you guys keep making it sound like this is a minor upgrade. This is an entirely new operating system. It isn't a vista fix or a patch or a service pack, and if anyone ever gets confused and thinks that it is, it's only because people like you are spreading misinformation about the subject.
sorry, but that's baloney.
yes, from a user's perspective, Win 7 is a major release because the UI has been revised so much - the front end (in many ways copying OS X as usual). we'll hear a lot about that.
but under the hood it's Vista v.2. that's why MS itself numbers it 6.1 after Vista's 6.0. an "entirely new operating system" would jump instead a full integer to ... er, 7.x (whereas XP of course was 5.x). sure, some related chunks of the OS are being overhauled - especially XP legacy stuff. just like Snow Leopard is overhauling the current version of Quicktime 7.x which dates back to 2005.
but "entirely new," that's nonsense.
which is part of the MS insult, this tacky little numbering game of Windows 7 when the "7" actually means 6.1.
look at it this way. Vista was the beta. now after 2.5 years MS finally is getting the finished version of "NT 6" out the door. how impressive!
if they were charging $29 for Win 7 for all the users who already paid cash before to buy/upgrade Vista, that would be a fair deal comparable to Snow Leopard's $29 price. but MS ain't doing that ... instead it's the Microsoft Tax.
think that phony shopper on the MS TV ads realizes she will have to shell out more bucks to upgrade? ooops, they left that part out ...
Are we to discriminate against the gays now? Maybe he really is infatuated with Steve Jobs. He's free to do so.
Nothing to do with discrimination. Name ImHornyForMeganFox would be as inappropriate. While I'm open minded (and, err, more than mildly interested in personal qualities of one Megan Fox, both constitutional and mental), names with sexual (p)references are hardly appropriate for forums opened to minors.
We're only exposed to Vista and other flavors of Windows on a daily basis. Who do you think fixes Windows for friends and family? Mac users.
This is hilarious. From my experiences, Mac users tend to know the least about Windows based computers. Which isn't altogether surprising... knowing nothing about how OS configurations work, nothing about computer hardware interoperability (coming from someone who builds his own high end gaming machines). In fact, most Mac users I know, and by that I mean those who don't work at the Apple Store and don't frequent online communities (i.e. the fanboys), are airheads. Proof is that I had to help my friend burn a CD on his beloved new macbook. Burn a CD? Are you serious? Granted, I don't know my way around OS X very well, as I am one of those PC users, but I did have it done as he wanted it in under 5 minutes. Not bad, but no matter, I guess I'm just a retarded PC user. And by the way, my family and friends don't look to Mac users for fixes.
? Better selection of HW choices to meet specific needs at any price point.
? Much lower entry prices for those simply needing a machine or basic web/email/IM.
Cheers. I did mention cheaper hardware, much of it not at all available for Macs - which kind of covers your lines, but yours are more obvious and easier to follow.
Cheers. I did mention cheaper hardware, much of it not at all available for Macs - which kind of covers your lines, but yours are more obvious and easier to follow.
i'd like to have some benchmarks to back me up on this one, just so someone doesn't jump and say I'm talking bs, but my core2duo macbook pro with 2gb of ram is 1000 times faster than my core2quad pc running windows vista, with 4gb of ram
what's the point of having a core2quad if you have windows vista?
You are paying WAY more for WAY less from MS. Only in the Bizzaro world is that remotely close to even.
Sure the prices are relatively similar but look at ALL of the changes from 10.0 to 10.7. It is not even remotely similar to the changes from XP to 7. Besides OS X upgrades used to be $99 and 10.1 was also $29.99, I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
LOLZ. Because I haven't heard that one a thousand times.
I did a comparison between the prices of upgrades between OS X an XP->Vista->7
If you had bought a PC or a Mac and somehow managed to hold on to it since 2001, then these are the numbers.
Each dot release, plus the initial version of OS X was rolled out at 129.99. If we include Snow Leopard at $29, then if you remained current, you would have paid $809.
