Not to quibble, but I would say that Vista was NOT fixed with SP2. And even if it was, what a painful fix! I have an HP 4400 series workstation running vista ultimate. It took me literally 3 days just to get the machine stable enough to work with. Just installing service pack one, then service pack two (because SP2 requires SP1 first) took the better part of a work day. Why should installing a service pack take 2 or 3 HOURS? It is absurd.
Because there is something horribly wrong with your box..? \
SP2 took about 20 minutes to install on my old office P4 desktop with 2.5GB of RAM.
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.
Still, I'm pretty sure it's a lot lower. For the A-list computer makers, I've never seen estimates go much higher than $40 a unit for "Home", a little higher for better versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jminnihan
Wrong. Actually many types of customers have to pay $300 for Vista, including those who build their own custom PC's, those who run Windows in VMs, etc. But what about OEM copies? OEM copy deals on Vista are very few and far between at the moment. When Windows 7 appears, the OEM copy deals will become more prevalent and more discounted. Even OEM copy deals on Windows XP are not very good, because most of these copies go to those who are unhappy with Windows Vista, and did not get a copy from the OEM, or must load Windows XP on a VM.
Vista Ultimate OEM is $175 at Newegg. They charge $250 for the Vista Ultimate retail pack. XP Pro (edit OEM) is $130.
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.
I really don't think many people really consider long term OS upgrade costs in deciding what to buy.
Something to point out is that you don't have to upgrade the OS at every interval. Usually the previous OS version is pretty well supported by most software makers, should the user chose to upgrade their apps. My current computer is still the same Tiger that it came with. I didn't upgrade for several reasons, though I may decide to soon.
Something I didn't see mentioned yet is Apple's "Family Pack". The OS disc is $200 for licenses for up to five computers in the same home, bringing the cost to as low as $40 a computer and still be legit. Doesn't hurt that there's no authentication or authorization necessary either, as yet, does not require having the previous disc or an installed OS to upgrade.
I really don't think many people really consider long term OS upgrade costs in deciding what to buy.
Most people probably don't b/c the way Windows tends to jack requirements up pretty significantly w/each new OS, by the time you are ready for a new system you are probably ready for a new OS too. Plus they know their service packs will be free too. A lot of the time the non-technical only hear about the upgrade prices when a snarky MS fan reminds them of it But it is out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Something to point out is that you don't have to upgrade the OS at every interval. Usually the previous OS version is pretty well supported by most software makers, should the user chose to upgrade their apps. My current computer is still the same Tiger that it came with. I didn't upgrade for several reasons, though I may decide to soon.
Very rarely is anything on Windows side going to be restricted by which SP you are using. XP is still capable of running most modern software, barring things MS intentionally made "Vista only" like DirectX10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Something I didn't see mentioned yet is Apple's "Family Pack". The OS disc is $200 for licenses for up to five computers in the same home, bringing the cost to as low as $40 a computer and still be legit. Doesn't hurt that there's no authentication or authorization necessary either, as yet, does not require having the previous disc or an installed OS to upgrade.
The family packs are a great thing and make a lot of sense. I didn't include them b/c I couldn't find any information on when they had started doing the family packs. Interesting enough, finding the pricing info on the various OS X releases was far easier than finding the launch prices for XP and Vista heh.
Microsoft was playing with the idea of limiting the base version of Windows 7 to run 3 applications simultaneously because the hardware running that version likely couldn't do more than that.
Wrong. The Starter Edition was planned to be limited because of a low license price for netbooks to compete with free Linux. You still can upgrade to any higher version. Every version of 7, even Ultimate, runs on a netbook with 1 GB RAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation
Because this is an an Apple-Centric Website (refer to name of the website), Just because there isn't criticism in every single article posted on this site doesn't mean Apple Users have no complaints.
But there should be criticism in every single article. That should be the reason for such a website. Am I wrong?
