ie8 fix
madison

Windows 7 versus Snow Leopard: How much do upgrades really cost?

By | June 26, 2009, 5:00am PDT

Summary: In one of its brilliant “I’m a Mac” ads recently, Apple lampooned the complexity of Windows with a dizzying display of fine print that eventually filled up the screen and covered up both characters. Maybe Microsoft needs to take the same treatment with Apple’s much-publicized $29 upgrade offer for Snow Leopard. The price sounds great until you look at the fine print. I did, and discovered that the majority of Mac owners don’t qualify.

In one of its brilliant “I’m a Mac” ads recently, Apple lampooned the complexity of Microsoft Windows with a dizzying display of fine print that eventually filled up the screen and covered up both characters.

I thought of that ad when I saw Apple’s recent announcement that it was going to make its next Mac OS X upgrade, Snow Leopard, available as a $29 upgrade. That sounds so much better than the broad range of prices that Microsoft is going to charge its customers for Windows 7 upgrades. Too bad the $29 upgrade is not that simple. In fact, according to my analysis of Apple’s own sales figures, 57% of Apple’s customers who bought and paid for new Macs in the past five years are ineligible for those cheap upgrades.

That hasn’t stopped casual observers and even some seasoned analysts from falling for Apple’s ruse. Michael Gartenberg, for example, issued this critique in response to Microsoft’s announcement of Windows 7 pricing:

Apple showed the way. Snow Leopard is also not [a] major update but rather an enhanced version of Leopard. With an upgrade price of $29, that’s about where MSFT should be for the Home Premium version of 7…

Yes, $29 for an OS upgrade sounds like a great deal, if you qualify. But do you? I looked at the fine print for this offer, and was shocked—shocked, I tell you—to discover that the majority of Mac owners don’t qualify for that pricing. In fact, a significant number of Mac owners won’t be able to upgrade to Snow Leopard at any price.

Details after the jump.

According to Microsoft, roughly 90% of Windows users purchase the operating system preinstalled with a new PC. And if you ignore the Hackintosh crowd, 100% of Mac owners purchase OS X with a new Mac. Any PC purchased with Windows XP or Windows Vista since October 2001 qualifies for a discounted upgrade to Windows 7, for a price as low as $50. But only a select group of Mac owners qualify for those $29 upgrades. A large number will have to pay $169 for the privilege of installing Snow Leopard, and another large group of Apple customers won’t be able to install Snow Leopard at all.

So where do you stand? Find the date when you bought a new PC or Mac and look in the table below. The Windows 7 numbers represent the cost of a Home Premium upgrade, which will be available for the next two weeks for $50 and then will be set at an estimated retail price of $120 after the OS ships on October 22. The upgrade cost is $0 from June 26, 2009 to January 31, 2010, thanks to Microsoft’s Windows 7 Upgrade Option program.

PC/Mac purchase date

Windows 7 upgrade cost

Snow Leopard upgrade cost

October 2001 - Jan 2006 $50 - $120 Not supported
Jan 2006 - Sep 2007 $50 - $120 $158-169
(Intel only)
Oct 2007 – Jun 2009 $50 - $120 $29
Jun 2009 or later $0 $0

Both Microsoft and Apple have announced technology guarantee programs for new PCs or Macs ordered before the new OS comes out. The Mac program starts on June 8, Microsoft’s program on June 26.

Apple’s core market for the $29 upgrade is its most loyal group of hardware buyers, who’ve already paid their “Apple tax” at the highest marginal rate. You qualify for that $29 upgrade price if you are one of the 15 million or so people who spent $1000 or more for a new Mac in the past 21 months. (Yes, I’m leaving out the Mac Mini, which sells for under a grand but represents a minuscule fraction of Apple’s sales—less than 7% according to one analyst’s rough estimate.) Any Mac purchased after October 1, 2007 satisfies the upgrade criteria: an Intel-based system running Mac OS X version 10.5 (Leopard).

That leaves out a huge number of Apple’s customers.

From January 2006 through September 2007, according to Apple’s financial reports, 11.1 million people purchased new Macs. All of them came with OS X Tiger installed. If you paid Apple $129 for a copy of Leopard at some point along the way and your system has an Intel processor, you qualify for the right to pay Apple an extra $29, making your total upgrade cost $168 $158 [math error corrected]. If you own one of those 2006-2007 PCs and are still running Tiger, the upgrade to Snow Leopard will cost you $169, which is the price of the Mac Box Set.

If you purchased a new Mac before January 9, 2006, you can’t upgrade to Snow Leopard at any price. That’s because systems built before that date were based on the PowerPC processor, which is not supported by Snow Leopard. According to Apple’s own numbers, more than 8.2 million customers bought Macs in 2004 and 2005. All are now officially orphaned by Apple. And that number understates the true count. Apple didn’t complete its transition to the Intel platform until August 2006, and its likely that some older PowerPC-based machines were still in the sales channel in early 2007.

Apple has been selling its OS upgrades for $129 since the introduction of OS X in 2001. Microsoft has been similarly consistent with its pricing throughout Windows’ lifespan. If Windows 7 didn’t exist, how much would Apple be selling Snow Leopard for? (Hint: The correct answer has three digits.)

Apple’s $29 pricing decision is a clever one. They’re counting on gullible reporters and analysts to make oversimplified comparisons with Windows 7, and they’re hoping to goad Ballmer and Company into reacting with a slashed price of their own. If Microsoft is smart, they won’t take the bait.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

688
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Gnesterenko
kgeiger 1st Nov 2009
Okay, first learn how to spell bananas. Thanks! Second, as
a Mac & Windows user I find that Apple seems to care a
whole heck of a lot more about me than Microsoft. They
show it by designing hardware and software that work well.
I'm willing to pay a bit more for that. Just as someone
would be willing to pay a bit more for a scuba tank that
doesn't have a gaping hole in it. Make sense?

But, more to the point . . . it's excellent to know that you
have some insight in to how much Apple cares about their
customers, and how that relates to the cost of their goods.
Very cool!
0 Votes
+ -
False Article
itguy08 26th Jun 2009
I'd bet most Mac owners are running 10.5, even
those that bought older Mac's. So the Majority
of Mac users are able to upgrade for $29.

Shoddy "journalism" all around.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Uh, dude?
Ed Bott Updated - 27th Jun 2009
So, they either already paid $129, which means their true upgrade cost is $158. Or they're on a PowerPC, which means they're ineligible.

Did you actually READ this post?
0 Votes
+ -
He does not read them.
GuidingLight 26th Jun 2009
He is one of those who hate Microsoft to the point of just making things up.

You know, while everybody else's Windows system runs fine, his is the one that "allways brings the company he works for to its knees" type of problems.

If a couple people report an issue, be sure he has "experienced" them all.

Why should an article on pricing be any different?
0 Votes
+ -
re: He does not read them
DougAlder 26th Jun 2009
Bingo!
0 Votes
+ -
Someone's doing "fuzzy math"
firejeep508 26th Jun 2009
What about all the Windows users that paid to upgrade to Vista? Does that mean their total upgrade is over $300?

I believe that it's going to cost me more to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, is it not? I expect that. I'm two generations behind.

Mac users still running Tiger are also 2 generations behind. It is the same.

The difference is that Leopard was such a huge improvement on Tiger, that MANY Mac users have already made the upgrade. As long as they aren't running a PowerPC based Mac, they qualify for the $29 upgrade.

You should try taking a more objective stance when "reporting."
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Missing the point
Ed Bott 26th Jun 2009
Tigver users HAVE to upgrade to Leopard to quaklify for a $29 upgrade, making their total cost $168. XP users didn't have to upgrade to Vista to qualify for upgrade to Windows 7.
0 Votes
+ -
re: the point
Badgered 26th Jun 2009
Ed,

He's referring to this paragraph:

From January 2006 through September 2007, according to Apple?s financial reports, 11.1 million people purchased new Macs. All of them came with OS X Tiger installed. If you paid Apple $129 for a copy of Leopard at some point along the way and your system has an Intel processor, you qualify for the right to pay Apple an extra $29, making your total upgrade cost $168.

Assuming somewhere along the way you already paid for the Leopard upgrade, your upgrade cost is $29.00. It would be unfair to add the previous Leopard upgrade to the current cost. Unless you compare that to the cost of a previous upgrade to Vista from XP, and then adding that cost to the Vista to Windows 7 upgrade.

Assuming a user was still on Tiger, then yes the total cost would be applicable as compared to an XP -> Windows 7 Upgrade. JMO
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
No
Ed Bott 26th Jun 2009
You HAD to buy that Leopard upgrade to get the $29 price from Apple. You didn't have to buy a Vista upgrade to get the exact same upgrade price as everyone else from Microsoft.

Why is that so hard to understand? One is a precondition, the other is an option.
0 Votes
+ -
re: No
Badgered 26th Jun 2009
You didn't have to buy a Vista upgrade to get the exact same upgrade price as everyone else from Microsoft.

Why is that so hard to understand? One is a precondition, the other is an option.


Actually, I completely understand that. And if you're comparing what you have to do now... you are absolutely correct.

But if you're talking about what a person did up and until this point, you should point out all the costs... including "if" they upgraded all along the path (i.e. Tiger -> Leopard -> Snow Leopard vs XP -> Vista -> Windows 7).

To do that upgrade now (i.e. Tiger -> Leopard -> Snow Leopard vs XP -> Windows 7) I completely agree with you.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: HAD to...
JakAttak 26th Jun 2009
You HAD to buy that Leopard upgrade to get the $29 price from Apple.

Except if you upgraded to Leopard previously, it wasn't for the purpose of upgrading to Snow Leopard.

You didn't have to buy a Vista upgrade to get the exact same upgrade price as everyone else from Microsoft.

That doesn't really matter if you already upgraded to Vista, does it?

Why is THAT so hard to understand? You're making these stupid claims based on the requirement of having Leopard to upgrade for $29. If you have Tiger and your intention today is to upgrade to Snow Leopard, it's a valid point. If you already had Leopard this entire argument is bunk. Just like if you already upgraded to Vista, the entire point of it not being required to upgrade to Win 7 is bunk.

People didn't upgrade to Leopard or Vista just to get some cheap upgrade path to then next version of their respective OS. They upgraded because there was some features of either they needed or wanted.
0 Votes
+ -
NT
0 Votes
+ -
@JakAttack
p0figster 26th Jun 2009
If a windows user chose to upgrade to Vista
then yes, you're right, their "total upgrade
cost" from XP to Windows 7 would be MUCH more
expensive. But, because it isn't required to
upgrade to Vista first, you can ignore it when
comparing the two systems.

Regardless of what reason people had for
upgrading from Tiger, they still paid for a
necessary step, meaning that the total cost of
getting from Tiger to Snow Leopard is $168.

Most people didn't pay to upgrade to Vista, it
was trashed so thoroughly that most people
wouldn't have considered it. So, all of the
people still using XP only have to pay $50 to
upgrade, not $99 for Vista and then $50 for 7.

Now, if you or anybody else in this little sub-
thread had any desire to make a reasoned,
rational argument you could/should have brought
up the concept of "sunk costs" - the idea that
it doesn't matter how much people paid to
upgrade to Leopard in the past, it's irrelevant
now because they can't change that decision.
It's like eating at an all-you-can-eat buffet,
it's stupid to eat too overeat just to try and
get your money's worth, all you do is make
yourself sick and enjoy the food less -
regardless of how much you paid, you only eat
what feels right. Similarly, to state that
paying for Leopard last year means that your
total cost of upgrading to Snow Leopard this
year is "more expensive" is silly, the first
part of the cost was handled in the past
(unless it's still on a credit card being paid
off, then, sure, add it in)
0 Votes
+ -
Ah, but many people...
reagan0 26th Jun 2009
paid to downgrade (upgrade) from Vista to XP, when they bought their PCs pre-installed with Vista. Those people have a higher cost to upgrade to Windows 7, when you include the cost of XP for their new PCs.
0 Votes
+ -
Hey Special Ed...
i8thecat 26th Jun 2009
You are confusing the "hardware up to date" program (9.95 for an upgrade dvd) with the Snow Leopard upgrade (29.95 for an upgrade). The upgrade dvds will be available to anyone who wants to buy one... The only work to upgrade Leopard to Snow Leopard and are only compatible with Intel Macs. Once released you can order one online or walk into an Apple store and buy as many as you want...

Most users who upgraded from XP to Vista had to buy a brand new computer so they had something that met the system requiremens...

How come you left that out of your retarded skewed numbers???

Snow Leopard is the final stage in the transition from RISC to Intel. Yes... No one with a G5 or older system can upgrade to Snow Leopard... But Apple went intel in 2006... 3 years ago.... How many 3 year old PCs could run Vista??? none.

Those running a G5 still get to run Leopard... Which still beats the snot out of XP, Vista, and Windows 7.


Put the crash helmet back on Special Ed.

  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Yes
webnuts4u2-news@... 26th Jun 2009
Correct, you didn't have to buy Vista. In fact you're better off if you
did'nt. Now you can buy a copy of Vista that actually works. And yes, it's
$40 cheaper than the upgrade from Tiger to Snow Leopard. For those of
us that DID buy Vista, sitting down is still a little sensitive.

People that haven't yet upgraded to Leopard may pass Snow Leopard up
altogether. You don't really NEED it yet. I will be upgrading my copy of
Vista to Vista+.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: RE: no
Jayton 26th Jun 2009
Sorry Badgered, but you're trying to compare different scenarios here.

You can compare XP -> Vista -> Win7
But you also have to compare XP - Win7

As a whole, Mac users have paid more for their upgrades.

I myself have not upgraded to Vista because I use it at work and don't have a need to upgrade to Vista at home. Although I may upgrade to Windows 7 at home because I like it a lot.

Mac users by default have had to pay well over the odds for their upgrades than most Windows users. I know you Macalites love slating Microsoft, but it's wearing very thin now and all this Mac fanboy stuff it's putting me off buying a Mac. Mind you I'd only put Windows and FreeBSD on it.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, we get it Ed
hoffmancarl 26th Jun 2009
You're a Windows/PC user. Apple is bad. We get it.
0 Votes
+ -
@I8thecat - Windows 7 machines
cdigan 26th Jun 2009
It looks like you don't pay attention to things people do out there on the internet. Someone actually, yes they pulled it off, got Windows 7 to install on a Pentium 2 266 with 128 M of RAM. Does Windows 7 run like crap, yes. Can Apple turn around and say that they could run Snow Leopard on a 6 to 7 year old machine, no, but MS can say that they could run Windows 7 (no great, but it could run) on a Pentium 3 machine with 0.5G of RAM.

And for those people harping on the you have to buy Vista, you don't. Someone with a machien purchased in 2004, when Vista was still being worked on, could upgrade from WinXP to Win7 without having to put Vista on their machine and still pay less than those that bought a new Intel based back 2 to 3 years ago where they have to go from Tiger to Leopard and finally Snow Leopard. Going to Windows 7 does not require you to go from WinXP to Vista before going to 7, but going from Tiger to Snow Leopard sure does require you to first go to Leopard. The difference here is what you *choose* to do compared to what you *have* to do.
0 Votes
+ -
Good thinking!
john_gillespie@... 26th Jun 2009
Like you I would rather spend thousands of dollars on support and lose
of productivity then spend one hundred dollars more for the latest
version of an OS!

I'm one of the many that paid for a Vista upgrades and then had to pay to
have the drives wiped again and buy a new licenses for XP so we could
go back to running XP. So if I upgrade to Win 7 how do I forget the
previous expenses to trick myself into thinking I didn't get screwed?
0 Votes
+ -
@Jayton
Badgered Updated - 26th Jun 2009
You can compare XP -> Vista -> Win7

Yes, and if you're going to compare previous upgrade costs... you would do that. As in, If I bought an XP machine n years ago, then upgraded to Vista, and now want to upgrade to Win 7... how much did I pay compared to a Mac user. And what if I skipped Vista, now how much did I pay compared to a Mac user?

But you also have to compare XP - Win7

Absolutely, which Ed already did... I have no problem with that.

As a whole, Mac users have paid more for their upgrades.

No argument.

I know you Macalites love slating Microsoft, but it's wearing very thin now and all this Mac fanboy stuff it's putting me off buying a Mac. Mind you I'd only put Windows and FreeBSD on it.

Mac what? I've never even used a Mac. Do I have to be a Mac fanboy to think that we should see a comparison of all relevant information?
0 Votes
+ -
@I8thecat - a response
gnesterenko 26th Jun 2009
"Snow Leopard is the final stage in the transition from RISC to Intel. Yes... No one with a G5 or older system can upgrade to Snow Leopard... But Apple went intel in 2006... 3 years ago.... How many 3 year old PCs could run Vista??? none."

Wrong, buddy. I ran Vista on my machine, which is 6 years old now, up until 7 was released as beta. Try again.

"Those running a G5 still get to run Leopard... Which still beats the snot out of XP, Vista, and Windows 7."

Vista, maybe. XP and 7? Try again, this time with some sort of objective evidence to back it up. And try not to use the virus/malware argument - the solutions to those problems are plentiful, free, and automatic. There's no excuse for having problems with these, just as there's no excuse for not changing the oil in your car - if you didn't you are just being lazy and deserve to get burnt.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
0 Votes
+ -
Apples and Oranges
zdnet-gregc 26th Jun 2009
Apples:

A1: Intel Mac user owns Leopard, wants to upgrade to Snow Leopard

A2: PC user owns Vista, wants to upgrade to Windows 7

Oranges:

O1: Intel Mac user owns Tiger, wants to upgrade to Snow Leopard

02: PC user owns XP, wants to upgrade to Windows 7

I'm an A1. The financial plight of an O1 doesn't concern me.

Likewise for the A2s. If they've already paid for Vista, the fact that they could have stayed with XP and gone straight to Windows 7 (O2) isn't financially relevant.

Oh yeah, Decomposed fruit:

D1: Mac Power PC owners

D2: Owners of PC machines that can't handle Vista. Or are XP class machines that can't handle Vista capable of supporting Windows 7?
0 Votes
+ -
@zdnet-gregc - Apples and Banannas
gnesterenko 26th Jun 2009
Faulty presentation, because A2 and O2 are in the exact same scenario. So in fact, in A1/A2 comparios, A1 comes out a little a ahead by $20. In the O1/O2 comparison, O2 comes out ahead by roughly $100. Considering that the article stated that nearly half of Mac owners fall into O1, Apple is being misleading.

And this: "I'm an A1. The financial plight of an O1 doesn't concern me." sums up Apples attitude towards its customers better then anything I could have said. Well done sir.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
0 Votes
+ -
@zdnet-gregc - XP class machines
grayknight 26th Jun 2009
As for D2, XP class machines can run Windows 7, so Microsoft increased the life span of these older machines.
And sorry to say that Apple owners (at least the radical enthusiast crowd) always refuse to do the math. How many times have we seen Apple enthusiasts fight tooth and nail to the death that you cannot beat the price of an Apple with a higher end PC? They argue this to death, even in the case of absolute empirical evidence.
And sorry to say that Apple owners (at least the radical enthusiast crowd) always refuse to do the math. How many times have we seen Apple enthusiasts fight tooth and nail to the death that you cannot beat the price of an Apple with a higher end PC? They argue this to death, even in the case of absolute empirical evidence.

How hard is it to understand? Its impossible if it interferes with your version of reality which justifies an irrational hatred of Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Specious and false arguments
Anim8me2 27th Jun 2009
You do not have to purchase Leopard as a precondition to buying Snoe
Leopard.
If you bought Leopard you can buy Snow Leopard for $29. If you want SL but
don't have Leopard you can get it for the standard price of $129.

I watched the keynote and Schiller made this pretty clear. Using the word
"upgrade".

So the only change here is that some people can upgrade for 29 and some
people have to pay the same price they have been paying for years. Why is this
being blown out of proportion?
Snow Leopard is just another way of saying Leopard SP2 (actually OS X has had so many patches and hundred count updates it's hard to say what service pack this would be).

Why not we rid these blogs of the BS and the zealotry and Microphobia and use reality as a starting point for discussion.
bleating and baaaaing to no end.

What a sight.
0 Votes
+ -
It's pointless...
Metronome49 26th Jun 2009
You're making a comparison to XP which doesn't fly. If a Mac User hasn't upgraded to Leopard yet, they aren't going to be changing to Snow Leopard either. It's not like Tiger is XP and people are trying desperately to hold on to it out of fear of change. And it's also not like Leopard is Vista and got terrible publicity and a mark of shame. Leopard was liked... if someone is still using Tiger (like me) there is a reason.... and it will be the same reason that keeps them from Snow Leopard.
The point was to inflame not to inform.
many of my colleagues (professional techies) paid (a lot) to upgrade
to VISTA then went back to XP -- total loss especially after significant
hardware upgrades required and time lost.

- Several went out and bought Macbook Pro's just to run VISTA or XP
(having waited so long for an XP upgrade).

The fact is that at some point there is a need to advance an OS to
utilize new technology (64 bit processing, multiple core threading,
new graphic chipsets, etc.) and the OS either has to make a break with
old hardware OR become incredibly bloated. There is a time to say
"move-on" this is one of those times.

Leopard v10.5x is very, very good and works well on my older
Powerbook Pro laptop. I'm looking forward to using Snow Leopard on
my Newer MacBook Pro.

When the time comes I need more capability than my PowerPC has, I'll
buy a newer laptop and run the operating system that is current.
-
See what happens when Microsoft goes to real 64bit...

0 Votes
+ -
RE
gnesterenko 26th Jun 2009
"See what happens when Microsoft goes to real 64bit..."

Happened about 4 years ago actually. I'm sure you meant PURE 64bit, in which case things will likley go on functioning as normal since devs will have had 6+ years to develop 64bit versions of their apps (since they'd want their apps to work on XP64, Vista64 and Win 7 64 since more and more people have these installed)

Try again.

"many of my colleagues (professional techies) paid (a lot) to upgrade to VISTA then went back to XP"

And many of MY colleagues (various fields of CS and app development) paid relatively little for OEM Vista disks and have never looked back. See what I did there? I used an anicdotal example of my limited world view to extrapolate a meaning of the market as a whole - effectively offseting YOUR anecdotal evidence. Point is, your expeirence, and mine, in the face of the scale of the US and world PC market, means absolutely zilch. Only large, aggregate numbers tell the whole truth, and that truth is that OSX is still getting whipped by Windows AND Linux. Sure, they got some recent market share growth. But they have only one thing to thank for that - Blizzard Entertainment. If WoW never came to Macs, you can be sure that their numbers would be FAR lower. Not saying much for the OS I'm afraid.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
0 Votes
+ -
@gnesterenko
PlayFair 26th Jun 2009
Dude,

You just keep hitting the nail right on the head!
I love the dichotomy as well.

Saves me the trouble of doing it.
0 Votes
+ -
What to say about an OS
tmsbrdrs 26th Jun 2009
When making comparisons between OS X, Linux and Windows, it helps if you actually make comparisons between them and leave applications made for them out of the picture.

For example, I used Windows XP on my current machine. The base installation was fine as long as I wasn't connected to the internet.

Once I connected, the first thing I did was install an AV program for protection. I then promptly updated the AV program and within a month had a virus from general web surfing.

I installed Linux on my current machine. The base installation already has a built in antivirus even though the odds of getting a virus on Linux are .0001% if they are that high. It also has a built in firewall.

Once I installed it, I was ready to surf the internet. After 5 months, still no viruses, I check. Still no malware of any kind and still haven't come across something I need or want to do that I can't.

OS X has many of the same perks as Linux due to the use of open source as the base for its kernel as well as other parts of the OS.

If you'd like to include software other than what's included in the OS, then you're no longer saying if one is better than the other, you're bringing up the problem for anyone but the leader. How do you get more software for the OS in order to attract more users when software makers won't develop until you get more users?

Make the same games for Linux and OS X and Windows loses a lot of market share fairly quickly.
0 Votes
+ -
jahrends 28th Jun 2009
Apple has not abandoned the PowerPC as far as support goes. If you
read the articles the refinements in Snow Leopard would not help a
powerPC. In some instances it would make it slower.

I use my MacBook Pro as well... I also have a Duel 1GHz G4 Mac that is
going on 7 years old and runs Leopard Just fine. I would love to see a
PC user pull that off with Vista. Not many people in today's PC market
can claim to have a 7 Year OLD PC that is still useful. This guy
functions as a server.

Sometimes we just need to show pitty to the windows community
because they just don't get it. They think computers are supposed to
crash daily and kill productivity.

Mac owners know a better way... wink
0 Votes
+ -
Yea your right!
gantoris 30th Jun 2009
I have a few racks of 10 year old systems running windows 2000 advance server. I also have a few racks of systems that are exactly the same hardware wise as those and they run windows 2003 enterprise server. Most of the machines in my workplace are at least as old running windows xp. Not a single one of these has crashed due to software failure, (only electrical surges have crashed any). I'm willing to bet I'm not alone in having this as the norm.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree
jahrends 28th Jun 2009
Apple has not abandoned the PowerPC as far as support goes. If you
read the articles the refinements in Snow Leopard would not help a
powerPC. In some instances it would make it slower.

I use my MacBook Pro as well... I also have a Duel 1GHz G4 Mac that is
going on 7 years old and runs Leopard Just fine. I would love to see a
PC user pull that off with Vista. Not many people in today's PC market
can claim to have a 7 Year OLD PC that is still useful. This guy
functions as a server.

Sometimes we just need to show pitty to the windows community
because they just don't get it. They think computers are supposed to
crash daily and kill productivity.

Mac owners know a better way... wink
0 Votes
+ -
WRONG about Tiger upgrade price!
Stuka 26th Jun 2009
You claim the upgrade price for a Tiger user is $168, which is flat out wrong. You can buy the full box version of snow leopard for $120. Thats not the upgrade price, thats a full blown stand alone version. So a Tiger user does not have to go to leopard, and then to snow leopard.
0 Votes
+ -
Assuming you're correct...
Badgered 26th Jun 2009
You claim the upgrade price for a Tiger user is $168, which is flat out wrong. You can buy the full box version of snow leopard for $120. Thats not the upgrade price, thats a full blown stand alone version. So a Tiger user does not have to go to leopard, and then to snow leopard.

Assuming you're correct... it's $48.00 cheaper than what Ed said. Which ironically is just under what it costs for a Windows XP user to upgrade to Windows 7 HP.

No matter how you slice that one, Tiger -> Snow Leopard is more expensive than XP -> Windows 7.
0 Votes
+ -
I am not arguing that
Stuka 26th Jun 2009
It may very well be cheaper for the windows user. But only point was that his price was wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
Also, this is not the Ultimate version that is being compared
Kid Icarus-21097050858087920245213802267493 Updated - 26th Jun 2009
Ed is comparing 7 Home Premium upgrade to Snow Leopard Ultimate + Leopard Ultimate.

7 Ultimate will cost $200 to upgrade. Somehow this is left out of his "piece". I can't understand why he would do such a thing...

Care to elaborate Ed?
0 Votes
+ -
conclusion doesn't match the argument
tmsbrdrs 27th Jun 2009
In your argument, you stated that the upgrade path for Snow Leopard from Tiger was "$48.00 cheaper than what Ed said" and that it came "just under what it costs for a Windows XP user to upgrade to Windows 7".

However, your conclusion was the opposite, stating that even though Tiger to Snow Leopard costs less, it still costs more.
0 Votes
+ -
Assumption made, and discarded
vulpine@... 27th Jun 2009
"No matter how you slice that one, Tiger -> Snow
Leopard is more expensive than XP -> Windows 7.


