Reading the article I'm wondering what will happen to the poor schmuck who buy a "Vista Upgrade" when he'll need to reinstall his PC after a crash ?
If he needs to install his previous OS before being able to perform the upgrade and his previous license was revoked how is he supposed to do that ?
Buy a new PC to get Vista along ? Buy a new full-fledged license of Vista ? Or hope that his license key was not really marked as revoked by Microsoft to allow him to re-install his previous OS... better clone your OS right after installation just to be sure...
Good thinking Microsoft... continue this way to make life "easier" on the average PC Joe.
Hmm, and let's see, how many features can they copy off of Apple...
1) Windows Sidebar - Can anyone say widgets? But no, Microsoft has to appear all original and call them "gadgets." Worst of all, you can't hide them, they just remain on your desktop taking up space. Already have these shut down, because honestly I don't want to see them when I'm not using or referencing them.
Konfabulator had widgets before Apple, so this entry isn't even viable to say that Microsoft copied Apple, because you'd have to acknowledge that Apple copied most of Konfabulator's ideas with a tweak or two to make Dashboard. Microsoft's Gadget lineage looks to be more like it's directly from Konfabulator.
Konfabulator had widgets before Apple, so this entry isn't even viable to say that Microsoft copied Apple, because you'd have to acknowledge that Apple copied most of Konfabulator's ideas with a tweak or two to make Dashboard. Microsoft's Gadget lineage looks to be more like it's directly from Konfabulator.
Go buy a copy of OSX and Apple will tell you that it can only be installed on Apple hardware. What's the difference.
That's not too different from PCs. If you buy a Dell, and want to build your own, don't expect that OEM copy to load onto your home build, either. Or on your old HP. Everybody does that. You buy the OS/hardware combo, expect to have to use them together, period.
Face it, Apple makes their own hardware, Nobody else does that in the industry. Of course, if the OEMs weren't locked into exclusivity contracts with M$, that would be different. And don't think the others wouldn't do it if they were selling their own distros of Linux, for instance. You bet they would. A company has the right to decide how they will sell their products and how they will be used together. And Apple doesn't want you to buy a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X and load it on a Dell. Not only would that kill a sale of a Mac, but the very idea means they would have the same nightmare of supporting every crap POS box anybody out there sells, and the drivers as well. Ain't gonna happen.
You comparing a full version to a OEM version, that is sold for a fraction of the price. That's why it has the "1 motherboard" restriction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens
That's not too different from PCs. If you buy a Dell, and want to build your own, don't expect that OEM copy to load onto your home build, either. Or on your old HP. Everybody does that. You buy the OS/hardware combo, expect to have to use them together, period.
Face it, Apple makes their own hardware, Nobody else does that in the industry. Of course, if the OEMs weren't locked into exclusivity contracts with M$, that would be different. And don't think the others wouldn't do it if they were selling their own distros of Linux, for instance. You bet they would. A company has the right to decide how they will sell their products and how they will be used together. And Apple doesn't want you to buy a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X and load it on a Dell. Not only would that kill a sale of a Mac, but the very idea means they would have the same nightmare of supporting every crap POS box anybody out there sells, and the drivers as well. Ain't gonna happen.
The point i was countering was that the poster said (paraphrase), "if i pay for the OS, I should be able to do what I please with it". I was just letting him know that it's not like that with Apple either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens
That's not too different from PCs. If you buy a Dell, and want to build your own, don't expect that OEM copy to load onto your home build, either. Or on your old HP. Everybody does that. You buy the OS/hardware combo, expect to have to use them together, period.
Face it, Apple makes their own hardware, Nobody else does that in the industry. Of course, if the OEMs weren't locked into exclusivity contracts with M$, that would be different. And don't think the others wouldn't do it if they were selling their own distros of Linux, for instance. You bet they would. A company has the right to decide how they will sell their products and how they will be used together. And Apple doesn't want you to buy a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X and load it on a Dell. Not only would that kill a sale of a Mac, but the very idea means they would have the same nightmare of supporting every crap POS box anybody out there sells, and the drivers as well. Ain't gonna happen.
