why is apple operating system so much cheaper than micro$ofts. i like it but am just curious becasue i may not be able to wait till leopard to come on to buy a mac and hope it is as cheap as the others.
Yeah, Microsoft puts a lot of hard work into making the garbage that is Windows. They also know that with 90-some percent of the PC market they can charge what they want and people will pretty much have to pay it.
Apple, on the other hand, knows they can't charge too much or else the Mac's market share ain't going to climb. It's probably good that Windows is more expensive: That gives the consumer one more reason to switch to a Mac.
A friend who has all but switched (she's waiting for the right bundle to be advertised to go buy it) was downright amazed when I started telling her about the things that come for free that she never imagined. All of iLife, for instance, and being able to make PDFs anywhere *for free* just blew her mind. She finally decided that the price of a Mac wasn't much higher than a Windows machine, really, it was just all at once instead of making you run around and do it piecemeal and hope you got it all installed right.
But yes, the OS upgrades are cheaper. OTOH, you have one a year instead of one every five years. Some choose to see that as being more expensive in the long run on the Mac... but since no one forces you to upgrade, I prefer to see it as opportunities to upgrade to significant new features on a regular basis, instead of waiting half a decade for the next big jump.
why is apple operating system so much cheaper than micro$ofts. i like it but am just curious becasue i may not be able to wait till leopard to come on to buy a mac and hope it is as cheap as the others.
No one yet has mentioned that most of Mac OS X is free, a variant of BSD Unix. Apple has less development time than Microsoft. Also, Mac OS X does not have to work with everybody's odd ball PC configuration. Smaller platform base to install it on. These things help keep cost down.
No one yet has mentioned that most of Mac OS X is free, a variant of BSD Unix. Apple has less development time than Microsoft. Also, Mac OS X does not have to work with everybody's odd ball PC configuration. Smaller platform base to install it on. These things help keep cost down.
If you think that most of Mac OS X is BSD, then you don't understand OS X's architecture.
If you think that most of Mac OS X is BSD, then you don't understand OS X's architecture.
Really? You mean that the Aqua GUI is over 50 percent? I would have guess maybe a third or so at the most. I'm not playing down how much Apple does in OS X, but every bit helps, and having it open source I'm sure Apple gets help that is not available to MS. Of course there are all the core services. I would guess that most of that is Apple's doing, whether or not it is a part of Aqua.
You are correct that I do not know OS X's architecture.
Really? You mean that the Aqua GUI is over 50 percent? I would have guess maybe a third or so at the most. I'm not playing down how much Apple does in OS X, but every bit helps, and having it open source I'm sure Apple gets help that is not available to MS. Of course there are all the core services. I would guess that most of that is Apple's doing, whether or not it is a part of Aqua.
You are correct that I do not know OS X's architecture.
1) Earlier Mac OS X versions (up until 10.2 or 10.3, not sure) let you omit installing the BSD subsystem altogether. You still had some BSD components in the kernel and some other places, but there was very, very little BSD-specific stuff in Mac OS X. This option is no longer there, but its former existence is quite telling.
2) Virtually all applications you interact with in the GUI don't use the BSD subsystem at all.
3) A lot of the userland is from GNU, not BSD. Moreover, you can easily replace even more of the userland with GNU stuff.
The point being: Mac OS X's overall architecture hardly relies on BSD at all.
The point being: Mac OS X's overall architecture hardly relies on BSD at all.
You may know what you are talking about, but I thought Aqua was a GUI that called standard BSD commands. When BSD was left out, I thought that it was the shell we didn't get, so we could not run command line BSD. I do some shell stuff, not much. I'm going to ask my oldest son. He is a Mac developer. Not that I don't trust you, it's just that I don't trust anyone I don't know personally.
You may know what you are talking about, but I thought Aqua was a GUI that called standard BSD commands.
Nah, most of the implementation of Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon, etc. doesn't use the shell.
Quote:
When BSD was left out, I thought that it was the shell we didn't get, so we could not run command line BSD.
