Win 7 Ultimate $320? I'd rather get a Mac.
Preorder Windows 7 Ultimate for ony $320
I'd rather go Linux than fork out $320 for a non-watered-down copy of Windows.
To me, the low cost of Mac OS upgrades alone justifies the higher Mac purchase price. And with Mac OS, you get ALL the features! Only one edition!
I'd rather go Linux than fork out $320 for a non-watered-down copy of Windows.
To me, the low cost of Mac OS upgrades alone justifies the higher Mac purchase price. And with Mac OS, you get ALL the features! Only one edition!
Comments
That's it! I'm going PC!
I'm sick and tired of Apple ripping us off!
Good job you're only ever likely to need Home Premium, so there's no point stumping up the extra for Ultimate. At least there's a choice rather than having to pay for things you don't want. Win7 Home Premium is cheaper than OSX.
If there's no point in getting Ultimate, why is Ultimate available?
IMO, the price is irrelevant. No one buys a Mac for the price; they buy it for the quality and refinement and joy it brings to their lives. I do not believe that $320 is too much to pay for those things. The problem is that $320 is too much to pay for Windows. For the Mac OS, I would gladly fork over that amount. Don't tell Steve.
IMO, price is relevant when buying a PC. Nobody buys a PC because they want one. Everybody gets a PC to save money or, more accurately, because they feel like they are saving money every time their computer doesn't start up, reboots for no reason, or gets infected with virus and crashes. They think: "yes, my computer is crap, but I saved a bundle". Then they realize the price of Mac software is soo much cheaper, go into a state of deep denial, and start calling every Mac user "stevejobs fanbois", or some related term. The cycle usually ends in destruction or acceptance. That is, either the person finds a way to destroy their PC or just accept the fact that they made a huge mistake and trash it and buy a Mac.
If there's no point in getting Ultimate, why is Ultimate available?
For the people who want the extra features it offers?
I have no real problem with that, but it is the difference between a premium product that you pay a premium price for and a cheap knock off that you use out of necessity. If MS put the same creativity into Windows as Apple does into the Mac OS, I would not have a problem with the price.
For the people who want the extra features it offers?
That's exactly my point. I want all the features Windows offers, but to me it's not worth $320.
I have tried the Windows 7 beta and RC, and while there are some notable improvements over Vista, the general impression is that it is Vista SP2, rather than a "reinvention" of the Windows OS. It is what Vista should have been in the first place.
As Mac Voyer said so well, each new major release of the Mac OS "wows" me with great new features, functionality, and eye candy all in one complete edition. The new versions of the Mac OS are released more frequently than new versions of Windows, and the cost to upgrade is comparatively inexpensive, especially considering what you get.
Taking into account the high quality of Macs, the fantastic OS, the great software available, the high resale value, and the overall pleasant user experience, I would rather save a few more hundred dollars and buy a nice used or refurb Mac Mini than spend $320 on an OS alone.
Heck, I'd rather move to Linux - which I have essentially already done - except I keep Windows XP running on a separate partition mainly for gaming purposes.
Granted, I could just buy a new PC with Windows 7 preinstalled, but how much would I have to pay for a PC with Windows 7 Ultimate? If I got a PC with Win 7 Home Premium and I wanted to upgrade to Ultimate, I'd have to fork out more $.
To me, Windows just isn't worth my time and money anymore.
What I'm saying is that MS could make a $320 product that was compelling, but they don't. They make a $20 commodity that is $300 overpriced. At $129, Mac OS is a bargain because it is compelling and desirable. Each new iteration makes you want to own the next. New releases do not feel like service packs; they feel like innovation packs. Each iteration of Windows is just a kludge of copied elements to provide the masses with something that was introduced on the Mac.
I have no real problem with that, but it is the difference between a premium product that you pay a premium price for and a cheap knock off that you use out of necessity. If MS put the same creativity into Windows as Apple does into the Mac OS, I would not have a problem with the price.
The real problem with what you're apparently stating as matter of fact is that it is your opinion. There are plenty of people out there who think that the $320 asking price for the full retail Windows 7 Ultimate is better value for money over $129 OSX because they can play all of their games and run all of their software on the $320 Windows that they would either have to buy a Windows license for anyway on the Mac, or replace all of the software with Mac versions, at great expense. You might as well just buy the $320 Windows 7 than the $320 Windows 7 AND $129 OSX, or the $129 OSX and whatever the cost to replace all of your software with a Mac version.
