Storage Bits

Robin Harris

Mac OS X Leopard still not ready for prime time

By Robin Harris | December 22, 2007, 7:26pm PST

Summary: If you haven’t upgraded yet - don’t! I bought my first Apple computer in 1978 - the original Apple ][ - and the obvious quality of the products has kept me coming back for more. Good thing the Leopard upgrade wasn’t my first experience of Apple quality. 10.5.1 isn’t it, either. I had great hopes that the first [...]

If you haven’t upgraded yet - don’t!
I bought my first Apple computer in 1978 - the original Apple ][ - and the obvious quality of the products has kept me coming back for more. Good thing the Leopard upgrade wasn’t my first experience of Apple quality.

10.5.1 isn’t it, either.
I had great hopes that the first dot release of 10.5 would fix most of the problems. Sadly, that is not the case.

Most Leopard installs are trouble-free. But if you rely on your Mac to make a living, you have to ask yourself if it is worth the risk to upgrade for nifty but non-essential features. I haven’t upgraded my backup Mac and I won’t until Leopard is stable.

Tales of woe
I use my Mac for writing, research, Skype, web site creation, video production and much more. Since installing Leopard, I’ve had to re-install OS X 3 times, Final Cut Studio 3 times (it is on 8 DVDs, so it takes a while) and boot up into the Unix command line twice to re-create the user database.

In addition there are numerous other inconveniences, such as Keychain problems, out of date third party apps, broken application services and more. They slow me down.

But the biggest problem is not knowing if the system will start up reliably. I don’t need that problem from my Mac. With OS 10.4 I didn’t.

The Storage Bits take
AFAIK, the vast majority of people don’t have problems with Leopard. But if you are a power user who needs a reliable Mac, the problems are common enough to wait for Apple to resolve them.

I suspect that Steve’s commitment to ship Leopard in October led to some corner-cutting in development. Once released developers also have to deal with the bugs customers report.

A few more months of development bake time would have brought Leopard up to Apple’s normal high standards. Steve, next time let the developers, not the calendar, tell you when the release is ready.

Comments welcome, of course.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Storage Bits”

OLPC: the best designed notebook in the world

2008: Linux's year on the desktop

Topics

Apple Macintosh, Apple Inc., Leopard, Desktops, Apple Mac OS X, Hardware, Operating Systems, Software, Apple Mac OS, Robin Harris

Robin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small.

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

Vendor HotSpot

The 360° Conversation around Cloud Computing

TECH VISUALIZER brings the social conversation to life... powered by Brocade

Learn More »

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

Ask a Question Start a Discussion

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Just In

RE: Mac OS X Leopard still not ready for prime time

billriski 27th Dec 2007

I have to agree with Robin H. I've owned Apple computers since 1979 and also have dealt with years of upgrades. Fortunately, my living does not depend on my Mac, but my household certainly does (my wife's papers for grad school, address book, email archive, finances, family history files, etc.)

My upgrade did not go well. It's been weeks and I'm still trying to get back to the computing environment I had before the upgrade.

Sorry, but I don't care about all the excuses offered. This upgrade did not go well and it's Apple's fault.

Does this drive me away from Mac? Of course not. I still love using them - expect I always will. But Apple blew it on this one.

Disappointed in D.C.

View in thread

Please Select
Please Select

0 Votes

+ -

True but...

nikomanek 22nd Dec 2007

Software is never ready. And there are so many possible combinations of different
software and even hardware that it's hard to predict what kind of problems will
show up. I am using Leopard since it's early betas and I am pretty happy with it. As
for our Mac servers I am waiting a little bit before we upgrade;-) Leopard brought
some major enhancements (time machine, real UNIX subsystem, spaces, very nice
ichat and many more) and to me it's worth to suffer through some reboots (like one
a week?). If I would have to re-install OSX multiple times I would be really mad
too. But I fear that there might be something else very wrong with your system. At
the end it's a nice BSD core. Why in the world would you have to re-instal it over
and over again? I never had problems like that. Sounds strange to me.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Mac OS X Leopard still not ready for prime time

Steve Jobs 22nd Dec 2007

The Apple Fanboys Are Going To Have A Cry Over Your Opinion.