The standard shell in Mac OS X is bash, which is actually GNU, not BSD. However, many of the default-supplied utils such as 'ls' are BSD (but you can replace them).
It's a silly argument in any case. Mac OS X is all about being the sum of its parts. It's not any component in particular that makes it special; it's the particular combination Apple picked. The only reason I brought this up is that you seemed to imply that OS X is cheap because much of it comes from BSD; much of what makes OS X OS X is actually Apple's/NeXT's own stuff.
The standard shell in Mac OS X is bash, which is actually GNU, not BSD.
That is one thing I knew.
Quote:
It's a silly argument in any case. Mac OS X is all about being the sum of its parts.
I'm not arguing about it. I don't know enough for that. I'm interesting in learning a little more, since I thought I knew a few thing but now it seems I didn't.
Quote:
The only reason I brought this up is that you seemed to imply that OS X is cheap because much of it comes from BSD; much of what makes OS X OS X is actually Apple's/NeXT's own stuff.
I'll bet it still costs less to maintain than the classic Mac OS and Windows. It may cost more to improve to the next level, however, just because Apple adds so much too it in each upgrade. No doubt the Darwin BSD has evolved and improved with each upgrade too. I'll chat with my son to see what his views are. It may not happen for a while; he's a busy fellow these days.
why is apple operating system so much cheaper than micro$ofts.
Because when you run OSX, you run it on a computer purchased from Apple. Microsoft, on the other hand doesn't build computers, so unlike Apple, they ONLY get money for their software.
why is apple operating system so much cheaper than micro$ofts. i like it but am just curious becasue i may not be able to wait till leopard to come on to buy a mac and hope it is as cheap as the others.
I think very likely Leopard will be released for $129 USD. That is, same price as Tiger.
I'm guessing it's actually going to be a bit more expensive than $129. If Leopard is more than just your ordinary "upgrade," that is-- and that's how Steve has presented it. Or, suggested, at least.
I don't remember if it was here, but someone suggested that iLife is going to be integrated into the OS, kind of like M$ seems to be doing with Vista. Either way, I can't wait until it's out.
Comments
But the real cost in MS's OS is that it's shit. So you're paying for shit, which is never a good idea unless you're trying to grow plants.
Apple, on the other hand, knows they can't charge too much or else the Mac's market share ain't going to climb. It's probably good that Windows is more expensive: That gives the consumer one more reason to switch to a Mac.
But yes, the OS upgrades are cheaper. OTOH, you have one a year instead of one every five years. Some choose to see that as being more expensive in the long run on the Mac... but since no one forces you to upgrade, I prefer to see it as opportunities to upgrade to significant new features on a regular basis, instead of waiting half a decade for the next big jump.
why is apple operating system so much cheaper than micro$ofts.
Because toys are always cheaper than things used for real work.
why is apple operating system so much cheaper than micro$ofts. i like it but am just curious becasue i may not be able to wait till leopard to come on to buy a mac and hope it is as cheap as the others.
No one yet has mentioned that most of Mac OS X is free, a variant of BSD Unix. Apple has less development time than Microsoft. Also, Mac OS X does not have to work with everybody's odd ball PC configuration. Smaller platform base to install it on. These things help keep cost down.
No one yet has mentioned that most of Mac OS X is free, a variant of BSD Unix. Apple has less development time than Microsoft. Also, Mac OS X does not have to work with everybody's odd ball PC configuration. Smaller platform base to install it on. These things help keep cost down.
If you think that most of Mac OS X is BSD, then you don't understand OS X's architecture.
If you think that most of Mac OS X is BSD, then you don't understand OS X's architecture.
Really?
You are correct that I do not know OS X's architecture.
MS doesn't really have that much work to do either. After all, they already did most of the work when they came out with DOS
I like that.
Really?
You are correct that I do not know OS X's architecture.