That's exactly my point. I want all the features Windows offers, but to me it's not worth $320.
If you want ALL the features Windows offers, then expect to pay the price for it. Personally, I could live without the extras that Ultimate has, so I could get by with Home Premium. There is zero point paying extra for features you won't use just so you can say you have the Ultimate version, and there is zero point in complaining that you have to pay more for those features. You wouldn't expect to get a Mac Pro for the same price as a Mac Mini, so there's equally no reason to expect the same in software.
The rest of your post is just opinion.
The real problem with what you're apparently stating as matter of fact is that it is your opinion. There are plenty of people out there who think that the $320 asking price for the full retail Windows 7 Ultimate is better value for money over $129 OSX because they can play all of their games and run all of their software on the $320 Windows that they would either have to buy a Windows license for anyway on the Mac, or replace all of the software with Mac versions, at great expense.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. It is definitely a matter of opinion. For the record, I have no problem with people who believe that Windows is a good value proposition. I do not believe that is most Windows users, however. I think most people use Windows because that is what comes on budget boxs they can afford at the time. I suspect that most people would choose Mac OS if it were available for use on those cheap boxes. In other words, I don't think people are making a value assessment of Windows. This is evidenced by the fact that most Windows users don't upgrade their OS. Most Mac users do. That is the difference between making a value proposition and eating the dog food you're served IMO.
But for my current wants and needs, it's unneccessary.
Your points are very valid. I am not a heavy gamer. I do, however, enjoy playing some games. All the games I currently enjoy playing run just fine on Windows XP, which I currently have.
When I purchase my Mac, I intend to run Windows XP in a separate partition and that will probably suit me just fine when the game bug bites me or for the rare occasion when I need to do something that can absolutely only be done on Windows.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. It is definitely a matter of opinion. For the record, I have no problem with people who believe that Windows is a good value proposition. I do not believe that is most Windows users, however. I think most people use Windows because that is what comes on budget boxs they can afford at the time. I suspect that most people would choose Mac OS if it were available for use on those cheap boxes. In other words, I don't think people are making a value assessment of Windows. This is evidenced by the fact that most Windows users don't upgrade their OS. Most Mac users do. That is the difference between making a value proposition and eating the dog food you're served IMO.
I'd be interested to see the statistic that shows most Mac users upgrade their OS. You could quite easily say that most people spending the money to upgrade their OS shows that the current version is inadequate for their needs, and they're having to pay more to gain the functionality they desire. Meanwhile, people who don't upgrade their OS do so because what they have already does everything they need to do, and paying for the new version is handing over money for the sake of it. You can twist that logic both ways.
\tOf course it's all opinion! Nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm sharing my own personal reasoning for not wanting to pay $320 for Windows 7 Ultimate. As you said, there are many people out there more than willing to pay whatever it takes to get their hands on Windows 7 for various reasons. That's perfectly fine with me.
But for my current wants and needs, it's unneccessary.
Your points are very valid. I am not a heavy gamer. I do, however, enjoy playing some games. All the games I currently enjoy playing run just fine on Windows XP, which I currently have.
When I purchase my Mac, I intend to run Windows XP in a separate partition and that will probably suit me just fine when the game bug bites me or for the rare occasion when I need to do something that can absolutely only be done on Windows.
That solution is great when you're spending extended amounts of time in either OS. However, I have tried the dual-boot thing before, and as I frequently multitask between games, email, web browsing and IM, it would be a pain to have to constantly switch from one OS to another depending on what task I'd be wishing to do at any one time. I have my iPhone for light email, web and IM, but that's really for use when I'm away from the computer as the experience isn't as pleasant. Dual-booting to play games on a Mac is a really bitter compromise you have to make in my opinion.
That solution is great when you're spending extended amounts of time in either OS. However, I have tried the dual-boot thing before, and as I frequently multitask between games, email, web browsing and IM, it would be a pain to have to constantly switch from one OS to another depending on what task I'd be wishing to do at any one time. I have my iPhone for light email, web and IM, but that's really for use when I'm away from the computer as the experience isn't as pleasant. Dual-booting to play games on a Mac is a really bitter compromise you have to make in my opinion.
Well it obviously all comes down to personal preference. If you are a frequent gamer, then yes you'll probably spend a good chunk of your time in Windows and Macs would be less appealing.
For an occaisional gamer like me, it's not such a big deal to work with a dual boot setup. Usually when I'm into the game, I don't want to be bothered by IMs, e-mails, etc. anyway.
In addition, virtualization programs such as VirtualBox are making some strides as far as 3D support and CPU management and we might soon be able to play some games in a virtual machine environment without ever having to reboot.
Well it obviously all comes down to personal preference. If you are a frequent gamer, then yes you'll probably spend a good chunk of your time in Windows and Macs would be less appealing.
For an occaisional gamer like me, it's not such a big deal to work with a dual boot setup. Usually when I'm into the game, I don't want to be bothered by IMs, e-mails, etc. anyway.
In addition, virtualization programs such as VirtualBox are making some strides as far as 3D support and CPU management and we might soon be able to play some games in a virtual machine environment without ever having to reboot.
I know what you mean - there have been a number of games where I have been completely engrossed and couldn't have cared less about browsing, IM and email. However, for the most part, I'm a casual gamer, and I dabble in and out of things frequently, and a dual-boot setup just wouldn't suit at all. Apple should put together all their cunning and come up with a way to allow all Windows software to run natively in OSX
That's exactly my point. I want all the features Windows offers, but to me it's not worth $320.
I have tried the Windows 7 beta and RC, and while there are some notable improvements over Vista, the general impression is that it is Vista SP2, rather than a "reinvention" of the Windows OS. It is what Vista should have been in the first place.
As Mac Voyer said so well, each new major release of the Mac OS "wows" me with great new features, functionality, and eye candy all in one complete edition. The new versions of the Mac OS are released more frequently than new versions of Windows, and the cost to upgrade is comparatively inexpensive, especially considering what you get.
Taking into account the high quality of Macs, the fantastic OS, the great software available, the high resale value, and the overall pleasant user experience, I would rather save a few more hundred dollars and buy a nice used or refurb Mac Mini than spend $320 on an OS alone.
Heck, I'd rather move to Linux - which I have essentially already done - except I keep Windows XP running on a separate partition mainly for gaming purposes.
Granted, I could just buy a new PC with Windows 7 preinstalled, but how much would I have to pay for a PC with Windows 7 Ultimate? If I got a PC with Win 7 Home Premium and I wanted to upgrade to Ultimate, I'd have to fork out more $.
To me, Windows just isn't worth my time and money anymore.
Two people use PCs:
1. Kids with no money that want an el cheapo gaming rig.
2. Workers who are forced into a PC because their company wasn't smart enough to push towards Macs or Linux.
THAT is basically IT.
To no. 1: sure get a cheapo rig to play MMORPGs or get a nintendo wii, playstation, etc for any other game type.
To no. 2: I am sorry for you. You are a victim of bad management. Even if all you do is web-mail-calendar, you are screwed with a PC. Get an iphone or something and use your PC as a paperweight for your office.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. It is definitely a matter of opinion. For the record, I have no problem with people who believe that Windows is a good value proposition. I do not believe that is most Windows users, however. I think most people use Windows because that is what comes on budget boxs they can afford at the time. I suspect that most people would choose Mac OS if it were available for use on those cheap boxes. In other words, I don't think people are making a value assessment of Windows. This is evidenced by the fact that most Windows users don't upgrade their OS. Most Mac users do. That is the difference between making a value proposition and eating the dog food you're served IMO.
100% correct you are.
Two people use PCs:
1. Kids with no money that want an el cheapo gaming rig.
2. Workers who are forced into a PC because their company wasn't smart enough to push towards Macs or Linux.
THAT is basically IT.
To no. 1: sure get a cheapo rig to play MMORPGs or get a nintendo wii, playstation, etc for any other game type.
To no. 2: I am sorry for you. You are a victim of bad management. Even if all you do is web-mail-calendar, you are screwed with a PC. Get an iphone or something and use your PC as a paperweight for your office.
LOL, come on, at least try and contribute something serious to this debate. It's posts like yours that just create flame wars.
And with Mac OS, you get ALL the features! Only one edition!
Mac OSX Server