Anyone else think this is Boosheet?

Posted by: Phosphor

Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 10:13 AM



<sarcasm>Gee, I apologize for continuing to run OS X 10.4.11, and for preferring Firefox over Safari.</sarcasm>

I think it's ridiculous they build in these barriers to admission, even though I can view nearly glitch-free full-screen streaming of TedTalk videos through QT & iTunes on my antiquated system.
Posted by: carp

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 10:17 AM

agree that sucks.
Posted by: Nana

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 10:44 AM







grin @ "Boosheet"
Posted by: carp

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 10:49 AM

So far mostly iPod upgrades, touch gets retina display and camera.
Posted by: John Rougeux

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 10:50 AM

Nope, not boosheet at all.

Quote:
The reason for the limitation isn't entirely arbitrary, as Apple is using a new streaming technology called HTTP Live Streaming which was introduced alongside Snow Leopard's QuickTime X and iOS 3.0.
Posted by: Phosphor

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 11:28 AM

Originally Posted By: John Rougeux & Apple
The reason for the limitation isn't entirely arbitrary, as Apple is using a new streaming technology called HTTP Live Streaming which was introduced alongside Snow Leopard's QuickTime X and iOS 3.0.

That has a bit of preaching—to—the—choir stink to it.

They could have easily run parallel streams.
Posted by: Phosphor

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 11:36 AM

This might have been some consolation, if only I'd known about it earlier:

"Arnold Kim on Workarounds for Watching Apple’s Live Video Stream"
Posted by: MicMeister

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 11:37 AM

Gotta agree with Phos here. Preaching about open standards, busting Adobe's balls on Flash's proprietary nature and then this (mostly flaky arguments anyhow). Using a streaming technology that's only supported by Safari atm. while not providing a parallel stream sticking with actually open standards is kind of two-faced boosheet in my book.

Preaching to the choir indeed. Sure there's Safari for Windows, too, but how many run it on Windows. So this leaves out a chucnk of potential viewers.
Posted by: carp

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 12:00 PM

Right

Not to mention I betcha there are a whole lot more PC iPod owners than Mac ones. I mean if your gonna make a huge sale pitch don't you want the largest consumer base thats available
Posted by: carp

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 12:05 PM

Sorta related
Went to CNN which had a video of the event - but it crashed my Mac, had to do a hard restart, ran iDisk utility after.

Then went to Apple home page which is now updated with the new iPods and touch - clicked on watch new iTouch TV ad, and that hung for awhile and then played very jerky.

Not a good day for videos I guess.
Posted by: garyW

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 01:01 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Not a good day for videos I guess.


Sorry to rain on your parade, but I watched the live stream earlier and it was pretty flawless ...the image froze only twice for only a few seconds (but I also had several other browser windows open at the same time). I just went to Apple.com to watch the ad and it streamed perfectly.

Are they using HTML5 for the ads now, because there's not an option to watch full screen?

Hey ... we've got iPad printing! I can't beleive that it wasn't available from the beginning.
Posted by: carp

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 01:08 PM

Interesting, now I cannot even find the web stream on Apples site ?
Posted by: Acumowchek

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 01:23 PM

Bah,
You're just being unreasonable… Man…
laugh
Posted by: garyW

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 01:27 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Interesting, now I cannot even find the web stream on Apples site ?


Really, it's on the homepage, "Watch the Keynote" with a picture of Steve.
Posted by: carp

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 01:38 PM

Nope now I still cannot even watch the new TV commercials - Did Apple go all HTML-5 <-- If so that whole web site is now useless to anyone that does not have Snow Leopard. In my case
Posted by: Acumowchek

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 02:27 PM

Nope, no keynote on my Leopard Apple homepage.
But it is on my iPod touch Apple homepage.
Very interesting…
Posted by: garyW

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 02:30 PM

Here's a screenshot:

Posted by: carp

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 02:43 PM

LOL

Well that must be your dirty little secret. Because, I not cannot even get a screen grab to show that the keynote is even there on the web site - LOL

Maybe I am stiff arm due too, no Snow Leopard ?
Posted by: Phosphor

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 02:52 PM

OK...this is just plain screwy:

In Safari (v 4.0.2 for PPC) I see the same thing Gary posted in his screenshot. I can even click through and watch the commercial.