XP Pro Retail was $299, Vista Ultimate Upgrade was $219, and 7 Upgrade will also be $219. That makes $737.
In that wildly hypothetical situation, you paid $70 (10%) more owning OS X than you did the current flavour of Windows.
To make it more realistic, say you upgraded your hardware once. That would knock out one purchase of the operating system directly. OS X - $679, Windows - $519. The difference is marked.
If you upgraded twice which is more likely, then I would suspect another $130 knocked off OS X, but unlikely that you could save yourself another upgrade under Windows. OS X $549, Windows $519.
The point to be made is that Microsoft in a relative sense isn't really gouging their customers. It looks pretty even to me.
They are charging little for it anyway, would save them money not having to support the three OS versions: Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard.
[...]
Sarbannes-Oxley perhaps? Apple clearly intends to make very little money from Leopard to Snow Leopard upgrades. However, the definition of an OS has very little to do with the marketing features we generally see. It's 99% under the hood and most of the Snow Leopard changes are under the hood, so it's real value delivered to the core product. Plus the Exchange support is a significant value-add for those that need to use it, which would otherwise require an expensive piece of (junk) to provide the same. Apple may feel obligated to charge a justifiable fee.
Why would you want to install windows 7? I honestly cannot believe what I was missing before I bought my MAC. Also, why would you install windows 7 using boot camp?? The only reason I'd have a PC is if I needed it for work...
I play games, am addicted to Steam, and I am a techwh0re.
This is hilarious. From my experiences, Mac users tend to know the least about Windows based computers. Which isn't altogether surprising... knowing nothing about how OS configurations work, nothing about computer hardware interoperability (coming from someone who builds his own high end gaming machines). In fact, most Mac users I know, and by that I mean those who don't work at the Apple Store and don't frequent online communities (i.e. the fanboys), are airheads. Proof is that I had to help my friend burn a CD on his beloved new macbook. Burn a CD? Are you serious? Granted, I don't know my way around OS X very well, as I am one of those PC users, but I did have it done as he wanted it in under 5 minutes. Not bad, but no matter, I guess I'm just a retarded PC user. And by the way, my family and friends don't look to Mac users for fixes.
For all the debates between Windows and Mac, there is a third option:
Linux
This option is more feasible because PC makers such as Dell and HP are beginning to sell desktops with Linux pre-loaded. There are even dedicated vendors like System76 that sell them. This is in addition to the beige-box dealers who will sell you a naked PC, or who will let you build it yourself.
What's more, this option will be completely free of the adware that many Windows PC's come with.
With so much of the computing experience driven by the web (Google, Facebook, etc), the choice of operating system becomes less and less relevant for users with trivial needs that don't go beyond surfing, reading email, and working with simple documents and music.
So for the ultra-cheap basic computer user, Linux PCs should be considered an option since it can't be that hard to just click the globe with the orange fox around it.
Microsoft knows this and is getting nervous because they're currently been squeezed out of the high-end PC market by Apple and are threatened at the low end by Linux.
For the record, I'm a happy Mac user, but I have used Linux in the past on a dual-boot for several years.
For all the debates between Windows and Mac, there is a third option:
Linux
This option is more feasible because PC makers such as Dell and HP are beginning to sell desktops with Linux pre-loaded. There are even dedicated vendors like System76 that sell them. This is in addition to the beige-box dealers who will sell you a naked PC, or who will let you build it yourself.
What's more, this option will be completely free of the adware that many Windows PC's come with.
With so much of the computing experience driven by the web (Google, Facebook, etc), the choice of operating system becomes less and less relevant for users with trivial needs that don't go beyond surfing, reading email, and working with simple documents and music.
So for the ultra-cheap basic computer user, Linux PCs should be considered an option since it can't be that hard to just click the globe with the orange fox around it.
Microsoft knows this and is getting nervous because they're currently been squeezed out of the high-end PC market by Apple and are threatened at the low end by Linux.
For the record, I'm a happy Mac user, but I have used Linux in the past on a dual-boot for several years.
I've got my parents using Ubuntu. Been worry free and maintenance free so far.
