So, as someone who has been a Mac user since before it was fashionable, I greet this kind of stuff with skepticism. I lived through the OS X transition - yeah 10.0. People are all talking about how certain things look off in Vista and how it can be a resource hog, but 10.0 was worse.
10.0 took forever to load on brand new hardware. Want to launch a web browser? Got a minute? Want to minimize that window, please hang on. Everyone on Mac message boards was complaining and many hoped Apple would just go back to the OS 9 codebase. Plus, since Aqua (the OS X interface) had such different dimensions from Platinum (the OS 9 interface), nothing lined up right even if they were native OS X apps. 10.1 helped a bit with the speed issue, but things still didn't look right and Windows XP ran circles around it in most cases.
It was painful. I mean, I have been using Macs since the LC & Quadra days and 10.0 just sucked. But it turns out they were just growing pains. Today, OS X is awesome. I'm amazingly happy with it and its future, but it wasn't so bright a year or two in. 10.3 was really the breakout release IMO and it was 10.4 that started attracting the hackers in droves.
I've used Apple eMates more than I've used Vista so I might just be full of crap, but while most current Mac users were on the sidelines for the OS X 10.0 growing pains, I was in the thick of it and I can say that Vista is a ton better than 10.0 was. Of course, we are nearing the two-year anniversary for Vista and that's about when 10.3 came out. . . Maybe Microsoft isn't able to smooth out the rough edges quickly enough.
Ahh, those were the days. I remember being really excited when I went to install 10.0 on a beige G3 desktop. I was still excited when it was finished 2 hours later! :)
The problem I see is that the jump between OS 9 -> OS X was way bigger than XP -> Vista. There are just too many vestigial bits in the core of Vista right now. It's not even close to Apple's Carbon situation. It's far, far worse. I am pretty sure I saw an icon from Windows 3.1 just the other day.
Of course, we are nearing the two-year anniversary for Vista and that's about when 10.3 came out...
You've found the problem. It's not that it's necessarily fatal to release a poor interim product. It's that you have to keep the "interim" down below five years, which is how long it took to go from XP to Vista.
As a customer, I will not use a system with "growing pains", unless it gave me some huge benefit. If they are unable to make it stable, at least make it great while it runs.
Comments
So, as someone who has been a Mac user since before it was fashionable, I greet this kind of stuff with skepticism. I lived through the OS X transition - yeah 10.0. People are all talking about how certain things look off in Vista and how it can be a resource hog, but 10.0 was worse.
10.0 took forever to load on brand new hardware. Want to launch a web browser? Got a minute? Want to minimize that window, please hang on. Everyone on Mac message boards was complaining and many hoped Apple would just go back to the OS 9 codebase. Plus, since Aqua (the OS X interface) had such different dimensions from Platinum (the OS 9 interface), nothing lined up right even if they were native OS X apps. 10.1 helped a bit with the speed issue, but things still didn't look right and Windows XP ran circles around it in most cases.
It was painful. I mean, I have been using Macs since the LC & Quadra days and 10.0 just sucked. But it turns out they were just growing pains. Today, OS X is awesome. I'm amazingly happy with it and its future, but it wasn't so bright a year or two in. 10.3 was really the breakout release IMO and it was 10.4 that started attracting the hackers in droves.
I've used Apple eMates more than I've used Vista so I might just be full of crap, but while most current Mac users were on the sidelines for the OS X 10.0 growing pains, I was in the thick of it and I can say that Vista is a ton better than 10.0 was. Of course, we are nearing the two-year anniversary for Vista and that's about when 10.3 came out. . . Maybe Microsoft isn't able to smooth out the rough edges quickly enough.
Ahh, those were the days. I remember being really excited when I went to install 10.0 on a beige G3 desktop. I was still excited when it was finished 2 hours later! :)
The problem I see is that the jump between OS 9 -> OS X was way bigger than XP -> Vista. There are just too many vestigial bits in the core of Vista right now. It's not even close to Apple's Carbon situation. It's far, far worse. I am pretty sure I saw an icon from Windows 3.1 just the other day.
Of course, we are nearing the two-year anniversary for Vista and that's about when 10.3 came out...
You've found the problem. It's not that it's necessarily fatal to release a poor interim product. It's that you have to keep the "interim" down below five years, which is how long it took to go from XP to Vista.
As a customer, I will not use a system with "growing pains", unless it gave me some huge benefit. If they are unable to make it stable, at least make it great while it runs.
"as someone who has been a Mac user since before it was fashionable"
1983? ;-)