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)
Vista SP2 can burn Blu-Ray within Explorer. So OK as long as you have to install SP2 it is not exactly out-of-the box but newer systems will come with SP2 installed.
well here is one huge significance you have missed. although you do have to connect some dots:
- in January Apple introduces iWork 09 (for $20 per seat in family pack), which is now a complete office suite that could completely replace (the ridiculously overpriced @ $135 - the "Microsoft tax") MS Office for Mac users, except that it lacks Exchange/Entourage functions.
- now in September Apple will add that Exchange support to Snow Leopard, which will enable Mail and iCal to completely replace Entourage for Mac users.
that makes Snow Leopard the Mac Office 2008-"killer." and since MS makes several hundred million dollars per year selling Office to Mac owners, that is "significant." but even more significant is that it really makes life without any Microsoft product at all very possible for most people. and that is a threat of the gravest possible significance to MS long-term. a complete consumer escape route from their practical everyday multi-platform desktop software-required-by-services hegemony.
Because there is something horribly wrong with your box..? \
SP2 took about 20 minutes to install on my old office P4 desktop with 2.5GB of RAM.
One of the big problem with SP's on vista was the whole stupid download manager. And it's constant problem with destroying drivers.
Like one problem it wiped the mouse driver, and the mouse just stopped working(it's your standard HID mouse that ironically came with the computer). It was one of the most painful things to fix, because it would lock up the moment I plugged in the mouse, and I had to trouble shoot it with a keyboard alone, for a stupid driver issue.
The other thing that SP slow down on is if you have extra's installed (which is downloaded), it took forever if it happened to messed them up. Language packs are the worse offense.
But I could say there's horribly wrong with a lot of people's Vista boxes because it's running vista
Everything from printers, to shares, to a freaking mouse(!). One of them I just gave up because to transfer data of it to the the external drive (which the USB driver won't work on vista for some reason), was worth more effort in money then the machine.
I'm more prejudice to it, because in a corporate environment, vista problems naturally amplify the flaws, and the easiest way to fix it, is to ban it.
See problem solved, anyone who brings in a vista laptop can connect to the guest wifi firewalled, you work on your crappy work station and live with it. IT policy.
One of the big problem with SP's on vista was the whole stupid download manager. And it's constant problem with destroying drivers.
Which download manager? The Service Pack comes via Windows Update. If you can't see the SP there, don't install it because some drivers may not be compatible yet with the SP! Wait until updated drivers are shown and don't plug in new hardware while the SP installs.
I had SP2 beta on one machine with Ultimate Extras and one language pack installed, I uninstalled the beta SP and installed the final version on a desktop and a tablet without a single problem. Never had problems with Vista.
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
10.1, i.e., Puma, was a 'free' upgrade.
Since you are using the apple's suggested retail price, why not for Microsoft's Vista @ $499.95 and XP @ $299. Otherwise, one could say you could pick up an OS X for as low as $79.
In addition, since you have included an OS x version that won't be coming out until September, it would only be fair that you should include Windows 7, as well.
Since you are using the apple's suggested retail price, why not for Microsoft's Vista @ $499.95 and XP @ $299. Otherwise, one could say you could pick up an OS X for as low as $79.
In addition, since you have included an OS x version that won't be coming out until September, it would only be fair that you should include Windows 7, as well.
If pricing was known on Windows 7 I would, not released yet. Thanks for playing. I don't have any copies of the Windows OS boxes handy (my copy of XP was a $7 educational copy anyway) and for some reason I had a heluva time actually finding the pricing for XP and Vista from launch. If they were mislisted in the couple of reviews for each that I found dating back to launch my apologies, I can only go based on the info I track down. I made sure to find articles dating back to release and not just say "yeah newegg is selling it for $X" besides, I did all my searching from work today heh
Apple has a list price for everything, and family pack prices for consumer programs. but since it makes absolutely zero effort to prevent unlimited installs from a single disk, it essentially gives it away for almost nothing. that's the real "street price." on purpose of course. to sell more hardware of course.
now i know no one visiting AI would ever do that! but i gotta say, i think it actually happens a lot ...
on the other hand, if you try to sell mac clone hardware like Pystar, they'll sue your butt!
