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.
Vista NOT a rip-off of OSX
- Thread starter fustercluck
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Whether or not Vista is a rip-off of OS X, it sure is expensive. Even the upgrade to Vista Ultimate from XP is £249 on Amazon.co.uk (which looks like an iLife kind of set of programs with some elements missing and the OS - cost of this combo for Mac would be about £160, regardless of whether you have the last version of the OS or one that is 10 years old, so really this needs to be compared to £369 full-version of Vista box, making OS X and iLife together well under half price). Say you want to update the OS and Office at the same time, then you are looking at well over £500. If you don't have XP or Office in the first place, you have a lot of money to spend. Of course you could always go for the home premium upgrade from XP, but this is still £149 (£219 if you don't have XP), almost twice the price of OS X.
I would like to see a cost of ownership graph with all this plotted out. Sure you could say that OS X has had more releases in the same time period, but there is no reason that you have to buy all of them - the next version does not rely on you having the last version. There are people with G3 iMacs now running tiger and they may well have been upgraded from OS 9.
There is a danger for MS that the market has changed in the time since XP was first released. People may not be as willing to throw out their old computer in order to update the software - the model that their pricing appears to push consumers towards.
A full version of Vista Ultimate is the same price as a Mac Mini - I know which I would choose.
I would like to see a cost of ownership graph with all this plotted out. Sure you could say that OS X has had more releases in the same time period, but there is no reason that you have to buy all of them - the next version does not rely on you having the last version. There are people with G3 iMacs now running tiger and they may well have been upgraded from OS 9.
There is a danger for MS that the market has changed in the time since XP was first released. People may not be as willing to throw out their old computer in order to update the software - the model that their pricing appears to push consumers towards.
A full version of Vista Ultimate is the same price as a Mac Mini - I know which I would choose.
Uh, Vista?!
Well I've never been that great at maths, but if I bought Vista it would just sit in its box given that I don't have a PC or an Intel Mac.
In addition to other methods, if you really want a copy of this, probably the most straightforward method is to use the copy of this video on YouTube in conjunction with the software Podtube, which saves iTunes format videos of YouTube content.
And can we please, please, please not have any more threads about this video?
Oh look, we already have windows fanboys trying to prove Apple is copying microsoft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3VB1VPm4c&mode=related&search=
Pathetic....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3VB1VPm4c&mode=related&search=
Pathetic....
Oh look, we already have windows fanboys trying to prove Apple is copying microsoft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI3VB1VPm4c&mode=related&search=
Pathetic....
I like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQW7zDVOmis&NR
No audio though...
That background music was terrible. Also, the satirical video didn't show us anything we didn't know already.
That was pretty funny, thanks.
I know some windows users who are still using Windows 2000, and they seem perfectly fine with it. Or at least, as perfectly fine as you can be, with windows. Anyway, they don't plan to upgrade any time soon, simply because they have older machines, and upgrading is just too expensive.
I know some windows users who are still using Windows 2000, and they seem perfectly fine with it. Or at least, as perfectly fine as you can be, with windows. Anyway, they don't plan to upgrade any time soon, simply because they have older machines, and upgrading is just too expensive.
He's right on all counts in that video. That Spotlight results window is sooo fishy (and useless at the same time). You can't have two of them, doesn't show up in applications and it's not one of the Finder windows. But I still think most copying is done by Redmond.
I honestly continue to think that Win2k is the best release of Windows, ever, to date. It was highly stable, and rock solid by Windows standards (including in comparison to XP -- XP seems to have a lot of UI bugginess than Win2k). It had reasonably good administrative features for the time in which it was made.
But it has API limitations, and even Win2k is slowly slipping off the supported list for new software....
I just don't see the merits of arguing about who copied who. Both companies have been copying each other for two decades now.
IMHO, the company on top will be the one that revolutionizes our antiquated nested file system. The innovation bucket for the traditional GUI is getting pretty shallow. I think that the 'instant search' features of both Vista and OS X are hinting at something far greater in the future, and I see a distant point where how we access data will be vastly different from what we're used to. Who will be first? Microsoft or Apple? Or someone else?
IMHO, the company on top will be the one that revolutionizes our antiquated nested file system. The innovation bucket for the traditional GUI is getting pretty shallow. I think that the 'instant search' features of both Vista and OS X are hinting at something far greater in the future, and I see a distant point where how we access data will be vastly different from what we're used to. Who will be first? Microsoft or Apple? Or someone else?
It doesn't change the fact that the apple implementation of these technologies was on the market, in final form and with better implementation than the other examples given.
Compare the graphical extravagance (and apparent simplicity) of time machine as opposed to those bland examples of roll back shown in the pictures. Time machine will effectively allow a roll back to any moment as opposed to given file saving points.
I'm happy with my choice.
Compare the graphical extravagance (and apparent simplicity) of time machine as opposed to those bland examples of roll back shown in the pictures. Time machine will effectively allow a roll back to any moment as opposed to given file saving points.
I'm happy with my choice.
"Sore" grape? I didn't know that grapes had feelings...what about a sour grape?
Ripoff is as Ripoff does.
I still say that nobody gets to claim "ripoff" except perhaps Xerox and PARC. If Apple or M$ were to buy the original GUI patents and research data from Xerox (or buy Xerox) then things could get interesting. Since Xerox chose to go another direction (abandoned the GUI research) there's little or nothing to base the initial ripoff on unless they choose to take legal action for the original early 80's ripoff that spawned Amiga, Macintosh and Windows OS environments.
Subsequent claims are complicated by the fact that M$ and Apple have been developpers for each other's OS's for decades, so they have early builds to tinker with and copy from ahead of most press coverage of the relevant features.
I still say that nobody gets to claim "ripoff" except perhaps Xerox and PARC. If Apple or M$ were to buy the original GUI patents and research data from Xerox (or buy Xerox) then things could get interesting. Since Xerox chose to go another direction (abandoned the GUI research) there's little or nothing to base the initial ripoff on unless they choose to take legal action for the original early 80's ripoff that spawned Amiga, Macintosh and Windows OS environments.
Subsequent claims are complicated by the fact that M$ and Apple have been developpers for each other's OS's for decades, so they have early builds to tinker with and copy from ahead of most press coverage of the relevant features.