Why Leopard Isn't Better than Vista

Joe Wilcox shoots for the easy hits and I comply:

There is much to like about Leopard, but this cat scratches—oh, am I wounded.

What's bugging me about Leopard is what bugged me about Vista eight months ago:

  • Feature or UI changes made without really good reasons
  • Application compatibility problems
  • Diminished performance compared to the predecessor operating system
  • Irksome sense the software shipped before being really ready

If you're not up on Apple's SOP, that last point is what they always do, Joe. In fact, the company shipped its first Leopard update less than 24 hours after it hit retail. Expect plenty of updates in the weeks ahead.

Like Microsoft, Apple has added new and annoying security prompts to the operating system. This morning, I downloaded an updated NewsFire RSS reader and got a warning popup asking if I really wanted to open this application—because it came from the Internet. Maybe Apple's user interface designers should watch their own TV commercials

Um. No offense, but Apple had their version of UAC well before Microsoft did. That it's even more annoying in Leopard says a lot about the company's hypocrisy obviously.

Leopard is no better than Vista, in the sense that some—perhaps many—of the same migration complaints and problems apply. Windows' visibility and exponentially large number of applications amplify its complaints. There are more potential problems to have with Windows compared to Mac OS X. Besides, Microsoft is the successful company so many people love to hate. Criticism is easy, and it's frequent.

Exactly. Both companies sell OSes, so it seems like a fair comparison. But there are one billion people using Windows right now, compared to about 25 million on Mac OS X. Do the math.

By comparison, Vista's shakedown is largely over. I have little to complain about and lots more to like about Vista than I did in February.

Yep. It just keeps getting better, no doubt about it.

It will be interesting to watch the Mac lobbyists go nuts on this guy, BTW. After all, his blog is called "Microsoft Watch." 

 

