or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Snow Leopard gets richer, thinner, cheaper than Windows 7
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Snow Leopard gets richer, thinner, cheaper than Windows 7 - Page 3

post #81 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSucks View Post

Well CrApple is already so afraid of Windows 7 cause they know they will get their a*s kicked. Anyways there's nothing you guys can do to save this crap os x from extinction cause 7 will haunt and kill you down LOL

really lets see Winshi*7 then?
Get A Mac.
Reply
Get A Mac.
Reply
post #82 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

If vista never gained traction, does that means OSX has never gained traction ?

Vista never gained traction in the older Windows marketplace it was intended to replace. OS X was never intended to replace the older Windows marketplace, so that comparison is largely irrelevant.
post #83 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Um, no. Until they were recently forced to stop by Microsoft, manufacturers like Dell prominently advertised the XP downgrade option, even go so far as to pre-load XP on the machines. It was a very popular option according to our Dell sales team...

It was only available as an option for Vista Ultimate and Business on selected stores. While Vista Home Premium is the top-selling version and even people who bought the option to downgrade may not have switched back I really doubt that it ever was popular.
Maybe on the enterprise marked, but that's nothing new to Vista because a lot of big companies want to buy new hardware with an old OS to integrate in their environment.
post #84 of 191
I know this sounds nit picky, but please use better grammar.

"There's no rules that define how developers must number their software..."

It should be "There ARE no rules that define how developers must number their software..."
post #85 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macintosh_Next View Post

Yes, but G5 can not run Snow Leopard.

I didn't say it did. That is why I posted #34 shortly after.
post #86 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post

well try reading this article; which isn't propaGanda from AI -its from a different source with the TRUTH & CONSEQUENCEs of Windoze BLOATWARE and why MICRO$HIT has so many problems..

then repost here...

there was a song way back when and it went something like ...
WAKE UP EVERYBODY NO MORE SLEEPING IN BED...

The Truth and the Consequences

Micro$hit cannot prevent interlopers from corrupting the system and the computer hardware resources. Micro$hit can tell you after the fact you need to restore your system because it's been compromised but they can't stop it from happening in the first place. No other operating system does this. It's not a real operating system if you can't protect resources including the system code itself and Windows can't do that. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

Ordinary program files can't be protected. Rootkits are installed with the greatest of ease - and without relying on social engineering to escalate privileges. Malware abounds - over 100,000 strains in the wild. And so forth. This is the price to pay for putting a standalone single user system on the Internet without a thought to the safety of one's paying customers.

Why won't Micro$hit improve things? Because they can't. Because they have so many millions of third party software titles they depend on. These titles would break under a new system. Operating system vendors need a thriving third party software market to survive - but it works the other way around too: if the third party software sector grows too big it can prevent the operating system vendor from making changes that need to be made.

Micro$hit could ship Windows sandboxed in Linux; but then every Windows user would have access to Linux and third party software would just ignore Windows in the future. Micro$hit would lose their stranglehold on the personal computing market.

In a world of pervasive networking even an operating system designed for single user use needs multiuser capability because without that any network transaction that can trick a user into running malicious code that will subvert the entire system. Without strong multitasking the ability of an operating system to handle network traffic and run user programs at the same time will be impaired.

As the designers of BeOS noticed, the requirements of pervasive networking cannot be met without implementing something very close to general purpose timesharing. Single user client operating systems cannot thrive in an Internetted world.

Windows gets away with having severe deficiencies in these areas only by virtue of having developed a monopoly position before networking became really important and by having a user population that has been conditioned to accept a shocking frequency of crashes and security breaches as normal.

This is not a stable situation. (and this DOESn't EXIST ON APPLE's MAC OS X LEOPARD)
- Eric Raymond

here is the entire article if you care to read...and LEARN something before you post here...
http://rixstep.com/2/20090326,00.shtml

This is the best article I have seen in a while.
post #87 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Downward pricing pressure? What downward pricing pressure? Windows is effectively free for most folks because they buy a whole new box every few years.

Very few folks pay $300 for Vista.

Nyyeaaaaah, 'cause manufacturers don't include the price of Windows in the package at all right? The cost doesn't magically go away just because they buy a premade config.
post #88 of 191
Man, this AI article was painful. WAY too much effort to demonize MS.

I haven't used Win7 a lot yet... not enough to come to a completely educated opinion, but I will say so far it sucks less than Vista. I haven't run all my apps on it yet, but at least as far as the initial tire-kicking goes, it's alright. It doesn't blow my skirt up, but it's not the demon spawn of the anti-Christ that the zealots tirelessly claim it is. 25 year old habits die hard.

At the end of the day, since 90% of my time is in a web browser, email, and games, the OS really doesn't matter all that much. So no OS is going to "blow my skirt up" anymore.

Are there any good, reputable Mac sites that don't require a "filter" to read the contents? I'm asking seriously.
post #89 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Downward pricing pressure? What downward pricing pressure? Windows is effectively free for most folks because they buy a whole new box every few years.

Very few folks pay $300 for Vista.

