Downward pricing pressure? What downward pricing pressure? Windows is effectively free for most folks because they buy a whole new box every few years.
Very few folks pay $300 for Vista.
Don't think you are not paying for Windows when you buy a new computer with it installed!
There was a point where the cost of Windows was as much as the hardware. There are cases of people trying to return Windows unopened after buying a computer. It used to say "can be returned for refund if unopened." It did not go well for them, and some took legal action. I don't know about now - haven't bought a Windows machine in 5 years.
A few months ago, a Dell netbook with Windows XP was about $100 more than one with Ubuntu. That ain't my definition of free, son.
I have heard now it is about $15 an XP copy on a netbook. They are scared that users will get comfortable with Linux and hurt their market share! They seem to know they can't sell Windows on merit alone. This is definitely pricing pressure. It's hard to compete with free unless you are a lot better.
How will those of use with Leopard get the $30 update? Purchase at the local Apple Store (CD) or the online store (Download)? Anyone heard or have an idea? So much too take in here of late that I could have just overlooked the method.
I wish people would stop using odd abbreviations, what does MSFT mean?
Its an bad as bioloigy, with Sos and PDECGF...
I admit, I'm a Lurker on most forums, but this has got to be the most unintelligent post I've seen in quite some time, even with the Flames going back and forth.
MicroSoFT = MSFT = Microsoft Corp Stock Symbol = Abbreviation people have been using (including Microsoft) since the beginning of their corporation.
Just to show how long I've been around, I own (still own) a Microsoft Softcard. Anyone remember what product that was? Guaranteed it never blue screened
First: how you know that Snow Leopard will be cheaper than Windows 7? When you buy a new PC you will get a FREE upgrade to 7 soon. And even owners of old PCs can buy 7 and improve their system without buying new hardware. Snow Leopard only runs on the newest hardware (as you mentioned).
What's bad of delivering a free preview version of Windows 7 to customers? I smell envy here.
"Many" users got to downgrade to XP? Many? Where? This was only a very special deal for enterprise customers from some suppliers. And mostly only for netbooks. Show me a < $ 300 netbook that runs Leopard officially, please!
Apple is rewarding its loyal customers? What? Charging for every single major update even for features that should have been there since 10.0 like the innovative (!) Put Back button in the trash?
Why is it so difficult for the author to find proper arguments? There are a lot if you just try to think yourselve instead of repeating what Apple says on a marketing event.
Here are some more questions to ask: when will the Mac see great speech recognition, powerful handwriting recognition (not only for single Chinese characters), Blu-Ray support, full out-of-the-box TV viewing and recording or a resolution indepentend UI like Vista delivers for 2 years now?
I don't see the benefit of being uncritical to Apple.
Macs have speech recognition. I own a DVR, so I don't really need to record on my computer hard drive. I also have a big screen TV, so again ... And you can do these things on a Mac, though maybe not out of the box. It might take a $100-200 investment. Not a driver for me!
Blu-Ray support is very late on Macs. Some licensing issues changed very recently, so there should be some changes there.
The reason to buy an Apple computer is to get OS X, simply put. It is leaner, does more with less, and is so much more stable as to make Windows a joke. Try running Vista or XP for a couple months straight with no reboots and still have it function as a server for the rest of your network.
Microsoft has more programming resources than Apple than are arguably just as skilled. In theory, Microsoft could develop far better operating systems and software than Apple. There's one very important reason why they don't, and it's the same problem that Sun has with Java:
Backward compatibility.
yes, you put your finger on one crucial factor. but there is one other: MS insistence on unique proprietary software - trying thereby to achieve market hegemony. and the consequences are a mess.
the screwed up evolution up of Windows in the 90's as it moved from DOS to NT (Win 7 is still NT underneath) resulted in the security nightmares that never end. the necessity to create a completely different Win CE OS for small devices has lead to the dog that is WinMobile. Internet Explorer is technically obsolete today. Direct X still prevents the emergence of a single gaming software standard. and MS still hasn't stopped - take Silverlight. they keep bolting things on to Windows. which is why they will never do a ground-up OS re-write unless they absolutely have no choice - maybe never.
i don't know if a Mac OS-centered world would have been any better. we'll never know. but although its software is mostly proprietary too, Apple has been forced to make it work easily with most all the others, and generally supports open standards much more. the result is a much tighter, cleaner, and up to date OS overall.
And Microsoft never charged people for upgrades to their OS?
Yearly (for a few of them anyway) point releases on a core OS for $129 each vs "SP1 is available, download it for free from microsoft.com".
Here is OS X's history of upgrades:
10.0 $129 3/2001
10.1 $129 9/2001
10.2 $129 8/2002
10.3 $129 10/2003
10.4 $129 4/2005
10.5 $129 10/2007 G3s unsupported
10.6 $29 9/2009
Total of upgrades: $803
G4s were released in 1999 so while it isn't completely a given that you have purchased a new computer since then, it is likely. Of course, it's also pretty well given on the pc side too. For most typical home users, a new pc is still cheaper than a mac. Especially w/the bargain basement drek Dell shovels out. Here is the same info for Microsoft:
XP $359 10/2001
SP1 Free 9/2002
SP2 Free 8/2004
SP3 Free 4/2008
Vista $239 1/2007
SP1 Free 2/2008
SP2 Free 5/2009
Total of upgrades: $598
I'm not here to make any judgements on which OS is better and which isn't, but the average user is going to look at things and see a higher price on the Mac system and if they pay any attention to historical upgrade pricing, they see they get charged regularly for updates. This pays no attention to the fact that releases like Leopard were a complete re-write of OS X, but most people won't pay attention to that.
No I don't own a Mac. Certainly not opposed to the idea tho. Unfortunately if I was going to switch I would also have to likely switch my wife's computer at the same time and I just don't have the money for that heh. When it's tim to upgrade our computers again we'll see what things are like on the market and with our finances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation
When did Vista Get out of the Box Blu-Ray Support? Oh yeah, they don't have it, Vista can now finally burn a DVD from Windows Explorer (something the Mac OS did from version 10.0. Heck, even 9.2.2 had that)
They have it if they have updated to Vista SP2, came out the end of May. There has been software built into Windows for cd burning for quite awhile now, but there is a good reason most people paid for something like Nero instead
Problem is, Microsoft could afford to either give or have a promotional period in which they give Windows 7 away for free to existing or "qualifying" customers of Vista.
Though, since it is Microsoft, their install base would ultimately get confused, thus creating more headache and heartache lol
In my humble opinion your first point is flawed... like Independents in a presidential election, for Apple and Microsoft there's a battle raging for on-the-fence Switchers. The point that's being made is less about direct retail pressure and more about the indirect effects of the simplicity of Apple's strategy. No one can argue that Microsoft has taken a bigger hit than Apple from the economy and Vista's complexity. Windows 7 was a must-have release for Microsoft to help stabilize matters - and they delivered. But with Apple making Snow Leopard so easy to adopt, it makes MacBook users that much happier than Windows users were a year ago, which will effect market perception. And lower-priced MacBooks are going to be even more attractive to anyone in the market for a new laptop who would've otherwise been sufficiently consoled by the release of Windows 7. Think PC guys vs. Mac guy. even though comparing Windows 7 and Snow Leopard is like oranges and apples, the consumer world just sees two companies releasing a new OS at about the same time - so the comparison is unavoidable. One is more easily sold as an advancement the other more as a fix. One more as affordable and automatic, the other more expensive and complex.
You totally missed my point. What you said about how Apple's effective strategy hit Microsoft hard directly and indirectly does not contradict with what I am arguing because you took my word out of context in the first place.
What I am arguing against the article's emphasis on how the OS X upgrade retail price can make a direct hit on Microsoft. The article at the end made quite an effort arguing that the OS X upgrade retail price can cut off the PC operating system's oxygen supply, but somehow you overlooked it by saying "The point that's being made is less about direct retail pressure..." Obviously you misread both the article and my argument, which is why your point does not contradict with what I'm saying. In other words... I agree with your main point, but your main point does not indicate the flaws in my argument, if any.
I again argue against the article's emphasis of how the retail price can impact Microsoft. Both the retail prices of Windows and OS X has never been a factor to Windows users who are making decisions to upgrade or to convert to Mac. Even if the Windows users consider to convert to Mac, it is not because of the retail price at all.
Yearly (for a few of them anyway) point releases on a core OS for $129 each vs "SP1 is available, download it for free from microsoft.com".
Here is OS X's history of upgrades:
10.0 $129 3/2001
10.1 $129 9/2001
10.2 $129 8/2002
10.3 $129 10/2003
10.4 $129 4/2005
10.5 $129 10/2007 G3s unsupported
10.6 $29 9/2009
Total of upgrades: $803
Nice list and welcome to AI. Note that prior to 10.0 there was a Public Beta that was sold for $29.95. Also, the upgrade price for 10.0 users to 10.1 was free of charge.
How will those of use with Leopard get the $30 update? Purchase at the local Apple Store (CD) or the online store (Download)? Anyone heard or have an idea? So much too take in here of late that I could have just overlooked the method.
Thanks
Looks to be like any other OS X update. Just go into a store and but it. Making it a download has too many issues since you?d have to burn to disk, create a partition to copy it to for the install (works quite well, actually) and/or have a program that do it for you. It?s not like an app install.
If you want, you can purchase the update for under $10 (which is mainly for the shipping) right now from Apple. The offer apparently lasts until SL arrives.
Yearly (for a few of them anyway) point releases on a core OS for $129 each vs "SP1 is available, download it for free from microsoft.com".
Here is OS X's history of upgrades:
10.0 $129 3/2001
10.1 $129 9/2001
10.2 $129 8/2002
10.3 $129 10/2003
10.4 $129 4/2005
10.5 $129 10/2007 G3s unsupported
10.6 $29 9/2009
Total of upgrades: $803
G4s were released in 1999 so while it isn't completely a given that you have purchased a new computer since then, it is likely. Of course, it's also pretty well given on the pc side too. For most typical home users, a new pc is still cheaper than a mac. Especially w/the bargain basement drek Dell shovels out. Here is the same info for Microsoft:
XP $359 10/2001
SP1 Free 9/2002
SP2 Free 8/2004
SP3 Free 4/2008
Vista $239 1/2007
SP1 Free 2/2008
SP2 Free 5/2009
Total of upgrades: $598
I'm not here to make any judgements on which OS is better and which isn't, but the average user is going to look at things and see a higher price on the Mac system and if they pay any attention to historical upgrade pricing, they see they get charged regularly for updates. This pays no attention to the fact that releases like Leopard were a complete re-write of OS X, but most people won't pay attention to that.