Taking the same so-called assumption into account,
except for the limited discount offering Win7 Ultimate
at $99, (the only comparable version of Win7 since OS X
doesn't do stripped-down versions) then there is a full $90
difference between OS X Snow Leopard at $129(box) vs
Win7 Ultimate at $210(box). So for three months (or the
number of box units of Vista sold, whichever is sooner)
Win7 Ultimate is a mere $20 cheaper than Snow Leopard
for those OS X users who have not already upgraded to
Leopard.
In every other case where a Mac user is
eligible for the upgrade, Snow Leopard is a minimum
of $60 cheaper and once the discount expires the
difference is $190 cheaper than Win7 Ultimate.

People buying the Home or Business versions of Win7 will
see a lesser cost, but those versions don't match the OS X
version.
0 Votes
+ -
please elaborate
Badgered 29th Jun 2009
People buying the Home or Business versions of Win7 will see a lesser cost, but those versions don't match the OS X version.

Specifically... what are you referring to that doesn't match between Snow Leopard and Windows 7 Home Premium?
0 Votes
+ -
hmm
Badgered Updated - 29th Jun 2009
This is from Apple's website about upgrading from Tiger to Snow Leopard:

Upgrading from Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger.

If your Intel-based Mac is running Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger, purchase the Mac Box Set (when available), which is a single, affordable package that includes Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard; iLife ?09, with the latest versions of iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iWeb, and iDVD; and iWork ?09, Apple?s productivity suite for home and office including Pages, Numbers, and Keynote.

Is the "box set" going to sell for $120.00?

update: According to this:
http://www.macworld.com/article/138065/2009/01/opinion_the_169_mac_box_set_and_apples_motives.html

The price is $169.00... So Ed was correct.
0 Votes
+ -
@Ed Bott Your dead wrong
Axsimulate Updated - 26th Jun 2009
Why would anybody upgrade from Tiger to Leopard just to get Snow Leopard for $29 when you can get the full blown boxed version of Snow Leopard for $124.99 no matter what version of OS X your running.

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/osx-center/
0 Votes
+ -
@Axsimulate
PlayFair 27th Jun 2009
I'm not sure what you are showing us with that link?

Apple OS X 'Leopard' 10.5.x - Transform your Mac.

The world?s most advanced operating system. Leopard is the most impressive OS X version yet with 300+ new features. Add a new Mac
to your Mac.
Get Apple OS 10.5.x 'Leopard' Today!

That's Leopard, not Snow Leopard...
0 Votes
+ -
@PlayFair
Axsimulate 29th Jun 2009
Yep, it points to OS X Leopard. However Snow Leopard is slated to cost $129.00 for the full install just as all the rest have. Which is considerably less than Win7 Ultimate at $319.00.
0 Votes
+ -
@Axsimulate: I don't think so
Badgered 29th Jun 2009
This is from Apple's website about upgrading from Tiger to Snow Leopard:

Upgrading from Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger.

If your Intel-based Mac is running Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger, purchase the Mac Box Set (when available), which is a single, affordable package that includes Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard; iLife ?09, with the latest versions of iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iWeb, and iDVD; and iWork ?09, Apple?s productivity suite for home and office including Pages, Numbers, and Keynote.


According to this:
http://www.macworld.com/article/138065/2009/01/opinion_the_169_mac_box_set_and_apples_motives.html

The price is $169.00... So Ed was correct.
0 Votes
+ -
@Badgered
Axsimulate 29th Jun 2009
Yep, your right. For some reason I thought he was factoring in the price of the upgrade plus the cost of Leopard if you are running Tiger. And like he was saying you had to purchase Leopard first then purchase the Snow Leopard upgrade.
0 Votes
+ -
Gnesterenko
kgeiger 1st Nov 2009
Okay, first learn how to spell bananas. Thanks! Second, as
a Mac & Windows user I find that Apple seems to care a
whole heck of a lot more about me than Microsoft. They
show it by designing hardware and software that work well.
I'm willing to pay a bit more for that. Just as someone
would be willing to pay a bit more for a scuba tank that
doesn't have a gaping hole in it. Make sense?

But, more to the point . . . it's excellent to know that you
have some insight in to how much Apple cares about their
customers, and how that relates to the cost of their goods.
Very cool!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix