| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Did Leopard Rush to Make the Holiday Vista Missed? | |
|
||
| Time: 17:39 EST/22:39 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Watch | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
I've been testing Mac OS X 10.5 on three Macs, one a MacBook Pro, all with Intel processors. There's something about Leopard that feels unfinished, like it left the den before reaching full maturity. On Saturday, I installed Leopard as upgrades on the three computers, and glitches have occurred on them all. I chose the upgrade option, rather than a clean install, as that's what I expect typical buyers to do. The number of hiccups—and program crashes—is surprising for a Mac operating system. There are plenty of application incompatibilities, too. For example, Adobe has acknowledged compatibility problems between Lightroom 1.2 and Leopard; an update is expected in a few weeks. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:31:39 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 26048 (12.180.14.185) at 11/2/2007 8:32:35 AM |
|
I, also, tried the upgrade route and ran into glitches. So I did a clean install and all is well.
My thought, now, is that I had quite a few little things that were incompatible with 10.5, but they remained installed on the first go round. With the clean install they are gone and as I go to the sites to get new copies, I am told they are not yet compatible with 10.5. You can still download and install most of them, but then you have glitches. This stuff always happens with new OSes. Some developers wait to the last minute to adapt their products to the new OS. What a PITA. |
| #2 By 58312 (12.31.17.65) at 11/2/2007 8:52:31 AM |
|
>Some developers wait to the last minute to adapt their products to the new OS. What a PITA
Sorry, but Apple didn't release the OS X (GM/RTM) image to developers until AFTER 7pm 10/26/07. Complain to Apple, not to the 3rd-party app developers. At least Microsoft's MSDN program does it right. I'm both a member of MSDN & the Apple Developer program and hands down Microsoft wins. Overall I was pretty disappointed in Leopard after installing the release. Very little has changed. All the hype....all for nothing. |
| #3 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 11/2/2007 9:00:43 AM |
|
#1, Just wait - it'll get both better and worse... OS X, like Vista, Will mature quickly - especially since Apple has comparably few variables to consider - but it will also get worse as time goes on - as new operating systems emerge and become more complex, small dev houses will find it hard to keep shipping new versions in a timely manner - similarly, the number of houses will decrease - it is juts so expensive to get products shipped. Kind of sad... there is compression at the bottom at the same time there is so much pressure from above. There will be fewer houses and less choice and increasingly, people will get most of what they use from a very few manufacturers. That's the nature of it. I saw it with cars. Beautiful designs - stuff to dream about - in short order, all the name plates were bought up. GM did it, Ford did it - they all did. Same was true of airlines. There was so much independence and then none.
Ironically, "standards" and "government" [regulation and oversight] contributed to exactly the opposite to what they held out they wished to do - namely foster competition, while ensuring things like safety were adhered to. Things find a balance, but it always centers on the smaller being drawn into the larger - economic mass. Most ironically, the perception of a lifestyle that Apple sells, isn't about choice - it is about convenience, really. While there are fewer choices - people surrender them, because of what is baked in is good enough. When "good enough" can be sold as, "great" count on people convincing themselves that surrendering choices and options to the opinions of others, is a good and wise thing to do. The less a person has to do, or invest, the more likely they are to go along. Heck, MS is doing the exact same thing in the "total enterprise" - the great fusion between servers and clients - it's easier - fewer choices to be made. To me that is not innovative - not enough in any case and expecting them to come into the channel in a big way is what we are preparing for. It's going to be interesting as our convictions and values are tested. Those who have been reading and understanding what I write will already know what we'll be doing and it isn't going to be following the masses. |
| #4 By 32313 (208.131.186.18) at 11/2/2007 9:39:22 AM |
|
Lloyd, its interesting that you say OS X will become more complex. OS X in my opinion from a developer standpoint has always been complex and its one of the things you have to praise Apple for. In a way, they have really crossed a hurdle over the complexity bridge by transitioning from OS 9. Microsoft themselves have done this by merging the stability of Windows 2000 with ease of use of Windows 9x to form the releases XP and Vista that came after.
So, I believe both platforms have basically overcome a lot of problems that plagued their future and it should be more now about innovating. Windows Vista and OS X are both very componentized which reduces a lot of dependencies within the OS, so its much easier for both Company's to easily bring new releases to market without dangerously affecting the code base. Apple has also proven how portable OS X actually is although it has been compiled for Intel most of its developmental life. But porting 88 million lines of code from architecture to another is no easy feat, so I definitely commend Apple for that and it shows that the OS itself is manageable for the Company to some degree. Steve Jobs himself the other day said that the release of Leopard promises to make it easier for the Company to bring new releases of OS X to market every 12 to 18 months for the next 10 to 15 years. Jim Allchin said that Vista will be the platform that defines Windows for the next 10 to 15 years. So it is very much a case of just innovating on forward not the complexity of the code base or stabilizing it for this or that. Those days are long gone with Mac OS Classic and Windows 9x. |
| #5 By 2960 (68.100.247.204) at 11/2/2007 9:46:07 AM |
|
#2,
Doesn't matter. Developers always wait until the last minute. Just look at the compatibility issues Vista is facing. Vista was released 10 months ago. Logitech JUST released a Vista driver for my fairly high-end Logitech G25 Racing wheel. That's a simple input device driver. 10 Months. For a .01 update. TL |
| #6 By 2960 (68.100.247.204) at 11/2/2007 9:58:01 AM |
|
Developing for the Mac has never been a picnic. I was a registered Apple Dev for 5 years back in the 90's. Not as a pro dev, but as a hobbyist.
There are a few things about Mac development that are GREAT for end-users, but can take developers to task. 1. Most of them have to do with the strict rules that Apple implements in it's development guides, particularly in the are of the Human Interface. This appears to have loosened a bit as of the release of MacOS X, but it's still pretty strict. 2. Anyone that has ever read, or used, the "Inside Macintosh" ROM library guides knows what I'm talking about. 3. To properly write a Macintosh application, you always write the Interface first. You useability test it, re-write it, and test it again. You do this until the flow of the application for the USER (not the developer) is just right. A lot of programmers that didn't grow up with the Mac have a really hard time with this, but it really is the proper way to write an application for the END USER. After the Interface is created, THEN you implement the features. 4. In the old days, Apple had a simple rule. "If you follow our guidelines, we will NOT break your app". This worked great the first 15 years or so but basically went to shit starting with System 7 :) In the old days (the 80's) writing software for the Mac, sitting there with your little Fat-Mac and the Phone-Book edition of Inside Macintosh (you old timers know what I'm talking about) was a Geeks dream, and a Geek's nightmare all rolled up into one. My only real 'products' were all PC based and written in Turbo Pascal, along with a wonderfull kit called the "Technojock's Turbo Toolkit", written by an absolutely wonderful gent by the name of Bob Ainsbury in 1988. I called "Tech Support" a few times when I would have an issue with a routine in the kit, and Bob always answered the phone and spent whatever time it took to get it right, down to actually coding and sending an example right on the spot. Though generally useless these days, my "Grabbag 3.0" utility is still floating around the net these days :) TL This post was edited by TechLarry on Friday, November 02, 2007 at 09:59. |
| #7 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 11/2/2007 10:51:04 AM |
| this glowing review all but guarantees that leopard deserved the title of 'invention of the month'. |
| #8 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 11/2/2007 11:05:40 AM |
| #7: Now that's funny! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:31:39 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
