Submitted by Apple posted a Leopard guided tour video, in the same format as the earlier iPhone and iPod Touch guided tours. It mentions the new Finder, stacks, Time Machine, Quick Look, Spaces, and so on. In Quicktime, of course.
Apple posted a Leopard guided tour video, in the same format as the earlier iPhone and iPod Touch guided tours. It mentions the new Finder, stacks, Time Machine, Quick Look, Spaces, and so on. In Quicktime, of course.
I downloaded the high res version and sat there watching it, waiting to see something new that The Steve hadn’t already shown us, but there was nothing new in it…
I find it quite amusing that going through 300 new features, Apple lists screensavers as a ‘new feature’. Since when do we buy operating systems based on screensavers??!
I will of course, go to the Apple Store like a good little sheep and pay for the upgrade as I don’t want to be left behind.
pac
Well, my Cube can’t run Leopard, but I’m planning on buying a MacBook.
With Leopard of coure. I’m a good little sheep too.
Edited 2007-10-21 11:25 UTC
I would just like to add (but not in response to yourself), that your computer with Tiger does not suddenly become anything less than it was just because leopard has come out. There is no “suck switch” that Apple flip to make Tiger totally inadequate.
Tiger is still better than Vista, and I have a G4 MacMini that I could upgrade, but that I will keep Tiger on, running just as well as it has since 2005.
Edited 2007-10-21 12:12
I recently upgraded from a PC to Macbook, and I’m genuinely shocked/surprised just how good it actually is. It is a rocket fast it is. Believe me, you won’t be disappointed when you move. Leopard apparently has had big kernel changes to fix long standing threading/process performance issues.
Hopefully Arstechnica will have a good review once it has been released – including information on the kernel underpinnings and low level features.
Un. Be. Lie. Va. Ble.
Of all people, you, kaiwai, are the one I’d expect not to switch, ever.
Perhaps from now on you won’t hang around here bashing the nostrils hair out of Apple?
j/k
lol, well, call my PC experience something as a result of ‘optimistic youth’ – prior to that PC experience I was Mac person. I guess one needs some experience in hell to realise just how great life really is.
This Macbook is damn good. I was sceptical at first, Intel integrated etc but I bit the bullet and realised just how badly Windows utilises hardware. Windows Vista with Intel 950, its painful. With MacOS X, its a joy.
Oh, and I’ve got iWorks; its awesome – truly is. Does what I need at a reasonable price. Well supported etc. etc. Its just awesome to see how well things perform.
I hear ya. As a paying customer of Apple for God knows how long (actually… since System 7.5.x days, casual user since 7.0.x), I felt kind of entitled to take a walk on the grey area and check out how the “Hack OS X” would run on the refurbished HP laptop I bought earlier this year. While keeping the iMac with the bought copy of Tiger shut down, of course, so my shade of grey remains as light as possible. </tongue-in-cheek>
Apart from not supporting the memory card reader and the Intel 3945ABG adapter, it works almost great. QE/CI works with Titan/Natit/LD (strange combination, but necessary to enable dithering on the 6-bit LCD), although the display blacks out if sleep is enabled, and won’t come up again unless I manage to put the entire system to sleep and force it to come back.
But what surprises me is how cool the laptop remains during regular use, whereas under Vista (which came bundled, Home Premium) it gets really hot, really quick, then the fan goes crazy. Which prompted me to buy one of those aluminium laptop stands with a pair of fans. I have to use NHC (http://www.pbus-167.com/) to force Vista to use the battery-optimised settings and keep the processor at minimum frequency. HP’s default settings don’t work well at all, still I don’t want to disable its settings, then Vista, so wisely, doesn’t show the battery-optimised settings anymore. Brilliant, Microsoft. Under OS X I don’t even need to enable the battery-saving options… Not to mention how there’s no UAC to first inform me that on the coming screen I’ll have to allow some app I just downloaded to run, then proceed to the next nagscreen telling me to finally allow it to run… o_O
I’m piling up some cash to get myself a 17″ MacBook Pro mid-2008, when the Penryn mobile version is out. One thing that this HP laptop taught me is that debugging on 1280×800 is a pain; I’m so eyeing the 1920×1200 BTO MBP, preferably with LED-backlit goodness
Edited 2007-10-21 20:05
I was going to purchase a MacBook Pro but retailers within NZ have been experiencing difficulty sourcing them – so that might be a message that it could be updated soon as Leopard is released.
What are you intending to use the laptop for, I’ve found to my surprise that the Macbook is more than sufficient for everything I need – in some cases I think even this might be an over kill – but how can someone turn down a sexy black laptop
Side note, compared to my HP laptop, this computer is built extremely robust – everything seems to be built and assembled with some effort to detail vs what I saw with HP; flimsy plastic, parts not properly tacked down etc. etc.
I second you on that one. I have here at the office an HP Compaq nx9420 and I am on my third one right now. The first one has a total disk failure, the 2nd one has keys not properly tacked down and heres hoping the 3rd one don’t die on me. I kinda wish my company bought Macs, but the MS IT engineers will protest on that one for sure.
This is the big dirty secret. Imagine your company went 100% Mac – you wouldn’t need as many IT people – people could fix their own problems without the need of having the IT person on site all the time.
