 3
LOL


RE: $129????
By bdewong on 10/16/2007 1:09:04 PM , Rating: 3
+6


RE: $129????
By iFX on 10/16/2007 2:18:02 PM , Rating: 1
I went from Win98SE to WinME. I never had any problems with WinME.


RE: $129????
By elegault on 10/16/2007 5:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
I never had a problem with WinME. Lucky? Or rather compatible hardware to do so.

If memory serves me correctly...didn't WinME not support motherboards with ISA slots?


RE: $129????
By iFX on 10/16/2007 7:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I believe that was the case, that ISA support was dropped with ME. I had an old ISA NIC (3comm Etherlink II) that had served me well up until that point. I then moved up to a PCI Etherlink III 100 MB card. I actually still use the card to this day, and it will transmit the packets for this post shortly. :)


RE: $129????
By Dug on 10/16/2007 12:42:42 PM , Rating: 1
Because this isn't a service pack that just tries to fix what's already there. It's an actual operating system that offers a lot more features than any Microsoft product does.


RE: $129????
By gospastic on 10/16/2007 1:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think the prices come out pretty much even...

Windows:

XP Pro Retail - $299?
Windows Vista Ultimate Retail - $399

Total - $700

OS X

10.0 - $129
10.1 - free if you already had 10.0
10.2 - $129
10.3 - $129
10.4 - $129
10.5 - $129

Total - $645

How is Windows a ripoff? You can get them cheaper than retail too, but that's a different kind of comparison.


RE: $129????
By stubeck on 10/16/2007 1:46:27 PM , Rating: 3
You can upgrade from XP to Vista, so it basically halves the price of Ultimate.


RE: $129????
By BZDTemp on 10/16/2007 1:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying Windows is a ripoff but you're not really making sense comparing like that.

First of all it is not like anyone is forced to but buy every release of OS X just like I'm pretty sure not many people bought Win2000, WinXP, Win2003 and then Vista. However if you want to make a list like the one you just did then you really should have included at least Windows 2003.

Most people do not buy new operating systems for their computer. They buy a new computer and then get what is the most current operating system at the time included in the box and that is usually a pretty good way of going about it (except it wasn't in the Windows ME days just like it's not now with Vista).


RE: $129????
By SeeManRun on 10/16/2007 2:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 2003 is a server OS. I don't know anyone that runs it on a home computer.


RE: $129????
By elpresidente2075 on 10/16/2007 4:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
It does, but it's not designed with ease of use and gaming in mind. Most users would find it quite boring and difficult to use with normal home usage models.

MCE '03 and'05, on the other hand...


RE: $129????
By elpresidente2075 on 10/16/2007 4:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me, '02, '04, and '05
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default...
(note #2)


RE: $129????
By omnicronx on 10/16/2007 4:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
Speak for yourself :) I had server 03 running instead of windows xp for a while because its much more stable. There were many conversion kit faqs going around the net that showed you how to turn everything back on (video acceleration, sound, certain services etc..). To me it seemed much more stable than XP, which doesn't surprise me as Vista is based on server 2003 ;)


RE: $129????
By gospastic on 10/16/2007 2:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
If we're discussing buying new computers, then how are any of these prices even relevant? I'm comparing retail box versions of these respective operating systems.

All I'm saying is that Windows is not a whole more expensive to upgrade than OS X.

Why include 2003? It's a server OS.
I also didn't include 2000 because this comparison starts in 2001.

With regard to forcing people to get every new release of OS X, well their marketing campaigns sure make it sound as if you need to if you want the latest and greatest Apple.

BTW I don't think any of the retail prices on either side are unreasonable.


RE: $129????
By Spivonious on 10/16/2007 3:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
He may have meant Windows XP MCE.


RE: $129????
By gospastic on 10/16/2007 3:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
XP MCE is not available as a retail purchase.


RE: $129????
By elpresidente2075 on 10/16/2007 4:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
RE: $129????
By gospastic on 10/16/2007 4:20:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, are OEM and Retail the same thing?

If we bring OEM into the equation then I believe Windows is far more affordable than OS X.

But that's not the point of my original post.


RE: $129????
By BZDTemp on 10/16/2007 4:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
2003 is not just a server OS. If you're a software developer, engineer or some other workstation user it may easily be that you're running 2003 on your system.

