You seem awfully harsh on Time Machine, at least if the perjorative results from the three complaints you mention.
I'm not sure what usage model you expect, but a requirement that a constant backup device be well-defined seems like a necessary feature if you want any stability at all, while the battery feature you mention also seems like an appropriate safety precaution with a minimal cost given that restores should be performed infrequently, and when you most need them to be correct, could be quite lengthy.
Finally, if the lack of dependency info qualifies TM as brain-dead, perhaps you can propose an integrated system that includes this life-giving feature? Copland never made it past dreamware, if that's your standard.
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
I too am a little puzzled by
I too am a little puzzled by the review - overall score of Very Good+, (4.25), mentions numerous bug fixes included, yet the bulk of the text seems to focus on the one-time event of installation, and the relatively minor TimeMachine feature, almost no mention of what is good in this release, and concludes "not a compelling reason to upgrade." Is there not a compelling reason to upgrade because 10.5 is so good, or because the enhancements in the upgrade are not compelling, or what??? This article doesn't seem to meet the usual Network World editorial standards.
mk
Perhaps it's clearer in the print edition: not really compelling
There are many small upgrades and nuances on client and server. They're not enough to spend money on, in my opinion.
We list good and bad items; most are workgroup enhancements in the good; on the bad, it was buggy, and some issues still remain. It feels like it was hastened in release.
And we use Macs here in the lab as personal machines. There's just not enough guts to it. Check the ten-best/worst-things list. You'll get the idea.
Where is this article going?
This is article seemed to ramble all about and really say nothing. Not the normal standard for Network World articles.
Is this a joke?
We are actually using Leopard and have noticed some nice improvements, such as speed, nice work group features, and other enhancements, none of which appear in a slow to no go PC operating system likee Vista.
Why is it Network World continues t support the case of big money. There is no percentage in Microsoft slow ware. We all need an OS that alows for effective use of whatever technology we choose.
Wake up!
Slightly faster and it gets a "NO GO"?
Yet if we speak about another company that shall remain nameless, whose OS gets substantially SLOWER with every release, we recommend upgrading?!?! Smells like bias to me.
Post new comment