Since you are using the apple's suggested retail price, why not for Microsoft's Vista @ $499.95 and XP @ $299. Otherwise, one could say you could pick up an OS X for as low as $79.
If pricing was known on Windows 7 I would, not released yet. Thanks for playing. I don't have any copies of the Windows OS boxes handy (my copy of XP was a $7 educational copy anyway) and for some reason I had a heluva time actually finding the pricing for XP and Vista from launch. If they were mislisted in the couple of reviews for each that I found dating back to launch my apologies, I can only go based on the info I track down. I made sure to find articles dating back to release and not just say "yeah newegg is selling it for $X" besides, I did all my searching from work today heh
In all fairness then, I would suggest that you at least delete the $129 for the free Puma and the $29 upgrade for Snow Leopard.
In addition, if you are going to use a discount outlets prices for Microsoft's OS's, then at least do the same for Apple's OS X's. e.g., OS X from MacMall is $103.99.
In addition, if you are going to use a discount outlets prices for Microsoft's OS's, then at least do the same for Apple's OS X's. e.g., OS X from MacMall is $103.99.
I specifically said I was trying to find the original launch prices from articles dating back to the time of launch, NOT using something like newegg's current price.
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.
And to add to your point, WIndows Vista (aka Longhorn) Was suppose to come out in 2003. And, if you look back, Windows came out more frequent with updates before XP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
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.
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.
First off, welcome. Second off, they would be wrong. OS X is like Windows NT. Windows NT, being the core of the OS, hasn't received a major re-write in a very long time. It has been changed, features added onto it, but it's still basically the same technology. However, the same is true with OS X (or was Leopard a major re-write?), but the difference is -- OS X came in 2001, NT came in 1993. It is in a desperate need for a re-write, really is.
But, to be fair, look how much Apple updates each "OS X service pack": Link
And, btw, a Service Pack does not change or add features, it usually deals with stability or security breaches in the OS. OS X Snow Leopard (10.6) will add some features, under the hood, while increasing speed -- which is a feature. Also, Microsoft has stated that they plan on releasing more Windows, faster, instead of waiting 6 years to make a new update. To prove the point, Windows 7 is coming out (which, btw, is called Windows 6.1 in the MS windows team) this year, or early next year. So, yea. Plus you didn't add XP Media Edition, which added features (I am sure you could buy it at the retail -- right?).
To add to the OS upgrade price comparison, you should add that Mac users haven't needed to purchase additional hardware to be able to upgrade and get a similar performance after upgrading. My main computer is a PowerBook Pismo I purchased in 2000 with Mac OS 9. I've since upgraded all the way to 10.4 without any hardware purchases, saving many dollars
To add to the OS upgrade price comparison, you should add that Mac users haven't needed to purchase additional hardware to be able to upgrade and get a similar performance after upgrading. My main computer is a PowerBook Pismo I purchased in 2000 with Mac OS 9. I've since upgraded all the way to 10.4 without any hardware purchases, saving many dollars
Thats true, until Snow Leopard, and I have a feeling older Intel macs are going to be phased out at some point, as well. And another thing to add -- I know some people consider this to be true, because I have seen the argument "Apple charges for Service packz!?!" but, they are wrong to think that Leopard is a service pack of Tiger. I get added functionality, added features, (supposedly) more speed (I found this not to be true from Tiger to Leopard), a new design, and an overall better experience. And, um, what features did SP 1 get you Vista owners? Hmmm?
You see, it's wrong to think that way, and anyone considering getting a Mac, who finds this argument, will at some point (if they do their research) find the truth.
Comments
Besides, at an Apple keynote I don't have to watch Steve Ballmer froth at the mouth and throw chairs heh.
His shirts could use that oleophobic coating that the iPhone is getting.