Anyway my point is really that very few people will be buying all OS X releases just like very few people start out with one Microsoft system on their rig and then upgrade it to another one. For those that do upgrade their OS the Apple way of doing it really means more freedom of choice and also that for those which only upgrade once in a while it's cheaper than the Microsoft offer.

Now what is really expensive is running more than one platform and upgrading those :-(


RE: $129????
By mcnabney on 10/16/2007 7:04:33 PM , Rating: 3
Staying current is more like:

Windows
XP Home OEM - $89
XP SP1 - free
XP SP2 - free
Vista Premium upgrade - $159

total $248

OS X
10.0 - $129
10.1 - free if you already had 10.0
10.2 - $129
10.3 - $129
10.4 - $129
10.5 - $129

Total - $645

That would be Jobs doing the ripping, not Ballmer.


RE: $129????
By softwiz on 10/16/2007 2:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
At least the pricing scheme is simple...

If you pre-order now then you can get it for our low introductory price of only $129.

If you'd rather wait until it's officially launched, then you'll have to pay $129 instead.

Take advantage of this special offer by pre-ordering now, you won't regret it! ;)


RE: $129????
By aharris on 10/17/2007 11:13:24 AM , Rating: 2
I love it when Microsoft fanboys pretend that they know what they're talking about.

...

For the record, I'm an Microsoft cert who's been working with Microsoft OSes for 11 years. I've also been working cross-platform for the past year, and for what it's worth I actually like working with OS X much more than Windows and Microsoft technologies. :shrug:

It's too bad that some of you are so closed minded you can't quite grasp the thought that all platforms have their benefits.


RE: $129????
By chick0n on 10/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: $129????
By markymarkcirca on 10/17/2007 12:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you gotta be kidding me... I didn't spend another $129 last year, or the year before. So don't go making sh!t up just bc you're angry you don't have a mac. And I had my ibook for 2 years without once putting a penny into the OS. No viruses, no problems.. This is the first time I'll be paying for OSX to put on my MBP, can't wait!


hardware updates as well?
By tobrien on 10/16/2007 10:31:25 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone have an idea as to whether or not Apple will update the macbook pro hardware with this release also?




RE: hardware updates as well?
By Quiksel on 10/16/2007 10:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
Not likely. Apple will make sure all new macs are pre-installed with the new OS and new iLife, but don't expect hardware revisions based on the release of the new OS. Besides, they updated the MBP just a couple months ago... What's the problem with em? I dare say the 15" LED-backlit MBP I have is the nicest laptop I've ever had the pleasure of using. Where are the flaws?


RE: hardware updates as well?
By jak3676 on 10/16/2007 10:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
Underclocked and overheating video card anyone?

Overall Apple did a great job with the macbooks, but they aren't perfect and they sure aren't cheap either.


RE: hardware updates as well?
By Quiksel on 10/16/2007 11:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
better cooling on that vid card would go a long way, I'll grant you that. I did read the 17" model didn't have the underclocked GPU... whether that's because they had more room to pull it off, I'll venture a guess and say that's the reason why the 15" is the lesser clocked variant.

Now getting the 15" "overclocked" back to what it should be would certainly make an already hot topic even hotter.


RE: hardware updates as well?
By jak3676 on 10/16/2007 11:10:42 AM , Rating: 2
In Apples defense (sort of), there just aren't a lot of grafically intense programs that need more GPU power. None of the games that I would want to play are available for Apple so I guess it doesn't really matter to me. Apple does market their products to a lot of video editing folks, so they are probably the only ones really complaining.


RE: hardware updates as well?
By vortmax on 10/16/2007 12:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
Just use BootCamp for Win XP and run all your games there. Overclock with ATItool and be happy. Just don't play any games with the MBP on your lap...unless you don't want kids anytime soon...


RE: hardware updates as well?
By Quiksel on 10/16/2007 12:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
One thing to note here... a week ago, I was reading the BootCamp documentation, the Beta expires at the end of the year... i.e., unless you get 10.5 (many Mac users don't have a problem with this, but it bears mentioning), BootCamp turns to a pumpkin in a few months.

I game on a BootCamp'd XP install. Funny how WoW plays so much faster in DX9 than in OS X's OpenGL... it's almost double the framerate. Still gets just as hot, mind you, but at least it's faster!