No I don't own a Mac. Certainly not opposed to the idea tho. Unfortunately if I was going to switch I would also have to likely switch my wife's computer at the same time and I just don't have the money for that heh. When it's tim to upgrade our computers again we'll see what things are like on the market and with our finances.
They have it if they have updated to Vista SP2, came out the end of May. There has been software built into Windows for cd burning for quite awhile now, but there is a good reason most people paid for something like Nero instead
Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.
To make your comparison fair, you would need to look at the cost of movement across an equal number of OS bumps; you cannot knock Apple for releasing substantive OS improvements more often than MS does. How many OS bumps has MS had since 2001? Just two: XP and Vista.
So how much for MS users to go from Windows XP to Vista? How much for Mac Users to go from 10.4 to 10.5? That is the more equivalent comparison.
Service packs are not OS releases my friend, and you cannot stack the deck in your favor by trying to lump them in with the OS releases as if they were new OS releases given out free.
Microsoft relies on marketing and delivers the same shiit all over again with prettier pictures and forces everyone to swallow it.
Apple relies on innovation and delivers even more breakthrough with a revamped OS that runs laps around Winblows.
It doesn't matter. Half of this world is stupid and the other half is mostly forced to use Windows due to the stupid half. Perhaps this price slash will win some people over from the dark side.
Nice list and welcome to AI. Note that prior to 10.0 there was a Public Beta that was sold for $29.95. Also, the upgrade price for 10.0 users to 10.1 was free of charge.
Thanks. Pretty sure I used to have an AI account back around 2002 but I couldn't remember what it was Also thanks for the 10 to 10.1 info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618
Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.
To make your comparison fair, you would need to look at the cost of movement across an equal number of OS bumps; you cannot knock Apple for releasing substantive OS improvements more often than MS does. How many OS bumps has MS had since 2001? Just two: XP and Vista.
So how much for MS users to go from Windows XP to Vista? How much for Mac Users to go from 10.4 to 10.5? That is the more equivalent comparison.
Service packs are not OS releases my friend, and you cannot stack the deck in your favor by trying to lump them in with the OS releases as if they were new OS releases given out free.
I'm not being deceptive at all. I'm explaining it from a non-technical Windows users point of view. Windows XP to XP SP1 is a service pack. It modifies XP. To their view OS X 10.5 to 10.6 is a service pack, modifying OS X. OS X becoming OS XI would be an OS release to that way of thinking. Microsoft hasn't done the X.XX.XX model of naming since the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 days. Also, it isn't unknown for Microsoft to release new tech (or support for a new tech) outside of an OS release or a service pack. Generally it is also a free download.
I am well aware of the level of technical changes in the various OS X upgrades over the year. I'm speaking for the general public's viewpoint. They will just see Apple charging for an upgrade to their operating system when it is still the "same OS" (OS X). Vista getting a service pack for free makes sense to them and Windows 7 having a full OS price also makes sense. It's part of the conditioning Microsoft has used over the years.
Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.
In SSquirel?s defense he states, "This pays no attention to the fact that releases like Leopard were a complete re-write of OS X, but most people won't pay attention to that.? He has a valid point. It?s our nature to compare and contrast but Windows and OS X are hard to do.
Apple charges a little for the retail copy, but covers the different when you buy a Mac, whilst MS charges a lot for the retail copy and a lot less for the OEM copy when you buy a PC. That alone is enough difference to render any comparison pointless, but we still have to look at from the average consumer?s PoV. In that similar vein, there are many iPhone users who have apparently, out of blue, forgotten that they bought their iPhone last year subsidized on a 2-year contract. If Apple didn?t update the device at least every year they would be pissed, now they are pissed that they feel ?required? to buy the latest one. Same goes for the OS X updates, they feel required when there is no reason one has to update the OS, but skipping a revision is not an option for many.
You don't kill misguided (to the point of illness) people.
There is no easy cure for Stockholm-syndrome.
Users buy Apple prducts. Users perpetuate the hype (not Apple), and there is good reason for the hype. Most Windows users can't begin to understand how it is that Apple users are so enthusiastic. It doesn't happen out of thin air. It happens because we're getting some great tech from a company with the right attitude when it comes to design and the implementation thereof.
Apple has the guts to always go on the attack. And that's what you're supposed to do. Apple is supremely confident in their product very simply because they have all the reason in the world to be. Steve Jobs comes right out and says MS has no taste. Bill Gates usually answers meekly about MS products (constantly), and Ballmer has been known to all but concede openly that MS is behind the curve. Something is defintely wrong when the Redmond powers-that-be misspeak like this. Their main differentiator is the poor-mans differentiator: price. Except there's a certain class of user that can easily tell the difference.
But don't go spreading that around.
To be honest, we mostly see those overenthusiastic users as someone who is like a cornered animal - scared, panicking and extremely aggressive. Sometimes we think there is a hint of paranoia and chemically induced euphoria (brain chemistry working on the edge).
Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.
