or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Windows 7 priced below Vista, to allow upgrades from XP
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Windows 7 priced below Vista, to allow upgrades from XP - Page 2

post #41 of 198
[QUOTE=camroidv27;1440587] "Windows 7 Pricing has NOTHING to do with Apple. The only reason this is posted that I can see is for MS hating."

We don't hate MS for their way over charging for their lousy software, or the fact that they continually steal it directly from Apple, or that Steve Balmer is a total fool. We hate MS because we do have to use Windows and it is so bloated, overly complex, clutsy and time intensive-that why we hate MS!!!
post #42 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

Windows 7 Pricing has NOTHING to do with Apple. The only reason this is posted that I can see is for MS hating.

Yep, pretty much. And traffic trolling... like the coverage of those MS commercials.
post #43 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

If Snow Leopard is a service pack, then WTF is Windows 7?

Windows 7 is.... A 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical interface, sitting on an 8-bit operating system, originally written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company without ONE BIT of common sense
post #44 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco_Kid View Post

Windows 7 is.... A 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical interface, sitting on an 8-bit operating system, originally written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company without ONE BIT of common sense

I always liked that one....but I guess with 7/Vista it'd be more appropriate to say it's a...64-bit version of a 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical interface, sitting on an 8-bit operating system, originally written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company without ONE BIT of common sense.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #45 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

I always liked that one....but I guess with 7/Vista it'd be more appropriate to say it's a...64-bit version of a 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical interface, sitting on an 8-bit operating system, originally written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company without ONE BIT of common sense.

YOU GUYS ARE GREAT-very humorous and right on! I couldn't agree more- "lol"!
post #46 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally View Post

Dude. You have got to be kidding right? Tell me you're kidding.

Be nice! His mother used to taser him to sleep every night...
post #47 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco_Kid View Post

Windows 7 is.... A 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical interface, sitting on an 8-bit operating system, originally written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company without ONE BIT of common sense

LOLZ. Because I haven't heard that one a thousand times.

I did a comparison between the prices of upgrades between OS X an XP->Vista->7

If you had bought a PC or a Mac and somehow managed to hold on to it since 2001, then these are the numbers.

Each dot release, plus the initial version of OS X was rolled out at 129.99. If we include Snow Leopard at $29, then if you remained current, you would have paid $809.

XP Pro Retail was $299, Vista Ultimate Upgrade was $219, and 7 Upgrade will also be $219. That makes $737.

In that wildly hypothetical situation, you paid $70 (10%) more owning OS X than you did the current flavour of Windows.

To make it more realistic, say you upgraded your hardware once. That would knock out one purchase of the operating system directly. OS X - $679, Windows - $519. The difference is marked.

If you upgraded twice which is more likely, then I would suspect another $130 knocked off OS X, but unlikely that you could save yourself another upgrade under Windows. OS X $549, Windows $519.

The point to be made is that Microsoft in a relative sense isn't really gouging their customers. It looks pretty even to me.
post #48 of 198
[QUOTE=camroidv27;1440587] Windows 7 Pricing has NOTHING to do with Apple. The only reason this is posted that I can see is for MS hating.[QUOTE]

You're not thinking very hard then. I would never buy a PC but I am curious to see how much Windows is versus Apple.

[QUOTE=camroidv27;1440587]And if you ask me, that looks VERY poorly on the Apple community from others. MS community hates Apple too... so Apple guys, "Think Different" and just ignore the pest.[QUOTE]

If you ask me, it seems pretty obvious you've come here to troll...

Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

That being said, raise of hands, how many of you are going to buy and install Win7 on your Macs? Seems like a lot of people I know that have Macs, ALSO buy windows to run on it. So in that regard, yes this affects you.

LOL, Love how you contradict yourself!
post #49 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Where's the evidence of that?

That glossy screens are killing repeat business?

It's circumstantial, just about every poll online is over 60% in favor of matte screens instead of glossy.

If your alienating over 60% of your market, your losing repeat business.

It's just that Apple doesn't see it because their numbers are clouded by so many new 'to computer' users right now.

But if enough newbies get burned by annoying glossy screens, they might not come back to buy again unless Apple offers a solution to the glare and reflection problem.

Hopefully they are working on it.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #50 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

LOLZ. Because I haven't heard that one a thousand times.
I did a comparison between the prices of upgrades between OS X an XP->Vista->
The point to be made is that Microsoft in a relative sense isn't really gouging their customers. It looks pretty even to me.

But you are forgetting the time you wasted minding/installing the bloated Windows/DOS software, waiting and tolerating the MS customer service agent who was bathing in the Ganges during your calls, and the triple clicking you had to do to resize a window. That all adds up to several hundred thousand dollars!
post #51 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco_Kid View Post

Windows 7 is.... A 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical interface, sitting on an 8-bit operating system, originally written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company without ONE BIT of common sense

Post more often.
post #52 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnp1 View Post

....waiting and tolerating the MS customer service agent who was bathing in the Ganges during your calls......

Frankly, most of the Indian customer service agents I've dealt with (for various products and services) are far superior to the ones I've dealt with here, within our shores..... I have often found a clear difference in education levels.
post #53 of 198
[QUOTE=macnyc;1440610]

If you ask me, it seems pretty obvious you've come here to troll...

[QUOTE]

Funny... I've done nothing of the sort. Just stating that I think Appleinsider should stick to Apple. And that the people who like Apple should be more respectful of their competition. (And vice versa. I don't want to see an MS site go on about Apple's shortcomings, and I don't want to see their community bash Apple either. Sadly, it happens on both fields)

The trolls are the ones who get arrogant about their beliefs in the companies they support. Kinda like Politics too... and those are always so filthy.
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #54 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Frankly, most of the Indian customer service agents I've dealt with (for various products and services) are far superior to the ones I've dealt with here, within our shores..... I have often found a clear difference in education levels.

That statement didn't reflect on the cheap and abused labor force employed by MS, neither does it excuse the beyond substandard level of , or lack of, education of the typical stateside stupid persons hired by large American companies to handle the primary level of phone support. I've been very frustrated by the clever deflective and useless customer service provided by MS, Western Digital, and Amazon. They often happen to be located in Eurasia-they are very smart, and very avoident! Where as Apple and t-Mobile phone service reps are well trained real American, unaccented english speaking problem solvers-usually!
Having said that, I know Apple considered off shoring tek support and the complaints were almost as bad as those found in this blog!
(I should add that I play Sitar and Sarod and will miss Ali Akbar Khan-was fortunate to have had several conversations with him since the 60s)
post #55 of 198
[QUOTE=rnp1;1440593]
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

"Windows 7 Pricing has NOTHING to do with Apple. The only reason this is posted that I can see is for MS hating."

We don't hate MS for their way over charging for their lousy software, or the fact that they continually steal it directly from Apple, or that Steve Balmer is a total fool. We hate MS because we do have to use Windows and it is so bloated, overly complex, clutsy and time intensive-that why we hate MS!!!

I hear the MS side say the same thing of OS X. Personal preference. But please, don't do it here. I want to hear what APPLE is doing, not how bad MS is. I already know how bad MS and Apple are, and how clunky Linux is, and how frustrating ATI can be, or how hot Nvidia can be, or how AMD uses 3/4 cores and Intel is too expensive, or how this and that and it goes on! Who cares? Focus on your own products! That's how Apple got to where it is... posters should follow suit! I'm telling you GLOAT about the Macs you purchase! Just don't step on anyone to do so.

I swear, its almost like religion. And seeing events all over the world right now, we see just how good putting down other religions can be! Boom.
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #56 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

Windows 7 Pricing has NOTHING to do with Apple. The only reason this is posted that I can see is for MS hating.

And if you ask me, that looks VERY poorly on the Apple community from others. MS community hates Apple too... so Apple guys, "Think Different" and just ignore the pest.

