Originally Posted by djsherly
And you would never know if Apple missed a deadline because they never publish them
On the contrary, Apple has given us a good idea of their release schdule. At first, they said that they would release about one year apart. Then when they got the OS to the point where it was mostly complete from their standpoint, they said that they would be going releases about two years apart. They've either been on schedule, ahead of schedule, or just a few months behind. Thats a pretty good record.
MS has been years late. At least one year late for every release going back to the early 1990's.
While Apple also had problems in the mid '90's with the failure of Copelend, they straightened themselves out.
But it the real world it doesn't. In the real world, the reality is that XP and Vista and now 7, have (and I suppose will) been released in approximately the same time frames as all the dot releases of OS X to Snow Leopard. And the cost of that is the sum total of what I am arguing.
How do you get that?
Vista took five years to release. and don't forget that it was a terribly botched attempt at Longhorn that precipitated VISTA in the first place. Vista is considered by the PC industry to be no more that XP in reworked fashion, rather than the new OS MS promised that Longhorn would be. So there were five years of birth for a product that pretty much already existed. Vista was no more that what Apple comes out with every two years.
Win 7 in turn is considered to be a minor revision of Vista. Yet, it took over seven years for the two to be developed.
You can set an artificial timeline, but you have to include XP in that. Add up the real totals.
But let's go back to your imaginary world for a second. You're also supposing that Microsoft would have charged the same prices for products two years apart? Is that a realistic assumption?
The world I've stated is the real world. the one you've set up is what you wish it would be.
They are charging this for Win 7. And that's just two years after Vista. Surely you've noticed that? I don't see the Ultimate product being offered for even $129, which is all it's worth anyway.
Even in the PC sites, blogs and magazines, they were talking about how MS would respond to the $29 Apple will be charging for 10.6. It's not something I made up. If Apple decided to give it away for free, MS would have been in a lot of trouble, because $50 for the pre sale would have had to be dropped, and possibly so would all of their other prices. As MS lives by its software prices and profits, that would hit them much harder that Apple's pricing is hitting them, as they live by hardware sales and profits.
I appreciate your point, and thanks for the correction. But if Leopard wasn't an incompetent release.... even knowing exactly what hardware combinations Apple was deploying to? But incompetence is not and never was my point. Cold hard cash, my friend. Staying current with OS X has been comparable in cost to doing the same with Windows.
Leopard wasn't an incompetent release. While some people have had problems here and there, the vast majority haven't. Its mostly the techie people who write in on sites like this that have mentioned problems. There's nothing like all the problems so many have had with Vista 64 OR 32.
That's why MS was prompted to come out with a minor release in the form of Windows 7 and drop the name Vista as quickly as possible in such a short time (for them).
If you've been following the PC press as I do, then you would have seen all the speculation about MS releasing Win 7 for free to all Vista owners.
At least, they changed their tune about requiring people to have upgraded to Vista before allowing them to upgrade to Win 7, which, at first, they said wouldn't be possible. The disgust with Vista, and the lack of acceptance made them change their minds (along with demands made in MS friendly blogs and such).