[henjin]

Leopard just compounds all the issues I have had with OSX for years but to the point I can't use it.

So for work I am now using a PC gaming rig, HP Blackbird 002, and I can connect. Even if you leave Vista Ultimate in default you can still connect to an FTP server and download the whole site. Dreamweaver CS3 in Leopard cannot maintain an FTP connect even if it manages to connect. It cannot download more than one file at a time before it disconnects. I am not a newbie. Vista or XP versions are lighter, faster and amazingly I can download whole sites I manage without having to stand over the computer.

Vista is clearly a copy of OSX but MS has allowed so much more control over the look and the ability to connect.

To be clear, I have only one HP compared to 6 Macs. I actually would like to just use the Blackbird 002 for gaming. That's what it is designed for. I don't need a combined 150gb of VRAM SLi for After Effects or Photoshop.

So before I get the usual put downs. I want to make one thing clear: Apple claims Leopard is better than XP/ Vista, easier than XP/Vista, cooler than XP/Vista and that as usual Macs simply work. How is it that a rip off works on third party hardware like the HP Blackbird 002? Apple controls the hardware and the OS and does worse?

It's kind of a rhetorical post. I know there's not much anyone can do except tell me to fragg off.

I have sent my feedback to Apple. I have pointed out that if Vista Ultimate can take care of all my needs without crashing, having apps fail to perform then what do I need with a closed system?

Leopard shows that Jobs does not "work" on his computer. He merely emails. You can do that on an iPhone.
Leopard shows that Jobs idea of outflanking MS is to make it look like the ugly parts of Windows.
Leopard shows there is not much future for those of us who desire a mean, lean powerful operating system that can enable us to do "work" without having to be in awe at all the ugliness.

I think Apple has lost its way.

Perhaps they should spin off the Pro unit and enable some software engineers to clean up all the rubbish, make it run on less resources and really beat Vista. At the moment both Windows and Apple worlds have new operating systems that need too much hardware upgrades. This is not advanced engineering. This is bloat.

[mindwaves]

So Dreamweaver CS3 cannot connect to a sever and you blame OS X? Hmmm....

[Chuckit]

Some perspective: No matter how much trouble you are having with your particular setup, there are millions out there who are not having trouble, and many of those are doing more than e-mail.

As for customizability, Leopard has about as many options as any version before, so I don't know what you're on about there.

[PaperNotes]

So before I get the usual put downs. I want to make one thing clear:

You use too many sentences. In fact, you use too many words to say something really simple.

"Golly these new operating systems need a couple of updates and so do some of my apps."

[chabig]

Originally Posted by henjin 

I have pointed out that if Vista Ultimate can take care of all my needs without crashing, having apps fail to perform then what do I need with a closed system?

If Vista (what you call a "closed" system) can fulfill all of your needs, then by all means use it. But I prefer the "open" Mac OS.

[MindFad]

Well, have fun!

[Biest]

I am wondering why people always blame the operating system when apps crash or cannot do something. Classic example: Firefox. The mac version is absymal compared to the windows version. Is it Apples fault? I don't think so.

We also have to realize that some of these apps aren't specifically written for leopard, so there might be some compatibility issues with the code , etc. etc. You make it seem like programming an operating system is the easiest thing in the world and that compatibility is supposed to be established it minute it is out. I do remember that Vista couldn't even recognize most hardware properly. Sorry for a company that has 90% market share, THAT is a true problem with the OS not programs running on the OS. Your problem mostly arises from problems with software rather then the OS itself.

A hail to the registry....... until it blows up of course

[Cold Warrior]

I'm just going to say, No, Vista is not better. Leopard is better.

[Sherman Homan]

It's kind of a rhetorical post. I know there's not much anyone can do except tell me to fragg off.

QFT™ !

[goMac]

I haven't had any trouble with Dreamweaver FTP here on Leopard.

[miacomet]

I prefer Leopard TBQH.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by henjin 

Leopard just compounds all the issues I have had with OSX for years but to the point I can't use it.