Cult of Apple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F9gdx_LIAc

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Contributr

I calls 'em as I sees 'em

R Harris 23rd Dec 2007

Let the chips fall where they may.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Sorry to hear your transition was as bad as my Vista upgrade...

merlin747 23rd Dec 2007

Then again, I checked the apps and archived ones that wouldn't work. As always,
though, I'm not surprised to see the negative crap being thrown on ZDNet.

I've now used both Vista and Leopard for over 2 years (yes, even during beta
periods for each). My experience at this point in time: Leopard currently functions
more reliably and allows me to work my way (not a way that some non-technical
user would attempt). I'm _still_ waiting on decent video drivers and some app
upgrades for Vista.

Yes, I am a software (and IT) developer. Yes, I use the big 3 (Linux / OS X /
Windows). Yes, I'm more technically apt than the average 30+ year old. YMMV.

My main point: 1 year on and Vista still has some issues that have been sorted for
me by the latest .1 release (and my final issue has been handled in the forthcoming
.2). While I eagerly await Vista SP1 and XP SP3, I am utilizing 10.5 right now.

Kelly

0 Votes

+ -

Contributr

I wasn't comparing Leopard to Vista

R Harris 23rd Dec 2007

Since I don't run Vista and my local Windows techs - I live in a town of 10,000 that
is a 2+ hour drive to the nearest major city - don't recommend it, I don't have any
data.

The bottom line for me is that for whatever reasons, Leopard didn't have the bake
time needed for typical Apple quality.

As a developer you have little choice but to use the latest and greatest. I don't need
to and I'm wishing I hadn't.

Robin

0 Votes

+ -

Where have you been?

ye 23rd Dec 2007

It's well known that a post not completely 100% favorable to Apple must be derailed into a discussion of Microsoft weaknesses. Time to get with the program happy

0 Votes

+ -

Some feel the need

GuidingLight 24th Dec 2007

Alleviate their feelings of being ?let down? (or the fact that their gloating over the issues of the competitor?s OS being premature and/or being thrown back in their faces) need to point out how much better it is broken compared to the afore mentioned OS, but that is a debate for another day.

I find it odd as when I had mentioned to my brother-in-law and niece about some of the issues people are having with the upgrade, yet they have (to my knowledge) not had any issue with their upgrade to Leopard.

What is it that these systems have in common (or do not have in common) that will cause many of the problems we are hearing, vs some people who have had no issues to speak of?

0 Votes

+ -

It is odd....

Laff 24th Dec 2007

I haven't had a problem with Leopard. Yet I hear that others have. I
read where in it's end of year tally Leopard is considered a PLUS for
Apple. Yet I find here an article written about it not being fully
cooked. People write in response that they have had no problems yet
the author replies read the blogs and web reports. Last night at a
Christmas party I ran into a fellow who said he has a G5 running
Leopard and Final Cut Pro in which he uses to edit local TV
commercials. I would think that makes he a power user yet he gave
me no indication that he was having issues with Leopard. Very odd
indeed.

Pagan jim

0 Votes

+ -

Not odd at all...

KTLA 24th Dec 2007

It's not odd at all to have the vast majority of users upgrade relatively problem-free even on an unbaked release.

The vast majority of Vista users I know upgraded perfectly seamlessly, and most enjoy it and have no regrets. But it's not the case for everyone, and MORE are having problems than did for XP, it's a very similar parallel for Leopard.

Both MS and Apple seemed to release their OS too soon, just to meet market expectations. Let's see if MS's .1 release can do better than Apple's, though they are taking a lot longer to put a lot more polish in, so it's not a direct comparison, either.

0 Votes

+ -

One thing that Apple did

j.m.galvin 24th Dec 2007

They introduced a simple "upgrade" button on the installer.

Since the beginning of time Apple had 2 methods of upgrading, or reinstalling, the OS and there were few, if any problems.

One was the usual wipe the drive and install everything fresh. The other was "clean install", which Apple renamed "archive and install" with OSX. That one took your System folder, renamed it "previous system folder" and left it on your hard drive. Then the installer created a new "system" folder which would be the new startup system.

It appears that the people with the greatest number of problems are those that used the new "upgrade" rather the "archive and install" or a total HD wipe.

