With the advent of Leopard (OS/X 10.5) which Apple shipped in late October - I have seen many failures.
Some are failures by Apple - they are not perfect apparently - but I do understand the daunting task of writing and shipping a new operating system into a user base that uses two completely different CPU architectures. They are to be applauded for the relatively small number of issues that are reported; even though one issue is one too many, they have done very well and have already released a solid patch resolving many of the most troublesome issues.
Some are failures by users - who are well documented as being quite imperfect. Many people did not read the documentation that came with their Leopard upgrades. Others chose to upgrade without backups. More still upgraded in the middle of key production cycles. Here there is room to commiserate, laugh (both with and at the users), and to try our best to help them resolve their issues - be it on the Apple Support forums or elsewhere.
The most tragic of failures is, to me at least, the failure of key third-party OS/X software companies to adequately prepare for the release of Leopard. Two examples of such firms are Parallels Inc. - winner of many awards and the other is MacSpeech. whose iListen was named Education Product of the Year 2007 by MacWorld.
Just before Leopard was released, Parallels Inc. boasted of their Leopard compatibility in a major press release. Hedging their bets, in case ‘any minor bugs should pop up (sic)’, they promised to:
release a free, automatic update to account for them very soon after Leopard’s launch.
Yet, their support forums tell a very different tale - warning in August that the production release of Parallels (build 5160) had at least 18 major known issues. Three months after the list was published and an additional month after the release of Leopard - those issues still remain. Likewise, the promised automatic update has not yet materialized.
Users who have upgraded based on the comments by Parallels are left with two equally unpalatable choices.
First, continue using the production build (5160) - turning of key features in Parallels ( windows file sharing for one ) and key new features in Leopard such as Spaces and Time Machine. Users are also warned of random hangs during startup, use and shutdown of Parallels. Clearly Parallels Inc. defines compatibility very, very differently than I do.
The second choice is a beta release - that is that is certified to work with Mac OS X “Leopard”.
Once again their Support forum tells a different tale - see their forum post including known issues.
Again, Leopard’s Spaces functionality is not supported and various serious issues are listed. However both forum posts also refer to issues in the production release that are working in the beta release.
While I do understand the complexity of Parallels - it is frustrating to see a software firm that has fixes to its flagship product - that hasn’t branched its code and released a promised patch. Their history has been to release new builds always including new features. It seems like they only maintain one branch of code. This may make some sense in early development - but makes no sense when you have a large installed user base.
I am extremely disillusioned by the current state of Parallels and their declining support. In my early days as a convert to the world of all-things-Apple - I depended on Parallels and my ability to escape into a familar world of Windows(tm) programs. I used to be a product evangelist for Parallels - waxing eloquently about its superb features and performance. Today, I can say I have used it 4 times in the last month - each time with plodding performance and crashing endings. I am glad I no longer rely on Parallels but wish that sometimes - when work required it - Parallels would function as well as it once did.
Software I once found elegant has become flawed and worthy of becoming shelfware.