0007776
Suspended
Would that be because linux has been so successful?🙄 anyway, some of the code is open source.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
21 options for Windows Vista!
- Thread starter ghall
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Would that be because linux has been so successful?🙄 anyway, some of the code is open source.
Well, Linux is not backed by a company anywhere near as big as Apple. Nor is it supported to anything like the same extent. It is also incredibly FRAGMENTED. The attraction of Windows is standardisation and support. Mac OS OpenSource would have that...
I'm saying Apple could effectively sell great hardware, oversee making a decent OS into a great one through a FULLY opensource project, and sell SUPPORT of that software.
Linux is nowhere near as usable, has even less driver and game support, and is generally unlikely to become a major OS.
Apple would have a running start, and could easily start to take over significant market share.
Great hardware, with a constantly updated OS for free 🙂
How could you POSSIBLY say a company that has 95% market share, and makes BILLIONS every year, not know what they are doing?
balamw
Moderator emeritus
You mean like Darwin? The foundations of Mac OS X are already open source.
The rest of your argument is missing the point.
Apple tends to make it very easy to figure out what you need. If it ain't one size fits all (like it is with OS X upgrades) it's a choice between small, medium and large (like iMacs, iPods) with only minor variations within each size. At each decision point you are presented only with a few choices which makes making a decision far easier than Microsoft makes it.
The irony of the matter is that all the actual Vista installation media are identical and only the key tells it which edition is which. So why don't they just sell one common media set and keys separately. So for example you'd buy Vista Home Basic media + an Aero key instead of Home Premium.
Past performance is no guarantee of future success. People are beginning to realize that there are other choices out there, and the big deal will be whatever device or services replace the PC. Microsoft knows this and has been very successful with Xbox 360.
Can you honestly say the MS knew what they were doing when they introduced Bob? They're not infallible, nor is Apple.
B
Firstly, even if it were true, that's not irony. The DO only have one media set. ONE DVD only. Just come in different boxes, with different keys, but the SAME media. And you can update simpyl by ordering a new key.
Secondly, as my post showed, I've been fairly balanced. I've not slated Mac, and not bigged-up Microsoft. I use all the major OSs, and write software for them too. But your post, and its one sidededness, only further underlines my point about the quasi-religous argument that go on here.
Apple and its harware and software is good, but not perfect. Microsoft and its software (it doesn't make PCs) is good, but not perfect. BOTH companies show elements of maximising profits, in some cases to the detriment of the average consumer. Apple isn't some benign benefactor (or GOD as some of you seem to think)
Just ease up a bit is all I'm asking. Leave the 'Windows on Mac' forum to people that are interested in trying to get it working, not just slating it.
balamw
Moderator emeritus
It's a non-insignificant burden on stores to have to stock 8 SKUs (Home Basic/Pro/Business/Ultimate)x(Full/Upgrade) each in their box taking up space on the shelf when each box has the same content. Easy for Microsoft, Hard for the reseller. The choice apparently made at the Target I visited this morning was to put 8 games in place of the Vista boxes that were there a few days ago.
Plus it's a burden on the consumer in "which one shall I get?" I've already had the conversation with a bunch of colleagues who are considering the upgrade and are honestly confused about what comes with what edition.
It would be much easier to understand if Aero (for example) was just an add on app bundle for Vista Basic, 'cause you'd know what you were buying when you bought Aero. The "Business" features could be sold as an "iWork" type app bundle. "Ultimate" could just be sold an app bundle a-la "iLife". And if each add on was merely a superset of the lesser ones, but no.
Neither company is perfect, and if you stick around here long enough you'll see plenty of Apple bashing when they don't release the products some people think they should have. For example, the consensus view on
TV seems negative right now, but we'll see if Apple really has a dud on their hands in a month or so. Take the recent flap over UAC where it seems that Vista will always install EXEs with escalated privileges. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=29 Is MS really making the best compromises for the user?
And check my posting history if you want to see how many people I've helped get Windows working on their Macs.
B
stcanard
macrumors 65816
And that, my friend is exactly why OSX on a Mac is so much more stable, well integrated, and easier to use than either Windows or Linux. So it is a tradeoff that most of us are more than willing to accept -- especially since that limited hardware tends to be the coolest, best looking stuff out there, so its really a win-win in most eyes!
As a matter of fact, it seems to me the integration that bothers you is exactly what most OSX users are buying the platform for.
stcanard
macrumors 65816
Now, this sounds like a great idea!
Now, why doesn't Apple do that. It would be a great idea if they provided the OS source for download, and even better if it was under some open source license
...you're right, they just became one of the largest companies by accident. Maybe you'd be able run a company better. I'm sure you will.
stcanard
macrumors 65816
"Became" is very different "will continue to be".
I think most people have noticed a significant difference in MS behaviour ever since they changed CEOs (and have very significantly reorganized and changed management). Steve Ballmer is not the same person Bill Gates was. The very structure of the company has changed significantly.
As they say in the financial pages "past performance is not an indicator of future performance". Maybe they do know what they are doing, time will tell.