To make your comparison fair, you would need to look at the cost of movement across an equal number of OS bumps; you cannot knock Apple for releasing substantive OS improvements more often than MS does. How many OS bumps has MS had since 2001? Just two: XP and Vista.
So how much for MS users to go from Windows XP to Vista? How much for Mac Users to go from 10.4 to 10.5? That is the more equivalent comparison.
Service packs are not OS releases my friend, and you cannot stack the deck in your favor by trying to lump them in with the OS releases as if they were new OS releases given out free.
It's actually straight forward deceitful, as some of those full retail prices had a limited time upgrade offers, which were cheaper.
10.0 to 10.1 we know was S&H priced. 10.2 I think never had an upgrade, but can't remember. 10.3 to 10.4 definitely had one because I have one, that won't work without a preinstall.
Considering the service packs practicality, There should have been a XP.2005 version. (especially all those users that found out, original XP SP2 disc couldn't read SATA)
XP was never really modernized, and Vista is way too buggy on the other end.
Given that OEM is OEM, I'll say it's quite a sight. The difference in control is too night and day.
Even apple certified stores, if they fix your computer, that's say... 10.4, and wipe the drive. They put a 10.5 on it. (do that for 10.3 also etc, etc, etc).
The license of OSX is completely self enforced, but that's a whole different argument.
In the end, Apple's CS justifies the cost of the OS, no matter what numbers are trying to put pinned againist one another.
And now on to the original post... Leopard is not my favorite OS, nor is it my least. I have found Leopard to be slower in some ways to Tiger, but I think it's mainly I only have 1GB of ram, and Tiger ran better with less RAM. However, even though my computer is three years old, running Leopard on it's bare requirements, my wife's brand new HP laptop, with 4GB's of ram, a faster 64-bit processor (yes, I ensure it was Windows Vista 64-bit)....is slower then my computer. It's slower booting up, it's slower doing day to day things. It locks up a lot. Even more then my Leopard. And, btw, my RAM is DDR2, not 3 (as is her's). So, really, my computer should be slower -- but it's not. She even has an AMD -- which is leads better then Intel -- and her computer can't out do mine. It's just sad.
Um. You mixed things a bit. AMD was kicking Intel's... back in the time of good old Pentium 4, but later Intel's Core 2 Duo is way ahead AMD 64 X2 performance. Way ahead it is even not funny any more.
AMD recently managed to get some balance with Phenom II processors, but your wife's notebook is likely based on Puma platform with AMD Turion X2 processors, slower yet more power hungry compared to C2D.
Nyyeaaaaah, 'cause manufacturers don't include the price of Windows in the package at all right? The cost doesn't magically go away just because they buy a premade config.
... and that config - with includes Windows 7 price - is still likely to be much cheaper than comparable Mac computer.
Which takes us back to original poster and his claim that for people will get W7 with new boxes, price of W7 will be perceived as cheap to non-existent.
Which is hardly a news. New names, same old story.
Man, this AI article was painful. WAY too much effort to demonize MS.
I haven't used Win7 a lot yet... not enough to come to a completely educated opinion, but I will say so far it sucks less than Vista. I haven't run all my apps on it yet, but at least as far as the initial tire-kicking goes, it's alright. It doesn't blow my skirt up, but it's not the demon spawn of the anti-Christ that the zealots tirelessly claim it is. 25 year old habits die hard.
At the end of the day, since 90% of my time is in a web browser, email, and games, the OS really doesn't matter all that much. So no OS is going to "blow my skirt up" anymore.
Are there any good, reputable Mac sites that don't require a "filter" to read the contents? I'm asking seriously.
Good point. Sometimes I have a feeling many Mac users spend their time randomly opening and closing various applications and sorting them on the screen. Without doing anything useful at all.
It's actually straight forward deceitful, as some of those full retail prices had a limited time upgrade offers, which were cheaper.
10.0 to 10.1 we know was S&H priced. 10.2 I think never had an upgrade, but can't remember. 10.3 to 10.4 definitely had one because I have one, that won't work without a preinstall.
I'm not talking upgrade versions. If we were talking upgrade copies, that makes the Windows OSes cheaper as well, by about half. I specifically listed full retail prices b/c that was the best way to keep it clear. It's the price the consumer sees on the shelf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuku
Even apple certified stores, if they fix your computer, that's say... 10.4, and wipe the drive. They put a 10.5 on it. (do that for 10.3 also etc, etc, etc).
In the end, Apple's CS justifies the cost of the OS, no matter what numbers are trying to put pinned againist one another.
That's just good customer service really. Plus it makes sense that some of the problems are likely due to an older OS version. I know if I was helping someone w/their Vista install and they didn't have SP1 or SP2 installed, the first thing I would do is go grab them.
I was clear in my original post that I wasn't trying to judge value, I was just trying to list things as the standard non-technical, non-computer obsessed individual will see things if they look for a basic comparison.
Me, I've been keeping up w/computers since I was 12 (32 now). My dad had an Apple IIe, my stepdad eventually had a 286/16 w/4MB ram that I used to play SO many games back in the day I like and respect Apple even if I don't own their systems. I am not one of the people I am posting about. I've been known to spend an hour or 2 watching Apple keynotes b/c it's fun and I'm a geek Besides, at an Apple keynote I don't have to watch Steve Ballmer froth at the mouth and throw chairs heh.
Comments
Downward pricing pressure? What downward pricing pressure? Windows is effectively free for most folks because they buy a whole new box every few years.
Very few folks pay $300 for Vista.
Don't think you are not paying for Windows when you buy a new computer with it installed!
There was a point where the cost of Windows was as much as the hardware. There are cases of people trying to return Windows unopened after buying a computer. It used to say "can be returned for refund if unopened." It did not go well for them, and some took legal action. I don't know about now - haven't bought a Windows machine in 5 years.
A few months ago, a Dell netbook with Windows XP was about $100 more than one with Ubuntu. That ain't my definition of free, son.
I have heard now it is about $15 an XP copy on a netbook. They are scared that users will get comfortable with Linux and hurt their market share! They seem to know they can't sell Windows on merit alone. This is definitely pricing pressure. It's hard to compete with free unless you are a lot better.
Thanks
I wish people would stop using odd abbreviations, what does MSFT mean?
Its an bad as bioloigy, with Sos and PDECGF...
I admit, I'm a Lurker on most forums, but this has got to be the most unintelligent post I've seen in quite some time, even with the Flames going back and forth.
MicroSoFT = MSFT = Microsoft Corp Stock Symbol = Abbreviation people have been using (including Microsoft) since the beginning of their corporation.
Just to show how long I've been around, I own (still own) a Microsoft Softcard. Anyone remember what product that was?
Oh my god...
First: how you know that Snow Leopard will be cheaper than Windows 7? When you buy a new PC you will get a FREE upgrade to 7 soon. And even owners of old PCs can buy 7 and improve their system without buying new hardware. Snow Leopard only runs on the newest hardware (as you mentioned).
What's bad of delivering a free preview version of Windows 7 to customers? I smell envy here.
"Many" users got to downgrade to XP? Many? Where? This was only a very special deal for enterprise customers from some suppliers. And mostly only for netbooks. Show me a < $ 300 netbook that runs Leopard officially, please!
Apple is rewarding its loyal customers? What? Charging for every single major update even for features that should have been there since 10.0 like the innovative (!) Put Back button in the trash?
Why is it so difficult for the author to find proper arguments? There are a lot if you just try to think yourselve instead of repeating what Apple says on a marketing event.
Here are some more questions to ask: when will the Mac see great speech recognition, powerful handwriting recognition (not only for single Chinese characters), Blu-Ray support, full out-of-the-box TV viewing and recording or a resolution indepentend UI like Vista delivers for 2 years now?
I don't see the benefit of being uncritical to Apple.
Macs have speech recognition. I own a DVR, so I don't really need to record on my computer hard drive. I also have a big screen TV, so again ... And you can do these things on a Mac, though maybe not out of the box. It might take a $100-200 investment. Not a driver for me!
Blu-Ray support is very late on Macs. Some licensing issues changed very recently, so there should be some changes there.
The reason to buy an Apple computer is to get OS X, simply put. It is leaner, does more with less, and is so much more stable as to make Windows a joke. Try running Vista or XP for a couple months straight with no reboots and still have it function as a server for the rest of your network.
Microsoft has more programming resources than Apple than are arguably just as skilled. In theory, Microsoft could develop far better operating systems and software than Apple. There's one very important reason why they don't, and it's the same problem that Sun has with Java:
Backward compatibility.
yes, you put your finger on one crucial factor. but there is one other: MS insistence on unique proprietary software - trying thereby to achieve market hegemony. and the consequences are a mess.
the screwed up evolution up of Windows in the 90's as it moved from DOS to NT (Win 7 is still NT underneath) resulted in the security nightmares that never end. the necessity to create a completely different Win CE OS for small devices has lead to the dog that is WinMobile. Internet Explorer is technically obsolete today. Direct X still prevents the emergence of a single gaming software standard. and MS still hasn't stopped - take Silverlight. they keep bolting things on to Windows. which is why they will never do a ground-up OS re-write unless they absolutely have no choice - maybe never.
i don't know if a Mac OS-centered world would have been any better. we'll never know. but although its software is mostly proprietary too, Apple has been forced to make it work easily with most all the others, and generally supports open standards much more. the result is a much tighter, cleaner, and up to date OS overall.
And Microsoft never charged people for upgrades to their OS?
Yearly (for a few of them anyway) point releases on a core OS for $129 each vs "SP1 is available, download it for free from microsoft.com".
Here is OS X's history of upgrades:
10.0 $129 3/2001
10.1 $129 9/2001
10.2 $129 8/2002
10.3 $129 10/2003
10.4 $129 4/2005
10.5 $129 10/2007 G3s unsupported
10.6 $29 9/2009
Total of upgrades: $803
G4s were released in 1999 so while it isn't completely a given that you have purchased a new computer since then, it is likely. Of course, it's also pretty well given on the pc side too. For most typical home users, a new pc is still cheaper than a mac. Especially w/the bargain basement drek Dell shovels out. Here is the same info for Microsoft:
XP $359 10/2001
SP1 Free 9/2002
SP2 Free 8/2004
SP3 Free 4/2008
Vista $239 1/2007
SP1 Free 2/2008
SP2 Free 5/2009
Total of upgrades: $598
I'm not here to make any judgements on which OS is better and which isn't, but the average user is going to look at things and see a higher price on the Mac system and if they pay any attention to historical upgrade pricing, they see they get charged regularly for updates. This pays no attention to the fact that releases like Leopard were a complete re-write of OS X, but most people won't pay attention to that.
No I don't own a Mac. Certainly not opposed to the idea tho. Unfortunately if I was going to switch I would also have to likely switch my wife's computer at the same time and I just don't have the money for that heh. When it's tim to upgrade our computers again we'll see what things are like on the market and with our finances.
When did Vista Get out of the Box Blu-Ray Support? Oh yeah, they don't have it, Vista can now finally burn a DVD from Windows Explorer (something the Mac OS did from version 10.0. Heck, even 9.2.2 had that)
They have it if they have updated to Vista SP2, came out the end of May. There has been software built into Windows for cd burning for quite awhile now, but there is a good reason most people paid for something like Nero instead
Though, since it is Microsoft, their install base would ultimately get confused, thus creating more headache and heartache lol
In my humble opinion your first point is flawed... like Independents in a presidential election, for Apple and Microsoft there's a battle raging for on-the-fence Switchers. The point that's being made is less about direct retail pressure and more about the indirect effects of the simplicity of Apple's strategy. No one can argue that Microsoft has taken a bigger hit than Apple from the economy and Vista's complexity. Windows 7 was a must-have release for Microsoft to help stabilize matters - and they delivered. But with Apple making Snow Leopard so easy to adopt, it makes MacBook users that much happier than Windows users were a year ago, which will effect market perception. And lower-priced MacBooks are going to be even more attractive to anyone in the market for a new laptop who would've otherwise been sufficiently consoled by the release of Windows 7. Think PC guys vs. Mac guy. even though comparing Windows 7 and Snow Leopard is like oranges and apples, the consumer world just sees two companies releasing a new OS at about the same time - so the comparison is unavoidable. One is more easily sold as an advancement the other more as a fix. One more as affordable and automatic, the other more expensive and complex.
You totally missed my point. What you said about how Apple's effective strategy hit Microsoft hard directly and indirectly does not contradict with what I am arguing because you took my word out of context in the first place.
What I am arguing against the article's emphasis on how the OS X upgrade retail price can make a direct hit on Microsoft. The article at the end made quite an effort arguing that the OS X upgrade retail price can cut off the PC operating system's oxygen supply, but somehow you overlooked it by saying "The point that's being made is less about direct retail pressure..." Obviously you misread both the article and my argument, which is why your point does not contradict with what I'm saying. In other words... I agree with your main point, but your main point does not indicate the flaws in my argument, if any.
I again argue against the article's emphasis of how the retail price can impact Microsoft. Both the retail prices of Windows and OS X has never been a factor to Windows users who are making decisions to upgrade or to convert to Mac. Even if the Windows users consider to convert to Mac, it is not because of the retail price at all.
Yearly (for a few of them anyway) point releases on a core OS for $129 each vs "SP1 is available, download it for free from microsoft.com".
Here is OS X's history of upgrades:
10.0 $129 3/2001
10.1 $129 9/2001
10.2 $129 8/2002
10.3 $129 10/2003
10.4 $129 4/2005
10.5 $129 10/2007 G3s unsupported
10.6 $29 9/2009
Total of upgrades: $803
Nice list and welcome to AI. Note that prior to 10.0 there was a Public Beta that was sold for $29.95. Also, the upgrade price for 10.0 users to 10.1 was free of charge.
How will those of use with Leopard get the $30 update? Purchase at the local Apple Store (CD) or the online store (Download)? Anyone heard or have an idea? So much too take in here of late that I could have just overlooked the method.
Thanks
Looks to be like any other OS X update. Just go into a store and but it. Making it a download has too many issues since you?d have to burn to disk, create a partition to copy it to for the install (works quite well, actually) and/or have a program that do it for you. It?s not like an app install.
If you want, you can purchase the update for under $10 (which is mainly for the shipping) right now from Apple. The offer apparently lasts until SL arrives.
Yearly (for a few of them anyway) point releases on a core OS for $129 each vs "SP1 is available, download it for free from microsoft.com".
Here is OS X's history of upgrades:
10.0 $129 3/2001
10.1 $129 9/2001
10.2 $129 8/2002
10.3 $129 10/2003
10.4 $129 4/2005
10.5 $129 10/2007 G3s unsupported
10.6 $29 9/2009
Total of upgrades: $803
G4s were released in 1999 so while it isn't completely a given that you have purchased a new computer since then, it is likely. Of course, it's also pretty well given on the pc side too. For most typical home users, a new pc is still cheaper than a mac. Especially w/the bargain basement drek Dell shovels out. Here is the same info for Microsoft:
XP $359 10/2001
SP1 Free 9/2002
SP2 Free 8/2004
SP3 Free 4/2008
Vista $239 1/2007
SP1 Free 2/2008
SP2 Free 5/2009
Total of upgrades: $598
I'm not here to make any judgements on which OS is better and which isn't, but the average user is going to look at things and see a higher price on the Mac system and if they pay any attention to historical upgrade pricing, they see they get charged regularly for updates. This pays no attention to the fact that releases like Leopard were a complete re-write of OS X, but most people won't pay attention to that.
