Single user licence vs Family pack

eric halfabee · #1 November 3rd, 2003, 05:56 PM

I have just purchased a single user pack and a family pack for my work. What is there in Panther that can tell me or Apple if Im just using the single user version on five Macs rather than the family pack (such as the MS Office network thing). Is it just a piece of mind thing nowing youv'e done the right thing?

eric

ElDiabloConCaca · #2 November 3rd, 2003, 05:59 PM

It's just peace of mind. They can't tell. OS X doesn't "phone home" like some other applications, nor will it NOT let you install it on more than one machine and run them at the same time.

If you wanna get REAL technical, the only way they could tell is if you filled out the registration correctly, sent it in, then did it again with the same registration information on another machine. But that's not going to send up a red flag to anyone at Apple, and I doubt they'd ever check that information for unlicensed usage.

eric halfabee · #3 November 3rd, 2003, 06:12 PM

Cheers El

Thought as much, best to keep the money rolling into Apple as well.

Must check my spelling too ('peace' not 'piece', and 'knowing')

ElDiabloConCaca · #4 November 3rd, 2003, 06:42 PM

True, glad to hear that there's people out there supporting Apple's efforts. I just got into a discussion on some other thread about some dude whining that he'd spent $129 three times on the OS Xs (10.0, 10.2, 10.3) and his buddy just got a new G5 with 10.3 for free. He said that he'd spent more money on OS X than on Windows, but then admitted he was running Windows 2000... and I said that if he was such a stickler for keeping his system up-to-date with the latest OS, then he'd be running Windows XP, and the cost of Win2k and WinXP together would be more than he'd spent on all THREE OS Xs.

Some people, you know? Hell, I barely use .mac, but it's cool to be able to publish photos to the web from iPhoto and to have a little storage space to transfer stuff back and forth from work, even though it's $100 and can be had cheaper elsewhere. I'll support a company if I think they're doing the right thing... and Apple, in my opinion, definitely is.

Arden · #5 November 4th, 2003, 04:04 AM

That guy should be so lucky. He'll get to spend $129 3 more times before he gets to drop $200 or $300 for Longhorn.

eric halfabee · #6 November 4th, 2003, 04:14 PM

Yes the upgrade price or lack of is IMHO the main gripe for most people with OS X. I do think that there should be a upgrade price for current users, say half price or a third. Maybe a special price for early adopters as they sort of beta test the stuff.

eric

ElDiabloConCaca · #7 November 4th, 2003, 11:47 PM

Think of it this way: Apple's full versions cost less than Windows upgrades do. Apple does offer a limited upgrade, if you purchased certain software/hardware within a month period of Apple releasing an updated version, and they give the upgrades away for free (well, despite that $20 shipping/handling thing).

Windows full versions typically cost between $250 and $500. Upgrades cost about $150 to $200. Apple's full version costs $129. What if Apple deemed each release of OS X an "upgrade" and charged $129, then offered a discount on the full version for an upgrade price? If that was the policy, I'd be willing to bet a lot less people would have a problem with "upgrading" to the next release as has been the case.

dixonbm · #8 November 5th, 2003, 12:17 AM

I bought the family pack to share with my familys' machines. We would have gotten one copy anyway. Felt like this was the best way to give back to Apple.