Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Leopard as the New Vista?

Posted by Zonk on Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:12 PM
from the angry-apple-man-scares-me dept.
ninja_assault_kitten writes "There's an interesting rant from Oliver Rist up on the PC Magazine site. He compares the catastrophe that is Vista to the recently released OS X Leopard. While clearly one is a lion and the other a cub, there do appear to be some frustrating similarities. From the article: 'A month of using Leopard with the same software I had under Tiger and the OS has dumped six times. That's six cold reboots for Oliver. Apple isn't even honest enough to admit that Leopard is crashing: The OS just grays out my desktop and pops up a dialog box telling me I've got to reboot. Like the whole thing is my fault. I even snapped a picture of it. After all, I HAD PLENTY OF CHANCES!'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Another Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alexx K (1167919) <alexkenny08.gmail@com> on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:19PM (#21527841)

    I am blind and use a screen reader, and I find Leopard's screen reader, Voiceover, will randomly freeze for a couple of seconds when browsing web pages. It is extremely annoying, but not as annoying as the extremely clunky keyboard interface. Hardly anything is automatically read, you have to use the shitty keyboard interface to find everything.

    Like Microsoft, Apple claims their half-assed screen reader has improved. Like Microsoft, they've hardly done anything.

    NOTE: I don't actually own a Mac, but I have an Apple fanboy friend who owns a Macbook with Leopard.

    • by jellomizer (103300) * on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:36PM (#21527973)
      My experience I find that Most blind users prefer Linux, or other form of Unix which allows a good command line interface. I am not sure why Apple or Microsoft even really try I can only imagine a windowed interface to be extremely clumsy for a blind user. Even with speech interface.
      • by Alexx K (1167919) <alexkenny08.gmail@com> on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:46PM (#21528053)

        Well, so did Microsoft. The thing is, to a blind person, it's not all about the sound of the voice.

        These so-called naturall-sounding voices, well, they dont' sound natural to me. They are filled with digital artifacts, and the inflection is all wrong.

        But the biggest disadvantage of these voices is that they break down at high speeds. The more robotic voices, although they don't at all have human intonations, have superior pronounciation, understandability, and I can understand them as high as 400 WPM. You can't do that with the human-sounding voices, if they will even let you go that high (Most have a low speed threshold).

  • Not a problem here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by skingers6894 (816110) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:21PM (#21527851)
    Upgraded from Tiger - in place upgrade.

    Not a single crash.

    Upgraded to 10.5.1 - still all good.

    But I'm just one guy - and come to think of it - so is this guy.
  • by Solra Bizna (716281) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:22PM (#21527857) Homepage Journal

    I have been using Leopard since 12 hours before it was officially released. I have had two kernel panics. Both panics were my fault. (As in I explicitly loaded a kernel extension that caused the crash. Both times.)

    Three or four of my friends have been using Leopard since it came out and have had no crashes at all.

    My whole family's been on Leopard since it came out and has also had no crashes at all.

    Clearly, LEOPARD HATES YOU!

    -:sigma.SB

  • by atari2600 (545988) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:22PM (#21527859)
    I was amused and delighted by the article (given my dislike for fanbois and Mac fanbois in general) but i stopped at the following part in the article:

    XP Pro pre-SP1 crashed all the time, and Microsoft owned up to it--mostly. XP Pro post-SP2 crashed once in a while, and we sighed and kept working while Microsoft looked embarrassed and yelled at someone to work faster on SP3

    Now (at work) i have 4 Linux boxes, 1 Solaris workstation and a windows XP machine that i no longer use actively (keep it around for compatibility tests). However i've used XP since it came out in 2000. It didn't crash always pre-SP1, it didn't crash frequently post XP-SP1 and after XP SP2, i've had the box be up for 180 days before i had to power it down for a memory upgrade and then the box was up for 328 days before i moved offices. I am all for Vista bashing - i am all for Mac bashing and once in a while Linux as a desktop smacking but that section above there makes him lose all credibility.

    All i can tell him is L2UseAComputer, tard. Mod me down but you know there's truth in this post.
    • by Phat_Tony (661117) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:52PM (#21528121) Homepage
      I see. Because you had a computer running the very same operating system that this guy was running, and your computer didn't crash, then you know that there's something wrong with him personally, or he's lying, if he said his computer did crash.

      When I upgrade to Leopard, if it doesn't crash, then I'll know this guy is a loser, because us 1337 Slashdot users know that there couldn't be any differences in the hardware or software or use that could cause one computer to crash and another to be stable when they're both running the same operating system.
    • by KingOfBLASH (620432) on Friday November 30 2007, @12:11AM (#21528265) Journal
      All operating systems crash.

      Let me repeat: ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS CRASH

      It all depends on what you're doing.

