OSNews

Or in Apple's case, lower down the stack.

Apple still is a hardware company that makes software in order to sell the hardware.

Meh, didn't they add this in Vista? Anyway, still using XP, and there's gotta be at least a dozen free burners to choose from. CDBurnerXP, Infrarecorder, and ImgBurn immediately come to mind.

Meh, didn't they add this in Vista? Anyway, still using XP, and there's gotta be at least a dozen free burners to choose from. CDBurnerXP, Infrarecorder, and ImgBurn immediately come to mind. "

If just data, XP.
If a video DVD, Vista.

I guess I'd have to upgrade to Vista to create/burn DVD movies then, since I'm using XP. That sucks.

Yeah, but what does it cost to upgrade 3 PCs to Vista or Windows 7?

People often overlook how complete the software is with OS X compared to Windows, when comparing Windows to OS X.

The standard non-free Windows office suite is also much more expensive than OS X's office suite. I bought iLife for 3 Macs for $129. What does 3 copies of MS Office cost?

Oh I know.. just install Open Office... but I'm just trying to make a fair comparison.

But you're not making a fair comparison. Since MS Office comes with more functionality out of the box than iWork does, you're kind of comparing apples (no pun intended) and oranges. A more accurate comparison would be MS Office on Windows and MS Office on Mac.

Look, I'm not here to get into a pissing contest about which OS is cheaper/better, but when somebody dissses Windows because they think they have to shell out $$ to burn DVDs, that's just dumb

The thing here is that sure, Snow Leopard sounds cheaper, but that's only if you're already a Mac owner. Nay, if you're a Mac Intel owners.

If you're not, than the price comparison falls flat on its ass. In the Windows world, people are used to buying hardware that more closely matches their needs for a lower pricer than that of a Mac, negating the price difference in operating system - and then some.

iLife is overestimated, as I challenge you to be honest and tell me how often YOU use GarageBand or iWeb. iPhoto is nice, but Picasa is as good as or better anyway, and iTunes is a piece of crap, but free.

iWork is a very good piece of work (I love it), but it doesn't come with new Macs, and costs 79 EUR, while Microsoft Office 2007 costs 69 at retail here. And Office is a lot more full-featured (comes with Word/Excel/PowerPoint/OneNote).

So, well, yeah.

But still, if you already own Leopard, Snow Leopard truly has nice price! Can't wait until September!

You are WRONG as the non-free Windows Office Suite IS NOT MUCH MORE expensive. OK OK OK $30.00 could buy an OS X upgrade ;-)

I imagine you meant iWork not iLife for an Office Suite...

Your Apple love and Microsoft disgust prevents you from doing any research other than how awesome Apple is... ;-)

Office 2008 for Mac Home and Student Edition Suite

# Word 2008 for Mac
# Excel 2008 for Mac
# PowerPoint 2008 for Mac
# Entourage 2008 for Mac

$159.00 package

One license allows for installation on as many as three computers.

tSource:
http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/Office-2008-for-Mac-Home-and-S...

Edited 2009-06-09 05:41 UTC

Depending on your needs, Windows 7 might be infinitely better than some alternative OSes. In this case, better pay for something that works than having nothing at all, eh?

While I am fully aware that the price can be a big deal depending in many parts of the world, paying a minute fraction of your wages for something you will use daily for years to come doesn't seem a bad deal to me. 50 USD is less than the average daily pay in my area. It gets even lower if you amortize the cost on many years. Sure, it will still be infinitely more expensive than zero, but the daily cost would be so low that the result won't matter.

Of course, paying more for something that can fulfill your needs when you can get the same thing for less isn't wise. That's another story.

Windows 7 will work? What about when you hook up your internet? Will it keep working? Or will you have to bog it down to about 66% as fast by buying a yearly subscription Internet Security suite to keep safe in the shark infested waters?

Glad I'm using Linux... Installed in 1 hr with all my software there, and all my hardware working right out of the gate. Just a couple clicks away and I can play DVD's and everything I need to do...and free to boot! You can keep your Windows upgrade ransom...

I'd actually pay for the Mac upgrade, and considering the use of expensive IPS LCD screens and quality hardware, the iMac actually checks out as a good deal to boot. The cost comparisons never factor in that those inexpensive PC's get garbage TN LCD screens, junk keyboards and such.

One typically pays for Windows 7 as a pre-installed OS, part of the purchase of a new machine, guaranteed by the OEM to work on that machine.

