Why is the distinction between "server" and "consumer" operating systems any more legitimate than the distinction between "ultimate" and "home" operating systems?
Why is the distinction between "server" and "consumer" operating systems any more legitimate than the distinction between "ultimate" and "home" operating systems?
MIKKR0$$$HAFT WINBL0WZ
Server operating systems are designed to run on servers and marketed accordingly. Sure, if you must have Windows Server 2008 on your Dell Inspiron laptop, nobody's stopping you.
It's quite a stretch to equate the difference between OS X Server and OS X with the difference between Windows Ultimate and Windows Home Premium, IMO.
Server operating systems are designed to run on servers and marketed accordingly.
Servers are the same as any other computer. Their configuration might be slightly different, but that has nothing at all to do with any software they might run.
Quote:
It's quite a stretch to equate the difference between OS X Server and OS X with the difference between Windows Ultimate and Windows Home Premium, IMO.
Why? The distinction is between feature sets. They will run on the same hardware.
Apple offers two levels of feature sets, both at different price points.
Microsoft offers at least six levels of feature sets, all at different price points.
To argue that Microsoft is doing something that Apple isn't is silly considering the range of hardware that Microsoft supports.
Could Microsoft make it simpler? Yes. But it's not like keeping track of the two Windows 7 versions you'll find in retail stores is going to be hard. It's a bunch of overblown drama and fanboy FUD.
Servers are the same as any other computer. Their configuration might be slightly different, but that has nothing at all to do with any software they might run.
Why? The distinction is between feature sets. They will run on the same hardware.
Apple offers two levels of feature sets, both at different price points.
Microsoft offers at least six levels of feature sets, all at different price points.
To argue that Microsoft is doing something that Apple isn't is silly considering the range of hardware that Microsoft supports.
Could Microsoft make it simpler? Yes. But it's not like keeping track of the two Windows 7 versions you'll find in retail stores is going to be hard. It's a bunch of overblown drama and fanboy FUD.
Opinion noted.
I don't care what runs on what. I'm talking about overall value for the money.
If I'm not going to fork out $320 for Win 7 Ultimate, I'm probably not going to spend $499 on Mac OS X Server.
Even Microsoft realized the stupidity of having so many different "editions" of the same OS. They've consolidated things a bit with Win 7.
As I've already stated, if Mac OS X (the one that comes standard with Macs) offers me features equivalent to those of Windows 7 Ultimate with a cheaper upgrade path for future versions, that alone to me is worth the purchase price of a Mac.
Server operating systems - to me - are on an entirely different level.
If I'm not going to fork out $320 for Win 7 Ultimate, I'm probably not going to spend $499 on Mac OS X Server.
I'm not going to buy a Mont Blanc pen or a Chevy Aveo, I guess it's stupid of them to make them.
Quote:
As I've already stated, if Mac OS X (the one that comes standard with Macs) offers me features equivalent to those of Windows 7 Ultimate with a cheaper upgrade path for future versions, that alone to me is worth the purchase price of a Mac.
If the price of upgrades was your criteria then you would use Linux.
Quote:
Server operating systems - to me - are on an entirely different level.
The distinction between "consumer" and "server" is no more credible than the distinction between "grandma user" and "power user". My mother doesn't need half the stuff that comes pre-installed with Leopard, but her Mac mini carries it all, anyway. Maybe Apple should offer her a MacOSX Lite for $10, eh? (She really could use "More reliable disk eject.", though.)
I'm not going to buy a Mont Blanc pen or a Chevy Aveo, I guess it's stupid of them to make them.
Good for you.
Quote:
If the price of upgrades was your criteria then you would use Linux.
Price is definitely a factor. I'm willing to pay $30 to upgrade to the latest cutting-edge OS. I am not willing to pay $320 for a slightly better looking and performing regurgitation of the previous one.
Quote:
The distinction between "consumer" and "server" is no more credible than the distinction between "grandma user" and "power user". My mother doesn't need half the stuff that comes pre-installed with Leopard, but her Mac mini carries it all, anyway. Maybe Apple should offer her a MacOSX Lite for $10, eh? (She really could use "More reliable disk eject.", though.)
Price is definitely a factor. I'm willing to pay $30 to upgrade to the latest cutting-edge OS. I am not willing to pay $320 for a slightly better looking and performing regurgitation of the previous one.
Why do you keep comparing the MacOSX upgrade price to the Windows full price?
Not only that, but why are you constantly saying that MacOSX costs $30 to upgrade along its upgrade path? 10.6 is the first one to cost less than $99.
Windows is more expensive, sure, but there's no need to be so dishonest about making your point.
I paid $49 for my upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium straight from Microsoft.com.
This is seriously Microsoft's Windows 7 upgrade chart, and it's ridiculous. It manages to highlight the insanity of shipping multiple OS versions while totally minimizing the good news: most Vista users will be able to upgrade in place to the corresponding 32- or 64-bit version of 7. That should cover the vast majority of people running Vista, but if you're still on XP or you're trying to do anything out of the ordinary you'd better get ready for some pain: all those ominous blue boxes require you to back up, wipe your drive, and reinstall a totally clean copy of 7. You heard that right -- the Windows 7 installer won't even try to retain your data and programs if you're not updating from the corresponding version of Vista. Pretty lame move, considering Microsoft is currently selling millions of copies of XP on netbooks and will sell XP downgrades until 2011 -- sure, we get that most netbook owners aren't going to spring for 7, but it's insane that you can't just pop in a disc and upgrade.
Comments
Mac OSX Server
Clever. I doubt Windows 7 Ultimate contains all the features Windows Sever 2008 has. I'm talking about consumer level operating systems, here.
I doubt Windows 7 Ultimate contains all the features Windows Sever 2008 has.
It doesn't, but no one on here claimed anything else.
I'm talking about consumer level operating systems, here.
There are many features in MacOSX Server that "consumers" (whatever that distinction is supposed to mean) would find very useful.
It doesn't, but no one on here claimed anything else.
There are many features in MacOSX Server that "consumers" (whatever that distinction is supposed to mean) would find very useful.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But I wasn't talking about server operating systems.
MIKKR0$$$HAFT WINBL0WZ
Why is the distinction between "server" and "consumer" operating systems any more legitimate than the distinction between "ultimate" and "home" operating systems?
MIKKR0$$$HAFT WINBL0WZ
Server operating systems are designed to run on servers and marketed accordingly. Sure, if you must have Windows Server 2008 on your Dell Inspiron laptop, nobody's stopping you.
It's quite a stretch to equate the difference between OS X Server and OS X with the difference between Windows Ultimate and Windows Home Premium, IMO.
Server operating systems are designed to run on servers and marketed accordingly.
Servers are the same as any other computer. Their configuration might be slightly different, but that has nothing at all to do with any software they might run.
It's quite a stretch to equate the difference between OS X Server and OS X with the difference between Windows Ultimate and Windows Home Premium, IMO.
Why? The distinction is between feature sets. They will run on the same hardware.
Apple offers two levels of feature sets, both at different price points.
Microsoft offers at least six levels of feature sets, all at different price points.
To argue that Microsoft is doing something that Apple isn't is silly considering the range of hardware that Microsoft supports.
Could Microsoft make it simpler? Yes. But it's not like keeping track of the two Windows 7 versions you'll find in retail stores is going to be hard. It's a bunch of overblown drama and fanboy FUD.
Servers are the same as any other computer. Their configuration might be slightly different, but that has nothing at all to do with any software they might run.
Why? The distinction is between feature sets. They will run on the same hardware.
Apple offers two levels of feature sets, both at different price points.
Microsoft offers at least six levels of feature sets, all at different price points.
To argue that Microsoft is doing something that Apple isn't is silly considering the range of hardware that Microsoft supports.
Could Microsoft make it simpler? Yes. But it's not like keeping track of the two Windows 7 versions you'll find in retail stores is going to be hard. It's a bunch of overblown drama and fanboy FUD.
Opinion noted.
I don't care what runs on what. I'm talking about overall value for the money.
If I'm not going to fork out $320 for Win 7 Ultimate, I'm probably not going to spend $499 on Mac OS X Server.
Even Microsoft realized the stupidity of having so many different "editions" of the same OS. They've consolidated things a bit with Win 7.
As I've already stated, if Mac OS X (the one that comes standard with Macs) offers me features equivalent to those of Windows 7 Ultimate with a cheaper upgrade path for future versions, that alone to me is worth the purchase price of a Mac.
Server operating systems - to me - are on an entirely different level.
If I'm not going to fork out $320 for Win 7 Ultimate, I'm probably not going to spend $499 on Mac OS X Server.
I'm not going to buy a Mont Blanc pen or a Chevy Aveo, I guess it's stupid of them to make them.
As I've already stated, if Mac OS X (the one that comes standard with Macs) offers me features equivalent to those of Windows 7 Ultimate with a cheaper upgrade path for future versions, that alone to me is worth the purchase price of a Mac.
If the price of upgrades was your criteria then you would use Linux.
Server operating systems - to me - are on an entirely different level.
The distinction between "consumer" and "server" is no more credible than the distinction between "grandma user" and "power user". My mother doesn't need half the stuff that comes pre-installed with Leopard, but her Mac mini carries it all, anyway. Maybe Apple should offer her a MacOSX Lite for $10, eh? (She really could use "More reliable disk eject.", though.)
I'm not going to buy a Mont Blanc pen or a Chevy Aveo, I guess it's stupid of them to make them.
Good for you.
If the price of upgrades was your criteria then you would use Linux.
Price is definitely a factor. I'm willing to pay $30 to upgrade to the latest cutting-edge OS. I am not willing to pay $320 for a slightly better looking and performing regurgitation of the previous one.
The distinction between "consumer" and "server" is no more credible than the distinction between "grandma user" and "power user". My mother doesn't need half the stuff that comes pre-installed with Leopard, but her Mac mini carries it all, anyway. Maybe Apple should offer her a MacOSX Lite for $10, eh? (She really could use "More reliable disk eject.", though.)
I recommend fish. Lots of fish.
Price is definitely a factor. I'm willing to pay $30 to upgrade to the latest cutting-edge OS. I am not willing to pay $320 for a slightly better looking and performing regurgitation of the previous one.
Why do you keep comparing the MacOSX upgrade price to the Windows full price?
Not only that, but why are you constantly saying that MacOSX costs $30 to upgrade along its upgrade path? 10.6 is the first one to cost less than $99.
Windows is more expensive, sure, but there's no need to be so dishonest about making your point.
I paid $49 for my upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium straight from Microsoft.com.
It's $120 for the upgrade now, though.
Why do you keep comparing the MacOSX upgrade price to the Windows full price?
Not only that, but why are you constantly saying that MacOSX costs $30 to upgrade along its upgrade path? 10.6 is the first one to cost less than $99.
Windows is more expensive, sure, but there's no need to be so dishonest about making your point.
I paid $49 for my upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium straight from Microsoft.com.
It's $120 for the upgrade now, though.
Perhaps it is because my own situation, preferences, tastes, etc. are different from yours.
I'm being completely honest about my opinion.
This is seriously Microsoft's Windows 7 upgrade chart, and it's ridiculous. It manages to highlight the insanity of shipping multiple OS versions while totally minimizing the good news: most Vista users will be able to upgrade in place to the corresponding 32- or 64-bit version of 7. That should cover the vast majority of people running Vista, but if you're still on XP or you're trying to do anything out of the ordinary you'd better get ready for some pain: all those ominous blue boxes require you to back up, wipe your drive, and reinstall a totally clean copy of 7. You heard that right -- the Windows 7 installer won't even try to retain your data and programs if you're not updating from the corresponding version of Vista. Pretty lame move, considering Microsoft is currently selling millions of copies of XP on netbooks and will sell XP downgrades until 2011 -- sure, we get that most netbook owners aren't going to spring for 7, but it's insane that you can't just pop in a disc and upgrade.
Yesterday I was fortunate enough to obtain legal copies and keys for the following, free of charge:
Windows 7 Ultimate RTM (32-bit and 64-bit)
Windows Vista Utimate (32-bit and 64-bit)
Windows XP Pro (32-bit)
Office 2007 Ultimate
Office 2003 Professional
I'm still set on buying a Mac, though.