Is this really true? Perhaps there are just a few areas that only the latest Macs will work with? Does anyone know what aspects won't work with pre 2004 Macs?
I would assume that some features (like all the eye candy that requires CoreImage and CoreAnimation) will not work on underpowered video cards. If you have a PowerMac G4, you can probably upgrade to a Radeon 9800 to get these features. If you have a laptop or an iMac, you'll be out of luck.
But this is just an extension of the situation today. Right now, some things (like the ripple effect in Dashboard) doesn't work if your video card doesn't support CoreImage. I expect more of the same in Leopard, but I don't expect these problems to be more than cosmetic.
One issue that I find interesting is all of the different versions of Windows products. I am talking about the 5 flavors of Vista that are shipping. I must admit that I just swtiched to Mac's a year ago and yet when I look at OS X, I see one version for non-server use. That makes things a lot more simple.
Also, the pricing seems way out of wack. When I can buy an upgrade of OS X for around $100 street and the Windows upgrades range from $90 - $260. I mean $260 to upgrade, seems steep.
To stay current with OS X, you spend that $100 every 12 - 24 months. You don't have to upgrade though. Still, from a development standpoint, I'd rather have an OS update every 3-5 years. Tiger is nice but I only use a very tiny number of the improvements they made over the previous version, but it caused a lot of compatibility problems so software had to be updated for it. Most of the features were oversold.
Microsoft continues to be worst at marketing? There is a reason why Apple was almost gone... They did a little better at first... Part of their marketing strategy was to open up development.
Now, I think they suck at it.
You appear to be somewhat new here - welcome! As far as supporting development on the Mac, Apple is terrific! When you join ADC, you get all sorts of developer resources, including a development environment (Xcode), SDKs, how-to's, videos, and a whole lot more. If you are meaning the iPhone and iPod, I woiuld counsel patience before slamming Apple.
Like Chucker said, Apple has a deliberate policy of constantly moving the ball forwards. As hardware gets older, you can expect the newer OSes to eventually leave you behind. Of course, that usually takes quite a bit of time.
My daughter is using an old iMac from 97, I think it was, that is running Tiger last I checked. Of course, much of the graphics is stunted as compared to my newer G4 tower, but I also expect that G4 to run Leopard, altho not with some of the new Intel-linked features. I also expect my new MacBook to not only run Leopard at full featured goodness (except for 802.11n, of course), but also run at least the first two versions of the next release after Leopard if not more.
That is the price of progress. If you are willing to keep running the older OS and software, they'll stay running for years. An old Performa 6200Cd I bought in the early 90's is still running (on OS 9.2.2), has an ethernet card I installed and surfs the web nicely. Slow as a bitch, but not too shabby. Sold it to a friend of another daughter, and he uses it mainly to play some older games he loves. But it is still useful!
The way Apple does it, I may have to factor in planned obsolescence, but I have, in exchange, a stable operating system that runs without those pesky legacy issues, and gets new features based upon new technology much quicker!
My iMac is still running Panther. I paid for that upgrade because Expose was something that I felt would make my daily task easier, which it did. I didn't upgrade to Tiger though, because I didn't see any use of the "200" new features that was added to Tiger.
I like the 3-5 year update model too. It's hard for me to believe that you can release a "revolutionary" OS every 12 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
To stay current with OS X, you spend that $100 every 12 - 24 months. You don't have to upgrade though. Still, from a development standpoint, I'd rather have an OS update every 3-5 years. Tiger is nice but I only use a very tiny number of the improvements they made over the previous version, but it caused a lot of compatibility problems so software had to be updated for it. Most of the features were oversold.
I have Tiger on my MBP, but I don't see any mass improvements over Panther.