This is the same battle which Linux/Solaris is fighting on the server space. If you can purchase a server loaded with Solaris and consolidate several Windows servers into a single Solaris one – would the company need as many IT people? Its basically job preservation strategy – nothing to do with using the best technology; everything to do with making sure that they keep the infrastructure in place which justifies their employment.
That is the problem. Lets not get started with the number of pointless applications within organisations; Sharepoint anyone? using exchange purely for a mail server?
I wouldn’t go as far as saying that OSX doesn’t need technical support (because it does, especially if they use Office2004) but I’ve experienced very little calls for technical support for Apple users, but these users are usually very technically inclined and are young. I can’t say the same about the windows users who are sometimes technically dumb as a post.
Hence the reason I never said that it doens’t need technical support. If one can fix more issues without the need of having to bring a dedicated person ‘onsite’ where the end user is, to fix the problem – then it’ll save money.
As for technical capability; it is easier to provide technical support over the telephone when the user has a Mac – when I was in Australia, helping a person setup things on a Mac was very easy.
“Go all Mac and you won’t need as many people.”
Wow – someone that actually knows how companies work. I’m not being sarcastic. This is absolutely true.
Nothing makes IT managers angrier than finding a way that could make half their staff redundant (other than being out sourced). Keep in mind that most of their salary is dependent on how many people report to them and how much each employee makes.
When I saw “Yes Minister” (Which later became Yes Prime Minister), I thought it was a comedy. I joined the real world and found that it the comedy almost mirrors real life.
MBP have been out of stock (as in not immediatly available) for months, it’s not because a new modell is coming (there was a rumor for october I think but may have been november aswell, november got an update both 2006 and 2005 but january seems more likely if one look at intels cpu plans) but rather because they can’t produce enough / lack parts (lcd displays?)
That is probably the most likely scenario. Looking in retrospect, I don’t think I really needed a MacBook Pro – sure, it might have given me a ego boost but when I ask my self “do I really need all the power and expandability which MacBook Pro provides” – the answer is no.
Please no, i just got mine in June. Freaking apple.
lol, it was released in june so why are you complaining, of course they will do updates, it’s worse for people buying it say now, or in december if they update in january
With Penryn set to debut early 2008, I find this extremely unlikely. Unless it’s something like LED backliting the current 17″ models. But I still find it extremely unlikely. Significant introductions of Apple notebooks happen consistently at Macworld Expo, in the second week of January; and I kind of find LED backliting in addition to a new CPU core (as opposed to the regular speed bump; Penryn will boost battery times significantly, along with improved virtualisation enhancements and SSE4, which will practically close the gap between AltiVec and SSE) very significant.
By carrying around a sexy 1″ thick aluminium “slate” instead?
WRT my usage patterns: programming and debugging, mostly (and I like big screens on resolutions that “normal” people find unreadable); entertainment (TV replacement) too (now that the nvidia accelerator they’re using is HDCP-compliant, I’m hoping external BluRay/HD-DVD players become cheap enough in a timely fashion; or is it at all possible to use some of those cheaper SATA(PATA) to USB2 adapters and standard BR/HD drives? I’m guessing a “yes” here); drawing, 3D modelling and film editing (my hobbies
); and gaming (yay for BootCamp). I’m fully aware of the weight of this beast, it’s like carrying a sheet of steel on your backpack 
Still I don’t think anything less than a 17-incher will suit me. Max 1440×900 on the 15″ model won’t cut it for me anyway. Too bad the 17″ one won’t fit an airplane tray, but then again, it’s so rare for me to travel by plane that this is not a deciding factor in any purchase I make.
Strongly agreed WRT flimsy plastic on most notebooks from other vendors. But the dv6000 line is pretty well built (the ones with “piano-black, zen-garden finish”), and mine is a refurb dv6275, which, except for the heating issue and abysmal vertical viewing angle, is pretty decent. I checked the 17″ 1680×1050 MBP on FNAC the other day, and the vertical viewing angle on the MBP beats the one of the HP hands down.
>> paying customer of Apple for God knows how long <<
As a non-Mac-owner, the Email-todo-etc looks slick from afar, etc, but I’m just fantasizing. I believe I skimmed all the comments and no one else discussed this in detail – is Email/Spotlight indeed that cool, for the everyday routine of rummaging around for dimly remembered stuff ?
In all honesty, what’s so bad about the features they did show?
Leopard is stunning. It’s simple, efficient and these features are fantastic for regular users.
Just imagine trying to demo the same feature set in Vista:
OSX: Plug in disk, click Yes
Vista: Plug in disk, click on Start orb > All Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Backup status and configuration. Click Run a backup now. Click Allow on UAC…
This is beyond confusing and doesn’t even begin to cover trying to restore a file based on a search query.
Well, you know, they might be new features for OSX, but other operating systems have been having these things for ages. Sure, Apple made them easier to use than ever (supposedly, we haven’t used them yet), but that’s it. That’s commendable, but not trendsetting, like OSX used to be.
So, I assume you’ve been trying out the betas?
Leopard is stunning in that it is Mac OS X, the best desktop operating system for normal users – not for its “new” features.
Usable means everything. How many people backup? 5%? If that? Backup software has been around for eons – so why don’t people back up?
A lot of geeks come to the conclusion that users are stupid and do not know how to backup. A feature that cannot be found, simply does not exist. This goes for Thom who thinks VSC >= Time Machine.
Methinks not enough forum users have regular every day contact with regular every day people. Time Machine blows everything out of the water because there’s a whole 95% market open to capture with attachment sales.
Why does Leopard have to have some ultra cool feature, when you’re already staring at one. Backup that just fecking works. That alone is worth the price.
What would you rather: something that works, or “The Wow starts now”?
I only said that VSC is more powerful than Time Machine. Sure, it doesn’t have flying stars, but it is set up to work by default, and works as advertised, and can be accessed easily via the properties dialogs of files and folders. The crap thing of course is that you need Windows Vista Superbly Ubercool Ultimate Premium Monster Edition to even have Previous Versions/VSC in the first place.
VSC is more powerful because it combines a back up featureset with a versioning system featureset, without one of the featuresets depending on the others – in other words, even if you do not back up (i.e. you have no external hard drive, like me (too expensive)) you are still free to use the versioning system featureset of VSC, because it stores previous versions of files and entire directories on its own filesystem.
Time Machine is an extremely crude implementation with a flashy GUI, where VSC is a very elegant and advanced implementation with a rather crude GUI. However, even this causes problems with Time Machine: Time Machine may have a flashy GUI but it’s hopelessly modal – in other words, if you are using Time Machine, you are forced to use only Time Machine, because it is a full screen application. VSC is surely more of a framework on which to build for the future. I think it would be elementary for a programmer to write a flashy interface on top of VSC/Previous Versions.
Only time will tell. You still need to buy an additional external hard drive, seeing all home user Macs (so non-Pro) do not even have the ability to carry an additional internal hard drive. Additionally, Apple’s strongest market is laptops- and they move around all the time, and do not have continious access to an external hard drive. So, how is Time Machine going to work for lots of students who carry all those MacBooks around?
That’s why I call Time Machine a crude implementation. It only caters to one specific use case: namely, computer solidly at home, with an external HD plugged into it. The problem is that this specific use case is growing ever more dated, as the laptop market is increasing in size.
That’s the weirdness of the RDF. Microsoft completely overhauls its operating system, adding more features than OSX has all put together, and it’s “minor change” and just “XP with a coat” – Apple adds some features other operating systems have had for ages, dresses them up with flying stars, and suddenly it’s all revolutionary or “who needs new features”.
Edited 2007-10-21 12:36 UTC
Your definition of “easily” is not the same “easily” that regular users use.
“It only caters to one specific use case: namely, computer solidly at home, with an external HD plugged into it. The problem is that this specific use case is growing ever more dated, as the laptop market is increasing in size.”
Maybe to you, the geek. Backup disk sales are increasing. You can buy 2.5″ USB powered backup disks like the Maxtor one-touch III. I’ve bought three this month for customers because it offers the easiest, one-button, few cables option to backup the computer. But it’s fine as a backup, but hopeless at restoring unless you know proper file management with Explorer. This is where Time Machine puts the cherry on top.
There is no RDF here. I wrote a bash script to rsync my user folder to a firewire disk drive as my backup. Even I, a geek, can recognise the value of Time Machine.
I use Vista on customer’s computers all the time, having to set it up, configure it and deal with it, and it doesn’t compare to OS X. I cannot spend an hour on Vista without being righteously irritated by it.
edit: A backup on the same disk is not a backup at all.
Edited 2007-10-21 12:48
Because Thom is a Linux-user: they don’t like other users so they haven’t “easy” in their dictonary!
For Thom and other Linux-sheeps (if a MacUser that buys Leopard is a sheep so it is a Linux-user that downloads the last version of a distro with absolutely not new freature) “easy” is apt-get…
I use Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X every day. Not just Linux.
Yes, me too. And 90% of the people that reads this site uses two o more OSs every day for passion, personal experience, job etc. etc.
You aren’t so special as you think.
Anyway, you are a Linux-user: it’s even a matter of “style”, not only the OS you use (and you use Linux above all: don’t lie, please). And please, don’t repeat the lie “I was a BeOS user” to seem more open-minded: you aren’t!
Linux is also very powerful: The shell allows you to do things that can’t be done with a user interface. However in order to use it, you have to learn, learn, learn. You know the drill, I’m sure. And you also know that grandma won’t want to use it, hence, it’s wonderfully powerful and useless technology.
My mom won’t use a cell phone, since she can’t abstract how it works from a regular phone and can’t figure out all the buttons, menus, etc. Hence the cell phone is useless. It wouldn’t matter if it was a 100000$ cell phone designed by NASAs best engineers. Still useless.
Um, no.
Because you can back up wirelessly to a drive connected to an Airport Extreme.
Yes, that’s strange isn’t it? No it isn’t! It’s exactly because they implement them so people can actually use them. I would call that equally revolutionary to constructing a brand new technology that only highly trained people can use, say, a real time machine. Imagine if cars were still so complex and fragile like they were in the 1900-1910’s, that you had to have a mechanic sitting next to you or driving the car for you. That’s a Windows PC. The Mac is more like a 1930’s car with electric starter.
What will future MacOSX versions bring? Likely more currently existing technologies in a form that everybody can use and they will be revolutionized all over again.
Uhm, no you cannot. This feature has been removed from Time Machine.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5581444
Alright, that’s news to me. From reading what people write in the comments on other pages, people experience reliability problems with Airport disks, which unsolved, would lead to problems with Time Machine. Hence they pull it out.
But since VSC is superior, it of course solves this problem for laptop users, right?
You DON’T need to buy an extra hard drive…… Ever heard of something called Partitioning?
Leopard allows flexible non destructive re-partitioning + a time machine Partition doesn’t just allow TimeMachine files on it you can also have normal files on one too.
The real point of Time Machine is a *real* backup – For normal users a default which implies you can only backup files onto an external HDD is a Bonus not a hinderance……
A backup of your main drive on your main drive which has died really is of no use whatsoever!
Also why do you ASSUME that Time Machine is no use whatsoever on a laptop? Well why not try making a small Time Machine partition on your laptop and a larger Time Machine partition on a drive at home which connects over wireless / ethernet/ usb – yes it works and pretty darn well if you ask me.
thingi
Edited 2007-10-21 13:40
That’s not backing up. That’s partitioning. Backing up implies a seperate medium.
In addition, partioning would be way too difficult a concept to grasp for the users Crok has in mind. I mean, if they can’t right-click on a file and select the “previous versions” tab, I’m sure they cannot partition either.
You’ve said “Only time will tell. You still need to buy an additional external hard drive, seeing all home user Macs (so non-Pro) do not even have the ability to carry an additional internal hard drive.”
So what’s your issue with having to plug an external HDD in? You’ve previously implied that Windows VSC is better because it doesn’t require another HDD – yet when someone points out you don’t need an external hdd for Time Machine you change your stance!!!!!!!!
A Partition is a Partition. If a Partition has a *Versioned Backup* of files you have stored on another Partition is a *Backup*.
What’s wrong with a second internal drive?
I realize laptops aren’t dual drive internally capable and that laptops are “hot” right now. I don’t care if you use an external tape, hdd, partition, second internal drive for systems other than laptops, removable flash drives or whatever, you can use Time Machine to backup from a single file to your entire partition, depending on how you map your system.
No one backs up 160Gig internal laptop drives, other than say Porn fanantics.
They backup small portions of systems that are crucial to their system.
Time Machine will drive external usb/firewire drive sales and thus lower the pricing of external drives.
What what i don’t get it!!! Are you sure that you know what you are talking about!! It seems not!!!
You can not compare VSC to Time Machine, because VSC is not a feature intended to do the same thing as Time Machine.
Time machine is a back up feature, VSC is not and is not intended to that purpose. VSC, although it can present a listing of duplicated files that were captured by the shadow copy service, is not a backup system. Previous Versions only shows local shadows of a file. It does not copy files to an external disk for safekeeping, and its shadow copies can’t be browsed through by the user in the file system by date or by query.
In other words, VCS is a versioning feature, again it is not a back up feature, not!!!!
“VSC is more powerful because it combines a back up featureset with a versioning system featureset, without one of the featuresets depending on the others – in other words, even if you do not back up (i.e. you have no external hard drive, like me (too expensive)) you are still free to use the versioning system featureset of VSC, because it stores previous versions of files and entire directories on its own filesystem. ”
BS, disk are very cheap todays, anyone can buy a 120 Gb disk for very cheap. Again VSC does not allow to back up and i don’t see the point to save data in the same daily used disk. Is it so difficult to understand that to back up data you need a back up devise, if your disk dies, your VSC are useless!!!!!
VSC more powerful? Why, because of what? Without technical arguments, what you are saying is just air….
“Time Machine is an extremely crude implementation with a flashy GUI, where VSC is a very elegant and advanced implementation with a rather crude GUI”
VSC a advanced implementation? Why? Again this is just air.
Time machine seems to be implemented very nicely, it relies on multi-links to save space on the backing up disk, it works with the file systems as it always knows which files is being changed or created or deleted. Therefore it is fast as when it backs up the data it already knows what to back up, it does not have to scan through all the disk as VSC does to know what changed.
Also VSC only gets files that have changed. It means that if you create a file and does not change it before the next time VCS scans the disk, then it is gone. Not such thing with machine, as it is informed by the file system that a file has been created and that it should back it up.
So which one is more advanced?????
“Time Machine may have a flashy GUI but it’s hopelessly modal – in other words, if you are using Time Machine, you are forced to use only Time Machine, because it is a full screen application. VSC is surely more of a framework on which to build for the future. I think it would be elementary for a programmer to write a flashy interface on top of VSC/Previous Versions. ”
BS, Time Machine is a set of API/frameworks that developers can use to implement backing up features in their applications. I can imagine Adobe, Alias, Wolfram, etc implementing Time machine in their apps in order that the user can retrieve data directly in their apps. Not such things with VSC!!! And Time machine allows developers to precisely specify which files of their apps they want their users to back up, not such thing with VSC.
“Only time will tell. You still need to buy an additional external hard drive, seeing all home user Macs (so non-Pro) do not even have the ability to carry an additional internal hard drive. Additionally, Apple’s strongest market is laptops- and they move around all the time, and do not have continious access to an external hard drive. So, how is Time Machine going to work for lots of students who carry all those MacBooks around?