The current situation does not inspire confidence, however. They have lost the market in the last several new areas to open up, and shown an inability (unlike with the web) to use their resources to force a way in. They have delayed their main product line so significantly it has cut into their bottom line because they were unable to execute on it, and have had to cut out most of the significant features they were initially selling it on. They have produced a product that many analysts are saying is too confusing with the wide array of versions, and are recommending you wait for.
If this forum was saying something different from the general analysts you might have an argument for fanboism. But when even places like PC Mag and WinSuperSite have been echoing similar sentiment, the argument becomes pretty thin.
If I thought I could run a company better, I guarantee you I would be.
What does my ability as a CEO have to do with my ability to analyze market forces, and make a critique?
Have you ever wondered how somebody like Tiger Woods can have a coach? Being able to do something, and being able to critique somebody else's performance are two separate things.
Far more constructive would be for you to explain why you think this array of versions is a good idea. How will it serve to sell and promote copies of Windows? Then we will have something to discuss instead of throwing insults.
balamw
Moderator emeritus
There is some truth to that. MS originally got big on DOS, BASIC alone would not have gone very far. But they only got the contract for PC-DOS because IBM needed an OS quickly for their new PC platform and didn't want to wait or pay DRI for CP/M-86.
The accident was that IBM built the PC around lots of standard parts [a move that was seen to counter the Apple ]['s then dominance of the office computer market] Once the BIOS was reverse engineered by Compaq, the era of PC Clones was born.
Microsoft had maintained some rights to make their own version of PC-DOS for non-IBM machines which they then sold to the clone manufacturers as MS-DOS. Without the clones (which IBM would normally have been able to prevent) the PC would not likely have taken over the industry as quickly and completely as it did.
In those days of the early 80s there were plenty of non PC/non Apple options, Amiga, Atari, Sun, DEC, SGI, .... Personally I went through a Commodore phase back then, but was using Macs on campus. My first PC was bought ~1987.
B
Being balanced about it I *explicitly* stated in my posts, which you have clearly not read, that I DO NOT think that so many versions is a good idea. So how could I 'explain constructively' why I think it is a good idea, when I have plainly stated that I do no? I also stated that I don't really think that it's a great product, and that it's overpriced.
There's reams of replies here now going into stuff about how Microsoft runs its business. The whole point of my original post was simply to say: Just stop the snidey Vista/Windows bashing in the Windows on Mac forum, as the original post did.
TBi
macrumors 68030
A lot of the windows versions can be combined, windows ultimate is always windows ultimate. They just change the way you can install them. Full version can install anywhere, upgrade can only be used as an upgrade and OEM is just a cheaper version which you (technically) can't install as many times as the full version.
So basically you either pay for the full version to install easily, pay less for the upgrade but can only upgrade, or pay even less for the OEM. In OEM the 32bit and 64 bit versions are split so you only pay for the version you want. Thus saving more money.
As well as this, the normal consumer should NEVER see the OEM versions as they are for system builders. So a normal consumer won't have this option when buying Vista. They'll only see Home basic, Home Premium and Ultimate. 3 Versions.
Normal users won't see the business options because they are for business users... so why look at something you'll never look at.
Plus on a different note... it's a bit strange to be annoyed by having a choice. Either pay for the full whack or save money and get less. Or Maybe macdonalds should offer all their meals in one size to satisfy people like you. Maybe only have a big mac... in case you get confused by the options 🙂
So basically you either pay for the full version to install easily, pay less for the upgrade but can only upgrade, or pay even less for the OEM. In OEM the 32bit and 64 bit versions are split so you only pay for the version you want. Thus saving more money.
As well as this, the normal consumer should NEVER see the OEM versions as they are for system builders. So a normal consumer won't have this option when buying Vista. They'll only see Home basic, Home Premium and Ultimate. 3 Versions.
Normal users won't see the business options because they are for business users... so why look at something you'll never look at.
Plus on a different note... it's a bit strange to be annoyed by having a choice. Either pay for the full whack or save money and get less. Or Maybe macdonalds should offer all their meals in one size to satisfy people like you. Maybe only have a big mac... in case you get confused by the options 🙂
I think the different versions exist because for MS it's the best way to maximize their profit. They offer a relatively cheap version for the people who will not pay more and still leave the incentive for the financially stronger customers to purchase more feature-rich versions for more money. Many companies do it that way. Apple do not do it for OS X, but do it for their hardware and some of their other software. For the consumer this might not make sense, but from the companies point of view it does.
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
Exactly right, it's great economics!
One comment to all the people who think MS knows what they are doing. How come a company with 10x more people and 10x more money (MS) hasn't been able to make a better product than Apple in 2007 (even though Apple's last OS came out in April 2005), when in late 2001 (when 10.1 and XP came out), Microsoft had a much better product on the market than Apple.