I have not read of that many problems with machines that came with 10.5 installed other than the usual problems with apps or peripherals that don't work properly with the new OS.

0 Votes

+ -

That might make for an interesting poll

GuidingLight 26th Dec 2007

to find out wht percentage of people have had problems or not, and then to find out what percentage of each group had either upgraded or had done (or received a system with)a fresh installation

0 Votes

+ -

Robin:

justanitguy 26th Dec 2007

I may be ignorant of things "Apple", but why don't you simply re-install 10.4?

0 Votes

+ -

Scary Crashing

leorobertklein@... 23rd Dec 2007

I've got a new Mac Mini with Leopard loaded on it and every once and a while, the whole thing crashes and I get bounced out of my user account. I then have to log back in as if I had just booted up.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Mac OS X Leopard still not ready for prime time

gfeier 23rd Dec 2007

I've been with OS X since 10.0.0 and Leopard is the first new version I haven't installed as soon as it was released. The delay in Leopard to get the iPhone out (4 months, as I recall) looks like it wasn't long enough. I'm going to wait for SP1.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

We avoid just about all OS upgrades

j.m.galvin 23rd Dec 2007

We have a very small fleet of Macs, with most used for general business and the rest for graphics. I?ve found that OS upgrades to existing machines yield very little, if any, actual benefit for productivity. In the case of OSX, I held off until 10.3 and then brought it in on new machines. That version has provided us with superb stability and has increased productivity ? simply due to that stability ? time between OS crashes measured in years.

We bought some 20 inch G5 iMacs a while back, at the 10.3 to 10.4 transition. The machines came with 10.3 loaded, but Apple put 10.4 disks in the box. I never bothered with it.

Last summer we brought in some Macbooks with 10.4 on them. They?ve worked just fine but the users didn?t notice any real difference from 10.3 and did not use any of the new bells and whistles in 10.4.

I assume that I would upgrade the OS if it was required for a specific app or an upgrade to that app, but would probably just buy new machines with it installed. In fact, we brought in the original 10.3 machines to run Indesign. Other than that, I don?t see that much benefit to OS upgrades.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Completely agree.

ye 23rd Dec 2007

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

We've only recently..

msalzberg 23rd Dec 2007

gone over the XP for our mission-critical stuff.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

For the record...

leary_z 23rd Dec 2007

I'm using 10.5.1 in a very heavy production environment (FCS, Logic Studio, CS3,
Aperture etc) and have no problems aside from a few cosmetic annoyances (mostly
related to Spaces). I did a CLEAN install and migrated everything back using
Migration Assistant. Time Machine works as advertised (not with Aperture but I
have vaults anyway) and the system is perfectly stable (iMac 24 non aluminum
w/2gb ram).

I'm not saying no one has problems, but the fear mongering is getting a little old.
Plus we're due for 10.5.2 very soon. That's two updates within months of launch. A
far cry from Vista SP1 over a YEAR LATER!

If you're not sure, just have a working, bootable backup and test Leopard thoroughly before committing. It's what I did and I wouldn't go back to Tiger.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Fearmongering about Vista has been old for quite some time.

ye 23rd Dec 2007

Yet Mac fanbois continue to engage in it.

"I'm not saying no one has problems, but the fear mongering is getting a little old. Plus we're due for 10.5.2 very soon. That's two updates within months of launch. A far cry from Vista SP1 over a YEAR LATER!"

Microsoft has been releasing ".1" patches for Vista throughout the year through Windows Update.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

There are several problems here.

msalzberg 23rd Dec 2007

First, and foremost, is that upgrading an OS is
not a trivial matter. Microsoft and Apple (yes,
and Linux, too, I guess) have made it seem so, but it
isn't.

At one time, the OS was much more separated from
applications than it is now. Applications contained
their own graphics routines and their own printer
drivers. The OS was merely the go-between. You'd
call a file subroutine from the OS, but really, you'd
write your own interface.

That changed with the GUI. Now, you call the OS for
everything from file storage to printing to "Cancel" or
"OK" buttons.

Anyone using a computer for mission-critical
applications is foolish to upgrade purely for the sake of
using the latest OS.

Secondly, Leopard is much more than a point upgrade
to Tiger. The fact that it's now UNIX compliant shows
that there was a lot that went on under the hood.
Calling it OS X has lead to situations like yours.