Discuss this Article 25

daveinla
on Oct 30, 2007
Well again a post that shouldn't exist if both Paul and that guy had been real OSX users. When you download a new program and run it after an major install, the OS prompts you to ask if this program should be trusted. It has always been like that in OSX and OSX will not bother you anymore after that (unlike Vista's UAC !). Even better Leopard improves on previous release of OSX by adding digital signatures. Which means that if you gave you consent on Version 2.0 of a program, it has an encrypted digital signature of the publisher, and when you download the 3.0 version, OSX will trut now that publisher and not bother you at all upon first run. So OSX has maybe the most secure UAC (on the same level as Linux thanks to its Unix foundation) and the less obstrsive one. Remember to much UAC kills the security, and OSX will only bother once per program, when you install it. Now the cosmetic changes are questionnable for sure, and that seems to irritate SIracusa's in his review too. Once again for a good review by a knowledgeable person that REALLY knows something about OSs and OSX in particular, read his review here: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/mac-os-x-10-5.ars The content of this Wilcox post is just plain stupid as this has not changed in OSX's releases so far, and Paul once again rushed in the flood-gates !!!! Sad but true. Hey celebrate guys !!!!! The first article on the net that places Vista above OSX !!!! Wooohooo !!!!!!!!!!!!
bugfaceuk
on Oct 30, 2007
Hey Paul, First off, the statement of involvement... I am a Mac user. I would have to agree with the majority of the cut 'n' pasted text. There are some key issues with Leopard (Mail.app is twitchy for me, I've had more crashes in the past 4 days [of Mail] than I've had in the last year (probably two). Spaces has some issues as well, and I'm certainly not a lover of the pop-ups for downloaded content, although I must admit, it's not as cloying as Vista. As for the unforced UI changes, again, I have some sympathy with the writer. I don't love (but thought I would) the UI consistency. It's all too gray, and I don't like the "bright" unfocused change either. The changes to finder are brave, and mostly work, but a bit like an iPhone, there are some "but WTF?" in there too. Quick Look works better than I thought it could, but I doubt I'll ever use cover-flow view to be honest. Perhaps I'm getting old? So, that said, I must admit I have to disagree with the conclusion that Leopard, as an OS upgrade, isn't as good as Vista. For me, there were a number of big shocks with Leopard. First was performance, I've installed it on 4 machines from a Mac Mini with 512Mb of Memory and a PowerPC G4, to a modern iMac, and the thing just runs faster than Tiger after the upgrade. And it's not just spot-light, it's faster. My 6 year old son commented on it (he has the old Mini). That's impressive, the OS was no slouch before. Time Machine is just what it should be, unobtrusive and slick. I'll have to wait for something to fail of course before I know whether or not it achieves its principal purpose... to save you when your hardware breaks. Time will tell. I guess the other thing that has struck me in the last 4 days, is how heavily Apple under-counted the new Features. There are things not on there 300+ list that for me, just made "Good" "Great". So for now, with a twitchy mail app (lost 3 to-do's today... argh) and overly uniform UI (and the menu bar, what's THAT about?) on one hand and improved performance and more hidden treasures than I care to count (read blog in 10 days when I post my "Two Weeks with Leopard" review, ahem) I'm very pleased with the upgrade. It feels more of an upgrade than Vista right now, but I must admit I will with-hold final judgement on initial impressions until I come to write the review. In the initial days of using a new OS it's easy to mistake novelty for utility.
bugfaceuk
on Oct 30, 2007
Sorry I meant to add, I've not had any application compatibility issues except Mac Fusion which was already unhappy before I upgraded. Now I've killed it.
weedmonk
on Oct 30, 2007
I feel sorry for Paul...the regualr iTards can't get enough of him. Its sad too, they don't even get paid for the iSheep like defense of everything Apple. Must suck living that iLife...alwayss insecure and scouring the net on you overpriced fischer price machines fighting the good war for Cupertino. 1billion users vs 25million.....I can understand the inferiority complex. Paying boatloads of money to be locked into a computing platform only to irrelevant in the general sense....heck even I'd probably go iCrazy.
chickens
on Oct 30, 2007
I am a Windows admin who run OS X at home. I think that both Leopard and VIsta leave something to be desired. The updated to OS X in leopard do not warrant the price; nothing stands out that makes me want to tell everyone to upgrade. I did upgrade and I am thinking about downgrading. I like Tiger better. Right now I am recommending most people to stay with XP and Tiger. I do not see a reason to upgrade from them, sadly. The benefits do not outweigh the price.
daveinla
on Oct 30, 2007
Heyy iTard guy is back !!!!!!!!! Hi iWeedmonk! Yes you're i-right... I admit it sucks using OSX everyday after spending my day at work on windows... I arrive the morning at work ,wait 30 sec for my win computer to wake up... wait another 45 sec for the last virus def to arrive and install. Once or twice in a day I click OK to the window that tell me that my machine is running low on ressource and that windows is struggling with its virtual memory. Thankfully I restart it once or twice a week to put everything back in place !!! That's my daily life of a windows user and I wouldn't be having such great experience if I was using a mac at work too ! I would never be bothered by obtrusive and ressouce hoging third party security apps and by windows bad thread and ressource management (let alone the UAC !). Yep it sucks for the 25 millons Mac users watching they windows friend around !!! ;-) I really get what you say weedmonk !keep up you i-good itard icomment !
bugfaceuk
on Oct 30, 2007
