Windows Vista uprgrade vs. Mac OS X Leopard upgrade

[MacFreak]

Windows Vista vs. Mac OS X Leopard: Upgrade Hell or One-Stop Shopping

Here's a fine piece of propaganda from the fanboys at MacHouse. Ha ha. But they fail to mention that first of all, Leopard isn't available yet, and second, Apple will charge you for each point upgrade of OS X, and you only have to buy Windows once every five years. – Charlie White from (http://homepage.mac.com/mercutio2/Ma...ge1/page1.html)

[nixgeek]

Well, the only reason it took 5 years for Microsoft to update Windows is because they couldn't accomplish it sooner. Vista (then known as Longhorn) was meant to see the light of day in 2003. However, they've had to remove so many pieces from the original Vista that it's a shame they released this final version with so little to rave about after so long. Also remember that before Vista's release, the Windows revisions were coming in at 2-3 year intervals, which isn't that much different from Apple's schedule. Sure the upgrade is sold for every 10.x release and not for every 10.x.y release, but consider that the Windows Service Packs are pretty much the same thing as downloading a Combo Updater: all they have are a bunch of updates from a certain point to a certain point. And if you look carefully at the revision numbers, Windows NT 4 was succeeded by Windows NT 5 (Win2000), followed by Windows NT 5.1 (WinXP). Open up a Command Prompt and see what it says regarding Windows' version numbers.

And as far as we know, Leopard will be able to be installed on any Mac, possibly from a G3 up (don't know if the G3 is going to be supported or not). It won't be much different from how it's been so far with previous released.

This isn't propaganda...it's the truth.

[symphonix]

Originally Posted by MacFreak

Apple will charge you for each point upgrade of OS X...

They didn't charge for 10.0 or 10.1. And phrasing it like that is misleading, since the "point-releases" are equivalent to whole new versions and are only put out every second year.

That said, MacHouse have a very valid point. Most consumers won't have a clue what they're paying for or what they're getting when they buy Vista. And upgrade installers are as annoying as hell when the time comes to reinstall, since you have to install the old system first!

[nixgeek]

For the record, the link below shows you the version numbers for the marketing names. They sure look like point releases to me, and are significantly more expensive unless you purchase the OS preinstalled with the PC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases

[fryke]

Not to forget that Microsoft pitched Windows 95, NT 4.0, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Me and Windows XP at customers within six years. While we can say that is all in the past and they more or less clearly pitched the versions at different customers, it's still true that they _did_ market all those OSs to some extent.

[sirstaunch]

[Qion]

Lovely comic.

[Ferdinand]

Good one