You are right. 965 (& future) chipsets from Intel can support beyond 4GB of RAM. I think the upcoming mobile platform from Intel (Santa Rosa) will also be capable of supporting beyond 4GB.
BTW, my first post. Hi to all of you
Won't matter that much for awhile though, right? You'd need both a 64-bit OS and 64-bit applications to address/use any memory beyond 4GB? Or am I mistaken?
Oh, and welcome to the AI forums. Relatively nice place, all things considered. 8)
Safair 2 is faster than Safari 1, but how much of a rig do u need to have a updated web browser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens
Like Chucker said, Apple has a deliberate policy of constantly moving the ball forwards. As hardware gets older, you can expect the newer OSes to eventually leave you behind. Of course, that usually takes quite a bit of time.
My daughter is using an old iMac from 97, I think it was, that is running Tiger last I checked. Of course, much of the graphics is stunted as compared to my newer G4 tower, but I also expect that G4 to run Leopard, altho not with some of the new Intel-linked features. I also expect my new MacBook to not only run Leopard at full featured goodness (except for 802.11n, of course), but also run at least the first two versions of the next release after Leopard if not more.
That is the price of progress. If you are willing to keep running the older OS and software, they'll stay running for years. An old Performa 6200Cd I bought in the early 90's is still running (on OS 9.2.2), has an ethernet card I installed and surfs the web nicely. Slow as a bitch, but not too shabby. Sold it to a friend of another daughter, and he uses it mainly to play some older games he loves. But it is still useful!
The way Apple does it, I may have to factor in planned obsolescence, but I have, in exchange, a stable operating system that runs without those pesky legacy issues, and gets new features based upon new technology much quicker!
well i use Camino and Firefox now, so it really doesn't matter.
There's 9 version of Vista, if you count 32bit and 64bit it 17 versions.
maybe 2 version of Leopord, Power PC or Intel
If you are counting that, then there may be four versions of the OS, PPC32, PPC64, x86 and x86-64.
Quote:
Originally Posted by >_>
Universal Binary.
We don't know how the thing will ship. I would hope it ships all in one package, but it might need multiple DVDs to hold four binaries of many programs. Apple does break down some of their updates for PPC/Intel, so as to not have to transfer a lot of files that your system won't run.
To stay current with OS X, you spend that $100 every 12 - 24 months. You don't have to upgrade though. Still, from a development standpoint, I'd rather have an OS update every 3-5 years. Tiger is nice but I only use a very tiny number of the improvements they made over the previous version, but it caused a lot of compatibility problems so software had to be updated for it. Most of the features were oversold.
JeffDM - I'm a developer (for a loooonnnnnnnnggggggg time - don't ask!), and the big bang approach to upgrades just doesn't work. Just think of the work we developers would all go through if we were moving from 10.1 to 10.5. There are so many changes that would have to be tested!! Think how long the beta period would be. Also - would Apple even exist if 10.1 was still the OS version?
We have the challenge to make the OS updates actually generate sales for us, as opposed to being a drain of resources for making our SW compatible.
Most consumers may not care about Vista; nevertheless, aside from enthusiasts and pros, most Mac users tended not to care about Mac OS X and or it's various major updates. Most consumers adopt a new OS when they're forced to. Be it a bundle with a new computer, or a system requirement for a software package.
I don't think that was really true with OS X, at least not in the early days. Because 10.0 was SLOW, let's face it, and every point release brought the speed up significantly. Tiger is much faster than 'OS X early days'.
By Panther, even, it was pretty much a non-issue, and I was very happy with my much-more-secure-than-Windows, fairly snappy OS. But before that, you're darn tootin' I ran out and immediately got every upgrade upon release.
Go back and try to use 10.0 after using Tiger... it will make your fillings hurt.
For those who are (foolishly) considering a Vista upgrade, take note of the footnotes from Microsoft's Vista pages.
Specifically, note items D and M.