No way in hell I'd let them near Windows.
Come Christmas, however, I'll likely be getting them a Mac.
But yes, for simple tasks and casual surfing and light office-related work, I'd definitely choose Linux in the absence of OS X.
Great idea, not gonna happen on Windows 7. Heck, they could ship the different 32-bit versions on one disc (Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, Super, whatever), but they're not gonna do that are they? <sigh>
I'm sorry, but I had to register to respond to this post. For someone who talks about Windows a lot, you seem not know how much about it. Since Vista, retail Windows disc have come with BOTH 32 bit and 64 bit on them. Keys are not tied to either 32 bit or 64 bit.
And you would never know if Apple missed a deadline because they never publish them
On the contrary, Apple has given us a good idea of their release schdule. At first, they said that they would release about one year apart. Then when they got the OS to the point where it was mostly complete from their standpoint, they said that they would be going releases about two years apart. They've either been on schedule, ahead of schedule, or just a few months behind. Thats a pretty good record.
MS has been years late. At least one year late for every release going back to the early 1990's.
While Apple also had problems in the mid '90's with the failure of Copelend, they straightened themselves out.
Quote:
But it the real world it doesn't. In the real world, the reality is that XP and Vista and now 7, have (and I suppose will) been released in approximately the same time frames as all the dot releases of OS X to Snow Leopard. And the cost of that is the sum total of what I am arguing.
How do you get that?
Vista took five years to release. and don't forget that it was a terribly botched attempt at Longhorn that precipitated VISTA in the first place. Vista is considered by the PC industry to be no more that XP in reworked fashion, rather than the new OS MS promised that Longhorn would be. So there were five years of birth for a product that pretty much already existed. Vista was no more that what Apple comes out with every two years.
Win 7 in turn is considered to be a minor revision of Vista. Yet, it took over seven years for the two to be developed.
You can set an artificial timeline, but you have to include XP in that. Add up the real totals.
Quote:
But let's go back to your imaginary world for a second. You're also supposing that Microsoft would have charged the same prices for products two years apart? Is that a realistic assumption?
The world I've stated is the real world. the one you've set up is what you wish it would be.
They are charging this for Win 7. And that's just two years after Vista. Surely you've noticed that? I don't see the Ultimate product being offered for even $129, which is all it's worth anyway.
Even in the PC sites, blogs and magazines, they were talking about how MS would respond to the $29 Apple will be charging for 10.6. It's not something I made up. If Apple decided to give it away for free, MS would have been in a lot of trouble, because $50 for the pre sale would have had to be dropped, and possibly so would all of their other prices. As MS lives by its software prices and profits, that would hit them much harder that Apple's pricing is hitting them, as they live by hardware sales and profits.
Quote:
I appreciate your point, and thanks for the correction. But if Leopard wasn't an incompetent release.... even knowing exactly what hardware combinations Apple was deploying to? But incompetence is not and never was my point. Cold hard cash, my friend. Staying current with OS X has been comparable in cost to doing the same with Windows.
Leopard wasn't an incompetent release. While some people have had problems here and there, the vast majority haven't. Its mostly the techie people who write in on sites like this that have mentioned problems. There's nothing like all the problems so many have had with Vista 64 OR 32.
That's why MS was prompted to come out with a minor release in the form of Windows 7 and drop the name Vista as quickly as possible in such a short time (for them).
If you've been following the PC press as I do, then you would have seen all the speculation about MS releasing Win 7 for free to all Vista owners.
At least, they changed their tune about requiring people to have upgraded to Vista before allowing them to upgrade to Win 7, which, at first, they said wouldn't be possible. The disgust with Vista, and the lack of acceptance made them change their minds (along with demands made in MS friendly blogs and such).
It's statements like this that are completely ignorant and exactly what I spoke to above. Shame on you.
I will say, the problems I saw people had with Vista mainly stemmed from third party drivers. Microsoft put beta copies of vista out there long enough that these vendors could write popper drivers, but a lot of them were lazy about it. You'd be surprised at companies that took their time and F'd up. Creative? The sound card company... They were a main cause of system crashes because their drivers were just complete crap.
