Posted on 11/10/2009 1:18:17 AM PST by Swordmaker
Windows Vista was quite possibly the worst operating system known to man. When it launched, it required users to upgrade to expensive new computers, failed spectacularly to work with crucial hardware and software, and didn't offer much in the way of improvement over Windows XP.
Fast-forward to 2009 and we're seeing a similar trend with Apple's latest operating system, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. Despite earning positive press reviews, we'd argue its teething problems are reminiscent of those of Vista. Since its launch, it's been riddled with software and hardware incompatibilities. There's a lack of Earth-shattering new features and an air of general mediocrity that was the hallmark of Microsoft's much-abused OS.
All this raises the question: is Snow Leopard the new Vista?
HARDWARE HOGS
Windows Vista faced a huge backlash for its egregious hardware requirements. Whereas XP ran happily on anything using a 233MHz CPU, 64MB of RAM and 1.5GB of disk space, Vista Home Premium demanded a 1GHz processor, at least 1GB of RAM and 40GB of storage. Worse still, anyone who wanted the fancy new Aero graphics features would need to ensure they had a decent graphics card -- and don't even get us started on the cash outlay required for tolerable DirectX 10 gaming. Understandably, Vista faced resistance from users who felt pressured into upgrading to expensive new hardware.
The resistance was hardly necessary, as most PCs at the time -- even the first wave of netbooks -- easily met Vista's minimum requirements. Microsoft attempted to allay our fears by providing software to test older PCs for Vista readiness and adorning new PC hardware with 'Vista Ready' or 'Vista Capable' livery. But the damage was done. The public knew Vista was greedier than XP, and one way or another, using it meant they'd have to reach for their credit cards.
Surely not Snow Leopard?
Believe it or not, it's possible that an even bigger hardware transition may be required for anyone moving from 10.5 Leopard to 10.6 Snow Leopard, though the backlash has been miminal. OS X 10.5 Leopard requires Macs with at least an 867MHz PowerPC G4 CPU, 512MB of RAM and 9GB of hard disk space.
Snow Leopard is far greedier. It actually refuses to run on any Apple hardware that doesn't use one of the 'new' Intel CPUs introduced circa 2006. Its memory requirements are relatively low at just 1GB, and it actually requires 4GB less disk space than Leopard, but there's no getting away from the fact: to enjoy Snow Leopard, many Mac users will need to buy an entirely new PC costing hundreds, or even -- as is more likely -- thousands of pounds.
Obviously, there are millions of users who won't need new hardware, as they're already using Intel Macs. It's reasonable to assume though, there are more people in the world using PowerPC Macs than Intel ones -- and if those people want Snow Leopard, they're going to have to pay a hefty price.
UNSUPPORTIVE BEHAVIOR
During its initial launch, Vista struggled massively with hardware and software incompatibilities. Even if you had the right bits in your PC, there was an awful lot that didn't work and everyone, from the IT press to random strangers in the pub, seemed to have a story about this particular issue.
The problem wasn't with Vista itself, but rather with PC vendors who failed to deliver appropriate drivers, or update their software as Microsoft required them to. Consequently, there was no guarantee your existing printer, webcam or sound card would work unless its vendor was quick off the mark with a new Vista driver.
The problem seemed to manifest itself most seriously in Nvidia's almost laughable inability to provide new drivers for graphics cards -- which were crucial not just for gaming, but in some cases to access Vista's fancy Aero visual interface. Several GeForce owners even went as far as to threaten a class-action lawsuit against Nvidia, such was their frustration with the lack of support.
Surely not Snow Leopard?
Here in 2009, similar problems have occured with Apple's latest. Not only does the new OS refuse to run on older PowerPC hardware, but many users, and indeed Apple itself, have reported incompatibilities with software that worked just fine with OS X 10.5.
Upon installing Snow Leopard, any software deemed incompatible is moved to a folder called 'Incompatible Software'. These apps are then prevented from opening in order to 'protect your Mac'.
The applications affected are numerous and varied. Signature apps such as Parallels Desktop are on the blacklist, alongside Adobe Creative Suite 3 -- an app used by millions of creative types (including those at CNET Towers) to edit pictures in Photoshop, or create flashy Web content in, er, Flash. In addition, Snow Leopard automatically installs Java SE 6, so programs that require previous versions (which were present in Leopard and Tiger) may not run properly off the bat. The new OS even downgrades your version of Flash without permission, rolling back to an older version (10.0.23.1) that's full of potential security holes.
Snow Leopard's hardware and software problems aren't as well-documented as Vista's, or ultimately as serious -- but if you're one of the millions of users affected by its inability to work with software you've grown used to, you'll certainly cry foul.
PONDEROUS PERFORMANCE
Most users, regardless of their technical expertise, will tell you that Vista is slower than Windows XP. They'd be right, too -- in many respects, Vista trails behind its predecessor when it comes to raw speed. CNET News site reported that Vista -- even with Service Pack 1 (SP1) -- performed significantly slower than XP Service Pack 3 (SP3).
Paul Mockapetris, the man widely credited with inventing the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS), once claimed Vista itself would slow down the entire Internet because it supported two versions of the Internet Protocol -- IPv4 and IPv6 -- which would essentially double Internet traffic.
These factors were potentially troublesome enough, but Vista's introduction of User Account Controls (UAC) really put the apathetic cat among the lethargic pigeons. Many seemingly innocuous actions needed to be user-verified through the use of a pop-up box demanding to know whether we were sure we meant to do the thing we'd just asked it to do.
Surely not Snow Leopard?
All the new features in Snow Leopard point to a far quicker operating system. It takes advantage of 64-bit multicore processors, has better access to RAM, gets high-powered graphics-processing units, and all the major applications in Snow Leopard -- including the Finder -- have been rewritten in 64-bit code.
Despite all this, our experience of Snow Leopard is that it's not noticeably quicker than OS X 10.5. In fact, in CNET.com's benchmark tests of the two operating systems on two sets of identical Apple laptops, Snow Leopard was actually slower than its predecessor.
Our tests of iTunes encoding was distinctly quicker with the old OS, but the most staggering difference could be seen in our QuickTime multi-tasking test. On an older MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard 10.6, the test completed in 1,127.25 seconds. The same laptop with the older Leopard 10.5.8 took just 732.15 seconds.
Snow Leopard isn't a complete dog -- far from it -- but given that it's slower than Leopard in most of our tests, its parallels with Vista over XP are evident.
CONCLUSION
It's impossible to dispute the fact that Snow Leopard is affected by many of the flaws that dogged Windows Vista. Like the maligned Microsoft OS before it, it's not markedly different to its predecessor, can require expensive new hardware to function, has notable software and hardware incompatibilities and is slower than the OS it replaces.
With this in mind, it's difficult to explain how and why Snow Leopard dodged the consumer backlash bullet, while Vista was so badly mauled. It's not as if Vista was rubbish. Until Windows 7, it was unquestionably the most advanced operating system Microsoft has ever created. The Mojave experiment -- in which Microsoft tricked some of Vista's fiercest critics into discovering they actually loved the beleaguered OS -- lends weight to the argument that Vista's benefits outweigh its flaws.
We believe the difference in the public reception of the two operating systems boils down to a couple of factors. Firstly, Snow Leopard arrived pretty much on time, and -- though mildly botched -- did most of the things people expected. Vista, on the other hand, promised more and delivered less. Crucially, it was also horribly late. People may have ignored its tardiness if it were otherwise impeccable, but when anything -- man, woman, beast or OS -- turns up late to a party, broken and vomiting on your dog, it's unlikely to win any friends.
Secondly, and most crucially perhaps, Mac users are generally more tolerant of the flaws in Apple's products. As a result, that group was always less likely to show significant hostility towards Snow Leopard. Whereas a Windows user might throw their toys out of the pram, an Apple fan is more prone to accept flaws, no matter how glaring, as mere eccentricities.