The home editions can't:
Join a domain (which means no telecommuting for many of us)
Use the "Fax and Scan" facility
Use the encrypting file system
And the Business edition has no media features, including
TV tuners
DVD burning
Connectivity to an XBox
Games
So only the Ultimate edition will provide what a typical home power-user will require. This means $400 per computer ($260 if you can qualify for an upgrade edition). And no family pack licensing, so a home LAN of five computers will cost $1300-2000. And this doesn't count the probable need for hardware upgrades (probably requiring more memory and a new video card, possibly more.)
Compare this with $210 (or $300 for a 5-computer family pack) for Mac OS X and iLife.
umm most businesses don't want you watching tv, buring dvds, connecting to a xbox, or playing PC games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino
For those who are (foolishly) considering a Vista upgrade, take note of the footnotes from Microsoft's Vista pages.
Specifically, note items D and M.
The home editions can't:
Join a domain (which means no telecommuting for many of us)
Use the "Fax and Scan" facility
Use the encrypting file system
And the Business edition has no media features, including
TV tuners
DVD burning
Connectivity to an XBox
Games
So only the Ultimate edition will provide what a typical home power-user will require. This means $400 per computer ($260 if you can qualify for an upgrade edition). And no family pack licensing, so a home LAN of five computers will cost $1300-2000. And this doesn't count the probable need for hardware upgrades (probably requiring more memory and a new video card, possibly more.)
Compare this with $210 (or $300 for a 5-computer family pack) for Mac OS X and iLife.
JeffDM - I'm a developer (for a loooonnnnnnnnggggggg time - don't ask!), and the big bang approach to upgrades just doesn't work. Just think of the work we developers would all go through if we were moving from 10.1 to 10.5. There are so many changes that would have to be tested!! Think how long the beta period would be. Also - would Apple even exist if 10.1 was still the OS version?
The impression that I got was that 10.0 to 10.2 were fairly rough, beta-like. 10.3 seems fine to me. 10.4 was mostly unnecessary and caused problems that I don't think should have caused.
Won't matter that much for awhile though, right? You'd need both a 64-bit OS and 64-bit applications to address/use any memory beyond 4GB? Or am I mistaken?
You will need some amount of 64-bit capability in the OS to support more than 4GB of physical RAM.
You can take advantage of this with 32-bit apps, as long as no single app needs more than 4GB for itself. If a single app needs more than 4GB, then that app will have to be 64-bit.
Comments
for those who would need to reinstall.
Reading the article I'm wondering what will happen to the poor schmuck who buy a "Vista Upgrade" when he'll need to reinstall his PC after a crash ?
If he needs to install his previous OS before being able to perform the upgrade and his previous license was revoked how is he supposed to do that ?
Buy a new PC to get Vista along ? Buy a new full-fledged license of Vista ? Or hope that his license key was not really marked as revoked by Microsoft to allow him to re-install his previous OS... better clone your OS right after installation just to be sure...
Good thinking Microsoft... continue this way to make life "easier" on the average PC Joe.
Hmm, and let's see, how many features can they copy off of Apple...
1) Windows Sidebar - Can anyone say widgets? But no, Microsoft has to appear all original and call them "gadgets." Worst of all, you can't hide them, they just remain on your desktop taking up space. Already have these shut down, because honestly I don't want to see them when I'm not using or referencing them.
Konfabulator had widgets before Apple, so this entry isn't even viable to say that Microsoft copied Apple, because you'd have to acknowledge that Apple copied most of Konfabulator's ideas with a tweak or two to make Dashboard. Microsoft's Gadget lineage looks to be more like it's directly from Konfabulator.
Konfabulator had widgets before Apple, so this entry isn't even viable to say that Microsoft copied Apple, because you'd have to acknowledge that Apple copied most of Konfabulator's ideas with a tweak or two to make Dashboard. Microsoft's Gadget lineage looks to be more like it's directly from Konfabulator.
Go buy a copy of OSX and Apple will tell you that it can only be installed on Apple hardware. What's the difference.