That’s why I call Time Machine a crude implementation. It only caters to one specific use case: namely, computer solidly at home, with an external HD plugged into it. The problem is that this specific use case is growing ever more dated, as the laptop market is increasing in size. ”
Non-sense!!! Again your argument is flawed because it seems that you don’t know what backing up means. If i want to back up my data i need to store them on a safe devise which is not the disk where my data are always sitting, otherwise it is not back up. Back up is back up even if Thom Holwerda can not understand it. That means that whatever i am using, desktop computer or laptop, if i want to back up my data i need to be sure that my data are duplicated somewhere else, and this somewhere else is not my laptop or my desktop, but a another storage system, external disk, storage on a server, whatever…
I don’t see why user of laptops can’t use Time machine. If they want to back up their data they NEED to copy their data somewhere. Why it is so difficult for Thom Holwerdat to imagine that students with laptops can back up their data on their disk at home, or on their disk space in their university servers?
Because i tell you again, if they want to back up their data, having them versioned by VSC on their local disk will be useless if their local disk dies. If they want to back up they have to back up somewhere, which VSC fails to do.
So VSC is useless for backing up data (it is useful only if a Windows machine is running in an environment with a server backing them up which most users don’t have or you assume that users can get more easily a backing up server than an external disk, what a world!!!), and for this reason it can not be compared to Time Machine which is a back up solution and then needs necessarily a back up devise to work.
I find very stupid to talk about saving data and in the same time telling us that it should not be done in a back up devise. What are you thinking???
And finally i find strange to comment on a feature (Time machine) that you did not use yet and that you don’t understand how it works….
“That’s the weirdness of the RDF. Microsoft completely overhauls its operating system, adding more features than OSX has all put together, and it’s “minor change” and just “XP with a coat” – Apple adds some features other operating systems have had for ages, dresses them up with flying stars, and suddenly it’s all revolutionary or “who needs new features”.
”
Yes sure keep trolling! How do you explain then that Vista is so flawed? Or should just i call it jealousy?
And isn’t Vista that added features that OS X had for ages, should i mention compositing, hardware accelerated interface, high resolution icons, live icons, file content search, etc….?
Well…….
They both do the same thing. Backing up and file versioning.
I’m sure you’ve never used it, then. You can open any file’s or directory’s properties dialog, select the previous versions tab… And browse through these pevious versions ordered by… Date. And yes, Previous Versions, being a front-end to VSC, can easily back up to external hard drives. Heck, that was its original use.
So, are you really sure you want to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about?
Well, I just explained why. Let me copy and paste it for you: “VSC is more powerful because it combines a back up featureset with a versioning system featureset, without one of the featuresets depending on the others – in other words, even if you do not back up (i.e. you have no external hard drive, like me (too expensive)) you are still free to use the versioning system featureset of VSC, because it stores previous versions of files and entire directories on its own filesystem.” Time Machine cannot do that, which means that Time Machine is a hopelessly useless file versioning tool – and yes, Apple does advertise it as a file versioning tool, as it clearly shows, in both text and video, how you can go back to previous revisions of files.
Exactly!
But even without an external harddrive, you can still use the file versioning bit of VSC/Previous Versions – something which you cannot do with Time Machine. Time Machine is incapable of doing local versioning, meaning it’s a useless tool unless you have an external hard drive attached to your computer.
Say I’m at university with my laptop, ready to do a presentation using that laptop, but it seems I have accidentally deleted or altered the presentation. If I were to rely on Time Machine, I’d be in a pickle. My external hard drive is still at home (I sure ain’t carrying that through public transport)
If I were using Pevious Versions, I could easily go back, even without an external hard disk attached, and find the file I need – all because VSC/Previous Versions is moe advanced than Time Machine in that it can do file versioning locally and back up all at the same time.
That is why Time Machine is a crude implementation compard to VSC.
My arguments against VSC still stand, of course. It doesn’t come with all versions of Vista, and even though it is set up to automatically do local versioning, it is a lot more complex to enable its full potential.
Oh, and adding lots of exclamation marks to your sentences does not make your arguments any stronger.
Edited 2007-10-21 14:12 UTC
“They both do the same thing. Backing up and file versioning. ”
No they don’t, Time Machine is a back up solution, VSC is for versioning! Time machines works as a back up solution, VSC work as a versioning solution.
“‘m sure you’ve never used it, then. You can open any file’s or directory’s properties dialog, select the previous versions tab… And browse through these pevious versions ordered by… Date.”
So, are you really sure you want to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about?
”
Yes you don’t know what you are talking about. You can’t query by date with VSC, neither you can search backed up data with it.
“And yes, Previous Versions, being a front-end to VSC, can easily back up to external hard drives. Heck, that was its original use. ”
Then we are talking about backing up which needs anyway an external devise. Vista refers to it as Automatic Backup, which performs a complete, image-based backup of the entire computer, yeah sure very effective, isn’t it. It used VSC but as a back up feature it’s implementation is pure compared to Time machine.
“Well, I just explained why. Let me copy and paste it for you: “VSC is more powerful because it combines a back up featureset with a versioning system featureset, without one of the featuresets depending on the others – in other words, even if you do not back up (i.e. you have no external hard drive, like me (too expensive)) you are still free to use the versioning system featureset of VSC, because it stores previous versions of files and entire directories on its own filesystem.” Time Machine cannot do that, which means that Time Machine is a hopelessly useless file versioning tool – and yes, Apple does advertise it as a file versioning tool, as it clearly shows, in both text and video, how you can go back to previous revisions of files. ”
Sorry i don’t buy that, you just keep saying that Vista has VSC and OS X not, fine, but you fail to say that Time machine is better when it comes to actually back up data and to retrieve them.
“But even without an external harddrive, you can still use the file versioning bit of VSC/Previous Versions – something which you cannot do with Time Machine. Time Machine is incapable of doing local versioning, meaning it’s a useless tool unless you have an external hard drive attached to your computer. ”
Dam, Time Machine is not designed for versioning per say, this is a back up solution,. and VSC is more a versioning solution than a back up solution.
“Time Machine is incapable of doing local versioning, meaning it’s a useless tool unless you have an external hard drive attached to your computer. ”
The 100th times, because Time Machine is a back up solution only, and backing up requires by definition other disk than the local one. This is not a local versioning solution.
“Say I’m at university with my laptop, ready to do a presentation using that laptop, but it seems I have accidentally deleted or altered the presentation. If I were to rely on Time Machine, I’d be in a pickle. My external hard drive is still at home (I sure ain’t carrying that through public transport) ”
Disk utility offers file recovery with Leopard…..(now i imagine your face)
“ll because VSC/Previous Versions is moe advanced than Time Machine in that it can do file versioning locally and back up all at the same time. ”
No it does not….. And this is not a reason why you should conclude that Time machine is inferior, again this is just trolling argument, you don’t know what you are talking about. Your understanding on how both Time Machine and VSC are technically implemented and how they differ is near zero. So saying that VSC is more advanced is like a baker saying that the anti-lock braking system in a mercedes is better designed than in a Honda.
You are not engineer neither developer neither computer scientist, right, so keep yourself away on saying what is more advanced or not.
“Time Machine cannot do that, which means that Time Machine is a hopelessly useless file versioning tool – and yes, Apple does advertise it as a file versioning tool, as it clearly shows, in both text and video, how you can go back to previous revisions of files. ”
BS, apple clearly advertise it as a back up solution not as a versioning solution. Retrieving data from back up storage implies that you go to previous revisions of files, otherwise you don’t do retrieving. Still this is not a versioning feature.
From apple sites
“Time Machine is the breakthrough automatic backup that’s built right into Mac OS X. It keeps an up-to-date copy of everything on your Mac — digital photos, music, movies, TV shows, and documents. Now, if you ever have the need, you can easily go back in time to recover anything.”
Also try to find the word versioning in this page
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/timemachine.html
“Oh, and adding lots of exclamation marks to your sentences does not make your arguments any stronger. ”
Really! Why don’t you keep your arrogance for yourself? I tell you something, it is not because you write for osnews (which by the way the content quality has decreased since you do it) that you can believe of yourself of the one who is always right and what you say has to be right or trustable.
Got that?
And still, Time Machine does file versioning too, and VSC does back up too.
The distinction between restoring a specific back up of a file and restoring a specific revision is arbitrary. They are, in essense, the exact same operation – only drawing from a possibly different resource. A back up is drawn from a different medium, where as a file revision an be drawn from whatever medium – the same, or different. However, the actual operation is the same.
But the fact is, you can.
Damn in hell, VSC is a back up solution AND a versioning tool, and THAT is why it is MORE POWERFUL than Time Machine! How hard is that to understand? What is more powerful, a coffee mchine that can only make regular coffee, or a machine that makes espresso, regular, and cappuchino?
Which brings me back to my original point: VSC is a more advanced solution than Time Machine because VSC, apart from doing backups and external versioning, ALSO allows for local versioning. Heck, that’s not even an opinion – that’s a flat out fact. Lay the feature lists side-by-side, and you’ll see.
I’ll ignore the personal attacks in your comment for now, okay? I know Mac fans can get a little upset when weaknesses in Apple products are pointed out.
And, for completeness’ sake, VCS has a lot of obvious downsides too, as I have already noted a few times. Only the expensive Vista versions have it and it’s not as easy to set up as Time Machine. But it IS more advanced.
Edited 2007-10-21 15:59 UTC
So, are you really sure you want to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about?
I worked with OpenServer 5 in 2000 which had versioning as part of their HPFS. I’m quite sure that this was not the first OS with such a feature (e. g. VMS had this, too, I guess).
I don’t get it why you brought up Windows when talking about the novelty of TimeMachine. It bothers me that people who “think they know what they are talking about” seems to have a horizon limited to Windows..
Ah guess you are unaware of “Previous Versions”.
“Since when do we buy operating systems based on screensavers??!”
*cough*UlimateExtras*cough*
Not hard to get 300+ feaures when you count tabs in the terminal as four features:
Tabbed Windows
Keep multiple Terminal sessions going in a single, tabbed window.
Movable Tabs
Rearrange your tabs with just a drag and drop. Change the order in which they appear or separate them out by pulling them into a separate window.
Pull Tab into New Window
Separate a tab into its own window with a simple drag and drop.
Merge All Windows
Combine all your open Terminal windows into a single window with multiple tabs.
First two aleast should count as one, or all four.
Will view and review this as I have to advise clients; and some of these technologies will be very relevant to them. A backup system that end users can work is no small thing, and the secure desktop sharing almost lets me consider .Mac (as a business expense!). Not because any of this is novel technology but because it will be usable technology for end users.
The other big reason for getting a new release of OSX is the drivers recognising printers, cameras and so forth.
On the other hand some boxes will need to be replaced and that ain’t cheap; and when you use the bells, whistles and glitz …. even the new boxes ain’t gonna be that quick.
Looking at this G4 Powerbook; I think I may well get a 7200RPM hard drive with a large cache before installing Leopard.
Oh and finally they provide multiple virtual workspaces ….AT BLOODY LAST.
Given the amount of time for Leopard to come along and all the hype I had hoped there was one or two amazing features that were under wraps.
I should have learn this with Panther to Tiger. Nothing amazing changed.
Sadly it looks like an upgrade I’ll be picking up later on when the dust settles and the bugs are patched
I should have learn this with Panther to Tiger. Nothing amazing changed.
I’m getting tired of hearing this. What exactly amazing features do people want other than a more polished and well functioning OS? What constitutes an “amazing” feature? If it’s so apparently easy to do that, name it and Apple will probably implement it for the next MacOSX version, so you can marvel at this “amazing” feature, until someone claims they copied it from someone else and then it wouldn’t be “amazing” anymore. It’s a dumb and unmeasurable way to judge whether you want to buy an operating system or not.
Since Leopard lacks “amazing” features, MacOSX Cheetah will probably suffice, if you want to write letters to your mom or check your email once a month and don’t care whether it runs 3 times slower than Leopard and doesn’t take advantage of OpenGL 2.0, more APIs that make it easier to program for or multi-core Intel CPUs.
I’m sorry that Tiger doesn’t contain any “amazing” features compared to Panther, just old fashioned polish, bug fixes and support for newer hardware. Leopard will do that as well compared to Tiger. In fact, perhaps Apple should just stop OS development and just stick with Cheetah with all new Intel Macs, since they have such a hard time coming up with those “amazing” features.
Edited 2007-10-21 13:34
What I imagine the GP is missing (and me too, to be honest) are the “top secret features” that Steve couldn’t tell us about when he first demoed Leopard because they were just too cool and Redmond was going to copy them. And what did they turn out to be? I honestly don’t even remember, though I was expecting something like “Time Machine brought to you by ZFS.” During WWDC I was mostly busy being embarrassed for Apple by the transparent menu bar and 3D Dock. Two big steps back in usability, all to bring teh prettiez.
Anyway, there’s tons of new stuff in Leopard to recommend an upgrade. I pre-ordered my copy the day Apple announced the ship date, mostly on the anticipation of the new Xcode tools and the better multithreading OS-wide. And contrary to what seems to have been the experience of many here who watched the video guide and didn’t see anything new, I saw lots of “hey, that’s really nice” features that I hadn’t heard about before. Not top secret, and not, by themselves, $129, but a solid step forward when taken together.
Edited 2007-10-21 18:13
Top Secret was a play on words against Microsoft. The features not shown that will make Leopard incredibly productive are there. They weren’t visible at WWDC and most of them are the underlying technologies to make the computer do some incredibly difficult complex tasks in a matter of a few simple actions.
It takes at least 2 versions of Mac OS X to make new features standard.
You got the partial brushed-metal interface in Panther, but it became standard in Tiger. Alot of things introduced in Panther became standard in Tiger, which also became host to a number of new components and features. Tiger’s features have become standard in Leopard, where they are improved; Leopard has its own “beta” features to account for.
So switching from Tiger to Leopard is, IMO, unwise. Switching from Panther to Leopard, a good idea.
So you’re on Tiger at the moment: DON’T SWITCH TO LEOPARD. There is obviously very little incentive to switch from Tiger to Leopard, despite the “300+ improvements”. You should switch only if you are a sucker for “beta” features crashing on you all the time (not just spinning beachball, we’re talking “closing up at any point at the slightest fault”).
Just wait until 10.6, at the least. Apple has followed this pattern since the Public Beta.
Uhuh…
Based on your “2 versions” logic, people should have used OS X until Jaguar (which actually is when it became “massly” usable) and then not upgraded until Tiger.. but whoops – Tiger was “buggy” and “beta”.
When actually, each version has gotten entirely better. 10.0 was pretty unusable, I can remember it on my old iBook when it came out. 10.1 on the other hand was WAY better (at the time). Afterwards, 10.2 was a huge leap from 10.1. 10.3 was also a huge jump as well, and so on and so on.
I for one never had any issues when I upgrade to 10.4.0 when it came out. None.
If you couldn’t tell, I plan on upgrading to Leopard the day it comes out – I don’t anticipate any problems either.
Me too – a bit off-topic but I have gone from Big Cat to Green Chameleon, and on my machine the difference is between a lean rapid scooting lizard and an indolent post-prandial tabby (and this without 3D acceleration, being now a humble PPC Linux user…)
Edited – typo
Edited 2007-10-22 16:58
Thom, you say “But even without an external harddrive, you can still use the file versioning bit of VSC/Previous Versions – something which you cannot do with Time Machine. Time Machine is incapable of doing local versioning”
In my previous post I’ve already advised you how to do this with OSX, yes it requires partitioning the internal drive (non destructively I should add) and it is a bit beyond the thickest of Joe Public but so is using VSC & backing up a drive in Vista.
To set the record straight could you answer these questions:-
Do you think it’s good to have versioning on the same hdd?
Do you think it’s a good idea to backup your hdd onto an external hdd?
Do you think it’s a good idea to have a *Versioned Backup* on an external HDD?
