OSNews

On the other hand Microsoft doesn't charge for their functional adding service packs. Not that I argue a major OS X release doesn't add more than bug fixes + one or two features, but still.

Anyway Windows basic is so basic it's shit and ultimate is redicilously expensive, so sure Microsoft could have made only one good version (ultimate) and sold it for a "middle cost".

If they are affraid people won't buy it because it's so expensive and consider other oses they can always make the OEM version real cheap

In the light of Windows Ultimate macs aren't that expensive, vs FreeBSD or similair they indeed are thought

"On the other hand Microsoft doesn't charge for their functional adding service packs. Not that I argue a major OS X release doesn't add more than bug fixes + one or two features, but still"


Come on! How many times should we hear the same stupid sh...?

Microsoft Service packs are nothing more than bugs fixes and some features improvements, which is exactly what Apple does with their 10.x.x releases. Don't tell me that XP SP2 was more than that, SP2 was intended to fix an insecure system and a flawed design for security, so its a bug fix release!!!!
If you would really know what really Apple put in their major release (which also means that if you would be a OS X user ), you would not say that, i means stop being stupid, check it on the Apple web site.

And if i follow your thinking, microsoft should have proposed Vista for free, right? How do you explain that it costs a fortune, but still it is bloody full of major bugs.

Because a number is FAR more important than actual functionality.

Did XP get hardware accelerated UI in a service pack?
How about a low-latency sound system?
A hardware accelertaed real time video / image processing unit?
Full meta search capability??

Oh, and Mac OS X updates get faster each release, not slower in every single aspect. And even if that's down to "bad coding", Tiger is still faster than Vista.

Mate, I'm sorry, but as soon as you said:

You have lost ALL credibility in this debate.

Mac OS X is more than just a service pack - just because it doesn't go for 'teh bigger number is teh better' as Microsoft.

What did Windows XP bring over Windows 2000? some kernel tweaks, interface tweak and thats it; all of it could have been done through a service pack. What has Windows Vista provided?

I look through the various versions of MacOS X I have purchased, 10.3, 10.4 and soon to be 10.5 - and each time I bought a copy, I NEVER had buyers regret. I never had that moment of 'geeze that was a waste of money give the lack of features/changes/improvements'.

Look at the differences mate. One hand you have PC users screaming, wailing and whining over Windows Vista. Mac users like me on the other hand EXCITED about a new release; your side is petrified of what could go wrong. We're excited about what has been included, the new features and so forth. See the huge difference between the two worlds?

Tiger (OS X 10.5) is NOT a service pack. This is not something where Apple is slipping in a feature or two.

As for 300 features, technically yes. People will say it is pretty pathetic that they count each new feature in a program separately to come up with 300. My point would be that if Apple didn't create that feature and you really wanted it, then you would definitely count it as a feature you would want added. Based on that, then yes, there are 300 new features in Tigard.

Now compare that to a service pack in Windows. They don't compare at all. AND, does ANY update to Windows make your computer faster or YOU faster at getting things done with the same computer? Or do you have to buy a computer that is four times faster just to get back to the same speed as the previous version you had before? Not to mention all the nagging that Vista now has.

Learn what? Make snarky comments? I thought that was Balmers job?

Not to screw their customers for all there worth, give more better and updated OS more frequently, give everyone the same features for the same price, Dont put your new graphics API into the OS so people need to update a whole new OS just for that, need I go on?

You won't need a new OS for OpenGL 3.0, just new drivers.

Edited 2007-10-25 18:13

However i think it can't be ignored that OS X isn't necessarily THAT much cheaper then windows over the long run. Since the initial OS X release there have been two new versions of windows (xp, vista) and now 5 versions of macos. So even at 100-150 a piece, staying current costs almost as much as going with MS.