Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

vtboyarc · Nov 21, 2007, 09:54 PM

I have some questions for people that have leopard. I have a macbook 2.16Ghz with 2gb of ram.
does leopard have snappier, faster performance than tiger? Or does it make mac's slower and more sluggish?
does it have major bugs? have there been updates for it to fix any bugs?
is it worth getting soon, or should I wait awhile?(and when) thanks!

JustinHorne · Nov 21, 2007, 10:06 PM

I don't notice much of a performance change at all, some people see an improvement. No MAJOR bugs, that I know of.

There has been one bug fix, 10.5.1, and that fixed the only big bug that I know of.

I'd get it.

Cold Warrior · Nov 21, 2007, 10:12 PM

On your Mac, I bet you'd see a slight speed improvement. Leopard has definitely improved my Macbook Pro 2.16, 2GB RAM.

yikes600 · Nov 21, 2007, 10:25 PM

G4 1.4GHz here... I upgraded to leopard a couple days ago and was immediately struck by how slow it seemed — I didn't realize it was just Spotlight indexing for 2 hours. Now, the speed seems identical to Tiger.

mduell · Nov 21, 2007, 10:45 PM

Aside from the disappearing desktops I haven't noted any other big bugs yet.

It's lighter on RAM than Tiger was, particularly in multiuser environments. Can't say it's any snappier.

JustinHorne · Nov 21, 2007, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

On your Mac, I bet you'd see a slight speed improvement. Leopard has definitely improved my Macbook Pro 2.16, 2GB RAM.

Everyone keeps saying that. I believe you, really, I just didn't notice any difference myself... Maybe it's because most of the stuff I do involves encoding and processing, so I am used to quantitative speed differences, and don't notice the "well, that window opened faster than normal" stuff... Weird.

Cold Warrior · Nov 21, 2007, 11:06 PM

what kind of Mac do you have?

Brass · Nov 21, 2007, 11:26 PM

No significant difference in speed for me either, both on a 2.0 GHz MacBook, and a 2.6 (?) GHz iMac.

::maroma:: · Nov 21, 2007, 11:53 PM

Seems a bit snappier to me, but that also might be because I did a fresh install (wipe and install), which I always do with major upgrades. That obviously cleans out the clutter. But the other features are far worth the upgrade, IMO. Its pretty solid, with few issues/bugs that I know of. You might hate Stacks, but so does everyone else so join the club.

JustinHorne · Nov 22, 2007, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

what kind of Mac do you have?

Me?
If so, MB 2.0 C2D, 2GB.

vtboyarc · Nov 22, 2007, 01:11 AM

sweet folks thanks for the info.....why is stacks so bad? it looks cool what I've seen

C.A.T.S. CEO · Nov 22, 2007, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by vtboyarc

sweet folks thanks for the info.....why is stacks so bad? it looks cool what I've seen

The only thing I hear from all the whining is that it shows the 1st file in a folder you put on the dock, so if you put the folder Applications on the dock you'll see the 1st app in your applications folder. This seems to confuse some people into thinking the Applications folder is the 1st app in the folder.

::maroma:: · Nov 22, 2007, 02:27 AM

Its a bit more than that. They completely removed the old way of how a folder would function in the dock. My biggest issue is that the contextual menu type of navigation for a folder/stack is gone. Bring that back and I will hug Stacks every night before I go to sleep. Other people have other complaints.

But like anything, some people like it and others don't.

C.A.T.S. CEO · Nov 22, 2007, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

Its a bit more than that. They completely removed the old way of how a folder would function in the dock. My biggest issue is that the contextual menu type of navigation for a folder/stack is gone. Bring that back and I will hug Stacks every night before I go to sleep. Other people have other complaints.

But like anything, some people like it and others don't.

Ah, good point.

analogika · Nov 22, 2007, 04:32 AM

On the whole, the speed improvement on this MacBook C2Duo is more of a subtle thing.

There are a couple of things that are DRASTICALLY faster - airport menu, networking, Spotlight, and application launching come to mind. Word, for example, seems to load a lot faster, as well.

Overall, it seems more polished and yes, "snappy" - just a little more nimble.

A lot of that also has to do with the fact that I constantly have lots and lots of stuff open, and memory management seems MUCH improved under Leopard.

So if you're used to intensive memory paging-out, Leopard will be a lot faster.

JustinHorne · Nov 22, 2007, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

On the whole, the speed improvement on this MacBook C2Duo is more of a subtle thing.

There are a couple of things that are DRASTICALLY faster - airport menu, networking, Spotlight, and application launching come to mind. Word, for example, seems to load a lot faster, as well.

Overall, it seems more polished and yes, "snappy" - just a little more nimble.

A lot of that also has to do with the fact that I constantly have lots and lots of stuff open, and memory management seems MUCH improved under Leopard.

So if you're used to intensive memory paging-out, Leopard will be a lot faster.

Oh, that's true, the Airport menu IS very much faster.

CaptainHaddock · Nov 22, 2007, 04:53 AM

Definite improvements in speed and responsiveness on my Macbook Pro 2.33. Leopard is also smarter about using multiple CPU cores.

Gavin · Nov 23, 2007, 03:07 AM

Menus are faster for me.
The file sharing interface is much, much better.

No major bugs but a few annoyances:
Spotlight isn't finding things it found in tiger - I think it has trouble with files that have no suffix. I have years of quick text notes and it can't find any of them.

It also has this thing where the active window looses focus at random.

carterx · Nov 23, 2007, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by vtboyarc

I have some questions for people that have leopard. I have a macbook 2.16Ghz with 2gb of ram.
does leopard have snappier, faster performance than tiger? Or does it make mac's slower and more sluggish?
does it have major bugs? have there been updates for it to fix any bugs?
is it worth getting soon, or should I wait awhile?(and when) thanks!

I have the same laptop/ram as you and I have not really noticed a decrease. perhaps a small increase, but nothing to write home about. I think Leopard is a worth while OS to change to if your on an Intel Mac computer. If on a PPC, may want to think it over. I cleared a HD and installed it on my Mirrored 1.25ghz / 2GB ram and ran for a few days but found it a bit sluggish compared to Tiger and so I stayed Tiger.

my $0.02

.

Richard Richard · Nov 26, 2007, 10:52 AM

the feature i really love is spaces , it's amazing

Kevin · Nov 26, 2007, 02:19 PM

spaces and hiding applications seem to work a lot a like.

MacosNerd · Nov 26, 2007, 02:23 PM

I cannot say if Leopard is faster (or slower). I like spaces and it makes me work faster so my efficiency has increased with the install of Leopard.

Hal Itosis · Nov 26, 2007, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

spaces and hiding applications seem to work a lot a like.

Sorta depends on how the user has configured his spaces, don't it?
I currently see Spaces as working 9 times better than basic "hiding".

wr11 · Nov 26, 2007, 04:19 PM

A good bit snappier for me on my MacPro and a little of both on my older 12 powerbook. I think the main thing that makes leopard feel snappier is the finder - it's so much more responsive than it used to be.

JKT · Nov 26, 2007, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Gavin

It also has this thing where the active window looses focus at random.

One of the changes in Leopard is that Exposé causes the window under the mouse pointer to gain focus, so if you accidentally activate Exposé (e.g. I'm doing it quite often as a first time mighty mouse user), you can inadvertently switch to the wrong window merely because it happens to sit under the pointer while being exposed. This explains some instances of this for me. Others are due to Spaces - for some reason, the wrong window often is at the front when I switch back and forth between them.

analogika · Nov 26, 2007, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

spaces and hiding applications seem to work a lot a like.

Not at all.

As in, not at ALL.

Really. They have absolutely NOTHING in common in my usage - and I used to hide applications ALL THE TIME up until Exposé.

I love Spaces, despite a couple of minor quirks (such as occasionally automatically switching to a different space when I mount a .dmg in the Finder), which I can well live with.