It's a shame really. Vista isn't a bad operating system, in fact I feel confident in going as far as saying it's a GOOD operating system, but little things at it's launch gave it a bad rep, and companies like Apple pushed that as far as they could. People who never used Vista before were saying they'd give it 0 out of 10 lol.
Except it's not. Vista has been accepted as being Server 2003, after they botched Longhorn, which would have been a major advance. As they found they had to drop all the major features, they decided to drop the entire thing, and give some snazzy interface changes to 2003, along with the annoying security features, and call it Vista.
The entire PC industry is calling Win 7 a minor upgrade to Vista, so don't pretend it's not.
you guys keep making it sound like this is a minor upgrade. This is an entirely new operating system. It isn't a vista fix or a patch or a service pack, and if anyone ever gets confused and thinks that it is, it's only because people like you are spreading misinformation about the subject.
Except that you seem to know so little about MS's OS's that you are the one spreading the misinformation. XP was Win 2000 (which was NT 5, except it was over two years late so they renamed it Win 2000, hoping people would forget) with jazzed up multimedia extensions and a newer GUI. Vista was a warmed over Server 2003 because of the failure of Longhorn, with more jazzed up features, and a 64 bit version, and Win 7 is a warmed over version of Vista, with a somewhat simplified security system and a few other features according to MS, though they don't quite state it in that way for obvious reasons.
Jesus. Way to AGAIN post misinformation (by only showing a portion of what he said.) Later in that same interview he claimed it was a major release, not a minor release (as everyone is making it sound here.)
First you guys call Ballmer an idiot, and talk about how everything he says is moronic, then you turn around and quote him as the last word on a subject like this.
If Ballmer wants to say something idiotic in order to sell more copies of Vista now, so be it, but he contradicts himself in that same interview. You know, the part you left out?
Ballmer also took exception to the idea that Windows 7 will be a minor release or a spit polish on Vista. "It's a real release," he said, "because it's a lot more work than a minor release. It turns out you can [do] more than just a minor release in what is essentially a two-and-a-half-year period of time. There's no reason to do just 'a minor release' in two and a half years."
...Mike Nash, vice president of Windows product management, said "Windows 7" was the product's official name, he called the operating system "evolutionary" but still a "significant" advancement. "It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation," Nash said then.
Of COURSE he's got to call it a major release. If he didn't, there would be no way they could charge for it. It would just be another service pack. MS MUST charge for Windows upgrades. They live by Windows upgrades and Office upgrades. That's 90% of their profits, and 60% of their sales.
Can you imagine if Ballmer, after telling the press that Win 7 was a warmed over Vista, as he basically did, then said it was a minor upgrade? How could they then charge for it?
Already, the PC press has been asking for it to be a free release for all Vista owners. It would devastate their sales and profits, and their stock would drop to $10.
The very fact that the press pushed him on this shows the feelings out there. Can you imagine how he felt having to tell them that this was a "real" release? Do you understand what that meant, that he HAD to state that?
Well, someone like you obviously would view it the way you want. I don't even pay much attention to what he says there. Think about it, on one hand, he's gotta make it sound like they haven't gone too far ahead because of backward compatibility, but on the other hand he's gotta justify releasing windows 7 as a new operating system. Why would you listen to anyone in that position?
The problem is that you DID feel that you had to quote it. Why are you backtracking now? Doesn't the CEO of MS's words mean anything to you when they're shown to be hollow?
Are you going to stand up for them or not?
Either Win 7 is just more Vista with minor changes, or it's as you earlier said, a new OS. Which is it?
Why? I think what is funny is snow leopard costs anything at all... Microsoft doesn't charge for service packs why should apple? Windows 7 is a new OS... Snow leopard is SP....