I must admit I never encourage friends to upgrade straight away, that's real-geeks work that is. That said, I agree with Paul's summary that we should expect a slew of patches in the next couple of months and things will settle themselves out. Mail.app just nuked my to-do's again (it only does it to the ones on the Exchange server, .Mac is fine, go figure). I must admit I think Leopard was stunning value at £140 (around there anyway) for 5 licenses, but even the cost for a single license, it's very reasonable. While we are on the subject of bizarre UI in Leopard. Stacks. Seriously? I've found them annoying, not useful. The fan doesn't even look purty as the rotation causes a nasty visit to jaggyville. I guess I kind of understand the principle, but in reality, it doesn't work for me visually or from a process perspective. Anyone found a use for them yet?
tbiegner
on Oct 30, 2007
Well I think the UI changes in Leopard are really good I even really like Stacks,and if you don't like them don't use them. I have no Application compability problems, had some problems with Mail when I upgraded but then I did a clean install and now everything is fine. Performance is much better under Leopard. Well and yes Leopard is a bit shady and has some bugs. But to be honest I don't mind so much, Leopard had to be shipped at some point, and its pretty solid. So I think this is a fantastic release, and is the best OS Apple hs ever shipped. But I agree with Paul, that $ 129, is a bit much for an OS upgrade, and Apple will have a hard time selling me the next Update. I will at least wait 1 release, and might never buy another oS in my life, as I would expect I buy a new Computer before they release 2 updates.
cesjr
on Oct 30, 2007
I wonder if Paul will link to these: "After three intense days with Apple's Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5, I have three main things to say about it. First: despite minor problems, it's by far the best operating system ever written for the vast majority of consumers, with dozens of new features that have real practical value—like truly automated backups, preview images in folders, and notes and to-do lists integrated into the mail program." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2207556,00.asp "Leopard will open the Mac OS X floodgates (and embarrass Microsoft). . . Simply put, Mac OS X Leopard is one of the most significant operating system achievements we have witnessed in years." http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13506_1-9806255-17.html "And if you're considering the purchase of a new computer, Leopard makes Macs more enticing than Tiger did. Plus, Leopard makes it far easier to find documents and applications than Windows Vista. Leopard's interface niceties made the daily mechanics of using the computer more pleasurable. Mundane chores, such as finding files and backing up data, become a visual treat" Score - 8 out of 10 http://reviews.cnet.com/macintosh-os/mac-os-x-10/4505-3673_7-32058772.ht... "Leopard is absolutely packed with improvements. It seems that not a corner of the OS has gone untouched. Perhaps that's not as clear to the casual user who just sees the surface changes and the major new features in Leopard. But even in that case, there's more than enough to recommend it. if you're wondering whether you should upgrade to Leopard, the answer, as it's been for every major revision of Mac OS X, is yes," http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/mac-os-x-10-5.ars And that's just from some of the larger PC-oriented or at least not Mac-oriented sites. Many of whom have panned Vista. As Apple's mac sales go up and up, Paul is just moving farther and farther out into left field away from mainstream views regarding OS X versus Vista. He's left to find snippets here and snippets there that are negative about the Mac and Apple. I have to say though, he is REALLY good at that.
DRWAM
on Oct 30, 2007
My Pro Tower works flawlessly, so why would I want to upgrade? Most users do not need it for general use. However, most Mac sites state that Leopard is faster than Tiger, not the oppposite. With a quad 3GHZ Xeon Tower, how much faster do I need? None. I'll stick with Tiger, and use MS Office as my PIM and Office suite. Vista does interest me for my custom PC, just for fun. I am going to see if my company has a few unused licenses since we have a over a hundred PC's. Thanks for all the info.
daveinla
on Oct 30, 2007
"As Apple's mac sales go up and up, Paul is just moving farther and farther out into left field away from mainstream views regarding OS X versus Vista. He's left to find snippets here and snippets there that are negative about the Mac and Apple. I have to say though, he is REALLY good at that." Indeed he really is !!!! i was amazed that he found that article from that unknown guy and linked it when they are so many good quality articles out there form respected sources like Arstechnica and Slashdot or theRegister. Welcome to Thurrott reality distortion field !!! After all the mac zealots have their own (TUAW, daring fireball...) why would Windows wouldn't ? I also think it's funny to see him being more and more cornered over time and seing the qlity of his post, sources and comment decline steadily in the latest months. Sad but TRUE !!... CF above publication for Mac and Windows users who want quality and unbiased computer journalism.
scarper
on Oct 30, 2007
As a Mac user, I'm often embarrassed by the blind, cult-like behavior of some users. It's disturbing to be so pathologically committed to anything. The fact that this bizarre obsession is over a computer and operating system is unbelievably strange. It's sad that some people define themselves through their use of a consumer electronic product. As a result any criticism is taken personally because it's like an attack on their very identity. I know there are Windows fanboys, but I have never seen the kind of religious vehemence from them that I see regularly from some Mac-addicts. A lot of you don't need an OS upgrade you need therapy, or friends, or both.
drylight
on Oct 30, 2007
Performance has degraded? He must be the only person that's experienced this. The general consensus is that performance has improved. And yes, it has. Annoying security pop-ups? Want to to a comparison of a fresh install of Vista and OS X. Use both for an hour and compare how many pop-ups occur in one against the other? I bet Vista will be way ahead. It would be at a similar ratio to the number of Vista installs compared to OS X in the world. Some more of Joe's thoughts on security: "Microsoft responded to its unwanted partners by beefing up Vista security capabilities compared to Windows XP. Apple doesn't share the burden of putting so many bars and locks onto its operating system. Mac OS X is pretty, spiffier and more inviting, as a result, while Vista pats down pretty much anyone walking through the door (e.g., User Account Control popups). Additionally, Microsoft shifts valuable development resources to security that could be used on improving Windows features and usability. Result: Unwanted partners or new security features increase Windows' complexity and end-user frustration. Mac OS X doesn't carry the same baggage. It's fun in the sun in Mac land, while Windows looks out on an urban ghetto." Complexity and end-user frustration. Windows' modus operandi.
mdsharpe
on Oct 30, 2007
"Paul is just moving farther and farther out into left field away from mainstream views regarding OS X versus Vista." I can't speak on matters regarding OS X, but I find Paul Thurrott's "non-mainstream" views on Vista to be about the most accurate around. The amount of FUD surrounding Vista these days is incredible. I read reviews and opinions claiming Vista is so bad it's "unusable" and I am left wondering if these people even actually used Vista. Certainly, popular opinion is at odds with my findings through daily use of Vista on several PCs.
Spidubic
on Oct 30, 2007
If you guys don't like what Paul is writing then why are you here? Why not go off to some other forum who's writer writes better? And as far as Vista goes I have been running it since January without issue. Even heavy gaming with little or no problems. I have put it on quite a few machines and have yet to have anyone complain about it. So far for my experience with Vista is 95% good.
gredo
on Oct 30, 2007
I would actually prefer it if Paul would stop writing about the Mac altogether. His pseudo unbiased reviews and bi-polar opinions towards Apple only serve to piss off Mac users which is why you see the flood of Mac users on this site. Leave the Mac reviews to people who actually know what they are talking about, i.e. Ars' John Siracusa, and let Paul stick to doing what he does best, Windows. Having Paul review/discuss the Mac is like having MacWorld review Microsoft products. They might have experience with both but they have no business pretending to publish an unbiased review. It reminds me of Fox News..."Fair and Balanced".
cesjr
on Oct 30, 2007
scarper - "A lot of you don't need an OS upgrade you need therapy, or friends, or both." What you need is better manners. Do you always insult people like this? It's amazing to me how some people's posts are 0% substance and 100% personal attack.
Cfischer83
on Oct 30, 2007
Sure are a lot of pro Mac-ers on the *supersite for windows*... with each comment it just reveals their inferiority complex even more. ;) I'll stick with Windows (the originals) not the copycat OSes like OS X.
drylight
on Oct 30, 2007
"If you guys don't like what Paul is writing then why are you here? Why not go off to some other forum who's writer writes better?" Because people have to be made accountable when they write misinformation and complete FUD.
takethepain
on Oct 30, 2007
"It reminds me of Fox News..."Fair and Balanced". " Funny you mentioned that. Paul reminds me very much of a Bill Orielly in the IT World. Someone who claims they are independent and unbiased, but everyone else knows they are anything but.
weedmonk
on Oct 30, 2007
"Because people have to be made accountable when they write misinformation and complete FUD." ROFL. Made accountable? Is that the iTard call to duty....to protect the virginity of steve jobs.
drylight
on Oct 30, 2007
No. It's to stop iTard and Microtards and anyone from putting out erroneous information. Plain and simple. Can you understand that?
heran
on Oct 30, 2007
"Because people have to be made accountable when they write misinformation and complete FUD." Wow, seems those mac fanboys are trying to offer some accurate info here. Sorry, i didn't see that. "I would actually prefer it if Paul would stop writing about the Mac altogether." And what is so wrong about talking about mac from a windows expert's perspective? Isn't that mac fanboys always yelling to win users to switch? "Having Paul review/discuss the Mac is like having MacWorld review Microsoft products." Yes, i recall MacWorld did review Vista. And Steve jobs "reviewed" MS several times during past decades. So don't blame Paul here, blame your almighty Steve Jobs first.
heran
on Oct 30, 2007
The point here is that Paul provide some useful info as a Win expert. It is useful for Windows user (i.e. the world) as it can tell you whether it is good to switch to other OSes. Sure, there are mac expert out there who can provide more "accurate" info, but it is useless for Win users coz we need to compare it with our current work flow. And Paul did a good job at this point. After all, this is a site called "for Windows".
DRWAM
on Oct 31, 2007
While I prefer Mac OS at home and use Windows at work due to proprietary Windows apps and hardware, I come here to find out useful Apple product info that is not tainted by Apple colored glasses. Some reviews by more Apple sympathetic followers tell a tail that 'all is good', while Paul is not afraid to provide hard criticism. I think that he over generous at his blog on Apple TV. Anyway, I find out if the product is for me or not, thanks in part to Paul. If you email him, he offers help. By the way, i subscribe to PCWorld, Macworld and PCMag, all of which review Apple products. To those of you here calling Mac OS irrelevant, it sure appears to be relevant to you. I think some of you have an abnormal obsession of Apple hatred, while calling the oppposite/same of Mac fans. Why post all the anti- remarks of it ain't relevant? Well, that's a doctor's professional opinion. Google 'neurosis' and 'OCD'. And you similar Mac Fans can do the same.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use