      Got a fresh install of Windows ME that you only use to play spider solitaire, and that isn't connected to the internet?

      Crash free.

      Got a not so fresh install of Linux / BSD / Solaris where root has done something really stupid?

      Crash prone (and possibly unrecoverable if it's REALLY stupid).

      Anything in between is going to be based on what you're doing.

      Install the wrong drivers / kernel modules / other software that accesses hardware and you'll make any operating system crash prone.

      And since you have many Linux boxen and an crash-free windows box, it's safe to assume you're a power user.

      So, you don't count!

      You probably know what you're doing, and don't do anything stupid.

      The real test is how often does an inexperienced user's computer crash? And, if we gave the author of this article a PC with Windows on it, would it eventually crash more or less? And, since other people don't seem to have this problem, what is causing the crashes (he might be blaming Apple for the work of a bad board for example).

  • as an apple user... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by datapharmer (1099455) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:24PM (#21527885) Homepage
    I concur. Leopard has SERIOUS problems. It is more than a "point upgrade"as the author states and has some nice new features and enhancements, but firewall breaks all sorts of things abd is as annoying as the Vista mother-may-I prompts giving warnings even after applications have been placed on the white list. DHCP doesn't acquire addresses properly and firewall must be disabled, airport turned off then back on for it to work again.

    I've had 2 kernel panics in 2 days (I never experienced a kernel panic under tiger). I have also had the OS go unstable and Finder et al will crash randomly until restart. Final Cut Pro 6.0 crashes all the time doing things as simple moving the timeline. Spotlight crashes and reloads while doing searches sometimes.

    Disk Utility can't repair disk permissions or recognizes them as incorrect when they are not (not sure which).

    Java is completely screwed! No java 6 yet and javascript commands in safari do bizarre things sometimes like launching outside applications such as finder instead of doing what they are intended to do within the application!

    Apple has some serious work to do if they want to keep Leopard installed on users' machines - and they had better do it fast!
    • by CatOne (655161) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:56PM (#21528159)
      Okay, so to address your points in order:

      * Yes, Leopard *is* more than a point upgrade. It's a major upgrade. Don't get caught up on the numbering... there are BIG changes under the hood between 10.4 and 10.5. As there were between 10.4 and 10.3. A "point" upgrade is 10.4.3 to 10.4.4. I don't have any crashes with Spotlight but I haven't installed FC Studio 6 yet. Even if I did, I couldn't give it a fair shake as I'm not a video editor.

      * The GUI for the Firewall is totally different than it was in Tiger. And it's really confusing. What's goofy is the Firewall GUI in Leopard is for the *application* firewall, which is completely new, and which does some stuff based on application signatures. It has no control whatsoever on the ports-based firewall, IPFW. IPFW still actually exists and be configured using ipfw rules if you're so inclined (it's straightforward, but non-trivial for those who aren't command-line fans and who don't want to learn about ports, port state, in/out, and UDP versus TCP). This change is very poorly documented. IMO you should leave the firewall GUI off for now.

      * Disk Utilitiy can and does repair permissions. There are a couple applications and things it's not fixing right now, but this is a very small percentage (probably 0.5%) of things. And it's really not much to worry about. The silly thing is that Mac users have come to see "Repair Permissions" as a magic bullet and it's really not. It doesn't fix all that many things, but this is a case of religion (or voodoo).

      * Java isn't screwed, but true you're limited to Java 5 (er, 1.5) for now. How many things do you do which are actually Java 6 only commands? Most apps I use still use 1.3 and *maybe* 1.4.

      Sure, there are bugs. Sure, it's not perfect. But it's 10.5.1. These things take some time, as the betas are tested by tens of thousands, and the GMs are used by millions (soon enough, tens of millions). They'll get fixed, but if you aren't prepared for a couple inconveniences it's ill advised to upgrade to an OS in the first few days or even weeks of its release. It's called "the bleeding edge" for a reason.

      Also perhaps you didn't install 10.4.0. It had similar issues.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:29PM (#21527911)
    And it never cras
  • by mosch (204) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:52PM (#21528125) Homepage
    In my experience nearly everybody who complains about Leopard being unstable is running some sort of unsanity app (or the logitech drivers). Nobody else really has a problem.

    As for the rest of his article, it seems pretty bullshit to me.

    Vista Similarity #1: He claims that it's unstable. Most people disagree, a small but extremely vocal group agrees.

    Vista Similarity #2: He whines about graphics overload, but then references things that work on even ancient low-end Macs with shitty graphic cards, and claims that everybody is showing them off. I don't think they are.

    Vista Similarity #3: He tries to draw equivalence between putting basic network settings three menus deep and Apple deciding that if the dock is on the bottom, that it should have a subtle reflection. Then he complains Apple's new "Cover Flow" is good enough for him, and thus Quick Look was unnecessary. Perhaps he could try not using it, then. To each their own, y'know.

