Originally posted by CaptainScarlet
They want your money!!
It's simple as that.
And besides for only $129, for full upgrade, the price isn't really that bad...
Were not paying $400 for Xp here...That's expensive.....
CS...out
I've never understood people who use this argument as a bonus for the Mac platform.
Microsoft charges $199 for the Home version of Windows XP, and $299 for the Professional version of Windows XP. But this operating system was released in 2001, and there won't be a paid update until (supposedly) 2005.
In that time frame, we've had Mac OS X 10.0 ($129), Mac OS X 10.1 (free upgrade), Jaguar ($129), Panther coming soon ($129). And we're only in October 2003. By the time Windows Longhorn is supposed to come out (October 2005), we'll most likely be up to Mac OS X 10.5, since Apple seems to be keeping up a schedule of a major upgrade every year (the period between major releases is slowly getting longer):
Mac OS X 10.0 -- March 2001
Mac OS X 10.1 -- October 2001
Jaguar -- August 2002
Panther -- supposedly October 2003
10.0 to 10.1 -- 7 months
10.1 to Jaguar -- 10 months
Jaguar to Panther -- 14 months
So, assuming that we have two major releases of Mac OS X by the time Longhorn comes out, that means we'll have paid $645 for operating system software. That's a far cry from the $299 of Windows XP Professional. Note that this is excluding any potential upgrade/educational discounts that you can get from either Apple or Microsoft.
All things taken into account, Apple charges more than twice as much for the most up-to-date system software in the same time period.
Please note that this is not to be construed as a complaint. The $138 that I've spent so far on Mac OS X (educational discount) has been well-spent and well-justified, and I would have paid the full $258 if I wasn't a student. The $645 that you will spend for all major releases of Mac OS X up to version 10.5 will no doubt give you so many more useful and innovative features in the operating system than Microsoft could ever hope to include.
Just please don't make the same mistake that people do when they buy a PC purely for monetary reasons -- they only consider up-front costs, and not total cost of ownership. If you consider TOC, the cost of a Mac is much, much cheaper. But a Mac isn't cheaper if you just consider a portion of the cost, whether it is up-front costs or operating system costs.
originally posted by iHack
PS. The difference, of course, is that you can choose to only upgrade your OSX if and when you want to, to save money. And you most probably would be able to use it on your old mac. By the time a new windows version comes out you're forced to get it, because the old version is so buggy and outdated. And you'll have to buy a new PC too, as system requirements go up about as fast as intel can innovate.
I agree with the latter point, but not the former. While indeed you can choose not to upgrade Mac OS X to the latest version, and your computer will continue to work as it did before, you are limiting yourself to software that still supports the older operating system. Mac developers, especially small independent developers, tend to create software that uses the latest and greatest technologies, and therefore will require the latest upgrade to Mac OS X. Apple will probably even update the iLife applications so they will do the same. Contrast this with Windows, where you can be guaranteed that most software will continue to work on your operating system for a few years, because Microsoft doesn't release paid upgrades for a few years.
So, all things taken into account, a regular user would want to upgrade to use the latest and greatest software, even if it's free from Apple. That necessitates a paid upgrade to the latest version of the operating system.
