DealsOnTheWeb Daily Deal: OneCall's Weekend Sale - 20 Great Items at Great Prices All Weekend Long
Guardian: Leopard is Nothing to Purr About
by , 2:05 PM EST, December 19th, 2007
Apple seems to have suffered by under committing resources to Leopard, and the 10.5 release is a black mark on Apple's record, according to Charles Arthur at the Guardian.
TMO notes that one of Apple's new commercials speaks to Vista users backgrading to XP, but Charles Arthur has also noted that in his personal search for notes on how to backgrade to Tiger, he's run across many Leopard users who are considering the same scenario.
While most Leopard users aren't having many problems, a few are. While that's always the case for any new OS release, what's notable here is that there seems to be some specific areas where Apple didn't cover all the bases, and that was deemed a symptom on inadequate testing, an end of October deadline, and iPhone distractions.
For example, upgrade scenarios haven't gone nearly as well as clean installs which has led to more than rare system crashes and freezes. Specifically, those people who had certain third party plugins in Tiger were caught in the Leopard "blue screen of death." [TMO notes that another was the infamous file move bug dating back to Jaguar and only fixed in 10.5.1.]
Comments by Dave Winer were also cited: "The new networking interface is a big step backward. The firewall moved and lost features! That's simply never done, you don't charge customers to remove features, esp[ecially] security features."
"Despite its selling more and more computers, Apple's financial future depends increasingly on the iPhone and iPods. It has hit a software bottleneck. In trying to produce two high-quality software products whose deadlines were (in software terms) so close, and both of which needed so much attention to detail, it discovered the same problems that all software projects do: you can't make working code happen faster by throwing more people at it. Deadlines get missed. The 'proper' release is always the one that comes with the after-release update," Mr. Arthur observed.
Another danger is that as the Apple Macintosh becomes more and mainstream, these kinds of problems will affect more and more people by proportion. As a result, "wider beta testing is needed to iron out bugs before they reach the paying public. Leopard is a big, black mark on Apple's record," Mr. Arthur concluded.
Observer Comments
A "Black Mark" may be a bit strong. Most people I communicate with are happy with it. I agree though that it's not as well polished as earlier 10.x releases were. To quote Ted Landau fromhis column today "I have the sense that, with all the other stuff Apple had going on in 2007, Leopard was not given the attention it needed. It may take until around version 10.5.3 before Leopard is truly a "finished" product."
I upgraded to Leopard with no difficulty but I have since hit a terribly frustrating problem of Leopard freezing my mouse after waking from sleep. The problem is extremely annoying and gives my shiny OSX a distinct aroma of Windows.
The problem is discussed in many forums including Apple's Discussion Boards dating back to October/November.
To recover, one must force a system restart... grrr!
The workaround is to disable sleep - not a very green solution.
There is no acknowledgment from Apple on the issue that I can find; and no fix.
Many users reporting the problem on online discussion boards have expressed the desire to revert to Tiger.
QuoteI think Landau's summation is a lot more fair and accurate. Author's POV is just as lame as 10.5 having landed on PC World's "10 biggest tech disappointments of '07" list. 10.5 is a comparable disappoint to Vista?! Give me a freakin' break. A few hitches out of the gate for a .0 release compared to a big ol' bloated bomb (5 years in the making)??geoduck wrote:
To quote Ted Landau fromhis column today "I have the sense that, with all the other stuff Apple had going on in 2007, Leopard was not given the attention it needed. It may take until around version 10.5.3 before Leopard is truly a finished product.
QuoteWell, I think anyone who writes an article about Macs is going to hear from us in droves, one way or the other. All the same, it's easier to spew biased news when there are no repercussions.Web sites such as the Guardian who publish their hit pieces and provide no forum for reader comments on their articles are, to me, just plain cowards.
Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:10 pm Subject: Same old, same old
It seems to me that people forget the past very fast. I came on to OS X with Panther and it sure had a lot of issues in the beginning. Was that when applications were suddenly quitting all the time? Or was that with Tiger? Anyway, 10.3.9 was a really solid update and it was almost a pity to start over again with 10.4 or Tiger. I can't recall what were the problems then, but I remember that there were lots of threads on the Apple Support forums and lot of teethgnashing, like it is now. Nothing new, as I see it.
I hear through the grapevine that 10.5.2 is going to be a solid update and I am waiting until then.
Meanwhile, Apple caused some Safari-trouble in Tiger with the last security update. Everything is normal, it seems:)
Definitely an overstatement, yet not one grounded in fantasy. I would agree that Leopard isn't as stable as it should have been on release of 10.5.0 but that's to be expected for an initial release. I recommended to conservative users - as in those people who don't feel the need to be at the cutting edge - to wait for 10.5.1 before upgrading, as a couple of issues that I felt were major ones should have been ironed out with the release of the first point update.
Sadly, this was not entirely the case, as 10.5.1 can behave oddly at times as well. However, to say it's "like Windows" is ridiculous. OS X on a bad day still beats XP or Vista having a good one. For instance, XP decided recently to install a system update and reboot --- WITHOUT my permission.
I look forward to the day that I can confidently recommend Leopard, knowing that those who ask my opinion will be able to run a reliably stable OS. Yet by no means would I discourage anyone from using it and by no means would I even think of it as a "black mark" against Apple, not when one considers Leopard's new features, which I use at each and every session and value highly - Time Machine (already proved its value), Spaces, Quick Look - and myriad other small enhancements that are very welcome indeed. If Charles Arthur had any interest in writing a balanced story, he would have pointed out things such as these.
He didn't. He chose instead to write flamebait. He succeeded, albeit exploiting external threads such as this as proxies.
10.5.2 is running on my secondary disk drive even as we speak - I am a legit developer - and so far I like it. There are a few quirks - this is a delta - but it does address issues people have belly ached about... oops - referenced.
<rant>
If you want to compare Apple and M$ then you have some work to do. There is none. I have V.I.S.T.A. and XP running on machines in my lab and they are worthless. You still cannot swap a keyboard without it being a major issue and headset to use with SKYPE - only one word: phuque!
Apple since forever has been plug and play.
Most of the gripes about security is because people expect 10.5 to act like 10.4 - it isn't even the same game much less in the same ballpark!
Very different - read the online support documents - it is not less.
</rant>
I agree with the need for much wider beta testing. MS uses thousands upon thousands of people to beta test even just new SPs for Windows. There are certainly just as many Mac users (most of whom I would even consider trustworthy) who would run 10.5.2 on a machine to beta test it and help apple iron out bugs.
Anyway, I'm typing this on my new work machine that has 10.5.1 on it, I've already sent two finished InDesign books to press, CS3 is fine, Suitcase is a little flaky but what's new (the new Font stuff in Leopard was a big letdown for me, didn't work hardly at all), etc etc. I haven't had any major issues with it, and now I'm finding it has features I miss when I go to tiger machines, Screen Sharing chief among them.
So, yeah, *insert rude comment about Guardian and its lame FUD here*
Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:16 pm Subject: Re: From the Guardian: thanks for all the comments..
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
Hi folks..
thanks for your comments. Yes, it would be good if you could add comments directly on stories on the Guardian stories - we're working on it, I believe.
To be precise: I quoted Winer quoting someone else who said "it's like Windows"; I didn't use the quote that's above (though I did link to the post where that quote appears). I didn't (for those who haven't read it) compare it to Vista or XP.
You can do the research yourselves on how many people are considering "downgrade/ing to Tiger" vs how many said "downgrade/ing to Panther". That was my point, really. Even if the proportion is the same or less, the absolute number of people who've had problems with Leopard is larger.
Charles Arthur, editor, Guardian Technology
And I'm supposed to believe this is actually you?
"I quoted Winer quoting someone else who said "it's like Windows"' - really? Why didn't you just blame your sub-editor for not clearly attributing the source of the opinion? And so this is not your opinion? And it has no bearing on your "black mark" assessment?
Whoever you are, please stop masquerading as a journalist.
QuoteGuest wrote:
@coaten: "And I'm supposed to believe this is actually you? "
Yup, though you could have verified it by emailing me.
We didn't have space to do the full details about who precisely said what; we gave the link, so people who followed it could see the precise context. I'm not responsible for how MacObserver chooses to quote stuff; it quoted Winer in a way I didn't.
My suggestion: read the links that are offered in pieces before cranking up the outrage.
WTF? I did read the piece. You chose to include an opinion, or a link thereto, from a third-party in a comment piece of your own. This shapes your opinion and consequently your conclusion. If it had no bearing on your own opinion, why include it? And so you feel the need to defend your story by misdirecting our attention with a swipe at TMO's editorial methods? What? You then come here, if it really is you, Charles Arthur, and then defend your flamebait-laden opinion by:
1. Trying to apologise for the Guardian's inability to offer a forum for reader feedback? Any idiot with bargain basement blogging software can set up a site with feedback. So either The Guardian's techs are inexplicably incompetent, or you have boneheads of colossal proportion with a policy mindset that prevents it. Either way, it's hard to take you seriously. Why not make that apology at your own site?
2. You maintain a "yes, it's really me" as some kind of argument and think for a moment that offering an email address is some kind of proof? It's like... "ooh, trust me, I'm a journalist with an email address". Your email link attached to your story is a form. Why should I believe for a moment that the email address offered earlier in the thread is actually yours? You think maybe I should trust you? That perhaps I have every reason to believe you're not some twisted, evil genius of a troll with a penchant for wasting your ISP's allocation of email aliases by using one as a Charles Arthur smokescreen? Are you serious?
If you had bothered to read my initial comment before cranking up your outrage, you may have realised that to some extent I was agreeing with your opinion. If I had really been outraged you'd know about it. For instance, I could - in a fit of outrage - have pointed out how ridiculous your quantitive (quantitative, if you prefer) assessment of disgruntled Leopard users was. We know Apple has sold at least two million copies of Leopard. So for your assessment to hold any merit, we would need to believe that some thousands or hundreds of thousands of users are downgrading. Yet your oinion is based on a search engine result? Here, try this, Google on <Charles Arthur idiot iconoclast genius>. What I got was 1790 results. Take <genius> out of the search and you get 22,500 results. Conclusion? Clearly, you're not the genius you thought you were.
