Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jun 25, 2009.
Clean Install req. But it will install.
As far as I'm aware they have the capability, but never actually use it. I'm running multiple OS installs using technically invalid keys (my subscription on MAPS ran out a few months ago) yet they haven't deactivated the keys, and they are still quite happy to reactivate them even if I speak to a real person.
Wow... Apple is going to dominate Windows 7 in the notebook market... 29.99$ vs. 119.99$+. I wonder what the consumer is going to be choosing. Microsoft is going to continue to loose market share.
Uh, if I'm not mistaken that $29.99 is for the Mac Service Packs. OSX 10.4->10.5->10.6. The things Windows gets for free. SP1->SP2.
Now if you wanted to wait until the next operating system comes out for Mac and compare the upgrade price then, then that'll be a fair comparison.
What a service pack is a large comprehensive patch that Microsoft releases all at once rather than releasing it in bits and pieces the way Apple does (aka; 10.5.1-9). All other updates that Apple releases are purely just updates rather than an actual 10.5.2 or 10.5.3. Microsoft does this the same way.
This is an actual new operating system (10.7.1). Just because Apple releases it this way doesn't mean it's a service pack, especially since Apple themselves doesn't refer to it as one, thus the general public counts this as market share. Mac OS X is a build that Apple upgrades. Similar to Windows 7 compared to Vista or even Windows XP.
Furthermore, I would say this qualifies more than a service pack:
No, Microsoft releases patches in bits and pieces all the time. They do a roll together of all these, as well as usually they add usability. XP Service Pack 2 and Vista Service Pack 1 come to mind. Both of these weren't just patches in one installer, both majorly upgraded the system and made both OSes alot more usable.
In the past every seperate number as in OS9 and OSX have been seperate operating systems. Just because they're on the 7th update of OSX doesn't mean this has changed. It's all the same base OS with patches, tweaks and 'upgrades'. They don't sell these Service Packs as Service Packs because they don't want their fanbase to realize that they're paying for Service Packs.
Again when OS11 or X1 or what have you comes out, then we'll look at upgrade prices.
By this definition, Vista is a service pack for XP, and 7 is a service pack for Vista.
try again? You lose the price competition pretty hardcore when you follow that theme. Last I checked the 10.5.8 patch is gonna be free.
You're arguing that since its labeled OS X, its just a "service pack", but you clearly have no idea how vastly different 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6 are.
Windows is still labeled windows. 7 is a $200 service pack for a terrible Vista. I can play the ignorance game too.
There is also most definitely no way 10.1 is even remotely the same at 10.6 is. Not only was 10.1 PPC only, and a terrible mach kernel, but almost all of it has been re-written for x86 64 bit, come 10.6. I actually have a 10.1 CD and its like comparing windows 98 to windows 7, vastly improved.
I'm not saying by any means that I won't fork over 200$ for Windows 7, probably not immediately, and I will also be buying OEM Ultimate. Just in case you got that idea...
I know you're likening OSX to NT. Do me a favor and look up OS9. Each iteration thereof was listed as an update. Now all of a sudden OSX calls it something else and therefore its always a whole new OS? Just because terminology changes, doesn't mean its something completely different. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. By my definition, Vista and Win7 are different, however you are adamantly applying it to 'NT' and ignoring what I'm saying.
There is no way you can tell me that the difference between XP SP1 and XP SP2 was any shorter of a jump than between the Mac iterations. It's widely regarded as the Service Pack that saved XP. I'm glad 10.5.8 is going to be free. 10.6 is not. This is what I'm talking about. 10.6.1 may be free. But you still had to pay for 10.6. If you choose to ignore that please don't respond. Hell, even Mac people I've talked to have referred to these as Service Packs. Its also worth mentioning that if you're telling me OSX is comparable to NT, I don't remember paying for NT then paying for my OSes. After all 10.0 was 129 on release wasn't it? I bet you by the time we're done with OSX, people will have paid as much from start to finish as people who bought XP then upgraded to Vista and onward until the OSX run was complete. If not a very similar number. When it comes down to it, Jobs has just found a new way to sell it to you.
It's laughable to start saying Mac has paid less compared to Windows. Both have their own unique costs, and while I believe Mac's pay more I'm sure you disagree.
Brings up an interesting point. I bought my Vista new for $130 CAD in an OEM deal. I have seen no downside in buying OEM and I wouldn't pay full price myself.
Service packs for Windows don't offer new features, and on the surface I would wager even the techiest among us wouldn't be able to tell the difference b/t XP SP1 or XP SP3 w/o spending serious time w/ it or taking a peek at system info. Same w/ Vista. They are primarily a collection of updates and bug fixes, not upgrades.