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
One of the members whose computer opinion I respect the most (Sesshi) actually thinks Apple's hardware isn't great (at the high end) but their OS is brilliant, if you want to tinker with your OS, and be able to install whatever you want on it go and install Linux on your computer, or possibly Fink, it even works on Mac's* 😉. The thing I *like* about OS X is that even though it has some obvious flaws because it is created under a dictatorship of Jobs, most things work very well.
@Linux AFAIK OpenSUSE is good for Laptops (well better than Ubuntu anyway, which seems to lack decent wireless/vpn/power saving built in).
*since Fink is a Mac thing it obviously works on Mac's but so does Linux 😉.
balamw
Moderator emeritus
IMHO that's exactly the point.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9009961
I've posted this article before, but I think it's essentially true. Microsoft does not currently seem to have the user at the forefront of their minds when they make certain compromises, if they ever have.
Apple's choices, on the other hand, seem to be more user experience driven. Even when that experience conflicts with features or "choice".
Vista Business is a perfectly fine choice for some home users who might want a bit more security features and less media oriented stuff and at ~ half the price of Ultimate. So, 4 is the minimum, with the Signature edition as a fifth in the short term, discounting the full vs. upgrade varieties.
IMHO the biggest problem with the editions as they stand is the choice between Home Premium and Business. These are roughly equivalent in price, but have several features that are unique to each. Ultimate is too expensive for most users.
B
TBi
macrumors 68030
You're right and judging by your response i gather you agree with my point, even though i incorrectly dismissed business edition.
If I buy vista it's going to be the OEM edition of Ultimate.
kitki83
macrumors 6502a
Wow thats alot of version, then remember the service packs will be arriving end of year I guess. But thats way to many for non computer people who want basica word processing and Email, Iam worried that they stores are going to eat them up with garbage just to milk their money
But the thing is why do they need to support older models 32bit. I mean this OS basically requires top of the line systems.
But the thing is why do they need to support older models 32bit. I mean this OS basically requires top of the line systems.
Peace
Cancelled
It doesnt cost MS a penny more to produce the different versions.Know why?
I found this out last night playing around with my brothers Vista Home Edition.
ALL of the versions are on the same disk.The only difference is the activation key..
Try it if you have ANY version of Vista.
Start to install it.Do NOT enter the activation key.
A list of all the versions will pop up and MS will ask you to select the version you paid for.Choose a different version.In my case I chose Ultimate.
Install it but do NOT activate it.It goes into 30 day mode.However it's the full Ultimate ( or whatever you chose ) version.
So..
All versions come on the same DVD.It's just the CD key thats different so MS does not stamp different versions onto different DVD's.
Now THAT is a classic example of a rip-off IMHO.
zero2dash
macrumors 6502a
If there's 21 versions then there must be differences between each version, reasons to buy one over the other, and a surplus in choices must equal a better product.
Unfortunately, none of the above is true, and at its core - Vista is a pile of garbage.
IMHO Microsoft laid a lot of excellent groundwork with 2000, and smoothed out that fresh gravel with XP...and then with Vista, it looks like they decided to blast out all the work and install a light rail system instead without checking to see if the most rudimentary requirements (such as power) were there. I was able to stand Vista for about 10 minutes (or 40 minutes if you include the 30 it took to install it) before reformatting my hard drive and switching back to XP.
balamw
Moderator emeritus
Producing 21 different packages (or even 4) and keeping track of them all is not free because they are not interchangeable.
If they just sold the media and keys separately they (Microsoft and its retailers) would more easily be able to address changes in demand (e.g. we ran out of Ultimate, but we've got plenty of Home Basic Upgrades).
Microsoft is finally "getting it" a bit by allowing buyers of Ultimate to buy Home Premium for up to 2 other machines in their house for $49. (Despite the fact that people are not getting valid keys when they participate in this offer). You'd still be out at least $350 to upgrade three machines to Vista, which is about in line with Apple's $199 for OS X and $99 for iLife bought in family packs. (Once you figure that Apple's Family Packs are for 5 machines instead of 3 it's still not that great a deal). For the first time too you can download Windows legally from Circuit City, this is a plus if you've got decent broadband.
B
stcanard
macrumors 65816
The different versions exist because at its core Microsoft assumes everyone in the world is out to rip them off, and they will try to make things as difficult as possible. That leads to a lot of ill-will towards them because they are very open about that attitude, and make the honest people jump through ridiculous hoops (the dishonest ones of course have already got the crack). Ironic considering it was rampant piracy that put them in the position they currently are.
Apple works with a very different philosophy -- I'm sure they also assume everyone is out to rip them off (since its such a well established culture in software), but recognizes that there's not really much they can do about it, and instead tries to build good will and a good enough experience that more people are willing to pay, just because they think its easier.
Of course iTunes is the perfect example of that -- everything on iTunes was, and still is, available on P2P networks, but its so much easier just to pay the 99c and get guaranteed quality without spending 2 hours searching for a 3 minute song.
And, of course, that's why so much of what Apple does is given a free pass, whereas the same thing from Microsoft would put people up in arms. If somebody always treats you like a thief, you will come to dislike and distrust them.