digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

WSJ's Walt Mossberg Reviews Mac OSX Leopard

online.wsj.com — "It Isn't Revolutionary, But It Beats Microsoft's"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mvanhorn, on 10/29/2007, -23/+10cover flow everywhere... yay?
    • eatspie, on 10/26/2007, -28/+6Another Leopard news on front page. Yay time for the fanboys.
      • skunkman62, on 10/25/2007, -0/+9actually it's time for:
        linux is better, MS is better, Apple is better comments
      • Verdanic, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Significant release of a much-upgraded version of a very popular operating system. Deal with it.
    • TheRealDeal, on 10/25/2007, -2/+4Don't knock it until you've tried it. It rocks.
  • mobilehavoc, on 10/29/2007, -9/+41Holy *****, Mossberg doesn't gush over an Apple product. What's the world come to?
    • miniboss, on 10/26/2007, -21/+9He doesn 't gush, but he followed Apple's recent strategy perfectly. "If you can't produce a 'killer' product then the best way to hype it is to shoot down its competition." What's with yet another jab at MS for no apparent reason?

      Seriously, before you digg me down lets be honest here. All this 'Vista sucks', 'secret features', 'wait for leopard' and 'start your photocopiers' garbage made it look like Leopard was going to be insane. But the end result is a delayed upgrade that could never live up to the hype Apple created.
      • nakani, on 10/26/2007, -3/+17You call it a jab, I call it living in a capitalist society. Vista is a direct competitor to Leopard, and this reviewer is expressing his opinion that Leopard is a better product overall.

        And what is wrong with something being evolutionary rather than revolutionary if it's done right? I'd rather use something that works smoothly than a revolutionary new product with a revolutionary new set of problems and quirks. If you get caught up in the hype, that's on you.
        • betterth, on 10/25/2007, -8/+4"living in a capitalist society"

          Please don't mind if I quote you when the fanboys whine about how much better Leopard is than MS, and how MS is so unfair and uses its business prowess and legal team to dominate and buy up everything.

          The answer will simply be, we're "living in a capitalist society". It's a perfect double edged sword =)
        • miniboss, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2I have to disagree. This is supposed to be a review, but comparing one OS to another is more in the realm of the salesmen. If a reviewers job is to tell you about the product then he should spend more time talking about what it can do, not what a competitor "can't". If any comparison should be made then it should be Tiger vs Leopard, not Leopard vs Vista. (And let's be honest here. If Vista was great do you really believe these reviewers would be so quick to do comparisons that would work against Apple?)

          And don't get me wrong. NOTHING is wrong with evolutionary products. The problem is that this has been advertised as the greatest thing in the world so expectations were raised pretty high by Apple. Anyone who has used Leopard will definitely love it, but the many of us will also admit that compared to what we were expecting then the featureset is pretty thin.
        • betterth, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2Rofl, oh I get it...people are hypocrites. "living in a capitalist society" only works when you're Apple, not when you're Microsoft. Ohh the double standards...
      • ariez84, on 10/25/2007, -1/+5Vista is NOT a direct competitor to Leopard, nor will it ever be unless Apple decide to free up OSX so it can be installed on any computers.
    • zybch, on 10/26/2007, -18/+4Have people realized that Mossberg is nothing more than an apple shill yet?
      • nakani, on 10/25/2007, -2/+13I see that several posters are framing Mossberg as a puppet of Apple, but I haven't seen any supporting evidence, so it doesn't mean too much.
  • newbill123, on 10/29/2007, -4/+52The meow starts now.
    • blorc, on 10/25/2007, -4/+17Did you say "meow?"
      • skunkman62, on 10/25/2007, -4/+11if you look up that the comment you just replied you can clearly see that he stated meow.
      • 1town, on 10/25/2007, -5/+1No, he wrote it. Which means it stays written down, which means that asking if he actually said what he wrote makes you look retarded.
      • Miche1987, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3He didn't write it, he typed out the letters "m", "e", "o", and "w" in succession on his keyboard.
      • TomFrost, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Let's get back on topic meow.

        /supertroopers
    • eatspie, on 10/25/2007, -2/+8MEOW!
    • withincontext, on 10/25/2007, -3/+8As in, "ZOMG KITTENS MEW MEW PEW PEW"? If so, I am unfamiliar.
  • rpgmaker, on 10/29/2007, -22/+15"It Isn't Revolutionary, But It Beats Microsoft's"
    So? Mossberg is an Apple fanboy anyways (even though he is right this time).
    • eatspie, on 10/25/2007, -6/+2That 's the Digg icon. Copyright infringement.
      • skunkman62, on 10/25/2007, -4/+2do you mean slogan?
        • manitoba98xp, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4No, he means icon. As in, rpgmaker set his user icon to the Digg logo.
      • rpgmaker, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4When the digg staff contact me for that I change it but for the moment being you fail.
  • tbenathan, on 10/29/2007, -15/+71Every review thus far has said Leopard is far superior to Vista. Leopard just works. That's all that matters to the legions of now undecided consumers that will make the switch.
    • lordtyros, on 10/25/2007, -15/+4Okay, Nostradamus
    • ferrariman60, on 10/26/2007, -17/+9I wish apple fans would stop regurgitating what they say in the ads, and come up with their own lines instead of repeating what they're told. "It just works." My ass.
      • streak, on 10/26/2007, -5/+17"Windows just doesn't work" How's that?
        • PapaRaboon, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3well ummm let me see "cancel or allow" etc etc. On a Mac you don't have to put up with stupid interruptions from the OS asking questions that if it were finished it would know how to answer itself! So NO, Windows and Vista especially doesn't just work. It needs coaching from an expert to keep from falling over.
          • natenovs, on 10/25/2007, -2/+2so, one of leapords new features it is that asks you if you want to open an application if it isnt signed. you clikc on it, it says "this isnt signed, to you want to run it" .... are you all going to complain about those annoying pop ups, or are going to say it was a birlliant innovation??
      • terath, on 10/26/2007, -1/+13Ok. "It is easier to use." As in "Fewer steps are required for a given task. Those steps are also often more intuitive." I guess you want an example right?

        You plug in a DVI connector to your mac laptop and.... the second screen engages and ... um... works. To disable it, unplug it. All the windows on it automatically move to the remaining monitor. Happy?
        • cquinnd, on 10/25/2007, -3/+1I'd like an example of setting the guest account to only allow log ins at certain times of the day, or to restrict access to undesirable web sites or applications that the guest user might try to run.
          • bradleyland, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4I'd like an example that more than four people care about.

            Since OS X is largely *nix underneath, all the standard tricks apply.