At work, we've had to specify Tiger, and, in some
cases, PPC Macs, because of this issue. Protools plug-
ins don't work with Leopard, and some of our people
use Logic on PPC Macs and home, and, for
compatibility, we specify identical machines for them
to use at work. We're about to change our audio
playback system from Windows to OS X, and we're
specifying Tiger for those machines.

If it's mission-critical, you don't change what
works.

In your case, with video production, you should have
realized, as a professional tech writer, that Core
Animation could wreak havoc on non-Leopard
video software, and due diligence on your part would
have save you a lot of aggravation.

I've upgraded both of my Macs to Leopard, and have
been incredibly happy. Quick Look is worth $129
alone. For the critical apps, we've stayed with Tiger.
For now.

I'm sure this is the same thing that's happened with
Vista. Certain applications (*cough* Quicken) broke
the rules, and ran into trouble, and I'm sure that there
were more changes under the hood that made some
incompatibilities. But for most users, there was no
problem (I haven't had any problems with Vista. I like
the way it looks, and, after adding RAM, it runs just
fine. The Start menu is a disaster, though. How do I
turn my computer off?).

In my experience, with fairly normal applications, I find
both Leopard and Vista quite ready for prime time.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

The GUI is not responsible for this capability:

ye 23rd Dec 2007

'That changed with the GUI. Now, you call the OS for everything from file storage to printing to "Cancel" or "OK" buttons."'

It just happened this behavior arrived in Windows instead of DOS. Other operating systems, such as UNIX, provided this capability without the GUI.

As for how you shutdown your Windows system from the Start menu:

- Click on the "Start Menu"
- Clicl on the arrow next to the lock
- Select "Shut Down"

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Well, I can't speak for UNIX,

msalzberg 23rd Dec 2007

I just know that the proliferation of APIs has changed the scope what an OS does.
Now, everything seems to hook to the OS in a way it didn't before. I'm not saying this
is bad, but it does make applications more vulnerable to changes in the OS.

As for shutting down, that's just one of (I believe) nine different ways to shut it down.
But why does the icon with the power icon on it not shut it down? The Start Menu is
like the camel - a horse designed by a committee. I just use the Classic Menu, and
am happy with that. I see no new functionality in the XP or Vista Start Menus.

0 Votes

+ -

Are you referring to APIs or hooking into the OS?

ye 23rd Dec 2007

If you're referring to APIs then they have been available in other operating systems for quite some time. It wasn't until Windows did this method of OS interaction begin to become the norm. If you're referring to hooking that's something different and unrelated to the GUI. It's not an endorsed practice and should be avoided if possible for exactly the reason you gave.

As for the power icon I heard rumor Microsoft felt it was better just to put the computer into some form of sleep instead of powering it completely off. Seems reasonable to me. I don't ever power off my system. I just let it go into sleep mode automatically.

0 Votes

+ -

The only problem with sleep and hibernate

Michael Kelly 23rd Dec 2007

is that if you have a required reboot, sleep and hibernate don't help. Even in XP I've had people swear up and down that they've rebooted their system, but in reality they've been selecting either sleep or hibernate because that was the last action they did.

So if you get that same person who does what you do in Vista and they have to reboot for whatever reason, there's a good chance that they'll just hit that button assuming not knowing the difference between a hard shutdown and hibernate or sleep.

0 Votes

+ -

I guess I'm not clear or..

msalzberg 23rd Dec 2007

knowledgeable enough. My point is that you can't separate the API from the OS
anymore. If you write for Windows, you use the API. A change in the API could affect
your application.

As for the power icon, while there is some contradiction in it's meaning (IEC vs IEEE),
the more common translation is "on/off." The IEEE symbol for sleep is a moon.

0 Votes

+ -

Absolutely true...

wolf_z 24th Dec 2007

"My point is that you can't separate the API from the OS anymore. If you write for Windows, you use the API. A change in the API could affect your application."

All of this is absolutely true--but irrelevant. APIs have been around since DOS 2.0 days (at least). APIs are the documented, approved method of interacting with the OS and (most of the time, especially in Windows) they *don't* change.

Quicken is a prime example of a company that doesn't follow the rules (or didn't, they do now :)). If you follow the rules (use the API) you're guaranteed compatibility across OS versions--at least in Windows.

Low level stuff doesn't have an API. Things like disk format programs, defraggers, etc side-step the OS, which is why they often don't work with the new OS.

Remarkably, QBasic from 1988 will still run under XP (haven't tried under Vista). Now *that's* backward compatibility! happy

Also puts the lie to "secret" APIs too.

0 Votes

+ -

Do a Google search using..

msalzberg 24th Dec 2007

'microsoft undocumented api.' Read some of the stuff from Dr Dobbs Journal, or
from Andrew Schulman's testimony in Comes v. Microsoft. Hair raising. Yes, there
were "secret" APIs.

Do you really think that APIs don't change? Are there never any bug fixes? Does
the Law of Unintended Consequences not apply to Microsoft? Sometimes fixing
one thing breaks another. It happens. There's a real reason why 'if it ain't broke,
you don't fix it.'

Quicken's problems ARE self-inflicted, though. I wondered why Intuit said that the
reason the Windows and Mac versions were so different was because of the
differences in the OS's. It only made sense when you realize they completely broke
the rules. Unfortunately for me, as a Quicken user since Ver 2 for DOS, I've decided
to find a replacement.

0 Votes

+ -

Windows Shutdown

lortega@... 25th Dec 2007

From what I understand, Microsoft really, really wants you to use the sleep option. They really went out of their way to make it inconvenient for you to shutdown. The arrow you must click is really small and then you get a menu from which you must decide. This is not a coincidence, they don't want you to do that.

Reason being that sleep works exceptionally well under Vista. It brings the computer back to fully operational status in a couple of seconds.

Having said that, I think you can change the behaviour on the control panel.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Out of the Oven too soon........

intuitivek3@... 23rd Dec 2007

I've used Tiger for 3 years with 0 problems I only upgrade an OS when I'm forced to by vendor when he won't provide security fixes
anymore.

If it isn't broke I don't fix it.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Lame

Blad_Rnr 23rd Dec 2007

This is a bunch of crap. Either you don't know what you
are doing, you have bad memory in your Mac, or you
need professional help. I have upgraded three macs
and none of them have these issues. Have you even
tried performing a hardware test with the install CD?
Have you tried swapping out RAM? Seriously, you are
the only one on the planet with these issues. So you
tell everyone else to NOT upgrade? When you even
admit most aren't having these problems. Leopard
rocks as far as I am concerned. It's the same OS that
you are running. Apple makes all the hardware. It has
to be a hardware issue. Did you even consider that? No.
Just tell everyone it must be bad because YOU are
having problems.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Contributr

Check out the forums

R Harris 23rd Dec 2007

and THEN tell me I'm the only one with these issues.

Seriously, just because Mail and Safari work doesn't mean you have a stable system.

If you need a stable Mac to make money, wait for Apple to bring Leopard up to their
traditional quality levels. I'm confident they'll do it. It will be another few months.

Robin

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

HEY!!!! I read the posters previous post and he said

Laff 24th Dec 2007

nothing about mail and safari. The way you worded your reply was to indicate that he
was a none power user but his original post did not indicate his day to day use
requirements. He did indicate a certain level of knowledge about teching out
problems with software and hardware however but as to what he does or uses his Mac
for you nor I have any idea. So to assume that the only items he might be using is
mail and safari is well snippy don't you think?

Pagan jim

0 Votes

+ -

Since you read the prior post,

DannyO_0x98 24th Dec 2007

didn't you find it rude? It could be summarized by one question: "Have you checked
into the problem being a hardware issue?" It was so aggressive that I consider it very
likely to be one of those trolls playing a variation on the theme "But OS X is perfect!"
So while Mr. Harris reasons, as I would, that system before A is great and system after
A is useless -> A corrupted system, there's something else to consider, that there
may be coincidental hardware issues. I like and use Leopard, I find it has some rough
edges still, and I don't think every Tiger user should upgrade today.

0 Votes

+ -

Leopard trips...

zbeckman 23rd Dec 2007

I'm surprised at Apple's relative poor release quality
this time around as well. I had to upgrade half a dozen
Mac's and fully expected Apple's usual perfection in it's
release. Two of the Mac's blue screened and had to be
reinstalled from scratch (well, one I was able to boot
single-user and find the conflict, remove it and
reboot). I've also been pretty underwhelmed with OS/X
10.5 Server, particularly the new features (blogs, wikis,
etc.) They work, mostly out of the box (took a day of
hair tearing to make it work right though) -- but there
is far, far better software out there. I hope this isn't a
sign of a new trend to come. Apple has made it's mark
through quality... if it slides, so will the customer base.
(Wrote much the same here: http://weblog.bosslogic.com/2007/10/leopard-
trips/).

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

No problems at all with Leopard

Justin Powell 24th Dec 2007

I've been using Leopard since a few days after it's
introduction. Not only have I really liked many of the new
features (Time Machine, Stacks, iChat, on and on), but I
have had zero issues with the OS itself. I have a handful
of third-party apps that needed to be updated, but that
is to be expected with any OS upgrade. In my
experience, Leopard has not only been ready to prime
time but it's been having a great game day performance.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

bah

interconnect 24th Dec 2007

i just upgraded.. did the clean install and have to had a single issue. doing the "upgrade" install is asking for problems imo. try doing a clean install.. leave your old keychain behind (i did that on purpose) and your old user accounts. come on, you write for zdnet and your doing "upgrade" installs... pssssh.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

If you haven???t read Robins post yet - don???t!

systemx 24th Dec 2007

If you haven???t read Robins post yet - don???t!
Must've got up on the wrong side of OS X today happy

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Now there's an interesting attitude....

Badgered 26th Dec 2007

If you haven't read Robin's post yet - don't!
Must've got up on the wrong side of OS X today

So if someone writes that they are having a problem with a particular OS, your solution is to ignore it? I find that odd.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

It is only "odd" behavior

GuidingLight 26th Dec 2007

when you do not expect it. wink

0 Votes

+ -

10.5 in an AAD enviorment

pyrdek 25th Dec 2007

Bringing up a couple of new (Apple factory installed) 10.5 systems has resulted in both pluses and minuses. In the Active Directory environment I must make the new Macs work in, the results have been less than great.

It appears that Apple changed, and not for the better, something in the authentication process. My suspicions are that Kerberos was not as throughly tested as it should have been. Users can no longer login when they have to be cleared by Active Directory. This is a problem that has been acknowledged by Apple and I am hoping that v10.5.2 clears it up.

My first experiences with 10.5.1 Server, and in particular the Systems Imaging Utility, has been frustrating. They took away the ability to use the Terminal/Firewire mode to create a netinstall image using SIU. In 10.4 this worked great. In 10.5 it doesn't seem to work at all. Using another mode to create the image requires a two step (BOTH Long processes) to accomplish what had been done in one step in 10.4. I am not even sure this latest try worked since I have not had the chance to test it. Also, the inability to create an image from a 10.4 (or earlier) source while using 10.5 Server make 10.5 SIU considerably less useful.

These are a couple of the areas that 10.5 seems to have been released with less than adequate testing.

At the same time, I have heard from enough Vista users to not be willing to rate them any higher or any lower. In the mixed bag educational users field, they both rate a low "C" or "D" for the area of my greatest concern. Both OS's promised so much and then delivered so much less, that I can not say either rates any higher a grade at this time. On a more detailed basis, I would have to rate the 10.5 to be a bit better than Vista but still well below what Apple is capable of doing.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Yeow!! Previous entry title??

pyrdek 25th Dec 2007

I don't know what happened to the title of the previous entry???? It should be "!0.5 in an Active Directory Environment!"

It should be

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

msalzburg: Undocumented APIs

wolf_z 26th Dec 2007

Because the forum wouldn't accept further posts on that branch I'm having to reply on a new one. Stupid forum software limitation... happy

"'microsoft undocumented api.' Read some of the stuff from Dr Dobbs Journal, or
from Andrew Schulman's testimony in Comes v. Microsoft. Hair raising. Yes, there
were "secret" APIs."

Sigh. No there weren't. There were internal APIs, yes. BUT those APIs couldn't be used by MS application software either--because doing so locked the API so it couldn't change without breaking MS's own apps. That's a huge no-no in MS land.

