<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>10.1 was a free upgrade.<p><hr></blockquote><p>OK. Deduct the $129 from the total, you're still admitting OS X was more expensive. But as I pointed out, perceived value is something else. My point that Windows is price competitive still stands.<br><br>Spreading the payments is somewhat moot when you're comparing it to the cost of the hardware, but I'll concede that there are some out there who can drop 3 grand on a computer but can't afford to pay $226 for an OS upgrade.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>At $129, you got the FULL version of OSX, not an upgrade.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's very much a matter of opinion, but since you bring it up, Vista is very much a "FULL" version, as was XP compared to 98.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>XP SP1 & 2 had to be free to fix all of those bugs in the XP release.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, they could have done what Apple does and charge people for the bug fixes while dropping in the occasional new feature or upgrade. If you think that you're getting enough new stuff each OS X point revision, then I'm happy for you.<br><br>I'm not addressing this at you personally, but the amount of anti-Microsoft rhetoric on the Mac sites is deafening. That shows that we're more concerned with Vista as a threat of some sort to OS X than we ever were about XP.<br><br>I should say that I will be buying this "heaping POS" from MS to install on the PCs that can handle it, and on my Intel iMac when I get it. Until then the PPC Macs will of course remain Windows free.<br><br>