            #locks a user out
            passwd -l guestaccount
            #lets a user in
            passwd -u guessaccount

            Place these in your crontab according to the schedule you desire.
          • natedouglas, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1System Preferences -> User accounts -> Guest Account -> check Allow guest accounts, check Enable Parental Controls, click Open Parental Controls.
            Click Guest Account in the Parental Controls menu -> Click "Only allow selected applications" and check the ones you want allowed.
            Click Content tab -> click "Try to limit access to adult websites automatically" (of course, you can be as vague or as specific as you like)
            Click the Time Limits tab and limit total hours per day during weekdays and/or weekends, set bedtimes for schoolnights, bedtimes for weekends, etc.

            It's really rather elegant. I don't have any kids, and I've never done anything like this before, but I feel like I understand it completely.
      • nakani, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5When par for the course is computers working (usually), but with frequent hickups and exceptions, then using a product that "just works" is novel. I think you're creating an issue out of thin air.
        • PapaRaboon, on 10/25/2007, -2/+0And I think you are taking the situation with Windows to be the norm when actually for me and millions of Mac users it's definitely NOT the norm. If another system other than the most prolific system works without interruption to the user then that is the most natural user experience and the most advanced system as far as software to wetware compatibility is concerned. This is "par for the course" to a Mac user and something we take for granted. As the OS X installed user base is far bigger than the Vista IUB and as the Mac came first before Windows I suggest to you that from a "Just Works" perspective. Vista is still playing catch-up to the original 1984 Mac. So "Just Works" is a 23 year established standard for many users. Constant interruption is a ten month old novel nightmare to a small bunch of masochists.
        • cquinnd, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2PapaRaboon, I think your comment would bave been more meaningful if you had understood the point nakani was getting at. I think you are ranting at someone you seem to be in agreement with.
          Some people might prefer the (in)frequent hickups and exceptions to the smugness and attitude of automatic superiority.
    • mrroarke, on 10/26/2007, -11/+4Uhm yeah... "it just works." Created by the same people that came up with "the megahertz myth." Care to stand by that one too?
      • terath, on 10/26/2007, -3/+11You realize that the mhz of intel chips dropped a whole lot with Intel Core 2 Duo right? That's why they switched to the new numbering scheme. There is also a big difference between AMD and intel chips mhz wise.

        Now, I'll grant you that the G4 was still pretty slow compared to the intel chips of the time. But they were not wrong about mhz being a poor indicator of speed.
        • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4the G4 wasn't a slow processor.... but because they couldnt ramp up the speed for laptops (hence no G5 laptop) I guess they decided to give up entirely on the PPC architecture. A shame in my mind to see mips, alpha, ppc etc all die off in a market becoming increasingly commodity but in all honesty since IBM cared more for the consoles I dont think Apple could have made a better hard decision and survived.
        • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4actually... the Core 2 Duo brought back to Intel a lot of respect that was lost through the wars bashing AMD for nothing other than marketing. I'd swore I wouldnt buy another Intel cpu after that but here I am with my 4mb cache macbook pro and bloody happy for it.

          YES the G4 1.6ghz laptops were a joke in a time when other manufacturers were bringing out ones with 2ghz+ but jumping architecture is no slight task and on hindsight I think Apple were trying to get that done ASAP. And NO I wouldn't tell my customers I was about to obsolete their newly bought baby if I was Apple either.
      • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3SORRY ? INTEL created the megahertz myth, AMD disarmed it.

        PPC processors have always done more per cycle than Intel but back in those days it was the cache that made the (expensive in 2000) difference... e.g a 450mhz G4 cube cpu w/ 1MB cache is approx equivalent to a 800mhz P3 cpu w/ 256KB cache

        Notice the difference here? the CACHE. The only real reason I think Apple dropped PowerPC was that the G5's at the time produced way too much heat over the competition and didnt fit into Apples pretty cases. That and the insane amount of cache on the cpu's pushed Apple to intels camp. After that IBM announced dual core low power G5s but by then it was too late and Apple was well pissed off that IBM gave the consoles/cell architecture more priority than PowerPC.

        What apple DID ***** on was that they had the first 64bit processor... the AMD Opteron was.
        • streak, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4Apple tried to debunk the MHz myth, but had difficulty comparing such different platforms. Plus, so much more money was invested by the public in Intel--people didn't want to disbelieve Intel.
          In spite of Opteron, Apple did rightfully lay claim to producing the first 64-bit PC.
          • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2ahem, sorry?
            http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2003/0 ...

            THE 64-BIT PC running a 64-bit OS finally, officially, became a reality last week. And no, it is not an Apple PowerMac G5, simply because MacOS is not yet available in the 64-bit form. As expected for months, the new kid on the block is AMD's Athlon 64 platform.

            There were dozens of Athlon64, Athlon64 FX and Opteron boards on the show around, from almost every mobo vendor except SuperMicro, compared to only one Itanium2 offering - a dual-CPU board from, yes you've guessed it right, SuperMicro. While of course we couldn't find any PowerMac G5 clones - cloning Macs is almost as ethically unacceptable as human cloning - the 64-bit tension was palpable.

            There have been many failed attempts to bring 64-bits to the desktop before, but does this latest iteration of the game justify those demanding such a shift?
          • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4sorry bout that... here is a working link http://tinyurl.com/yoe2jd
          • codmate, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1They also peddled a huge smelly mass of turd when they claimed they had made the 'fastest desktop computer in the world'.
            A machine I had built for a broadcaster 3 months earlier benched Photoshop, Cubase and Avid faster.
      • streak, on 10/25/2007, -4/+1At the same clock speed, G4 Altivec yielded twice the throughput of Intel MMX. It had nothing to do with the cache size.
        • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4what? and MMX massively improved cpu's as we know it? sorry sir but mayyyybe altivec allowed graphics to be handled slightly better than IBM clones but MMX did ***** for intel but marketing (where has VIIV gone, anyone?) and I dont know where your going comparing altivec to MMX..

          I've been contemplating that CoreAnimation is like a software implementation of Altivec? could be wrong though I guess.
        • cquinnd, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1iirc Altivec was also a CISC instruction set introduced at a time when Apple was touting the more RISC based structure of their CPUs. Both sides of the MHz myth were in the business of carefully selecting parts of their product line that showed them in the best light.
        • streak, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1You suggest MMX was *****. Not disagreeing, I'm saying Altivec beat that *****. Altivec was good. It had registers twice as wide as earlier MMX. Altivec was also easier to program.
    • tektalk, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7Huh, now I have a strange feeling of regret for buying a vista laptop.
      • potp, on 10/25/2007, -2/+2put XP on it and shut up.
        • Boondoggle, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2Ah, the magic bullet in the Vista users survival kit.

          GO MS! /sarc
    • betterth, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4"That's all that matters to the legions of now undecided consumers that will make the switch."

      Exactly! The legions clearly choose based on OS, not based on price. But that doesn't matter, because just like every other major company, Apple has a sub $1000 laptop! Oh wait.

      Well no matter, Apple has a full computer out of the box for under $600! Oh wait.

      Unfortunately, Apple will never see the "legions" when its price are double that of entry level. (before the fanboys attack, I understand Apple has no interest in competing at that level, and yes, their prices are reasonable against competitors equal level stock, I'm just saying, their prices start significantly higher than the competitors entry levels)
      • crees!, on 10/26/2007, -1/+7That's because Apple doesn't sell cheap Walmart-esque *****.
      • sudowrestler, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1You seem to be assuming that "the legions" currently buy nothing but the lowest-end Dells, HPs, and so on. That clearly isn't the case.
    • Boondoggle, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5OH WAIT, APPLES GROWTH MORE THAN DOUBLE THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY. And no, it aint just iPods.

      Most buyers realize that paying a bit more for something that does not come with headaches is a good value.
  • marioestrada, on 10/26/2007, -8/+42"...It Beats Microsoft's" we knew that already...
    • nakani, on 10/26/2007, -3/+13Keep in mind, not everyone that reads the Wall Street Journal is a up-on-the-news nerd.
    • mahoneyxp, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7Tiger already beat Microsoft's, this is just salt in the wound...
  • zQiX, on 10/25/2007, -3/+16Well the cat's out of the bag...
  • bloogey, on 10/25/2007, -10/+3NKOTB's Mark Wahlberg Reviews Mac OSX Leopard
  • aznhomig, on 10/26/2007, -13/+43"It Isn't Revolutionary, But It Beats Microsoft's"

    No *****. Vista is God-awful.
    • zybch, on 10/26/2007, -17/+5Ever actually used it? Or are you like most of the jerks who claim its awful but have never actually used the thing.
      • aznhomig, on 10/26/2007, -3/+26UAC is stupid, performance is sluggish, Home Basic edition is startlingly crippled, interface is wonky and laggy, cluttered, and unappealing, Ultimate required to unlock true "potential" (or lack thereof), drivers are immature (I'll concede because because Vista's so new), and 64-bit drivers required signed drivers, which means development is stunted.

        Have I used Vista? Yes I have. I switched back to XP after a few weeks.
        • zybch, on 10/26/2007, -11/+4So, um, it takes 6 clicks to kill UAC, and nobody in their right mind would buy Basic. Permium is only a few $$ more and has all the worthwhile stuff of ultimate, who cares if there is no DreamScene?
          Drives issues have pretty much been fixed, though there are of course lots of old stuff that will never be supported, same as always.
        • Nossie, on 10/26/2007, -0/+12"So, um, it takes 6 clicks to kill UAC" and that saves vistas security how?

          'UAC' has been in linux, unix AND Mac OS X for years... that's half the reason Unix is so secure.... and you want to disable the only decent thing other than Aero that Vista offers? .... how microsoft goes about it is another story however.

          zybch, get back to sniffing Gates ass... your digging yourself and the intelligence of the average windows user into a hole the more you spout your uneducated unintelligible 'facts'
        • cquinnd, on 10/26/2007, -6/+1 Nossie, the only one sniffing here is you. UAC is only one part of the security improvements built into Vista, even with it off the OS is more secure than previous versions of Windows. UAC is just the most visible aspect of the newer security model. I'd put seperating critical functions and drivers out of kernel space into user space, and the hardening of background services to no longer run at administrator level as more important than UAC in terms of overall system security.

          Is it more annoying than the same functionality on other OSes? That's debatable, but the real truth is the same functionality was also available under Windows NT-based OSes "for years"; and if you want to ding MS on the subject you would have to ding them on not implementing a similar solution back when Windows 2000 first came out... Or rather, not being more proactive in working thru to concept of least priveleged accounts with their business partners and developers.
  • Urusai, on 10/25/2007, -11/+6Won't somebody think of the Ubuntu?!?
    • eatspie, on 10/25/2007, -14/+3Gutsy Gibbon beats all the other OSs.
      • Jholder112233, on 10/25/2007, -3/+7Nope. Does it run the CS3 suite? I rest my case.
        • akkibaba, on 10/25/2007, -3/+7To be fair, though,that's not Linux's fault, is it?
    • BlueStarr, on 10/25/2007, -4/+2lol
    • ulmus, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5Walt Mossberg did actually review Ubuntu and thought it interesting, but not ready for widespread desktop use for non-techies.
      • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1he was probably right too (unless linux was setup by someone for a non-techie then its a different story)

        But I do think Linux is coming along rather nicely... not sure if it will ever reach mainstream mass market penetration (google OS might change that? hehe)
  • Takuro, on 10/25/2007, -14/+6http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/MK-A ...

    That one image within the article in particular really scared me.

    It felt as if a lot of statements within the article had very little thought behind them. By "supporting" windows, I guess he means via emulation. He didn't hit on the major points too well.

    One disturbing thing: He compared boot times for Vista and Leopard, but not on the same machine. It kind of defeats the purpose of comparison if hardware differs.

    Eh, Mosberg, what are you doing man...
    • zybch, on 10/25/2007, -12/+3"He compared boot times for Vista and Leopard, but not on the same machine."

      I wonder why....
      Not really. Mossberg is a total Apple shill and will do ANYTHING to make their stuff look better regardless of how dishonest he has to be.
    • BossKey, on 10/25/2007, -1/+7Testing on the same hardware may not have made any difference in the final results.

      I still remember that old review that claimed that the Apple MacBook Pro was "the fastest Windows XP notebook" and that "Apple's MacBook Pro running Windows XP is a better Adobe Photoshop rig than any other Core Duo laptop on the market."

      Oh, here it is, thanks Google.
      http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/03/22/mac_fastes ...
      • zybch, on 10/25/2007, -8/+1You do realize that that fastest notebook thing was debunked quicker than G Bush doing a line of coke!
        • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5I find it quite possible Intel would keep the better chips for apple... can you cite another same spec'd laptop that came out at the time of the mbp that ran windows faster?

          I'm genuinely curious about this since I've also heard that the best laptop to run Vista on at the time was a macbook/pro
        • cquinnd, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1The chips Intel supplies only makes up part of the overall system design, and they have far more incentive to keep the "better" chips for their server class products, where speed and reliability are a greater concern. The process of testing circuits for pass/fail and other ratings doesn't take the time to hand pick chips for a particular buyer.

