.Neo Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 (edited) I know the equivalent to a BSoD in OSX is a kernel panic but Leopard was literally giving some Mac Users blue screens: http://digg.com/apple/Some_Leopard_upgrade...screen_of_death Which was caused by a third-party plugin called "Application Enhancer" from a software company called Unsanity. Users who upgraded their Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger systems with the above plugin installed to 10.5 Leopard ended up with a non-booting system. "Application Enhancer" wasn't compatible with the latest Mac OS X version and had to be removed before upgrading. So in this case a third-party plugin - designed to make the OS do things it wasn't meant to do, like changing the GUI - was entirely to blame, not the OS itself. Edited November 26, 2008 by .Reo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted November 26, 2008 Global Moderator Share Posted November 26, 2008 Which was caused by a third-party plugin called "Application Enhancer" from a software company called Unsanity. Users who upgraded their Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger systems with the above plugin installed to 10.5 Leopard ended up with a non-booting system. "Application Enhancer" wasn't compatible with the latest Mac OS X version and had to be removed before upgrading.So in this case a third-party plugin - designed to make the OS do things it wasn't meant to do, like changing the GUI - was entirely to blame, not the OS itself. So in other words it sounds like what happens to most Windows installs, 3rd party apps going haywire, bad drivers crashing the system. Not the OS's fault either, yet it seems to me there's a double standard in place when it comes to Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 I suggest you go back a page and read again. Give me a post as reference, or back up your post. Nothing in this whole thread explains what the massive difference between 2000 and XP is. That's what you're implying in your post, a huge difference. But Windows 2000 already did this, if it was identical to XP as it is being claimed. Show a post where someone said it was EXACTLY the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Linux Newb Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Windows 7 is beautiful!!! I have played around with it a bit, and it actually seems fairly stable too. thanks for the screenies! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted November 26, 2008 Veteran Share Posted November 26, 2008 I was very suprised by XP release. I still don't understand why did they release XP when Windows 2000 Professional was fantastic. It's pretty simple. Windows 2000 was lacking lots of home-user features that were in Windows 98/Me. It lacked compatibility with some important hardware and software. By releasing Windows 2000 as a workstation OS, they were able to get hardware vendors and ISVs to update to support the new platform, and then get a big marketing push into consumer land when the ecosystem was ready. XP also filled in those feature gaps (CD burning, System Restore, and stuff like that), while improving compatibility with legacy apps through improved DOS / Win9x VMs, SoundBlaster emulation, etc. Nevermind the fact that Win2000 took like 10 minutes to boot up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOHW Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Nevermind the fact that Win2000 took like 10 minutes to boot up. No matter how nice Win 2000 was, the start up time was some thing that wouldn't be missed :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 So in other words it sounds like what happens to most Windows installs, 3rd party apps going haywire, bad drivers crashing the system. Not the OS's fault either, yet it seems to me there's a double standard in place when it comes to Windows. I guess most people are ignorant as how to properly use their system and it's always easy to just blame it on the OS. The examples given by y_notm had very little to do with the quality of Mac OS X Leopard's initial release, which is something I simply wanted to point out. Nothing more, nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts