nice article:<br> on VISTA <br><br>I like these lines: [color:blue]<br>"1. Vista looks pretty. The edges of the windows are now transparent, like little glass microscope slides. Vista — blatantly following the trend set by Apple — "<br><br>"They've even, finally, come up with a decent way to make laptops sleep and wake up again, which XP was never very good at."<br><br>"One, there's a lot of functionality built into Vista — look at the photo editor, which is integrated with the operating system and which works like a stripped-down version of the already-stripped-down Photoshop Elements. Isn't that the kind of anti-competitive integration that got Microsoft into anti-trust court last time around? </font color=blue><br><br>"Good job, Gatesy !!" <br>Lie, cheat, and steal !!<br><br>David (OFI)

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Basic ($199, which is about what OS X costs)<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>On some planet where 70 bucks out of 200 (35%) is not significant.<br><br>

agreed.... $129 &#8800; $199....<br><br>must be some New math calculated on a Windows PC <br><br>remember 10-12 years ago when there was a flaw in an intel chip and if you did this math problem it came out all FUMAR... something like 2 squared =3.... I forget the details, but I remember the news.<br><br>well now its $129 = $199 !! <br><br>in addition all I've read say go for at least Home Premium ($239) ... the Basic is missing many parts including the 3D-like Desktop they stole from Apple. <br>so it's really maybe >$100 difference unless Apple raises it's prices (and they could)<br><br>David (OFI)

Since you're preaching to the choir, I suppose I should save my breath but ignorance and denial are two different conditions so I guess I should find out which you're offering.<br><br>A simple comparison shows that if you bought each version of OS X since its release, as most of us here have done I think, then you have paid for 10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 - all at $129 each.<br><br>5 x $129 = $645. If you buy Leopard, you'll be adding another $129 which will take you to $774.<br><br>If you bought Windows XP and you buy Vista, over a similar timeframe, then you paid ~$500. SP1 and SP2 were free in XP as they will no doubt be in Vista.<br><br>So bagging MS for its pricing policies is at best a fallacy. But it comes across mostly as a desperate attempt to denigrate an opposition OS. Why? Because we're afraid that MS actually has something half-decent which actually gives OS X a run for its money, maybe?<br><br>Whatever the truth is, it sure sounds that way.<br><br>Getting back to price for a moment, most of us would be happy to acknowledge that we're comfortable with paying a premium for our platform of choice, but it doesn't alter the fact that MS's pricing policy is nowhere close to being the rort that we as a community claim it is.<br><br>And please, those who get some fabulous discount from Apple for academic reasons or other deep discounts, the same reductions apply on the Windows side, so let's stick to retail sales for your flames.<br><br>(That last bit is not aimed at you, DLC) <br><br>

10.1 was a free upgrade.<br><br>Here's another difference though. At $129, you got the FULL version of OSX, not an upgrade. So you could take that copy of any OS X release and install it on all of your macs, no matter what they were running (Tiger may have been different, you had to get a CD if you didn't have a DVD player and it may have required a little more in the hardware).<br><br>Plus, spread out over the years, it makes spending $516 a lot easier than all at once. <br><br>If you bought XP Home ($189) plus Vista Home Full ($226), that's $415 right there. But if you want everything in Vista that you would get for OSX out of the box, that's another $152 for a total of $567.<br><br>XP SP1 & 2 had to be free to fix all of those bugs in the XP release. That's equal to 10.x.x releases that we get.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Why? Because we're afraid that MS actually has something half-decent which actually gives OS X a run for its money, maybe?<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Afraid? nah..not me. I just feel sorry for those who get this heaping POS from MS. They could give away Vista for free and I still wouldn't be afraid or even tempted to try it out.<br><br>

You're so right!<br><br>M$ DOES give the Faithful "More BANG for Their BUCKS"<br><br>...esp, when one considers how many more uses WinDOZE users get out of their Purchase.<br>(considering how many times they get to re-install the entire program to keep it running) <br><br>

{not directed at you personally}<br><br>In addition to OS X's comment about 10.1, also consider how many Windows versions have been out since OS X debuted?<br>Win2000, Win XP and now Vista...., but this has to be at least the 3rd new OS from MS since 2000... so 3 X $200+.<br><br>Furthermore, I didn;'t upgrade every time, I skipped one version and got Panther on a new machine, so IF /When I buy Leopard, it'll be my 3rd ! ...<br><br>My whole point about price is that few would opt for the Home basic, and that I think Apple's pricing is better structured.... they don't have 12 different versions.<br><br>I'll also say that at least with one service pack the Windows users despirately needed those fixes... sure Apple has updates/ fixes, but nothing has been major for me.<br><br>However, I don't care what MS comes out with, actually Office 2007 sounds more intriguing than VISTA. AND I welcome them if they do good. WHY? it keeps Apple competative and sharp... drives Apple's innovation and we all benefit. So come on M$, show us what ya got ?<br><br>David (OFI)

<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>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><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.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I guess you missed this part in my post: <br><br>So you could take that copy of any OS X release and install it on all of your macs, no matter what they were running (Tiger may have been different, you had to get a CD if you didn't have a DVD player and it may have required a little more in the hardware).<br><br>and this one:<br>If you bought XP Home ($189) plus Vista Home Full ($226), that's $415 right there. But if you want everything in Vista that you would get for OSX out of the box, that's another $152 for a total of $567.<br><br>The reason I posted those is because XP home version and Vista home versions are watered down versions of XP Pro and Vista Ultimate. OSX only comes in 2 flavors: OSX client and Server.<br><br><br>$567 for 2 flaky OS's is not worth $645 (that's including 10.5) for a rock solid OS. Oh, and XP Pro? that's another $60 over the cost of XP Home. So we are up to $627 for 2 Windows OS's. $17 isn't that big of a difference.<br><br>At work, we just upgraded to XP Pro because they didn't want to risk the database of what we have. So 3 years after the release of XP Pro, we finally get it. I guess we'll get Vista in 2010 or 2011.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><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.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>What exactly was upgraded in SP1 and 2? Was there any additional function placed in XP with those releases? (I"m serious, I don't know)<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>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.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Hehe..no, I see it more as "can you believe people buy this zune??" <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> (considering how many times they get to re-install the entire program to keep it running)<p><hr></blockquote><p>ha, ha~ I missed that earlier .... now that's damm negative gal !<br><br>I forgot how many times some people have to "Wipe and Re-Install" their OS on their HD.<br> If you consider the cost / installation- it's DIRT cheap !! <br><br><br>IF I get an Intel Mac and DO choose to put Windows on it' I'm getting a copy of Windows XP... maybe VISTA in 2 - 3 years from now after most of the bugs are worked out.<br>Does anyone have the phone number for ORKIN ? <br><br>Good Luck to you Sacred !<br><br><br>David (OFI)