          You are overlooking that Apple can exercise far tighter control over their manufacturing process by limiting how much outside work can be done to modify or repair internal components. This, while possibly restricting the ability to upgrade their machines, also means they can reduce the space between components, and design around potential bottlenecks in data flow.
    • theprez, on 10/25/2007, -0/+14New Intel Macs DON'T emulate Windows. They run it at native speed. Even when run within OS X it's now called Virtualization and is nothing compared to old emulating.
    • sudowrestler, on 10/25/2007, -0/+0Are you saying Vista might have started up faster on the Mac? Since the only "same machine" they could be tested on would have been a Mac. But anyway, if you had ever used OS X you wouldn't be surprised by this. In my experience OS X (Tiger) starts up much faster on slower Macs than XP starts up on much faster Windows machines. This isn't an indicator of the overall speed of the operating system. But it *is* one nice feature of Macs, that they start up fast.
  • Takuro, on 10/25/2007, -10/+3http://i24.tinypic.com/2n89agm.gif

    That one image within the article in particular really scared me.

    It felt as if a lot of statements within the article had very little thought behind them. By "supporting" windows, I guess he means via emulation. He didn't hit on the major points too well.

    One disturbing thing: He compared boot times for Vista and Leopard, but not on the same machine. It kind of defeats the purpose of comparison if hardware differs.

    Eh, Mosberg, what are you doing man...
    • eatspie, on 10/25/2007, -8/+4Gutsy Gibbon beats up all the other OSs.
      • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3on price yes... on speed against vista? absolutely....

        I still think OS X is better polished, once they manage to stop half of the Linux apps looking like Win 98 rejects THEN we can talk up Linux..

        I use both and love both... but for the most part at least aesthetically I'd say OS X was better designed throughout.... oh and that and Open Office looks fugly. /hides
      • zybch, on 10/25/2007, -4/+3And it fanboys are even worse than mac fanboys.
      • schoate09, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Nah, just beats up on your hard drives.
    • BlueStarr, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Nice double post....kind of took the wind out of your sails.

      Eh, Takuro, what were you thinking man?
    • theprez, on 10/25/2007, -0/+9New Intel Macs DON'T emulate Windows. They run it at native speed. Even when run within OS X it's now called Virtualization and is nothing compared to old emulating.
  • tyatne, on 10/26/2007, -11/+37Walt Mossberg,
    You do not seem to be savvy enough to see why Leopard is revolutionary. Yes, you are right, Leopard is evolutionary in the features that you have described. Yet, it is revolutionary also and you seemed to have missed some really key features - ZFS, DTrace, Core Animation, 64 bit, resolution independence, UNIX core and many more. FYI the features you have discussed like time machine are really applications which seem evolutionary but you miss out the point that they could only evolve because of the underlying revolutionary features and APIs. I'd also like to add that more revolution will come in third party apps as Leopard is an awesome developer OS platform with revolutionary tools and APIs. I'd really suggest that someone as well known as you should not mislead your readers. You do not have enough knowledge to review Leopard. If Apple took the effort to give you a pre-release copy you should have atleast spent enough time learning about it and not rushed into a horrible misleading review.
    • gordeaoux, on 10/26/2007, -3/+11Resolution independence didn't make it into the release version.... and OS X has always had a UNIX core. The other stuff is nice, but not really earth-shattering.
      • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4what exactly is resolution independence? I keep hearing it but I'm not sure if it means what I think it does...

        e.g
        I have a G4 cube, when I connect it to a monitor I get full resolution of card/monitor ... if I then unplug monitor and use VNC I get the same resolution... but if I restart cube without monitor I get dropped down to a max of 1024x768...

        Bloody big annoyance ... is that 'resolution independence' ? hardly innovation if it is.
        • tyatne, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5Core Animation works with a layering engine that can perform 3D transforms on layers. Basically this means zoom, skew, stretch and other cool animations. Resolution Independence is really important here to ensure that the layer can look like its supposed to when transformed to different sizes on the fly. Aint that cool? Ofcourse much cooler if you have a big screen then spaces and other apps built on core animation would be really cool to use.
      • PapaRaboon, on 10/25/2007, -0/+6Actually OS X was classed as a UNIX like OS up until Leopard as they have worked hard to get full UNIX 03 certification for the 10.5 release:
        http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/08/ ...
        This puts them in with large organisations that specify certified UNIX for their mission critical applications.
        So I guess that's pretty impressive.
    • mrroarke, on 10/26/2007, -5/+9Odd, when he raves about an Apple product, he's not only savvy, but an impartial expert. Now when he doesn't latch onto Jobs' nutsack, he's horrible and misleading.
      • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -1/+5I'm somewhat a fan of apple I guess... and I agree with him... its evolutionary not revolutionary... but that's not to say I think he's half talking out of his ass when it comes down to architecture and details, Walt appears to be a good journalist but mediocre tech guy... but in all honesty I think it would be difficult to find someone that was really good at both.

        I think core animation will be the main thing for leopard... Walt hardly covered it and since he is reporting for the consumer not the programmer maybe that is understandable.
        • tyatne, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1No its not understandable because the consumer will use a huge number of 3rd party apps. OS X apps and the OS itself is a platform. So you cant afford to neglect what the platform offers in a review. Because that is what will be used more than the apps that he has reviewed and so is more important.
          • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1yes but most of those apps wont be out until after christmas? The consumer doesnt want to know what they might get... Microsoft has ***** enough for everyone that consumers want to know what they get right now.... if this was on some real I.T site THEN I would consider it far less favourably.
          • PapaRaboon, on 10/25/2007, -1/+0Yes but they get "core animation" right now. And all the other stuff Walt didn't mention. If it means that developers can write amazing apps that can do things better and faster than a competitors OS then surely that is worth mentioning. Remember that for the price we pay for a computer we should really be thinking of it as an investment in our next few years rather than a commodity that will last a couple of months.
    • zybch, on 10/26/2007, -20/+4So, core animation is basically a copy of Direct X right, time machine is a less usable/intuitive copy of the Previous Version thing in Vista and system restore, ZFS is irrelevant, 64bit has been available in other OSes including windows for years.
      Oh well. Walt Shiilberg hits another home-run for apple with his ***** fawning article, kept just positive enough so apple will keep sending him pre-release stuff like the apple TV before anyone else get it.
      No surprise there really.
      • KZeni, on 10/25/2007, -3/+13Core Animation is nothing similar to DirectX other than the fact they are display technologies. Core Animation is used for interfaces and application windows. DirectX is used in a game environment. You'd never see an Image Editor/Page Layout/Media Management/etc. application using DirectX, and you'd never see a game running Core Animation as the full game engine.
        Just because you say Time Machine is less usable/intuitive doesn't make it so, and you will find yourself in the minority of that opinion. Watch a video or two of it in action, and you'll find restoring a file takes less time than finding/opening "the Previous Version thing" in Vista.
        ZFS may be irrelevant to you, but if it were totally irrelevant, then why would there be people spending their time making something nobody wants? Oh, right... people want ZFS, just not you.
        64-bit has been available for -all- OSes for years. The extent of the integration and feasibility of programming 64-bit is what has been improved. That's where Leopard has set the bar on 64-bit above other OSes.
        There's a rule that is that you're not allowed to call ***** upon other people when what you're saying is *****.
      • streak, on 10/25/2007, -3/+6Sorry, although 64-bit Windows has been around for a while, as a consumer platform, it's not mature. Leopard is mature. 32-bit and 64-bit apps are supported equally. No decision necessary as to which version to install. ZFS is only irrelevant because it hasn't come of age yet in the consumer space, but you just wait!!
        • geoken, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2It isn't? I've been using it on my main computer for several months, running 64bit apps as well as all my 32bit apps, games, etc. Apart from Vista automatically deciding wehther an app is 64bit or 32bit and installing it into the 32bit "Program Files" or the 64bit "Program Files", I'd have no way of discrening which one I'm running.
          • streak, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Congratulations. Sounds like you lucked out with the drivers. I've had good luck, too, running Vista 64 in Fusion. It's a pity Apple doesn't bundle Windows at the OEM price, though.
      • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -5/+3Direct = clone of Core Animaton

