Mac OS X Leopard - All show and no go, or is it worth a try?

[wreckedcarzz]

Hi all,

I was able to have a semi-positive (more or less confusing) experience with a Macbook G4 running Tiger a few days ago, and about 2 months ago I was also on a Panther iMac. With the upcoming release of Leopard, I must ask:

Is it worth a go?

I am a die-hard Windows fan. Linux is cool, and has its pros and cons, but I am an Apple hater. But, to be honest, I am interested. I have been using iTunes for the last year and also have been using Safari, and as much as I hate to say it, I am impressed.

Is it worth it to setup a dual-boot Windows-Mac computer? Any Mac-savvy people here at DC (come out, we know your here )?

I have been wanting to try it full-on for a while now, just the single button mouse thing gets to me

Opinions, anyone?

EDIT: This doesn't inspire confidence, though...(see attached screenshot)

[justice]

Multiple mouse button has been part of Mac OS 9 and bigger AFAIk, it's just Apple until recently have always chosen to supply a single button mouse. Any usb mouse from your local hardware retailer with multiple buttons, scrollwheels etc will work just fine.

I would be trying out a mac if I could afford one. (it's not so much dearer than a new pc with all new licenses, but it is dearer then upgrading my current pc keeping all the licences).

Also all new macs runs XP fine and very fast, just Vista is not supported yet (can't remember if this works in Leopard, might do)

[Laughing Man]

Maybe your quicktime is outdated? Anyway, I think Vista is supported, but Microsoft wants you to use Vista Ultimate if your going run it in Parallels or what not.

I'm not Mac savvy though. I'm a primary Linux user now lol. But I've taken features from both Windows and Mac and incorporated it into my Linux install.

[wreckedcarzz]

I just installed Quicktime about 30 mins before taking that picture though

I want to take a Windows Vista PC and dual boot it with Mac, not run Windows on Parallels. I can't afford a Mac anytime soon ($1500 vs my $700 PC).

Anyways, why Vista Ultimate? I am helping a family friend get Vista Home Basic running on Parallels, and I didn't see any requirement for Vista Ultimate.

[Darwin]

Brandon - which method are you thinking of using to run OS-X on your Windows machine? I ask because there are at least two or three methods that I am aware of (so that's interesting in and of itself) AND there is an as yet unresolved (AFAIK) debate about the legality of doing so...

[wreckedcarzz]

Dual booting would be my personal preference, but if I could make it a vitrual machine, that would be even better.

If Apple has a problem with me doing so I have no problem with simply sticking with Windows

[Darwin]

Dual booting would be my personal preference, but if I could make it a vitrual machine, that would be even better.

If Apple has a problem with me doing so I have no problem with simply sticking with Windows

-wreckedcarzz (September 03, 2007, 05:42 PM)

Yeah, no doubt! There were a couple of hacks last fall that let you dual-boot a PC, and a few VM solutions, and then of course there is PearPC (which doesn't look to be actively developed anymore). Too bad as at one point I had high hopes for it...

[Laughing Man]

Well it is illegal (though I personally think it shouldn't be). And it's Microsoft that wanted users to use Vista Ultimate for parallels users. Even though any of them work (more money for Microsoft I guess).

[nontroppo]

Just do a search of OSX86 and you will find ample info on dual-booting the two OSes 

I have a Macbook, my first ever Mac since being a PC user since MS-DOS days. If I had to go back to a PC, I would try to install my existing Tiger or future Leopard licence dual-booted, as I now really appreciate OS X.

[Laughing Man]

I'm thinking about triple booting (by adding OSX to the list) on my VAIO lol.

[Carol Haynes]

Check out http://forum.insanel...dex.php?showforum=85 for lots of info and legal warnings.

[Laughing Man]

Yeah, I joined that forum a few days ago. Did some searching to see if my hardware will work. Apparantly the wireless doesn't work (well it does but on bare functionality..no encryption support).

But I'll go ahead with it once I have time to make a 15 GB partition for it.

[Carol Haynes]

They seem to recommend a completely separate hard drive to avoid screwing up you Windows installation/boot sectors etc. - sounds like good advice for something this radical!

I like the idea of a 'Hacintosh'

[Laughing Man]

Well I'm not worried much about the boot sectors since I use Grub instead of Windows' boot loader. But yeah, I do have to be cautious.

[Ralf Maximus]

Tried to find a Leopard thread to post this, and this one's the closest.


http://www.intego.com/news/ism0706.asp

[nontroppo]

Thanks for the info Ralf!

I just tested the exploit by crafting my own disguised shell script with metadata, and Opera forces it to be sent to Preview (graphics viewer), thus is ineffective ;-)

[nontroppo]

Oh, and my conclusion on whether Leopard is worth a try: a big fat juicy *yes*.

Upgrade was amazingly fast, it kept all my settings intact but did a clean excision of the old OS. Leopard is "faster" from a UI perspective, it's difficult to describe but it just flows (graphics pipeline was optimized IINM). Memory consumption and CPU are equivalent to Tiger (I haven't enabled Time Machine yet though; iTunes is actually much better under Leopard than Tiger). Quicklook rocks, but really it does! Spaces is spartan, but the essentials work great. What is really good is exposé and spaces can work together, showing all open windows in all desktops. But the best things about Leopard are really the smaller fixes, including some of the glaring holes (i.e. being able to share single folders without using third-party accesories).

I also helped install it on an old 867mhz ibook, upgrading from Panther. We did a clean install, and without any tweaking, once spotlight finishes its initial indexing, it works great. Leopard seems to scale its graphics according to available hardware, though you can't really tell (bits are less translucent), the UI stays "fast". Quicklook is a little less quick, but not by much.