1) Earlier Mac OS X versions (up until 10.2 or 10.3, not sure) let you omit installing the BSD subsystem altogether. You still had some BSD components in the kernel and some other places, but there was very, very little BSD-specific stuff in Mac OS X. This option is no longer there, but its former existence is quite telling.
2) Virtually all applications you interact with in the GUI don't use the BSD subsystem at all.
3) A lot of the userland is from GNU, not BSD. Moreover, you can easily replace even more of the userland with GNU stuff.
The point being: Mac OS X's overall architecture hardly relies on BSD at all.
1)
The point being: Mac OS X's overall architecture hardly relies on BSD at all.
You may know what you are talking about, but I thought Aqua was a GUI that called standard BSD commands. When BSD was left out, I thought that it was the shell we didn't get, so we could not run command line BSD. I do some shell stuff, not much. I'm going to ask my oldest son. He is a Mac developer. Not that I don't trust you, it's just that I don't trust anyone I don't know personally.
... Not that I don't trust you, it's just that I don't trust anyone I don't know personally.
So if I meet you in person will you give me your bank account and social security numbers?
You may know what you are talking about, but I thought Aqua was a GUI that called standard BSD commands.
Nah, most of the implementation of Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon, etc. doesn't use the shell.
When BSD was left out, I thought that it was the shell we didn't get, so we could not run command line BSD.
The standard shell in Mac OS X is bash, which is actually GNU, not BSD. However, many of the default-supplied utils such as 'ls' are BSD (but you can replace them).
It's a silly argument in any case. Mac OS X is all about being the sum of its parts. It's not any component in particular that makes it special; it's the particular combination Apple picked. The only reason I brought this up is that you seemed to imply that OS X is cheap because much of it comes from BSD; much of what makes OS X OS X is actually Apple's/NeXT's own stuff.
The standard shell in Mac OS X is bash, which is actually GNU, not BSD.
That is one thing I knew.
It's a silly argument in any case. Mac OS X is all about being the sum of its parts.
I'm not arguing about it. I don't know enough for that. I'm interesting in learning a little more, since I thought I knew a few thing but now it seems I didn't.
The only reason I brought this up is that you seemed to imply that OS X is cheap because much of it comes from BSD; much of what makes OS X OS X is actually Apple's/NeXT's own stuff.
I'll bet it still costs less to maintain than the classic Mac OS and Windows. It may cost more to improve to the next level, however, just because Apple adds so much too it in each upgrade. No doubt the Darwin BSD has evolved and improved with each upgrade too. I'll chat with my son to see what his views are. It may not happen for a while; he's a busy fellow these days.
I'm interesting in learning a little more, since I thought I knew a few thing but now it seems I didn't.
Nah, I just think a broad statement like "most of Mac OS X is free, a variant of BSD Unix" is misleading.
I'll bet it still costs less to maintain than the classic Mac OS and Windows.
Perhaps, but that's probably more because Apple does a good job abstracting the various layers.
No doubt the Darwin BSD has evolved and improved with each upgrade too.
Yes, an awful lot.
why is apple operating system so much cheaper than micro$ofts.
Because when you run OSX, you run it on a computer purchased from Apple. Microsoft, on the other hand doesn't build computers, so unlike Apple, they ONLY get money for their software.
Because they update it much more frequently.
But the real cost in MS's OS is that it's shit.
Ehh hsh shhahahahh ah haha ahahh Good One.
So you're paying for shit, which is never a good idea unless you're trying to grow plants.
Actually, mushrooms. Feed em' shit and keep em' in the dark. Microsoft's standard operating policy.
...OTOH, you have one a year instead of one every five years...
More like 1.5 years for 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 I reckon...
why is apple operating system so much cheaper than micro$ofts. i like it but am just curious becasue i may not be able to wait till leopard to come on to buy a mac and hope it is as cheap as the others.
I think very likely Leopard will be released for $129 USD.
I don't remember if it was here, but someone suggested that iLife is going to be integrated into the OS, kind of like M$ seems to be doing with Vista. Either way, I can't wait until it's out.