    Vista Similarity #4: He claims that Leopard drops packets and loses connections. I have a bunch of Leopard machines on both wired and wireless networks and have seen absolutely no evidence that this is true. He also claims that SMB shares come and go. Again, I'm on networks with SMB shares and have seen absolutely no evidence that this is true.

    Vista Similarity #5: He tries to claim that time machine is awful, because it does file-level, not block-level incrementals, it doesn't work on network shares by default, and it defaults to backing up the whole system. Time Machine could use improvement, but it's useful and it will get a *lot* of people backing up their machines for the first time in forever.

    Honestly, #5 is the only complaint that has any air of authenticity to me (I've had similar complaints), but it's not like it's a horrific detriment.

    There are two options here:
    Option 1) This is Ziff-Davis MSFT flamebait.
    Option 2) The author of the piece is an idiotic fuck who screwed up his install.

    My money is on Both.
  • Quicktime 7.3 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by localman (111171) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:59PM (#21528183) Homepage
    I don't know about Tiger (haven't upgraded yet) but the recent Quicktime 7.3 update is a pile of crap.

    I'm not a power user, and I really just use Quicktime for porn, but it definitely took a major step backwards in this release: the select/copy/paste functionality has been removed from most movie types. Also the A/V controls (brightness, contrast) no longer work on many formats. These were things that _worked_ in 7.2 and have been _disabled_ in 7.3. I don't know what they're trying to do, but it seems like they're trying to make Quicktime completely useless. Those little features were the only reason I used Quicktime at all (instead of VLC, for example).

    Poking around online to try and find a downgrade path, I found that a lot of Final Cut users were totally screwed by this update as well. And the downgrade path is to reinstall the OS from scratch and selectively update around Quicktime 7.3.

    Meh... Apple is doing a lot of things right. And they're doing a lot of things wrong. I'd like to see them understand which is which, and hold on to the right things and work on improving the wrong things. Is that really too much to ask?

    Bugs and such I understand, but who the hell thinks it's a good idea to disable existing functionality?

    Cheers.
  • panic.log (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sockonafish (228678) on Friday November 30 2007, @12:10AM (#21528261)
    This guy needs to post his kernel panic log. I'm curious to see what's causing so many panic events.
  • Worthless chatter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rueger (210566) on Friday November 30 2007, @12:36AM (#21528497) Homepage
    One thing I'll say for Windows users - if you say you have a problem, someone will always pop up and say "Yeah, me too, and this is how to fix it."

    Linux geeks still tend too much to attack the newcomer, or shout "Read the friggin' man pages!" Still as a community they are maturing and learning to help people rather than flame them.

    Make a complaint about an Apple product though and you run headlong into a wall of denial a mile high, with everyone either claiming that your problem does not exist, that you're an idiot when you point out some of the more bizarre UI choices Apple makes, or most frighteningly, arguing that any deficiency, no matter how severe, is somehow actually a wonderful feature.

    I think that Apple users are doing themselves a disservice by not holding Apple to a higher standard. By pretending that hardware or software issues don't exist, and by attempting to shut down those who raise legitimate complaints, they allow Apple far too much latitude to do the same.

    This will of course be modded as troll or flamebait by the first fanboy who reads it.
    • by G Fab (1142219) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:21PM (#21527853)
      While yeah, there are a ton of Apple fans out there that can take a bit too much pride in their machines, the fact is that this is somewhat unusual.

      I've seen tons of mac laptops with cosmetic damage, but it's pretty rare that the operating system on a new mac is unreliable.

      If this report represents a widespread issue, that's significant. And partly because macs are supposed to work without any problems. And frankly, there's no excuse for them not to. It's like that Halo 3 and the XBOX 360 lawsuit... it's all Microsoft, so there's no excuse for failure.

      With my thinkpad, there are parts from several vendors interoperating and dealing with windows and ubuntu and even my playstation when I stream movies on TVersity.

      With a mac, it's all Apple, all the time, so the operating system programmer has far less work to do... at least in my mind. Apple has a very interesting business model that ought to be reliable and usually is, so I think this incident somewhat shows why apple fans are so cocky (I'll stick with my thinkpad).
      • I think the current releases from three OS vendors suck right now: Vista, Leopard, and Gutsy. Being a full-time Gutsy user, I'm particularly hurt by that one, but not surprised. I said several times before it was released that it was going to suck more than Feisty, and it did. Canonical was trying to get everything unstable into Gutsy so that the bugs could be worked out for the long-term release. Wireless is broken (again) for many people on the same hardware that worked since Dapper. Enabling Compiz by default was a big mistake. Firefox is less stable. MEh.

        At least Canonical has a reason for it to suck though: Microsoft and Apple intended to put out decent operating systems.

        For the people I know:
        • Vista owners are installing XP,
        • Gutsy owners are installing Feisty, and now, apparently
        • Leopard owners are rolling back to Tiger.
        It's a fucking banner year for the OS. I hope 2008 is better.
      • by Simon Carr (1788) <slashdot.org@simoncarr.com> on Friday November 30 2007, @12:12AM (#21528275) Homepage
        I actually am one of those fanboys and I've gotta admit I'm very surprised by the number of issues that have come up with this release. These aren't small issues either. From the perspective of a sysadmin;

        - X is hosed.
        - Finder takes up large amounts of CPU at odd, mainly inconvenient times.
        - It's much less graceful than 10.4, even in Tiger's early releases.
        - There have been more than one borked upgrade that I've been witness to, which is brand new to me.
        - First day of use I nearly lost my keychain, and it's still not 100% right.
        - The new tmp layout broke a few key native OS X apps (Cyberduck, but the dev of Cyberduck was quick on the fix!)
        - Weird arbitrary menu re-shuffling that seems out of the norm for Apple's usually anal layout and design philosophy (WTF is going on in the Network Prefs? It's been simple and straightforward since OS 8, and now it's like a circus).
        - Longer and more frequent pauses in this release. I'm sensitive to the difference between perceptually slow and really, truly slow, and these are truly slow pauses.

        There IS good of course, some of the new features I actually dismissed turn out to be awesome, like, not willing to downgrade back to 10.4 awesome, so I'm going to tough it out. But if I had to turn back time I'd wait until some time next year to order my copy.

        As it is now I jumped the gun on ordering and I upgraded a bunch of clients to 10.5, to my present dismay (including my wife). Basically I bought on the good feelings I had towards 10.4.8-> and this release hasn't lived up to that standard.

        So it's not that Apple is never bad, but what is new is the WAY that this is bad.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:24PM (#21527877)

      is whether Apple will fix most of the issues with 10.5.1 and how long it will be until that's released as compared to Vista, and how long it will take MS to "fix" it.
      http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/macosx1051update.html [apple.com]
    • by stuff-n-things (89988) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:29PM (#21527905) Homepage
      10.5.1 is out and it only fixed some of the issues I've had. I've found using OnyX to delete all caches (including the system cache) has helped, as in it's been 2 days since and hasn't crashed. But Leopard wasn't crashing every day or two, so only time will tell.

      One thing I have noticed, the Intel systems I use crash (and have other bugs), but the PowerPC systems I have (including one at the very low end of Leopard supported systems) are stable. That was also reflected in the size of the 10.5.1 updates--the Intel update was over 150MB and the PowerPC update was about 35MB (IIRC the numbers, of course).
    • Re:Obvious (Score:5, Funny)

      by ludomancer (921940) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:56PM (#21528153)
      Wow man! You're just like me! I never thought I'd find another Win98SE user out there!

      • Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)

        by McFadden (809368) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:44PM (#21528041) Homepage

        Vista release: Jan. 30, 2007. Vista SP1 release date: ... uh, you can get the beta.
        Leopard (10.5) release: Oct. 26, 2007. Leopard 10.5.1 release date: Nov. 15, 2007.
        but don't compare Apples to ... well, whatever.
        Well at least you're own advice and not comparing apples to whatever...

        Apple incremental 10.5.x updates aren't even in the same ballpark as Microsoft service packs. 10.5.1 is more easily compared to Windows update or patch Tuesday when Microsoft roll out a bunch of changes. And as someone who uses Vista and Leopard (dual boot Mac Pro) I can assure you the Vista updates have been coming just as thick and fast. I have no allegiance to Bill or Steve, and I'm a reasonably satisfied customer of both their products (Vista isn't nearly bad as most people who've never even used it would have you believe), but if you want to mindlessly bash Microsoft, at least make sure you're not basing your argument on a complete fallacy.
    • by bigstrat2003 (1058574) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:47PM (#21528071)
      To all of the things you mentioned, the key word is yet. If Leopard is going to do as poorly as Vista (I don't use Macs, I can make no value judgement of it one way or the other), it's had nowhere near as long to build up an image of suck in people's minds. You're being unreasonable in saying that Leopard's lack of backlash proves a damn thing... there hasn't been enough time for any sort of real backlash to build up.

      For the record, as long as I'm at it, I can just as easily say that people's Vista problems are specific to their machines, because I use Vista, and it runs like a dream. Stable, runs all my apps/games (except KOTOR) properly... nothing more to ask, really. And no, it doesn't run slower than Windows XP. There are other very satisfied Vista users, they've even posted on slashdot. So clearly, the people who are having problems are just having issues with their specific computers.