What’s more preferable to you – versioning on your main drive or a backup of your main drive on another drive?
thingi
p.s. fair point on the grammar – now updated
Edited 2007-10-21 14:26
Note: I removed the “or not” behind each question for clarity purposes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Both. That’s what Previous Versions/VSC can do, but Time Machine cannot. That is why Time Machine is the cruder of the two (technicaly speaking).
Edited 2007-10-21 14:23 UTC
…whatever people. And now OS X has them all together in one place, and they have made them all easier to use. And no one talks about the underlying kernel changes and the like. I echo another poster’s sentiment and eagerly anticipate a substantive review by AT or some other site.
Yes. Other OS’s have pure 64 bit platform with 32 bit apps running natively, using an optimized OpenGL 2.1 toolkit, offering the latest JDK from Sun and modified by their OS to have the native OS UI, UNIX 03 certified, Objective-C 2.0 and elaborate set of Frameworks under the Cocoa umbrella, running the most current EFI Firmware from Intel, integrated Ruby, Python with DTrace, the basic Text Editor that read and writes ODF/OOXML, System-wide scripting for Ruby, Python and ObjC, Universal Access features from the Installation onwards that recognize the Blind as being important to computing, Virtual Desktops via Spaces that show what a more advanced Window Server and Quartz Rendering Engine with a better Distributed Objects model can do without tasking the shit out of your OS, etc.
This shit bores the average user, until third party developers augment their flagship apps and create new applications to leverage them. Suddenly, Leopard will be the Shiznit!
You guys are all pissing in the wind talking about the new features. The new features are only so so, but what is really important to me is performance. This statment is what piques my attention:
“Leopard apparently has had big kernel changes to fix long standing threading/process performance issues” Now this is something to be anticipating, especially for the G4s.
What I hope is that the features don’t require more memory; minimum specifications is 512MB RAM – however, I’d be interested to see what the reality is when it comes to the real world and those who do have 512MB RAM.
The ‘improvements’ are rumours I’ve seen on think secret. Ultimately the big decider will be once the code hits the dvds and then loaded onto machines. Given there hasn’t been massive screaming and complaining from the testers, one can assume that things haven’t slid backwards.
Yay for Kaiwai’s new Macbook!
Yeap, its a sexy black MacBook, memory upgraded to 2gigs, 3 years of Applecare and a copy of iWorks. Everything I need at a reasonable price.
Edit: Thom, would you like me to write an article on my ‘transition’ to this Macbook? I’m happy to write one, I just don’t want to waste time if it is never going to get published.
Edited 2007-10-21 18:00
There’s no point in starting an argument with this guy. He has never had one positive thing to say about Apple since he started posting at this site. I have been coming here long before he started posting and remember when it was just Eugenia who was always pretty fair and didn’t have to take a shot at Apple on every chance. He just has the same argument everytime about how he uses a cube as him main machine if you confront him about it. If anybody ever happens to say anything positive about what Apple is doing then Thom labels them a fanboy and starts with the RDF crap. He just doesn’t understand Apple at all. Mostly apple isn’t about creating new technologies, they are about making existing technologies easy to use for everybody and not just geeks who read osnews. If we are Apple fanboys as he says then he is a Apple fanboy hater fanboy.
Edited 2007-10-21 18:47
Thom is a girl.
Really?
Oh, no, it’s the Quinn Storm issue all over again. Is it a guy? Is is a girl? Is it both?
I’m a happy Ubuntu GNU/Linux user, but must admit that OS X is now looking pretty tempting. For one thing: “Spaces” — glad to see OS X now has virtual desktop workspaces. Another thing is that Apple now seems to support the Python-Cocoa binding (or “bridge” as they’re calling it).
Preview.app’s pdf “annotations” feature looks pretty neat as well.
Also, looks like TextEdit supports ODF .odt files now.
Still, dunno if I could handle the downgrade from Ubuntu.
Downgrade? Yeah right…
Yes, textedit is supposed to handle bort odt and whateverxmlcraptastic2007wordimbadocumentspecs5000+pagesformat is called.
Before using OS X I thought the fact it lagged virtual desktops was very weird and lame, but since using it I have never had a need for it thanks to exposé.
Got to be said, i was a little skeptical about this new version of OSX and all the new features i have been hearing about .. after watching that presentation i am bowled over .. sure its a lot more eye candy but it looks like it provides much more usability with it.. Cover flow all over the place .. Time Machine looks cool .. Quick Look.. ill use that a lot and even the changes to Mail all a step forward imho, very nice … Spaces, yep looks like its well done too.. Even iChat, an app i never use under Tiger has got me wanting to play with some of that Photobooth incorporated geekyness. Ill be one of the sheep who makes the jump regardless if Tiger is suiting me well just now … Bring it on !
Edited 2007-10-22 01:10 UTC
Here come a nice MS ad:
http://www.blimptv.net/mostpopularV1.html
How much will it cost to have all things shown in the video? Is that all part of the package?
I don’t exactly remember the joke over att WWDC, but I think Steve said something similair to that you get the basic version for only 129 dollar or whatever it is, and then keeped on saying that you also got <insert versions> here, or if he just said that those was 129 dollar aswell.
Anyway, yes, there are only one version so you get all functionality.
Beyond that all macs ships with iLife and you can buy iWork for 79 dollar I belive.