Iterations of Mac OSX, while still at the core the same, change the functionality and the visual experience of the OS, to the point where most w/ even a little background knowledge in OS X would be able to tell. Not a huge difference mind you, but about the same difference as say Vista>7. 7 is still Vista at it's heart, but there's a few things moved around and such and a handful of new features.
This is why MS in this instance imo should rightly be comparable w/ Mac. Snow Leopard is Mac's answer to 7, and it's fitting b/c the jump b/t the two is really about the same (at least as far as I can tell so far, until they are both fully released it will be hard to tell for sure). XP>Vista was a much larger leap and and IMO worth more money, as was perhaps you would say Mac OS 9 to OS X. In this price war though, it seems Mac has the rare advantage of being cheaper (did I really just say Mac was cheaper ), at least in the upgrade respect (Leopard>Snow Leopard is pretty similar to Vista>7).
In summation, you are totally wrong in saying OS X versions are like SP's, but it really depends on which exact versions you're talking about, b/c the history is staggered.
I don't agree at all. I noticed immediately updating from SP1 to SP2 in XP. Also, you're right, Window's brand new features aren't ever introduced as OS specific as Windows usually provides an update for that. Windows Search 4.0 and the likes. If you're stating that 10.6 is the answer to 7 as OS 9 - > OS 10 was the answer to Vista. Then when it comes to price you'd have paid $278.95 (129 for 10.0, 29.99 for 10.1->10.5) Where as it cost only 200 to get XP at retail and have it updated compared to its competitor over that run.
All you're stating is that paying a smaller amount more times which ends up equaling more is somehow better than paying one large sum all at once. Sure its made up for in the upgrade from 10.5->10.6 compared to the Vista to Win7 upgrade. However, like I said, over the course of OSX users will likely have paid just as much as Windows to keep their system up to date.
I'm not stating that at all. I'm saying that this particular time Leapord>Snow Leapord is similar to Vista>7 and is priced lower. In the past I would agree that Mac OS X has been overpriced for what it has offered ($129 was too much, which hurt more b/c there's no OEM or cheap deals on the net). I never implied that logic on the current pricing should carry analogously to past instances, in fact I specifically implied the contrary.
And of course you noticed, you knew you downloaded it. Unless you were having very specific problems the SP fixed, I can pretty almost totally guarantee you that you wouldn't have noticed if somebody else updated to SP2 w/o your knowledge.
Unlike you, I actually have OS 9 CD's. I actually ran it(And helped support OS 9 computers...). OS 9 is 100% irrelevant to any sort of OS progression comparison, because the core of OS 9 is like comparing a Semi-truck to a Porsche. not even remotely the same other than the fact it ran on PPC hardware.
Windows 7 is "different" how so? last i checked the core of the OS was still very NT based, like XP, and Vista. Its the same for OS X. Both OS's have a firm foundation and are building, and progressing aspects of each. Both are also following an explicitly different development timeline.
$120 for my OS. Brought up to $150 with Snow Leopard.
How much have you paid for Vista+ Windows 7?
$130+ Windows 7.
So what was that you were saying? try doing the math before bashing a product with blind accusations?
Infact, the math for a newer computer comes out to even less, because my Macbook pro is a really old revision and came with Tiger (My brothers Macbook has Leopard and qualifies for the straight $30 upgrade.)
Show me the math I have paid more for my OS than you. You cannot. Stop spreading lies.
Sorry, that's left over from the past replies where people are saying Mac is cheaper. I still believe that XP was updated equally over its course as to what Mac OSX has been. I feel the same for Vista. Alot of usability has been added to these two OSes, alot more than I think you guys are giving it credit for. I feel its not getting that credit as Windows updates itself constantly, and then does a cumalitive to make it easier for re installation of the operating system. When I do a fresh install of XP, then take it up to SP3 I can tell hands down the differences. XP vanilla handles like a pig. Vista, I found was a huge jump over XP. While I had to tweak it a fair deal before SP1 came out and did all that for me (remember it was released in increments so yes, it gradually got better) I still notice without a shadow of a doubt how slow XP is comparatively. Especially when it comes to some tasks I do a fair amount of, like networking.
This ties into my overall view of this thread, with people whining about how much the OS is going to cost them. You buy it, and it lasts you for 3-5 years. If you get it OEM like I do, you pay roughly 40 - 45 a year. Comparing it to the Mac's who get updated roughly every year and a bit, its not a huge price difference. Especially when it comes to having paid the Mac hardware tax.
Straight up lie.
Leopard was Introduced October 26, 2007. Snow Leopard is September 2009.
Windows Vista was Sept. 2005, and is now replaced Oct. 2009.
Leopard has a more aggressive update schedule yes, but that is because Apple has underwent an ENTIRE platform transformation, and Snow Leopard is 100% Intel only code.
