Have to pay for updates?

[bas76]

One of my friends who knows I'm in the market for a mac is doing the typical "don't buy mac because..." stuff. He said that with Mac, you have to pay for OS updates. Now, I'm not talking like OS 9 to X. But say from 10.5.5 to 10.5.6. Is this true?

I tried googling it and didn't find much to back up his claim, so I'm leaning toward him being full of crap.

Thanks.

 

[drichards]

You don't pay for updates of your current OS. If a new OS with a new name comes out (like when I had Tiger 10.4 and Leopard 10.5 came out) you pay for that, if you want to upgrade. But yesterday's update from 10.5.5 to 10.5.6, free.

 

[arkitect]

Is this true?

No.
You do pay however for upgrades such as 10.5 to 10.6 etcetera…
But upgrades such as 10.5 to 10.5.1 to 10.5.2 etcetera are free.

 

[bartelby]

You're correct. Your friend is full of crap.

 

[alphaod]

Basically you have to pay for Point Updates, the equivalent of getting game expansions. Point-point updates are free, much like getting game patches.

So imagine OS X being a game, Leopard would be an expansion pack and 10.5.6 would be patch for it.

 

[bas76]

That makes sense and is perfectly fine... I mean, it's the same as Microsoft charging from XP to Vista. Amazing how people paint their own reality.

 

[i.shaun]

By that logic, you gotta pay for Windows updates too. Win95 to 98. 98 to ME. ME to 200 or XP. XP to VISTA.

Same with OS X -- if it's a different operating system, you'll have to pay for it, other then that the updates and patches come free.



Note: iPod Touch/iPhone update was at a small price from it's old OS to the 2.0 version. I believe I updated it again above 2.0 recently and that one was free.

 

[nick9191]

He might have been stating the old myth that because Apple releases new versions of their OS far more often that Microsoft, that each new Apple OS is equal to a service pack in Windows. This is not true however, look at the changes from Tiger to Leopard- New UI, Time Machine, Spaces, Quicklook, etc. etc. Then look at the differences from XP to Vista- A new theme, cheap rip offs of Expose, Spotlight, and Dashboard, slowness.

But no, you do not have to pay for what you would know on Windows as service packs, your friend is full of crap.

 

[surflordca]

By that logic, you gotta pay for Windows updates too. Win95 to 98. 98 to ME. ME to 200 or XP. XP to VISTA.

Same with OS X -- if it's a different operating system, you'll have to pay for it, other then that the updates and patches come free.

One BIG difference. When you do buy the new OS from Apple it is a lot cheaper than Microsoft charges for their upgrades...

 

[Rapmastac1]

One BIG difference. When you do buy the new OS from Apple it is a lot cheaper than Microsoft charges for their upgrades...

Well you gotta remember that all that is after already paying a premium for the same hardware that you can get for less.

So in the end, it kinda balances out, but OSX is still much better.

 

[alphaod]

One BIG difference. When you do buy the new OS from Apple it is a lot cheaper than Microsoft charges for their upgrades...

The difference there is the OS for Microsoft is their core business while for Apple is just a complement to their hardware.

 

[Sun Baked]

You're correct. Your friend is full of crap.

Yep, just don't poke him too hard.

Stuffing that much manure back into the bag is almost impossible.

 

[synth3tik]

A major problem here is that Microsoft just does not bother with naming conventions. Instead of Windows 6 They called it, what 95. Only now with Windows 7 are they even trying. So I don't think your friend in necessarily full of it, I think your friend is confused by naming conventions. Currently OS 10 is the latest core OS. 5 is the variant of that OS. 6 would be the current updated version.

Lets compare OS X to XP
OS 10.5.6 = the sixth update to the fifth variant of the tenth OS
Win XP SP3 = The XP variant of win 95 (or 98 can't recall) with it's third service pack (or update)