Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
Take into account that you paid much less on the hardware going with Windows. It balances out that way. Not to mention the scope of machines that you can run Windows on vs. OS X.
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.
Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard Shipping in September: $29 for Leopard Users
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OpenCL Video cards
Bummer.
I see my 2008 Mac Pro ATI Radeon HD 2600 isn't on the OpenCL requirements list.
A quick look through the Apple Store shows me a grand total of ONE card -- the ATI Radeon 4870 that is available for my machine as an OpenCL capable upgrade.
Do any of you know if this OpenCL requirements list will encompass more video cards in the future? This list is incredibly restrictive.
Bummer.
I see my 2008 Mac Pro ATI Radeon HD 2600 isn't on the OpenCL requirements list.
A quick look through the Apple Store shows me a grand total of ONE card -- the ATI Radeon 4870 that is available for my machine as an OpenCL capable upgrade.
Do any of you know if this OpenCL requirements list will encompass more video cards in the future? This list is incredibly restrictive.
Quillz
macrumors 65816
Surely you understand that the two operating systems have completely different clients and needs, right? The pricing model for the two is naturally going to be different because they are targeting different segments of the market.
No end user will ever need or use all the features of Vista Ultimate, and that's why most OEMs supplied them with Home Premium or Business.
jaw04005
macrumors 601
I'm sure someone else posted it, but here is the page with all the other features.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/enhancements-refinements.html
http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/enhancements-refinements.html
i know, it's awesome apple is doing this. hopefully it will force M$ to re-strategize their pricing schemes. the family pack SL is dirt cheap, i can't wait to sept, 😀
Quillz
macrumors 65816
Also don't forget that this $29 upgrade comes after happily paying $129 for every other upgrade for the past six years or so, as each upgrade generally came every 18-21 months.
So whereas one might have paid for XP and Vista over the course of five years, another might have paid $129*6 over the course of those same five years, meaning Mac OS X, coupled with the hardware, could actually be more expensive than Windows in certain situations.
And thus, this is correct. You must balance out the costs of the two. Windows licenses tend to be more expensive in the short term, but balance out in the long term because of the cheaper hardware and the fact that major Windows versions tend to last a minimum of 2-3 years, whereas it's very possible Apple will release 10.7 by late 2010.
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
Quillz
macrumors 65816
It's dirt cheap until you realize that you can only legally upgrade from Leopard on a machine that cost at least a grand or more.
Apple is able to afford a $29 upgrade because their hardware is so expensive. They charge $1,000 alone just for a RAM upgrade.
BongoBanger
macrumors 68000
About 90% of Windows consumer sales come from OEM installs. It's unlikely to change with the advent of W7 - people will buy a new PC with W7 on it rather than an upgrade.
You may get some people upgrading from Vista to W7 but most people are pretty happy with Vista now - which was by no means always the case - so I don't think there'll be a huge upswing here. Personally I have no intention of moving to W7 until I buy my next desktop - or possible laptop - which won't be for another year or so.
The point is MS don't have to offer reduced price upgrading because that's not their market. That said, if they offer it for, say, $49 then that's going to really ramp up W7's market share - not at the expense of OS X though, it'll just be a readjustment of version share.
THX1139
macrumors 68000
It's NOT a price cut! The full version is selling for the same amount as before.
People are getting all excited because they think they are getting a brand new version of an OS for only $29. While the changes are major, it's still an upgrade to Leopard. Most of the changes happen under the hood and a lot of people are not going to notice the difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard unless they have the latest hardware and are power users. It's not like we are going from Tiger to Leopard! It's not a full OS release- it's an upgrade to streamline the code and add a few new features. Is it worth $29 bucks? Absolutely! But it's NOT a totally new OS so don't expect radical differences. Especially for only $29!
Yeah, but if the cost evens out in the end, then you'll look back and possibly think "I paid the same, for *that* experience!"
(for the record, I have home-built my PCs for the past 10 years, so retail PC pricing and configurations aren't an issue for me, and I use Linux a lot and wouldn't buy Windows unless it came with a machine)
gctwnl
macrumors regular
No upgrade price for Snow Leopard Server 8-(
No upgrade price to go from Leopard Server to Snow Leopard Server and a price drop at the high end where they already were a fraction of the cost of Windows Servers.
Come on, Apple. If Snow Leopard is in fact an improved Leopard (with no new stuff, but speed and bug issues solved), the (especially small) Server clients should also get a decent upgrade price for Snow Leopard.
For enterprises a difference between 500 and 1000 is rather inconsequential. Unless it is for really small enterprises and they already had the 500 price for a 10-client limited version (with only 10-client limitations on certain services like AFP).
No upgrade price to go from Leopard Server to Snow Leopard Server and a price drop at the high end where they already were a fraction of the cost of Windows Servers.
Come on, Apple. If Snow Leopard is in fact an improved Leopard (with no new stuff, but speed and bug issues solved), the (especially small) Server clients should also get a decent upgrade price for Snow Leopard.
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
It depends on what you want then in the end. 😉
Snow Leopard and Windows 7 are great offerings.
The gap from XP to Vista was because Microsoft screwed the pooch merrily with Longhorn, effectively cancelling the entire project. Microsoft actually historically have similar upgrade frequencies to Apple, especially now that Apple is getting to 2 or 3 years between upgrades now that Mac OS X is a far more stable, evolved beast.
Never mind people getting through a Windows laptop every two years before upgrading. Not that I doubt that there are loads of people doing the same with Apple laptops, but the reason for upgrading their is often different 😉 Again, single datapoints mean nothing I guess, but historically Macs have been known for longevity, and my 4 year old iBook doesn't disprove that in my mind, subjectively.
vansouza
macrumors 68000
I would imagine you just buy it and if you try to install it on a Tiger system; it will not install.
jaw04005
macrumors 601
According to Macworld, it's $499 for unlimited clients. Ships in September.
http://www.macworld.com/article/141032/2009/06/snowserver.html
Bubba Satori
Suspended
Flawless ? That's not my recollection of the first six months or so that Leopard was out. 😕
So where are all the guys who insisted that it would be $129 and anyone expecting a discount were cheapskates who thought Apple's work was worthless?
There's a steaming plate of crow here, and it's not going to eat itself.
That would be the easiest way to do it. But what happens if your hard drive crashes and you need to install from scratch?
That part of the keynote was confusing, there has been debate whether that means 75 million OSX on computers, or if that number includes all the people with iPhone and iPod touch (both of which technically run a version of OSX).
In December, RIM announced they had 21 million blackberry subscribers. So at this point, no, probably not.
There's a steaming plate of crow here, and it's not going to eat itself.
That would be the easiest way to do it. But what happens if your hard drive crashes and you need to install from scratch?
That part of the keynote was confusing, there has been debate whether that means 75 million OSX on computers, or if that number includes all the people with iPhone and iPod touch (both of which technically run a version of OSX).
In December, RIM announced they had 21 million blackberry subscribers. So at this point, no, probably not.
jaw04005
macrumors 601
In all likelihood, it will just ask for your Leopard or Mac Restore DVD. Verify that either is legit, and proceed with installation.
Quillz
macrumors 65816
Biased? The Windows NT kernel is extremely stable and "evolved."
I completely agree that Mac hardware lasts a long time, but so does PC hardware. And you are correct that the gap between XP and Vista was unusually wrong. But if you go back to around Windows 3, you'll see that there's usually a minimum of 2 years between major consumer releases, with the rare exception being the year that existed between Windows ME and Windows XP.
I think the reason Apple is slowing down with Mac OS X releases is because they are literally running out of improvements. And that's a good thing, in a way. A lot of missing functionality between, say, Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X has been filled, and a lot of disadvantages that Windows used to have are now matched.
But in general, Apple does tend to be quicker to release what it considers major OS upgrades, which is why I'm under the impression that in certain situations, the overall cost of ownership of Mac OS X could wind up being more than Windows, although for most people, that won't be the case.
Quillz
macrumors 65816
Actually, nothing Apple ever does is flawless. No one can make a flawless product.
It's a shame that some Apple fanatics still honestly believe that using a Mac is a way of life and somehow makes you better than a non-Mac user.
