Anybody using Leopard or OS X?

[sammy2066]

I was wondering how many people here are using OS X in any fashion, at home as a editing machine or at work or maybe for something else.

[yamawho]

One of the many operating systems that I am running.

What would you like to know ?

[sammy2066]

nothing really ... i've been using it since it came out ... i just wanted to know many people here at abx used os x ...

leopard's great, but honestly, it does not have anything to justify the $129 pricetag!

[yamawho]

I think it's great ... very polished.

My kids use iLife08 for iPhoto and iMovie.

[S.SubZero]

Originally Posted by sammy2066

leopard's great, but honestly, it does not have anything to justify the $129 pricetag!

I find irony in a Mac user not being able to justify a price tag. Tho in all honesty, for $129 you get considerable value, since unlike Microsoft who don't tend to add much "frills" to their OS's between big releases, Apple tweaks OS X with user-requested improvements and changes on a regular basis. Leopard's only been out five months and it's already had two revisions, adding functionality and keeping it fresh.

The interface 'sleekness' in Leopard is worth the cost alone. For newer Mac owners, especially Intel Mac owners, it's a no-brainer; it embraces these systems and really runs fantastic on them.

I don't own a Mac, but I tinker with OS X. I'm in it right now actually. While I feel a little limited compared to Windows, I have to admit it's one heck of a pretty and very intuitive interface. I do wish I had more control over folders though.

[XJ.]

OSX 10.4.x on an old G3 iBook. My wife's 'work' computer. She does web development and multimedia on it. I've used it mainly for web browsing (Firefox). Nice machine to work with, solid as a rock (a bit short on ram though).

[WhiteEclipse]

Originally Posted by S.SubZero

Tho in all honesty, for $129 you get considerable value, since unlike Microsoft who don't tend to add much "frills" to their OS's between big releases,

Well everytime Microsoft adds frills, it gets sued by the EU, lol.

I used it for a few days on my friend's mac book when I was working there (Chicago) and did not have access to my own computer. I agree with S.SubZero, it seems polished and nice for its purpose, but somewhat restricted -- maybe I just don't know poweruser tricks. If it were half the price, I would probably pick up a copy to try to hack onto another system.

[sammy2066]

Well, it's a fancy upgrade more than anything. Leopard does not bring any new productivity features to the table. Stacks and Spaces are pure gimmicks, most people can do without them. I could not care less about the translucent menu bar, the fancy dock or the rounded menu edges. I feel the only worthwhile feature in Leopard is Time Machine; it just works, no questions asked. Other than that, the tweaks to finder and system preferences are really something you'd expect in a minor update, not a major upgrade.

Also, when MS releases an OS upgrade, it's radically different from the previous one in terms of looks and functionality.

Vista Ultimate - $250 (approx)
OS X Leopard - $129

This comparison is flawed because it's static. Over a period of time, apple releases 10.6, 10.7 so on each for $129. The over "300 new features" is a bunch of BS. There's only like 5 that are of any use to anyone.

People are fooled easily. Would you rather spend $129 or $250 at any given point in time?? The answer is easy, I'd obviously spend $129. Except when you spend $250 on Vista, you don't upgrade for the next 4-5 years. While with OS X, you upgrade every 2-3 years for the next marginally better iteration. Apple marketing is waayy better than their OS. That's how they manage to get record sales for very subtle enhancements.

Tell me one thing that Leopard enabled you to do better than Tiger?

I could go on forever, but I'm gonna stop.

I personally prefer OS X to Windows any day. But I just feel Leopard could have 10.4.12.

[yamawho]

sammy, you keep referring to Leopard at 129$ and comparing it to Vista.

However, that is only the cost of the OS if you have an Apple system.
You need to add at least 1000$ for hardware to compare.

[sammy2066]

Originally Posted by yamawho

sammy, you keep referring to Leopard at 129$ and comparing it to Vista.

However, that is only the cost of the OS if you have an Apple system.
You need to add at least 1000$ for hardware to compare.

Apple systems always come at a premium too! I'm saying Leopard is a very nice OS, the features are just not substantial enough to justify a major release.

[S.SubZero]

10.5 is definitely *very* different than 10.4.11. Aside from being different visibly, the underpinnings have underwent significant change. One of those is the transition to 64-bit, which compared to Windows is fluid, invisible, and seamless. In fact, my one complaint about this is there's really no way to know what's 32-bit and what's 64-bit, since it all runs the same. For developers and graphics artists working with large data files this will certainly help out a lot.

I'm just happy they modernized the interface. I mean 10.4.x still looks like it belongs on the systems OS X 10.0 was designed for.. the old CRT iMacs.

[wallijonn]

Originally Posted by sammy2066

Tell me one thing that Leopard enabled you to do better than Tiger?

You can now have 4 desktops like Linux whereas before you could only have one.

I use 10.4 because my machine isn't powerful enough for 10.5. I could take care of that by buying a $800 mini, though (gotta have dvd burning ability for backups, so the cheaper Mini won't do.) But seeing as 10.4 is working why spend the extra cash? All I really do is surf with OSX (because I refuse to surf with XP.)