In other words, using a "secret" API would be breaking the rules just as much as Intuit was. And MS wanted the flexibility to change undocumented APIs (which are intended for internal components of the OS to use, not applications).

"Do you really think that APIs don't change? Are there never any bug fixes?"

Never say never, but the rules are that once published an API never changes. Ever. MS pushes this, but never forced developers to follow it. Developers broke the rules for various reasons, using undocumented APIs (that were never intended for apps), talking directly to hardware (for speed), or what have you. The apps that didn't follow the rules broke. Very seldom does MS discard an API. That's one reason you hear that Windows is "bloated".

"Does the Law of Unintended Consequences not apply to Microsoft? Sometimes fixing
one thing breaks another. It happens."

Very seldom does a fix break an API--if it did it would itself be fixed.

"I wondered why Intuit said that the
reason the Windows and Mac versions were so different was because of the
differences in the OS's. It only made sense when you realize they completely broke
the rules."

Um, not quite. Different OS's use different APIs. Now, while Quicken does break the rules in Windows (2006 and before) it doesn't mean that the two weren't different because of different OS's.

Windows and OS X have APIs that do the same thing--but not the same way. Smart developers create a layer to insulate the majority of the application from the underlying OS (just as the OS insulates the app from the underlying hardware). Given what I've seen of Intuit, I seriously question how smart Intuit developers are.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Just one question

ego.sum.stig@... 26th Dec 2007

Was Schulman shown to be mistaken about the "hidden" API's, or is it you who are "mistaken" when you contradict his conclusions that the "hidden" API's were widely used by Microsoft's applications and not available (published) for third parties to use?

Well?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Define Mistaken...

wolf_z 26th Dec 2007

Because my points are true. If MS used a "hidden" API for an application they could no longer change that API without breaking the app.

List 1 OS API call MS apps used "widely" that wasn't documented for everyone's use.

0 Votes

+ -

There was a whole booked published..

mrOSX 26th Dec 2007

on the undocumented API's, with a huge warning in the front, about how the APIs are not documented because Microsoft reserves the right to change them without notice.

"Because this book describes undocumented behavior of the internal architecture and operation of the Windows operating system (such as internal kernel structures and functions), this content is subject to change between releases. (External interfaces, such as the Windows API, are not subject to incompatible changes.)

Microsoft Windows Internals: Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, and Windows 2000, Fourth Edition

By "subject to change," we don't necessarily mean that details described in this book will change between releases, but you can't count on them not changing. Any software that uses these undocumented interfaces might not work on future releases of Windows. Even worse, software that runs in kernel mode (such as device drivers) and uses these undocumented interfaces might experience a system crash when running on a newer release of Windows."

0 Votes

+ -

Well, just to annoy you, here's an excerpt...

ego.sum.stig@... 26th Dec 2007

"Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or three months after the entry of this Final Judgment, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. "

Now, do you care to explain why this extract from one of the judgments against Microsoft actually exists? Could it just possibly be because there are/were/may still be secret API's in Windows?

Now, having said all of that, I still want to know what in the blogger's opinion is "Ready for prime time." His whole blog is essentially a worthless without it.

0 Votes

+ -

Interesting, though not definitive proof

GuidingLight 26th Dec 2007

Not taking a side in claiming there are or are not API's in Windows.

The statement does not definitively indicate that there are secret API's, but is worded in such a way as to cover the issue in the [i[chance that Microsoft had some.

It is no different then someone on parole reading and signing the documents covering what they can and can not do. When a parolee signs the statement that he agrees to 'surrender all firearms and can not purchase new ones' is not an indication that he owns firearms or ever considered purchasing one.

It just "covers all the bases."

0 Votes

+ -

Read on!

ego.sum.stig@... 27th Dec 2007

That "interoperability/neutrality" clause was put there because hidden API's did in fact exist, and was worded in the way it was to cover any and all API's, not just those that were somehow or other disclosed. All encompassing words to make sure nothing important was missed!

To add to that whole deal, there's the EC decision that ruled that Microsoft had not revealed to third party developers the (API) information they required to interact with Microsoft's code, and that they must do so in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner. Isn't the EC so darn sweet?

And with that being said, it's off into the fray once more.

0 Votes

+ -