No I don't own a Mac. Certainly not opposed to the idea tho. Unfortunately if I was going to switch I would also have to likely switch my wife's computer at the same time and I just don't have the money for that heh. When it's tim to upgrade our computers again we'll see what things are like on the market and with our finances.
They have it if they have updated to Vista SP2, came out the end of May. There has been software built into Windows for cd burning for quite awhile now, but there is a good reason most people paid for something like Nero instead
Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.
To make your comparison fair, you would need to look at the cost of movement across an equal number of OS bumps; you cannot knock Apple for releasing substantive OS improvements more often than MS does. How many OS bumps has MS had since 2001? Just two: XP and Vista.
So how much for MS users to go from Windows XP to Vista? How much for Mac Users to go from 10.4 to 10.5? That is the more equivalent comparison.
Service packs are not OS releases my friend, and you cannot stack the deck in your favor by trying to lump them in with the OS releases as if they were new OS releases given out free.
Look, this is the same deal all over again:
Microsoft relies on marketing and delivers the same shiit all over again with prettier pictures and forces everyone to swallow it.
Apple relies on innovation and delivers even more breakthrough with a revamped OS that runs laps around Winblows.
It doesn't matter. Half of this world is stupid and the other half is mostly forced to use Windows due to the stupid half. Perhaps this price slash will win some people over from the dark side.
Ah, yes.
Competitive pricing of Apple hardware will help.
/sarcasm
Nice list and welcome to AI. Note that prior to 10.0 there was a Public Beta that was sold for $29.95. Also, the upgrade price for 10.0 users to 10.1 was free of charge.
Thanks. Pretty sure I used to have an AI account back around 2002 but I couldn't remember what it was
Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.
To make your comparison fair, you would need to look at the cost of movement across an equal number of OS bumps; you cannot knock Apple for releasing substantive OS improvements more often than MS does. How many OS bumps has MS had since 2001? Just two: XP and Vista.
So how much for MS users to go from Windows XP to Vista? How much for Mac Users to go from 10.4 to 10.5? That is the more equivalent comparison.
Service packs are not OS releases my friend, and you cannot stack the deck in your favor by trying to lump them in with the OS releases as if they were new OS releases given out free.
I'm not being deceptive at all. I'm explaining it from a non-technical Windows users point of view. Windows XP to XP SP1 is a service pack. It modifies XP. To their view OS X 10.5 to 10.6 is a service pack, modifying OS X. OS X becoming OS XI would be an OS release to that way of thinking. Microsoft hasn't done the X.XX.XX model of naming since the Windows 3.1 and 3.11 days. Also, it isn't unknown for Microsoft to release new tech (or support for a new tech) outside of an OS release or a service pack. Generally it is also a free download.
I am well aware of the level of technical changes in the various OS X upgrades over the year. I'm speaking for the general public's viewpoint. They will just see Apple charging for an upgrade to their operating system when it is still the "same OS" (OS X). Vista getting a service pack for free makes sense to them and Windows 7 having a full OS price also makes sense. It's part of the conditioning Microsoft has used over the years.
Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.
In SSquirel?s defense he states, "This pays no attention to the fact that releases like Leopard were a complete re-write of OS X, but most people won't pay attention to that.? He has a valid point. It?s our nature to compare and contrast but Windows and OS X are hard to do.
Apple charges a little for the retail copy, but covers the different when you buy a Mac, whilst MS charges a lot for the retail copy and a lot less for the OEM copy when you buy a PC. That alone is enough difference to render any comparison pointless, but we still have to look at from the average consumer?s PoV. In that similar vein, there are many iPhone users who have apparently, out of blue, forgotten that they bought their iPhone last year subsidized on a 2-year contract. If Apple didn?t update the device at least every year they would be pissed, now they are pissed that they feel ?required? to buy the latest one. Same goes for the OS X updates, they feel required when there is no reason one has to update the OS, but skipping a revision is not an option for many.
You don't kill misguided (to the point of illness) people.
There is no easy cure for Stockholm-syndrome.
Users buy Apple prducts. Users perpetuate the hype (not Apple), and there is good reason for the hype. Most Windows users can't begin to understand how it is that Apple users are so enthusiastic. It doesn't happen out of thin air. It happens because we're getting some great tech from a company with the right attitude when it comes to design and the implementation thereof.
Apple has the guts to always go on the attack. And that's what you're supposed to do. Apple is supremely confident in their product very simply because they have all the reason in the world to be. Steve Jobs comes right out and says MS has no taste. Bill Gates usually answers meekly about MS products (constantly), and Ballmer has been known to all but concede openly that MS is behind the curve. Something is defintely wrong when the Redmond powers-that-be misspeak like this. Their main differentiator is the poor-mans differentiator: price. Except there's a certain class of user that can easily tell the difference.
But don't go spreading that around.
To be honest, we mostly see those overenthusiastic users as someone who is like a cornered animal - scared, panicking and extremely aggressive. Sometimes we think there is a hint of paranoia and chemically induced euphoria (brain chemistry working on the edge).
Don't you think your comparisons here are a bit deceitful? You are comparing service packs to OS releases. But let's be clear: service packs are bug and security fixes. They do not substantively alter the functionality of the operating system. The way apple does releases, these would be incremental release bumps, such as 10.5.6. The .6 there is equivalent to Microsoft's service packs, and just like Microsoft, Apple releases them free.
To make your comparison fair, you would need to look at the cost of movement across an equal number of OS bumps; you cannot knock Apple for releasing substantive OS improvements more often than MS does. How many OS bumps has MS had since 2001? Just two: XP and Vista.
So how much for MS users to go from Windows XP to Vista? How much for Mac Users to go from 10.4 to 10.5? That is the more equivalent comparison.
Service packs are not OS releases my friend, and you cannot stack the deck in your favor by trying to lump them in with the OS releases as if they were new OS releases given out free.
It's actually straight forward deceitful, as some of those full retail prices had a limited time upgrade offers, which were cheaper.
10.0 to 10.1 we know was S&H priced. 10.2 I think never had an upgrade, but can't remember. 10.3 to 10.4 definitely had one because I have one, that won't work without a preinstall.
Considering the service packs practicality, There should have been a XP.2005 version. (especially all those users that found out, original XP SP2 disc couldn't read SATA)
XP was never really modernized, and Vista is way too buggy on the other end.
Given that OEM is OEM, I'll say it's quite a sight. The difference in control is too night and day.
Even apple certified stores, if they fix your computer, that's say... 10.4, and wipe the drive. They put a 10.5 on it. (do that for 10.3 also etc, etc, etc).
The license of OSX is completely self enforced, but that's a whole different argument.
In the end, Apple's CS justifies the cost of the OS, no matter what numbers are trying to put pinned againist one another.
And now on to the original post... Leopard is not my favorite OS, nor is it my least. I have found Leopard to be slower in some ways to Tiger, but I think it's mainly I only have 1GB of ram, and Tiger ran better with less RAM. However, even though my computer is three years old, running Leopard on it's bare requirements, my wife's brand new HP laptop, with 4GB's of ram, a faster 64-bit processor (yes, I ensure it was Windows Vista 64-bit)....is slower then my computer. It's slower booting up, it's slower doing day to day things. It locks up a lot. Even more then my Leopard. And, btw, my RAM is DDR2, not 3 (as is her's). So, really, my computer should be slower -- but it's not. She even has an AMD -- which is leads better then Intel -- and her computer can't out do mine. It's just sad.
Um. You mixed things a bit. AMD was kicking Intel's... back in the time of good old Pentium 4, but later Intel's Core 2 Duo is way ahead AMD 64 X2 performance. Way ahead it is even not funny any more.
AMD recently managed to get some balance with Phenom II processors, but your wife's notebook is likely based on Puma platform with AMD Turion X2 processors, slower yet more power hungry compared to C2D.
Nyyeaaaaah, 'cause manufacturers don't include the price of Windows in the package at all right? The cost doesn't magically go away just because they buy a premade config.
... and that config - with includes Windows 7 price - is still likely to be much cheaper than comparable Mac computer.
Which takes us back to original poster and his claim that for people will get W7 with new boxes, price of W7 will be perceived as cheap to non-existent.
Which is hardly a news. New names, same old story.
Man, this AI article was painful. WAY too much effort to demonize MS.
I haven't used Win7 a lot yet... not enough to come to a completely educated opinion, but I will say so far it sucks less than Vista. I haven't run all my apps on it yet, but at least as far as the initial tire-kicking goes, it's alright. It doesn't blow my skirt up, but it's not the demon spawn of the anti-Christ that the zealots tirelessly claim it is. 25 year old habits die hard.
At the end of the day, since 90% of my time is in a web browser, email, and games, the OS really doesn't matter all that much. So no OS is going to "blow my skirt up" anymore.
Are there any good, reputable Mac sites that don't require a "filter" to read the contents? I'm asking seriously.
Good point. Sometimes I have a feeling many Mac users spend their time randomly opening and closing various applications and sorting them on the screen. Without doing anything useful at all.
It's actually straight forward deceitful, as some of those full retail prices had a limited time upgrade offers, which were cheaper.
10.0 to 10.1 we know was S&H priced. 10.2 I think never had an upgrade, but can't remember. 10.3 to 10.4 definitely had one because I have one, that won't work without a preinstall.
I'm not talking upgrade versions. If we were talking upgrade copies, that makes the Windows OSes cheaper as well, by about half. I specifically listed full retail prices b/c that was the best way to keep it clear. It's the price the consumer sees on the shelf.
Even apple certified stores, if they fix your computer, that's say... 10.4, and wipe the drive. They put a 10.5 on it. (do that for 10.3 also etc, etc, etc).
In the end, Apple's CS justifies the cost of the OS, no matter what numbers are trying to put pinned againist one another.
That's just good customer service really. Plus it makes sense that some of the problems are likely due to an older OS version. I know if I was helping someone w/their Vista install and they didn't have SP1 or SP2 installed, the first thing I would do is go grab them.
I was clear in my original post that I wasn't trying to judge value, I was just trying to list things as the standard non-technical, non-computer obsessed individual will see things if they look for a basic comparison.
Me, I've been keeping up w/computers since I was 12 (32 now). My dad had an Apple IIe, my stepdad eventually had a 286/16 w/4MB ram that I used to play SO many games back in the day