Back in April, Apple announced a delay from June to October for the next version of its operating system due to needs of the iPhone program. Well, October has finally arrived. The company says that OS X v10.5, which is now expected to ship on October 26, 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.
A single-user license costs just $129.00 direct from Apple while 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.
Link: Pre-order OS X v10.5
News source: DailyTech
A single-user license costs just $129.00 direct from Apple while 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.
Link: Pre-order OS X v10.5 News source: DailyTech
this.Last edited by Dakkaroth on 17 Oct 2007 - 01:44
Ordered my Leopard today and hope Apple lives up to the 'delivery on 26th' promise.....
Ordered my Leopard today and hope Apple lives up to the 'delivery on 26th' promise.....
Edit, NVM:
* • Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor
I wonder if this will be a worthwhile upgrade for my Mac Mini G4 1.2GHz..... comments, suggestions?
I dunno about yours, but my Mac Mini is slow enough just trying to run OSX 1.0.4 :p
I dunno about yours, but my Mac Mini is slow enough just trying to run OSX 1.0.4 :p
Seems like 10.4 made my system run faster than 10.3...although I've noticed that it seems slower recently. I just use my Mac Mini for some video watching and some music playing.
You can't remember Windows XP?! (which had the same reqs as Windows 2000/NT for all intents and purposes)
Unless you are VERY old, you might want to see a doctor about that!
areis a hardware company after-all...FTFY
-Rich-
I guess I just don't like Apple's tied-to-the-hardware philosophy - if OSX was to run on general PCs then I would seriously consider getting it but I won't pay over the odds for a machine that does less.
Because you can't run OS X on non-Apple hardware legally. Why is that so hard to for most to understand?
I used to not like Apple either, until OS X. I'll pay the premium, which isn't really that great when you use your computer to make a living(tax write-off!
I went through that list, and I'm amazed how they could use the slogan "Even Leopard innovations have innovations.". Example:
Forward an email as an attachment instead of an inline message. Select the message or group of messages you’d like to forward and choose “Forward as Attachment” from the Message menu.
Wow, amazing, they just invented something new! Innovation!
Let's face it, if we really made a list of new features, we won't reach 50. Which is not bad, but does it justify the price? Of course if you get a new Mac anyway, it's surely ok... otherwise... not.
I went through that list, and I'm amazed how they could use the slogan "Even Leopard innovations have innovations.". Example:
Forward an email as an attachment instead of an inline message. Select the message or group of messages you’d like to forward and choose “Forward as Attachment” from the Message menu.
Wow, amazing, they just invented something new! Innovation!
Let's face it, if we really made a list of new features, we won't reach 50. Which is not bad, but does it justify the price? Of course if you get a new Mac anyway, it's surely ok... otherwise... not.
But apparently because MS is accused of "copying" almost the entire Vista UI from Apple they'd get flamed to death for using a slogan similar to "300 new features that have innovation within innovation" in Vista's marketing.
Because you can't run OS X on non-Apple hardware legally. Why is that so hard to for most to understand?
AHAHHAAHAHA..... ok, let me get this straight:
CPUs: Intel
Graphics: Either ATI or Nvidia
Memory: Corsair, Kingston, OCZ
Hard drives: Samsung, Seagate, Maxtor, WD
Power Supplies: ....etc....
other than the motherboards, where are you getting that Macs are all "Apple" hardware??
It would vastly exceed 300. I mean, you could take a single feature like UAC or the new audio stack and split into like 30 features using Apple's logic.
I mean, if you actually sat down, and documented all of the "new features" in Explorer alone, you could probably come up with a list easily over 50.
Also keep in mind that Vista was a huge release. It includes a lot more changes/improvements that, well, really any previous release.
Last edited by MioTheGreat on 17 Oct 2007 - 05:18
I think you should research what other solutions exist in the multi-billion software backup market. Such research keeps one from seeming thoroughly uninformed to the point of absurdity.
and the worst thing its that people will buy it anyways.
and the worst thing its that people will buy it anyways.