Not to quibble, but I would say that Vista was NOT fixed with SP2. And even if it was, what a painful fix! I have an HP 4400 series workstation running vista ultimate. It took me literally 3 days just to get the machine stable enough to work with. Just installing service pack one, then service pack two (because SP2 requires SP1 first) took the better part of a work day. Why should installing a service pack take 2 or 3 HOURS? It is absurd.
Because there is something horribly wrong with your box..?
SP2 took about 20 minutes to install on my old office P4 desktop with 2.5GB of RAM.
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.
Still, I'm pretty sure it's a lot lower. For the A-list computer makers, I've never seen estimates go much higher than $40 a unit for "Home", a little higher for better versions.
Wrong. Actually many types of customers have to pay $300 for Vista, including those who build their own custom PC's, those who run Windows in VMs, etc. But what about OEM copies? OEM copy deals on Vista are very few and far between at the moment. When Windows 7 appears, the OEM copy deals will become more prevalent and more discounted. Even OEM copy deals on Windows XP are not very good, because most of these copies go to those who are unhappy with Windows Vista, and did not get a copy from the OEM, or must load Windows XP on a VM.
Vista Ultimate OEM is $175 at Newegg. They charge $250 for the Vista Ultimate retail pack. XP Pro (edit OEM) is $130.
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.
I really don't think many people really consider long term OS upgrade costs in deciding what to buy.
Something to point out is that you don't have to upgrade the OS at every interval. Usually the previous OS version is pretty well supported by most software makers, should the user chose to upgrade their apps. My current computer is still the same Tiger that it came with. I didn't upgrade for several reasons, though I may decide to soon.
Something I didn't see mentioned yet is Apple's "Family Pack". The OS disc is $200 for licenses for up to five computers in the same home, bringing the cost to as low as $40 a computer and still be legit. Doesn't hurt that there's no authentication or authorization necessary either, as yet, does not require having the previous disc or an installed OS to upgrade.
I really don't think many people really consider long term OS upgrade costs in deciding what to buy.
Most people probably don't b/c the way Windows tends to jack requirements up pretty significantly w/each new OS, by the time you are ready for a new system you are probably ready for a new OS too. Plus they know their service packs will be free too. A lot of the time the non-technical only hear about the upgrade prices when a snarky MS fan reminds them of it
Something to point out is that you don't have to upgrade the OS at every interval. Usually the previous OS version is pretty well supported by most software makers, should the user chose to upgrade their apps. My current computer is still the same Tiger that it came with. I didn't upgrade for several reasons, though I may decide to soon.
Very rarely is anything on Windows side going to be restricted by which SP you are using. XP is still capable of running most modern software, barring things MS intentionally made "Vista only" like DirectX10.
Something I didn't see mentioned yet is Apple's "Family Pack". The OS disc is $200 for licenses for up to five computers in the same home, bringing the cost to as low as $40 a computer and still be legit. Doesn't hurt that there's no authentication or authorization necessary either, as yet, does not require having the previous disc or an installed OS to upgrade.
The family packs are a great thing and make a lot of sense. I didn't include them b/c I couldn't find any information on when they had started doing the family packs. Interesting enough, finding the pricing info on the various OS X releases was far easier than finding the launch prices for XP and Vista heh.
Microsoft was playing with the idea of limiting the base version of Windows 7 to run 3 applications simultaneously because the hardware running that version likely couldn't do more than that.
Wrong. The Starter Edition was planned to be limited because of a low license price for netbooks to compete with free Linux. You still can upgrade to any higher version. Every version of 7, even Ultimate, runs on a netbook with 1 GB RAM.
Because this is an an Apple-Centric Website (refer to name of the website), Just because there isn't criticism in every single article posted on this site doesn't mean Apple Users have no complaints.
But there should be criticism in every single article. That should be the reason for such a website. Am I wrong?
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)
Vista SP2 can burn Blu-Ray within Explorer. So OK as long as you have to install SP2 it is not exactly out-of-the box but newer systems will come with SP2 installed.
Didn't you remember that Mac OS X 10.0 couldn't even burn CDs (!!!) or play DVDs? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.0)
well here is one huge significance you have missed. although you do have to connect some dots:
- in January Apple introduces iWork 09 (for $20 per seat in family pack), which is now a complete office suite that could completely replace (the ridiculously overpriced @ $135 - the "Microsoft tax") MS Office for Mac users, except that it lacks Exchange/Entourage functions.
- now in September Apple will add that Exchange support to Snow Leopard, which will enable Mail and iCal to completely replace Entourage for Mac users.
that makes Snow Leopard the Mac Office 2008-"killer." and since MS makes several hundred million dollars per year selling Office to Mac owners, that is "significant." but even more significant is that it really makes life without any Microsoft product at all very possible for most people. and that is a threat of the gravest possible significance to MS long-term. a complete consumer escape route from their practical everyday multi-platform desktop software-required-by-services hegemony.
Now That I Like!
MS FREE
Because there is something horribly wrong with your box..?
SP2 took about 20 minutes to install on my old office P4 desktop with 2.5GB of RAM.
One of the big problem with SP's on vista was the whole stupid download manager. And it's constant problem with destroying drivers.
Like one problem it wiped the mouse driver, and the mouse just stopped working(it's your standard HID mouse that ironically came with the computer). It was one of the most painful things to fix, because it would lock up the moment I plugged in the mouse, and I had to trouble shoot it with a keyboard alone, for a stupid driver issue.
The other thing that SP slow down on is if you have extra's installed (which is downloaded), it took forever if it happened to messed them up. Language packs are the worse offense.
But I could say there's horribly wrong with a lot of people's Vista boxes because it's running vista
Everything from printers, to shares, to a freaking mouse(!). One of them I just gave up because to transfer data of it to the the external drive (which the USB driver won't work on vista for some reason), was worth more effort in money then the machine.
I'm more prejudice to it, because in a corporate environment, vista problems naturally amplify the flaws, and the easiest way to fix it, is to ban it.
See problem solved, anyone who brings in a vista laptop can connect to the guest wifi firewalled, you work on your crappy work station and live with it. IT policy.
And you wonder why the vista hate trickles down
One of the big problem with SP's on vista was the whole stupid download manager. And it's constant problem with destroying drivers.
Which download manager? The Service Pack comes via Windows Update. If you can't see the SP there, don't install it because some drivers may not be compatible yet with the SP! Wait until updated drivers are shown and don't plug in new hardware while the SP installs.
I had SP2 beta on one machine with Ultimate Extras and one language pack installed, I uninstalled the beta SP and installed the final version on a desktop and a tablet without a single problem. Never had problems with Vista.
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
10.1, i.e., Puma, was a 'free' upgrade.
Since you are using the apple's suggested retail price, why not for Microsoft's Vista @ $499.95 and XP @ $299. Otherwise, one could say you could pick up an OS X for as low as $79.
In addition, since you have included an OS x version that won't be coming out until September, it would only be fair that you should include Windows 7, as well.
10.1, i.e., Puma, was a 'free' upgrade.
Since you are using the apple's suggested retail price, why not for Microsoft's Vista @ $499.95 and XP @ $299. Otherwise, one could say you could pick up an OS X for as low as $79.
In addition, since you have included an OS x version that won't be coming out until September, it would only be fair that you should include Windows 7, as well.
If pricing was known on Windows 7 I would, not released yet. Thanks for playing. I don't have any copies of the Windows OS boxes handy (my copy of XP was a $7 educational copy anyway) and for some reason I had a heluva time actually finding the pricing for XP and Vista from launch. If they were mislisted in the couple of reviews for each that I found dating back to launch my apologies, I can only go based on the info I track down. I made sure to find articles dating back to release and not just say "yeah newegg is selling it for $X" besides, I did all my searching from work today heh
now i know no one visiting AI would ever do that! but i gotta say, i think it actually happens a lot ...
on the other hand, if you try to sell mac clone hardware like Pystar, they'll sue your butt!