Ultimately, it would appear Snow Leopard -- despite having similar problems at its launch -- was always unlikely to receive the spectacularly bad reception endured by Vista. This isn't necessarily because it doesn't have as many teething problems as its older rival, but rather because -- unlike Vista -- its public were more likely to accept it in the first place.
Good move
I am liking No Leopard aka Windows 7
Apple free and saving time effort and money since 1996
Written just in time for 10.6.2 to take care of any anomalies people may have seen. SL is noticeably quicker than Leopard and is in no way, shape or form, slightly comparable to Vista.
More MS BS peddled by the companies they pay for this propaganda.
I've not had a virus in 16 years with Microsoft operating systems.
Like h*ll it does. Maybe notepad and calculator. Try running Outlook with that configuration. "Oh, you want mail?"
Look, you aren't making alot of sense to me? Why did you upgrade to 10.6? What is the scanner? Is it on a list of non-supported scanners? What is special about it? Is it worth downgrading to 10.5 again and wait for a scanner of the type you need to be available.. it is very easy to downgrade. New plain scanners are very inexpensive, but most folks now purchase them as part of an All-in-one printer and these are so inexpensive that they are worth upgrading on a frequent basis (once each 3 to 4 years)- I didn't have any issue with iTunes when I upgraded but we did have an issue with the Apple TV and this is resolved by upgrading the iTunes and the Apple TV needs a tweek too. You have discovered this. I just don't understand... you say you have been around the block but then you say you jumped into 10.6 and are now shocked that some things need new drivers and such. You obviously didn't go through the fiasco with 10.4 which wasn't even stable until 10.4.3 and had to be reinstalled if you upgraded to 10.4.1 because it corrupted the spelling check database.
10.5 upgrades went much smoother and I can't remember a single one that waiting to see and hear the howl go up from the users about some new unforseen bug... I just think we got spoiled with 10.5
10.6 has been pretty good so far. HP Printers all had issues right at the first and it was a complete battle on getting updated drivers in because the list supported was too small.. but now.. they have every one I need which is alot.
There is no way to run a scsi scanner any more and this has been the case for about 4 years so thats not your issue.
If you don't want hassles at all.. don't upgrade immediately.. wait for the release of 10.X.2 or 10.X.3. This is when most of the unusual stuff is cleaned up. This is why Microsoft does a period of months of a public beta to get these hard to create bugs to pop. Apple has much less in the way of issues and the early adopters find all of this crap and complain loudly and then in the 2nd or 3rd maintenance update it is mostly all cleared. Anyone who has been using a mac for a while understands this.
Horse Hockey. I run Photoshop, Bridge, Flash, and Dreamweaver, ALL CS3, with no problems in Snow Leopard. My daughter has Photoshop 7 on her laptop with Snow Leopard.
Well yeah, but if it takes three computers to run the OS...
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
I simply said I had a piece of hardware that worked and when I upgraded it no longer worked. For me, the hassle and the time to get it to work again is weighed against the "benefits" brought by the new OS. I NEVER upgrade immediately, usually read if there are problems, and thus avoid them. I got bitten anyway.
Sorry, but I don't buy the crap line: "Well, just buy a new scanner. Its cheap." Microsoft tried that line when Vista destroyed functionality with peripherals and got hammered (rightly so). I don't need to buy a new peripheral each time I upgrade, and if I'm expected to, then drop the price of the computer by about 90%.
My BIGGEST beef was with the AppleTV/iTunes fiasco. There is absolutely NO excuse for Apple to screw up in that regard. They own the hardware, they own the OS. If they can't get the two to talk together without a problem, then they have serious quality control issues.
I got one quarter of the way through and felt like laughing hysterically. The author has no clue what he’s talking about.
Our family has one PPC G5, 1 PPC Mac Mini and one iBook G4 still running on Leopard. We have one Intel Mac Mini running on Leopard. All the other computers, 1 Macbook Mini, 3 Mac Minis, and 1 of last year’s model iMacs, all have been upgraded to Snow Leopard (Family Pack).
Snow Leopard is smaller, faster, and has taken our older Mac (Intel) machines upward in performance, and some of those Intel machines are from 2006.
Vista literally couldn’t be installed on most “stock” models of PC’s that were built the year Vista was released, let alone being installed on machines built in previous years. PC manufacturers had to “upgrade” their base specs to meet Vista’s demanding requirements, and it was a good many months before the first truly Vista ready machines were shipped.
I wonder what kind of pain killer the author takes for those bouts of painful-silly he must be prone to having.
Uh.. 10.6.2 was just released yesterday... you upgraded immediately by any rational standard.
How did you ascertain it doesn't work? Is it on a list of unsupported? or what? What is the make and model. Sounds more like you just want to complain.
And You never stated why you upgraded to 10.6 in the first place. What was the point? If it was just to have fun.. then downgrade to 10.5 if you want the scanner back in operation.
Sorry, but I don't buy the crap line: "Well, just buy a new scanner. Its cheap."
This is just a point of practicality. New 8.5 x 11 scanners cost less than $100. It just isn't worth the bile and moaning to complain about a 5 year old scanner no longer being supported. But I don't have a clue what you are really whining about because you have decided to hold the model back.. which gets back to your being more serious about whining than solving your problem.
First, the iTunes/AppleTV fiasco is only a fiasco in your own mind. For me.. it was a minor irritation that I resolved in minutes. This goes back to the fact that you are lying about upgrading immediately. From your complaint you would have had to upgrade before the release of 10.6.1, which is my strong bet. After 10.6.1 the iTunes update was available at the same time. The AppleTV was usable after this but Apple still released an upgrade to AppleTV.
Your problem is entirely unrealistic expectations... and if you think you are let down by Apple and think that Microsoft will treat you better.. I suggest you actually jump into that water.. perhaps you will have a better time.. lol...
The iTunes/Snow Leopard combination worked fine on all of the computers I upgraded. What problem are you having? The one where it won't quit that a few users are reporting? That goes away with a re-install of iTunes.
XP runs fine on a 500 MHz Athlon with 160 MB RAM. Just don’t expect to do much more than email and Web, and you have to turn off the eye candy.
A coupe of weeks before my dotty, 90 year old aunt died, she had to be taken to the emergency room. After she was returned to the nursing home where she was being cared for, she told me it took THREE ambulances to get her to the hospital...
“I run SAS and use Windows for it (since there is no SAS for OS X).”
I’m assuming you’re talking about Serial Attached SCSI and probably running RAID through Serial Attached SCSI. If so then it’s unfortunate for you that you haven’t done you’re homework because there is plenty of SAS stuff for the Mac OS Leopard and even Snow Leopard.
Areca & Highpoint are two companies I know that provide SAS RAID (PCIe) cards for mac. There’s even more companies that provide SAS PCI-X cards for slightly older macs. I’d look into those if SAS is truly what’s holding you back from fully migrating to Mac because it doesn’t have too.
Despite earning positive press reviews, we'd argue its teething problems are reminiscent of those of Vista. Since its launch, it's been riddled with software and hardware incompatibilities. There's a lack of Earth-shattering new features and an air of general mediocrity that was the hallmark of Microsoft's much-abused OS.It's the first-ever Intel-only OS, so naturally the paid FUD-spreaders will be out in force. There are fewer than there used to be, because so many of them have either died, or gone to prison, or used one of the payoffs of bribe money to quietly buy a Mac. ;')
Been running Snow Leopard since 2 days after release. Have no problems. Love it. It still blows away our cleaned up Vista machine at work. And the computers have very similar hardware and RAM.
Played with Windows 7 the other day on top of the line hardware. Certainly way better than Vista. But still not quite as easy on the eyes and as smooth as Mac OSX. But closer than Windows has ever been.
Thanks RC.
Everybody has different requirements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.