First Look: Tiger Lives Up to the Hype

RewiredRewired Member
edited May 2005 in Science & Tech
On April 29th Apple released Mac OS X 10.4, nicknamed Tiger, the latest version of the software suite that makes up the Macintosh operating system.

View: First Look: Tiger Lives Up to the Hype
Now that Apple's Tiger has pounced, there is one question on everyone's mind: Is this latest release of Mac OS X worth 129 bucks? The answer is yes. The improvements are not just cosmetic, as Mac skeptics are likely to snicker. Rather, new features such as Tiger's desktop search tool are powerful enough to change the way you use your Mac.
Source: PCWorld

Comments

  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited May 2005
    ArsTechnica also has a review. I don't think the word "review" quite covers it, though. John Siracusa has written the most in-depth, technical, and detailed review of any product I've ever read. I HIGHLY recommend it to everyone, even if you will never use OSX. It is well worth the read on technical merit alone.
  • RewiredRewired Member
    edited May 2005
    Cool. Thanks. Reading now..
  • NosferatuNosferatu Arizona
    edited May 2005
    I'm seriously thinking about a mac mini and maybe a more powerful system in the future if I like OS X. The only thing stopping me from switching right now is the steep price tags and the lack of games compared to Windows. But I bought an iPod 2 years ago and it's been worth every penny, the quality of Apple's products are amazing. Hell, I was even impressed by the packaging the 3rd generation iPod came in. LOL.

    I've been reading a lot about OS X, Tiger specifically and almost everything i've ready says that Tiger is far ahead of current desktop OS's!
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited May 2005
    Maybe I'm biased, or simply a "Stupid PC-using conservative" but bitching about a few button changes on the UI makes me laugh.

    /me continues reading the article.
    This is has not been the case with Mac OS X. Every single major revision of Mac OS X has been faster than its predecessors when running on identical hardware. Jumping several major revisions is practically like getting a new machine. It's impressive, and unprecedented.

    That's because Mac OS X offers an impressively unprecedented level of crappiness, setting the standard for unoptimization drowning in its unstreamlined bull****, gagging pitifully on prettiness it can't really run.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited May 2005
    Well I finally installed Tiger today.

    It does live up to my expectations. There are a couple of dashboard widgets alone that are going to change the way I use a computer. Already I am sorely missing them on my WinXP machine at home.

    The spotlight feature is incredible. This is the future of searching. First gmail, now this. I am loving it. Meta searching all the way! This reminds me of what WinFS promises. I can't wait for this on Windows. I found myself intuitively using spotlight within 10 minutes of the installation.

    It's snappier, livelier, and sleek. Makes winXP seem kludgy, and you all know I keep on top of my PC hardware.

    Thrax, you need to stop your whiney waah waah.. Have you ever actually used OSX for a day? :rolleyes::p
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited May 2005
    Yes I have, thank you.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited May 2005
    The difference between OSX 10.0 and 10.4 is like the difference between Windows 95 and, say, Longhorn. Each point release has been a complete overhaul of the OS.

    So if I complain about Windows XP and how much it sucks, but I've only ever actually used Windows 98 or even ME, what do I know?

    So with that in mind, let me ask you this: Have you used Tiger yet? For more than a "shake the mouse and click the windows" session?

    You sure have some harsh judgments about a product you probably haven't used (tiger).
  • redchiefredchief Santa Barbara Member
    edited May 2005
    I remember the bumper sticker
    Windows 95 = Mac 88
    sounds like the differential is still there.
    Macs are usually setting the stage for Windows to follow.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited May 2005
    primesuspect wrote:
    The difference between OSX 10.0 and 10.4 is like the difference between Windows 95 and, say, Longhorn. Each point release has been a complete overhaul of the OS.

    So if I complain about Windows XP and how much it sucks, but I've only ever actually used Windows 98 or even ME, what do I know?

    So with that in mind, let me ask you this: Have you used Tiger yet? For more than a "shake the mouse and click the windows" session?

    You sure have some harsh judgments about a product you probably haven't used (tiger).


    Do you see me complaining about tiger? No, I haven't. I'm simply pointing out that the claims people are making regarding the leap from Panther to Tiger, for example, are easy to achieve because the basic performance is in a world of hurt to begin with.

    You'll note that I said nothing specific about Tiger, simply because I have done nothing more than shake the mouse and click.

    Unix was never destined to be a great desktop OS with stellar desktop performance; therefore, it is not in the <b>least bit surprising</b> that a new OS with new code would mean better performance. But the PC is still ahead, and though I commend Apple for their recent advancements, that's hard to argue with.

    Furthermore... The button changes. So they condensed buttons and changed the shape. They're still clearly labelled, their functionality is the same, and they fit the OS better style-wise? What's the complain about?
  • MediaManMediaMan Powered by loose parts.
    edited May 2005
    Stock OSX and the latest incarnations do have more eye-candy than Windows XP (stock). The next windows will be *cough* more MAC-like. Windows will have more doo-dads, widgets and what-nots to appeal to the users who prefer playing versus productivity.

    (Ouch...nasty comment from MM)

    In some instances I despise MAC due to lack of backwards compatability with some hardware components. As an example I use a MAC to drive a non-linear edit system. I went to upgrade to OSX but the non-linear editing software was unstable for OSX. The SCSI card for my external drives also would not work with OSX. The NLE software was not MACs problem.

    The solution was to purchase the next NLE software/hardware package and a new SCSI card. Actually...it was highly recommended to toss the entire system and move up to the G5, etc. etc. etc. So the OSX "upgrade" would have cost me near $10,000.

    Now this situation is specific and rare for most everyone. It's due to the fact that this system drives a non-linear editing system. Extremely few have this configuration....but it's frustrating nonetheless. I'm still at OS 9.1 for this particular system...it works well and I don't really require weather on my desktop or bouncing icons when editing.
  • entropyentropy Yah-Der-Hey (Wisconsin)
    edited May 2005
    What I don't get is the Mac's numbering system. Why go from 10.0 to 10.4, yet overhaul the entire thing, and give it a new "nickname" (Tiger)? why not make it OSXI or OS/11 or however? Is it just because "Oh-Ess-Ex" is cooler to say? :scratch:
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited May 2005
    They didn't <i>really</i> overhaul it; it's akin to Win 2000's progress from stock to SP4.. We can all agree that SP4 is a substantially better OS than Windows 2000, however it's still fundamentally Win2k.
Sign In or Register to comment.