Blog FeedMac OS X 10.5 Leopard: A Spotty Release
This is going to be the longest article that I’ve written for Aelon but since I’ve not written one for a while I have a fair bit to make up. Since I am sure that many people reading this will not want to wade their way through the complete article I’m going to make things easy on you by providing an up-front conclusion. However, before this I’m going to provide a bit of background about what this article is and what it isn’t, plus a bit about me and how this has been achieved. I hope that this information will put the article into context and also give an indication of whether you should trust me.
Let’s start with that this article isn’t. This article is not a comparison of Apple Mac OS X 10.5 (henceforth called Leopard throughout the rest of this article) to Microsoft Vista or Linux distributions like Ubuntu. A couple of years ago I wrote a review of Apple OS X 10.4 that was pretty popular here and I compared it quite a bit with Windows XP. However, while I still use XP a lot I have almost no experience with Vista or Linux so attempting a comparison would be insulting to those who have. I am certain that there’s aspect of Leopard that exists in these other OSs, and you can feel free to tell me this in the comments, but that isn’t the focus of the article.
What this article is is a frank evaluation of a brand new OS performed over the 5-days since it’s release using a fairly current computer, a October 2006 MacBook Pro with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor, both at home and at work, which is a Windows dominated environment. 5-Days is not a long time but I have tried to “kick the tires” thoroughly (certainly more than I did for the Tiger review) and I’ve quite a lot of material to work my way through. While I consider myself an Apple fan since I switched about 4-years ago I am not an Apple apologist and I’m not going to be pulling many punches in this article. I’m also writing this review without having read other reviews or opinions of the OS so that what you read here is my own review without influence from others.
So, to the promised conclusion at the start of the document (don’t worry, there’s a full conclusion at the end as well):
If it is not required that you install Leopard now my advise is NOT to install the current retail release onto anything other than a test machine. I have absolutely no doubt that Leopard will be the best release of OS X to date and that the features contained will make day-to-day computing a pleasure. However, this is most definitely a .0 release and it comes with a lot of bugs, some of which will drive you nuts or prevent you from upgrading.
So, for the remainder of the article I’m going to run through how I installed the OS, how it performs on new and old hardware, and then take a look at the major points that appear in the marketing material, plus anything else that I think is worth mentioning.
Installation
Leopard ships on a single DVD contained in Apple’s new minimalist boxes. The box itself contains the DVD and a short manual (probably useful but mine came in Dutch since I bought it in Belgium) as well as a few Apple stickers that I have no idea what to do with. The size of the box will no doubt keep those who have wanted less wasteful packaging happy but it does mean that I won’t be able to use this box as a home for all my other important disks like I have done with other releases of Apple’s OS. Having all my disks when trouble strikes in a single box is quite useful so Leopard’s disk may be downgrading itself into my old box from Tiger…
Apple recommends in its introduction video to using Leopard that you use the upgrade utility so that you can get up and running with the new OS as fast as possible. However, since I come from a Windows background where it was always recommended to start with a fresh disk, and also because I wanted to ensure as clean a system as possible for benchmarking, I backed up all my data first (using Apple’s Backup application) to an external USB 2.0 drive. Having backed up the data I formatted the hard drives of both my laptops and proceeded to install the OS. Installing Leopard is pretty much the same as all the other versions of OS X - the installer checks the DVD for errors (but you can skip this step), allows you to configure the drive you want it installed on, which components to install (tip: save yourself the disk space and unselect any languages or printer drivers you don’t need), and then installs itself completely without any further dialog. Once you have installed the OS you are treated to a quick video (hello in various languages floating in space) and taken through the steps to setup your user account, network connections and document migration (if applicable). In total this took well over an hour on the MacBook Pro but this was mostly due to the time to format the hard drive since I requested the Disk Utility to write zeros across the entire disk.
Benchmarks
Leopard can be run on Apple Macintosh computers (and generic PCs, it seems) containing a PowerPC G4 (867MHz+), G5, Intel Core Duo or Core 2 Duo processors. I was interested to see how well the OS runs on both new and old hardware so it was installed onto both my relatively new laptop and the old one that I’d upgraded from. The specifications of these computers are as follows:
- 15” PowerBook G4 1GHz Titanium, 1GB PC133 RAM, 80GB 5,400 Hard Drive, 64MB ATI Mobility Radeon 9000
- 17” MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2.33GHz, 2GB DDR2, 160GB 5,400 Hard Drive, 256MB ATI X1600
The approach for this is no doubt unscientific so go easy on me since this is the first time I’ve tried to benchmark computers beyond running 3DMark under Windows XP. Given that it’s not fair to pit old hardware against new the objective of this benchmarking was to see how Leopard faired against the most up-to-date version of Tiger, 10.4.10 at the time of this article, on both systems. Both laptops were installed clean with patched versions of Tiger and then Leopard with the following tests run:
- 3 passes with XBench (version 1.3) with an average score calculated (PowerBook and MacBook Pro)
- 3 passes with Quake 4’s (version 1.2) id_demo001 time demo at increasing resolutions with an average score calculated (MacBook Pro)
- Highest and Lowest frame rates observed in World of Warcraft (version 2.2.3) in the city of Ironforge (PowerBook and MacBook Pro)
XBench Test Results
| PowerBook G4 1GHz | MacBook Pro C2D 2.33GHz | |
| OS X 10.4.10 (Tiger) | 42.35 | 111.38 |
| OS X 10.5.0 (Leopard) | 34.54 | 117.39 |
Higher scores are better
The results of this test weren’t very surprising. With the new features added to Leopard it was expected that the PowerBook might slow down, although the drop was quite substantial (-19%). The MacBook Pro increased its score as a result of Apple concentrating their efforts on the new Intel systems and multi-core processing (+5%).
Given the increases in overall system performance the question was whether the MacBook Pro would fair better in Quake 4?
Quake 4 Test Results (Medium Quality, Multi-Processor Enabled)
| 640×480 | 800×600 | 1024×768 | 1280×1024 | |
| OS X 10.4.10 | 71.20 | 56.79 | 41.41 | 29.22 |
| OS X 10.5.0 | 56.77 | 46.07 | 35.76 | 25.82 |
Results show the average Frames Per Second (fps) and higher numbers are better
I was honestly expecting to see an increase in performance but the MacBook Pro’s frame rates fell by 20% at 640×480 where the low-end graphics card should be less of a factor.
Let’s see if there are any improvements in World of Warcraft where we’ll be able to see the pathetic frame rates that the PowerBook will no doubt achieve.
World of Warcraft Test Results (Default Resolution)
| PowerBook G4 1GHz (Busy) | PowerBook G4 1GHz (Light) | MacBook Pro C2D 2.33GHz (Busy) | MacBook Pro C2D 2.33GHz (Light) | |
| OS X 10.4.10 (Tiger) | 4.6 | 35 | 52 | 185 |
| OS X 10.5.0 (Leopard) | 2.9 | 40 | 52 | 191 |
Results show the average Frames Per Second (fps) and higher numbers are better
Both systems were run using their default video settings as set by the game (800×600 on the PowerBook and 1680×1050 on the MacBook Pro) since making them match wouldn’t have been fair and probably would have killed the PowerBook. Regardless, this was the most unscientific test since there are no time demos in WoW (that I am aware of) and the tests basically consisted of standing around outside the bank in Ironforge for the busy test and in an empty corridor for the light test. Given the time difference involved in installing another OS and then WoW the circumstances changed somewhat between the tests. However, the results seem to suggest that there’s no real performance hit from upgrading to Leopard but equally you shouldn’t expect an improvement either.
Following on from these benchmarks we then move onto the new functions of the new OS, what I liked, what I didn’t like, and what drove me nuts.
6th November | Reply
I’m kind of glad I didn’t fork out the bucks to upgrade in that case. Spaces is certainly something I’m looking forward to once it works right. I have a macbook and the screen on that is itty bitty so some more surface area should be blessing. Spotlight sounds pretty spiffy as well and a general performance boost is always going to be welcome.
But I don’t use a lot of the 1st party Apple Apps, and I don’t know that they’ve really given me any reason to change that as I really like being able to change from windows desktop to Mac Laptop and not really have to do anything differently.
Maybe I’d feel differently if I only used a mac, or maybe I’d feel differently if i used my mac for more than school work and websurfing but while it looks like a worthy upgrade there just isn’t anything that makes me scream oh i’ve got to have that right now. Spaces could end up being it when i have the money to buy a new OS.
6th November | Reply
It should be noted that all Mac users will need this release at some time in the not too distant future since there’s a lot of developers making their applications Leopard-only. The reason for me (I can’t speak for others) is Objective-C 2.0. Objective-C is the native programming language of Cocoa applications on the Mac and it’s basically an object-oriented extension to C. Having come from a Java background the need to manage memory came as a bit of a shock with all the associated problems when I started writing Cocoa applications and I think all my programs have leaks in them somewhere. Objective-C 2.0 gives you the speed of a native language with the convenience of an automatic garbage collector that should mean you don’t need to manage memory to the micro-management degree that you did in prior releases. Not only should this ensure that memory leaks are not as prevalent in software but it should also speed up the development process itself. There are a few other developer toys as well that should increase overall application performance when applications are updated for Leopard to enable better use of multiple processor cores.
Leopard is another release like Tiger where the end-users get some new toys but the developers probably get more so that it’s easier to write good applications and therefore the Mac universe benefits in the medium- to long-term. Now that I’ve finished this article I start to spend some time learning what all the new tools are since without full Apple Developer Connection (ADC) membership there’s been a lot under Non-Disclosure Agreements until the release last month. This should be interesting stuff.
6th November | Reply
Hmm, iTunes 7.5 got pushed out this morning and still no support for Time Machine. Now I’m really shocked since I felt sure that Apple would address this problem in the next iTunes update. Again, if Apple can’t get this right themselves then what chance does everyone else have? Mind you, it might be iTune’s legacy code that is holding it back. I need to do some reading into the developer documentation and see what it is that needs to be done to enable Time Machine support for an application - if this is only possible in a Cocoa application then that would explain the problem.
