“Apple’s new operating system upgrade, called Leopard, continues to make Mac computers the easiest and most enjoyable to use,” Eric Benderoff reports for The Chicago Tribune.
“If you own a Mac, you’ll want Leopard. If you’re thinking of giving Apple computers a try, Leopard is further proof that personal computing needn’t be filled with stress,” Benderoff reports.
“In the past, some Mac OS upgrades could be skipped. The last one, dubbed Tiger, had nice touches, including Dashboard. (That’s a platform for little programs, dubbed widgets, that make computing a bit more entertaining.) But overall, the Tiger upgrade, by itself, wasn’t the primary reason to get a Mac,” Benderoff reports. “Leopard is.”
“I can tell you this: for $129, Leopard breathes new life into an aging Mac,” Benderoff reports.
Full review here.
Hey, I checked the net (easy if you actually try 🙁 ) and you can guy matte screen add ons cheap. You can make a glossy screen a matte one , but not the other way around.
Period.
R,
Thanks, I didn’t know that one!
Not that I’ll use it much of course, but I like all these keyboard ‘tricks’ on the Mac.
That was the first new one for a long time.
I have had a great deal of grief on all 5 of my Macs at home. I have two Intel machines and the others are pre Intel.
Upgrading the OS has been not so good. What has resolved all issues is doing a clean install. Perhaps Apple should make this a caveat?
The new features are not a compelling upgrade from Tiger. Yes, some kewl features but certainly not compelling.
It is fairly simple to make a glossy screen matte by adding a screen protector, but it is impossible to make a matte screen glossy.
It is likewise simple to make a screen less bright by dimming it using the screen brightness controls, but it is impossible to make one that is inherently dull more bright.
The same concept apparently applies to people who complain about things that are easily remedied.
Apple’s computers have been about change for the better, not going backwards to ugly anti-glare screens and computer glasses just to use them.
“Of course by “aging Macs” they are talking about upgrading machines that are two or three years old with some new features and a fresh look so they will continue on for another two or three years. Some of the G4s that can be upgraded to Leopard are 4 years old – try upgrading a 4-year-old PC to Vista and see how far you get.”
I’ve been debating whether or not to upgrade my 1Ghz 17″ Aluminum powerbook, and I think I will. Leopard, 7200 rpm drive, new battery=$550. It should be god for another 2 years.
I never got past 2 years with any windows laptop, if only because they LOOKED dated. Forget about the fact that at the very least they needed a full Windows re-install by that point for performace purposes.
I know this is now off-topic, but has someone yet written Eric B. about a Tab reality check?
I’ve got both glossy and matte screens on my MacBook Pro and PowerBook and understand and appreciate the benefits of each. Under most conditions I prefer glossy, but under certain circumstances I feel that matte would be better. It is not a tipping point for me either way.
Why is it so hard for so many to understand that a layer of commonly available and inexpensive plastic anti-glare film will effectively eliminate reflectivity problems (on a flat screen, not a curved one like a CRT) for those who would rather have matte than glossy? Glossy-to-matte is quick and cheap, while matte-to-glossy is impossible.
Yes, selling both would be nice for those who prefer matte, but it doesn’t keep you from getting what you want fairly easily.
q
Leopard is a leap above vista and a step below tiger.
I’ve got both glossy and matte screens on my MacBook Pro and PowerBook and understand and appreciate the benefits of each. Under most conditions I prefer glossy, but under certain circumstances I feel that matte would be better. It is not a tipping point for me either way.
I find glossy screens slight benefits don’t justify the huge problems from reflections which make it hard to see the screen.
Why is it so hard for so many to understand that a layer of commonly available and inexpensive plastic anti-glare film will effectively eliminate reflectivity problems (on a flat screen, not a curved one like a CRT) for those who would rather have matte than glossy? Glossy-to-matte is quick and cheap, while matte-to-glossy is impossible.
Who wants to mar up their laptop with some cheap film that’s just going to collect dirt to fix a problem that was already fixed with matte screens? Especially when over 86% of people responded prefer matte in the first place?
Now 86% has to fix on a nasty anti-glare screen to get matte finish to satisfy the 8% that prefer glossy?
Then how about all those ignorant people who eyes are getting damaged by glossy reflections?
Yes, selling both would be nice for those who prefer matte, but it doesn’t keep you from getting what you want fairly easily.
Well the issue isn’t glossy vs matte, the issue is Apple not providing a choice of either.
Rather they are forcing people to purchase glossy screens, slowly phasing out matte screens or only selling them in the high end products.
It’s the lack of choice that’s the problem. And with a investment in Mac OS X, it’s not a easy thing to pack up for another hardware vendor that provides the products one needs.
“Who wants to mar up their laptop with some cheap film that’s just going to collect dirt to fix a problem that was already fixed with matte screens? “
Ever see what happens to anti-glare film when it gets dried out by the monitor heat?
Ever try removing it?
Cheap films?
The decent anti-glare screens cost from $40-$60 USD, are a hassle and break easily.
Stupid Apple, bring back the matte screens.
I have neverliked that fish wrapper anyhow!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
I have tried the new text speech in Leopard.
For the first time a computer can read text sensibly.
Just try the new voice “Alex”.
You will be impressed. I was.
Although not yet accessible to the user, resolution independence is something that developers have access to with Leopard. As LCD displays increase pixel density, this silly argument that matte screens are better will become irrelevant. Matte screens intentionally make the image less sharp as a by-product of being less reflective. While this was OK (and may have even made the image look better) when those pixels were large, it will NOT be OK when the pixel size decreases further. When the graininess of the matte finish significantly impacts the possible sharpness of the display, who’s going to want a matte coating. We are at that point now with the most densely pixel’ed laptop displays. As soon as resolution independence becomes common, pixel density will increase rapidly in all LCDs. At that point, no one will want a “fuzzy filter” on their naturally glossy and ultra-sharp displays, just to block out reflections.
@ HG Wells,
The author responded to the comments in the comments:
“Thank you everybody for pointing out the Safari mistake. My bad. I have been using Mac’s OS X since it has been available, as well as the Firefox browser. I have never noticed the tabs on Safari as clearly as they have been on Firefox. Nonetheless, an oversight I should not have made. But it is certainly clear to me there are improvements in how Safari operates in Leopard, and that’s the key point to make.
Eric Benderoff”
I have 10 new al iMacs in my office and I just can’t believe the screen. It’s really reflective. I then went to an Apple store, trying to see if they look better in ‘SET UP ENVIRONMENT’, but they didn’t.
I agree with Reclaimer, Leopard looks so Windows-like.
They only break if you forget to wear your tin foil hat and pocket protector while cleaning them.