Leopard, now, later or never?

User avatar
ptram
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:43 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Recanati, Italy

Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:49 pm Post

antony wrote:Still, I can't help feel there must be some modern app that would work just as well (as FrameMaker)...


Sadly, there isn't. The only other comparable technical writing tool (Blaze) is not yet on the market, and it will be Windows-only as well.

Paolo

Ti
Timotheus
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:35 pm
Platform: Mac

Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:12 pm Post

Paolo, did you read Wock's contribution to
this thread?
Scrivener – Nisus – Bookends – Devonthink – Lightroom ••• MacMini 2018 / MacBook Pro 2014 (10.14.6) – iPhone 7

I went there and came back / It was nothing special / The river at high tide / The mountain veiled by misty rain

Ti
Timotheus
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:35 pm
Platform: Mac

Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:30 pm Post

And here an article about security improvements in Leopard some of us might be interested in.
Scrivener – Nisus – Bookends – Devonthink – Lightroom ••• MacMini 2018 / MacBook Pro 2014 (10.14.6) – iPhone 7

I went there and came back / It was nothing special / The river at high tide / The mountain veiled by misty rain

User avatar
ptram
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:43 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Recanati, Italy

Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:30 pm Post

Timotheus wrote:Paolo, did you read Wock's contribution to
this thread?


I had missed this thread entirely, so thank you for pointing me toward it.

But no, InDesign (that I have and use for some works) is not the answer yet. It still misses too many features, to be considered a real tech publishing application. And judging by the latest Adobe workshops I attended, I doubt the developers are intereste to the tech publishing market.

Desktop publishing is not a monolithic area (something I try to teach to potential clients, asking me, a writer, to make instruction manuals for showers). Text based documents are not the same as graphic driven communication. InDesign is built with this latter in mind, FrameMaker with the former. You can do the same with both, but with some pain and several nights spent doing things the other application would have done automatically for you.

As soon as I have some time, I'll probably elaborate on that (either in this, or the other thread).

Paolo

Kh
Khadrelt
Posts: 361
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:22 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Utah, USA
Contact:

Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:20 pm Post

I use OS 9 on my Intel iMac via the SheepShaver emulator. Doesn't work as nicely as Classic did, but in the absence of an alternative, it works.
And that, my Liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped.

ka
kastorff
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:11 pm
Location: Kenton, TN USA

Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:55 pm Post

I've got a pre-order coming, and I'll install it the moment it arrives. However, I'm gonna install it on an external Firewire drive and experiment some before I do a clean install on the primary drive.
Keith Kastorff

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24641
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:14 pm Post

Regarding laptop design: I've noticed a general downward trend in Apple's high-end laptop design in recent years. I'm not talking so much about the quality of the machines themselves, or the features available, more just the exterior design consideration and aesthetics. The original Titanium PowerBook line was, in my opinion, the finest notebook computer ever designed, past or present. It was an absolute work of art from every angle! The keyboard was probably my favourite ever, full size or laptop. The whole thing just screamed quality. The only flaw was that the keys touched the screen when the case was closed. I guess some might say another flaw was its relative fragility (thin skin, double-hinge screen joint), but I likened it to a butterfly. Beautiful, just don't stomp on it. :)

I'm not terribly impressed with the current MacBook Pro design. It's a wonderful laptop, make no mistake, and much nicer than pretty much anything else out there right now---but when compared to one of those original old PowerBooks? Not even close!

Of course, being aesthetics and such other subjectives, this is all my opinion. I'll always consider the original Titaniums to be the ultimate confluence of form and function.

Amusingly, the opposite could be said for the low-end laptops. The original iBooks were nicely designed, but I like the new MacBooks even better.

Hugh wrote:I think I may wait for a while, to see what the consensus experience is on speed. I suppose I can remember too many Windows upgrades that promised super-sonics and delivered snails.


I've experienced the complete opposite from Apple thus far. Every OS release has substantially improved speed on existing hardware. I've heard similar reports from people using dev builds of Leopard. But yes, all of that is nothing until it is actually installed. :)
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

User avatar
KB
Site Admin
Posts: 20920
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:23 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Truro, Cornwall
Contact:

Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:45 pm Post

Yep, Leopard is substantially faster on my MBPro than Tiger is. Tiger seems like a snail by comparison these days...

Best,
Keith

ka
kastorff
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:11 pm
Location: Kenton, TN USA

Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:01 am Post

AmberV wrote:Every OS release has substantially improved speed on existing hardware.
My experience too...

It's quite remarkable, given that normally newer translates to slower on older equipment.
Keith Kastorff

Th
Thequietone
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:45 pm

Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:41 am Post

My first Mac was an Imac which ran at 800mhz and I still have it so I was slightly disembowelled to read that the minimum for the upgrade is 867mhz.

Roaming around the web I saw that people with developer releases had successfully installed on machine slower than 867mhz. So if Leopard does not install I will start searching.

If anybody knows of this crack please post as I don't like to see a good machine die.

It could be I misread that its G3's slower than 867mhz and not G4's but we will find out on Friday.

Paul

User avatar
Juddbert
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:08 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Penzance, Cornwall, UK

Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:19 am Post

Apple state the minimum general requirements as:

A Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5 or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or better) processor


512MB memory
DVD drive for installation
9GB of free disk space
Some features require a compatible Internet service provider, fees may apply.
Some features require Apple’s .Mac service, fees apply.
Can't write right. Don't care neither. Er...either.

Scrivener 3.1.5 on macOS 10.15.6
Occasional player of the old Scappleodium...

ha
hallogallo
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:50 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:57 pm Post

I've seen some guides on the net showing how to install on an iBook G3, but I can't seem to find them now. If I remember correct there is some patch that can be applied to an installation that removes leopard's cpu-check.

Hu
Hugh
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:05 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: UK

Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:32 pm Post

How is Leopard performing, now it's had a few days to bed in?

How in particular is it performing with common tools of the writing trade? I noticed on the TinderBox forum that Amber has reported the application seems slower on her MacBook (though to be fair Mark Bernstein says it should be as fast or faster). The DevonThink developers have warned users against installing 10.5 for the time being.

Leaving aside overdone PC schadenfreude, are there any issues of significance? What have the early adopters found?

St
Studio717
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:27 pm
Location: California

Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:14 pm Post

So far, it's doing splendidly. I've noticed a few differences - primarily in small things, like I now have to type the first letter/number for auto-fill, which is annoying but not really a biggie. I'm loving Time Machine and the other two great additions: CoverFlow and QuickLook, though I have to admit I sometimes forget they are there and do things the old-fashioned way until I remember. :oops:

I have avoided DTPO because I read early-on not to run it with Leopard (yet). Since I index most of my research, I can use Spotlight to find things (and Spotlight is much more robust, too!) so I'm not missing it nearly as much as I expected to. Enlightening, eh?

I am ticked that FileMaker isn't updated - there's really no excuse for that, imo.

The most important thing - Scrivener - runs beautifully. :D

I'm also enjoying the small treats that I find tucked away. Little enhancements or additions that aren't big flashy additions, yet make the whole experience much more enjoyable. Very nice. :)

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24641
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:17 pm Post

Stacks is just one of those things that I was *sure* I would find useless, but am actually finding to be extremely useful for certain applications. Particularly, downloading an image or something, switching to another application, and dropping the downloaded image straight into it. Previously this would have required a bit more hassle. Potentially rummaging into the Desktop or some other collection area, finding the file (wondering what name it got downloaded as), and so forth. Not with Stacks. Latest download is right at the bottom, drag and drop and the Stack disappears without any fuss. I've set up Hazel to go through the Downloads Stack and cull everything over three hours old, so I literally *never* worry about downloads anymore. They appear, I siphon them where they need to go, and forget completely about it.

So the basic idea seemed obvious (and replicable using older techniques) to the point of stupidity, but actually using it, and noting the subtle thought that Apple put into its design is very nice.

Spaces is also well thought out. There are some things that will take getting used to. Getting whisked about to different desktops based on the last *window* accessed in an application is something I do not care for. For example if I have a browser window open in two different spaces, one for work and one for play, let's say, and I'm working, when I Cmd-Tab to Firefox, I'd rather it selected the closest available window, rather than the last window I might have accessed in the "play" area. Other than that quibble, I do like how you do not have to worry about where windows are. If I need to switch to Adium, I don't have to remember where I left it, I can just Cmd-Tab and then when I am done responding, Cmd-Tab will whisk me right back to where I left off.

Nice.

Time Machine, while not a replacement for sets of off-site back-ups, is extremely nice for peace of mind. I can completely blow up my system and have it re-installed precisely to where I was before in the same amount of time it takes to install the system from scratch. That is beautiful. And for user errors like accidentally saving over a file instead of making a new copy and blowing away hours of work? I love it. I don't do that kind of thing often, but knowing that *when* I do, I shan't worry about the consequences is nice.

Lots of little subtle things just make the whole Mac experience much more pleasing to use. My mother is finally making the switch now that she has seen it. :)

My only aesthetic complaint so far is the Dock. It is a little visually intense in the bottom position. Icons don't stand out as well, and those blue glowing dots are not as obvious as they could be. I think the Dock looks *really* nice on the sides of the screen, however. The transparent menu doesn't bother me. I think it looks kind of nice, actually, as do the new menus with the blur effect.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles