|
Grex > Jelly > #98: The Mac OS X 10.5 - aka Leopard - Item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
remmers
|
|
The Mac OS X 10.5 - aka Leopard - Item
| 
Jan 20 16:34 UTC 2008 |
This is the place to discuss the latest (as of January 2008) version of
Apple's OS X operating system.
|
| 68 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 1 of 68:
|
Jan 20 17:16 UTC 2008 |
[There is already an OS X item; why not use that?]
|
remmers
|
|
response 2 of 68:
|
Jan 20 18:43 UTC 2008 |
[Yes, I posted that item; wanted a new one.]
|
nullop
|
|
response 3 of 68:
|
Jan 20 20:41 UTC 2008 |
OS X is derived from unix and hence inherits a lot of the unix gayisms. You
can beautify the crap all you won't, it won't change the fact that at the
core, it is still shit.
|
h0h0h0
|
|
response 4 of 68:
|
Jan 27 05:04 UTC 2008 |
nihilist
|
ball
|
|
response 5 of 68:
|
Feb 18 18:31 UTC 2009 |
I'm still running MacOS X 10.4 'Tiger' (on a borrowed
iBook G3). Mostly I seem to use it as an X terminal, though
I do run Camino locally. Anything of interest in 'Leopard'?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 68:
|
Feb 18 21:15 UTC 2009 |
I'm using OS 10.4.11 on a MacBook Pro. The 10.5 install disk came with it,
but I have not installed it: I fear a lot of apps I now use will not run on
it, and I also read about bugs in 10.5.
(I wish people didn't call OSs by names of animals: there are no similarities
between the name and the OS.)
|
cross
|
|
response 7 of 68:
|
Feb 19 00:55 UTC 2009 |
Tiger comes with several advances; one of the big ones (for me, anyway) is
Timemachine. I really like automated backups.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 68:
|
Feb 19 06:46 UTC 2009 |
That's a 10.5 app.
|
veek
|
|
response 9 of 68:
|
Feb 19 11:01 UTC 2009 |
Re #6: heh, I was thinking the exact same thing :) and poor Cheetahs
they kind of suck and are going extinct even..
|
cross
|
|
response 10 of 68:
|
Feb 19 14:41 UTC 2009 |
resp:8 Ooops, my bad. And this is exactly why you are right and one should
not name operating system releases after big cats.
|
remmers
|
|
response 11 of 68:
|
Feb 20 14:17 UTC 2009 |
I've been running Leopard (10.5) on my MacBook Pro since shortly after
it was released over a year ago. I will say that it had some rough
edges initially, but after the first couple of updates things got much
better; it's up to 10.5.6 now, runs quite smoothly, and I'm very happy
with it.
New features that I like:
Time Machine - automated incremental backups
Spaces - multiple desktops
Also, the Spotlight search facility is significantly improved from
Tiger. Much faster, better functionality. I use it a lot.
I've not had any problems with 3rd party apps not running.
|
keesan
|
|
response 12 of 68:
|
Feb 20 15:13 UTC 2009 |
I think Jim downgraded from 10.4 to 10.3 to make it run faster.
|
cross
|
|
response 13 of 68:
|
Feb 20 19:19 UTC 2009 |
That's stupid and counterproductive.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 68:
|
Feb 20 19:45 UTC 2009 |
Wouldn't that depend upon the machine?
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 68:
|
Feb 20 19:46 UTC 2009 |
I'd think it would depend on the machine and the uses to which it's put.
|
cross
|
|
response 16 of 68:
|
Feb 21 00:29 UTC 2009 |
I think that opening oneself up to the security problems of an old,
unmaintained version of the software is just plain silly.
|
mickeyd
|
|
response 17 of 68:
|
Feb 21 01:22 UTC 2009 |
re #16 - so you advocate always upgrading to bleeding edge? Or just 'common
stable versions" ?
Just curious.
|
keesan
|
|
response 18 of 68:
|
Feb 21 03:53 UTC 2009 |
What security problems? The computer came with 10.3 originally but he
upgraded to 10.4 to try to run a later version of iPhoto which he decided he
did not want to run. This was all taking up too much memory. We added some
memory and it still ran slow. He reinstalled, this time without a lot of the
unused junk (such as a driver for every printer ever made - some day he may
print with it and add one driver then). I asked around about how to get rid
of various stuff (drag to the trash can). iPhoto installed itself along with
a bunch of other unwanted stuff the first time around. (Jim does not read
well and missed the 'custom' part of installation). He is using the Mac only
to play with photos. If he wants to write an email he asks me to do it, or
look things up online. There are two places to add memory to the Mac, one of
which requires taking it apart to some depth.
We were given a printer with the Mac but it needs the inkwells refilled and
then you need a $20 chipsetter to set them back to thinking they are full.
We might borrow one and try printing some day. 6 cents/photo on State St.
Someone with an ink refill shop asked us to try fixing three desktops and some
laptops he has accumulated, in return for which he would probably reset the
inkwells for us if we wanted. You can buy empty wells which are set to be
'always full' but then if they run dry you can damage the printhead.
|
cross
|
|
response 19 of 68:
|
Feb 21 07:03 UTC 2009 |
resp:18 Look it up. The rest is a huge amount of irrelevant detail.
|
veek
|
|
response 20 of 68:
|
Feb 21 10:20 UTC 2009 |
Re #19: don't be grumpy :) arr! <make way, make way, geek chick coming
through :p tackles Sindi and sits on her>
I've never used a Mac.. and I'm kind of not inclined to because of the
cost/laziness involved; Intel 400Mhz 256MB RAM - would a OSX run on
that? Would it be worthwhile using/learning how to use it for someone
like me? Why are Remmers and Rane even using it - free?
|
remmers
|
|
response 21 of 68:
|
Feb 21 16:46 UTC 2009 |
Yeah, cross seems to be in grump mode lately.
I'd be curious, too, to know what security problems one opens oneself up
to on an old Mac that's not connected to the internet, although maybe
this item, which is ostensibly about Leopard, isn't the place to discuss it.
Security issues aside, I think it's kind of cool that folks can make
some use out of old software/hardware.
As to why I use the Mac - well, I buy my Macs, they're not free, so
that's not the reason. I like Mac's because they're so well engineered
and come with great software. More detail than that will have to wait
until I'm feeling up to expositing at greater length. :)
|
keesan
|
|
response 22 of 68:
|
Feb 21 17:55 UTC 2009 |
The Mac does not crash. The hardware is also high quality. OS X lets you
use BSD if you prefer, and even compile programs.
OSX won't run on an Intel that i know of.
|
remmers
|
|
response 23 of 68:
|
Feb 21 18:08 UTC 2009 |
All current Macs use Intel processors. This has been true for a couple
of years now.
However, it is not easy to get OS X running on a non-Apple Intel machine.
I think what "lets you use BSD" means is that OS X has a BSD variant
(Darwin) built-in; running the Terminal application brings up a Unix
shell (Bash by default).
|
keesan
|
|
response 24 of 68:
|
Feb 21 18:23 UTC 2009 |
This lets you bypass the gui stuff and type commands. Such as ssh.
|