Paul Thurrott reviews Mac OS X "Tiger"

[+virtorio MVC]

I wouldn't call it a service pack release, but it isn't what I'd call a $129 upgrade either. I think Apple could cut the price back a little.

[sundayx Veteran]

The problem is that Apple must trumpet each release as loudly as possible, in order to derive as much immediate upgrade revenue as possible from Tiger. Unlike Windows, Mac OS X doesn't ship on over 50 million PCs a year, so Tiger's retail success is far more important to Apple than Windows' retail success is to Microsoft. Fortunately, Apple fans have always proven themselves to be suckers for the latest and greatest: I expect millions of Mac users to upgrade immediately to Tiger. Ka-ching.

(Y) YES

To sum it all up.  It may be a tiger, but it's a vegetarian one.

585777554[/snapback]

mmm dont know what you mean, but i have a feeling to agree.

[Freakz]

are there any reviews that compare the final release of tiger to 10.3??

its a shame this review didnt do any direct comparisons, it also left out coreimage and automator..

[Tim Dorr Veteran]

The problem is that Apple must trumpet each release as loudly as possible, in order to derive as much immediate upgrade revenue as possible from Tiger. Unlike Windows, Mac OS X doesn't ship on over 50 million PCs a year, so Tiger's retail success is far more important to Apple than Windows' retail success is to Microsoft. Fortunately, Apple fans have always proven themselves to be suckers for the latest and greatest: I expect millions of Mac users to upgrade immediately to Tiger. Ka-ching.

the most honest thing ever said about apple

585777516[/snapback]

I'm willing to pay $130 for an upgrade that will may my interface run several times faster. I wish Apple was hyping up the fact that the graphics subsystem is significantly faster, because it is clearly the most significant part of the upgrade.

[drshdw]

Microsoft did that ...

5.0

5.1

But apparently people didnt have fits like you predicted neither did Mac users whine about it.  :whistle:

585777504[/snapback]

Wasn't Windows 2000 mainly used on workstations, marketed for workstations..nothing to do with home desktops. Didn't Microsoft advertise from Windows ME to Windows XP for home desktops? That is a big jump, the kernel is entirely different, so I don't see your point. I don't see the desktop version of OSX advertised specifcally for workstations, instead it is just advertised for desktops.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Actually, it's quite different. When you make changes and save an document, or when you download something new it is instantly added into the Spotlight index because it operates on such a low level. With the MSN/Google options, you have to wait for the indexing system to happen upon the file and update it's index.

585777449[/snapback]

Actually you have that backwards. MSN DS (And I'm 99% sure Google does this as well) hooks into the filesystem using NTFS file update notifications. If a file is changed, the indexer knows immediately.

On the Mac, HFS+ doesn't have the same kind of notification system that NTFS does. I can't speak for exactly how the Spotlight indexer works (I've never seen any low-level documentation about it), but my understanding is that it actually has to poll the filesystem to see if changes have been made.

[jerry]

Wasn't Windows 2000 mainly used on workstations, marketed for workstations..nothing to do with home desktops. Didn't Microsoft advertise from Windows ME to Windows XP for home desktops? That is a big jump, the kernel is entirely different, so I don't see your point. I don't see the desktop version of OSX advertised specifcally for workstations, instead it is just advertised for desktops.

585777693[/snapback]

We are talking in reference to kernels, dont try to divert the argument by bringing in market audience.

What about Windows 95 -> Windows 98 ? Same thing. :rolleyes:

http://toastytech.com/guis/indexwindows.html (Credit: Colonel_Angus)

[Brandon Live Veteran]

We are talking in reference to kernels, dont try to divert the argument by bringing in market audience.

What about Windows 95 -> Windows 98 ? Same thing.  :rolleyes:

http://toastytech.com/guis/indexwindows.html (Credit: Colonel_Angus)

585777759[/snapback]

Well, Windows 98 did add a good bit to Windows. USB support probably being the most noticeable.

[jerry]

Well, Windows 98 did add a good bit to Windows.  USB support probably being the most noticeable.

585777762[/snapback]

Which was a .1 increment .. so by Paul's (& Windows fanboys) logic that was a service pack too :rofl:

[rajputwarrior]

Wasn't Windows 2000 mainly used on workstations, marketed for workstations..nothing to do with home desktops. Didn't Microsoft advertise from Windows ME to Windows XP for home desktops? That is a big jump, the kernel is entirely different, so I don't see your point. I don't see the desktop version of OSX advertised specifcally for workstations, instead it is just advertised for desktops.

585777693[/snapback]

ME, or money edition as i like to call it (in a sarcastic manner), is nothing but a service pack, ME was a joke, and it was less stable then 98SE i had millionf of problems with it. I am glad i get Tiger for free(ADC), because i sure as hell would not pay 129 for it even the student discount isn't that great of a price. When you release a new OS if should be becuase if has a significant change, for example XP to Longhorn is going to be huge, that is worth the 150 bucks they will charge (more then likely) for it. not Panther to Tiger

[Help]

Wasn't Windows 2000 mainly used on workstations, marketed for workstations..nothing to do with home desktops. Didn't Microsoft advertise from Windows ME to Windows XP for home desktops? That is a big jump, the kernel is entirely different, so I don't see your point. I don't see the desktop version of OSX advertised specifcally for workstations, instead it is just advertised for desktops.

585777693[/snapback]

yeah... so his point is that Win 95, Win 98, Win 98SE, Win ME were basically all point releases with little differences and people didn't complain and still bought these software for at least $80+ (upgrade) dollars. And the ppl's response about Tiger is mostly negative dispite the fact that it's not a point release, but keep in mind that it's not a real major release either.

Edited April 15, 2005 by Help

[aristotle-dude]

The only advantage I see for Spotlight is that it is being presented more as a platform than an application.  What I've gathered (albeit from the outside) is that Apple is doing a great job pushing developers to implement their search API in applications.

I have been pushing Microsoft/MSN to take this same approach as they continue to develop their desktop search tools, and I'll continue to do so when I'm visiting the MSN guys next week.

It is nothing like WinFS (which has little or nothing to do with searching specifically).

585776860[/snapback]

You either don't know what spotlight and WinFS is or you are contradicting yourself.

I have already listed the similarities between WinFS in previous threads. If you think you know what WinFS is that, please enlighten us. We're all ears.

Both:

-would run on top of the existing Filesystem

-have an api for future format plugins

-allow indexing/searching/grouping of data by metadata

-allow the user to view data in saved dynamic views as well has building new temporary ones while searching.

-allows for indexing/searching/grouping based on file content.

-make use of the underlying indexing services.

-dataset can be presented in new ways and can contain files, email messages, instant messages, address book entries etc...

Differences:

-Spotlight is not vapourware

-Spotlight works across the network today (see difference number 1).

-Spotlight does not replace the finder folder paradigm.

-Spotlight uses a lightweight storage method for low overhead on the fly updating.

-Saved queries (smart folder) in Tiger appear allow with real folders.

Get this through your head already WinFS is "not" a file system. It runs on top of NTFS. i don't know where you get your information from. Paul Thurrott perhaps?

:rolleyes:

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Which was a .1 increment .. so by Paul's (& Windows fanboys) logic that was a service pack too  :rofl:

585777765[/snapback]

Well I'm not getting into that argument. I just pointed out that different products and companies will have completely incomparable numbering systems. My example was Windows 3.0 -> 3.1, which was actually a pretty huge update in my mind.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

You either don't know what spotlight and WinFS is or you are contradicting yourself.

I have already listed the similarities between WinFS in previous threads. If you think you know what WinFS is that, please enlighten us. We're all ears.

Both:

-would run on top of the existing Filesystem

-have an api for future format plugins

-allow indexing/searching/grouping of data by metadata

-allow the user to view data in saved dynamic views as well has building new temporary ones while searching.

-allows for  indexing/searching/grouping based on file content.

-make use of the underlying indexing services.

-dataset can be presented in new ways and can contain files, email messages, instant messages, address book entries etc...

Differences:

-Spotlight is not vapourware

-Spotlight works across the network today (see difference number 1).

-Spotlight does not replace the finder folder paradigm.

-Spotlight uses a lightweight storage method for low overhead on the fly updating.

-Saved queries (smart folder) in Tiger appear allow with real folders.

Get this through your head already WinFS is "not" a file system. It runs on top of NTFS. i don't know where you get your information from. Paul Thurrott perhaps?

:rolleyes:

585777780[/snapback]

I get my information from the WinFS documentation Microsoft has provided me with.

WinFS is not an indexer. Spotlight is. Spotlight works almost exactly in the same way that MSN Desktop Search and GDS work.

WinFS is a datastore. It doesn't index files, it replaces the need for files.

This isn't hard to understand.

WinFS != Spotlight

MSN Desktop Search == Spotlight (most significant differences being in interface design)

At this point both MSN DS and Spotlight are betas. Spotlight will be released very soon, we don't really know at this point how soon MSN DS will go 1.0.

[Help]

At this point both MSN DS and Spotlight are betas.  Spotlight will be released very soon

585777801[/snapback]

I am officially confused.... :pinch: :blink: I mean Tiger is already done right (final)??

[unique]

I get my information from the WinFS documentation Microsoft has provided me with. 

WinFS is not an indexer.  Spotlight is.  Spotlight works almost exactly in the same way that MSN Desktop Search and GDS work.

WinFS is a datastore.  It doesn't index files, it replaces the need for files.

This isn't hard to understand.

WinFS != Spotlight

MSN Desktop Search == Spotlight  (most significant differences being in interface design)

At this point both MSN DS and Spotlight are betas.  Spotlight will be released very soon, we don't really know at this point how soon MSN DS will go 1.0.

585777801[/snapback]

can you pls tell me what version of windows winfs exists on?

[drshdw]

Wow, such cunning logic.

Ad hominem is truly the mark of a sound argument.

What about that?

You listed a lot of stuff but you didn't:

• 1. Indicate how that list disproves my point that Microsoft did charge for several "point release" versions of Windows.
  2. That people willing paid for those point releases without rioting
  3. What those long since discontinued (and now freely available on Apple's website) products have to do with Apple's pricing policy
  4. What Apple providing a by your own count more than a dozen free updates to past operating systems has to do with an announced but unreleased product..
  

Are you truly that clueless about both logical debate and software history? I ask this honestly because you do not demonstrate a mastery of the knowledge necessary to argue this topic.

I think I'm going to take a little guidance from Proverbs 26:4 and just leave you to wallow in your own ignorance. There is no reasoning with someone so obstinate as you.

585777538[/snapback]

Note.

1. Multiple point releases, with major kernel revisions. Win95, GUI overhaul, etc etc, much better than Windows 3.x. Win98/SE, added support for more colors, better opengl, etc etc, still a fairly large upgrade. WinME, sucked. Windows NT 4.0, different core, NTFS, much more stable than Win95/98/ME, marketed as a workstation OS. Windows 2000, upgrade for WinNT 4.0, still marketed as a workstation OS, not a home desktop OS. Windows XP Home, jumps from WinME to WinXP, significant upgrades, different core, enhancements to memory utilization, NTFS, etc, Windows 2000 for the people that like pretty things and want stability as well. Windows 2003, marketed for servers obviously.

2. These people paid for 4 Windows (home desktop) releases that spanned 6 years, not one every year or so. I know that Win95 was released somewhere around mid-late 1995, 98(mid 98), ME(mid-late 2000), 2000(early 2000), XP(late 2001). OSX 10 (early-mid 2001), OSX 10.1 (mid-late 2001), OSX 10.2 (mid 2002), OSX 10.3 (mid 2003), OSX 10.4 (early 2005). Count that, 5 releases in 4 years. Thats, crazy? I'm glad you have to shell out 130 bucks for each upgrade, must be fun, over 4 years, you've just spent 680 bucks on your OS. Clap clap. Reminding you that OSX markets towards Mac desktops. I'm not even counting OS9 and its updates. People pay for OSX, because, one they love the way Apple markets OSX as each point release, is OMG, a completely NEW OS, or they are diehard Mac fans =).

3. Apple's awesome marketing gets you to spend more money over the long run, a lot more money, kudos to them! =)

4. What, free, update. Security patches? Please, those point point releases? The 10.x.y? What do those count for?

Um.

1. OSX constant updates makes up for the lack of a thorough development stage. OSX 10 was slow, dvd playback? where? O.O

2. WOOHOO Apple realizes its stupidty, releases 10.1 just OMG 6 months after the release of OSX 10. To fix that non-existant dvd playback. "Performance enhancements". More printer support, yay? O.o

3. OSX 10.2, that was quick, in under a year, Apple pulls more stuff out of its butt and stuffs it in OSX, iChat, yay "revised" finder, and the only major thing was probably Quartz Extreme.

4. OSX 10.3, bye bye G3s. W00t, new "updated" finder. Expose, another way to shrink my windows, lovely, most likely very useful too. More support for the G5, couldn't they do that with a driver update or something. Also includes a bunch of other *neat* improvements, but not worth of marketing as a standalone.

5. OSX 10.4, h*ly cr*p. Another TWO HUNDRED features!! I've lost count, way too many features, how lovely. It gets a new "search" engine, spotlight, couldn't that have been a software update seperately, so everyone else can use it too... Dashboard, uh, rip off. Quicktime 7, you can download that seperately later. Safari 2, I'm glad I couldn't just download this right off Apple's website? Why would one upgrade just to get RSS feeds. Automator for the lazy, or the efficient, interesting feature. Core Image/Core Video, nice nice, maybe they should market that more? Atleast on the front page..instead they market some useless cr*p. 64bit memory support, lovely, I'm glad they could slap on 64bit memory support, but I guess that's the only 64bit part supported. =\

My, 10 cents.

[unique]

Snipped for annoying longwindedness.

5. OSX 10.4, h*ly cr*p. Another TWO HUNDRED features!!

585777811[/snapback]

why are you so bitter; when windows can ship a consumer-ready OS, they won't have to worry about service packs.

"OMG it's not ready"

"Just package it up; add it to the service pack list"

It gets a new "search" engine, spotlight, couldn't that have been a software update seperately

585777811[/snapback]

It is a software release; they're calling it Tiger. :rolleyes:

[Brandon Live Veteran]

To better clarify:

When you work with files, you make a call to the OS/filesystem to write the data in a directory. When you're done, you have a new file "something.dat" on the disk.

When you write an object to the WinFS store, you don't get a new file. It gets added to the big SQL .mdf file. The filesystem doesn't know about the object (all it does is handle the writing of database information to the disk). It's an added layer of abstraction for objects.

WinFS has nothing to do with regular files that are already on your system. It doesn't index them, and it doesn't let you search them. Searching the WinFS store is of course very easy, since it's just a SQL database. You can run queries against it just like SQL. But searching of filesystem objects (as opposed to WinFS objects) would still be handled by the filesystem, indexer, or Explorer.

[BajiRav]

wow with all this you still don't get it that WinFS is NOT a searching program integrated into OS. The apple's implementation of desktop search which IS INTEGRATED into OS is what they call Spotlight.

WinFS on the other hand is supposed to be (I just read over the web, I am no expert on this) an object oriented file system. meaning it will use a database to store data...files/folders....everything.

And WinFS will have a utility to search that database which you can say same as Spotlight.

Even steve jobs said that Spotlight is just iTunes searching improved and added system wide ! :whistle:

You either don't know what spotlight and WinFS is or you are contradicting yourself.

I have already listed the similarities between WinFS in previous threads. If you think you know what WinFS is that, please enlighten us. We're all ears.

Both:

-would run on top of the existing Filesystem

-have an api for future format plugins

-allow indexing/searching/grouping of data by metadata

-allow the user to view data in saved dynamic views as well has building new temporary ones while searching.

-allows for  indexing/searching/grouping based on file content.

-make use of the underlying indexing services.

-dataset can be presented in new ways and can contain files, email messages, instant messages, address book entries etc...

Differences:

-Spotlight is not vapourware

-Spotlight works across the network today (see difference number 1).

-Spotlight does not replace the finder folder paradigm.

-Spotlight uses a lightweight storage method for low overhead on the fly updating.

-Saved queries (smart folder) in Tiger appear allow with real folders.

Get this through your head already WinFS is "not" a file system. It runs on top of NTFS. i don't know where you get your information from. Paul Thurrott perhaps?

:rolleyes:

585777780[/snapback]

[drshdw]

We are talking in reference to kernels, dont try to divert the argument by bringing in market audience.

What about Windows 95 -> Windows 98 ? Same thing.  :rolleyes:

http://toastytech.com/guis/indexwindows.html (Credit: Colonel_Angus)

585777759[/snapback]

The NT kernel is an entirely different kernel family...

95->98 was the same thing basically, but atleast they didnt market it as Windows 95.1 or something and releasing that 6 months after 95, like OSX 10 & 10.1..You don't see WinMe a year right after "Windows 95.1" is released, being released as Windows 95.2..

[unique]

To better clarify:

When you work with files, you make a call to the OS/filesystem to write the data in a directory.  When you're done, you have a new file "something.dat" on the disk.

When you write an object to the WinFS store, you don't get a new file.  It gets added to the big SQL .mdf file.  The filesystem doesn't know about the object (all it does is handle the writing of database information to the disk).  It's an added layer of abstraction for objects. 

WinFS has nothing to do with regular files that are already on your system.  It doesn't index them, and it doesn't let you search them.  Searching the WinFS store is of course very easy, since it's just a SQL database.  You can run queries against it just like SQL.  But searching of filesystem objects (as opposed to WinFS objects) would still be handled by the filesystem, indexer, or Explorer.

585777824[/snapback]

WinFS exists in which os?

[Brandon Live Veteran]

can you pls tell me what version of windows winfs exists on?

585777809[/snapback]

Right now? The only WinFS system available for developers is on early Longhorn developer releases. Microsoft has begun work to remove Longhorn dependencies from the WinFS codebase so that it will be installable on XP/2003/Longhorn. Obviously there is no publicly available WinFS code as right now there would really be no point.

[drshdw]

why are you so bitter; when windows can ship a consumer-ready OS, they won't have to worry about service packs.

"OMG it's not ready"

"Just package it up; add it to the service pack list"

It is a software release; they're calling it Tiger.  :rolleyes:

585777823[/snapback]

It is a software release, marketed as an entirely new/fresh OS.

[unique]

Right now?  The only WinFS system available for developers is on early Longhorn developer releases.  Microsoft has begun work to remove Longhorn dependencies from the WinFS codebase so that it will be installable on XP/2003/Longhorn.  Obviously there is no publicly available WinFS code as right now there would really be no point.

585777830[/snapback]

spotlight available on or before April 29th...and it works?

kthxggbye.