OSNews

Yes, but to keep up with Apple you need to shell out that amount about once every 18 months, whereas with Windows, well we know the story. People often tend to forget that.

4 x 120 = 480 (10.1 was a free upgrade).

That is not to say this is cheap software. Heck, when an OS costs just as much as the hardware... It just feels wrong.

What a weird kind of "logic".

1. You don't have to shell out the amount every 18 months. You can happily go on using your older version of OSX if you want to.

2. Using MS' inability to deliver Vista on time as an excuse for Vista's price... It just feels wrong.

that is, until you get new software being released as OS X 10.foo and up only.

not to mention apple cutting you off on security updates, bug fixes, etc.

Sure, this happens, but not after 18 months.

You left out that every successive release of OS X is getting spaced farther than the last. They're fueling a massive buildup of OS technology in a short amount of time, and they need renewable consumers to do that. It's not like Microsoft's infinite budget and refusal to engineer anything truly new. They're in the fastest stages of growth, but slowing down all the time.

Also, almost all the software I see says it will run on the current and previous minor version of OS X. You only need to upgrade every time if you just gotta have Apple's new bells and whistles. If all you need is free software from the Internet, you can skip every other release. And if you're using professional stuff, it's not going to require Apple's toolkits to do its job, so anything should work, but newer will be generally faster and more reliable.

Any company will want to give you a reason to upgrade, but in Microsoft's case, the reasons seem to be a lot more fundamental, like security and basic function (does it boot? Will it still boot tomorrow?), rather than superficial, like a really neat search tool. Look at all the comments on that article from a while ago about security holes in 98 that weren't going to be fixed. People still using that were pretty much called the scum of the Earth, complete morons deserving of whatever horrendous virus they get. You don't see that so much with other systems. You could easily get away with using Solaris 8, Mac OS 7, Linux 2.2, or any version of BeOS without anyone wishing righteous doom on your computer.

And who is forcing you to upgrade to Vista?

Goes both ways, and therefore irrelevant.

Thom, please...

I did not claim you had to upgrade to Vista.

You on the other hand acted as if you had to upgrade OSX every 18 months in order to compare the price of Vista favorably to it.

And thanks btw. for ignoring my other point.

"And who is forcing you to upgrade to Vista?"

While this is of course true that no one is forcing, it is a much more significant upgrade (at least I really hope so, otherwise Vista is pointless - sorta like XP if you already have 2000). With OS X if I wanted I could easily skip every other release and at least stay somewhat up to date - try that with Windows.

>And who is forcing you to upgrade to Vista?
>Goes both ways, and therefore irrelevant.

Microsoft is "forcing" other (not Vista) Windows user to upgrade by:

- bring out software that only runs on Vista
- adding Vista only codes to the run certain multimedia files
- All other tricks they can find to "force" an upgrade.

All this off course in a way nobody can really complain.....it is still your choice..

And who is forcing you to upgrade to Vista?


MS that's who, maybe not ddirectly but indirectly. Most ignorant consumers will shell it out because that what MS says they should do. Either thorough tech support or even at the local Staples, Best buy etc.

Since when did "Forcing" take on the definition of "Coaxing" or "Pursuading"?

Most ignorant consumers will shell it out because that what MS says they should do.

And how is this different from other platforms or software vendors? Also, most customers will not pay retail as they will get Windows as part of their new computer purchase or via license agreements.

1. You don't have to shell out the amount every 18 months. You can happily go on using your older version of OSX if you want to.

Until the stop issuing updates for security problems, stops providing updated software for your operating system, and software vendors start putting 'minimum OS X 10.4.x' and you're sitll running 10.3.9.

The humorous thing, Microsoft is now EXTENDING their support for Windows XP; what does this mean? I think they've realised that they can't provide perfect backwards compatibility, so they'll need to extend the time as to allow a smooth transition as applications become "Vista Capable'.

2. Using MS' inability to deliver Vista on time as an excuse for Vista's price... It just feels wrong.

And how many will actually upgrade? most will get it when they upgrade their computer; another section will wait till their companies select licencing package gets it, which enables all employees of the company to run a copy of it on their home computer, along with Microsoft Office - the New Zealand ministry of defence has such an arrangement.

you can buy old versions of OS X for $49 and less if you need to upgrade.

MS is extending support for XP so they don't get a Class Action from GE and ATT and all the Universities and state run authorities.

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for any large corporation or organization to pay for the hardware upgrades for every MS update.

As for OS X not running old software, I'm running OS X 10.3.9 and I can still use TypeStyler 2 which was originally written for System 7.

Edited 2006-08-30 04:35

MS is extending support for XP so they don't get a Class Action from GE and ATT and all the Universities and state run authorities.
It would be IMPOSSIBLE for any large corporation or organization to pay for the hardware upgrades for every MS update.

That's rediculous. Corporations move when they want to. Many are still using Windows 2000. Besides that, they've had 10 years of support provided by MS for a few years now, not to mention their licensing agreements include downgrade rights.

I'm still seeing boat-loads of new OS X software or updates to existing software, being released with 10.2 (PowerPC)/10.4 (x86) as the minimum version. It's quite easy to build things against older SDKs from within XCode, so lots of developers do it when they're not using newer APIs.

- chrish

Yes, but to keep up with Apple you need to shell out that amount about once every 18 months, whereas with Windows, well we know the story. People often tend to forget that.

At least you have an option to upgrade every year or so, unlike with Windows. Nobody forces you to upgrade, but if you have the money and feel like so, you can.

Quote:
---
What a weird kind of "logic".

1. You don't have to shell out the amount every 18 months. You can happily go on using your older version of OSX if you want to.

2. Using MS' inability to deliver Vista on time as an excuse for Vista's price... It just feels wrong.
---
PERFECT response the that one. Yes, I would love to upgrade my version of Windows every 2 years. Instead, we are stuck without innovations for 5+ years.

Edited 2006-08-29 21:14

Umm, no, you don't have to keep up with Apple's hardware every 18 months.

I'm running the latest OS X on my 7 year old Blue and White G3 thank you very much!! It has an upgraded G4 processor in it but I did that 5 years ago! :-)

Your concerns are misinformed....

This is horse hocky! Microsoft generally tries to release a new version of their software every year or two; just like Apple.

This time, however, Microsoft got a bit carried away with their project plan. As a result, they've had to cut here and there until Vista really isn't all that interesting anymore, but they'll finally be able to release it.

Microsoft themselves have admitted this and declared that they will never let this much time pass between updates again.

Since Microsoft has committed to release much more often in the future, your logic is a one time fluke.

Edited 2006-08-29 21:56

I guess the major action will be around the Home Premium edition as otherwise you won't get DX10, apparently?

DirectX 10 is available on all versions of Vista. You're thinking about the Aero Glass UX.

Perhaps they assume that the sort of person who is doing a standalone upgrade wouldn't be attracted to the low end?

Or maybe the reasoning has to do with the way Microsoft has a habit of dropping support early for their customer based OSes while continuing to support the enterprise versions of the same product? That's an additional detail that needs to be factored into the total price pf a product, and an added value if you choose to stay with Microsoft.

--bornagainpenguin (who plans to leave Microsoft-Land for Linux or Mac OSX in his next upgrade cycle)

MS supports their OSes far longer than does Apple.
Apple's no longer supporting OSX 10.2 (no security updates or bug fixes), and that was their top OS just 3 years ago. 10.3 support will be dropped almost immediately after 10.5 comes out.

And Apple's new software releases generally require the latest OS (sometimes the latest two OSes) - iLife 07 and iWork 07 will NOT run on 10.3, I guarantee you. I question whether it'll even run on 10.4.

Well, it seems unlikely that 10.5 will be released before iLife '07, and therefore, I imagine it will run on 10.3. It will definitely run on 10.4.

ill just grab a copy of ultimate off one of the piratebay torrents that will begin to show up a month before official release

Glad this came up...
Price of Ubuntu+universe packages: $0
Price of Vista+Office+Photoshop+... via bittorrent: $0

See? Closed source software can be as "free" as open source. And 99.99% of users don't care about the source.

The real enemy is piracy. Fight that, and people will be searching for "freebies" elsewhere. GPL, BSD, perhaps.

As for me? Using pirated software? Please. You might as well call me a p0rn sufer. Nobody does this, right?

ill just grab a copy of ultimate off one of the piratebay torrents that will begin to show up a month before official release

You sir are part of the problem.

Edited 2006-08-30 03:23

If I had any no of Macs, does Apple require me to buy N copies or can I use 1 copy without them caring?

Apple has "family packs" for OSX and several of their own software applications (iLife, iWork). A family pack costs less than twice the price of the regular edition and can be installed on up to 5 computers in the same household.

I find this "family pack" a nice idea... I assume most households with children have several computers at home and the "family pack" concept makes it more affordable to stay legal. In general, I think that Apple has reasonable prices for their software.

You are supposed to purchase a license for each Mac as well. The upgrade for single user is $120 or you can get a five-pack for $199, which is a lot friendlier than Microsoft's pricing. Also, MacOS X doesn't do any of that activation stuff.

Activation is the main reason I stopped using Windows. I reinstall my OS on about an annual basis when I upgrade the hardware. The last thing in the world I want to do everytime is call Microsoft to explain why I'm installing Windows again.

I know that is a little thing, but I absolutely hate it and the mentality behind it.

If I buy something, it is mine to do with as I please. If the company selling it to me doesn't agree, they can keep their product.

Activation is the main reason I stopped using Windows. I reinstall my OS on about an annual basis when I upgrade the hardware. The last thing in the world I want to do everytime is call Microsoft to explain why I'm installing Windows again.

If this annual install cycle is true, there shouldn't be a need to call MS unless you can't get connected to the Internet. Activation resets after a period of 120 days. So, assuming retail media, you can change your whole system 120 days after the last activation and not have to call MS.

"If this annual install cycle is true, there shouldn't be a need to call MS unless you can't get connected to the Internet. Activation resets after a period of 120 days. So, assuming retail media, you can change your whole system 120 days after the last activation and not have to call MS."

The activation does not reset ever. I do the same myself, and each year I have to call Microsoft to get it unlocked. Once installed the key is tied to the hardware. If you do a major change of hardware it will not activate and you have to make the call. If it were to reset then that would pretty much defeat the whole reason for the activation scheme in the first place.

There is nothing on the Microsoft website about activation resetting after 120 days (that I could find, however it is widely reported that the hardware hash does reset after 120 days), however, there is no reason you should have to call Microsoft to have your machine unlocked unless your hardware has changed dramatically. If you have an OEM copy of Windows, the activation is far more lax than the retail version, as it is only checked against the BIOS, so as long as your BIOS remains the same, you can change everything except the motherboard and it will activate as normal over the net, without any need for calling MS. The retail version uses an ID generated as a hash number of all of your major hardware, and is less flexible than the OEM copy in that regard. Although, you will have to ring up MS if you want to change your motherboard, as the OEM version is tied to the motherboard via it's BIOS.

The activation does not reset ever. I do the same myself, and each year I have to call Microsoft to get it unlocked. Once installed the key is tied to the hardware. If you do a major change of hardware it will not activate and you have to make the call. If it were to reset then that would pretty much defeat the whole reason for the activation scheme in the first place.

"Microsoft has also recognized that certain users may wish to change components frequently. As a result, Microsoft recently implemented time-based reactivation. Every 120 days, the current configuration of a user's PC will 'reset to zero,' so to speak. Starting from that 120th day, users may swap out hardware components as described above. After another 120 days passes, the PC 'sets to zero' again, and users once again may swap out hardware components. This time-based reactivation is designed to provide users with greater flexibility to change their systems."

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-6033_16-4206544.html

Okay, then when did that go into effect? It sure wasn't in effect 2 months ago when I had to call them.

You either have the retail version, and you have exceeded the number of allowable hardware changes within 120 days, or you have the OEM version and have changed the BIOS or motherboard (the OEM version only requires that the BIOS not change - if you flash your BIOS it might mean you have to reactivate by calling MS, though that would be unusual). Otherwise there is no reason why you would need to call MS to reactivate. If you have reinstalled without changing your hardware (ie, you haven't upgraded your RAM, Graphics Card, HDD, Network interface etc), then your problem is inexplicable. I've reinstalled my OEM copy of XP home dozens of time, changed most of the hardware except the motherboard, and never had to do anything more than type in the product code and activate it over the net, takes a few minutes at most.

Okay, then when did that go into effect? It sure wasn't in effect 2 months ago when I had to call them

Check the date on the article -- 2001.

I didn't have to call on my last install, it was kind of refreshing.

Tell that to them. I have had to call on several occasions.

In addition to what rft said, it is not only that there is no activation, but there are no serials (unless you have OS X Server). Based upon honor system and EULA.

That being said, I have 3 Macs and own Tiger licenses and 2 Panther licenses (2 had Panther when I purchased, I updated one, and the other I bought after Tiger was out)

Thanks all for clearing that up!