Microsoft can't even get Windows 64 bit finished. The amount of progress shown from a development standpoint from Apple FAR outshines what Microsoft has done.
Not to mention their upgrade cycles are vastly different. Businesses are still running Windows 98.
Going on 6 updates across 8 years. Sorry.
Also I requested that if you were going to ignore what I'm saying, instead of actually providing me with the information to change my mind on the matter, to not reply. I'm willing to have a conversation about this but I'm not going to have one with someone being an asshat.
The last 2 mac OS's have come right in line w/ Windows OS's, and rightly so. They're big market spiel is "look how crappy this Windows is now come over here." And it's worked to a large part, although it will be harder w/ 7 now that 7 is already garnering so much praise ("What Vista should have been" apparently ).
I think you are a bit of a MS fanboy mad at the Mac fanboys, and really you both have your points and neither of you will admit the other is wrong. People get annoyed w/ MS for the same reason that I get annoyed w/ Mac and MS and half of the capitalist world. If I'm going to have to give you my money, you damn well better earn it. Simple as that. If people don't feel they get what they pay for they whine. In this instance I agree, 7 is overpriced. But I'd never buy a Mac.
Not really, I don't harbor much of a love for Windows. I take offense at people calling me ignorant whilst not giving any solid reason why. Or not willing to sit down and listen to my viewpoint.
You aren't even arguing any valid points other than Apple uses different methods of identifying software versions. Give me the math for the operating systems you have purchased. I gave you mine. Back up your "claim" with evidence, not words.
The only "Point" you have even bothered to express is Microsoft releases PAGES upon PAGES of **BUGFIXES**, while Apple releases bugfixes with feature improvements.
I challenge you: Name me 1 feature added with 10.5.X updates (NOT a bugfix, a usability improvement. i.e. interface change, or addition.)
Now, name me 1 feature added via SP3 that is not a bugfix.
Your definition of "Updates" cannot be applied to two completely different sets of software.
I'm going to break down your post piece by piece:
So does OS X. Look up 10.5.7 Combo update. Ypu can update from a fresh Leopard CD install directly to 10.5.7 This is old news. Welcome to 2001.
10.5.0 < 10.5.7 too(However, 10.5.0 is perfectly usable, untweaked). Infact, apple added a specific stack option to one of the updates that I use a lot. User feedback ftw.
I installed 10.5.0 the other day. I ran software update, and am now running 10.5.7.
I haven't had to tweak a thing to get proper performance. Why have you? My $130 OS runs bright and shiny out of the box. When I charge a client > $40/hr, this is clearly bad for my job security.
Ok, XP was included with the price of my computer. However had I paid for it seperately, it would have been an OEM version at $130. Vista was purchased OEM, at $130. $260 total. I got an XP system right after it was released in 2002. If you'd gotten 10.0, it'd have been 129, with 29.99 for each of the 5 updates. If you paid less, great.
Not sure exactly what you're after for the challenge of Mac there. You want an example that wasn't a bugfix or usability improvement? I guess Time Machine?
As for SP3, yea it was a roll together of bug fixes and previously supplied updates that brought new features rolled together all in one. Not the best update, but by that time I'd moved on to Vista.
Meh what are you going to do, some you can't argue productively with, some you can. Don't bother too much w/ the former.
NAP compatibilty, couple other things. Nothing major or things many people would use but not just bugfixes. Anyway I'm proud of Mac this time, but they still won't earn any of my money though until they lower their noses a bit and offer more encompassing support, and preferably allow me to choose my hardware.
Time machine was a leopard feature from the start, just FYI.
So, you bought XP OEM in 2002.
Wheres that computer? Your OEM license is bound to that Pentium 4 or Athlon XP machine.
Otherwise, you're using your OS illegally.
So, how many Licenses have you Legally been using?
And 10.0 won't run on Intel just FYI. Tiger/Leopard only. there are only 2 possible OS's for Intel mac users. Tiger came with, Leopard now comes with. I have a Macbook pro.
OK, you guys can cut it out, your both going nowhere. How can you guys even compare OSX to Windows? They are like two different worlds! I dont use OSX because none of the software I use works on it!
I'll be getting Win7. I never purchased vista so its not that bad on my wallet
Also how can you go wrong with Windows 7! It has WIN in the name! /sarcasm
The only thing you've ever installed are games isn't it?
I prefer to keep certain things from running on my OS.
Mainly like ad-ware. And anti-virus's. Why pay for that crap?
Uhm, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he bought a new computer. Which if you're still insisting on comparing to your experience would have been equivalent to your pre-pro mac. Not sure where your trying to go with that but it doesn't seem like anywhere useful.
Indeed free is better (why anyone pays for them I'm not sure). Why pay $2000 for a computer that does everything a $1000 can do better?
Separate names with a comma.