If one were allowed to purchase an alternative OS under the same circumstances, there is simply no way that it would not work better than Windows. Your premise that it is "better pay for something that works than having nothing at all" is quite true, but the only problem with it is that it is not Windows 7 that is the product likely to be the one that works.

There is a reason for that, Microsoft has the customer by the proverbial balls. Microsoft know that they can keep ratchetting up the price so that it is just expensive enough to gouge every cent out of the end users wallet but not enough to make it desirable in moving to an alternative operating system. They have been doing this for years with StarOffice; push up the price high enough but not too high that the cost of moving over to StarOffice is cheaper than continuing with Microsoft Office.

What the public need to be informed of is this has been going on for years and things won't change until they as end users bight the bullet and make the switch. If they look at the long term costs they would realise that there are better alternatives that may have a slightly up front cost but long term they are considerably cheaper.

There is a reason for that, Microsoft has the customer by the proverbial balls. Microsoft know that they can keep ratchetting up the price so that it is just expensive enough to gouge every cent out of the end users wallet but not enough to make it desirable in moving to an alternative operating system. They have been doing this for years with StarOffice; push up the price high enough but not too high that the cost of moving over to StarOffice is cheaper than continuing with Microsoft Office. What the public need to be informed of is this has been going on for years and things won't change until they as end users bight the bullet and make the switch. If they look at the long term costs they would realise that there are better alternatives that may have a slightly up front cost but long term they are considerably cheaper. "

At this time, customers are not offered any choice. As soon as any OEM offers a Linux option that is visible to the public (side by side available with Winndows machines of comparable hardware) ... Microsoft will pay the OEM to take the Linux machine off the market.

If this keeps happening, OEMs could be on a real winner here. Just keep offering a decent Linux option for each new model of machine as it comes out. Constantly playing whack-a-mole trying to suppress each Linux offering as it comes to market is likely to keep Microsoft utterly distracted and it will also cost them a pretty penny to the OEMs complete profit.

In addition to this, in some market segments new machines that cannot run Windows 7 at all, and which are cheaper and perform better in a particular role than machines which can run Windows 7, are starting to become available as well.

I don't imagine that even Microsoft can keep this game of whack-a-mole up forever.

Edited 2009-06-09 05:53 UTC

I've LOVE to hear a Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7 debate. Bring it on!

Any such debates on sites like this are always too superficial. For example, I saw one Windows vs OSX article comparing Windows Explorer to Finder, which is really kind of pointless, since no power user would ever be caught dead using Explorer (and I assume Finder as well), unless they were forced to.

The only real way to compare these operating systems is to take the best of each app 'genre' (both free and commercial) that each OS has to offer and put them head-to-head against each other. Because, afterall, an OS is only as good as the applications it runs.

Really? I consider myself a power user and use nothing but Explorer (plus the windows command line and occasionally cygwin if it's installed). And thinking about it I don't actually know anyone who doesn't use Explorer as their main Windows file manager.

Sure it's not great and sure there are arguably better third party file managers out there, but given how (relatively) little general file management I do it never seemed worth the effort to install a third party file manager on all the windows machines I happen to touch.

Really? I consider myself a power user and use nothing but Explorer (plus the windows command line and occasionally cygwin if it's installed). And thinking about it I don't actually know anyone who doesn't use Explorer as their main Windows file manager.

Sure it's not great and sure there are arguably better third party file managers out there, but given how (relatively) little general file management I do it never seemed worth the effort to install a third party file manager on all the windows machines I happen to touch. "

Agreed

I agree, however, I use Total Comander

Haha, I used to same the same thing. Then I installed Directory Opus and realized the error of my ways

The only real way to compare these operating systems is to take the best of each app 'genre' (both free and commercial) that each OS has to offer and put them head-to-head against each other. Because, afterall, an OS is only as good as the applications it runs.

Except you are not comparing two OSes side by side, but two customized control systems, laden with third party apps which are in NO way part of the OS. So how are we comparing the OSes, when we replace the standard components as much as possible?

Well, I guess you're not. You're really comparing the apps, which is what you SHOULD be comparing, since an OS (in practical terms) is only as good as the applications it runs.

It's like comparing Opera/Chrome/Safari vs Firefox... if you didn't include the extensions that Firefox runs, it wouldn't even be a comparison, since Firefox without extensions is really quite boring, same as Windows