If you're buying a video card then buy an OEM version of Windows with it. It's a full version of Windows, not an upgrade. It's tied to the machine you install it on but so is any other "legally" installed copy of windows.

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/ViewProducts.hmx?PID=SOFTWARE-MICROSOFT&...

* IE7 changes appearence when you maximize it, going solid black, WTF!?

This is a feature. When you maximise a window, it means you want to focus on THAT window, hence transperancy/blurrecy (...) is pointless.

It's a hack, to quickly fix a problem with a UI system that was never properly designed with usability from the start.

* The last time I saw something as pointless and annoying as the gadgets sidebar was the Channel Bar that was on by default in Win98FE. A slideshow constantly on the side of my screen beggars belief. Only a programmer could have decided that was a good thing.

This is optional and can be turned off. You can also select other gadgets beyond the default set.

* Getting to My Computer has become a whole world more harder to do.

There are several ways of accomplishing this including:

Start | Computer
Enable the desktop icon
Use Search (i.e., type the path to the drive/directory, typing Computer may also work)

* LUA is still no good. It does nothing but provide me with one extra button to press in just about every Wizard. It doesn't even ask me to type in my password. It serves absolutely no purpose other than to train me to never read annoying popups and just keep pressing Yes/Okay until what I want done, gets done.

It accomplishes the same thing as entering a password (elevates the context in which the application runs), and does prompt for a password by default for standard users. You can configure UAC to prompt Administrators for passwords via policy. If you don't pay attention to the text of the obvious elevation prompt, you likely won't when prompted for a password either.

Even on a fresh install of OS X when I'm customizing and configuring everything (beyond that of a normal user), I come across the elevation prompt, two, maybe three times in the first hour.

I've seen it fifteen times in the first hour of Vista already.

You're used to OSX getting faster with each version because it was so slow to begin with. 10.0 was a dog. 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 increased the speed with each version. But 10.4 is slower than 10.3 in my experience.

Tiger still boots faster than Vista. Even on a clean install. Leopard is reported as being quicker still.

Just out of curiosity, what stuff?

I think most IT Pros would never ever recommend an Upgrade disc to anyone, especially Windows.
It generally carries forward too many little quirks and errors.

Most IT Pros should know that just because it's upgrade media doesn't mean you can't use it to perform a clean install. You just need the media from the previous version of Windows you're upgrading for verification.

" think most IT Pros would never ever recommend an Upgrade disc to anyone, especially Windows."

It has the full version. To do a clean install all you have to do is prove you own an earlier version by inserting the earlier version of windows when asked. Then do a clean install.

No problems.

I keep hearing people say that lots of features were stripped out of Vista. Can somebody list these features? WinFS is one, but what are the others?

"It's pretty amusing to read so many "I won't pay this price" posts. Of course you're not. First, nobody pays retail prices (which these prices most assuredly are). Street prices are easily half of retail. Second, according to MS financial reports, less than 1% of its OS sales (upgrades, fresh installs) are bought at retail. The remaining 99% are installed by OEMs (ie. Dell, Gateway, IBM, etc) on shiny new PCs. Since most OEMs aren't exactly installing Linux and OSX on new desktop PCs, users will get Windows Vista by default; ergo, they will pay whatever price the OEM charges. See how this works? Whether you like it or not, Vista can't fail."
-------------------------------------------------------

Quite right (well, technically Apple is essentially an OEM installing OS X on its hardware, but since it is the only one doing so, you can ignore them as a separate case. There are a few vendors installing Linspire, but in such low numbers that it really makes no difference to the market share of MS OEM sales).

You can just buy the OEM version with some qualifying hardware, for example a hard drive, and save a packet. As long as you don't plan on changing your motherboard, the OEM version is far more flexible in most cases. There is very little reason to buy the retail version when, chances are, you will need to upgrade one or more pieces of hardware, if not your whole PC, to make the most of Vista anyway. Your best bet is to buy or build a new system and buy the OEM version of Vista, as there is no compelling reason to put Vista on an old machine with XP. XP will be good for several years yet, and you can replicate much of Vista's new functionality with third party apps (e.g Windowblinds) until such time as you need or can afford a new PC with Vista pre-installed.

If you read enough the box usually tells the real difference, but you need to read through the idiotic marketing hype and understand some of the marketing terms.

It's irritating, but not too hard if you're educated, to figure out which version has the features you desire. More than likely it will be the ultimate one though...