RE: hardware updates as well?
By vortmax on 10/16/2007 12:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I've been holding out for 10.5 so I don't have to deal with the Beta expiration issues. Parallel's just isn't that good when using XP as your primary OS... :(


RE: hardware updates as well?
By calyth on 10/16/2007 2:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
That has a heck a lot more to do with the lack of need to optimize the game for OpenGL than anything particularly wrong with OSX.

Blizzard offers OpenGL for most of their games for compatibility reasons, I doubt they're trying to make a big in-road into the Mac gaming community...


RE: hardware updates as well?
By ninjit on 10/16/2007 4:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
No, Blizzard has always supported the Mac platform with their games.

Being able to install Warcraft/Starcraft on either a Mac or a PC with the same media has been their "thing" for quite a while.

The lack of speed in OpenGL on the mac is due to poor optimization of the Mac Graphic card drivers - I think they are still sourced from ATI/nVidia (as opposed to being developed by apple themselves), and it just isn't worth their time to really tweak it well.


RE: hardware updates as well?
By plinden on 10/16/2007 5:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
Bootcamp is just a partitioning tool. You don't even need it to install Windows. Once you've partitioned your Mac hard drive with Bootcamp you don't need unless you want to remove Windows and get back to a single partition.

So, your Mac won't stop booting into Windows once the beta expires (I'm not sure if that's what you think, but this is an impression that a lot of people have) - but you'll no longer be able to partition using Bootcamp with Tiger.


RE: hardware updates as well?
By kelmon on 10/16/2007 1:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
My experience of Boot Camp wasn't great. I used it for a bit but the only game that I wanted to play at the time (Dawn of War: Dark Crusade) kept crashing so I gave up with it and just played games under OS X. However, I'm going to give it another try under Leopard with Orange Box since that seems like a bargain and see if I have problems there.

Apart from the crashing under Boot Camp the other issue I had with it was that OS X is slower after a reboot since it needs to rebuild its caches again. My preference these days is to not reboot the computer unless a Software Update is released that needs it. Sounds odd if you are used to Windows but OS X actually seems to run better the longer that its running.


RE: hardware updates as well?
By aharris on 10/16/2007 4:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
The revised BootCamp is much better than current offerings. That was one of Apple's development highlights for Leopard. As for OS X running better after running for longer, I find that difficult to believe. In the Windows environment, the operating system doesn't handle reallocating memory on-the-fly well (it does it, just not well) just like it doesn't defrag on-the-fly.

OS X runs a protected memory environ that releases memory properly for the system to use once an app is finished using it. Similarly, OS X defrags on-the-fly (as of 10.3 I believe) for most users. Graphic design workstations appear to be the exception for this rule, but that's not unusual.

To be fair, from a user's perspective, all of your Keychain passwords have been keyed in after using OS X for a while, and the OS does a great job of handling system Cache causing apps to launch faster the second-time around. This may be what you're referring to when you say it seems to run better after a while.

User perception is everything afterall.


RE: hardware updates as well?
By kelmon on 10/17/2007 3:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'd agree with the with the suggestion that it is the cache management that makes OS X seem better the longer it is running once it knows which applications you use the most. Once that happens you, of course, don't see further performance improvements and you will see degradations in performance if you start using other applications until cache is sorted out for those as well. The biggest indication of this for me is running Windows XP under Parallels - performance is crap for the first few minutes while the OS is loaded. However, after that the performance hit isn't really noticeable, although I suspect that another GB of RAM wouldn't go a miss.


RE: hardware updates as well?
By kelmon on 10/16/2007 12:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
Seems unlikely. The last updates to the MacBook Pro line were pretty recent and there's nothing else much in the tech world available to upgrade to (the last revision going to the Santa Rosa chipset from Intel, for example). I'd expect an update towards the start of next year when Penryn is released for notebooks, although rumours still abound about a compact MacBook Pro. I think the current models are safe until MacWorld 2008 at least, although I have been wrong in the past.


RE: hardware updates as well?
By aharris on 10/16/2007 4:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
Look for a rev. in January to include Intel's new 45nm platform.


collective iSigh
By Screwballl on 10/16/2007 10:21:34 AM , Rating: 3
as the Mac is still such a very small part of the overall market, I am not the only one who shurgs and says "so what? Linux has had most of these options for quite awhile now."




RE: collective iSigh
By retrospooty on 10/16/2007 10:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
What is a Mac? ;)


RE: collective iSigh
By jak3676 on 10/16/2007 10:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
Apple is largly an R&D arm of Microsoft anymore.

Yes, I understand that Apple makes their own decisions. And I'm not saying this is any kind of offical relationship, just the way things are working.

A good deal of Apple's operating capital came from MS investments. It was really a win-win situation for both parties. Some of the features that catch on with 10.5 will eventually make their way into MS products.

I do agree that several of the Linux distros have had some of these features for some time, but Apple does a better job polishing them up and tieing them together. It's not like the Linux market is huge % of market share either. I love to hate on Apple as much as the next guy, but even the true MS fanboys will have to admit that apple does get somethings right.

Now if Apple would just realize that they have to open up their platforms to outsiders, they may actually capture a significant % of the market. Until then they'll always be an niche for people that want to do something different and don't want to (or can't understand) Linux.


RE: collective iSigh
By Griswold on 10/16/2007 11:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now if Apple would just realize that they have to open up their platforms to outsiders, they may actually capture a significant % of the market. Until then they'll always be an niche for people that want to do something different and don't want to (or can't understand) Linux.


You got it all wrong. They dont need to understand anything or open anything up. They're doing fine in their niche. After all, Apple is mainly a MP3 player + music store company these days. Everything is cool in AppleLand, as far as their small computer branch goes.


RE: collective iSigh
By Zandros on 10/16/2007 12:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
They are not. More than 50% of their revenue comes from their computer business.


RE: collective iSigh
By omnicronx on 10/16/2007 4:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
If not more, i remember at the ipod peak their ipod sales accounted for a little more than one third of their profits.


RE: collective iSigh
By amandahugnkiss on 10/16/2007 12:55:37 PM , Rating: 3
"Some of the features that catch on with 10.5 will eventually make their way into MS products."

I think it's the other way around, while they may have a different UI or presentation a lot of existing technologies are going to be found in Leopard. Because they'll be presented slightly different they will claimed as new. What is praised by the Mac camp is what everyone slams MS for as added bloat that no one needs.


RE: collective iSigh
By BZDTemp on 10/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: collective iSigh
By omnicronx on 10/16/2007 4:17:41 PM , Rating: 1
NewsFlash!!! Apple and Microsoft don't invent!.. they make already invented things better. I can't think of one big thing in either o/s has that was originally developed by either company.
I'm tired of hearing b.s like this:

MS stole the gui from apple: No, they both stole it from xerox

widgets are apples idea: Many 3rd part apps exist that do what both windows and osx does but they came out before.

aero or whatever apple has: nix had it before and is far ahead of both and less gpu intensive.

Apple is the king of renewing old ideas and calling them their own, MS does the same but with a little less pretending that they actually made it... They both take ideas, call it something else, and change a feature or two and call it their own. Should you really be concerned? NO! thats the way the world turns! Ideas are developed and made better over time! Deal with it!


hah
By JazzMang on 10/16/2007 10:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
"We can't wait until customers get their hands (and fingers) on it and experience what a revolutionary and magical product it is"

Magical? Are you f-ing serious? What do they put in the water in MacLand?




RE: hah
By Quiksel on 10/16/2007 10:45:29 AM , Rating: 3
as if Ballmer doesn't do the same stuff. It's PR, dude.

As tech enthusiasts, we're supposed to just have our filter on to see thru all the PR and marketing BS to what a product really is. No need to get all worked up, this is typical for a product launch.


RE: hah
By Gul Westfale on 10/16/2007 10:45:39 AM , Rating: 3
yes, magical. all apple products are magical, because they are underfeatured and underpowered, yet they cost so much. where does the money go? no one knows, it's magic!


RE: hah
By jak3676 on 10/16/2007 11:02:40 AM , Rating: 5
The money goes to marketing. For all of Apple's flaws, they have an excellent marketing team. Who else has fanboys that actually believe they are part some great counter culture because they bought a specific brand of product? I love to hate Apple for it, but I'm sure any other company out there would love to have the same team working for them.


RE: hah
By vortmax on 10/16/2007 12:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
Now THAT was funny.


RE: hah
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2007 1:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.


Revolutionary???
By imperator3733 on 10/16/2007 10:58:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"We can't wait until customers get their hands (and fingers) on it and experience what a revolutionary and magical product it is," the company continued.


How is Leopard revolutionary??? Isn't it more evolutionary? (Just like Vista is revolutionary)




RE: Revolutionary???
By vortmax on 10/16/2007 12:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly when you pass the magical 300 new features mark, it passes from evolutionary to revolutionary...didn't you get the memo?


RE: Revolutionary???
By wallijonn on 10/16/2007 1:11:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How is Leopard revolutionary???


You'd have to see one in operation (visit their website for the brochure.) Personally, I feel that it is about time that multiple desktops come to OSX, a feature that has been in Linux since almost forever, and which XP Power Toys didn't really get right.

Color me a Linux, OSX and XP fan. Vista? Forgetaboutit. I'm not impressed. Widgets were first in Linux, as were Beryl type desktops and E17 docking bars. Hopefully OSX will get it right, and they have according to the Beta I saw in operation. Even though my i875 has 2G of RAM I will not be installing Vista on it. Vista would necessitate a whole new machine, one with a PCI-E video card. No thanks, I don't feel like spending $1500 just to play the latest DX10 game. (Not that I play video games on OSX, mind you. OSX is for internet surfing where, for the most part (Sun Java is still a possibility) I don't have to worry about viruses.


RE: Revolutionary???
By Pandamonium on 10/16/2007 1:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand the benefit of virtual desktops. Maybe it's because I run 1600x1200 on a 20" display, but I run all my applications in windowed mode and just click between them. I'd rather do that than move my mouse to the lower right, switch virtual desktops, and then move it back up to my workspace.

Hell, I hate how virtual desktops are represented on the taskbar. I keep my taskbar uncluttered so that I can see all my open windows simultaneously.


RE: Revolutionary???
By BZDTemp on 10/16/2007 2:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
It all depends of what you use your computer for. I for example run 1920x1200 on my primary screen and 1600x1200 on the secondary so I don't need more space but if I had just the one screen I would use virtual desktop.

Imagine this scenario. You use your machine for mail+surf, sound editing and map making (creating the next CS hit) so you set up three screens you switch between. That way it's like you can switch mode in and instance, the one second you surf and mail, the next you use your sound tools and... you get the picture. Virtual desktops can save a lot of time switching between windows if you don't have sufficient monitor real estate.


RE: Revolutionary???
By aharris on 10/16/2007 4:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
They've implemented hot keys to fast-switch amongst your virtual desktops. You can bind Ctrl, Shift, or Command & the arrow keys OR numbers to jump to a specific workspace; the virtual desktops are cake to navigate like this.


RE: Revolutionary???
By peritusONE on 10/16/2007 1:49:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Even though my i875 has 2G of RAM I will not be installing Vista on it. Vista would necessitate a whole new machine, one with a PCI-E video card. No thanks, I don't feel like spending $1500 just to play the latest DX10 game.

Yet more fud about Vista. Vista would not necessitate an entirely new machine in your case. And you do not need a new computer with a PCI-E video card for Vista, you only need a cheap 64MB or 128MB AGP video card to run aero. Since aero is rendered via vector, it's faster than the XP raster style of old.

It's fine not to like Vista, but don't blame your dislike of it because you have to upgrade your video card to play games. That's completely unrelated to the OS.


Green with envy?
By Bonrock on 10/16/2007 11:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
Why would paying $129 for a copy of Mac OS 10.5 make me green with envy when I can get a full OEM copy of Windows Vista Home Premium from Newegg.com for $112?




RE: Green with envy?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/16/2007 11:31:59 AM , Rating: 2
IIRC, OS X v10.5 comes in one version. So for that $129 price, you've got it all.

If you want to get everything that Vista offers, you have to buy Vista Ultimate.

Vista OEM costs $169 on Newegg.


RE: Green with envy?
By Truxy on 10/16/2007 11:51:45 AM , Rating: 2
But what about if you compare OS X v10.5 with an equally functional Vista version? I guess it's a comparison that can't really be made since the operating systems are too different.

Vista Home Premium, AFAIK, can do everything that the new OS X v10.5 can (save for the Mac specific toys), for $112 on Newegg.

Not shooting down OS X, just saying that I don't think many tech's are going to envy the price.

That 5 pack is one helluva deal though... M$ can't touch that.


RE: Green with envy?
By CU on 10/16/2007 12:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
There is usually a OS X Server version also, so it does not come with everything.


RE: Green with envy?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/16/2007 12:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
It comes with everything that a consumer OS would need. If you want server stuff on Windows, you have Windows Server 2003 or Windows Server 2008.

It's not like Vista is gonna help you out there.


RE: Green with envy?
By CU on 10/16/2007 12:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well what the consumer needs is up for debate that is one reason MS offer so many version of Vista. Why get the coolest version if you just need to check your email.


RE: Green with envy?
By crystal clear on 10/17/2007 6:27:41 AM , Rating: 1
Apple Announces Mac OS X Server Leopard

CUPERTINO, California—October 16, 2007—Apple® today announced that Mac OS® X Server version 10.5 Leopard will go on sale on Friday, October 26, at the same time as Mac OS X Leopard. Leopard Server extends Apple’s legendary ease of use, making it even easier to take advantage of the benefits of a server, and introduces Podcast Producer, the ideal way to automatically publish podcasts to iTunes® or the web. Leopard Server packs more than 250 new features including Wiki Server, allowing people to collaboratively create and modify their shared web sites with just a few clicks; and iCal® Server, the world’s first commercial CalDAV standard-based calendar server.



http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/16leopards...


RE: Green with envy?
By chick0n on 10/16/07, Rating: -1
By darkpaw on 10/16/2007 10:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
I'm definitley not an Apple fan (can't stand em) and don't know anyone that has 5 Apples to even run leopard on. However, I think MS really needs to offer 5 license packs on upgrade copies. A lot of people with multiple homebuilt systems won't be buying new copies of Windows for each of them. They will either pirate or just stick with the old.




By kattanna on 10/16/2007 10:58:01 AM , Rating: 2
agree. long has it been since there was really only 1 computer in the average computer household.

and the price of the 5 pack is very nice.


By tdawg on 10/16/2007 10:59:15 AM , Rating: 4
If OS X could be installed on any computer that you or I may build, I guarantee that OS X versions would be priced much higher than $129. The fact that you have to buy Apple hardware to run an Apple OS means that Apple can subsidize the price of the OS with hardware sale prices.

The other point is that a new Apple OS comes out every year or two, versus the larger timespan between Windows releases, so year-over-year pricing for the two OS's may be a wash.


By Zandros on 10/16/2007 12:24:20 PM , Rating: 1
Allegedly, the Apple OS division is capable of standing on its own legs. Are you making excuses for MS's price gouging?


By amandahugnkiss on 10/16/2007 1:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think you may have been elluding to this point as well but I wanted to make it obvious. The development and testing effort of a controlled platform also makes every related cost: time, money, number of engineers, etc... far less. Less investment required to build a product can mean a cheaper cost for the consumer.


"installs easily"
By AraH on 10/16/2007 11:25:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
installs easily


you know, I've been trying to install this on my custom built computer, as hard as i try, it JUST WON'T INSTALL!!!

/sarcasm
//POS




RE: "installs easily"
By CU on 10/16/2007 12:03:19 PM , Rating: 3
Actually thats a good point. Anything installs easily if you control the hardware and software.


Ordered
By kelmon on 10/16/2007 1:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
I've been waiting for this for a while since the new developer tools look to be worth the price of admission by themselves (hmmm...Objective-C 2.0...*dribbles*). However, I'm going to be very interested to see how well this runs on my MacBook Pro to see if the proposed optimisations for multicore processors and Intel will yield significant improvements in performance.

The Family Pack is an absolute bargain so I've gone for that since we've got 3 Macs in our family and Family Pack is cheaper than just 2 normal licenses. Mind you, it's a shame that I'm no longer at university since those education discounts were nice for Panther and Tiger.




RE: Ordered
By mmntech on 10/16/2007 1:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ordered mine as well. $129 is a bargain for an OS these days considering that's how much we were paying for just an upgrade edition of Vista Home Premium. Darn, I forgot about the University Discount. Oh well, it's not that much. I think I only got $50 off my laptop, which was eaten up by sales taxes.

I'm curious to know how well it's going to perform on PowerPC. Apply says 800mhz (rounded because I can't remember the exact number) and above PowerPC G4 processors will run Leopard. I'll probably up my ram to 1-1.5gb for better performance.


RE: Ordered
By kelmon on 10/16/2007 3:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
Performance on an old G4 is something that I'll have the opportunity to test. When I upgraded to the MacBook Pro it was from a G4 1GHz (i.e. barely Leopard-legal) PowerBook. I'll be upgrading that one as well so it'll be interesting to see how well it copes with new cat, although I'm not holding out too much hope. Panther was the fastest release on that laptop but you never know since I believe that the same development team who did such a good job on Panther are also responsible for Leopard. Mind you, that might just be Internet hearsay as well...


stung again
By otispunkmeyer on 10/16/2007 2:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
$129 for you
£85 for me

UK pays more yet again.




RE: stung again
By kelmon on 10/17/2007 3:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, cry me a river. Look, I'm a UK national currently living in Belgium and the motherland seriously needs to get off this "Rip off Britain" nonsense. Yes, it's more expensive than the US (where isn't since the $ plunged?) but then it's cheaper than Europe due to lower VAT (Belgium, for example, is 21% vs. your 17.5%). Leopard costs me £90 (or EUR 129) and £139 for the Family Pack (a mere £129 in the UK Apple Store). Just be glad you get UK prices rather than Continental Europe prices, particularly next time you buy car insurance (mine was EUR 2,000 for a normal Ford Focus).

Honestly, I can't believe how whiney the UK is these days.


FINALLY!!
By mmntech on 10/16/2007 10:49:57 AM , Rating: 2
I've been waiting for Leopard for a while, ever since they delayed it for the iPhone. Hopefully it will run fine on my 1.33ghz iBook G4. Looks like I'm within the requirements.




By 3kliksphilip on 10/16/2007 12:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B00009XDCE.02... ?

The game wasted months of my life. I wonder if Apple can do the same.




Caution
By crystal clear on 10/17/2007 6:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"We can't wait until customers get their hands (and fingers) on it and experience what a revolutionary and magical product it is," the company continued.


Leave that to the customers to decide-

what a revolutionary and magical product it is,"

There could be no better judge than the customer to -

to endorse the validity of these claims.

This comment on another thread would best describe ...

By Hulk on 10/11/2007 11:40:57 AM , Rating: 3

In this age of superlatives I think it would be a refreshing change for a manufacturer to be a little conservative in thier claims and actually surpass them for once. Perhaps they just should have said they expect "significant" performance improvements with this next driver release.

I guess I'd just like a dose of reality back in the computing hardware/software world.


"a dose of reality back in the computing hardware/software world."

Yes thats the dose of wisdom for Apple.

Yes this below "the dose of caution" for Apple.

"Shoot Em Up" & you are shot down .

Yes those security software guys will soon find the flaws,vunerabilities,etc in the OS & publish it & ofcourse all the web sites will spread the word.

Remember the Safari browser that Apple claimed -

Apple engineers designed Safari to be secure from day one.

(quoted from the safari browser site-Apple)
One day later it was not true anymore.

Then come the hackers who will relish opening up the OS & post their claims/achievements on those site & ofcourse all the web sites will spread the word.

Then come Anandtech who will review it & publish its findings(conclusions) with the pros & cons of the OS.

Then other websites will also follow & do the same & give its ratings.

By then we will all know whats revolutionary & magical if there is anything worth the mention.

Good luck.




time for apple users to turn green
By Pirks on 10/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: time for apple users to turn green
By mcnabney on 10/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: time for apple users to turn green
By Pirks on 10/17/2007 2:57:21 PM , Rating: 1
At least I can measure a ratio of mac fanatics vs normal people here, by looking at my post rating. So far mac fanatics prevail since my post rating is pretty close to -1


RE: time for apple users to turn green
By aliasfox on 10/18/2007 12:30:59 AM , Rating: 1
Sure, I'll take the flame bait. You might not think the difference between a 1.6 GHz Core Duo and a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo is all that much, but I'm sure Intel thinks there's a difference and prices the two accordingly. I wouldn't be surprised if much of the price difference between your 17" Dell and the 13" MacBook comes from that alone - even without Apple (or anyone else) taking a profit. I would like the option of some sort of discreet graphics on the MacBook though. Anything at all?

Taken purely on a *cost* level, Apple will never be the leader. Taken on a *value* level, it's the right option for a lot of people - people who want something sleek, with built in firewire, bluetooth, and a suite of entry level multimedia software out of the box. Not to mention that some of the touches on the computer and the UI are simply nice - for example, the MacBook has a latchless design, so there's nothing to snap off. Hitting F11 will minimize all windows and show you the desktop instantaneously, or "pop open" folders - I use Windows 8+ hours a day 5 days a week and I know there are workarounds or different ways of doing things, but sometimes, F11 just feels so much easier and quicker than Windows Key - M. And OSX handles external/second monitors so much better than Windows does.

As for the people adding up the cost of upgrading the OS every year or two - are these the same people who're arguing, before Vista's release, that XP was getting long in the tooth and desperately needed a feature/security/UI update? The last time I checked, nobody *forced* Mac users to upgrade from 10.0 through 10.4 every step of the way. In fact, if I hadn't been working on behalf of Apple at the time, I may have skipped out on 10.4 - 10.3 is still current. I'd rather have the option of paying for new features/updates than not having them at all. I thought the PC world was all about options and choice... so as soon as Apple gives its users the option to upgrade, the community here bitches and moans.

Marketing? Every company does it. Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Sun, Adobe, Bungie... etc are NOT going to come out and say "Hey! Buy our product! We guarantee we'll make more money than you do!" Nobody's going to say "Hey, our new product is a slight incremental update over our last product, which was only a slight incremental update over the previous one, so if you bought those you're a fool." Buy lots of pinches of salt. Get over it.

I would like Apple to make a cheaper (not necessarily cheap) tower, readily available drivers for a greater array of graphics cards, and another semi-subnotebook (like the lamented 12" PowerBook - mine's nearly 5 yrs old, going strong, and right under my fingertips right now). Too bad they're not focusing on what I want. I'm willing to pay for what I perceive is elegance and perhaps quality, just waiting for Apple to get around to what I want.


RE: time for apple users to turn green
By Pirks on 10/18/2007 10:10:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
people who want something sleek
MacBook (not Pro) is not sleek in any way. It's rather big and heavy, not much better than any other Wintel notebook.
quote:
feels so much easier and quicker than Windows Key - M
Try Win-D
quote:
OSX handles external/second monitors so much better than Windows does
Elaborate please, what exactly is better in OS X handling of the second monitor?


RE: time for apple users to turn green
By aliasfox on 10/20/2007 2:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
i'd say a latchless design with no protruding edges is a pretty good plus for the macbook, in my opinion.

what's different about win-D over win-M?

windows doesn't seem to automatically register when an external monitor is unplugged - when i unplug my external from my powerbook at home, my powerbook screen resets itself so that all of my windows appear on the internal screen, and my cursor doesn't slide off the side. with my hp/compaq that work gave me (an nx6400 or something like that), i can unplug the external, and windows will still think that the monitor's attached until you go into the settings and have it reset itself. when i go back to the same monitor and plug it back in, windows doesn't seem to recognize the fact that the monitor's plugged in until i press the video out button on the keyboard - which is fine, but i have to go back and reset it so that it extends my desktop instead of mirroring off the internal display. my powerbook, on the other hand, will go back to the same settings i had it at originally before i unplugged it from the monitor (without having to go into settings).

this may be my lack of familiarity with windows, but none of my coworkers that i've asked seemed to know anything about how to get windows to automatically sense when the monitor's plugged in/unplugged.

oh, and i'm also not fond of how the compaq by default, just shuts down when the battery runs out - i guess some people might like that as an option, but i'd highly prefer the default setting letting the computer go into hibernation with 3-5% battery power remaining so I don't lose anything that I'm working on.


RE: time for apple users to turn green
By Pirks on 10/22/2007 5:31:50 PM , Rating: 1
No protruding edges - sounds like you're describing my Dell Vostro 1700.

Try to press Win-D several times in a row, then press Win-M several times as well. Can you see any difference?

Somewhere in the power saving options in Windows there's a setting what to do when battery is about to die. Learn Windows before starting to complain.

I'll try plugging second monitor in my Vostro later tonight. I keep two monitors always connected to my PC desktop tho, hence I haven't seen anyting like you're describing.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Related Articles
Apple Delays OS X 10.5, Blames iPhone
April 13, 2007, 11:00 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki