johnnyjibbs said:
even if this is true, wouldnt sales take off and compensate if the only people aren't buying are waiting for the new OS?
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.
Tiger Release Date?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
even if this is true, wouldnt sales take off and compensate if the only people aren't buying are waiting for the new OS?
$105
Retail upgrade kit for $105 - http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=37-116-194&depa=6
On the other hand, if you also need to do a disk upgrade the OEM kit plus a 160GB disk is around $150.
And XP is just as free with a new PC, as well as the other bundled stuff like video and DVD writing software....
____________________________________
My point is simply that the original poster found someplace selling XP for $300 - whereas I found it for less than a third of that price. The original post was about as honest as GWB....
Toe said:
Retail upgrade kit for $105 - http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=37-116-194&depa=6
On the other hand, if you also need to do a disk upgrade the OEM kit plus a 160GB disk is around $150.
Toe said:
And XP is just as free with a new PC, as well as the other bundled stuff like video and DVD writing software....
____________________________________
My point is simply that the original poster found someplace selling XP for $300 - whereas I found it for less than a third of that price. The original post was about as honest as GWB....
Toe said:
Do you really use ALL these things? Half of them? Do you use ALL of them to the extent that you can really justify paying $129 for them?
Are the programs really so much better than 3rd party alternatives? (how much more can you get from a mail client anyway?)
I like apple as much as the next guy... but don't be blinded by the light.
ioinc said:
Well, I use iPhoto, not as much as some people; I don't go to many places and I don't have a good camera at the moment. I don't use iCal, but I would if I weren't a student. I use iTunes a lot, it's a great app. Mail is great, I really like the spam blocking thing, etc. iChat is good, but I stopped chatting a while back; my brother is now in college so I talk to him sometimes. Safari is my favorite browser.
Spotlight is going to be very useful; my dad has been dealing with a lot of stuff for a book, all in pdf's; it would have helped a lot. Dashboard looks cool, so does Automator. GarageBand I get into every once in a while, and iDVD I don't use, but could if I ever shot some video.
There are many other apps and features as well, I just can't remember them...
I'd say all of that, combined with the great looks of the product inside and outside, the unique service, etc. is worth the $129. Whether or not they should release these OS's every single year is a whole other story; looks like they are beginning to spread them out further already.
You bet. I don't use them all, but I use iPhoto extensively, GarageBand a little, and am just starting to use iMovie and iDVD. I think they're so valuable, I was willing to pay a good sum for just an upgrade to them (iLife 04).ioinc said:
Oh heck yeah! Every time I show iPhoto to a Winderz user, they start to think that maybe they should get a Mac. I don't know if I'd really use my digital camera if it weren't for iPhoto.ioinc said:
GarageBand... that's worth a heck of a lot more than $129. Spend another $100 on a USB music keyboard, and you have the value of a $1,000+ synthesizer. I've never seen another app with that much functionality for so little.
iMovie and iDVD? The third party alternatives simply do not compare.
iCal I use throughout my company for its excellent calendar sharing. I could use Up-To-Date if I were willing to pay a chunk of cash for each user for it instead. Or I could use Palm for free, but not be able to share calendars.
I'm really looking forward to Automator. The only 3rd party app I know of that's similar is QuickKeys, and it ain't close to free.
There are plenty of free alternatives to iChat, but in the Windows world, they are full of viruses. And iChat AV has stayed ahead of the competition in its feature set.
Yeah, I think that's a heck of a lot of value for $130 (not to mention the killer improvements to the OS itself... the Mobile Home Directories feature in Tiger/Tiger Server is going to really revolutionize the way my company works). And no, I don't think 3rd party alternatives come close (in the above cases... you can however make a good case for alts to Safari and Mail).
stop whining.
point 1: jaguar was the first really usable osx version, so everyone who used pre-jaguar osx versions paid for the experience gained during the early adopter era. nobody bought 10.0 thinking it's a good production system. you just cannot count the price of pre-jaguar osx into the equation, because that was still the classic mac era. os9 was declared dead only after panther release.
point 2: everyone who has bought a computer old enough not having jaguar pre-installed has ADDED VALUE to their hardware purchase by upgrading the operating system. if the tiger runs in such computer, the operating system upgrades have cost 3x$129, which is $387, which is not so much considering a comparable pc (as old as pre-jaguar mac) runs current windows very slowly whereas an old imac still runs osx great. thinking this way, the operating system isn't so expensive.
point 3: you get an operating system and an ilife bundled with every apple computer purhcase. if you haven't bought a computer while jaguar/panther has been out, you are surely due buying one after tiger has been released. if you really think that osx costs +$500, then the "cheapest mac money can buy" should look like a killer deal for you. the emac only costs $799 and includes the latest operating system.
remember, apple is a hardware company. apple encourages you to buy hardware, and therefore the os upgrades don't come free.
point 1: jaguar was the first really usable osx version, so everyone who used pre-jaguar osx versions paid for the experience gained during the early adopter era. nobody bought 10.0 thinking it's a good production system. you just cannot count the price of pre-jaguar osx into the equation, because that was still the classic mac era. os9 was declared dead only after panther release.
point 2: everyone who has bought a computer old enough not having jaguar pre-installed has ADDED VALUE to their hardware purchase by upgrading the operating system. if the tiger runs in such computer, the operating system upgrades have cost 3x$129, which is $387, which is not so much considering a comparable pc (as old as pre-jaguar mac) runs current windows very slowly whereas an old imac still runs osx great. thinking this way, the operating system isn't so expensive.
point 3: you get an operating system and an ilife bundled with every apple computer purhcase. if you haven't bought a computer while jaguar/panther has been out, you are surely due buying one after tiger has been released. if you really think that osx costs +$500, then the "cheapest mac money can buy" should look like a killer deal for you. the emac only costs $799 and includes the latest operating system.
remember, apple is a hardware company. apple encourages you to buy hardware, and therefore the os upgrades don't come free.
sorry, but that's quite a bit of exaggeration
A "pre-jaguar" PC could be a 2.53 GHz Pentium 4, 512KiB cache with 533 MHz bus. (The "pre-jaguar" iBook was 700MHz G3, the PB was 800 MHz G4.)
The current PC even back when OS X 10.1 was released was up to 2.0 GHz Pentium 4, 256KiB cache, 400 MHz bus. Note that XP started shipping within a month or so of 10.1, so a "10.1 era" PC runs "current Windows". (Both 'Books were at 500 MHz.)
I don't see how anyone could honestly claim that a 2 GHz P4 runs XP "very slowly", and a 500 MHz G3 with 8 MiB of VRAM "runs osx great"....
________________________
Sources:
Intel CPU release dates
Mac release dates
JFreak said:
A "pre-jaguar" PC could be a 2.53 GHz Pentium 4, 512KiB cache with 533 MHz bus. (The "pre-jaguar" iBook was 700MHz G3, the PB was 800 MHz G4.)
The current PC even back when OS X 10.1 was released was up to 2.0 GHz Pentium 4, 256KiB cache, 400 MHz bus. Note that XP started shipping within a month or so of 10.1, so a "10.1 era" PC runs "current Windows". (Both 'Books were at 500 MHz.)
I don't see how anyone could honestly claim that a 2 GHz P4 runs XP "very slowly", and a 500 MHz G3 with 8 MiB of VRAM "runs osx great"....
________________________
Sources:
Intel CPU release dates
Mac release dates
AidenShaw said:
If all you've ever used was a mac, I could see saying that. It kind of reminds me of an article I read on Anandtech. http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232 "Simple things like bolding a word are ever so slightly slower under Office for the Mac than under Windows; you wouldn't notice it if your first experience with Office was on the Mac, but coming from a Windows user's perspective, it can drive you crazy."
MetallicPenguin said:
When you say 'all that' is worth it... are you including the features that are so stellar that you can't remember them?
Toe said:
No offense dude but you don't know what you are talking about. Do you actually think that Apple doesn't bundle the price of OS X and iLife into the purchase price of a new desktop laptop. If so I have some choice land to sell you in Florida.
As for OEM's. I've purchased an OEM copy of XP Pro for my desktop. I picked up a $5.00 USB cable off of their site as well. This fulfills the requirments of the OEM license.
Comparable Windows laptops cost the same as an iBook and have no bundled software worth mentioning. They have Windows, but not anything to compare with the huge suite of apps you get with any Mac or any OS X purchase.SiliconAddict said:No offense dude but you don't know what you are talking about. Do you actually think that Apple doesn't bundle the price of OS X and iLife into the purchase price of a new desktop laptop. If so I have some choice land to sell you in Florida.
Now maybe you could find some el-generico PC laptop that costs a little less, but generally, iBooks cost a heck of a lot less than Windows laptops if you consider the added value of the apps.
Now this is where I didn't know what I was talking about. I find it hard to believe Microsoft would ever, ever make such a generous license. That just seems totally unlike them. But then, I suppose they want as much penetration as they can get...SiliconAddict said:
Anyway, I still don't see how any version of Windows can be called comparable to Panther or Tiger. A typewriter costs less than OS X as well....
Toe said:
That's a valid opinion, but please note that the discussion on this sub-topic is on whether $300 is a reasonable price to quote for a Windows XP kit.
The original poster quoted a "Neiman Marcus" price for an item that's on special at Target every day.
i had panther installed in a 350MHz iMac (with a fast hard drive and 512MB ram) that handled every task perfectly - including heavy photoshopping - whereas my compaq pc at work (2.4GHz with 2GB ram) only performs well when i don't stress it to the limit, which i often have to do. maybe it tells more about windows than about the hardware in question, but the real-world experience is what counts. the windows system - which would in theory be a lot faster - cannot keep up with me while i work (at above 60% cpu loads), but the iMac just kept on performing no matter what i told it to do.
granted, the work pc is "snappier" with the user interface when i do practically nothing except try to launch a notepad app. but that's really nothing, i don't care if it takes two or three seconds. the real work just cripples the pc to the level that makes the iMac shine.
i know most of you cannot believe it, and in theory it shouldn't be possible. however, i myself don't know if it's windows that should be blamed or the pc hardware, but anyway, the "windows system" just is slower than the "osx system". i hope there are better systems, but i think it's a fair comparison as the iMac also was not the best mac money could buy back then
wdlove said:
didn't i say anything about upgrades adding value to the previous purchase? if it runs the current OS, just go for it and don't mind the price. if it doesn't run it as good as the previous, just run the previous and don't whine about the upgrade costing something. you buy what you need and not everything apple releases.
Considering how often on-line shops (EB, BestBuy, Amazon) kept changing the release date on Doom 3, I severely doubt there is any grain of truth on Tiger being released on the proposed time by Amazon. Until we start hearing about developer betas and seeds, I imagine we can all just keep waiting "until it's done". And considering a half-finished Longhorn isn't expected out of the gates until 2006, I don't think Apple needs to be overly rushed.
JFreak said:i had panther installed in a 350MHz iMac (with a fast hard drive and 512MB ram) that handled every task perfectly - including heavy photoshopping - whereas my compaq pc at work (2.4GHz with 2GB ram) only performs well when i don't stress it to the limit, which i often have to do. maybe it tells more about windows than about the hardware in question, but the real-world experience is what counts. the windows system - which would in theory be a lot faster - cannot keep up with me while i work (at above 60% cpu loads), but the iMac just kept on performing no matter what i told it to do.
granted, the work pc is "snappier" with the user interface when i do practically nothing except try to launch a notepad app. but that's really nothing, i don't care if it takes two or three seconds. the real work just cripples the pc to the level that makes the iMac shine.
i know most of you cannot believe it, and in theory it shouldn't be possible. however, i myself don't know if it's windows that should be blamed or the pc hardware, but anyway, the "windows system" just is slower than the "osx system". i hope there are better systems, but i think it's a fair comparison as the iMac also was not the best mac money could buy back then
Milage will vary. But from my experience, even though Windows 2000 and XP are more stable than 9x, they are still plagued with problems I do not experience with Mac OS X. I've found that Windows XP still has the same problem as Windows 95 where too much crap is installed or uninstalled from a machine, which really can bog down and gum up a machine, leaving the user to either suffer with piss-poor performance or do a clean install. The only clean installs I have ever made on a Mac were with fresh computers and I wanted to partition the hard drive into two drives. I've also seen that Windows 2000 and XP do not have the same level of multi-tasking capabilities that Mac OS X possesses. With OS X, an app can run amok, but the rest of the system goes on just fine. In Windows, if an application goes wild, it will take up 99% or 100% of the system resources, and pretty much bring the system to a halt until the bad application can be killed.
JFreak said:
Is the work PC in a domain, managed by the IT department, with applications on the network?
If so, then it's an apples and oranges comparison with your home Mac....
edenwaith said:
True, you need to take everything with a grain of salt, however there's a difference between the release of a game, such as Doom 3, and an official OS software release by a company like Apple. I just don't see Apple pushing their dates around on Tiger as much as something like Halo 2 or something.
edenwaith said:
Heh heh - Longhorn out of the "Gates" - good one...
JFreak said:
I wasn't whinning about the price of upgrading to Tiger, don't mind spending the $129. With a Mac it always seems smart to stay current with software. I was just commenting on the longevity of a Power Mac G4, that is just a little over 4 years old. My wife has concerns about it's remaining life. Don't think I would want to spend too much money on it at this stage.