7th November | Reply
Wow, excellent review Kelmon! Really enjoyed reading it (on the job actually
) Overall there’s a few annoying bugs in there it seems but nothing all that hard to fix in a short time. I’m glad I haven’t shelled out immediately and decided to wait for at least a “.1″ release. Still, looking forward to installing the Leopard on my iMac.
7th November | Reply
I have testet iChat Theatre with video, audio, pdf and pictures and found absolutely no problems.. There where no skipping in audio, video or what so ever. However I will agree with the low quality on text in some situation. The test was done remotely, that is no local networking.
7th November | Reply
In Reply to #4:
Hi ReiUrusei! Thanks for the comment and you’ll be glad to know that Apple is apparently ready to start testing 10.5.1 so we should see this released in the coming weeks. Fingers crossed that this nukes the major problems.
In Reply to #5:
Hi rubberduck! Can you provide any details on what systems you used to test the iChat Theatre feature? I honestly tried to make this work by trying a LAN and Bonjour connections, plus using 2 high-end(ish) Macs but you can see the results in the review. The only thing that I was unable to test was doing Theatre over the Internet using a pair of Macs both running Leopard. However, if you have the facilities to test this then I’d be happy to try this with you and update my review accordingly. If you are interested then please send me a message via iChat to the screen name mpeaston at mac dot com.
I did watch a MacWorld video last night and saw that they were able to get Theatre to work OK so I really am left wondering what I was doing wrong.
7th November | Reply
To answer your question “It’s all very impressive and seems to work quite efficiently, although it remains to be seen how long my 160GB portable Firewire drive will last for (so far I have used about 60GB) and what happens when it is full.” just go til apple.com and take a look at what apple writes about Time machine. To quote apple:”Backing up to a full disk.
One day, no matter how large your backup drive is, it will run out of space. And Time Machine has an action plan. It alerts you that it will start deleting previous backups, oldest first. Before it deletes any backup, Time Machine copies files that might be needed to fully restore your disk for every remaining backup. (Moral of the story: The larger the drive, the farther back in time you can back up.)”
How can you write a review of Leopard without having spent time investigating the features of leopard.
7th November | Reply
In Reply to #7:
If there’s one thing that I’ve learnt from writing this article is that you should only use your own experience and not base judgement on marketing material. I will be very interested to see what happens but whether it is what Apple says will remains to be seen.
7th November | Reply
I guess is a matter of what angel you would except from a review. For me a review should question the features and their useability and if its worth spending the extra money on.. Not to question whether their work or not
7th November | Reply
When I press D on Word of the Day ScreenSaver, Dictionary opens up and the word gets displayed. Did you move Dictionary.app from Applications folder to any other location?
Sorry for my bad English!
7th November | Reply
In Reply to #10:
Nope. Dictionary remains in its default location of /Applications/Dictionary.app. Still, it’s nice to know both what this option was supposed to do and that it works for at least one person. It is, of course, baffling as to why it doesn’t seem to work for me having installed fresh onto a clean disk.
7th November | Reply
Re: Cut not working in the Finder, this is a deliberate design decision and it’s a good one - the Cut/Copy/Paste metaphor doesn’t work properly for files. Here’s an example of how it breaks (you can do this on Windows for example):
1. Copy a file (Edit->Copy)
2. Delete the file.
3. Try to paste the file (Edit-Paste)
Step 3 doesn’t work, because it never really copied the file, only a reference to it. In contrast, if you try this with some text in a word processor, everything will work as expected. IMHO, kudos to Apple for not allowing this feature.
7th November | Reply
In Reply to #12:
I do take your point but there has to be a better way of moving a file than the current options of either:
1. Opening 2 Finder windows and dragging the file between them
2. Attempting to navigate your folders using a single Finder window and spring-loaded folders
3. In a single Finder window copy the file, navigate to the desired destination, paste the file, return back to the original folder and delete the old copy of the file
All of those solutions are dumb and there’s no getting away from this. Cut and Paste works damned well in Windows so I honestly don’t see what the resistance is to an option to move a file rather than copy it (excluding the humongous bug discovered recently if the transfer fails). Moving a file certainly should not be as much of a faff as it is with the Finder.
10th November | Reply
Apple has now posted information about its Firewall, which is just as well since the settings are pretty meaningless:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306938
What’s particularly damning is the following note from the article:
So, by default, and even if you had your firewall enabled under Tiger when you upgraded, Apple will setup Leopard to allow anyone to try and attack your computer. Who’s stupid idea what this? While I realise that attacks against the Mac are rare and so far don’t seem to work unless you manage to con someone into handing over their administrator password, surely this is asking for trouble if someone DOES succeed in developing a remote hack.
For a company that advertises its security Apple sure has a funny way of displaying their commitment to it.
10th November | Reply
Well, having the Windows Firewall in XP SP2 turned on has been nothing but a headache at work. Obviously when we install Windows ourselves on a PC we have the option of turning the firewall on or off during the installation procedure - which I think it what Leopard should be doing.
But each time we get a new computer from Lenovo it’s already got it installed and it’s a pain if you forget to turn it off. And we need it off to get a bunch of our remote applications working properly across the board.