This is what passes for quality research at The Guardian, is it? Send me a style sheet and sign me up.
Perhaps you just thought the cachet that comes with having a Guardian byline justifies your insouciance? Such typical English arrogance.
Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:24 am Subject: Re: What does V.I.S.T.A. stand for?
Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:35 am Subject: Re: From the Guardian: thanks for all the comments..
QuoteBy making a baseless statement that there are people who are actually downgrading their OS X, you're directly implying that 10.5 is comparably as dud-worthy as Vista. I can concede that Leopard probably has had more issues out of the gate than at least the last two major versions (based on everything I've read). But if what you're saying about "downgraders of OS X" has one iota of merit, why wouldn't you have included those references in your article? Inviting people to do a word search for "downgrade" is NOT supporting evidence --unless you're willing to admit to the 20,000 instances of "Charles Author idiot" does in fact, make you a nincompoop.Anonymous wrote:
I didn't (for those who haven't read it) compare it to Vista or XP.
You can do the research yourselves on how many people are considering "downgrade/ing to Tiger" vs how many said "downgrade/ing to Panther". That was my point, really. Even if the proportion is the same or less, the absolute number of people who've had problems with Leopard is larger.
Leopard may not be Apple's shiniest OS release, but it's definitely not their worst, and most definitely not the black eye for Apple that you'd like everyone to believe. I agree with coaten: the article was at best irresponsible journalism, and at worst flame bait.
The argument that states column space determines the length of an internet edition is so, gee, what... 1997?
Get with the program. Your newspaper gives you two outlets for your material: one in print, where column space limitations determine the length of your article; and the other the internet. If you are going to express an opinion or write a review or otherwise exploit the internet as a publishing medium then you should be prepared to respect your online readers by providing them with the fullness of your writing talent that is otherwise unencumbered by column space restrictions or the exactitudes of hard-copy sub-editors. Choosing simply to dump your hard-copy online is not only lazy but fails to respect the internet as a publishing medium in its own right.
When the movies became "the talkies" it took directors some time to come to grips with the fact that dialogue could drive a movie instead of the stage management they had so far relied upon so heavily. Perhaps The Guardian should come to grips with the "new media" and what it means to better service and respond to an online readership. Unless, of course, The Guardian harbours the fear that its readers may not be who it thinks they are.
As for not including a feedback forum because of security concerns?
You're not serious? If this is a genuine account of your IT department's policy then I am genuinely dismayed at their incompetency. Perhaps you could send some of them on a fact-finding mission to any one of the many newspaper web sites that manages it without too much trouble. Start with the New York Times. From there, have a talk to the News Corp outlets.
Oh, and Wordpress? Stop embarrassing yourself.
"As for apologising on our own site - I expect if I'd done it ther, you'd have complained about me ignoring this forum. "
I'm quite certain we all would have been quite happy should you have decided to ignore this forum.
As for your continued assertions supporting your research methodology, they remain, IMHO, rubbery at best.
You should also be aware that as someone who has been posting at this site since 2001, that I've seen all sorts of trickery enacted by trolls and I remain unconvinced that you don't belong in that category. Hence my reticence to take seriously anyone who can't be bothered or doesn't have the balls to register.
My condolences to your editor.
QuoteOh, so being a fair and responsible journalist is too high of a bar for you? Why weren't any of these bulletin boards cited in your article, or perhaps any supporting evidence? Opinions count, but without anything else to back them up, that's what your article was: an opinion piece, and a sloppy one at that.Anonymous wrote:
You mean, my opinions should be shaped by nothing - not personal experience, not others' experience, and not factsw we can ascertain by reading buletin boards? That's setting a pretty high bar for where we acquire them.
QuoteAnd was that the ultimate purpose of the op/ed: to hurt Apple's reputation, irrespective of a glaring lack of real research?Anonymous wrote:
And as I keep saying, but you keep ignoring, the problem for Apple is absolute numbers: more people, numerically, who are dissatisfied, because it's selling more product. If enough people know someone who's had a bad experience, even if the numbers are small, then the reputation suffers.
QuoteYeah, that might have been a legitimate excuse ten years ago. This is the information age, bub. Any excuse you care to make to that effect is out of your own laziness and irresponsibility.Anonymous wrote:
The article originally appeared in print; the print version is then put online.
QuoteBull crap.Anonymous wrote:
I do not mention Vista or Microsoft *anywhere* in my piece. This implication is in your fevered imagination.
"He mentioned this to a friend, who replied dismally: "It's like Windows". As in crashes, stalls, freezes. That must have hurt in Cupertino."
Regardless of which version of Windows may have been implicated (or AGAIN, your lack of anything but a tenuous quote for your ar