10.1, i.e., Puma, was a 'free' upgrade.
Since you are using the apple's suggested retail price, why not for Microsoft's Vista @ $499.95 and XP @ $299. Otherwise, one could say you could pick up an OS X for as low as $79.
Maybe depends on currency?
The SRP of Ultimate retail box is $319.99 USD.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...s/default.aspx
Maybe depends on currency?
The SRP of Ultimate retail box is $319.99 USD.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...s/default.aspx
Not when it was introduced.
Not when it was introduced.
It turns out you're right about that, but it wasn't $500 US either.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016_3-6112260.html
It was harder than I expected to find the introduction prices.
If pricing was known on Windows 7 I would, not released yet. Thanks for playing. I don't have any copies of the Windows OS boxes handy (my copy of XP was a $7 educational copy anyway) and for some reason I had a heluva time actually finding the pricing for XP and Vista from launch. If they were mislisted in the couple of reviews for each that I found dating back to launch my apologies, I can only go based on the info I track down. I made sure to find articles dating back to release and not just say "yeah newegg is selling it for $X" besides, I did all my searching from work today heh
In all fairness then, I would suggest that you at least delete the $129 for the free Puma and the $29 upgrade for Snow Leopard.
In addition, if you are going to use a discount outlets prices for Microsoft's OS's, then at least do the same for Apple's OS X's. e.g., OS X from MacMall is $103.99.
In addition, if you are going to use a discount outlets prices for Microsoft's OS's, then at least do the same for Apple's OS X's. e.g., OS X from MacMall is $103.99.
I specifically said I was trying to find the original launch prices from articles dating back to the time of launch, NOT using something like newegg's current price.
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.
And to add to your point, WIndows Vista (aka Longhorn) Was suppose to come out in 2003. And, if you look back, Windows came out more frequent with updates before XP.
Thanks. Pretty sure I used to have an AI account back around 2002 but I couldn't remember what it was
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.
First off, welcome. Second off, they would be wrong. OS X is like Windows NT. Windows NT, being the core of the OS, hasn't received a major re-write in a very long time. It has been changed, features added onto it, but it's still basically the same technology. However, the same is true with OS X (or was Leopard a major re-write?), but the difference is -- OS X came in 2001, NT came in 1993. It is in a desperate need for a re-write, really is.
But, to be fair, look how much Apple updates each "OS X service pack": Link
And, btw, a Service Pack does not change or add features, it usually deals with stability or security breaches in the OS. OS X Snow Leopard (10.6) will add some features, under the hood, while increasing speed -- which is a feature. Also, Microsoft has stated that they plan on releasing more Windows, faster, instead of waiting 6 years to make a new update. To prove the point, Windows 7 is coming out (which, btw, is called Windows 6.1 in the MS windows team) this year, or early next year. So, yea. Plus you didn't add XP Media Edition, which added features (I am sure you could buy it at the retail -- right?).
Anyway, thats all I have to say.
To add to the OS upgrade price comparison, you should add that Mac users haven't needed to purchase additional hardware to be able to upgrade and get a similar performance after upgrading. My main computer is a PowerBook Pismo I purchased in 2000 with Mac OS 9. I've since upgraded all the way to 10.4 without any hardware purchases, saving many dollars
Thats true, until Snow Leopard, and I have a feeling older Intel macs are going to be phased out at some point, as well. And another thing to add -- I know some people consider this to be true, because I have seen the argument "Apple charges for Service packz!?!" but, they are wrong to think that Leopard is a service pack of Tiger. I get added functionality, added features, (supposedly) more speed (I found this not to be true from Tiger to Leopard), a new design, and an overall better experience. And, um, what features did SP 1 get you Vista owners? Hmmm?
You see, it's wrong to think that way, and anyone considering getting a Mac, who finds this argument, will at some point (if they do their research) find the truth.