[Dan Frakes]

alansky said:

Dan, can you point me to instructions on how to set up screen sharing over the internet? I figured out how to do it with iChat, but much prefer using the screen sharing feature. I got that to work over my home network, but have no idea how to use it to connect to a remote computer in another state.

Unfortunately, the topic you're asking about is one that requires much more explanation. iChat is easy because it creates an initial network connection using the AIM servers, and then uses that connection to create a direct connection for screen sharing. Without iChat, you'll need some way to connect to the other computer even if it's behind routers and firewalls. That's the purpose of Leopard's Back To My Mac feature, which uses the .Mac servers to create the initial connection, but it requires a .Mac account and, frankly, doesn't work right. Which means you'll need to do some tweaking of firewalls and/or router settings.

It's a good suggestion for an article, actually.

[Stormchild]

I can't speak for everyone, but I believe all the kernel panics I experienced in Leopard were caused by Time Machine. I've only experienced maybe one or two kernel panics a year in the entire time I've been using OS X, so I certainly noticed when I started to get them once or twice a day. I eventually traced it to a corrupted partially-completed backup "file" (the .inProgress file Time Machine leaves behind if it gets interrupted -- "file" is in quotes because it's not a file, it's a package, but I digress).
I ended up with corrupt partial backups a few times, and whenever it went to resume the backup, I would either get an error telling me that Time Machine could not complete a backup, or a kernel panic would occur (presumably depending on how badly corrupted the file was). After deleting the .inProgress file, the kernel panics would stop (and the next Time Machine backup would succeed).
In Apple's testing notes to developers in the pre-release seeds of the 10.5.2 update, Time Machine was mentioned probably more often than any other aspect of the system, and Apple was asking developers to test it heavily with each new seed.
My point is, from my perspective, I don't think Leopard as a whole is any less stable than previous OS X releases; in fact I think it is more stable, and (at least for me, Time Machine notwithstanding), it has been by far the smoothest upgrade to a new major version of the OS.
Tiger, on the other hand, was terrible. So many things were broken right out of the gate (some of which never got fixed) that I went back to Panther and held off upgrading until I was forced to do so (by buying a new machine that shipped with Tiger and won't run on Panther). It was clearly rushed out, and I think the extra time Apple spent on Leopard really shows. The QA job they did this time around (again, Time Machine notwithstanding) was 10 times better.
I do like Time Machine, by the way, and I've not had a single problem with it since the 10.5.2 update. But causing more kernel panics in a few months than I've experienced in the entire time OS X has existed definitely didn't sit well with me, considering the horrendous nature of the problem (having the entire computer suddenly and totally freeze and die does put the lesser torture of beachball parties into perspective though).

[Stormchild]

spinoza2 said:

I think someone needs to chime in and let Macworld know that there are people who really like the transparent Finder and 3D dock in Leopard; Apple must have done their research before implementing it and learned that a lot of us would like this enhancement. I attribute Macworld's continuing harping on these things to their being IT folks who don't see much value in design or aesthetics in improving a UI.

How exactly does making the menubar partially transparent constitute "improving a UI"?

Like a lot of "improvements" we're seeing in software these days, it offers absolutely no practical purpose or benefit whatsoever. I would be willing to overlook it if I thought it made my computer environment more pleasing to the eye and wasn't doing any harm other than wasting another few CPU cycles per second, but it also makes menubar titles and information harder to read, and quite frankly I don't even like the way it looks. That whole transparent menubar thing was a stupid idea, and I think they would have (or at least, should have) just taken it out completely if it hadn't been advertised or shipped yet.

As for the glass (aka "3D") Dock, well, it almost satisfied one of my two requirements, in that it sort of looks cool (until you look closely and see that the angle of many icons sitting on it is now wrong, and counteracts the 3D illusion), but, much like the transparent menubar, this change was actually detrimental to the user interface! The "application is running" light is very difficult to see (the old black triangles on the mostly-white Dock were clear as day), and the Dock became "taller" (because the icons sit higher up -- i.e. farther from the bottom of the screen), wasting precious vertical real estate. Sure, I could just shrink it down to fit so I don't have to go around resizing all my application windows, but then the icons are smaller, and useful information such as how many tasks (OmniFocus), new emails (Mail), new articles in RSS feeds (NetNewsWire) are waiting for me. Once again, a purely aesthetic change that not only delivers no practical value, but actually makes the UI worse from a usability standpoint.

The good news here is that the new alternative black Dock is quite nice. It's no bigger than the old Dock, and I think it looks great. I don't hate the glass Dock enough to say that it should be completely removed, but the black Dock should definitely be the default.

I attribute your uninformed opinion to you not being a designer yourself (certainly not a competent one), and the fact that you don't understand the difference between "graphics" and "user interface".

[deasys]

Using the Family Pack, I have upgraded 5 Macs to Leopard and each has been rock solid.

If you're having problems, suspect hacks, haxies, or incompatible drivers or hardware issues, especially RAM.

[wbravenboer]

I agree with many of the complaints. My major issue is that spotlight is useless for me, first of all it always starts with 'my mac', I have several network volumes on the desktop and when wanting to search in a folder on my client volume, I just want to look in a particular folder. In Tiger it at least starts in the right folder... In Leopard it always goes back to 'my mac', why??? And it takes forever to find something (mostly not), I have several instances (in Leopard and Tiger) when Spotlight was looking for minutes, did not find it, while I found it after some digging, right in the folder where Spotlight started. As a professional I cannot use Leopard; CS3 will not work. Apple and Adobe still have work to do...

[rickcarl]

I think, if Leopard is going to be an operating system, it should operate the system and that includes dealing with drivers and hardware with which it connects. Apple can't issue an operating system and then say, if it won't work with hardware a user is likely to attach to the computer, it's the hardware's fault. If Apple wants to limit hardware/driver options, print a list. I wouldn't buy a Mac if I checked the list and found it wouldn't work with a Maxtor USB 2.0 drive or HP Pro printer in an office full of those devices.

The same with RAM if the only approved RAM is Apple provided and installed. That significantly increases the cost of Mac ownership.





deasys wrote: Using the Family Pack, I have upgraded 5 Macs to Leopard and each has been rock solid.
If you're having problems, suspect hacks, haxies, or incompatible drivers or hardware issues, especially RAM.

[bernardlanguillier]

I have installed Leopard 10.5.2 on my original Intel iMac (with all the latest firmware upgrades), and I have to agree: it is a lot less stable than Tiger, and does often freeze amidst apparently little demanding tasks.

My 8 cores work MacPro is still on 10.4.10, and I intend to keep it there some more until Apple gets its acts together.

When you think about it, the full migration to 64 bits is a huge task, and I am in fact surprised (not to say AMAZED) that these issues have not been given more press at MacWorld.

Cheers,
Bernard

[spinoza2]

The trend toward greater transparency and three dimensionality has been going on for several years now to take advantage of ever increasing computing/video power. Providing general depth to the UI gives the designer(s) more opportunity to provide information in the user's working environment, just as is the case in real life. Most importantly, depth provides various ways of showing the user that several layers of activity (or information) are going on simultaneously. As a very simple example, the windows scroll bar in Leopard (and for the past several OS X versions, as I recall) looks like an oval 'pill box', giving one the sense of moving an actual physical bar up and down. You could keep such elements 'flat' and two-dimensional, but a completely flat UI with countless simultaneous activities would be much more difficult to understand and use. You can disagree with Apple in its decisions with particular design elements as it progresses toward ever increasing three dimensionality, but the inherent value in providing three-dimensional information is pretty obvious to any designer. Returning to a two dimensional "the world is flat" computing environment would return us to a mid-90s OS 7 UI. I'm aware there are more than a few older Mac aficionados, resistant to change, who would prefer such nostalgia, but this wouldn't make sense with today's complex computing environments.

[scrooks]

I believe that few people are using it (Parental Controls), but it's probably pretty important to those few who are. If you're going to tout a feature, Apple, please make sure it actually works.

When you tested it, did you have anything running when the time came for you to be kicked off because your time ran out? I was excited to set our new iMac up for the kids, but the first night my son was on it playing Warcraft he never even saw a message about his time running out. This is the biggest failing for me (and I think someone else here said the same thing) -- I want the time management stuff to work because it avoids a lot of conflict. I suggest you do a little more testing of the time management controls (including doing a reboot when you're supposed to be locked out, which I hear gets you back in although I haven't tested that personally) and then please, please, please write up a little blurb to publish somewhere if you find they really are broken. I fear at this point that the only way these things will be fixed is if Apple is publicly taken to task for them. I'd love for the blogosphere to pick up this issue.

Other than that, I've had no problems with Leopard. After 10.5.2 I've had very good stability.

[dcrehr]

The problem with Spaces is that you can't mix documents from one program in different Spaces. At least I can't. I might start by working on a Word document in Space 2, while I have Word open in Space 1. But when I return to Space 1, all of the currently open Word documents show up. Very confusing. I'd like a Spaces that allows complete flexibility... so I can use them to diviide up my "Projects" not just my "Programs."



As for the Leopard Look... everything looks alike. I often find myself mistaking my Mail window for a Finder window. It'd be nice if we could change the color theme of windows in different programs, wouldn' it? But then, leopards WANT to blend in with everything else. Those spots are camouflage.



DR

[KAdamsInCo]

I bought a MacBook Pro in October with Tiger and upgraded it in January after the 10.5.1 release came out. I upgraded my Mac Mini Intel Core 2 Duo at the same time. There were some minor tweaks I had to make, like upgrading some of the apps to their Leopard compatible version, but I have not experienced any serious issues since.
The 10.5.2 patch fixed the stacks/folder preference issue (I prefer folder lists over stacks) and the keyboard update seems to have fixed the MacBook Pro "first key press after sleep mode won't respond" problem.
Overall I am very satisfied with Leopard and don't mind the 3-D dock or translucent menu items so much. Even if I did there are 3rd party apps available to customize these to a look that I would prefer. There are also numerous options (some free) for folder icons to use in place of the standard blue that ships with Leopard.
Any new/major upgrade to an OS has issues and I'm certain Apple will work them out over time. I am also certain that every Mac that has shipped over the past few months has had Leopard on it, which is over 2.1 million machines, so I would say that those experiencing major issues with Leopard (especially after 10.5.2) are in the minority.
http://www.apple.com.../22results.html

[JohnDrake6]

Agreed!

Also, regarding the new Finder sidebar--I've used it for several months, and I detest it. Thankfully, I use Leopard on a test machine, and never updated my main computer...and I have NO plan to do so, either!

Sadly, Apple has removed the option of collapsing the sidebar, while retaining the surrounding window border for easy window movement. The only sidebar-less view has NO border ar all--you can only move a window by the title bar!

Hey Apple--how about restoring this feature...and CHOICE--back to your users?

[Martian]

This thread should be split into two,
* “Leopard, four months later—FEATURES”, and
* “Leopard, four months later—STABILITY”.
These are obviously very different topics. Features are a personal preference thing. Stability involves diagnosing and fixing something that is broken (or establishing that nothing really is broken).

[Dan Frakes]

spinoza2 said:

Providing general depth to the UI gives the designer(s) more opportunity to provide information in the user's working environment, just as is the case in real life...You could keep such elements 'flat' and two-dimensional, but a completely flat UI with countless simultaneous activities would be much more difficult to understand and use. You can disagree with Apple in its decisions with particular design elements as it progresses toward ever increasing three dimensionality, but the inherent value in providing three-dimensional information is pretty obvious to any designer. Returning to a two dimensional "the world is flat" computing environment would return us to a mid-90s OS 7 UI. I'm aware there are more than a few older Mac aficionados, resistant to change, who would prefer such nostalgia, but this wouldn't make sense with today's complex computing environments.

The problem with the above statement is that it lumps all criticism of UI changes together and attributes the lot to resistance-on-principle.

I don't disagree with your overall assertion (that UI depth can offer benefits); rather, I question the use of such depth solely as eye candy, especially when doing so makes the UI less usable. For example, I'm not against a 3-D Dock on principle; I'm simply critical of this 3-D Dock. I have yet to hear a compelling argument explaining how the Dock's new 3-D appearance is more usable than the previous 2-D version, while I've heard many convincing arguments, some of them quoting Apple's own UI guidelines, describing how the new appearance is a step backwards in usability. So my comments here have nothing to do with "resistance to change." They come from a desire for good UI design, where "good" means more than "it looks cool."