MacOS X 10.3 is out. It's code-named "Panther". And once again Mac users are touting it as being OS perfection. But didn't they say the same thing about 10.2 ("Jaguar")? Didn't much the same get said about the original 10.0 release that was pretty much unusable for all but die-hards? Remember the comparison articles that all amazingly showed MacOS X to always be better than Windows XP? No, Jaguar was simply not as usable as Windows XP unless you were a pure Mac shop. But Panther, admittedly, is really good. But who will believe Mac claims at this point?

It would seem the Mac community has a credibility problem. This article on JoeUser talks about it while at the same time pointing out that, sure enough, Panther is actually quite good. But because Mac users denied the fairly significant issues many (particularly "switchers") people had with Jaguar, they face the problem of widespread skepticsm (check out Usenet and tech forums for examples) because Mac "advocates" tended to pretend problems with previous versions didn't exist (yet will later give kudos to Apple for fixing those same nonexisting problems in Panther).