OreoCookie · 07:04 PM

I love Time Machine and I like Spaces much better than I thought I would. I have only two Spaces, that seems to be the sweet spot. Leopard is smooth sailing and I really like the Finder now. It's noticeably more responsive. Quick View is great for previewing and is fast. Helps me sort pdf, for example. Even the icon previews are more helpful than I thought. Stacks are quite nice, IMHO much more useful than diving through whole directory trees (although I wish you could have this as a third option instead of stacks). Honestly, Leopard is (with the exception of Time Machine and perhaps spaces) a polished version of Tiger. Time Machine itself justifies the upgrade for me.

treday630 · Nov 26, 2007, 09:45 PM

I noticed a big difference between Leopard and Tiger. It seems a lot more snappier than Tiger did. Now it could be due me choosing the "erase and install" route.

Also keep in mind the Leopard was design to take advantage of the multi-core chips.

I have a 2.2ghz MacBook Pro w/ 2gig Ram.

monkeybrain · 11:04 PM

Has anyone with Macbooks noticed if Leopard causes any more fan usage? Since Leopard pushes more things to the graphics card (or pseudo-graphics card) I'm reasoning the fan will kick in more (just like when I play any game, even old Starcraft, or watch any movie, or there is a lot of flash on the page).

carterx · Nov 27, 2007, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

spaces and hiding applications seem to work a lot a like.

For me, I don't really care for spaces. with the laptop I just use "how all windows" and I just then select where I want to be. Works great with a mouse. Just have the mouse ball button set as show all windows, select the app I want and go. Works very quick and I find faster than spaces work working on a number of tasks.

analogika · Nov 27, 2007, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by carterx

For me, I don't really care for spaces. with the laptop I just use "how all windows" and I just then select where I want to be. Works great with a mouse. Just have the mouse ball button set as show all windows, select the app I want and go. Works very quick and I find faster than spaces work working on a number of tasks.

But becomes rather useless once you have more than about ten windows open (which I always do).

I find Exposé *much* more useful when it only shows me the windows I'm currently working with in my active space (e.g. in my "office" space, there's only Address Book, Mail, iCal, and Stickies, and not the clutter of Safari windows and production tools. Likewise, in my production environment, I can show all windows using Exposé and not have to squint through Address Book, Mail, iCal, a dozen Stickies, iTunes and Safari).

Gavin · Nov 27, 2007, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by gavin

It also has this thing where the active window looses focus at random.

Originally Posted by JKT

One of the changes in Leopard is that Exposé causes the window under the mouse pointer to gain focus, so if you accidentally activate Exposé (e.g. I'm doing it quite often as a first time mighty mouse user), you can inadvertently switch to the wrong window merely because it happens to sit under the pointer while being exposed. This explains some instances of this for me. Others are due to Spaces - for some reason, the wrong window often is at the front when I switch back and forth between them.

Actually, it does it if I'm not even touching the machine, and the mouse is over the window that looses focus. It's really weird. I wonder if it's trying to pop up an alert but then doesn't paint the pop up window, like a disembodied cry for help.

What if it's haunted?

sc_markt · Nov 28, 2007, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by vtboyarc

I have some questions for people that have leopard. I have a macbook 2.16Ghz with 2gb of ram.
does leopard have snappier, faster performance than tiger? Or does it make mac's slower and more sluggish?
does it have major bugs? have there been updates for it to fix any bugs?
is it worth getting soon, or should I wait awhile?(and when) thanks!

I've also got a 2.16MBP (firewire 800, 1Gig ram) and Leopard definitely is faster.

The only significant bugs I've noticed are the following 3:
1) Keyboard sometimes stopped working until I logged out and back in.
2) Dashboard stopped working about a week ago but is now working again.
3) I once was in the finder and when I changed a view, I noticed that the window didn't show all the files. I sent this to Apple.

One thing that concerns me are the changes to the firewall but I think this isn't as big an issue was when it was first brought up (but I could be wrong).

My personal opinion of Leopard: It's Apple's best OS ever.

- Mark