In Firefox (v 3.6.8) the iPod Touch image appears,
(Tried to catch it in mid-switchover):



...but then is quickly supplanted by a screen full of iTunes 10 stuff:
Posted by: garyW

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 03:26 PM

I'm using Safari 5.0.1, OSX 10.6.4 on a quad-core intel MacPro


Firefox 3.6.8 doesn't display the keynote link on the homepage

Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 03:34 PM

FF doesn't come near to fully supporting HTML5.
Posted by: garyW

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 03:41 PM

Opening the ad in Safari is a different UI than in Firefox.

safari:



Firefox:

Posted by: carp

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 07:26 PM

Maybe its just me
But them ads seems, really sexiest? Still peod about not being able to watch the keynote.
Posted by: MicMeister

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/01/10 11:26 PM

Well, HTML5 isn't officially out yet. It is still in working draft stage at W3C and it is still a long haul...
According to wiki it is estimated to reach the Candidate Recommendation in 2012 and even then there's still a step before becoming an official recommendation. wink

On one hand this may be good that Apple is pushing it to speed up the development, however OTOH, what is Mac's and /or Safari's market share? iPhones have a good chunk of smartphones in the States, but on the whole scale probably not enough to make a huge impact yet. Most users barely know what is HTML, let alone name any versions or tell the difference between XHTML Strict and XHTML Transitional.

Despite being a Mac user and a web designer, I won't bother doing any html 5 for a few years yet.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 04:38 AM

If you wait until HTML5 is official you will be way behind the curve. Look at when HTML1, 3 etc became "official" years after they were up and being used by everyone.

The iPhone has already made a dent in website usage on my sites and is going up rapidly and Android etc don't appear at all.

For better or worse Steve is calling the shots and I would stop learning Flash and start writing in HTML 5 today.
Posted by: MicMeister

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 04:57 AM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
For better or worse Steve is calling the shots and I would stop learning Flash and start writing in HTML 5 today.


Didn't say I wouldn't learn html5. wink

But say I have a client whose customer base is mainly windows (and IE) -- which is the majority unfortunately -- I need to make the site accessible, standards-compliant, usable and so on for that user base. I'd kill my business in a heartbeat if I put up a website that only worked in Safari.

Now, if I were to do a site specifically for the Mac community -- or a client would want it specced that way, or it would be just an intranet solution for 100% Mac&Safari environment, it would be a different story. However, linking a site like that in portfolio would still be risky and might make me look bad, as just a tad under 50% of my site's visitors use windows. Mac portion is a tad above 50%. Still, even those figures can't be fully applied, as most of the visitor base on my site is a bit biased; peeps in the visual/digital/graphic field.

So that next Joe Smallbusiness with some loose cash for a new website coming to my site looking for my portfolio using IE on Windows might be disappointed and go elsewhere.

There is a reason for the W3C standards and complying to them. Just tell that to MSIE...fortunately Steve does push for HTML5, which is public, and not Apple-specific technologies. Otherwise, he'd be just as bad as MS with IE.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 06:39 AM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
The iPhone has already made a dent in website usage on my sites and is going up rapidly and Android etc don't appear at all.


Hrmm, I don't know about that as Android supposedly passed iOS in web traffic back around May. Maybe not on your sites, but then you're not the entire US.
Posted by: garyW

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 08:37 AM

Originally Posted By: MicMeister

Despite being a Mac user and a web designer, I won't bother doing any html 5 for a few years yet.



Please view this demonstration:
http://newteevee.com/2010/08/31/video-flash-on-android-is-startlingly-bad/

John Guber's comment: "Same video I linked to from Ian Betteridge yesterday, but, watching it again today, what I notice isn’t just the appalling video frame rate (“seconds per frame, not frames per second”, as Tofel says), but also how drastically Flash content affects scrolling and touch events in the browser itself. Even before any Flash content is loaded, these web pages scroll with jaggy animation, and touch events don’t register immediately. Unresponsive scrolling and taps are unacceptable."


I think Jobs was right to move to HTML5 for iOS, but the interim carnage to websites will result in what we all just talked about with apple.com


Posted by: polymerase

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 08:51 AM

Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter
Originally Posted By: polymerase
The iPhone has already made a dent in website usage on my sites and is going up rapidly and Android etc don't appear at all.


Hrmm, I don't know about that as Android supposedly passed iOS in web traffic back around May. Maybe not on your sites, but then you're not the entire US.


No, not the US, and very science centric. The numbers on the handhelds are still too low to make much noise about but 44 iPhone uniques to 3 Android unique visits is a difference.

For the most part though, trending on my science sites are US trending about 1.5 years later. Scientists get to and some times even need to buy the next cool thing a tad sooner than most. Android may have passed iPhone now but they should be prepared for whiplash in the future as iPhone smokes past them.

1.
Windows
9,160 59.72%

2.
Macintosh
5,832 38.03%
3.
Linux
273 1.78%
4.
iPhone
44 0.29%
5.
iPad
12 0.08%
6.
(not set)
7 0.05%
7.
Android
3 0.02%

A more interesting with more numbers is the breakdown of windows. Science has to work so they stick with XP. Few jumped to Vista and even fewer jumping to 7.


1.
XP
6,120 66.81%

2.
Vista
1,554 16.97%
3.
7
1,374 15.00%
4.
2000
68 0.74%
5.
Server 2003
36 0.39%
6.
98
8 0.09%
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 10:03 AM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
Android may have passed iPhone now but they should be prepared for whiplash in the future as iPhone smokes past them.


Actually, I was incorrect. Android has surpassed iPhone in Ad requests, not mobile web browsing. That correlates to a report I read a few weeks back that said Android users were something like 80% more likely to click on an ad to support a developer than an iPhone user, and most android developers are ditching paid programs because they make on average 10X the money releasing free apps.

I think Android is going to quickly gain ground in web browsing though, with the huge recent surge in sales, and considering the android browser uses webkit just like safari does, so the mobile web on them is very good.
Posted by: zwei

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 10:41 AM

The fact that Apple live-streamed it at all was outstanding …and even with the "limited" audience there were times where the video was flaking out. I think it would have outright died if anyone/everyone could have logged on.

PS. Screw Firefox …and I would have posted the link GaryW did above if he hadn't. Flash is a joke on mobile.
Posted by: carp

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 01:17 PM

with the huge recent surge in sales

IMO
What you are seeing is sales due to people dislike of AT&T and not a phone (os) preference, in general people wanting a iPhone like device without AT&T.

That will all change when AT&T gets the stiff arm from Apple next year.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 01:24 PM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
If you wait until HTML5 is official you will be way behind the curve. Look at when HTML1, 3 etc became "official" years after they were up and being used by everyone.

The iPhone has already made a dent in website usage on my sites and is going up rapidly and Android etc don't appear at all.

For better or worse Steve is calling the shots and I would stop learning Flash and start writing in HTML 5 today.


Plus you can store it all on thumb dive.





Sry...couldn't resist.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 01:39 PM

I don't know, carp apparently the Samsung Captivate has sold around a million phones, and it's on AT&T.
Posted by: carp

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 03:08 PM

Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter
I don't know, carp apparently the Samsung Captivate has sold around a million phones, and it's on AT&T.


For sure, its dirt cheap compared to an iPhone <-- just call it your entry level smart phone, much like Andriod. You want anything more serious you gotta ante up.

AT&T site for iPhones no 49 buck brand new iPhone there.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 08:16 PM

Carp, did you check AT&T? The Captivate is $199 there. The $49 you link to is a special being run by that website.

It has a GHz processor and 16GB of internal memory just like the iPhone (but you can add more if you want). It has 6 axis motion sensors and camera sensor of the iPhone. It has a better GPU than the iPhone, a gorgeous AMOLED screen and does 5.1 surround sound. It's hardly an entry level smart phone.
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 10:41 PM

/* Yeah, not exactly fitting with the mesmerizing full web showtune unified user experience bla bla bla. /sarcasm */

I liked Tiger, great OS, but BTW I scooped up a bunch of $28 Snow Leopard discs at Fryes - I'm not sure what the deal was with that, and didn't care, either, just jumped all over that stuff. IIRC, though, the iPhoto-iMovie-iDVD-iwhatever stuff is no longer bundled, just iTunes ( of course, it's the cloud crown jewels, as the public is discovering ), and so had to grab the iwhatever stuff from the last OS that bundled that, Leopard or Tiger whatever it was, forget. I don't like the later iPhoto versions as well as the older versions, anyway, so it was no big deal. Well, I guess if you don't reformat your disks, you won't have to screw with that stuff.

So, you might want to grab Snow Leopard, as it's pretty cheap, well, at Fryes at any rate. It's hella quicker than previous OSes, hella quicker, and it's got a few new functionally cool bells and whistles.

Yeah, I think the deal is that they eventually stumbled blindly into an awareness of iTunes as the cloud vehicle, and they've got this enormous built-in user base they can instantly transform into one of the largest social networks, one of the largest online gaming networks, and with the incremental rollout of Facetime to all their devices and computers, they'll also have something as big or bigger than Skype. Plus, the little incidental stuff like Flash breakage across other platforms and devices, the fracturing of Flash into a lot of devices that can't play and few that can - What a frickin mess ( well, a lot of that is the OEMs' fault, though, particularly with Android, with a stupid proliferation of disparate OS versions, thus a moving target for developers, so this plays well for the iOS platform ). And I'm sure Apple will do a streaming thing, and again with that huge built-in user base, then again they've got this instant thing like Hulu or whatever video, and of course they'll have a huge streaming music thing.

Basically they'll rule the whole enchilada, the full meal deal, whatever, the whole thing, man. Every frickin thing.

Yeah, Apple can obviously do a big land grab, and most people don't seem to have a problem with buying into the program and admission price, so it shouldn't be that surprising if all that fine ol' unified user experience cool stuff is just for the latest and greatest.

That's the Apple way these days - Not your Father's Apple smile

Yeah, I think Think Different, the Crazy Ones, and all that other old riff raff got put on some coast train junquet to Nowhereville expatriot joint in Baja or something.

Ed
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 11:00 PM

Well, I think Mobile will drive web development, as it's so huge, and the thing with Flash on Mobile is that it's pretty much dead already since if it works at all, it's only on the most recent OS versions, but, for example, with Android, OEMs are shipping the most current phones with four different versions of the OS.

But I guess at the end of the day that it's Adobe's fault, for if Flash wasn't such a POS and so broken, they wouldn't have these development problems with it. And Flash will just go from worse to worse instead of worse to better - It has cancer and can't keep pace anymore. It's dying. It's over with.

Ed
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/02/10 11:54 PM

Basically they'll rule the whole enchilada, the full meal deal, whatever, the whole thing, man. Every frickin thing: Ping=Facebook ( basically ), the gaming network, music-video buys-rentals, Facetime=Skype ( basically ), web apps, streaming music and video, advertising, and a full range of devices and computers that play in and manifest this Apple universe, the unified user experience field. Magic land, where all your basic machine dreams are fulfilled brilliantly. Yeah, I'm sure I've left some stuff out, but basically they're the 800 pound gorilla.

Teflon slick, man,

Ed
Posted by: MicMeister

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/03/10 12:15 AM

Yep. Flash (video) on mobile sucking isn't new news. Most mobile devices haven't really even had Flash on board until lately.