OS X 10.5 is not a service pack - it is a major release of the operating system. 10.5.1, 10.5.2, and so forth could be considered "service packs" as they would be small fixes/enhancements to 10.5.
So going by that ridiculous logic Windows NT 5.1 was just a service pack for NT 5.0, right?
Sorry, you fail.
and the worst thing its that people will buy it anyways.
Sigh. Do people even know what they are talking about anymore? Why does no one research!?
You don't have the faintest idea what this idiom is meant to mean. The two "non-features" both serve the same function and have minor differences between them.
The actual way each backs up data (hard links, etc.) is completely different. The architecture doesn't work in any way the same. Also, being able to pick individuals files and being able to search the archive is a great leap forward in backup solutions. I hope other companies pick this tech up. In the end, it's like comparing a Model T and a Mercedes C class.
Um, they have, for let's see, the past 20 years?! It's stunning to see how little these Apple users know about the other 96% of the computer using world.
I love Apple's products, but the key to understanding what's the best tool for a given job is to actually be EDUCATED about the different strengths and weaknesses of a given tool, whether it's an OEM kiosk, or a home computer.
Anyone who doesn't use OS X can say this isn't worth it, but they have no reason for it anyway.
And yes, I have pre-ordered, I can't wait
1. Having OS X run on there computers only gives them hardware sales.
2. They would need a lot more drivers and people would just complain a lot that it was not compatible with <Insert anything here>. Apple knows what they have released and know what drivers need to be included.
Also those dissing Time Machine yes in theory it's the same as System Restore/Shadow Copy but when was the last time you saw the average person using or even knowing what a Shadow Copy is? Apple has presented Time Machine in a much better way and easier to use. The average consumer will use this.
Most Windows users do indeed know what System Restore is.
Meanwhile, Shadow Copy is in Vista, so it's a silly comparison. Much like with Leopard and Time Machine, most people who immediately bought Vista did know what Shadow Copy was.
Most Windows users do indeed know what System Restore is.
Meanwhile, Shadow Copy is in Vista, so it's a silly comparison. Much like with Leopard and Time Machine, most people who immediately bought Vista did know what Shadow Copy was.
Maybe on this forum but if you check the majority of actual Windows users most will have no idea.
As I've said before, the underlying tech between Shadow Copy and Time Machine is completely different. Heck the UI is what really shows you the difference and people still cling to the notion that they work similarly! ... And to even suggest that System Restore is remotely the same is laughable.
hmmmmm
I've installed DSL on a great many OSX machines and trust me, the average mac user knows very little about thier Operating System and how to use it's functions. The same can be said for Windows users.
Either way, it's a worthy update all in all, especially in the 5 pack (MS should notice the way Apple PRICES their family plans, ahem). But I'd wait until 10.6 if I only had one Mac.
Coverflow in the Finder is cool, but is far better when paired with Quicklook - the latter being an amazing feature. To be able to preview files (and play media) on the fly is brilliant. More importantly, I understand that later builds added a path-view to the Finder. The Finder sidebar has been improved as well. They've more or less fixed the Finder, but if you're looking for a swiss-army-knife solution like Pathfinder, you won't find it.
All in all, Leopard's improved the way I work and looks better too, so no complaints.
Only thing I'm not crazy about is the new look of the dock. A bit of overkill there, but I got used to it soon enough, no big deal.
Nothing very revolutionary here - other than perhaps Time machine and Quicklook if you're really looking for an excuse to use the much-abused "R" word. But it's a great evolutionary step that takes ideas/concepts that have been around for a while but implemented like crap thus far, and implements them correctly. It's virtual desktops done right. It's file previews done right. It's the notion of "system restore" done right.
Last edited by LTD on 17 Oct 2007 - 04:30
That sounds exactly like the "Previous Versions" (Shadow Volume Copy) feature present in Windows 2003/Vista.
Need a single file you've lost/tashed two weeks ago? Just right click on the folder it was in, choose "previous versions", and you're presented with a list of dates of that folder.
Click the proper date, and you're given an explorer window containing that exact folder as it existed in that point in time. Just copy any of those files to your hard drive, and voila! Restore accomplished.
That sounds exactly like the "Previous Versions" (Shadow Volume Copy) feature present in Windows 2003/Vista.
Need a single file you've lost/tashed two weeks ago? Just right click on the folder it was in, choose "previous versions", and you're presented with a list of dates of that folder.
Click the proper date, and you're given an explorer window containing that exact folder as it existed in that point in time. Just copy any of those files to your hard drive, and voila! Restore accomplished.
And then the other function: Spotlight. Can't remember where that file was or what it was called. Search your archive. There's no need to know the date or the file name. Heck even Finder works in Time Machine and therefore you can use QuickLook (preview on the fly) as well to make sure you find the file you need.
The point is, Time Machine is just a better implementation of previous backup solutions. Apple never claimed they thought it up, just improved upon the concept.
I'll end by quoting LTD:
Last edited by QuarterSwede on 17 Oct 2007 - 05:51
The first new thing about Time Machine is its simple visualization that makes restoration something users can do themselves. I've run backup services for all kinds of systems; one of the biggest problems for backup system administrators is having to perform restorations for the user.
The interface for restoring files from backup is complex and potentially dangerous, if users don't understand where they are directing their set of restored files.
Users also have to be experts in understanding where their missing data might be. Windows XP exposed backup shadow copies in the Explorer Previous Versions view. That's good for standalone files, but does nothing for users trying to restore data if they don't know where the file is. In the case of restoring contacts or photo albums, the data they are restoring isn't even a file, it's a component of a file.
A user with a backup of their iPhotos wouldn't be ready to go after restoring a copy of their iPhoto Library; they'd still need to parse through the directories looking for what they saved, which versions were newer, and struggle with merging the two.
That's the second entirely new thing Time Machine does: track data for users in a non-file centric model. The demonstrated search through Address Book, using search results, is very much a new and interesting feature. It works like people think, not as system administrators plan. Do Windows users even know that Outlook has stored their personal folder of contacts in:
C:/Documents and Settings/username/Local Settings/Application Data/Microsoft/Outlook/user.pst?
Good luck finding that and restoring it using Volume Shadow Copy: that file path is invisible by default!
A third new feature of Time Machine is that it delivers a system wide service that developers can hook into to optimize backups, so that backups only involve the real information users might want to recover. That is a key new thing: VCS just backs up a volume or set of directories without regard for how much of the data would be useful to actually archive. Developers have no mechanism to tell Windows not to back up their scratch files.
A fourth new idea in Time Machine is not even a backup feature. Time Machine is a demonstration of two new things Apple added to Leopard: Core Animation, and a new way to allow users to leave the desktop in the style of Front Row. This unlocks a lot of new applications for jumping out of the desktop.
People have been chatting up the idea of creating new visualizations of the desktop as a 3D workspace for years, saying the old windows and file icons need to be replaced with something new, but undefined. Well, it looks like their futurist pontificating was wrong. Perhaps a consistent desktop metaphor is fine, and we'll just have occasional needs to jump out and then safely return back.
So Time Machine flies far beyond a server backup tool. Apple has delivered a new way to think about using Macs. Front Row demonstrated the initial idea, and now Time Machine is demonstrating how to use this new capacity to make even normal and boring tasks easier and more visually intuitive.
As for me, I think I'm going to keep my sense of perspective. There are some very good things about the Mac interface (unified, simplified) and there are some really lousy ones (the latest Leopard pass looks even worse than the Fisher Price gumdrop design of the past few years). Similar things can be said about Windows and Linux, if you objectively evaluate them based on their actual merits rather than marketing spin docs.
Last edited by excalpius on 18 Oct 2007 - 01:02
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.