        Ever heard of OpenGL? OpenGL is used by almost every other OS manufacturer whether its Irix, Solaris, Sco, OSX, Windows, Linux, PS3, generic embedded etc etc etc etc etc...

        Direct X is .... Windows and XBox 360
        I cant be bothered comparing when DX and OGL came out but you need to take your head out your ass if your going to start thinking DX is some fantastic MS invention... Silicon Graphics Inc might have a bone to pick with you.
      • enicholas, on 10/25/2007, -3/+7"time machine is a less usable/intuitive copy of the Previous Version thing in Vista and system restore"

        Wow. As someone who has been running both Leopard and Vista for a long time, I can safely say that this is quite possibly the single stupidest statement I have ever seen. Ever. Anywhere. Congratulations, you just out-moroned the entire rest of the internet!

        The only part I don't get is how you can be dumb enough to believe something this stupid, but intelligent enough to compose intelligible English. It's a mystery that may never be solved.
        • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -1/+5I cant argue with you but you half to admit, I think Time machine was Apple trying to show off a bit of core animation for the lolz...

          Maybe it gives the user a better impression about files but if that's how apple is moving forward I miss their minimalistic days.
        • geoken, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2Instead of spending several paragraphs saying nothing why don't you point out the huge differences in these 2 apps.

        • streak, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Showing off Core Animation is a good thing! Core Animation will attract users to Time Machine who otherwise wouldn't go there. It will also attract developers.
      • cquinnd, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3No zybch.
        Core Animation on the Windows side is comparable to the Windows Presentation Foundation. DirectX can be (and is) used for more than games, but it is the gaming community that has presented it the most.
        Time Machine is most similar to the Volume Shadow copy functionality that was introduced with Windows 2000. The "previous versions" feature of Vista uses the Volume Shadow Copy Service to a limited degree, but there have been third party apps (and backup programs) that implement the idea on the OS as a whole.
        ZFS is unproven. It has the potential to do some really cool things with managing data, but it has yet to been seen what impact if any that has for regular computer users, and what costs in overhead and performance might be incurred as a result.
        65-bit is important, but we are still in a transition period where most "real" uses of 64-bit computing are on the server side and in specialized computer uses. It is important for all platforms to be ready to step up into generic 64-bit applications and services as they become available.
    • Angostura, on 10/25/2007, -7/+6A read only implementation of ZFS is a key feature? DTrace is important to most WSJ readers? Someone missed the point, and it ain't Mossberg
      • tyatne, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4Those are the foundations of the revolutionary changes in Leopard. Mossberg did not even have one line on core animation. Thats a main addition in Leopard. So, who missed the point?
        • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1cant use a boot partition for time machine,
          cant boot from a ZFS partition
          ZFS supports 'archival/recover' features

          I dont think its been pointed out but my *theory* is that ZFS and Time machine are closely linked (especially since you can only backup across a network to a mac with leopard) I see them eventually rolling it out across all partitions like Vista SP1 will do for drive crypt.
          • cquinnd, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Actually there has been some recent advancements made by the ZFS boot project on that.
        • streak, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1there are rumors that intellectual property issues are preventing Apple from going read/write with ZFS. if true, hopefully they get resolved soon.
    • betterth, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Wow, okay. Let's break this down. OSX was revolutonary. OS10.6 is an evolutionary update. Evolution is change over time to become more fit. That's what this is, reacting to competitors and becoming stronger. Revolutionary implies that the world has never seen this and it's brand new. Unfortunately I can't see a single feature that's "brand new". It's good, it's strong, it "just works" even more, if you can say that, but it's not revolutionary.
      • lintmonkey, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Why don't we wait until 10.6 has been announced before we start judging it?

        So far, we've all been talking about 10.5. Seems like you're jumping the gun just a bit.
    • geoken, on 10/25/2007, -3/+2Wait, so when reviewers ignore 64 bit Vista, WPF (same as core animation), transactional ntfs, and many of the other features in Vista nobody complains but when the same is done to Apple it's a huge problem.
      • Angostura, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4The point with 64-Leopard is that there isn't a 32-bit and 64-bit version - there is a 64 bit version that's quite happy running 32-bit apps if need-be. That's quite nifty.
        • cgeorge, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Vista 64-bit is quite happy running 32-bit apps as well. It isn't happy at all to run 32-bit and/or unsigned drivers, that's the big problem.
        • streak, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Forget the apps, Vista 64 itself isn't happy running on most PCs. When installing or upgrading, users with 64-bit processors must decide whether to go 32-bit or 64-bit. Problems can abound when going 64-bit. No such problems or to a similar extent are expected with Leopard.
  • daliminator, on 10/26/2007, -19/+9Mossberg's an idiot.


    Sorry, it just has to be said.
    • BlueStarr, on 10/25/2007, -4/+5Well I think you're one also....idiot! But I'm not going to tell you why.

      I'll tend to believe a man like Walt over you any freakin time of the day. Green is your color....you wear it nicely.
    • CrushThemTorg, on 10/25/2007, -2/+3An idiot who pulls down a half-million a year.

      (Doesn't mean he still doesn't suck.)
  • Thumper13, on 10/26/2007, -8/+14Good, I'm glad. I'll still use Vista as I seem to be one of the few who can manage to use both of my Vista machines trouble free.
    More competition is good, and my next laptop might be a mac, so good for them. I like having a few good Operating Systems.
    I'm sure this will become a Vista kill zone. But I'm happy with it, and happy with my Apple stock.
    • zybch, on 10/25/2007, -9/+7Its odd. I sell a lot of computers and all with vista nowdays, its funny that the vista ones don't come back in for servicing anywhere near as often as the XP ones. I think the anti-vista ***** is exactly the same ***** we saw when XP 1st came out and replaced 2000. People bitched a lot, mainly because it looked different, its the same now.
      • streak, on 10/25/2007, -3/+5Vista is definitely different from XP and 2000, with all its nagging*. The needless eye candy is also different.
        *At some point, when presented with the decision of whether to download or run something new, the user is going to make a mistake. Then Microsoft can simply blame the user! HA-HA! LOL!!
        • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2I'm not even going to begin to suggest what I think about Vista.... but I have to admit I'd be happier using Vista on a brand new computer (minus performance issues compared to XP) than upgrading any existing hardware... XP did get a lot of flack in the beginning but not nearly as much as Vista seems to be getting (even by some die hard MS fans)

          I think upgrading to Vista is the biggest challenge people are facing, and think about it - considering most people have a PC and most people are running Windows XP - for a few years to come that's what the majority of people will be doing.

          I never heard of companies selling Windows 98 with new computers after XP came out or even people demanding it (2000 doesnt count since it wasn't really a home OS)
        • PapaRaboon, on 10/26/2007, -2/+3But isn't it funny that Mac users will be enjoying todays technology while Windows die-hards will be scratching their heads and wondering why they don't have all the cool features that Mac users get in their 7, 8, 9, 10 year old XP box while they carry on using XP for a "few years to come".

          I remember a friend of mine running doze 3.1 all the way up to the release of Win 98. I showed him my Mac running whatever OS it was at the time and he was blown away with it's capabilities compared to 3.1 but his daft excuse was "but nobody uses Macs". "I said. "I do and I really enjoy using them, they allow me to do what I want to do with ease. All the major stuff you use is available for Macs too" But he wouldn't change because of two things. Fear and stubbornness. I always thought he was the exception to the rule but seems to me he was the start of a new breed of computer user.

          So I guess you Windows sufferers can do what you like but I would suggest talking to an ex die-hard windows turned Mac switcher before you settle to using an ancient, bloated, insecure bag o' nails operating system designed by a company that doesn't trust you (WGA) for the next few years and miss out on the cool new tech we Mac users (and maybe Linux users too) will be enjoying.
          • codmate, on 10/25/2007, -2/+4Come back and be smug when Finder has an address bar and a good set of shortcut keys - i.e. come back when you can effectivly navigate files on your computer.
          • betterth, on 10/25/2007, -3/+4Please come back when you have access to a 8800GTX. Or low latency performance memory. Or overclocking. Or SLI. Or high end gaming-grade motherboards. Or your computers can come harddrive-less, so you can pickup raptors/cheetahs for more performance. Or your OS interfaces with a major gaming console.

            My friend it's not me who's lacking today's technology.
          • cquinnd, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5What codmate and betterth said. More to the point, there is no single OS that offers "it all" yet. For every feature you point to on the Mac that you claim PC users are missing out on, there will be a similar feature or add-on for the PC (Windows, Linux and alternate OSes) that is missing or incompletely implemented on the Macintosh.

            Neither side can be said to be "lacking" in technology, but neither side can claim to cover the whole gamut of the user experience.
  • BayAreaKing, on 10/28/2007, -3/+22Boy, was that boring. He was just repeating everything that everyone knows...in the most uninteresting way possible.
    • streak, on 10/25/2007, -2/+5Agreed. Mossberg sounds almost as blase about Leopard as Scott Moritz does about AAPL.
    • PapaRaboon, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1I'm guessing it's because Jobs introduced the main features of Leopard a while back. It is probably hard to enthuse about something that you have already known about for some time and even more difficult when everyone has already talked about it before.

      I agree he missed a lot of cool "under the bonnet" stuff which was pretty lame but give him a break dude.
      • cquinnd, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Why give him a break? His job is more than just repeating (or enthusing about) another companies technology. His job is also to engage the readers of his WSJ column (and other works) to continue to subscribe to and value his analysis. If looking for something "under the bonnet" which had not been adequately covered in the past helps provide his article with original content, then he is doing a disservice to himself and his readers in not looking deeper.
      • lintmonkey, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Was anybody else waiting for the "low points" in his video review?
  • theuniversal, on 10/25/2007, -3/+33"It took the Vista machine nearly two minutes to perform a cold start and be ready to run, including connecting to my wireless network. The Leopard laptop was up, running and connected to the network in 38 seconds."
    • zybch, on 10/25/2007, -10/+3Thats the difference between hardware and software made specifically for each other, and an OS that is able to run on pretty much everything you throw at i. However, I think his '2 minutes' thing has been padded quite a bit to make apple's OS look better (no surprise there, it is after all ubershill Mossberg)
      • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -4/+4Do you have shares in MS? are you 13? because you certainly seem to have some serious issues.

        OS X runs just fine on my beige box AMD machine and detects all my hardware other than a proprietary promise raid controller.... jesus man at least research the OS you are bashing before you sharpen your knives. OS X doesn't run on a standard PC for license reasons alone.
        • PapaRaboon, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1I's obviously a license breach to run it on a beige box but I wonder how many people who have done this for financial reasons (they have an existing PC they could install it on and no spare cash) actually eventually buy a Mac some time later.

          I have a friend who seems to like my Mac and respects it's great design but runs XP on beige boxes just because he gets old PCs from work for free. He doesn't see purchasing a computer as a priority for him or his family if he can get them for free from work. He sees computers as a tool only. He is not caught up in Windows dogma like so many other people I know. So if he worked for a Mac based company then he would be using a Mac right now right!

          So if I told him I could install Mac OS X on one of his PCs for him to try out for a while then maybe he would get a real liking for it like most people who get to experience the Mac for a time do and actually buy one at some point or suggest to his boss that he would be more productive if they bought him a Macbook Pro for work.

          Thanks Nossie. You have given me a good idea.
      • diabulos, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5Actually, why should it take 2 minutes? mine takes about that long running on pretty high end hardware...yet my sis's G4, loaded with tons of design software and what nots (illustrator, photoshop, font managers) is up and running in 1 min max at worst? face it, booting and shutting down in windows is convoluted and densely slow.
      • zeejay, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3Yeah, he padded the numbers because the Wall Street Journal has no journalistic integrity. Get a clue. Or how about this: try it for yourself. My 7-year-old dual 800MHz G4 can boot OS X 10.4 in under 45 seconds, and it's got a boatload of installed stuff.
    • codmate, on 10/25/2007, -8/+3So a 6 month old Vista installation takes longer to boot up than a brand new Leaopard installation - HUGE SUCCESS!
      Jesus.
      • thefinger, on 10/25/2007, -3/+2Give it time, maybe another six months. Malware needs a large marketshare to grow up big and healthy and strong. :)
  • BlueStarr, on 10/26/2007, -8/+4I've been a Mac Addict for ten years now. I've been using Wintel strictly for these two last years and to tell you the truth, XP is koo. Never thought I'd be saying that but it is, in my humble opinion. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I happen to think that OS X iLife bundled suite is very strong and unlike anything I've ever seen before on any other system. Even tho I've given MS a fair shake I can honestly say I choose OS X over XP. I would recommend either system to friends or family depending on their needs. You have to cover XPs butt a little--or a lot depending on the user--more than X but if you don't mind that why should I, right....

    I'll be happy with my iMac and Mac Mini hooked up to my Samsung 81 series (500,000:1 contrast, oh yeah!) for all my digital needs. Thinking about getting a Macbook also, just waiting to see if they come out with a touch pad or thinner model Macbook model..
    • cquinnd, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2Thanks for the comment.
      But I think you have 1 too many zeros on the contrast ratio for the Samsung 81 series. (I could be wrong, but most of the articles I pull up list it as 50,000 or 100,000 to 1, which is still impressive).
      • BlueStarr, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1You're right....it's 100,000 : 1. late night when I posted.
  • pyrates, on 10/26/2007, -10/+6Some errors in the article. Mainly the one about how Leopard can run on any pc that was made in the last 6 years. The G4 867 MHz was released in August 2002, so that would be any Mac in the last 5 years, not 6.

    And I did a comparison for the minimum requirements of leopard versus vista, and they were identical in every way. Guess that argument goes out the window now about that "I can run OS X on my G3 which is equivalent to a Pentium II, can your vista do that?". But now that Leopard is coming out, and we know what the requirements are, and that they are identical to Windows Vista, that argument will no longer be used. The fan boys will quietly ignore that argument.
    • BlueStarr, on 10/25/2007, -3/+5Oh, you can install it on a G4 that are below Apple required specs and it will run OK, fast and usable...you just won't get all the iCandy is all.
    • BlueStarr, on 10/25/2007, -4/+3And no you can't just throw out comparisons if you haven't used a G4 with Altivec, and an OS that's been tuned to run on G4s for more than a couple of years....soooo why don't you go do something else with your time that's more constructive. It's not Apples fault that it took Vista, what, 7 years to make and it turned out the way that it did....the OS wars are over. Go find something else to do now....latez
      • pyrates, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Yep they certainly are, and Microsoft is still in the lead with Linux creeping up behind followed by OS X.
    • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1I'm still planning on hacking my 450mhz cube to run leopard server... not saying it will be a good plan but I'll have a go anyway (I only vnc/ssh into the damn thing anyway so cant even use half the fancy graphics in tiger server)
    • sudowrestler, on 10/25/2007, -0/+0Microsoft has always published ridiculously low "minimum requirements" for their operating systems. Do you know anyone running Vista on 512 MB of memory and an 800 MHz processor? Apple seems to be somewhat more realistic in this area. Acceptable performance vs. just 'start up and sort of work.'
      • pyrates, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1And if you don't have the proper video card in vista, it turns off the eye candy. Can't say that about the mac. The eye candy has to be their.
    • BlueStarr, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1"Leopard does well with backward compatibility, too. Thanks to modest minimum requirements (512 megabytes of memory, 867 megahertz), Apple says Leopard runs on three-year-old Macs and even high-end six-year-old machines."

      Can you read? 6yr old machines....love to say I told you so...but, I told you so. lol

      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/technology/circu ...
      • pyrates, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Sorry, my mistake. Apparently I read the release date of the dual G4 867 MHz mac. The single cpu version was released back in 2001. But when I checked on when the intel and amd cpu's were released at 800 MHz, that was in 2000. See here http://www.news.com/2100-1040-235303.html . So then Vista can run on PC's that are 7 years old. :)
  • macgecko, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2Great review! Now if only I was not so poor years ago and would have bought more then one share of Apple stock I too could be a happy camper!
  • northernmonkee, on 10/26/2007, -10/+7Why would anybody actually trust Mossberg's word on Apple? He is a total stooge.

    I'm not saying he is wrong in his conclusions, but it's kind of like asking Paul Thurrot to do a balanced review of Vista.

    I'll be buying Leopard tomorrow anyway, but for those of you who are wrestling with the PC/Mac debate, I'd wait for an genuinely independant review of Leopard first.
    • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -2/+2I heard that its still quite unstable for a GM... but would agree with Walt that its nice but not revolutionary.
  • ICasualty, on 10/26/2007, -5/+5Mossberg sounds so dumb, even more so in this review. I could just watch the tour and see/hear the exact same stuff.
  • lopla, on 10/26/2007, -3/+11Funny that he would say it's better than Vista. In all honesty Windows 98 is better than Vista. Vista is not something any modern functional OS should be compared to. After fighting Vista for 2 months I've given up and reverted back to XP SP2. Vista is the new Windows ME, MSFT has all but abandoned Vista as a failure and is now focusing on Windows7. I want my money back..
    • cquinnd, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3Nice Troll. The only part of your comment worth replying to is to point out that MS has development teams working on the next version of most of their products (Windows, Office, Server and backoffice apps) almost as soon as the latest version is out the door. By this kind of logic OS X has been a failure all along because Apple was working their way up to Leopard after all this time.
  • ProAm500, on 10/26/2007, -5/+3little off-topic but am I the only one who likes Vista mainly because of the new Media Center capabilities?
    • tomwhughes, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3true, vista's media center is pretty cool, but the truth is, and this is coming from a vista user, the rest of the operating system isn't fantastic.
      Plus we have to consider front row - although it doesn't have the features of windows media center, it still looks awseome does the job very well.
      Still only four weeks till I get a brand new macbook pro with leopard preinstalled. As soon as these exams are over.....
      • cquinnd, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2On a laptop, I've found the power management and mobility features more useful than my previous install of XP.
        Media Center is nice, but I also like to use VLC and Media Player Classic for quick and dirty file viewing.
  • Weejay, on 10/25/2007, -4/+3It's better than Vista? WOOOOOOOWWW!!!!!! It must be very good!!! *rollseyes*
    • Christbait, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Exactly.
    • PapaRaboon, on 10/25/2007, -2/+0Weejay, if it's good media capabilities you want then why aren't you running a Mac with iLife. there is no way Vista's media centre is anywhere near as advanced.


