SiRGadaBout's Profile

I agree with OSZen, who identifies the Desktop version of Linux as the true issue here. An analogy springs to mind: Linux is an incredibly advanced combustion engine, and you really have to be a trained mechanic to work with them. On the other hand, the frame, chassis, components and interior of the vehicle are there for the user to engage with, and provide you with the comfort, safety and facilities you need to get from A to B. When the vast majority of people drive a vehicle, the engine is not the point (unless you're Jeremy Clarkson) - the journey is. In essence this is the problem with Linux - it's a fantastically versatile engine capable of being tweaked and manipulated to suit a plethora of needs, but no-one's yet come up with the user-friendly "chassis" to plonk on top of it that completes the package and makes it a product worth investing in (either monetarily or temporally). To belabour the point: Microsoft touted Aero for Vista in its mass-market advertising; Apple touted Aqua for OS X. It's about time we stopped crowing about the value of Linux, and simply started focussing on the user experience. I mean, at the end of the day, it's only a kernel, and you don't hear people crowing about Mach day-in day-out. They'd rather just get on with the job in hand, using the OS and GUI of preference, and forget about it. So long as they can complete their tasks with the minimum of fuss, they're happy :-)

I think all the analogies so far have been inaccurate. Remember, the fictional Apple-provided "Third-party software updater" isn't broken (the author's Bose system or Simo66's free toy), but the product it provides access to. _Of course_ you'd complain to Honda for supplying a broken stereo, but you wouldn't if the radio station you liked listening to on that stereo had consistently poor reception because of a botched transmitter upgrade. And Version Tracker? What's wrong with MacUpdate? (If anything neither stays on top of every update 100% of the time - some apps are many versions behind on available updates).

Beeblebrox: Semantic crossed-wires here! I meant "they want" in the "they want to get their fat a** round the block a few times, lose some weight" sense, not the "I want to go shopping" sense. I totally agree that Apple has already trodden on toes more than once - Konfabulator is an excellent example. My point was rather that you, Beeblebrox, shouldn't encourage them by asking for a fully-fledged multi-protocol chat client that competes with the likes of Adium, Proteus et al.

I'm still a Panther user, so the upgrade to Leopard is more enticing considering I'll be gaining all the benefits of Tiger as well. However, I'll be most looking for some basic improvements, as opposed to new features. For example, the Finder really needs some work still (IMHO) - I have issues with the way it presents information, the unreliability of the Total/Used Space implementation and other minor niggles that don't occur to me just now. I'll be looking for vast improvements to QT 7, which runs very poorly on my iBook G4 800MHz and occasioning a great deal more stuttering in playback with files that ran excellently in QT 6.5.2. SIP support for iChat would be nice, as would the ability to use different protocols and "invisibility" - or maybe that's just Adium? It's been a while... I'm looking forward to the Application Launcher aspect of Spotlight, though I hope it works as simply and effectively as Quicksilver otherwise i won't be using it. I heard a native GTK+ implementation may come as standard, which would be excellent news to a GIMP user like myself. The ZFS support looks good for me, as it seems a simple way (if I've read this correctly) to set up RAIDs. But all-in-all I just want my new Leopard install to rectify all the recurring bugs I'm noticing in my current Panther install: Open With... duplicates; broken >Console login method (despite a fresh install, hmmm). And of course, I'd like some speed hikes. I heard Tiger was a significant improvement in that regard over Panther - I hope Leopard proves to be similar. Oh, and I'm looking forward to using the wealth of Tiger-only apps and utilities that are currently beyond my reach!

Robotech Infidel said: "Many Mac faithfuls protested: “Why make iTunes Windows-compatible? It will always be better on a Mac”, and “The Mac is all you need for the iPod”, and others, “Windoze will degenerate the iPod EXPERIENCE”, and so on. From using both iTunes versions, I can’t tell a difference. My music sounds exactly the same." One of the changes that manifested as a result of the marketing of iPods to the Windows (TM) environment was the loss of the Firewire connection in a bid to improve compatibility. I for one see this as a major change. Though I haven't used an iPod I have used an iPod Shuffle, and I was /stunned/ at how long it took to fill it with tunes. The fact is, the Windows (TM) environment is actually more stagnant, and retains a lot of old technology that Apple has eschewed in favour of supporting innovation. Look at the new EFI standard in the Intel Macs, for example, or the decision to drop floppy disk drives and encourage online storage and transfer of files. In short, unbundling OS X and licensing it for the Windows PC crowd would in many ways be to hang an albatross around Apple's neck, stifling what Apple has come to be respected for: forward-thinking and originality.