Wrong. Actually many types of customers have to pay $300 for Vista, including those who build their own custom PC's, those who run Windows in VMs, etc. But what about OEM copies? OEM copy deals on Vista are very few and far between at the moment. When Windows 7 appears, the OEM copy deals will become more prevalent and more discounted. Even OEM copy deals on Windows XP are not very good, because most of these copies go to those who are unhappy with Windows Vista, and did not get a copy from the OEM, or must load Windows XP on a VM.
post #90 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

I can appreciate the hand wringing, but it certainly *is* to Apple's advantage to compare Snow Leopard and Windows 7 "head to head."

This is exactly what they want and the comparison won't look good for Windows 7. The only current "big item" that Windows 7 does better than Snow Leopard is a few security features (which curiously didn't come up at the keynote). Unless Apple has made zero progress between leopard and Snow Leopard on things like address randomisation, Snow Leopard should blow Windows 7 out of the water on *any* feature and now on price as well.

Address randomization? Yup, Apple has that covered in Snow Leopard too!

http://www.apple.com/macosx/what-is-.../security.html
post #91 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

well here is one huge significance you have missed. although you do have to connect some dots:

- in January Apple introduces iWork 09 (for $20 per seat in family pack), which is now a complete office suite that could completely replace (the ridiculously overpriced @ $135 - the "Microsoft tax") MS Office for Mac users, except that it lacks Exchange/Entourage functions.

- now in September Apple will add that Exchange support to Snow Leopard, which will enable Mail and iCal to completely replace Entourage for Mac users.

that makes Snow Leopard the Mac Office 2008-"killer." and since MS makes several hundred million dollars per year selling Office to Mac owners, that is "significant." but even more significant is that it really makes life without any Microsoft product at all very possible for most people. and that is a threat of the gravest possible significance to MS long-term. a complete consumer escape route from their practical everyday multi-platform desktop software-required-by-services hegemony.

No wonder MS is chasing after search and content ad revenue, they know that their gambit is UP!
post #92 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

You don't kill misguided (to the point of illness) people.

There is no easy cure for Stockholm-syndrome.

Users buy Apple prducts. Users perpetuate the hype (not Apple), and there is good reason for the hype. Most Windows users can't begin to understand how it is that Apple users are so enthusiastic. It doesn't happen out of thin air. It happens because we're getting some great tech from a company with the right attitude when it comes to design and the implementation thereof.

Apple has the guts to always go on the attack. And that's what you're supposed to do. Apple is supremely confident in their product very simply because they have all the reason in the world to be. Steve Jobs comes right out and says MS has no taste. Bill Gates usually answers meekly about MS products (constantly), and Ballmer has been known to all but concede openly that MS is behind the curve. Something is defintely wrong when the Redmond powers-that-be misspeak like this. Their main differentiator is the poor-mans differentiator: price. Except there's a certain class of user that can easily tell the difference.

But don't go spreading that around.

Absolutely brilliantly put. Re-quoting for more to read this!
post #93 of 191
An excellent article. Snow Leopard has many great features. They're not 'flashy' but they make it future proof, offer refinement and power. Plus, £19(?) for an OS upgrade? 'Yes please.'

Picks up the M$ bat and pounds M$ into the ground.

And rightly draws the conclusion that Apple are turning the 'mothership' irrevocably around to a full on all out assault on Redmond. They're slowly cutting off M$'s air supply.

Now. I wonder...if Apple can do 'cheap'. iPhone $99. Snow Leopard? £19. A Mac...now. That's the last piece of the puzzle. Can Apple redefine a Mac eg Macbook as the 'cheap' laptop Mac for the rest of us. Clue: 13 inch Macbook promoted to Pro status. That leaves room for a redefine 'netbook' Macbook tablet thing. Say...£495-£795. 3 models. Blow the doors off the Mac 'tax' 'myth'. Something is afoot...

Nuff said.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #94 of 191
I have no idea why the new OS X pricing will effect Microsoft at all. The new OS X pricing is only meaningful to those who has a Mac already. I must say this article over-magnified the retail pricing factor.

Windows that are sold in retail only generates a very very very tiny revenue for Microsoft anyway. Only a very very very few, if any, Windows users that I know of have actually bought any Windows upgrade from a retail store. I mean, who will spend a $300 to make their existing computer slower, especially when the upgrade doesn't even bring any new features?

These are the realities...

1. Windows users are most likely to stick to their old Windows until they buy a new computer that comes with the new Windows, if they can't get one "free", legal or not.

2. For those who legally upgrade their Windows in their existing computer, they actually got their Windows paid by their employer or school, which are the real Microsoft tax payers.

3. OS X retail upgrade is not even intended to compete with Windows in the first place. I mean, will Windows users convert to Mac just because of the new OS X upgrade retail price? No! Will the new OS X upgrade retail price effect the corporates and schools' decision of upgrading their existing Windows PCs? No!

So does the new OS X upgrade retail price hit Microsoft? Not at all, retail is not where the cash cow is for Microsoft and the new OS X upgrade in retail is not even competing with Windows at all.
post #95 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

Oh my god...

First: how you know that Snow Leopard will be cheaper than Windows 7? When you buy a new PC you will get a FREE upgrade to 7 soon. And even owners of old PCs can buy 7 and improve their system without buying new hardware. Snow Leopard only runs on the newest hardware (as you mentioned).

Yeah, the "newest" 4 year old hardware. Microsoft was playing with the idea of limiting the base version of Windows 7 to run 3 applications simultaneously because the hardware running that version likely couldn't do more than that. The systems that run Vista like crap now will continue to run Windows 7 like crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

What's bad of delivering a free preview version of Windows 7 to customers? I smell envy here.

"Many" users got to downgrade to XP? Many? Where? This was only a very special deal for enterprise customers from some suppliers. And mostly only for netbooks. Show me a < $ 300 netbook that runs Leopard officially, please!

Not enterprise customers, you can buy a Dell with Vista Business and you get that XP downgrade, I perform at least 10 of these every weekend for people buying these Dells at the store I do service at. Consumers (non enterprise buyers) buy this version on purpose to get XP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

Apple is rewarding its loyal customers? What? Charging for every single major update even for features that should have been there since 10.0 like the innovative (!) Put Back button in the trash?

And Microsoft never charged people for upgrades to their OS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

Why is it so difficult for the author to find proper arguments? There are a lot if you just try to think yourselve instead of repeating what Apple says on a marketing event.

Because this is an an Apple-Centric Website (refer to name of the website), Just because there isn't criticism in every single article posted on this site doesn't mean Apple Users have no complaints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

Here are some more questions to ask: when will the Mac see great speech recognition, powerful handwriting recognition (not only for single Chinese characters), Blu-Ray support, full out-of-the-box TV viewing and recording or a resolution indepentend UI like Vista delivers for 2 years now?

I don't see the benefit of being uncritical to Apple.

When did Vista Get out of the Box Blu-Ray Support? Oh yeah, they don't have it, Vista can now finally burn a DVD from Windows Explorer (something the Mac OS did from version 10.0. Heck, even 9.2.2 had that)
post #96 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

"Many" users got to downgrade to XP? Many? Where? This was only a very special deal for enterprise customers from some suppliers. And mostly only for netbooks.

First, this is a pretty self-contradicting statement. Netbooks have made only a tiny progress in the enterprise market. Why would Microsoft make a downgrade deal for netbooks with the enterprise users when most enterprise users don't even use netbooks?

Second, you don't have to be a enterprise customers to downgrade. This is no special deal at all. You can buy a ThinkPad that comes with "downgraded" Windows XP right on Lenovo's website, right there, right now! Lenovo doesn't even bother asking what corporate or company you are from. Go check it out yourself!

Myth busted!
post #97 of 191
Microsoft has more programming resources than Apple than are arguably just as skilled. In theory, Microsoft could develop far better operating systems and software than Apple. There's one very important reason why they don't, and it's the same problem that Sun has with Java:

Backward compatibility.

Apple barely solved this issue. They tried to install NeXTStep on all new Macs in 1997, but Adobe, Microsoft and Macromedia refused to support the new OS. Apple had to spend 5 years writing backward-compatible APIs into OS X (Carbon) before those companies would write software for the new OS. None of these companies has of yet rewritten their software in Cocoa.

Sun is solving this issue by making Java modular, so that older APIs can be left out and added as optional components. Also, the JVM is being re-engineered to support new, modern languages like Scala and JavaFX, and letting the Java language become a legacy language.

Microsoft is in a pickle, because they can't just in one fell swoop start selling a brand-new operating system from the ground up. They need to maintain all the legacy constructs such as DLL's, the Registry, and users running as root by default. They can try to code around these legacy constructs with features such as UAC. What's more, they need to pander to the content industry by introducing bottlenecks in their OS with constructs such as DRM and Blu-Ray support, which Apple has thus far refused to do (at least, from what is publicly known).

However, Windows 7's XP mode may be an initial experiment by Microsoft to support legacy applications in VM, perhaps paving the way for a brand-new Windows OS at some point.

Microsoft's business-savvy may be suspect these days (ex XBox, Bing, MSN), but they still have development resources that are not to be underestimated.
post #98 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Downward pricing pressure? What downward pricing pressure? Windows is effectively free for most folks because they buy a whole new box every few years.

Very few folks pay $300 for Vista.


They just go to their local mom and pop computer shop and buy the OEM version.
post #99 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Even if Windows 7 gains traction in ways Vista never did, the downward pricing pressure Apple is exerting will prevent Microsoft from inhaling the inflated revenues the company has grown addicted to, which will benefit both Mac users and PC users. Additionally, it promises to potentially open up more opportunities for alternative operating systems such as Linux by cutting the dominating control Microsoft exercises over PC hardware vendors.

I don't agree that the pricing pressure will result in a benefit to PC users - at least not anytime soon. Given the track record of Microsoft and it's hardware partners the result is likely to be some combination of lower quality and lower cost. Apple's genius and customers have been rewarding Apple with healthy profits for years now - on a whim Apple can pipe those rewards back to its customers or ideation. Apple once again proving - similar to the way Sony once did - that a person-friendly and holistic model beats a business-friendly and segmented model every time. Sony eventually stumbled; perhaps Apple can guard against a similar fate. Though Apple doesn't have to depend as heavily on Microsoft as Sony did, so that's a huge hurdle out of the way.
post #100 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by mechengit View Post

1. Windows users are most likely to stick to their old Windows until they buy a new computer that comes with the new Windows, if they can't get one "free", legal or not...
So does the new OS X upgrade retail price hit Microsoft? Not at all, retail is not where the cash cow is for Microsoft and the new OS X upgrade in retail is not even competing with Windows at all.

In my humble opinion your first point is flawed... like Independents in a presidential election, for Apple and Microsoft there's a battle raging for on-the-fence Switchers. The point that's being made is less about direct retail pressure and more about the indirect effects of the simplicity of Apple's strategy. No one can argue that Microsoft has taken a bigger hit than Apple from the economy and Vista's complexity. Windows 7 was a must-have release for Microsoft to help stabilize matters - and they delivered. But with Apple making Snow Leopard so easy to adopt, it makes MacBook users that much happier than Windows users were a year ago, which will effect market perception. And lower-priced MacBooks are going to be even more attractive to anyone in the market for a new laptop who would've otherwise been sufficiently consoled by the release of Windows 7. Think PC guys vs. Mac guy. even though comparing Windows 7 and Snow Leopard is like oranges and apples, the consumer world just sees two companies releasing a new OS at about the same time - so the comparison is unavoidable. One is more easily sold as an advancement the other more as a fix. One more as affordable and automatic, the other more expensive and complex.
post #101 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by DustinLH00 View Post

I have a few questions for the author of the article:

1) Pricing for Windows 7 has not been released yet, therefore how do you claim that Snow Leopard is cheaper? Now, granted, I do not expect Windows 7 to be $29 or less, but still I dont feel you can make that statement.

2) Richer? Thinner? How can you judge 2 operating systems that are still technically being developed and/or refined. I do not think anyone should conclude anything until final products are released to the consumer.

3) Have you personally installed Windows 7 RC and used it? How can you make statements and tie it so closely to Vista without using it?

4) Personally I am sick of all the anti-Vista talk. I think it is time to move on. Vista had its problems when released. Vista was fixed with SP2. Vista was developed further upon and further refined to become Windows 7. Big deal.

For the record...I am not defending Microsoft (MSFT) nor am I attacking Apple (AAPL). I am just criticizing the author of the article and those who read it and did not ask these same questions.

How would you like to read a review of the new iPhone that I wrote? Well, no I don't have it, but I have gathered info that others have said and assumed the rest of the information and typed it up...see my point?

Not to quibble, but I would say that Vista was NOT fixed with SP2. And even if it was, what a painful fix! I have an HP 4400 series workstation running vista ultimate. It took me literally 3 days just to get the machine stable enough to work with. Just installing service pack one, then service pack two (because SP2 requires SP1 first) took the better part of a work day. Why should installing a service pack take 2 or 3 HOURS? It is absurd.

I went through so much nonsense getting the box where I needed it to be just to be functional...

1) Install Vista.
2) Install Visual Studio Team Suite. Crashes when connecting to TFS. Try to uninstall and reinstall. Can't uninstall, uninstaller crashes. Try to repair. Can't, installer crashes.
3) Useless web searches trying to get a solution. Notice also that sound won't work.
4) Download and install sound driver; sound works.
5) Install Visual Studio Enterprise hoping some DLL's get overwritten. VS finally works.
6) Code, code, code. Check in. Can't check in; VS2008 bug.
7) Search web for solutions. Can't resolve DNS for sites in a spotty fashion - mystifying; every other machine works (Mac, XP boxes).
8) Uninstall and re-install .net. Check in. Old error gone, now get a new error.
9) Install .net service pack - about 2 hours.
10) Install VS2008 service pack - 3 to 4 hours.
11) Check in works! YAY! Still throwing policy errors but who cares, I can finally work.
12) Still can't resolve certain web sites. Can't hit HTTPS URL's. Every other machine in the house works fine.
13) Install SP1 - 3 hours.
14) Install SP2 - who knows - hours.
15) Sound broken again - thank you SP2.
16) Re-install sound drivers; sound works again.
17) Still can't hit some web sites that every other box in the house can.
18) Adjust gamma for secondary display AGAIN (for the upteenth time) because Vista keeps resetting it on EVERY RESTART.

--- And the saga continues. ---

Look, I use Macs and PC's. I develop for both. I can only speak from my own experience, but that experience is considerable, and this is what I have to say: it completely mystifies me how MS can sell this crap. Honestly, some of this stuff is just pure unadulterated excrement. I spend more time fighting my PC to get it to work than I do actually working, sometimes, and that is just ridiculous that it should be that way. It should NOT be so. My workstations and development tools are supposed to help me be productive, not vex me into the grave early. Anyone who thinks this state of affairs is acceptable or good is just blinded by some misplaced allegiance.
post #102 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Downward pricing pressure? What downward pricing pressure? Windows is effectively free for most folks because they buy a whole new box every few years.

Very few folks pay $300 for Vista.

Don't think you are not paying for Windows when you buy a new computer with it installed!

There was a point where the cost of Windows was as much as the hardware. There are cases of people trying to return Windows unopened after buying a computer. It used to say "can be returned for refund if unopened." It did not go well for them, and some took legal action. I don't know about now - haven't bought a Windows machine in 5 years.

A few months ago, a Dell netbook with Windows XP was about $100 more than one with Ubuntu. That ain't my definition of free, son.

I have heard now it is about $15 an XP copy on a netbook. They are scared that users will get comfortable with Linux and hurt their market share! They seem to know they can't sell Windows on merit alone. This is definitely pricing pressure. It's hard to compete with free unless you are a lot better.
post #103 of 191
How will those of use with Leopard get the $30 update? Purchase at the local Apple Store (CD) or the online store (Download)? Anyone heard or have an idea? So much too take in here of late that I could have just overlooked the method.

Thanks
Mr. Scott
Reply
Mr. Scott
Reply
post #104 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisDaMacMan View Post

I wish people would stop using odd abbreviations, what does MSFT mean?

Its an bad as bioloigy, with Sos and PDECGF...

I admit, I'm a Lurker on most forums, but this has got to be the most unintelligent post I've seen in quite some time, even with the Flames going back and forth.

MicroSoFT = MSFT = Microsoft Corp Stock Symbol = Abbreviation people have been using (including Microsoft) since the beginning of their corporation.

Just to show how long I've been around, I own (still own) a Microsoft Softcard. Anyone remember what product that was? Guaranteed it never blue screened
post #105 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

Oh my god...

First: how you know that Snow Leopard will be cheaper than Windows 7? When you buy a new PC you will get a FREE upgrade to 7 soon. And even owners of old PCs can buy 7 and improve their system without buying new hardware. Snow Leopard only runs on the newest hardware (as you mentioned).

What's bad of delivering a free preview version of Windows 7 to customers? I smell envy here.

"Many" users got to downgrade to XP? Many? Where? This was only a very special deal for enterprise customers from some suppliers. And mostly only for netbooks. Show me a < $ 300 netbook that runs Leopard officially, please!

Apple is rewarding its loyal customers? What? Charging for every single major update even for features that should have been there since 10.0 like the innovative (!) Put Back button in the trash?

Why is it so difficult for the author to find proper arguments? There are a lot if you just try to think yourselve instead of repeating what Apple says on a marketing event.

Here are some more questions to ask: when will the Mac see great speech recognition, powerful handwriting recognition (not only for single Chinese characters), Blu-Ray support, full out-of-the-box TV viewing and recording or a resolution indepentend UI like Vista delivers for 2 years now?

I don't see the benefit of being uncritical to Apple.


Macs have speech recognition. I own a DVR, so I don't really need to record on my computer hard drive. I also have a big screen TV, so again ... And you can do these things on a Mac, though maybe not out of the box. It might take a $100-200 investment. Not a driver for me!

Blu-Ray support is very late on Macs. Some licensing issues changed very recently, so there should be some changes there.

The reason to buy an Apple computer is to get OS X, simply put. It is leaner, does more with less, and is so much more stable as to make Windows a joke. Try running Vista or XP for a couple months straight with no reboots and still have it function as a server for the rest of your network.
post #106 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

Microsoft has more programming resources than Apple than are arguably just as skilled. In theory, Microsoft could develop far better operating systems and software than Apple. There's one very important reason why they don't, and it's the same problem that Sun has with Java:

Backward compatibility.

yes, you put your finger on one crucial factor. but there is one other: MS insistence on unique proprietary software - trying thereby to achieve market hegemony. and the consequences are a mess.

the screwed up evolution up of Windows in the 90's as it moved from DOS to NT (Win 7 is still NT underneath) resulted in the security nightmares that never end. the necessity to create a completely different Win CE OS for small devices has lead to the dog that is WinMobile. Internet Explorer is technically obsolete today. Direct X still prevents the emergence of a single gaming software standard. and MS still hasn't stopped - take Silverlight. they keep bolting things on to Windows. which is why they will never do a ground-up OS re-write unless they absolutely have no choice - maybe never.

i don't know if a Mac OS-centered world would have been any better. we'll never know. but although its software is mostly proprietary too, Apple has been forced to make it work easily with most all the others, and generally supports open standards much more. the result is a much tighter, cleaner, and up to date OS overall.
post #107 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

And Microsoft never charged people for upgrades to their OS?

Yearly (for a few of them anyway) point releases on a core OS for $129 each vs "SP1 is available, download it for free from microsoft.com".

Here is OS X's history of upgrades:

10.0 $129 3/2001
10.1 $129 9/2001
10.2 $129 8/2002
10.3 $129 10/2003
10.4 $129 4/2005
10.5 $129 10/2007 G3s unsupported
10.6 $29 9/2009
Total of upgrades: $803

G4s were released in 1999 so while it isn't completely a given that you have purchased a new computer since then, it is likely. Of course, it's also pretty well given on the pc side too. For most typical home users, a new pc is still cheaper than a mac. Especially w/the bargain basement drek Dell shovels out. Here is the same info for Microsoft:

XP $359 10/2001
SP1 Free 9/2002
SP2 Free 8/2004
SP3 Free 4/2008

Vista $239 1/2007
SP1 Free 2/2008
SP2 Free 5/2009
Total of upgrades: $598

I'm not here to make any judgements on which OS is better and which isn't, but the average user is going to look at things and see a higher price on the Mac system and if they pay any attention to historical upgrade pricing, they see they get charged regularly for updates. This pays no attention to the fact that releases like Leopard were a complete re-write of OS X, but most people won't pay attention to that.

No I don't own a Mac. Certainly not opposed to the idea tho. Unfortunately if I was going to switch I would also have to likely switch my wife's computer at the same time and I just don't have the money for that heh. When it's tim to upgrade our computers again we'll see what things are like on the market and with our finances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

When did Vista Get out of the Box Blu-Ray Support? Oh yeah, they don't have it, Vista can now finally burn a DVD from Windows Explorer (something the Mac OS did from version 10.0. Heck, even 9.2.2 had that)

They have it if they have updated to Vista SP2, came out the end of May. There has been software built into Windows for cd burning for quite awhile now, but there is a good reason most people paid for something like Nero instead
post #108 of 191
Problem is, Microsoft could afford to either give or have a promotional period in which they give Windows 7 away for free to existing or "qualifying" customers of Vista.

Though, since it is Microsoft, their install base would ultimately get confused, thus creating more headache and heartache lol
post #109 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rlob View Post

In my humble opinion your first point is flawed... like Independents in a presidential election, for Apple and Microsoft there's a battle raging for on-the-fence Switchers. The point that's being made is less about direct retail pressure and more about the indirect effects of the simplicity of Apple's strategy. No one can argue that Microsoft has taken a bigger hit than Apple from the economy and Vista's complexity. Windows 7 was a must-have release for Microsoft to help stabilize matters - and they delivered. But with Apple making Snow Leopard so easy to adopt, it makes MacBook users that much happier than Windows users were a year ago, which will effect market perception. And lower-priced MacBooks are going to be even more attractive to anyone in the market for a new laptop who would've otherwise been sufficiently consoled by the release of Windows 7. Think PC guys vs. Mac guy. even though comparing Windows 7 and Snow Leopard is like oranges and apples, the consumer world just sees two companies releasing a new OS at about the same time - so the comparison is unavoidable. One is more easily sold as an advancement the other more as a fix. One more as affordable and automatic, the other more expensive and complex.

You totally missed my point. What you said about how Apple's effective strategy hit Microsoft hard directly and indirectly does not contradict with what I am arguing because you took my word out of context in the first place.

What I am arguing against the article's emphasis on how the OS X upgrade retail price can make a direct hit on Microsoft. The article at the end made quite an effort arguing that the OS X upgrade retail price can cut off the PC operating system's oxygen supply, but somehow you overlooked it by saying "The point that's being made is less about direct retail pressure..." Obviously you misread both the article and my argument, which is why your point does not contradict with what I'm saying. In other words... I agree with your main point, but your main point does not indicate the flaws in my argument, if any.

I again argue against the article's emphasis of how the retail price can impact Microsoft. Both the retail prices of Windows and OS X has never been a factor to Windows users who are making decisions to upgrade or to convert to Mac. Even if the Windows users consider to convert to Mac, it is not because of the retail price at all.
post #110 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Yearly (for a few of them anyway) point releases on a core OS for $129 each vs "SP1 is available, download it for free from microsoft.com".

Here is OS X's history of upgrades:

10.0 $129 3/2001
10.1 $129 9/2001
10.2 $129 8/2002
10.3 $129 10/2003
10.4 $129 4/2005
10.5 $129 10/2007 G3s unsupported
10.6 $29 9/2009
Total of upgrades: $803

Nice list and welcome to AI. Note that prior to 10.0 there was a Public Beta that was sold for $29.95. Also, the upgrade price for 10.0 users to 10.1 was free of charge.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #111 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Scott View Post

How will those of use with Leopard get the $30 update? Purchase at the local Apple Store (CD) or the online store (Download)? Anyone heard or have an idea? So much too take in here of late that I could have just overlooked the method.

Thanks

Looks to be like any other OS X update. Just go into a store and but it. Making it a download has too many issues since youd have to burn to disk, create a partition to copy it to for the install (works quite well, actually) and/or have a program that do it for you. Its not like an app install.

If you want, you can purchase the update for under $10 (which is mainly for the shipping) right now from Apple. The offer apparently lasts until SL arrives.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #112 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Yearly (for a few of them anyway) point releases on a core OS for $129 each vs "SP1 is available, download it for free from microsoft.com".

Here is OS X's history of upgrades:

10.0 $129 3/2001
10.1 $129 9/2001
10.2 $129 8/2002
10.3 $129 10/2003
10.4 $129 4/2005
10.5 $129 10/2007 G3s unsupported
10.6 $29 9/2009
Total of upgrades: $803

G4s were released in 1999 so while it isn't completely a given that you have purchased a new computer since then, it is likely. Of course, it's also pretty well given on the pc side too. For most typical home users, a new pc is still cheaper than a mac. Especially w/the bargain basement drek Dell shovels out. Here is the same info for Microsoft:

XP $359 10/2001
SP1 Free 9/2002
SP2 Free 8/2004
SP3 Free 4/2008

Vista $239 1/2007
SP1 Free 2/2008
SP2 Free 5/2009
Total of upgrades: $598

I'm not here to make any judgements on which OS is better and which isn't, but the average user is going to look at things and see a higher price on the Mac system and if they pay any attention to historical upgrade pricing, they see they get charged regularly for updates. This pays no attention to the fact that releases like Leopard were a complete re-write of OS X, but most people won't pay attention to that.

No I don't own a Mac. Certainly not opposed to the idea tho. Unfortunately if I was going to switch I would also have to likely switch my wife's computer at the same time and I just don't have the money for that heh. When it's tim to upgrade our computers again we'll see what things are like on the market and with our finances.



They have it if they have updated to Vista SP2, came out the end of May. There has been software built into Windows for cd burning for quite awhile now, but there is a good reason most people paid for something like Nero instead

Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.

To make your comparison fair, you would need to look at the cost of movement across an equal number of OS bumps; you cannot knock Apple for releasing substantive OS improvements more often than MS does. How many OS bumps has MS had since 2001? Just two: XP and Vista.

So how much for MS users to go from Windows XP to Vista? How much for Mac Users to go from 10.4 to 10.5? That is the more equivalent comparison.

Service packs are not OS releases my friend, and you cannot stack the deck in your favor by trying to lump them in with the OS releases as if they were new OS releases given out free.
post #113 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Look, this is the same deal all over again:

Microsoft relies on marketing and delivers the same shiit all over again with prettier pictures and forces everyone to swallow it.

Apple relies on innovation and delivers even more breakthrough with a revamped OS that runs laps around Winblows.

It doesn't matter. Half of this world is stupid and the other half is mostly forced to use Windows due to the stupid half. Perhaps this price slash will win some people over from the dark side.

Ah, yes.

Competitive pricing of Apple hardware will help.

/sarcasm
post #114 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Nice list and welcome to AI. Note that prior to 10.0 there was a Public Beta that was sold for $29.95. Also, the upgrade price for 10.0 users to 10.1 was free of charge.

Thanks. Pretty sure I used to have an AI account back around 2002 but I couldn't remember what it was Also thanks for the 10 to 10.1 info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.

To make your comparison fair, you would need to look at the cost of movement across an equal number of OS bumps; you cannot knock Apple for releasing substantive OS improvements more often than MS does. How many OS bumps has MS had since 2001? Just two: XP and Vista.

So how much for MS users to go from Windows XP to Vista? How much for Mac Users to go from 10.4 to 10.5? That is the more equivalent comparison.

Service packs are not OS releases my friend, and you cannot stack the deck in your favor by trying to lump them in with the OS releases as if they were new OS releases given out free.

I'm not being deceptive at all. I'm explaining it from a non-technical Windows users point of view. Windows XP to XP SP1 is a service pack. It modifies XP. To their view OS X 10.5 to 10.6 is a service pack, modifying OS X. OS X becoming OS XI would be an OS release to that way of thinking. Microsoft hasn't done the X.XX.XX model of naming since the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 days. Also, it isn't unknown for Microsoft to release new tech (or support for a new tech) outside of an OS release or a service pack. Generally it is also a free download.

I am well aware of the level of technical changes in the various OS X upgrades over the year. I'm speaking for the general public's viewpoint. They will just see Apple charging for an upgrade to their operating system when it is still the "same OS" (OS X). Vista getting a service pack for free makes sense to them and Windows 7 having a full OS price also makes sense. It's part of the conditioning Microsoft has used over the years.
post #115 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.

In SSquirels defense he states, "This pays no attention to the fact that releases like Leopard were a complete re-write of OS X, but most people won't pay attention to that. He has a valid point. Its our nature to compare and contrast but Windows and OS X are hard to do.

Apple charges a little for the retail copy, but covers the different when you buy a Mac, whilst MS charges a lot for the retail copy and a lot less for the OEM copy when you buy a PC. That alone is enough difference to render any comparison pointless, but we still have to look at from the average consumers PoV. In that similar vein, there are many iPhone users who have apparently, out of blue, forgotten that they bought their iPhone last year subsidized on a 2-year contract. If Apple didnt update the device at least every year they would be pissed, now they are pissed that they feel required to buy the latest one. Same goes for the OS X updates, they feel required when there is no reason one has to update the OS, but skipping a revision is not an option for many.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #116 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

You don't kill misguided (to the point of illness) people.

There is no easy cure for Stockholm-syndrome.

Users buy Apple prducts. Users perpetuate the hype (not Apple), and there is good reason for the hype. Most Windows users can't begin to understand how it is that Apple users are so enthusiastic. It doesn't happen out of thin air. It happens because we're getting some great tech from a company with the right attitude when it comes to design and the implementation thereof.

Apple has the guts to always go on the attack. And that's what you're supposed to do. Apple is supremely confident in their product very simply because they have all the reason in the world to be. Steve Jobs comes right out and says MS has no taste. Bill Gates usually answers meekly about MS products (constantly), and Ballmer has been known to all but concede openly that MS is behind the curve. Something is defintely wrong when the Redmond powers-that-be misspeak like this. Their main differentiator is the poor-mans differentiator: price. Except there's a certain class of user that can easily tell the difference.

But don't go spreading that around.

To be honest, we mostly see those overenthusiastic users as someone who is like a cornered animal - scared, panicking and extremely aggressive. Sometimes we think there is a hint of paranoia and chemically induced euphoria (brain chemistry working on the edge).
post #117 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618 View Post

Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.

To make your comparison fair, you would need to look at the cost of movement across an equal number of OS bumps; you cannot knock Apple for releasing substantive OS improvements more often than MS does. How many OS bumps has MS had since 2001? Just two: XP and Vista.

So how much for MS users to go from Windows XP to Vista? How much for Mac Users to go from 10.4 to 10.5? That is the more equivalent comparison.

Service packs are not OS releases my friend, and you cannot stack the deck in your favor by trying to lump them in with the OS releases as if they were new OS releases given out free.

It's actually straight forward deceitful, as some of those full retail prices had a limited time upgrade offers, which were cheaper.

10.0 to 10.1 we know was S&H priced. 10.2 I think never had an upgrade, but can't remember. 10.3 to 10.4 definitely had one because I have one, that won't work without a preinstall.

Considering the service packs practicality, There should have been a XP.2005 version. (especially all those users that found out, original XP SP2 disc couldn't read SATA)

XP was never really modernized, and Vista is way too buggy on the other end.

Given that OEM is OEM, I'll say it's quite a sight. The difference in control is too night and day.

Even apple certified stores, if they fix your computer, that's say... 10.4, and wipe the drive. They put a 10.5 on it. (do that for 10.3 also etc, etc, etc).

The license of OSX is completely self enforced, but that's a whole different argument.

In the end, Apple's CS justifies the cost of the OS, no matter what numbers are trying to put pinned againist one another.
post #118 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macintosh_Next View Post

And now on to the original post... Leopard is not my favorite OS, nor is it my least. I have found Leopard to be slower in some ways to Tiger, but I think it's mainly I only have 1GB of ram, and Tiger ran better with less RAM. However, even though my computer is three years old, running Leopard on it's bare requirements, my wife's brand new HP laptop, with 4GB's of ram, a faster 64-bit processor (yes, I ensure it was Windows Vista 64-bit)....is slower then my computer. It's slower booting up, it's slower doing day to day things. It locks up a lot. Even more then my Leopard. And, btw, my RAM is DDR2, not 3 (as is her's). So, really, my computer should be slower -- but it's not. She even has an AMD -- which is leads better then Intel -- and her computer can't out do mine. It's just sad.

Um. You mixed things a bit. AMD was kicking Intel's... back in the time of good old Pentium 4, but later Intel's Core 2 Duo is way ahead AMD 64 X2 performance. Way ahead it is even not funny any more.

AMD recently managed to get some balance with Phenom II processors, but your wife's notebook is likely based on Puma platform with AMD Turion X2 processors, slower yet more power hungry compared to C2D.
post #119 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by esXXI View Post

Nyyeaaaaah, 'cause manufacturers don't include the price of Windows in the package at all right? The cost doesn't magically go away just because they buy a premade config.

... and that config - with includes Windows 7 price - is still likely to be much cheaper than comparable Mac computer.

Which takes us back to original poster and his claim that for people will get W7 with new boxes, price of W7 will be perceived as cheap to non-existent.

Which is hardly a news. New names, same old story.
post #120 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowayout11 View Post

Man, this AI article was painful. WAY too much effort to demonize MS.

I haven't used Win7 a lot yet... not enough to come to a completely educated opinion, but I will say so far it sucks less than Vista. I haven't run all my apps on it yet, but at least as far as the initial tire-kicking goes, it's alright. It doesn't blow my skirt up, but it's not the demon spawn of the anti-Christ that the zealots tirelessly claim it is. 25 year old habits die hard.

At the end of the day, since 90% of my time is in a web browser, email, and games, the OS really doesn't matter all that much. So no OS is going to "blow my skirt up" anymore.

Are there any good, reputable Mac sites that don't require a "filter" to read the contents? I'm asking seriously.

Good point. Sometimes I have a feeling many Mac users spend their time randomly opening and closing various applications and sorting them on the screen. Without doing anything useful at all.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Snow Leopard gets richer, thinner, cheaper than Windows 7