  • blankartist, on 10/25/2007, -2/+0Funny, I pegged him more in love with a Cougar release.
  • stockjones, on 10/26/2007, -2/+5Yes a similiar feature to time machine exists in windows, but its what Apple does with the UI that is so impressive. It makes the app so much more intuitive and useful.
  • Christbait, on 10/26/2007, -4/+4"It isn't revolutionary".

    Thank you! Whoever you are!

    ....good luck trying to tell that to 98% of Digg users.
    • ahmadazwa, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1You forgot the last bit: "But It Beats Microsoft's".
  • diabulos, on 10/26/2007, -2/+10I have to agree with him, and I am running Vista (since first beta)! Vista is still slow at reading hard drives with lots of contents, slow at refreshing thumbnails when viewing a folder's contents and slow at copying. It is also prone to the 'file being used by another application' error message when copying or deleting a file even though it is not being used by another application. It is erratic in maintaining network connections (not only on mine), the indexing server does not work as it should and even though I have been 'indexing' my files since April, it stills fails to find anything on those folders and keeps prompting me to search non-indexed files (yes, I have the correct file types and folders being indexed in the indexing settings!) it does funny things with memory (4 gigs), and so on, and so on...there are issues with VISTA, huge ones and we should stop just defending it and look at them, or MS will again trick us into something that does not do what it says on the tin.
  • Opanoid, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Think it might be better when he has the full version rather than the pre-release, then I'll read his review.
    • Nossie, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3how do you know he doesnt already? he had the iphone before most others .,.. why not the new OS? hence I think why a lot of people here are suggesting he is a shill.
  • lopla, on 10/26/2007, -4/+9"I'll still use Vista as I seem to be one of the few who can manage to use both of my Vista machines trouble free."
    Wow, what do you do on them? Boot them up, use calculator then shut down? Anything more is like trying to navigate a minefield of glitches and headaches. And no I am not an Apple fanboi, I am an MCSE sticking with XP SP2 and have advised my company to stick with XP as well until Windows7.. failing Windows7 we'll investigate a Linux rollout. Vista is unusable.
    • Thumper13, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2You need a new job my friend. I'm not saying that sticking with XP for now isn't the better choice for a business, but for my home needs between my two computers it works great. Don't take the high road with your MCSE...I've seen TOO many of you guys that don't know what the F you are doing. We have a whole department of them at my work.
      What is this calculator you speak of? I just check my email.
  • codmate, on 10/26/2007, -5/+2This isn't a review - it's a hagiography.
    A nerdgasm if you will.
  • PapaRaboon, on 10/26/2007, -4/+9Leopard is probably going to be revolutionary but not for it’s own great new feature set. It may be advanced and amazing and the best there is right now but I think it will be Vista’s lack of credibility that will be the catalyst that will make Leopard revolutionary.

    I really can't see many Windows users (who refuse to upgrade to Vista) sticking with XP until Windows 7 Vienna or whatever they are going to call it is out. XP is already what, 7 years old? so Win 7 will be out 2010 - 2012 which is a total of 10 - 12 years without a full OS upgrade.

    With the advancements that other OS builders are coming up with currently and more to come over the next five years these operating systems with a much smaller market share but better standards compatibility will leave MS in the dust. OS X and Linux are already way ahead of XP and Vista and by the time Win 7 is out their competition will be light years ahead of them.

    Remember how you were going to get amazing things with Longhorn only to find that a whole chunk of them were not included when Vista actually materialised. Well apparently this is not the first time MS has overblown coming OS feature sets to keep their customers loyally waiting patiently and finally not being able to deliver them when the new OS finally gets released.

    IBM was the big player once upon a time and they got toppled from that position. Nay sayers said they could not be budged from top position. They don’t even make PCs now.

    So to those who blindly follow MS with their bloated OS and say they will always have top position. Lets see who is there at the top in 5 years time. It may be MS, it may be Apple it may even be the Linux consortium of flavours but time will tell.

    It isn’t looking good for Microsoft right now.
  • Avian00, on 10/26/2007, -4/+3This is only the second time I've actually listened to Walt Mossberg, and I have to say that he talks in a quite patronizing way, almost like he's talking to children. Is he trying to appeal mostly to non-techies?
    • ba747heavy, on 10/25/2007, -0/+6***** duh.

      The answer is "yes"....he works for a newspaper.
      • lintmonkey, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1It's like an RSS feed, but slower and more crinkly.
  • thefinger, on 10/26/2007, -4/+4Yay!!! Bring on more glowing Apple reviews !!! Calling all malware authors: the cattle are on the move !!! The "switch" is on! Longtime Windows users will get some real piece and quiet if this keeps up!
    • thefinger, on 10/25/2007, -3/+2oops! I was so excited, I misspelled "peace".
      • sudowrestler, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Yes, you did sound excited. But rooting for malware is a bad thing to be excited about, isn't it?
  • ScottAG, on 10/26/2007, -3/+3I understand Goatberg's not wanting to appear to be pandering to the Apple throne, but what would it take to be "revolutionary" in this day-and-age? Time Machine not good enough for ya? Coverflow in the Finder not good enough for ya? Memory randomization not good enough for ya? What will it take? Unlocked iPhone on Google's 700MHz spectrum hooked up to the GoogleNet dark-fiber??
  • chelhydra, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4"you can use a feature called "Back to My Mac," which can access your Macs from thousands of miles away over the Internet"

    WOW
  • fuckingusername, on 10/26/2007, -3/+2I wish they had a live cd, so I could try it myself
    On a 3 boot system
    1 XP
    2 vista
    3 Ubuntu
    would like to add apple to the fourth :)
    • lintmonkey, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1So you wish they would loan you a Mac too, then?
  • udahlen, on 10/26/2007, -0/+11It's not that hard to beat Vista. My customers (I'm an IT consultant) call me begging to downgrade to XP because Vista simply doesn't work and it's incredibly slow. Vista is a very bad release.
    • PapaRaboon, on 10/25/2007, -1/+0And unless everyone on the planet is a lemming or living with their head in the clouds eventually those people who don't already will know there are viable alternatives.
  • Bicep, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6Dugg because Vista has let us all down. Learn something Microsoft. The landscape of personal computing has changed!
  • ehensley, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1More than likely Walt didn't get his kick back or felt it should be better.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1I have to give it to apple. It won the OS wars. Hands down. Maybe now there will be a new class of people using the Mac instead of all these fag liberals. Keep in mind, it was the fan boys that turned apple into some elitist computer company.
  • rojano17, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1See i don't want to know if its better than vista, i have tiger which is already doing that, i want to know how it stacks up against tiger!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.