Comments
you guys keep making it sound like this is a minor upgrade. This is an entirely new operating system. It isn't a vista fix or a patch or a service pack, and if anyone ever gets confused and thinks that it is, it's only because people like you are spreading misinformation about the subject.
sorry, but that's baloney.
yes, from a user's perspective, Win 7 is a major release because the UI has been revised so much - the front end (in many ways copying OS X as usual). we'll hear a lot about that.
but under the hood it's Vista v.2. that's why MS itself numbers it 6.1 after Vista's 6.0. an "entirely new operating system" would jump instead a full integer to ... er, 7.x (whereas XP of course was 5.x). sure, some related chunks of the OS are being overhauled - especially XP legacy stuff. just like Snow Leopard is overhauling the current version of Quicktime 7.x which dates back to 2005.
but "entirely new," that's nonsense.
which is part of the MS insult, this tacky little numbering game of Windows 7 when the "7" actually means 6.1.
look at it this way. Vista was the beta. now after 2.5 years MS finally is getting the finished version of "NT 6" out the door. how impressive!
if they were charging $29 for Win 7 for all the users who already paid cash before to buy/upgrade Vista, that would be a fair deal comparable to Snow Leopard's $29 price. but MS ain't doing that ... instead it's the Microsoft Tax.
think that phony shopper on the MS TV ads realizes she will have to shell out more bucks to upgrade? ooops, they left that part out ...
Let me help.
Work related, as you mentioned - obviously.
Lower hardware price, much of it not available on Mac. There is no Quad Core option for Mac - short of Mac Pro.
Software not available on Mac (might be work related for some people).
Games
Easy hardware upgrade path. If you purchase your machine carefully, adding things to PC box is simple. Adding things to consumer Macs is, well.
There are a couple you missed out… PS: The easy HW upgrade path argument is lessening each year as notebooks get more and more popular.
Are we to discriminate against the gays now? Maybe he really is infatuated with Steve Jobs. He's free to do so.
Nothing to do with discrimination. Name ImHornyForMeganFox would be as inappropriate. While I'm open minded (and, err, more than mildly interested in personal qualities of one Megan Fox, both constitutional and mental), names with sexual (p)references are hardly appropriate for forums opened to minors.
We're only exposed to Vista and other flavors of Windows on a daily basis. Who do you think fixes Windows for friends and family? Mac users.
This is hilarious. From my experiences, Mac users tend to know the least about Windows based computers. Which isn't altogether surprising... knowing nothing about how OS configurations work, nothing about computer hardware interoperability (coming from someone who builds his own high end gaming machines). In fact, most Mac users I know, and by that I mean those who don't work at the Apple Store and don't frequent online communities (i.e. the fanboys), are airheads. Proof is that I had to help my friend burn a CD on his beloved new macbook. Burn a CD? Are you serious? Granted, I don't know my way around OS X very well, as I am one of those PC users, but I did have it done as he wanted it in under 5 minutes. Not bad, but no matter, I guess I'm just a retarded PC user. And by the way, my family and friends don't look to Mac users for fixes.
There are a couple you missed out?
Cheers. I did mention cheaper hardware, much of it not at all available for Macs - which kind of covers your lines, but yours are more obvious and easier to follow.
Cheers. I did mention cheaper hardware, much of it not at all available for Macs - which kind of covers your lines, but yours are more obvious and easier to follow.
i'd like to have some benchmarks to back me up on this one, just so someone doesn't jump and say I'm talking bs, but my core2duo macbook pro with 2gb of ram is 1000 times faster than my core2quad pc running windows vista, with 4gb of ram
what's the point of having a core2quad if you have windows vista?
Sure the prices are relatively similar but look at ALL of the changes from 10.0 to 10.7. It is not even remotely similar to the changes from XP to 7. Besides OS X upgrades used to be $99 and 10.1 was also $29.99, I believe.
LOLZ. Because I haven't heard that one a thousand times.
I did a comparison between the prices of upgrades between OS X an XP->Vista->7
If you had bought a PC or a Mac and somehow managed to hold on to it since 2001, then these are the numbers.
Each dot release, plus the initial version of OS X was rolled out at 129.99. If we include Snow Leopard at $29, then if you remained current, you would have paid $809.
XP Pro Retail was $299, Vista Ultimate Upgrade was $219, and 7 Upgrade will also be $219. That makes $737.
In that wildly hypothetical situation, you paid $70 (10%) more owning OS X than you did the current flavour of Windows.
To make it more realistic, say you upgraded your hardware once. That would knock out one purchase of the operating system directly. OS X - $679, Windows - $519. The difference is marked.
If you upgraded twice which is more likely, then I would suspect another $130 knocked off OS X, but unlikely that you could save yourself another upgrade under Windows. OS X $549, Windows $519.
The point to be made is that Microsoft in a relative sense isn't really gouging their customers. It looks pretty even to me.
[...]
They are charging little for it anyway, would save them money not having to support the three OS versions: Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard.
[...]
Sarbannes-Oxley perhaps? Apple clearly intends to make very little money from Leopard to Snow Leopard upgrades. However, the definition of an OS has very little to do with the marketing features we generally see. It's 99% under the hood and most of the Snow Leopard changes are under the hood, so it's real value delivered to the core product. Plus the Exchange support is a significant value-add for those that need to use it, which would otherwise require an expensive piece of (junk) to provide the same. Apple may feel obligated to charge a justifiable fee.
Why would you want to install windows 7? I honestly cannot believe what I was missing before I bought my MAC. Also, why would you install windows 7 using boot camp?? The only reason I'd have a PC is if I needed it for work...
I play games, am addicted to Steam, and I am a techwh0re.
There I said it...
This is hilarious. From my experiences, Mac users tend to know the least about Windows based computers. Which isn't altogether surprising... knowing nothing about how OS configurations work, nothing about computer hardware interoperability (coming from someone who builds his own high end gaming machines). In fact, most Mac users I know, and by that I mean those who don't work at the Apple Store and don't frequent online communities (i.e. the fanboys), are airheads. Proof is that I had to help my friend burn a CD on his beloved new macbook. Burn a CD? Are you serious? Granted, I don't know my way around OS X very well, as I am one of those PC users, but I did have it done as he wanted it in under 5 minutes. Not bad, but no matter, I guess I'm just a retarded PC user. And by the way, my family and friends don't look to Mac users for fixes.
Switchers.
Most of us have to use Windows at work.
Linux
This option is more feasible because PC makers such as Dell and HP are beginning to sell desktops with Linux pre-loaded. There are even dedicated vendors like System76 that sell them. This is in addition to the beige-box dealers who will sell you a naked PC, or who will let you build it yourself.
What's more, this option will be completely free of the adware that many Windows PC's come with.
With so much of the computing experience driven by the web (Google, Facebook, etc), the choice of operating system becomes less and less relevant for users with trivial needs that don't go beyond surfing, reading email, and working with simple documents and music.
So for the ultra-cheap basic computer user, Linux PCs should be considered an option since it can't be that hard to just click the globe with the orange fox around it.
Microsoft knows this and is getting nervous because they're currently been squeezed out of the high-end PC market by Apple and are threatened at the low end by Linux.
For the record, I'm a happy Mac user, but I have used Linux in the past on a dual-boot for several years.
For all the debates between Windows and Mac, there is a third option:
Linux
This option is more feasible because PC makers such as Dell and HP are beginning to sell desktops with Linux pre-loaded. There are even dedicated vendors like System76 that sell them. This is in addition to the beige-box dealers who will sell you a naked PC, or who will let you build it yourself.
What's more, this option will be completely free of the adware that many Windows PC's come with.
With so much of the computing experience driven by the web (Google, Facebook, etc), the choice of operating system becomes less and less relevant for users with trivial needs that don't go beyond surfing, reading email, and working with simple documents and music.
So for the ultra-cheap basic computer user, Linux PCs should be considered an option since it can't be that hard to just click the globe with the orange fox around it.
Microsoft knows this and is getting nervous because they're currently been squeezed out of the high-end PC market by Apple and are threatened at the low end by Linux.
For the record, I'm a happy Mac user, but I have used Linux in the past on a dual-boot for several years.
I've got my parents using Ubuntu. Been worry free and maintenance free so far.
No way in hell I'd let them near Windows.
Come Christmas, however, I'll likely be getting them a Mac.
But yes, for simple tasks and casual surfing and light office-related work, I'd definitely choose Linux in the absence of OS X.
Great idea, not gonna happen on Windows 7. Heck, they could ship the different 32-bit versions on one disc (Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, Super, whatever), but they're not gonna do that are they? <sigh>
I'm sorry, but I had to register to respond to this post. For someone who talks about Windows a lot, you seem not know how much about it. Since Vista, retail Windows disc have come with BOTH 32 bit and 64 bit on them. Keys are not tied to either 32 bit or 64 bit.
And you would never know if Apple missed a deadline because they never publish them
On the contrary, Apple has given us a good idea of their release schdule. At first, they said that they would release about one year apart. Then when they got the OS to the point where it was mostly complete from their standpoint, they said that they would be going releases about two years apart. They've either been on schedule, ahead of schedule, or just a few months behind. Thats a pretty good record.
MS has been years late. At least one year late for every release going back to the early 1990's.
While Apple also had problems in the mid '90's with the failure of Copelend, they straightened themselves out.
But it the real world it doesn't. In the real world, the reality is that XP and Vista and now 7, have (and I suppose will) been released in approximately the same time frames as all the dot releases of OS X to Snow Leopard. And the cost of that is the sum total of what I am arguing.
How do you get that?
Vista took five years to release. and don't forget that it was a terribly botched attempt at Longhorn that precipitated VISTA in the first place. Vista is considered by the PC industry to be no more that XP in reworked fashion, rather than the new OS MS promised that Longhorn would be. So there were five years of birth for a product that pretty much already existed. Vista was no more that what Apple comes out with every two years.
Win 7 in turn is considered to be a minor revision of Vista. Yet, it took over seven years for the two to be developed.
You can set an artificial timeline, but you have to include XP in that. Add up the real totals.
But let's go back to your imaginary world for a second. You're also supposing that Microsoft would have charged the same prices for products two years apart? Is that a realistic assumption?
The world I've stated is the real world. the one you've set up is what you wish it would be.
They are charging this for Win 7. And that's just two years after Vista. Surely you've noticed that? I don't see the Ultimate product being offered for even $129, which is all it's worth anyway.
Even in the PC sites, blogs and magazines, they were talking about how MS would respond to the $29 Apple will be charging for 10.6. It's not something I made up. If Apple decided to give it away for free, MS would have been in a lot of trouble, because $50 for the pre sale would have had to be dropped, and possibly so would all of their other prices. As MS lives by its software prices and profits, that would hit them much harder that Apple's pricing is hitting them, as they live by hardware sales and profits.
I appreciate your point, and thanks for the correction. But if Leopard wasn't an incompetent release.... even knowing exactly what hardware combinations Apple was deploying to? But incompetence is not and never was my point. Cold hard cash, my friend. Staying current with OS X has been comparable in cost to doing the same with Windows.
Leopard wasn't an incompetent release. While some people have had problems here and there, the vast majority haven't. Its mostly the techie people who write in on sites like this that have mentioned problems. There's nothing like all the problems so many have had with Vista 64 OR 32.
That's why MS was prompted to come out with a minor release in the form of Windows 7 and drop the name Vista as quickly as possible in such a short time (for them).
If you've been following the PC press as I do, then you would have seen all the speculation about MS releasing Win 7 for free to all Vista owners.
At least, they changed their tune about requiring people to have upgraded to Vista before allowing them to upgrade to Win 7, which, at first, they said wouldn't be possible. The disgust with Vista, and the lack of acceptance made them change their minds (along with demands made in MS friendly blogs and such).
It's statements like this that are completely ignorant and exactly what I spoke to above. Shame on you.
I will say, the problems I saw people had with Vista mainly stemmed from third party drivers. Microsoft put beta copies of vista out there long enough that these vendors could write popper drivers, but a lot of them were lazy about it. You'd be surprised at companies that took their time and F'd up. Creative? The sound card company... They were a main cause of system crashes because their drivers were just complete crap.
It's a shame really. Vista isn't a bad operating system, in fact I feel confident in going as far as saying it's a GOOD operating system, but little things at it's launch gave it a bad rep, and companies like Apple pushed that as far as they could. People who never used Vista before were saying they'd give it 0 out of 10 lol.
Except it's not. Vista has been accepted as being Server 2003, after they botched Longhorn, which would have been a major advance. As they found they had to drop all the major features, they decided to drop the entire thing, and give some snazzy interface changes to 2003, along with the annoying security features, and call it Vista.
The entire PC industry is calling Win 7 a minor upgrade to Vista, so don't pretend it's not.
you guys keep making it sound like this is a minor upgrade. This is an entirely new operating system. It isn't a vista fix or a patch or a service pack, and if anyone ever gets confused and thinks that it is, it's only because people like you are spreading misinformation about the subject.
Except that you seem to know so little about MS's OS's that you are the one spreading the misinformation. XP was Win 2000 (which was NT 5, except it was over two years late so they renamed it Win 2000, hoping people would forget) with jazzed up multimedia extensions and a newer GUI. Vista was a warmed over Server 2003 because of the failure of Longhorn, with more jazzed up features, and a 64 bit version, and Win 7 is a warmed over version of Vista, with a somewhat simplified security system and a few other features according to MS, though they don't quite state it in that way for obvious reasons.
Jesus. Way to AGAIN post misinformation (by only showing a portion of what he said.) Later in that same interview he claimed it was a major release, not a minor release (as everyone is making it sound here.)
First you guys call Ballmer an idiot, and talk about how everything he says is moronic, then you turn around and quote him as the last word on a subject like this.
If Ballmer wants to say something idiotic in order to sell more copies of Vista now, so be it, but he contradicts himself in that same interview. You know, the part you left out?
Ballmer also took exception to the idea that Windows 7 will be a minor release or a spit polish on Vista. "It's a real release," he said, "because it's a lot more work than a minor release. It turns out you can [do] more than just a minor release in what is essentially a two-and-a-half-year period of time. There's no reason to do just 'a minor release' in two and a half years."
...Mike Nash, vice president of Windows product management, said "Windows 7" was the product's official name, he called the operating system "evolutionary" but still a "significant" advancement. "It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation," Nash said then.
Of COURSE he's got to call it a major release. If he didn't, there would be no way they could charge for it. It would just be another service pack. MS MUST charge for Windows upgrades. They live by Windows upgrades and Office upgrades. That's 90% of their profits, and 60% of their sales.
Can you imagine if Ballmer, after telling the press that Win 7 was a warmed over Vista, as he basically did, then said it was a minor upgrade? How could they then charge for it?
Already, the PC press has been asking for it to be a free release for all Vista owners. It would devastate their sales and profits, and their stock would drop to $10.
The very fact that the press pushed him on this shows the feelings out there. Can you imagine how he felt having to tell them that this was a "real" release? Do you understand what that meant, that he HAD to state that?
Well, someone like you obviously would view it the way you want. I don't even pay much attention to what he says there. Think about it, on one hand, he's gotta make it sound like they haven't gone too far ahead because of backward compatibility, but on the other hand he's gotta justify releasing windows 7 as a new operating system. Why would you listen to anyone in that position?
The problem is that you DID feel that you had to quote it. Why are you backtracking now? Doesn't the CEO of MS's words mean anything to you when they're shown to be hollow?
Are you going to stand up for them or not?
Either Win 7 is just more Vista with minor changes, or it's as you earlier said, a new OS. Which is it?
MS thinks it's Vista.
Why? I think what is funny is snow leopard costs anything at all... Microsoft doesn't charge for service packs why should apple? Windows 7 is a new OS... Snow leopard is SP....
Now, if you actually knew something about 10.6...