That's not too different from PCs. If you buy a Dell, and want to build your own, don't expect that OEM copy to load onto your home build, either. Or on your old HP. Everybody does that. You buy the OS/hardware combo, expect to have to use them together, period.
Face it, Apple makes their own hardware, Nobody else does that in the industry. Of course, if the OEMs weren't locked into exclusivity contracts with M$, that would be different. And don't think the others wouldn't do it if they were selling their own distros of Linux, for instance. You bet they would. A company has the right to decide how they will sell their products and how they will be used together. And Apple doesn't want you to buy a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X and load it on a Dell. Not only would that kill a sale of a Mac, but the very idea means they would have the same nightmare of supporting every crap POS box anybody out there sells, and the drivers as well. Ain't gonna happen.
That's not too different from PCs. If you buy a Dell, and want to build your own, don't expect that OEM copy to load onto your home build, either. Or on your old HP. Everybody does that. You buy the OS/hardware combo, expect to have to use them together, period.
Face it, Apple makes their own hardware, Nobody else does that in the industry. Of course, if the OEMs weren't locked into exclusivity contracts with M$, that would be different. And don't think the others wouldn't do it if they were selling their own distros of Linux, for instance. You bet they would. A company has the right to decide how they will sell their products and how they will be used together. And Apple doesn't want you to buy a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X and load it on a Dell. Not only would that kill a sale of a Mac, but the very idea means they would have the same nightmare of supporting every crap POS box anybody out there sells, and the drivers as well. Ain't gonna happen.
That's not too different from PCs. If you buy a Dell, and want to build your own, don't expect that OEM copy to load onto your home build, either. Or on your old HP. Everybody does that. You buy the OS/hardware combo, expect to have to use them together, period.
Face it, Apple makes their own hardware, Nobody else does that in the industry. Of course, if the OEMs weren't locked into exclusivity contracts with M$, that would be different. And don't think the others wouldn't do it if they were selling their own distros of Linux, for instance. You bet they would. A company has the right to decide how they will sell their products and how they will be used together. And Apple doesn't want you to buy a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X and load it on a Dell. Not only would that kill a sale of a Mac, but the very idea means they would have the same nightmare of supporting every crap POS box anybody out there sells, and the drivers as well. Ain't gonna happen.
Is this really true? Perhaps there are just a few areas that only the latest Macs will work with? Does anyone know what aspects won't work with pre 2004 Macs?
I would assume that some features (like all the eye candy that requires CoreImage and CoreAnimation) will not work on underpowered video cards. If you have a PowerMac G4, you can probably upgrade to a Radeon 9800 to get these features. If you have a laptop or an iMac, you'll be out of luck.
But this is just an extension of the situation today. Right now, some things (like the ripple effect in Dashboard) doesn't work if your video card doesn't support CoreImage. I expect more of the same in Leopard, but I don't expect these problems to be more than cosmetic.
One issue that I find interesting is all of the different versions of Windows products. I am talking about the 5 flavors of Vista that are shipping. I must admit that I just swtiched to Mac's a year ago and yet when I look at OS X, I see one version for non-server use. That makes things a lot more simple.
Also, the pricing seems way out of wack. When I can buy an upgrade of OS X for around $100 street and the Windows upgrades range from $90 - $260. I mean $260 to upgrade, seems steep.
To stay current with OS X, you spend that $100 every 12 - 24 months. You don't have to upgrade though. Still, from a development standpoint, I'd rather have an OS update every 3-5 years. Tiger is nice but I only use a very tiny number of the improvements they made over the previous version, but it caused a lot of compatibility problems so software had to be updated for it. Most of the features were oversold.
Microsoft continues to be worst at marketing? There is a reason why Apple was almost gone... They did a little better at first... Part of their marketing strategy was to open up development.
Now, I think they suck at it.
