OS X 10.6 is a $29 upgrade if you already run 10.5!

[gamerman4]

Why would you look up a definition of a word from wikipedia and not the dictionary?

Plus, anyone can edit a wiki...



We had a funny thread on one of the mac based forums I am on about that. We figured they have used: Puma, Cheetah, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, and now Snow Leopard. Still leaves, uh, Ocelot, Lynx, Lion, Snow Tiger (haha), thunder cats, Liger - pretty much my favorite OS, and saber tooth tiger?



Yeah this is sorta true. I mean Win2k and XP were built off the NT kernel and thus it was the death of the 9x kernel but XP had SUCH a HUGE amount of under the hood changes, kernel changes, and with 3 service packs it came out to be probably Microsoft's best OS to date. I think that XP was well worth the money given all the new features you got from it, and everything that MS put into it under the hood.

Vista, yes there is still a lot of under the hood work done over XP, but the features are really geared towards IT people or advanced users, not your average user. So, it is really hard to justify upgrading to Vista at all. I did it for one reason and one reason only, DX10. Otherwise I wouldn't have touched Vista at all on my PC.

Now Windows 7 offers the same under the hood tech as Vista did, and really has no ground breaking features and it fixes a lot of problems Vista has. Also Vista took what, like 7 years to develop? Then Windows 7 takes what, 2 years after Vista? It is blatantly obvious that Win 7 is a rebuild of Vista.

I just wish MS would charge an upgrade for an upgrade and not a whole new OS for an upgrade, and I also wish they would stop feature limiting their OS and just make it one single OS for the end user. I hate being feature limited and I think their price tier sucks for the feature limiting. If they priced it better maybe I'd like it more, but then again if frogs had wings....

My feeling with Vista was more that it was just a hardware accelerated XP. It feels, acts, and generally behaves as XP always had. The technology in Windows 7 was laid out in Vista but Vista still hung onto the safety of XP without really doing much. Windows 7 takes the Vista tech and actually uses it.
A great example is live previews. This had enormous potential in Vista but was only used for what? little thumbnails on the taskbar and the stupid Flip 3D crap (alt+tab pwns Flip 3D). Windows 7 uses that tech as its entire basis for navigation and handling open windows. Alt+Tab on Windows 7 not only shows little thumbnails but hides every window except the one currently selected. This also happens when you hover over your windows in the taskbar. You can see any window without having to make it your active window.

Now I will say that the functionality of Windows 7 makes it more of a "new" OS than Vista and being that Vista was essentially a failed promise and 7 is Microsofts way of making up on that promise, I think the upgrade should be a lot less ($100 to upgrade to Win7 Pro? srsly?)

Now I hate feature limiting as well but I am glad that looking at the feature set, Ultimate doesn't have anything I need. Pro version has remote desktop which is nice but logmein does just a good a job, if not better. The location aware printing would be nice for laptops. Home Premium looks fine for what I use my computer for. Essentially most of the features do not apply to normal users or even tech users but rather people running a network and people that need tighter security, which often is handled by third party programs anyways (my school network is run with Novell software).

 

[Bodaggit23]

Why would you look up a definition of a word from wikipedia and not the dictionary?

Because the definition was worded to better fit this discussion.

You like this better I suppose?

a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

Apple renamed their OS also, and they're still charging for it.
But to some, this is completely different than what Microsoft has done.

I also wish they would stop feature limiting their OS and just make it one single OS for the end user.

If they did, people would whine that they're paying for features they will never use.

 

[tlarkin]

My feeling with Vista was more that it was just a hardware accelerated XP. It feels, acts, and generally behaves as XP always had. The technology in Windows 7 was laid out in Vista but Vista still hung onto the safety of XP without really doing much. Windows 7 takes the Vista tech and actually uses it.
A great example is live previews. This had enormous potential in Vista but was only used for what? little thumbnails on the taskbar and the stupid Flip 3D crap (alt+tab pwns Flip 3D). Windows 7 uses that tech as its entire basis for navigation and handling open windows. Alt+Tab on Windows 7 not only shows little thumbnails but hides every window except the one currently selected. This also happens when you hover over your windows in the taskbar. You can see any window without having to make it your active window.

Now I will say that the functionality of Windows 7 makes it more of a "new" OS than Vista and being that Vista was essentially a failed promise and 7 is Microsofts way of making up on that promise, I think the upgrade should be a lot less ($100 to upgrade to Win7 Pro? srsly?)

Now I hate feature limiting as well but I am glad that looking at the feature set, Ultimate doesn't have anything I need. Pro version has remote desktop which is nice but logmein does just a good a job, if not better. The location aware printing would be nice for laptops. Home Premium looks fine for what I use my computer for. Essentially most of the features do not apply to normal users or even tech users but rather people running a network and people that need tighter security, which often is handled by third party programs anyways (my school network is run with Novell software).

That is why I feel if you shelled out money for Vista it should be no more than a $50 upgrade to Windows 7. Vista has so much technology not used, you are right. I built a new PC that had a DX10 video card so I upgraded for ONE reason that is DX10.

Here is what I hate about feature limiting. For me and my position I don't need to run Windows as I manage mostly Macs, and on occasion do have some dual boot labs and windows deployments on Mac hardware. We are still running XP though. Now if I wanted to say, maximize my usage of these things in Vista, or Windows 7 I am forced into a situation where I have to drop lots of money. yes, I run servers at home and yes I do take advantage of some of those features.

I just like how Enterprise Linux and Apple does it. They charge one flat rate for the client OS and one flat rate for the server OS (which exception that the server OS comes in two flavors).

Novell is a container that just goes over all your tech at school and lets it work together. 10 years ago Novell was doing things MS couldn't. MS stole their ideas and created active directory and SMS and other things to compete. Novell lost that market and moved onto Linux. We run Novell here at work too, so I am familiar with it.

 

[Shane]

$29....nice!

I would like to see a $29 upgrade to windows 7 for Vista users.

Ohh wait,this is Microsoft im talking about...silly me

 

[h364]

I think i'm agreeing with most people in saying that everyone is quite annoyed that Microsoft have the cheek to ask for such high prices, after such a dismal release in the form of Vista.

Luckily enough Apple are letting me swap my MB for the new MBP, which also means i qualify for the $10 Snow Leopard upgrade.

Also, with Snow Leopard, i take it will have to be a clean install, and not just an upgrade?