Flash's popularity with video platform might've been mainly about the player interfaces that can be build easily and quickly with Flash and they have still been cross-platform. And there's plenty of Flash video player UIs out there to pick from, too. Windows Media, Quick Time, RealMedia etc. have been kinda more sucky then Flash, a little platform-specific, and horribly unstable in the case of RM.

I have a few friends currently working as Flash developers, and while they have put up a link every few moons to an actually impressive campaign, their bread is probably the ad banners, which on the more savvy users' computers already get buried by ad block. And the ad agencies here in Finland still seem to be looking for Flash experience. OTOH, Flash may not go away completely thanks to richness it can provide, and the interactivity.

Just to make my stance clear once more: I really avoid Flash whenever possible and use XHTML/CSS/JavaScript/PHP for the interaction, because it is so much lighter. And I really hate when seeing Flash abused by doing the UI of a page fully with Flash eventhough the exact same look and feel can already be done with the XHTML...abbr.combo -- or who knows if the designer/developer was just lazy or didn't know enough on the mentioned abbr.combo to use that, or they just skimmed their client by charging more by the hour for Flash. I don't know.

Got grilled by a dork AD once on solutions I used that were done with no Flash and he was claiming they suck, and well, the dork AD actually had similar solutions all over his designs, just on Flash. Complete dick. Needless to say I stay away from that agency now, and kind of stole one prospective client from them.
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/03/10 01:42 AM

Yeah, I remember several years ago ( 2006, IIRC ), a South Bay ( the Valley ) agency redid their Flash site into just code, so that it was crawlable/indexable - Basically they laboriously cloned the Flash UI-UX, maintaining same UI-UX, everything still looked the same and worked the same ( important, because it was very cool and very functionally good, also ), yet done with straight code.

Very impressive for the time, since in Internet time, 2006/2007/whatever was a century ago.

Yeah, laziness and/or imcompetence, or bad decision-making.

Yeah, Google has re-done one of the old classic games, Quake or Doom, IIRC/something, completely in some pretty hyper javascript, better frame rate, full frame, etc. So, obviously you can do killer games in javascript, but that's pure code, so obviously some of these so-called mobile game developers can't hack it.

But since the game plan for developers will come from the Mobile space, Flash looks pretty dead - Don't know if that's true, but IMO. It doesn't make sense to build a fractured web, code on the device and Flash on the desktop - You can't guarantee that key parts of the UX will interoperate the same with a fractured platform - That sounds like a good recipe for a mess and problems with your user base.

Ed
Posted by: John Rougeux

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/03/10 04:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Ben Dover


I liked Tiger, great OS, but BTW I scooped up a bunch of $28 Snow Leopard discs at Fryes - I'm not sure what the deal was with that, and didn't care, either, just jumped all over that stuff.
Ed


Uh...I guess you didn't know that Snow Leopard is only $29 from Apple. So you saved yourself a whole dollar. smile

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC573Z/A?fnode=MTY1NDAzOA&mco=MTc1MTEzNjY
Posted by: John Rougeux

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/03/10 04:48 AM

Originally Posted By: carp

For sure, its dirt cheap compared to an iPhone <-- just call it your entry level smart phone, much like Andriod. You want anything more serious you gotta ante up.

AT&T site for iPhones no 49 buck brand new iPhone there.


Steve, I played around with the Captivate and I gotta tell you, it's no entry level smart phone. In fact, I was so impressed with it, I might actually get one at my next upgrade.

Comes with 16GB storage, but you can add in another SD card up to something like 64GB? I don't know, but that's a HUGE advantage in my opinion. Plus you can replace the battery, which I'm realizing now how big of an advantage that is.

I would like to compare side by side the Captivate and the iPhone 4 to see the display. I did like the Swype technology on Android...pretty cool!
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/03/10 05:35 AM

Originally Posted By: MicMeister
I really avoid Flash whenever possible and use XHTML/CSS/JavaScript/PHP for the interaction, because it is so much lighter. And I really hate when seeing Flash abused by doing the UI of a page fully


I think half the problem with Flash is designers/developers being sloppy and simply not caring about their end product. The web especially has always been a place you need to mind file sizes and complexity. But, as speed increases people get lazy with optimizing.

The same sloppiness is a plague of the printed world too. I can't tell you how many times I've seen files done by other people that won't RIP properly, or bog down your prepress equipment because some slack designer sticks in a photo that's half a gig in size, when it could really be reduced to 50 megs or so, and then it's repeated 5 times on the box. Back when I started a decent hard drive was all of 200MB, you were forced to keep your file sizes in check. Makes me feel good when art I've designed goes to outside print vendors and they call you and ask you why a particular job worked so smoothly.

As much as I think Adobe's software has become bloated, I can't blame them for the idiots that use it, be it flash or photoshop.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/03/10 05:41 AM

Originally Posted By: John Rougeux
[quote=carp]
Comes with 16GB storage, but you can add in another SD card up to something like 64GB?...

the Swype technology on Android...pretty cool!


The phone has 2 SD slots? Now that is pretty cool. I can of course upgrade my SD card to a 32 gig (bringing it to 40 gigs total) but I have to replace the one that's in it.

Swype is awesome, it's the only keyboard I use. I've even entered my email addresses into it so I can swype those easily. Apple dropped the ball when they didn't pick up swype, even lowly windows mobile has phones with swype.
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/03/10 06:56 AM

Oh.

Yeah, I don't keep up with this stuff. I just assumed it would $100-200 or whatever it was they asked. Yeah, I just grab stuff and pay for it - Surprised it was that cheap. That's a deal.

Yeah, I don't normally go to retail at all, hate it, online or the world, so when I do step in, I get pretty shocked at how steadily incrementally price has fallen off, such as I see where Fryes now has a few good brand 46" 1080Ps just under $500 and IIRC a few 55" ( maybe larger? ) under a thousand.

Pretty interesting.

Ed
Posted by: garyW

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/03/10 09:17 AM

Originally Posted By: John Rougeux
[quote=Ben Dover]

I liked Tiger, great OS, but BTW I scooped up a bunch of $28 Snow Leopard ... So you saved yourself a whole dollar. smile


A $28 Snow Leopard disc will update 10.5, not 10.4.

I think I read somewhere a workaround on how to install an entire new OS 10.6 directly from that disc without 10.5.
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Anyone else think this is Boosheet? - 09/03/10 10:27 AM

Don't know about that. Like I said, I don't keep up with the universe.

When I did Snow Leopard, I blew away Leopard on the laptops with it, reformatted and installed those retail discs I got from Fryes, as at least one had major showstopper DNS wonkiness resulting in glacial resolve times or failure to resolve at all, which is fixable from the shell ( no, this wasn't DNS in the router or System Prefs, either, but in the system itself ), and IIRC they all had that arcane permissions problem specific to migration ( that really wasn't a problem, but I hate stuff not done right, imperfection, whatever ).

Yeah, I don't know if these were different discs from what you're talking about, but they looked like normal Apple retail discs, and I installed on clean slate reformatted discs. Slam dunk.

Simple stuff - All that I noticed was that the iLife components were missing, except for iTunes, of course, a major cornerstone of Apple's machine state. Forget if that was the case with Leopard, too.

Hmm, maybe I did buy iLife online, as getting your stuff back on your libraries was a lot simpler and quicker than the older versions, just drag and drop from backup into the windows and the apps restore everything dead nuts - I just don't like the iPhoto interface and functionality anymore. But the restore part from backup is about as good, simple and quick as I'd imagine the state of the art would be these days. Good job, Apple.

Yeah, I believe Leopard didn't bundle the iLife apps, either, as I recall having to get those apps from Tiger and upgrading the modules one by one ( or something like that ).

Yeah, smooth simple stuff, other than re-installing apps ( well, only my laptops, since the others are cloud apps, bookmarks on Xmarks, etc, etc ). Simple stuff, fast and relatively painless.

Later man,

Ed