You appear to be somewhat new here - welcome! As far as supporting development on the Mac, Apple is terrific! When you join ADC, you get all sorts of developer resources, including a development environment (Xcode), SDKs, how-to's, videos, and a whole lot more. If you are meaning the iPhone and iPod, I woiuld counsel patience before slamming Apple.
You can't even load Safai 2 on Panther.
Like Chucker said, Apple has a deliberate policy of constantly moving the ball forwards. As hardware gets older, you can expect the newer OSes to eventually leave you behind. Of course, that usually takes quite a bit of time.
My daughter is using an old iMac from 97, I think it was, that is running Tiger last I checked. Of course, much of the graphics is stunted as compared to my newer G4 tower, but I also expect that G4 to run Leopard, altho not with some of the new Intel-linked features. I also expect my new MacBook to not only run Leopard at full featured goodness (except for 802.11n, of course), but also run at least the first two versions of the next release after Leopard if not more.
That is the price of progress. If you are willing to keep running the older OS and software, they'll stay running for years. An old Performa 6200Cd I bought in the early 90's is still running (on OS 9.2.2), has an ethernet card I installed and surfs the web nicely. Slow as a bitch, but not too shabby. Sold it to a friend of another daughter, and he uses it mainly to play some older games he loves. But it is still useful!
The way Apple does it, I may have to factor in planned obsolescence, but I have, in exchange, a stable operating system that runs without those pesky legacy issues, and gets new features based upon new technology much quicker!
I like the 3-5 year update model too. It's hard for me to believe that you can release a "revolutionary" OS every 12 months.
To stay current with OS X, you spend that $100 every 12 - 24 months. You don't have to upgrade though. Still, from a development standpoint, I'd rather have an OS update every 3-5 years. Tiger is nice but I only use a very tiny number of the improvements they made over the previous version, but it caused a lot of compatibility problems so software had to be updated for it. Most of the features were oversold.
I have Tiger on my MBP, but I don't see any mass improvements over Panther.
You are right. 965 (& future) chipsets from Intel can support beyond 4GB of RAM. I think the upcoming mobile platform from Intel (Santa Rosa) will also be capable of supporting beyond 4GB.
BTW, my first post. Hi to all of you
Won't matter that much for awhile though, right? You'd need both a 64-bit OS and 64-bit applications to address/use any memory beyond 4GB? Or am I mistaken?
Oh, and welcome to the AI forums. Relatively nice place, all things considered. 8)
.
Like Chucker said, Apple has a deliberate policy of constantly moving the ball forwards. As hardware gets older, you can expect the newer OSes to eventually leave you behind. Of course, that usually takes quite a bit of time.
My daughter is using an old iMac from 97, I think it was, that is running Tiger last I checked. Of course, much of the graphics is stunted as compared to my newer G4 tower, but I also expect that G4 to run Leopard, altho not with some of the new Intel-linked features. I also expect my new MacBook to not only run Leopard at full featured goodness (except for 802.11n, of course), but also run at least the first two versions of the next release after Leopard if not more.
That is the price of progress. If you are willing to keep running the older OS and software, they'll stay running for years. An old Performa 6200Cd I bought in the early 90's is still running (on OS 9.2.2), has an ethernet card I installed and surfs the web nicely. Slow as a bitch, but not too shabby. Sold it to a friend of another daughter, and he uses it mainly to play some older games he loves. But it is still useful!
The way Apple does it, I may have to factor in planned obsolescence, but I have, in exchange, a stable operating system that runs without those pesky legacy issues, and gets new features based upon new technology much quicker!
well i use Camino and Firefox now, so it really doesn't matter.
There's 9 version of Vista, if you count 32bit and 64bit it 17 versions.
maybe 2 version of Leopord, Power PC or Intel
If you are counting that, then there may be four versions of the OS, PPC32, PPC64, x86 and x86-64.
Universal Binary.
We don't know how the thing will ship. I would hope it ships all in one package, but it might need multiple DVDs to hold four binaries of many programs. Apple does break down some of their updates for PPC/Intel, so as to not have to transfer a lot of files that your system won't run.
To stay current with OS X, you spend that $100 every 12 - 24 months. You don't have to upgrade though. Still, from a development standpoint, I'd rather have an OS update every 3-5 years. Tiger is nice but I only use a very tiny number of the improvements they made over the previous version, but it caused a lot of compatibility problems so software had to be updated for it. Most of the features were oversold.
JeffDM - I'm a developer (for a loooonnnnnnnnggggggg time - don't ask!), and the big bang approach to upgrades just doesn't work. Just think of the work we developers would all go through if we were moving from 10.1 to 10.5. There are so many changes that would have to be tested!! Think how long the beta period would be. Also - would Apple even exist if 10.1 was still the OS version?
We have the challenge to make the OS updates actually generate sales for us, as opposed to being a drain of resources for making our SW compatible.
Most consumers may not care about Vista; nevertheless, aside from enthusiasts and pros, most Mac users tended not to care about Mac OS X and or it's various major updates. Most consumers adopt a new OS when they're forced to. Be it a bundle with a new computer, or a system requirement for a software package.
I don't think that was really true with OS X, at least not in the early days. Because 10.0 was SLOW, let's face it, and every point release brought the speed up significantly. Tiger is much faster than 'OS X early days'.
By Panther, even, it was pretty much a non-issue, and I was very happy with my much-more-secure-than-Windows, fairly snappy OS. But before that, you're darn tootin' I ran out and immediately got every upgrade upon release.
Go back and try to use 10.0 after using Tiger... it will make your fillings hurt.
.
Specifically, note items D and M.
The home editions can't:
- Join a domain (which means no telecommuting for many of us)
- Use the "Fax and Scan" facility
- Use the encrypting file system
And the Business edition has no media features, including- TV tuners
- DVD burning
- Connectivity to an XBox
- Games
So only the Ultimate edition will provide what a typical home power-user will require. This means $400 per computer ($260 if you can qualify for an upgrade edition). And no family pack licensing, so a home LAN of five computers will cost $1300-2000. And this doesn't count the probable need for hardware upgrades (probably requiring more memory and a new video card, possibly more.)Compare this with $210 (or $300 for a 5-computer family pack) for Mac OS X and iLife.
For those who are (foolishly) considering a Vista upgrade, take note of the footnotes from Microsoft's Vista pages.
Specifically, note items D and M.
The home editions can't:
- Join a domain (which means no telecommuting for many of us)
- Use the "Fax and Scan" facility
- Use the encrypting file system
And the Business edition has no media features, including- TV tuners
- DVD burning
- Connectivity to an XBox
- Games
So only the Ultimate edition will provide what a typical home power-user will require. This means $400 per computer ($260 if you can qualify for an upgrade edition). And no family pack licensing, so a home LAN of five computers will cost $1300-2000. And this doesn't count the probable need for hardware upgrades (probably requiring more memory and a new video card, possibly more.)Compare this with $210 (or $300 for a 5-computer family pack) for Mac OS X and iLife.
JeffDM - I'm a developer (for a loooonnnnnnnnggggggg time - don't ask!), and the big bang approach to upgrades just doesn't work. Just think of the work we developers would all go through if we were moving from 10.1 to 10.5. There are so many changes that would have to be tested!! Think how long the beta period would be. Also - would Apple even exist if 10.1 was still the OS version?
The impression that I got was that 10.0 to 10.2 were fairly rough, beta-like. 10.3 seems fine to me. 10.4 was mostly unnecessary and caused problems that I don't think should have caused.
Won't matter that much for awhile though, right? You'd need both a 64-bit OS and 64-bit applications to address/use any memory beyond 4GB? Or am I mistaken?
You will need some amount of 64-bit capability in the OS to support more than 4GB of physical RAM.
You can take advantage of this with 32-bit apps, as long as no single app needs more than 4GB for itself. If a single app needs more than 4GB, then that app will have to be 64-bit.