So for work I am now using a PC gaming rig, HP Blackbird 002, and I can connect. Even if you leave Vista Ultimate in default you can still connect to an FTP server and download the whole site. Dreamweaver CS3 in Leopard cannot maintain an FTP connect even if it manages to connect. It cannot download more than one file at a time before it disconnects. I am not a newbie. Vista or XP versions are lighter, faster and amazingly I can download whole sites I manage without having to stand over the computer.

FTP sucks, there are much better ways to manage files (sshfs being a good example). This protocol should be put out to pasture, it is insecure and ancient. I would argue that Dreamweaver also sucks, but that is just my opinion - obviously many people would disagree with this assessment. I personally prefer a more lightweight text editor such as Textmate. Then again, I'm more of a programmer type and not a pointy-clicky type. I have no use for Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG stuff, and don't think it is worth the money as a text editor.

Vista is clearly a copy of OSX but MS has allowed so much more control over the look and the ability to connect.

This statement is vague. What do you mean?

So before I get the usual put downs. I want to make one thing clear: Apple claims Leopard is better than XP/ Vista, easier than XP/Vista, cooler than XP/Vista and that as usual Macs simply work. How is it that a rip off works on third party hardware like the HP Blackbird 002? Apple controls the hardware and the OS and does worse?

Your argument needs some focus here. Are you criticizing OS X or Apple hardware?

I have sent my feedback to Apple. I have pointed out that if Vista Ultimate can take care of all my needs without crashing, having apps fail to perform then what do I need with a closed system?

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Apple's hardware is more closed, but Microsoft's software is far more closed. As to what affects you more is a matter of perception and assessment of how you use your computer.

Leopard shows that Jobs does not "work" on his computer. He merely emails. You can do that on an iPhone.
Leopard shows that Jobs idea of outflanking MS is to make it look like the ugly parts of Windows.
Leopard shows there is not much future for those of us who desire a mean, lean powerful operating system that can enable us to do "work" without having to be in awe at all the ugliness.

Could you be more specific? This is rather vague, no? (As is the rest of your post, which I have snipped)

[kcmac]

Post and run. Always fun.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kcmac 

Post and run. Always fun.

In the sun, he ate a bun...


... Sorry, I liked how your post rhymed, I thought I would start a little poetry

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by kcmac 

Post and run. Always fun.

A drive by posting!

[alex_kac]

I've uploaded and downloaded gigabytes of data under OS X via FTP and SFTP. I haven't used Dreamweaver in ages (last one I owned was 2004 MX), but it always had issues. So much so I used Transmit instead.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by henjin 

I am not a newbie.

I don't need a combined 150gb of VRAM SLi for After Effects or Photoshop.

No, no, of course you aren't.

[Curiosity]

Originally Posted by Biest 

Classic example: Firefox. The mac version is absymal compared to the windows version. Is it Apples fault? I don't think so.

Now I am curious: what do you consider to be abysmal about Mac Firefox?

[eggman]

Dreamweaver CS3 connects fine with every server I've attempted it on under Leopard, and has no problem maintaining a connection.

[rem]

Why don't I hear from a single real live person who isn't terribly dissappointed by Vista? Everyone I know who has used Vista considers it to be a bloated beast, but on the intarweb these people come popping out of the woodworks. At the end of the day whichever system you prefer is the one you should use.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by rem 

Why don't I hear from a single real live person who isn't terribly dissappointed by Vista? Everyone I know who has used Vista considers it to be a bloated beast

Vista eats the about amount of resources as Leopard so we can let that myth die.

[mjankor]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Vista eats the about amount of resources as Leopard so we can let that myth die.

I've pondered this. I always assumed Leopard and Vista would be fairly similar as they're both fairly beefy OS's. However I'm also running Leopard on a 1.33 Powerbook on 768MB ram and it flies. I can't imagine Vista doing the same. Maybe I'll get around to sticking Vista on Bootcamp on my iMac to determine how significant the differences are on the same hardware.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As for customizability, Leopard has about as many options as any version before, so I don't know what you're on about there.

No it does not. In Leopard editing or customizing resources will kill off certain features. Something Tiger never did.

The days of customizing OS X are over.

Originally Posted by chabig 

If Vista (what you call a "closed" system) can fulfill all of your needs, then by all means use it. But I prefer the "open" Mac OS.

There is nothing open about Leopard. I am not saying I like Vista either.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

FTP sucks, there are much better ways to manage files (sshfs being a good example). This protocol should be put out to pasture, it is insecure and ancient. I would argue that Dreamweaver also sucks, but that is just my opinion - obviously many people would disagree with this assessment. I personally prefer a more lightweight text editor such as Textmate. Then again, I'm more of a programmer type and not a pointy-clicky type. I have no use for Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG stuff, and don't think it is worth the money as a text editor.

You probably aren't a "Designer" either.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

There is nothing open about Leopard. I am not saying I like Vista either.

The kernel and several components (*nix stuff and KHTML for instance) are open source -- Leopard doesn't change that. Cocoa and the other APIs are closed-source, though. Hence, one can say that OS X' underpinnings are open, the upper level is closed.

I think Vista is the worst Windows release since Win ME. A friend of mine got a new Dull with Vista Home pre-installed and I was the lucky guy who spent three hours configuring that thing: it was aggravating and the settings were forgotten within a few minutes. I have no idea why. He's trying to get a copy of Windows XP and downgrade from Vista.

[Kevin]

Oreo I think he was referring to your ability to customize it maybe. If that wasn't the case then my comments were off. 10.5 has severely limited what you can customize.

Even going into a application's package and changing an icon can make it stop working with certain OS services.

This is one of the many things I loved the Mac OS over Windows. You could change stuff like that without BREAKING the OS. Apple is heading towards the latter in the name of "security"

[mpancha]

I feel your pain on Dreamweaver CS3, my solution, I don't even bother with Dreamweaver to upload/download files anymore (I didn't in CS2/CS3 on Tiger and Leopard).

I disagree with many of the comments regarding Apple vs Windows, but there's no point in arguing it, debating it, or even try to talk about it. Those who dislike MS will find fault but give a blind eye to Apple doing the same thing. Those who dislike Apple will find fault, even when MS does the same thing. And replace Linux anywhere in those sentences, it will hold true. Its like picking the best sports team, you have your favorites, and you can argue it to your grave. Its all part of being a fan, be it sports, or technology.

to the OP, are you having the same problem on all 6 of your Macs (or multiple macs would be the better question).

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

This is one of the many things I loved the Mac OS over Windows. You could change stuff like that without BREAKING the OS.

Well, you could get dirty with ResEdit (and boy did I ever back when I still had the time).

But other than that, most of what else you could do only didn't BREAK the OS if you don't consider "slowing down and/or causing random instabilities or incompatibilities" "breaking" an OS (which I do).

I loved Oscar the Grouch, though.

[Kevin]

I love it because it's trash!

I miss those days.

[moonmonkey]

I miss conflict catcher, and catching conflicts.

[Biest]

Originally Posted by Curiosity 

Now I am curious: what do you consider to be abysmal about Mac Firefox?

It has just been my experience with the program. There are a lot of features that i simply don't need and seem to bog down on the program. Also it crashes on me for no obvious reason, esp. on my G4. I have had a couple of my friends share the same experience. The crashes when you load a simple site like gmail are really annoying after a while. They also don't seem to get better.

Camino on the other hand is all i need at the moment. i know it is a mozilla product, but i find it better suited

[Gavin]

Let's not be too hard on the poor guy. It takes guts to announce in public that you can't maintain a connection.

[voicebox]

OK henjin,
Get your butt back to this forum and answer your critics - 'post and run aint no fun' ..... come out, come out wherever you are ...!!

[besson3c]

Henjin asked me to sub for him...


Hey guys, what's up? It's me... Henjin. I'm here to answer all of your questions.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

I miss conflict catcher, and catching conflicts.

You like being put up on the cross and spun too don't ya...

[pyrite]

gah, all I'm hearing re: leopard is bitching and moaning... yes, it has it's flaws to be sure. But saying Vista is fundamentally better because of any of the minor concerns mentioned here... (yes, minor - for the average end user especially) is utter crap. I still personally believe Leopard, despite its flaws, is the bast Apple OS yet

[pyrite]

(let the flaming begin... it's a vague post, and anally retentive people don't accept that as adequate.. ahem - why oh why did I bother??!)

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Henjin asked me to sub for him...


Hey guys, what's up? It's me... Henjin. I'm here to answer all of your questions.

That made me laugh out loud!

[analogika]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

I miss conflict catcher, and catching conflicts.

Ah yes - HOURS of fun!

My, how I miss those days, when you could still *do* things with your system without messing it up! (or rather, *had to* do things with your system because by patching you'd messed it up!)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by pyrite 

gah, all I'm hearing re: leopard is bitching and moaning... yes, it has it's flaws to be sure. But saying Vista is fundamentally better because of any of the minor concerns mentioned here... (yes, minor - for the average end user especially) is utter crap. I still personally believe Leopard, despite its flaws, is the bast Apple OS yet

I would say 10.4.9 was better. But 10.5 has the foundation TO BE a better OS.

Originally Posted by analogika 

My, how I miss those days, when you could still *do* things with your system without messing it up! (or rather, *had to* do things with your system because by patching you'd messed it up!)

Not all patches in OS 9 messed things up. The Appearance manager in OS 8 and 9 didn't mess with anything. Steve just choose not to support it in the end.

So instead we were stuck with Kaleidoscope. Which DID mess up the OS and slow it down.

Now fast forwards 10 years. Same thing is happening.

[moonmonkey]

Because this is such a crap thread i'm going to name my 3 favorite pre Mac OS X utilities / control panels.

Menuette: changes all the menu titles to icons.

Glidel : let you enable drag and drop with menus, drag items into menus.

Talking Moose One of the most amazing productivity utilities ever released.

I can remember all my System 4 and 5 apps but can't find links to them.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So instead we were stuck with Kaleidoscope. Which DID mess up the OS and slow it down.

Now fast forwards 10 years. Same thing is happening.

Not at all the same thing.

There was never an architecture on OS X to change the OS appearance.

APE didn't exploit a built-in, but undocumented feature; it hacked the system. And, in the Leopard upgrade, that hack actually BROKE the system.

I refused to use Kaleidoscope during the OS 9 days, and I refused to use anything that installed APE under OS X (since the first time I realized it messed things up, during some point-update years ago).

[OreoCookie]

analogika nails it: OS X has never had a theming feature -- and judging from the looks of most themes, I'm glad it doesn't. I don't think you can blame Apple when an update breaks an unsupported hack. You can argue that OS X should have built-in support for themes, but I don't see that happen.

(`Back in the Tiger days,' I did use Uno, though. With Leopard, I don't need that anymore.)

@Kevin
You're right that most of Leopard's new features are under the hood and that they will become important in the future. I'm looking forward to the next release already

[tycheung]

considering the fact that OS X 10.5 works flawlessly on my MacBook and Vista on my conroe 965P box:
1) interface hangs every 5 mins (i'm sure there's some nasty rootkit that managed to worm its way in there after I accidentally used the box to surf the blizzard WoW forums...)
2) didn't shut down correctly for 2 months until I finally found the obscure version of the device drive that enabled it to do so
3) violently hiccups every time nVidia releases a new graphics driver update for it
4) loses network connection everytime the MacBook is doing moderate to large data transfers alongside it
5) is just plain fugly.


I'd say its clear to me which one is better.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Not at all the same thing.

There was never an architecture on OS X to change the OS appearance.

There was in DP3. You could go from Aqua to Classic. Steve steve'd it.

APE didn't exploit a built-in, but undocumented feature; it hacked the system. And, in the Leopard upgrade, that hack actually BROKE the system.

Well actually Leopard broke the way APE worked. But either way. It's obvious that Apple (Steve) doesn't want it's users themeing the OS. And I doubt that it has to do with security.

I refused to use Kaleidoscope during the OS 9 days, and I refused to use anything that installed APE under OS X (since the first time I realized it messed things up, during some point-update years ago).

Either do I. I had no reason to use Kal in OS 9 since Platinum was usable and consistent. And had no reason to use APEs because OS X had a themeing engine already built in.

I remember in the early days when Apple was taking people making apps to read the Extras.rsrc to court. Or at least threatening to take them.

I think that was going a bit too far. And during the time the majority of the users agreed. That is why my theme I Did make, which was one of the first, if not the first that had NO elements of Aqua left in it "Sosumi"

But by the time it hit, Apple had settled down a bit about themes. Had Apple SUPPORTED them in the first place, people wouldn't HAVE to right programs like Kaleidoscope or Shapeshifter.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

analogika nails it: OS X has never had a theming feature

It has always had a themeing engine. And once had a theme changer. Instead of giving a "Classic" and "Aqua" look. They gave a "Aqua" and "Less annoying Aqua"

and judging from the looks of most themes, I'm glad it doesn't.

Been in the OS X screenshot forums lately? Some works of art in there. Many of which put Apple to shame. Heck Max's version of Apple's own Aqua theme was 10x better and more consistent. You'd have thought they would have hired his ass. But no, someone else grabbed him instead. (IconFactory) Not too shabby for accomplishing this all before getting out of his teens.

I don't think you can blame Apple when an update breaks an unsupported hack.

I am not blaming Apple about that. I've never been a big support of APE hacks. NEver had them installed.

You can argue that OS X should have built-in support for themes, but I don't see that happen.

Well That is what I am arguing. And I don't either. Esp when people just "accepting it" and not revolting against it. The squeaky wheel gets oiled. The customer is always right.

@Kevin
You're right that most of Leopard's new features are under the hood and that they will become important in the future. I'm looking forward to the next release already

Yeah I was looking forward to it after a few hours in Leopard. That is what the sad part is.

[FastAMX79]

You all do realize that henjin (the OP) has not posted anything since the first post. I think you all have been had.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

APE didn't exploit a built-in, but undocumented feature; it hacked the system.

Such an vague accusation, and one that gives the wrong impression. Let's be precise: It exploited a built-in, documented feature to accomplish things for which the feature was not originally conceived.

[fubar_this]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Not at all the same thing.

There was never an architecture on OS X to change the OS appearance.

That is 100% false. The Appearance Manager was originally designed to ship with Copland. When Copland was killed, parts were salvaged for later revisions of "Classic" Mac OS. One of the features saved from Copland was the Appearance Manager, which not only was a ground-up rewrite of the classic Mac OS toolbar Control Manager, but also allowed Apple to skin the OS by creating themes. Mac OS 8.5 in its prelease (beta) shipped with 4 such themes, but one of the first things the Steve™ did in his return was nix themes.

Fast forward to today. The Appearance Manager is still very much alive in Mac OS (if you have the developer tools, look in Appearance.h). The HITheme APIs still allow for the same basic principles. And CoreUI in Tiger and Leopard is using the same principles to bring the concepts to Cocoa as well.

(The basic concept that I am talking about is using a data-driven mechanism to draw controls and widgets. In Mac OS 8.5 through Mac OS X Panther, that meant the Resource Manager. With CoreUI, it means compiled XML files.)

Just a little history lesson for you. The summary: Steve killed themes.
(Edited to fix broken quoting. My bad.)

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Such an vague accusation, and one that gives the wrong impression. Let's be precise: It exploited a built-in, documented feature to accomplish things for which the feature was not originally conceived.

I'm not too sure that it was doing something that it wasn't conceived to if you look at how the mach messaging system works... Just the fact that there IS a function that lets you take any mach call and replace it with anything you want makes it seem like Apple wanted that functionality to be there, but they didn't want people changing their precious OS, so they're now backtracking and attempting to kill it.

[PaperNotes]

Leopard rules. The few bugs I have seen are easy fixes. Today I got dual Raptors and stripped them into a RAID-0 set and plugged them into an eSATA ExpressCard for my MBP. The Sonnet driver is 10.3 and up. Everything worked like a charm. The driver situation is better than I thought.