That being said, raise of hands, how many of you are going to buy and install Win7 on your Macs? Seems like a lot of people I know that have Macs, ALSO buy windows to run on it. So in that regard, yes this affects you.

Lets focus on Apple okay? Can anyone tell me when FCS3 is coming out and if it will support the CUDA / GrandCentral scheme?

At some point I'll do it.
post #57 of 198
[QUOTE=camroidv27;1440621]
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnp1 View Post

Personal preference. I want to hear how bad MS is. I swear, its almost like religion. And seeing events all over the world right now, we see just how good putting down other religions can be! Boom.

Hey lighten up!! It is so nice to be able to run on for more than 124 characters at this blog!
post #58 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

LOLZ. Because I haven't heard that one a thousand times.

I did a comparison between the prices of upgrades between OS X an XP->Vista->7

If you had bought a PC or a Mac and somehow managed to hold on to it since 2001, then these are the numbers.

Each dot release, plus the initial version of OS X was rolled out at 129.99. If we include Snow Leopard at $29, then if you remained current, you would have paid $809.

XP Pro Retail was $299, Vista Ultimate Upgrade was $219, and 7 Upgrade will also be $219. That makes $737.

In that wildly hypothetical situation, you paid $70 (10%) more owning OS X than you did the current flavour of Windows.

To make it more realistic, say you upgraded your hardware once. That would knock out one purchase of the operating system directly. OS X - $679, Windows - $519. The difference is marked.

If you upgraded twice which is more likely, then I would suspect another $130 knocked off OS X, but unlikely that you could save yourself another upgrade under Windows. OS X $549, Windows $519.

The point to be made is that Microsoft in a relative sense isn't really gouging their customers. It looks pretty even to me.

Except that you're forgetting one little thing that changes the calculations.

MS has been late on every release they made going back to the later DOS releases.

Do you think MS wanted to go 5 years between XP and Vista? No, they didn't. Vista was about 3 years late. XP itself was over a year late. 2000 was 2 years late, and I won't bother going back any more.

If MS had been within 6 months of their release dates over the years, Windows 7 would have come out in 2001, and we would have be on the third release since then.

It's not that MS doesn't want to gauge their customers, but that they have so many problems writing their OS's that they can't do business as they want to.

At the very least, there would be one more release between 2001 and now for them.

That would change their numbers completely.

In addition, you made another mistake. 10.1 was a FREE release. Given that, Apple's numbers, including 10.6, would be $674, still lower than MS's costing, even without figuring in their incompetence.
post #59 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

That glossy screens are killing repeat business?

It's circumstantial, just about every poll online is over 60% in favor of matte screens instead of glossy.

If your alienating over 60% of your market, your losing repeat business.

It's just that Apple doesn't see it because their numbers are clouded by so many new 'to computer' users right now.

But if enough newbies get burned by annoying glossy screens, they might not come back to buy again unless Apple offers a solution to the glare and reflection problem.

Hopefully they are working on it.

I doubt that every poll runs 60%.

But even if that were true, it would mean little, because those who come to these sites and answer polls are rarely typical, and Apple has just been given one of the highest customer satisfaction ratings around. higher than for any other computer company. Also the highest rating for customers who would buy another .

So I doubt they're losing repeat customers at anything other than a much smaller rate than they are gaining new ones.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1400...isfaction.html

http://cultofmac.com/changewave-appl...isfaction/8570

Now you can show us a survey or two that says that 60% of Mac users are dissatisfied with their glossy screens.

Oh, and find one that shows similar high rates of people stating that they wouldn't buy another Mac because of it.

No, not a forum like this one, or some self selecting online poll, but a professional survey.
post #60 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Because time+work isn't always free.

heres a hint for the slow. That was called "sarcasm" a strange concept that you obviously do not grasp.
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #61 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

EDIT: You know better. careful with the language please.

Yeah, it was a heated moment. Don't worry, I'll stay clean.
post #62 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

LOLZ. Because I haven't heard that one a thousand times.

I did a comparison between the prices of upgrades between OS X an XP->Vista->7

If you had bought a PC or a Mac and somehow managed to hold on to it since 2001, then these are the numbers.

Each dot release, plus the initial version of OS X was rolled out at 129.99. If we include Snow Leopard at $29, then if you remained current, you would have paid $809.

XP Pro Retail was $299, Vista Ultimate Upgrade was $219, and 7 Upgrade will also be $219. That makes $737.

In that wildly hypothetical situation, you paid $70 (10%) more owning OS X than you did the current flavour of Windows.

To make it more realistic, say you upgraded your hardware once. That would knock out one purchase of the operating system directly. OS X - $679, Windows - $519. The difference is marked.

If you upgraded twice which is more likely, then I would suspect another $130 knocked off OS X, but unlikely that you could save yourself another upgrade under Windows. OS X $549, Windows $519.

The point to be made is that Microsoft in a relative sense isn't really gouging their customers. It looks pretty even to me.

Except when you consider what you get for $500, the value of Vista really doesn't add up. Paying out cash for frustration. Not good value. Paying out cash for Tiger, Leopard, worth it I would say.
post #63 of 198
Upgrading to Vista and Leopard were both very poor experiences for me.

Vista's problems mostly stemmed from driver support. My motherboard manufacturer made bold claims about Vista support on their website but their drivers kept bluescreening my gaming PC. It took a motherboard swap to solve the problem. Generally since SP1, Vista hasn't been that bad though. On a modern machine, its performance is actually a lot better than XP. Vista's reputation is lagging years behind reality. Vista is not another Windows ME.

But mac fanboys shouldn't gloat. After upgrading to Leopard/iLife '09, I also had lots of problems. Mail lost all of my mail after the upgrade and it took a while to research how to get it all back. iPhoto also crashed every time it started and I had to move all of my photos out of it before it would stop crashing. The upgrade was a major headache.

There's a lot Microsoft could learn from Apple though. They really should offer a family pack and Windows 7 should be 64-bit only. It may affect the netbook market in the short term but the pain now is worth the long-term advantages.
post #64 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by imGayForSteveJobs View Post

Why do these articles keep comparing pricing between OSX and Windows. Why would someone owning a Mac even consider the two?

"Hmm, I could upgrade to snow leopard... or I could put Windows 7 on my Mac, decisions decisions"

If you have a Mac, I doubt you are debating which OS to put on it. If you have a PC, well price doesn't matter because you would have to buy a Mac anyways. So WHO CARES!

Well, it does. As long as Autodesk is Windows only

Bootcamp gives the best of both worlds. But I prefer Apple's workflow (OSX, iLife, iWork).
post #65 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Most Macs in 2010 running 4GB RAM while most PC users are stuck with 32bit OS's is going to make MS a laughing stock.

While a 32-bit OS was certainly the way to go for most XP and Vista users when they came out due to rampant driver issues, that isnt so much the case now for Vista or Seven. I have had no 64-bit driver issues for quite some time in my testing, though I rarely have had need to hook up a printer or scanner, but from what Ive read on that front it finally has been taken care of. The only machines that really will still require 32-bit OS are the Atom-based netbooks, but most notebook and desktops in 2010 should have 64-bit capable processors, sufficient driver and hopefully get the 64-bit Seven installed.
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 #66 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

But mac fanboys shouldn't gloat. After upgrading to Leopard/iLife '09, I also had lots of problems. Mail lost all of my mail after the upgrade and it took a while to research how to get it all back. iPhoto also crashed every time it started and I had to move all of my photos out of it before it would stop crashing. The upgrade was a major headache.

The Leopard launch was certainly one of the more calamitous releases. Even the Betas saw some major changes and were widely unstable right up until the final release. I dont know what was going on at Apple, but it wasnt pretty.

With Snow Leopard, the last two Betas have been pretty solid (though still not GM quality) that Ive made the move to SL as my working machine.I am using a unibody MB with the Nvidia 9400M GPU so I still dont yet have the option for a 64-bit kernel, but I can say that in comparative benchmarkings between SL and Leopard on the same HW that the tests show about a 10% increase at this point. I dont think youll have to worry about the 10.6 release being an issue.
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 #67 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

That glossy screens are killing repeat business?

It's circumstantial, just about every poll online is over 60% in favor of matte screens instead of glossy.

If your alienating over 60% of your market, your losing repeat business.

It's just that Apple doesn't see it because their numbers are clouded by so many new 'to computer' users right now.

But if enough newbies get burned by annoying glossy screens, they might not come back to buy again unless Apple offers a solution to the glare and reflection problem.

Hopefully they are working on it.

I am afraid that most people who prefer glossy over matte don't really bother voting in such polls, at least that's the case for me. On top of that, I seriously doubt this ratio reflect the true targeting market for Apple. Do you believe average Joe browse through these forums as often as you do?
post #68 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

heres a hint for the slow. That was called "sarcasm" a strange concept that you obviously do not grasp.

Thre was no sarcasm in that. It sounded like more bellyaching.
post #69 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

Windows 7 Pricing has NOTHING to do with Apple. The only reason this is posted that I can see is for MS hating.

Always a fun pastime. I see nothing wrong with it and they certainly deserve it.

MS has the financial and creative (may be stretching it here) wherewithal to create a compelling user experience, and they simply don't care. It comes down to attitude. They have only themselves to blame for rolling out uninspiring, mediocre products year after year and then becoming the butt of everyone's jokes. They're a corporate/enterprise software vendor masquerading as a home/consumer vendor. At best, Windows is DirectX with some faint semblance of an OS wrapped around it. And fewer and fewer people are fooled wth the passage of time.
post #70 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The Leopard launch was certainly one of the more calamitous releases. Even the Betas saw some major changes and were widely unstable right up until the final release. I dont know what was going on at Apple, but it wasnt pretty.

With Snow Leopard, the last two Betas have been pretty solid (though still not GM quality) that Ive made the move to SL as my working machine.I am using a unibody MB with the Nvidia 9400M GPU so I still dont yet have the option for a 64-bit kernel, but I can say that in comparative benchmarkings between SL and Leopard on the same HW that the tests show about a 10% increase at this point. I dont think youll have to worry about the 10.6 release being an issue.

How come you don't have a 64-bit kernel? The unibody MB alu with 9400M supports a 64-bit kernel right????
post #71 of 198
Edit: From AppleInsider.... So.... they should support 64-bit kernel in the final Snow Leopard build for at least all Intel Macs released since the start of 2008, right? Anyways, not a huge deal, Leopard already supports 4GB of RAM and more... And my current MacBook chipset supports 6GB RAM

Build notes leaked on the web of a prerelease version of Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard indicate that the software only supports enabling its new 64-bit kernel on certain machines, including the Xserve, Mac Pro, and MacBook Pro, but this does not mean Snow Leopard's kernel will be limited to 32-bit operation on consumer machines.

Instead, it means that the early developer build of Snow Leopard does not yet supply 64-bit kernel extensions for some of the critical components of the MacBook and other consumer machines. When released to developers around spring and to end users a few months later, Snow Leopard will support using a 64-bit kernel on all Intel Macs with 64-bit CPU, such as the Core 2 Duo.

A 64-bit kernel requires all of its extensions to also be 64-bit. Kernel extensions or KEXTs include drivers for audio hardware, graphics adapters, networking, certain printing components, and other devices on the logic board or attached as peripherals. Until Apple delivers 64-bit versions of the nearly 300 extensions it ships with Mac OS X (not all of which will need to be supported on 64-bit Macs; many are legacy), it is limiting official 64-bit kernel support to a subset of Macs in prerelease builds of the new operating system.
post #72 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

There's a lot Microsoft could learn from Apple though.

How about "nearly everything" that doesn't have to do with games. And even in that department Apple is opening up new frontiers with its App Store.

And MS is still overcharging (even on the upgrade) for their warmed-over version of Vista.
post #73 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

How come you don't have a 64-bit kernel? The unibody MB alu with 9400M supports a 64-bit kernel right????

i don't understand ?
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #74 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

How about "nearly everything" that doesn't have to do with games. And even in that department Apple is opening up new frontiers with its App Store.

And MS is still overcharging (even on the upgrade) for their warmed-over version of Vista.

Microsoft dropped the ball even when it came to games. There really should be no need for a third party company like Valve to provide the digital store and multiplayer back-end for PC games.

Not that I'm complaining, Valve's Steam solution is brilliant and the top reason to install Windows. Steam existed way before Apple's app store. Apple is merely treading in Valve's footprints when it comes to games.

I disagree that Microsoft are overcharging at $49.99 though. That's a great price and should attract a lot of Windows XP users. Don't forget that Apple are charging $10 for yearly iPod touch updates. Against that backdrop, Windows 7 is a bargain.
post #75 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Because shopping is mostly a emotional experience and glossy sells well to newbies.

It's killing their repeat business though, guess they haven't figured that out yet.

Dude , you have beaten the f ing glossy thing to death. We get it . ok . MAC TRIPPER HATES GLOSSY
Lets move on.
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #76 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Except that you're forgetting one little thing that changes the calculations.

MS has been late on every release they made going back to the later DOS releases.

Do you think MS wanted to go 5 years between XP and Vista? No, they didn't. Vista was about 3 years late. XP itself was over a year late. 2000 was 2 years late, and I won't bother going back any more.

And you would never know if Apple missed a deadline because they never publish them

Quote:
If MS had been within 6 months of their release dates over the years, Windows 7 would have come out in 2001, and we would have be on the third release since then.

It's not that MS doesn't want to gauge their customers, but that they have so many problems writing their OS's that they can't do business as they want to.

At the very least, there would be one more release between 2001 and now for them.

That would change their numbers completely.

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.

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?

Quote:
In addition, you made another mistake. 10.1 was a FREE release. Given that, Apple's numbers, including 10.6, would be $674, still lower than MS's costing, even without figuring in their incompetence.

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.
post #77 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

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.

No. They haven't.

Unless you mean "announced" time frames?

Version\t Codename\t Release Date\t
Public Beta\tKodiak\t\t September 13, 2000\t
10.0\t Cheetah\t\t March 24, 2001\t
10.1\t Puma\t\t September 25, 2001\t
10.2\t Jaguar\t\t August 23, 2002\t
10.3\t Panther\t\t October 24, 2003\t
10.4\t Tiger\t June 28, 2004\t
10.5\t Leopard\t October 26, 2007\t
10.6\t Snow Leopard September 2009 (planned)


Windows XP October 2001

Vista January 2007
Windows 7 October 2009 (planned)
post #78 of 198
what part of 'approximately' did you miss?
post #79 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

what part of 'approximately' did you miss?

I'm not even sure of your original meaning.

There were far more releases of OS X within those "time frames." Unless you meant something else.

And what's with the attitude?
post #80 of 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I'm not even sure of your original meaning.

There were far more releases of OS X within those "time frames." Unless you meant something else.

And what's with the attitude?

Just asking 'what part of "approximately" did you miss'? Whether you read 'attitude' in that is entirely up to you but it's not emanating from this side of the keyboard. Trust me.

The 'point' I made is that keeping current with either operating system has been comparatively the same in dollar terms. I am not sure you read my first post in this thread as I thought that point was reasonably clear.

Thus, any assertion that Microsoft have been gouging their customers in reality is far removed from the truth.

I am not making a qualitative assessment about either operating system. Cold, hard, cash is all I'm talking about. After all, the article does make slanted references to cost, does it not?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Windows 7 priced below Vista, to allow upgrades from XP