backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 182 comment(s) - last by Pirks.. on Aug 9 at 6:50 PM

A screenshot of the new OS X Snow Leopard. The OS just went on preorder on Amazon.com. Only available for Intel-based Macs, it's priced at $29 for one license, or $49 for 5.  (Source: Apple Talk)
Apple's hot new OS is officially on sale

The competition against Windows 7 is officially heating up.  Apple's OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, set to be released in September, is now for sale by preorder on Amazon.com.  The pre-orders quickly jumped to the top of Amazon's software sales charts, currently holding the top 2 spots (with Microsoft Office 2007 in third place).

Snow Leopard does have Windows 7 beat in pricing for existing computers.  The OS retails for $29.00 for a single license or $49.00 for a "family pack" of 5 licenses.  However, it should be noted that the Apple OS only works on Apple's latest Intel-based hardware (no PowerPC Macs), while Windows 7 can install on virtually any system.  The level of OS vendor support to hardware driver manufacturers necessary for Windows could easily justify the pricing difference.  Still, some would argue that's a merit of Apple's closed-system approach.

The new OS's biggest improvement is moving to a 64-bit kernel, with all Apple applications being rewritten to run natively in 64-bit mode.  With more memory accessible (among other advantages), Apple says the shift makes its applications run much faster.

A bundled package including Snow Leopard and Apple's iWork and iLife application suites is also being sold for $169.00, with a 5 license pack sold for $229.00.  With a price of $120.00, iWork and iLife will likely be slightly cheaper than Office, which is typically priced at $150 at launch. 

The new OS also has a few more price quirks.  Newly purchased systems are eligible for a special $9.95 pre-order (most new Windows PCs come with a free upgrade to Windows 7).  Any Mac bought after June 8 is eligible, details can be found here.

For mass-Mac users, an unlimited license has dropped from $999 with Tiger OS X (the last version of OS X) to $499.  With Tiger, $499 would only buy you 10 licenses.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Say something good
By rdeegvainl on 8/4/2009 9:06:07 AM , Rating: 3
I do like the change to 64 bit kernel.




RE: Say something good
By niaaa on 8/4/2009 9:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
yes but what about existing non-apple apps ?


RE: Say something good
By rdeegvainl on 8/4/2009 9:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
upgrading is not a forced act, so they will still work as they do this very day.


RE: Say something good
By mcnabney on 8/4/2009 11:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
Expect the same kind of issues found in old 16 and 32 bit apps running in XP64 (that is Windows first 64 bit version). But don't worry. I am sure the users won't blame Apple for any new incompatibilities.


RE: Say something good
By rdeegvainl on 8/4/2009 1:19:59 PM , Rating: 3
As they shouldn't. I don't blame microsoft for 3rd party software not being compatible with upcoming releases.


RE: Say something good
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 9:19:49 AM , Rating: 5
Do 32bit apps on OSX not thunk to 64bit?

I would think this would only be an issue for 32bit kernel components but I'm no mac genius.

Oh, and congratulations to Apple on the 64 bit thing! You've caught up to where Microsoft was in 2001!


RE: Say something good
By Tony Swash on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Say something good
By amanojaku on 8/4/2009 9:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your informative and unbiased post. *rolls eyes*


RE: Say something good
By Mitch101 on 8/4/2009 10:40:10 AM , Rating: 4
Hey they created a great MP3 player and that makes them an expert and better at everything including computers which are so much less complicated.


RE: Say something good
By tayhimself on 8/4/2009 2:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, it should be noted that the Apple OS only works on Apple's latest Intel-based hardware (no PowerPC Macs), while Windows 7 can install on virtually any system. The level of OS vendor support to hardware driver manufacturers necessary for Windows could easily justify the pricing difference. Still, some would argue that's a merit of Apple's closed-system approach.

I feel like Jason Mick's post was asking for this kind of trolling. Why not keep Windows out of Apple news and vice-versa? The DT writers are honestly idiots.


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/4/2009 2:49:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
DT writers are honestly idiots
No, you're an idiot, and they are click hunters. They make money this way. Mick makes the most I bet, just look at his crazy titles: "Windows Seven Killa Just Ate Steve Jobs Leopard, Ballmer To The Rescue!!!", or "Apple iPhone Hacked With A Dirty Hanky In Five Seconds, America's Terrorists Shaken In FTC Headquarters!!!" Jeez that's $1000 in ad clicks right here man. Nothing like posting Apple post on Winfanboy site like DT and see ad revenue quadruple through all the mad posting of all the chickos and other Wintrolls here :) Smart, eh?


RE: Say something good
By Alexstarfire on 8/5/2009 1:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
How does ad revenue work these days? Is it still based on how many people click the ads, or does it count by how many people view the page?


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/5/2009 1:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
both


RE: Say something good
By weskurtz0081 on 8/4/2009 9:57:21 AM , Rating: 5
Crashing all the time? Hmmm, I don't have that problem. Actually, rarely do I experience a crash. Oh, the "all the time" part must of been for effect.

Viruses? Don't get many of those either. With all the new exploits that are coming out for Macs, you might want to be careful, they are piling up.

Won't run on your phone? Well, a fully exploitable version of OSX will. Read latest headlines of the iPhone being able to completely taken over via a single character in a text message.

OSX is feature rich!


RE: Say something good
By Charger71 on 8/4/2009 10:04:15 AM , Rating: 4
So you don't even know what your iPhone runs on, yet your telling us about win64.

You have no idea what you're talking, do you?


RE: Say something good
By chick0n on 8/4/2009 10:09:15 AM , Rating: 5
Crashing all the time?

hmm.

I have been using 64-Bit Vista Since it came out RTM? and Hmm no crashes. hmm, and no viruses either?

Maybe you are nothing but a moron who cant practice safe computing for shit ?

You really thought Mac created the Kernel themselves? ROFL. go find facts dumb shit.

Just go die, sucker.


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Say something good
By chick0n on 8/4/2009 2:36:19 PM , Rating: 4
too bad I have no problem with Creative cards + Vista :)

so you and your little Mac can go suck it.


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Say something good
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 2:57:46 PM , Rating: 3
Jesus H. man. Why have you not been given a lifetime ban yet?


RE: Say something good
By SpaceRanger on 8/4/2009 3:25:01 PM , Rating: 1
A few more "bitch"es and he might get there.. /nod


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/4/2009 3:42:05 PM , Rating: 1
not before Chicko The iDildo User ;)


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/4/2009 7:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why have you not been given a lifetime ban yet?
You better ask why chikodildo hasn't been kicked outta here yet :P


RE: Say something good
By SavagePotato on 8/4/2009 10:20:03 PM , Rating: 1
Watch out Pirks is way off his meds by the looks of it and looking for love in all the wrong places as usual.

To address the article however, place those preorders for your service pack sheeple.


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/4/2009 10:59:19 PM , Rating: 1
yo, long time no see losa, how's ballmer rimjob going? suckin deep today eh? ;)))


RE: Say something good
By chick0n on 8/4/2009 3:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, talk about Full of fail.

Alienware ? ROFL !

Forget it man, why cant you and your iGarbage just die? Seriously, you're wasting precious space here at DT.


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Say something good
By B3an on 8/4/2009 4:55:51 PM , Rating: 1
Go back to sucking the sh*t out of steve jobs ass, and wanking over your over priced and limited macintoys. You f*cking isheep troll.

I hope a f*cking ipod explodes in your face, and crapple takes legal action against you for talking about it, then from realising what an isheep you have been all these years you kill yourself in your mothers basement/home, by slitting your wrists with the burned mangled plastic from the iblow.


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/4/2009 5:07:58 PM , Rating: 1
What a wonderful sample of a raging Winfanboy, lol :)) *watches steam blowing outta B3an's bottom* You're so HOT!!! Go munch on chicko's famous iDildo, this should cool your tiny 4-bit CPU down a little.


RE: Say something good
By eddieroolz on 8/4/2009 11:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Pirks,

Do you have PayPal?

I will save you from the misery of using an AlienWare, a Windows-based PC that you hate so dearly.

I will transfer $2000 to your account so you can go out and buy yourself a shiny new Mac. Seriously.

Just get out of this message board if you do so, because you're just ruining everyone's day.


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/4/2009 11:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I will transfer $2000 to your account so you can go out and buy yourself a shiny new Mac
What??? You're offering me some crappy Mac as a poor substitute for megaloads and gigaloads of fun I'm having here almost every day? Are you duckin serious? FOR.GET.IT.


RE: Say something good
By Alexstarfire on 8/5/2009 1:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
Can we take a vote to ban Pirks?


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/5/2009 1:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
Can we take a vote to ban Wintrolls like chicko?


RE: Say something good
By themaster08 on 8/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/5/2009 1:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you feel the need to brag about a couple of grands worth of plastic
Sure, when chickofock can't afford even an alienware battery, why don't we tease the stupid troll? Might as well get some extra fun reading his slobbery replies here, heheh


RE: Say something good
By mikefarinha on 8/4/2009 10:09:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
As I understand it you still have separate 32 bit and 64 bit versions window OS's unlike the single integrated MacOS 32/64 bit system.


Well you don't understand it... at all.

It is true that the 64 bit versions of Windows are fully 64 bit, it isn't a hodgepodge mash up of technology like OS X. It is also true that 99.9% of all 32 bit applications run on 64 bit versions of Windows.


RE: Say something good
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 10:22:44 AM , Rating: 5
Nice try dude!

Windows only crashes once in a great while..probably about the same as a Mac. You fanbois might still be falling for that 1999 argument but we're not.

Lets also not even bother to bring up the discussion of security (you'll just keep recycling old sasser arguments or something). You got it so bad at the blackhat convention that they had to ship you truckloads of your own @ss instead of just handing it to you.

We also have 32 and 64 bit drivers for ...uh... EVERYTHING. You guys don't have much of either.

Lets just get this out in the open: Windows 7 is better than Snow Leopard. Debate if you wish.


RE: Say something good
By Mitch101 on 8/4/2009 11:07:38 AM , Rating: 2
You need to watch out for suspicious packages containing iPods on your doorstep.

BOOM!


RE: Say something good
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 11:12:21 AM , Rating: 5
Or foxconn security forces.


RE: Say something good
By Alexstarfire on 8/5/2009 1:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, just Pirks with an iPod.


RE: Say something good
By Alexstarfire on 8/5/2009 1:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
or him with his iDildo he loves so much.


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/5/2009 1:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
Or Alexstarfire with his much beloved MS-DOS in hands :)) Hey stop coughing here Alex and get out to get fresh air, museum dust hurts your lungs, heheh


RE: Say something good
By Alexstarfire on 8/5/2009 7:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
At least museums are good educational tools, suitable even for little children. What's an iDildo for? Pain and suffering. I'll take my "museum" any day.


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/5/2009 7:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, chicko doesn't look like a pain victim, its iDildo definitely keeps it high, unfortuinately for all of us here


RE: Say something good
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2009 2:13:24 AM , Rating: 2
What? Can you make posts that non-Pirk people can understand?


RE: Say something good
By Pirks on 8/6/2009 12:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
Learn English old man :P


RE: Say something good
By Alexstarfire on 8/8/2009 3:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
Or you could go back to middle school so we don't have to learn your version of "English."


RE: Say something good
By AthlonBoy on 8/4/2009 11:44:58 AM , Rating: 1
OH GOD IT HURTS ;-;


RE: Say something good
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 11:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
Try a laxative?


RE: Say something good
By eddieroolz on 8/4/2009 10:56:16 PM , Rating: 1
As long as we're comparing Windows and Mac OS X...

Let's do a comparison of WinMo and MobileOSX.

WinMo based phones still work in sunlight.

WinMo based phones won't explode and shoot 10ft into the air.

WinMo based phones won't discolor itself.

WinMo based phones won't lock away built-in features and ask for a $20 price to unlock it.

MobileOSX is based off OSX. WinMo is based off Windows.

Enough reasons or no?


RE: Say something good
By Smilin on 8/5/2009 9:48:37 AM , Rating: 2
Hey you can tell by my posts that I'm more towards the Microsoft camp than apple. That said, lets have a reality check: Windows Mobile <= 6.0 sucks. I've got one. I can tell you. 6.5 is decent by still falls short of the iPod.

MSFT I think has gotten the message so we'll see what Windows Mobile 7 looks like.


RE: Say something good
By themaster08 on 8/5/2009 2:34:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
And of course the 64 bit parts of windows still don't stop it crashing all the time and don't stop you getting viruses and doesn't compensate for its really ugly design

I've been running Vista Ultimate x64 for the past 2 years, and not once has it crashed. Albeit I've had a few games and apps crash due to incompatabilities, but never the OS itself. I've never received a virus either.

You might find it ugly, but at least I can change the colour, transparency, effects and theme in general (there are many to download on the net).

I'm presuming you've never even used a 64 bit version of Vista, hence the reasoning for your utmost laughable post.

So thank you. It just just the laugh I needed before another crappy day at work.

This is why Apple have to lock-in their users, because when they break out for a moment they make themselves look like lunatics. Next time, do as your messiah says.


RE: Say something good
By gstrickler on 8/4/2009 3:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
32-bit apps will continue to operate normally, there is a full blown 32-bit system inside the 64-bit OS. In fact 32-bit apps may run slightly faster on the 64-bit OS because of the way Apple chose to implement 32/64 bit compatibility and because Apple chose to allow 32-bit apps the full 4GB address space. That caused a performance penalty on 32-bit apps when running on the current 32-bit kernel because all OS calls require a full context switch to switch to the kernel and another to switch back to the app. With the move to a 64-bit kernel, the context switches will be reduced to the rough equivalent of a thread switch and 32-bit apps may therefore execute faster, although how much faster depends upon how many system calls they make.

For more detail, see this article:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/09/04/road...

Drivers and OS extensions will need to be recompiled as 64-bit versions. For developers who have coded using Apple's XCode system, it should be fairly simple, in many cases requiring nothing more than a recompile, and most other cases requiring only minor changes and a recompile.


RE: Say something good
By sebmel on 8/4/2009 5:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft forked Windows into 32bit and 64bit versions that need different apps.

Apple gradually built 64bit compatibility into a single OS over successive versions without losing 32bit app compatibility.

Different strategies.


RE: Say something good
By hiscross on 8/4/2009 9:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
10.6 works just fine. The server is way ahead of everybody. The best got better with a price that is impossible to beat (even the free stuff cost you time). I will say Win 7 looks nice and runs well on MBP.


RE: Say something good
By amanojaku on 8/4/2009 9:45:24 AM , Rating: 5
32-bit applications should be able to run on a 64-bit OS, with the 32-bit memory limitation (48-bits for PAE applications.) In fact, there is the potential for more memory per application as they do not have to share a single application space within the OS (typically 2-3GB.) Each application could have access to a dedicated 4GB within the space if it exists.

The change from 32-bit to 64-bit is a performance boost only, as 64-bit CPUs have the 32-bit instructions (even in 64-bit mode) built-in for the purpose of backwards compatibility. This is one thing we can all thank AMD for, no matter what else you can say about the company. Even Intel didn't get this right in Itanium and signed a 64-bit licensing agreement with AMD that persists to this day.


RE: Say something good
By Luticus on 8/4/2009 11:03:59 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure how it will work on Mac OSX but on Windows they use SysWOW64 for 32 bit applications. 32bit and 64bit code doesn't really mix well to my knowledge hence the syswow64 (old system32 for 32bit code) and the system32 folder (new 64bit code) also the program files (64bit) and the program files x86 (32 bit). I'm assuming OSX 10.6 will do it and a similar fashion.


RE: Say something good
By ExarKun333 on 8/4/2009 9:31:35 AM , Rating: 3
I already have work and a life, so I think I will pass on the "iLife" and "iWork". The article forgets to mention that Apple users already pay a significant amount of $$$ when they buy the Apple computer, and that is why the OS "appears" to be cheaper. Don't forget that the user gets to pay this "smaller fee" multiple times over the years, compared to every 5 years or so (many people less frequently than this) for a Windows-based (Read: not PC) computer that you don't have to pay anything for the OS up-front. When you really crunch the numbers, the big-box retailers/etailers don't really charge much of anything for the OS to the user, and if you build your computer, you are free to choose what you want.


Meh
By Spivonious on 8/4/2009 9:35:45 AM , Rating: 3
Reading the improvements made in 10.6 on Wikipedia, this update doesn't seem to be worth much.

-cleaning up the interface
-64-bit addressing (welcome to 6 years ago)
-built-in mail app now supports Exchange 2007 (worthless for home users)
-new threading API
-OpenCL support
-64-bit Quicktime (not really part of the OS)
-updated printing system

Let's compare that to Windows 7.
-major changes to interface (new taskbar, libraries, jump lists, aero snap, aero shake, aero peek)
-easier sharing over network (homegroups)
-powershell included
-bundled apps rewritten
-full support for multi-touch
-new networking API
-support for higher color depths (up to 48-bit)
-can write to blu-ray discs
-updated Media Center with ATSC support built-in

I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot, this is just off the top of my head.




RE: Meh
By Pirks on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 2:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
Dang Prik.

You almost managed to get a non-negative rating this time. Congrats?


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By eddieroolz on 8/4/2009 11:07:00 PM , Rating: 1
Dang Pirks,

You almost made a good comeback. Fail?


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 8/4/2009 11:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Man you squirt high, much higher than 10ft into the air. Keep it that way, Dang :P


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 11:20:38 AM , Rating: 4
OSX 10.5 already has 64 bit support (including 64 bit drivers).. although the system apps were 32 bit. In fact Apple shipped with both 32 bit and 64 binaries (yes you read correctly, Apple calls windows bloated yet it includes both binaries instead of a compatibility layer).

Funny part here is that 64 bit apps such as the common system iLife apps are not going to see a big improvement. If anything systems with less memory are going to take a hit as they will take up more space in memory. (which was the reason they never shipped 64 bit apps with Leopard originally).

I've said it before and i'll say it again, the good part of 10.6 is what they have removed (legacy code i.e wave good bye to G5's) not what they added.

10.6 will most likely be worth the 30 dollars, but anyone comparing it directly to Windows 7 has once again been fooled by Apples marketing genius, as they know damn well it is nothing more than an incremental update (aside from OpenCL it is merely adding functionality that has been present in Windows/Unix for years).

I also keep hearing this 'Windows 7 is just what Vista should have been' talk. Is that all you got this time around? Pretty hard to call an OS slow and bloated when it boots and runs faster than the alternative, I guess the only thing left is to poke fun at its predecessor?

P.S ATSC support was not added in 7, but Vista. Unless you are talking about the fixed channel mappings.


RE: Meh
By steven975 on 8/4/2009 12:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, ATSC (the US Digital standard) was in Vista on day one.

Native QAM support (for those outside the US, it is what cable companies use) was added in Windows7. It was also available in unofficial patches for Vista (the Fiji TV Pack).

And, yes, I believe a 64bit iLife, iTunes and iWork are going to run slower. I can't see these apps needing the extra memory at all.


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 12:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And, yes, I believe a 64bit iLife, iTunes and iWork are going to run slower. I can't see these apps needing the extra memory at all.
It won't be slower I can assure you that
(on new machines at least), but we are not going to see these '50-75% GAINS' like you keep hearing in the media. If Snow Leopard was really as fast as they say it is, they would have showcased and hyped it up by now. That is Apples style, which leads me to believe it will not give the performance boost they are claiming.

Why on earth anyone believes this hype is beyond me, as though native 64 bit kernels and apps have not existed on Windows/Linux/Unix/BSD machines for years. Gains like what they are claiming do not come from 64 bit, while other unix based OS's are a bit faster, it is not night and day, and for day to day apps it will be far less noticeable.

Worst part is, just like Windows under many circomstances 64 bit will be slower, not for new machines with 4+GB of ram, but 2GB and less will be less than ideal as 64 requires larger memory addresses.

Of course there is also the fact that the userbase for 64 bit OSX apps will be tiny, so how fast development will ramp up is a big question mark. Adobe for example will be in no rush, which I find funny, as the real reason to move to 64 bit are applications which can actually take advantage (such as adobe). I hear CS5 at the earliest, and that's if Apple users are lucky.

The TV pack in Vista was an official release too, it was just OEM only, so any new Vista MCE machine bought in the last while will have QAM supported out of the box. It is also freely available on torrents.(have it installed myself)


RE: Meh
By sebmel on 8/4/2009 6:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
"If Snow Leopard was really as fast as they say it is, they would have showcased and hyped it up by now. That is Apples style"

A company famous for it's secrecy about unreleased products?


RE: Meh
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 6:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, same company who said they built the worlds fastest desktop computer*

They would brag (and bend the truth) in a second if they thought they had something.

.

.

.

*desktop computer being defined as a multiprocessor Apple machine or a single processor PC (a multiprocessor PC isn't a desktop computer..it's a "workstation")


RE: Meh
By sebmel on 8/4/2009 6:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
You are right that they advertise aggressively. You are right to question some of that. I simply point out that the company has a well known tradition of boasting AFTER release and not BEFORE.

Let's wait a couple of months to see if your performance doubts prove founded..


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 7:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
I completely disagree, they are a company that loves to hype up its products. Apple has a team of marketing geniuses I think you are crazy to think they would not have spread the word and taken the wind out of Windows 7's sales had 10.6 really been the winner they claim it to be. Especially when you consider it is going to be released first. 10.6 is not a secret, I know a few people with dev packs already. This is not like the iPhone where only a select few have seen the new version before release. (I have played with 10.6 myself)


RE: Meh
By sebmel on 8/5/2009 12:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
You disagree that the company has a tradition of secrecy?

I just put apple + secrecy into google and got 59 million hits.

Top link:
Apple's Management Obsessed With Secrecy - NYTimes.com


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 8/4/2009 1:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pretty hard to call an OS slow and bloated when it boots and runs faster than the alternative
Both Win7 and OSX 10.6 are not officially released yet, so this is just another BS. If some beta version was booting faster than another alpha version - this may be interesting only to you omni.


RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 3:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
Stop taking the point out of context. Apple will not be able to say that OSX is less bloated and faster than 7 this time around period! Plain and simple it is not, they both perform very well and they are both very fast, although 7 seems to have the edge right now (as you said 10.6 is still beta, but thats not the point here). The public's perception of 7 is very different than that of Vista, and instead of negative reviews that the media circulated like wildfire with Vista, there has been really nothing but positives.

Apple will have to actually market their own OS this time around, as I really doubt their FUD spreading tactics will work this time around. Especially when you consider that IT departments are already getting ready for 7 after completely skipping Vista. The business side of things always helps push an OS, using it at work translates into using it at home, and Vista just did not have this.

I also wonder where Apple will go in terms of SSD support, as it seems MS has layed the better groundwork than OS, at least thats what I see with the latest OSX 10.6 beta build. Right now TRIM is not in the playbook for 10.6, and that could be a major oversight as SSD prices continue to plummet. (not to mention that Apple was at the forefront of SSD's and use them in their MacAir lines, slowdowns will be inivitable without TRIM and some kind of garbage collection)


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 8/4/2009 3:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
IT departments are already getting ready for 7 after completely skipping Vista
http://www.dailytech.com/TwoThirds+of+Businesses+S...

Hahaha, "getting ready" indeed :)))


RE: Meh
By Spivonious on 8/4/2009 3:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Meh
By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 4:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
Um.. well that leaves a good third out of how many computers? A few hundred million, maybe more? Thats probably a larger user base than all OSX purchases combined since its inception. Not to mention that 2/3 just don't have adoption plans right now, not that they do not intend on adopting the OS at a later date. Considering that Vista currently holds less than a 10% adoption rate, 33% planned before an OS is released is out right amazing and is probably record breaking.

I was wrong about the SSD's though, apparently they do have some kind of garbage collection ready for 10.6 and even 10.5.7 (maybe even trim)


RE: Meh
By Alexstarfire on 8/5/2009 6:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
And how many are getting Snow Leopard?


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 8/5/2009 8:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
Businesses prefer cheap crap instead of quality stuff for extra $$$. So not many Macs in them.


RE: Meh
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2009 2:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yet you continuously say that a lot of businesses use macs. You can't have it both ways. Though yet again I doubt you have any actual numbers to back up your claims.


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 8/6/2009 11:51:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I doubt you have any actual numbers to back up your claims
Like you had any numbers to back up you idiotic claims such as "Core 2 Duo 2GHz is too slow for a business PC", what a lunacy hahaha
quote:
You can't have it both ways
You can't because you have problems with English, but not all people are like you, fortunately


RE: Meh
By Alexstarfire on 8/7/2009 3:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
Why do I bother trying to argue with you when you just make up both sides of the argument for me? I said my mom's Mac Mini was slow, never even mentioned a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo in my whole post, or actually in any post I've ever made on DailyTech.

Guess I can continue this laughable excuse for my argument to kill some of my free time. All you do is cherry pick words and take them out of context. Your logic is so flawed you'd fail out of a Logic & Critical Thinking, the title they had for the class at my college, class within a month.


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 8/7/2009 3:19:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I said my mom's Mac Mini was slow
who cares about your mom's museum G4 hardware, of course business users won't use it now even if they want to ('cause you can't buy one, hehe)
quote:
my mom's Mac Mini was slow
your mom's mini != modern business mini with C2D inside, I wonder why you even started this idiotic argument using your mom's mini as an excuse. you seem retarded, sorry.


RE: Meh
By Alexstarfire on 8/8/2009 3:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Who said it was G4 hardware? You wanna keep making up "facts?"

And what the hell is a "business" mini. As far as I can tell they only have mac minis. Nothing special about them, other than one of the slowest Core 2 Duos out there. Also, seems like it's either specially made desktop CPU or a laptop CPU since Intel doesn't make a 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo desktop CPU. Hell, you could make a $300 PC desktop that's better than that $600 mac mini.


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 8/8/2009 5:34:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Who said it was G4 hardware?
Well you said it was slow hence it was G4, what's hard to understand here? If it were 2 GHz C2D it wouldn't be slow, now would it DOS man? ;)


RE: Meh
By Alexstarfire on 8/9/2009 3:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
You need to stop making assumptions. Not like you can't have a slow computer with the best CPU in it. A CPU isn't the whole computer and isn't the only factor in it's "speed."


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 8/9/2009 6:50:26 PM , Rating: 1
You gotta point out what is the slow part in your mom's mini then ;)


RE: Meh
By Belard on 8/4/2009 3:11:14 PM , Rating: 1
Very bad comparison...

Those features you giving to Win7 is what brings it up to the present with features that OS-X, Linux and Amiga(I know, dead platform) have had for years.

Remember, Win7 also has new MS-Paint and MS-Write... you didn't list THOSE!

So... quoting your below, those in BOLD are really new and I'll give you the point :)

Let's compare that to Windows 7.
-major changes to interface (new taskbar, libraries, jump lists, aero snap, aero shake, aero peek)
-easier sharing over network (homegroups)
(Mac has been doing it for years, took MS long enough)

-powershell included
(OMG! We used tools like this included with Amiga OS 2.0.. back in 1989! Its GUI / CLI interaction was excellent)

-bundled apps rewritten
(Mac has been doing it for years, took MS long enough)
(So now MS-Paint doesn't look like Win95. MS needs to update its Drive space blue-pink pie chart to something 2000+ish rather than Win95)

-full support for multi-touch
-support for higher color depths (up to 48-bit)
(We've had 32bit+ for years, like Win98. But anything above 24bit is not actually "seen" but is processed during 3D rendering and printing. Find a display that handles 32+ bit output)

-can write to blu-ray discs
(Strange - not a tricky thing, most likely a licensing issue)

-updated Media Center with ATSC support built-in
Okay... ??

More important feature of Win7 is better memory management, and overall tweaking of the everything that was in Vista.

Mac OS-X (10) hasn't really changed much in 10 years. In that time, MS has changed their GUI 4 times. Win98/2000, XP, Vista and Win7.

Win7 is very nice... and will put some serious hurt on Apple.


RE: Meh
By Spivonious on 8/4/2009 3:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not being a Mac user, I'm curious what they did that is the equivalent of Homegroups.

If I have a homegroup set up on one of the computers on my network, all other computers running Windows 7 are immediately aware of it. If I join that homegroup I immediately get access to any folders/libraries that have been set up to share with the homegroup. More secure than XP's sharing, and easier to use than Vista's sharing.


RE: Meh
By Alexstarfire on 8/5/2009 7:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't there an article a while back, a long while, that said OSX didn't actually have 32-bit color support for it's displays?

Also, what is powershell exactly? And exactly why do bundled apps need to be rewritten when they already work? I don't expect bundled apps to be spectacular, but to provide basic functionality. If you can use them to do more advanced functions then all the better for you. I guess with the plethora of freeware applications available we don't actually have to rely on the bundled apps as much as those with macs do. Granted I haven't actively looked for freeware mac applications so perhaps I'm mistaken.


Huh?
By Trisagion on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By mfed3 on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By Spivonious on 8/4/2009 9:38:06 AM , Rating: 4
Technically AMD and Via make Intel-based processors.


RE: Huh?
By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 12:32:55 PM , Rating: 5
Well.. if you want to get 'technical' they make x86 based processors.. AMD's AMx86 processors are not really 'Intel based' at all..


RE: Huh?
By lotharamious on 8/4/2009 2:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, AMD, Intel, and VIA make IA-32(x86)-based processors.


RE: Huh?
By Belard on 8/4/2009 2:42:11 PM , Rating: 1
No they're not. AMD and VIA, cpus are not designed by intel.

If we go with your logic, Intel is based off of AMD CPUs... since some of the micro-code is from AMD.

The design of the 8086 is nothing like a Core2 or i7 or AMD X4 CPU other than being silicon.


RE: Huh?
By Spivonious on 8/4/2009 3:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
They all run x86 assembly, which is property of Intel. No one said anything about the 8086.

Yes, AMD came up with x64, but all it is is x86 with 64-bit registers.


RE: Huh?
By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 4:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
They also probably run AT&T x86 assembly which is not property of intel ;) The ability to run Intel X86 assembly does not really make a processor Intel based.

Intel based by today's standards implies it is actually of Intel design (even Intel markets their products in this way).


RE: Huh?
By Spivonious on 8/5/2009 9:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
AT&T x86 hasn't been in mainstream use for 20 years. And even then it's just reversing the order of arguments in Intel x86.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I say anything that runs Intel code is Intel-based. You say that AMD hasn't made an Intel-based processor since the Am5x86 (the one before the K5), and that Cyrix never made an Intel-based processor.


RE: Huh?
By Charger71 on 8/4/2009 10:10:21 AM , Rating: 2
You can't call someone else dumb (how rude btw) and then post this...you just can't.


RE: Huh?
By Trisagion on 8/4/2009 10:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
Intel, AMD, Via are all x86 architechture based. Educate yourself before you call someone else dumb.


RE: Huh?
By sebmel on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 9:50:33 AM , Rating: 3
I think the point trying to be made:

Windows 7 will run on processors stretching back for years. There are folks that have run it on a P3. It will even run on hardware that Vista couldn't.

Apple on the other hand only has backwards compatibility back to when they switched to intel processors. Anything prior to that and the customer is SOL.

This is another middle finger from Apple to the whole concept of backwards compatibility. I understand their reasoning and for now at least it's a good move to undo a decade of stupid processor choices. This is probably the last time they can pull that crap though. If they intend to keeps gains of more market share they won't be able to continue doing this to their customers.


RE: Huh?
By EasyC on 8/4/2009 12:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
Very true. It (Win7) does it efficiently as well. I have the RTM running on an old VIA C7 processor with 1GB of RAM and it effectively functions as a server for streaming music everywhere in my house.


RE: Huh?
By gstrickler on 8/4/2009 4:20:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Apple on the other hand only has backwards compatibility back to when they switched to intel processors. Anything prior to that and the customer is SOL.

This is another middle finger from Apple to the whole concept of backwards compatibility.
First, the last PPC Mac was discontinued 3 years ago, in August 2006. Second, Mac OS X 10.6 doesn't offer any significant new features (vs 10.5) that would benefit PPC-based Macs, so those users will simply stay with Mac OS 10.5. Those users are not screwed, PPC-based Macs already have extensive 64-bit support (just not a native 64-bit kernel) in Mac OS 10.5. The only thing they would gain by having a native 64-bit kernel is a small speed increase.

Be very clear about this, for most users, there is no significant difference between Mac OS 10.5 and 10.6. Yes, 10.6 does have some new technologies that will enable developers to more easily provide new levels of performance, new features, and more usability, but applications that take advantage of those aren't likely to show up in volume for at least a year, and the major productivity apps aren't likely to benefit from those things for several years. In a few years, there may be significant differences available to 10.6 users, but by that time, the PPC-based Macs will all be at least 5 years old. If users need the new capabilities, they'll upgrade, if not, they'll use what they've got until it no longer works for them.

The reason that Mac OS 10.6 is so cheap is because it doesn't offer significant new features other than being 64-bit from the ground up. While it's a major update of the infrastructure, it offers very little extra to the user. It was a huge project for Apple and it involved a tremendous amount development. That's the nature of infrastructure improvements, but it's tough to "sell" those improvements to end users who can't see the differences, thus the low price.

You can say essentially the same thing about Win7 vs Vista, but MS is charging significantly more for the upgrade. Yes, MS has reduced the price of Win7 for Vista users for similar reasons. They've also reduced (vs previous OS upgrades) the price for XP users, and there are significant differences for the user between XP and Win7. MS is discounting Win7 upgrades from XP because MS wants/needs to get users off of XP and on Win7.


RE: Huh?
By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 4:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
+1

Good post, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote.


RE: Huh?
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 5:21:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
First, the last PPC Mac was discontinued 3 years ago, in August 2006. Second, Mac OS X 10.6 doesn't offer any significant new features (vs 10.5) that would benefit PPC-based Macs, so those users will simply stay with Mac OS 10.5.


Being discontinued 3 years ago might sound like a long time but that wouldn't fly with a PC user. If MSFT said that Windows won't support something older than three years the public would freak and Mac fans would come out of the woodwork to point fingers. Could you imagine the disruption to global enterprise IT departments?

Like I said though (you quoted me out of context) I agree with the move I just don't think they can do such things for much longer given their growing market share.

This isn't the first time Apple as given the middle finger to backwards compatibility either. They did it with the switch from Motorola to PPC and then again going from OS 9 to OS X.

One of the big reasons why MSFT is so dominant (yet being nipped at by competitors) is they don't do this sort of thing. I know it's turned into a buzzword but it's still legitimate...Windows has an ecosystem they have to be concerned with. Vista was the hardest shock to that ecosystem since Windows 95 and that shock is nothing compared to what Apple does every few years.

I do agree though that snow leopard doesn't offer much that is really new. Folks will say that it's cheaper than Win7 but the obvious counter argument is that it's still overpriced since MS offers service packs for free. I don't subscribe to the belief that it's a service pack but it's certainly not much more.


RE: Huh?
By sebmel on 8/4/2009 6:17:03 PM , Rating: 1
"One of the big reasons why MSFT is so dominant (yet being nipped at by competitors) is they don't do this sort of thing."

There is a current Class Action against Microsoft for their advertising of "Vista Capable" computers. These were brand new computers advertised as capable that couldn't run a full set of Vista features. The class action states that OEMs such as HP were furious about having to effectively lie about performance for Microsoft.

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/18/1...


RE: Huh?
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 6:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Dude. That applies exactly 0 to what I was discussing with him.

The "Vista Capable" thing is a bunch of hubbub because intel's built in graphics cards are crap and can't run Aero. It's an issue affecting new machines and has nothing to do with backwards compatibility to ones 3 years ago.


RE: Huh?
By sebmel on 8/4/2009 6:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
The Vista Capable class action is based on the fact that PCs sold with XP were advertised as being capable of supporting Vista. Vista backwards compatibility was guaranteed with regard to that hardware.

Vista couldn't run on some 3 month old hardware, let alone 3 year old computers.

Of course it is a backwards compatibility issue!


RE: Huh?
By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 7:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
Man does anyone have any idea what this law suit was about?

Vista Capable never meant it could run Aero, it just meant at one point or another the user should be able to upgrade to at least Vista Basic. This was always clearly outlined by MS. It was the OEM's that sold low end PC's that claimed to be Vista Capable that could only run Vista Basic (some could barely run basic). The plan came around about when Vista RTM was released, as such OEM's had already spent time with Vista, and should have known these low end PC's could not handle it, and should have never labeled them as Vista ready.

MS had Vista Capable and Premium Ready stickers, with Premium ready being those that could run Aero easily. Just because a consumer does not do his/her homework does not make the OS maker at fault, especially when they are not the ones selling you the PC.


RE: Huh?
By eddieroolz on 8/4/2009 11:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the lawsuit put simple and short for you:

Intel fuxed up.

They twisted Microsoft's arm to allow GMA915 to be labeled Vista-capable.

That doesn't mean it's not backward compatible. It still ran, it just didn't have Aero which people thought it was promised to them.

If you need to, go look up the term "backward-compatible" in a dictionary.


RE: Huh?
By sebmel on 8/5/2009 12:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
November 18, 2008

"Internal Microsoft e-mails made public late Monday illustrate how executives debated whether to lower the standards for the Vista Capable marketing program to appease one of the company's most important partners: chip maker Intel.

Once the decision was made, e-mails show, Microsoft scrambled to contain the fallout with other partners."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoft/20...


Windows is better for business
By Ananke on 8/4/2009 1:18:36 PM , Rating: 1
I work on Win XP, Vista and Mac OSX for the last several years. My personal impressions:

The Macs are installed in a small business, around 12 computers and Power Mac dual Xeon server.

From my personal experience, maintaining the Apple network is at least TWICE more expensive than running on Windows, but the business owner is used to Mac :). Also, it takes me twice the time to do the same things in Office environment, than doing the same things on Win. I am an accountant. OSX has nice colors, but it is so user friendly, to an extent of being useless. It takes a dozen clicks to do the same thing that takes two clicks under Windows XP. Vista sucks, I don't even want to comment that. I guess, if you run photo and video applications, OSX would be better than Win. From a regular office business point is totally worthless, and overall extremely expensive.

Also, Macs are capable of malfunctioning exactly as often as Windows computers, at least to me....so nobody can convince me they are more stable. I hate the Mac "ball of death" or whatever is called that ugly rainbow ball, when Mac is freezing. And definitely, the hardware behind is slower, for twice the money, very pathetic. Network management software and professional applications are several times MORE expensive than Win - very bad thing for any business owner.

So, after many years, what I really like about Apple computers is their cases. All Apple products have solid well designed cases. The Power Mac server I have is so nice - thick solid beatiful aluminum case, I wish somebody produces that for a PC for less than $500 :):)




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/4/2009 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's known as the spinning beach ball of death, and yea it sucks when that bad boy rears its ugly head.


RE: Windows is better for business
By sebmel on 8/4/2009 6:56:55 PM , Rating: 1
The Isle of Mann runs exclusively Macs for local government and schools.

4000 Macs and 400 separate networks: 2 technicians

The University of Basel uses mainly Macs.

2000 Macs: 2 technicians

Imagine maintaining 2000 PCs, many in the hands of school children and connected to the internet. Typical Windows tech levels are 20:1, 100 times higher than the Isle of Mann Mac techs.


RE: Windows is better for business
By Ananke on 8/4/2009 8:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yet, that doesn't prove that Isle of Man choose the cheaper option. Maybe they are just wasting their taxpayers' money...


RE: Windows is better for business
By Pirks on 8/4/2009 9:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they are wasting their taxpayers' money
by saving on support costs?


RE: Windows is better for business
By Alexstarfire on 8/5/2009 7:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on how much a comparative PC would have cost and how much those macs cost. If the macs are $2k a piece and a PC equivalent is $900 that's $4.4 million saved in hardware costs alone. You also have to factor in how much 2 mac techs cost in comparison to 2 PC techs. I have no idea on that cost so I won't comment. Even at a 20:1 ratio though that'd mean each PC tech would have to get $220,000 for it to be equal. Without actual numbers for each cost it's hard to say which is cheaper, though I think it seems to be safer to say that PCs would be cheaper. Though depending on applications it could make up for it in productivity. I don't know what they are using the computers for. If it's just for general use then PCs would most certainly be the cheaper alternative, depending on actual numbers of course.


RE: Windows is better for business
By Pirks on 8/5/2009 8:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the macs are $2k a piece
Macs are $2k a piece if you are a chicko troll or if you are using MS-DOS, heheh (wink wink nudge nudge :)))

Otherwise if you're a normal guy you'd get $600 Macs for your business. So Macs are actually CHEAPER than your PC actually, haha


RE: Windows is better for business
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2009 2:16:13 AM , Rating: 1
What fucking $600 mac is there? I don't think Hackintoshs count. And you know businesses and only going to buy prebuilt. And if it's a Mac you know it's coming from Apple and not somewhere else. Show me a $600 mac on the Apple website please, including monitor.


RE: Windows is better for business
By Pirks on 8/6/2009 11:21:56 AM , Rating: 1
$600 without monitor, add some cheapo business 19 incher and it's still cheaper than your fucking overpriced $900 PC


RE: Windows is better for business
By Alexstarfire on 8/7/2009 3:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
That would be true, but I was giving prices for comparative computers. Of course if you just need enough power to run business apps I'm sure a netbook would be powerful enough. Though I don't know EVERY business application. Even if you bought a monitor, keyboard, and mouse it'd still be cheaper than the mac mini. Hell, you could even buy an external dvd drive and still come out cheaper.


RE: Windows is better for business
By Pirks on 8/7/2009 3:23:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm sure a netbook would be powerful enough
Only a retard would be sure uberslow Atom crap is enough for business. Mac Mini's Core 2 Duo 2 GHz is a totally different story however :P
quote:
Even if you bought a monitor, keyboard, and mouse it'd still be cheaper than the mac mini. Hell, you could even buy an external dvd drive and still come out cheaper.
For crap $300 business PC yes, but why buy crap for your business? There should be a decent balance between price and quality, Mac Mini is just like that.


By Alexstarfire on 8/8/2009 3:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
Should be, but you don't know what a lot of businesses run. Hell, that netbook would be a step up from what my mom uses at her work place. She uses 5 year old computer equipment, but it wasn't top-of-the-line stuff back then.

And it would depend on your business. Someone who uses mostly word obviously doesn't need a whole lot of power. I'm not saying it'd work for everyone as it obviously wouldn't. But it's not like you couldn't build a better PC for less than $600, including monitor. Wouldn't be as small as a mac-mini, but people don't work in closets so size isn't an issue.


RE: Windows is better for business
By sprockkets on 8/4/2009 11:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Source please? Otherwise, keeping a tech productive and used 40 hours a week means there should only be 2 techs anyhow.

Case in point, the building I used to work at uses WinXP Pro and locks down all the computers to prevent downloading and browsing to non approved web sites. They have at least 2000 computers on 2 of the 3 floors, not to mention thousands of servers in the 3rd building residing underground. I only saw maybe 3 different people manage the computers there, because they didn't have that many issues at all once locked down to prevent idiots hacking the computers.


RE: Windows is better for business
By sebmel on 8/5/2009 12:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
I made a mistake, it isn't 4000 Macs, it's 4,400... and 2 techs.

"We look after 4,400 Macs with two technicians. The view is we would expect 1:40 support if they were PCs."

http://www.apple.com/uk/education/profiles/isleofm...

Those are extraordinarily low staffing levels for computers in environments as hostile as primary and secondary schools (7 years to 18 years-old).


RE: Windows is better for business
By Alexstarfire on 8/5/2009 7:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
Depending on actual costs PCs could still be cheaper.


RE: Windows is better for business
By Pirks on 8/5/2009 9:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
Only totally junk PCs get cheaper than $600 Mac, but why buy junk for your business?


RE: Windows is better for business
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2009 2:21:14 AM , Rating: 2
Well, as you said in your other post "Businesses buy cheap crap rather than quality products for more $$$." Though quality is quite subjective. Of course a $600 mac including monitor doesn't exist, but w/e. A mac mini is the mac equivalent of a netbook, minus monitor. My mom has one and they are pretty slow. Looks pretty though, but I doubt a true business cares about how it's computers look since they won't be seen 99% of the time.


RE: Windows is better for business
By Pirks on 8/6/2009 11:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
Core 2 Duo 2 GHz is too slow for a business PC? Are you serious or just retarded?


RE: Windows is better for business
By Smilin on 8/6/2009 10:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
Dude. You went to apples website to find a poster child. If Microsoft provided the same there would be enough posters to plaster a stadium.

And no IT dept worth a crap is staffing at 40:1 for just desktops. Heck it would be tough to even put servers into that ratio. Microsoft is the king of large scale enterprise management.

Sorry, just not convinced.


RE: Windows is better for business
By Smilin on 8/5/2009 9:56:21 AM , Rating: 2
400 separate networks? what does that mean exactly? VLANs? physical switches?

As far as 4000 machines managed by two people it's really not that impressive especially considering they are locked down.

IT depts without locked down machines have such ratios and they also staff for hundreds of servers (and the apps that run on them) with just a few people.


Office
By Griffinhart on 8/4/2009 10:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A bundled package including Snow Leopard and Apple's iWork and iLife application suites is also being sold for $169.00, with a 5 license pack sold for $229.00. With a price of $120.00, iWork and iLife will likely be slightly cheaper than Office, which is typically priced at $150 at launch.


Just to be fair, Office 2007 was marked at $150 MSRP, but was commonly available for $100 to $129 the week of its release. It is also a 3 user license pack.




RE: Office
By Spivonious on 8/4/2009 11:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
That's a good point. It brings the price per computer down to ~$43.

Win 7 + Office 2007 for 3 PCs = $270
OS X 10.6 + iWork/iLife for 3 PCs = $279 with 2 wasted licenses, or $627 for 3 licenses only


RE: Office
By JonGurney on 8/4/2009 11:28:58 AM , Rating: 2
Can you please clarify how you came to those price points?


RE: Office
By Spivonious on 8/4/2009 4:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sure.

MS Office Home and Student 2007 costs $130 for 3 licenses, so $43/PC.

Windows 7 Home Upgrade costs $150 for 3 licenses (family pack), so $50/PC.

$280 for 3 PCs setup with Windows 7 and Office 2007.

OS X 10.6 costs $50 for 5 licenses (family pack), but I only need 3, so it's $16.67/PC.

iLife/iWork costs $230 for 5 licenses, but I only need 3, so it's $76.67/PC.

$280 for 3 PCs setup with OS X 10.6 and iLife/iWork. But if I didn't want to waste 2 licenses, it would cost me $170 each for iLife/iWork and $29 each for OS X. Hence $600 for 3 PCs.

If any of these numbers don't match what I posted, it's because my mental math is a little rusty in the morning. :)


RE: Office
By sebmel on 8/4/2009 6:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
Amazon currently:

Mac OSX + iLife + iWork (5 licenses each) $149

http://www.amazon.com/Mac-Box-Set-Family-Pack/dp/B...


RE: Office
By Spivonious on 8/5/2009 8:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going off the prices in the article. I'm assuming that the iLife/iWork is a new version as well.


RE: Office
By sebmel on 8/5/2009 12:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
The link I posted is to the sale of Mac OS X 10.5. The versions of iLife and iWork are 2009. A new version of iLife will not come out with Snow Leopard. Apple tends to announce new versions of iLife in January.

I understand the figures you used but they are redundant if much cheaper offers exist.

I have just checked and the offer has become cheaper still with Visa savings:

5 licenses each for Mac OS X 10.5, iLife and iWork 2009 - $121
1 license each for Mac OS X 10.5, iLife and iWork 2009 - $104

1 license each for Mac OS X 10.6, iLife and iWork 2009 - $139 (pre-order)
5 licenses each for Mac OS X 10.6, iLife and iWork 2009 - $199 (pre-order)

As usual the comparison with Windows and Office isn't exact... Office is much more sophisticated than iWork; the Windows combination doesn't match up to iLife; the version of OS X is a FULL version and not Home.

Having said that the packages represent a decent start on any computer.


RE: Office
By Spivonious on 8/5/2009 3:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
Can OS X join a domain? Does it have drive encryption? Does it have a 10' interface for media?

Since those are the main differences between Home Premium and Ultimate, I think comparing the Home edition of Windows to OS X is very reasonable.


RE: Office
By Pirks on 8/5/2009 4:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
OS X can join domain, has folder encryption, and has 10' interface for media. Since there's only one fully featured (no cuts, no removed features) client version of OS X it should be compared to Ultimate version of Windows, if you wanna do fair unbiased comparison.


By kattanna on 8/4/2009 9:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
seriously.. if MS can do it.. why doesnt apple now offer a choice of browsers upon install?




By Smilin on 8/4/2009 9:53:18 AM , Rating: 5
Unless you want some foxconn brutes throwing you out a window you better STFU.


I love bad reporting...
By Fallen Kell on 8/4/2009 1:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
Especially the:
quote:
However, it should be noted that the Apple OS only works on Apple's latest Intel-based hardware (no PowerPC Macs), while Windows 7 can install on virtually any system.
... Widows 7 doesn't work on PowerPC chips either! While it does "officially" work on any Intel hardware, OS X has been shown that you can get it to run as well on the same said hardware with a few BIOS hacks.




RE: I love bad reporting...
By rs1 on 8/4/2009 1:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you love bad logic too then. While it is technically possible to use a variety of hacks to get OS X to run on x86 hardware that was not purchased from Apple, doing so is forbidden by the OS license and hence illegal. On the other hand, the Windows 7 license allows the user to legally install it on any system on which it will run (and even onto systems where it probably won't/can't run, if that's what they want).

Of course you can say that if you're willing to jump through some hoops and do some legally questionable things then you can install OS X on any system that can install Windows 7, but that's a rather pointless argument. If that's going to be considered valid, then you might as well proclaim that Windows 7 is free, because you can always pirate it at no cost from any number of torrent sites, and that it can run on any architecture in existence because you could always break into MS, steal a copy of their source code, and then compile it for any architecture you want.

While all of that may technically be possible, it doesn't form the basis of any sort of sound argument, and neither does the original post.


RE: I love bad reporting...
By sprockkets on 8/5/2009 12:00:55 AM , Rating: 2
...and people spending hours and hours getting drivers pre installed.

Otherwise, the grandest part of hackintosh is when people ask for help, saying "How come all I get is a blank screen?"


You guys are bunch of clowns
By web2dot0 on 8/5/2009 1:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
You guys are so funny.

I remember vividly back in the day when MSFT was the evil doer and everybody will bash it non-stop hoping a competitor will come into the space and keep MSFT honest. You guys found everything to hate about MSFT.

Suddenly now that APPL have emerged as a contender to MSFT throne, and how convenient for you to dismiss them and side with MSFT. You guys are bunch of losers.

Here's the bottom line:
=======================
OSX is about on par with Win7 from a feature standpoint.
The consumers will decide how relevant it is. The bundled apps from OSX still destroys Win7 stupid little apps.

There's nothing on the MSFT list that can compare to APPL iTunes/Quicktime/iPhoto combo. It just doesn't exist. End of story. You can spin it however you want but at the end of the day, that's how consumers will perceive it.

Apple is going after tight integration between software and hardware delivering out a package that is attractive to use as it is to look at. Not everyone wants to buy a beater with a porsche engine inside. It's upto people to decide what makes sense for them.
It's the same as telling people why they should buy a pair of jeans worth $100 when you can get a less attractive looking one for $50 when they are all the same at the end.
You people don't seem to complain about that? Get over it.

Congrats to MSFT for bringing their OS back on par with APPL.
Kudos. But to dismiss APPL would be foolish. They have captured market share and mind share, now they will continue to innovate and come up with cooler apps and more killer features (Time Machine using ZFS?). That's really something consumers need. The current form is OK, but there are still areas for improvement.

That's a Backup solution that people would actually use. Rather than hoping for your HDD not to crash and/or setup fancy RAID system that doesn't actually backup anything.
Where's the competing product from MSFT on that dufusses? Talk with a level head brain rather than go on rant about how your pensises are bigger than your neighbour that uses OSX.

Anyways,
all this is good for the market. Hopefully they reach new heights from this because I'm still waiting for an OS that delivers all the basic features I want without the hassle of buying 3rd party software. 3rd party apps should really be the role of niche software that not everyone needs, but required to be productive. Everything else should come with the OS. This is what Apple's ultimate goal. Not sure about MSFT.




RE: You guys are bunch of clowns
By Pirks on 8/5/2009 1:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's nothing on the MSFT list that can compare to APPL iTunes/Quicktime/iPhoto combo
Windows Media Player/Windows Live Photo Gallery.
quote:
Where's the competing product from MSFT on that dufusses?
Windows Home Server.
quote:
Everything else should come with the OS. This is what Apple's ultimate goal.
Everything else SHOULD _NOT_ come with Windows. This is DOJ/EU ultimate goal. Say thanks to them for unbundling useful apps from Windows and replacing them with 3rd party apps.


RE: You guys are bunch of clowns
By Smilin on 8/5/2009 10:13:52 AM , Rating: 2
Your earlier paragraphs don't apply well to me. I'm not a fair weather fan. I'll also say that Apple has done a great job innovating the past few years but they have done an exceptional job marketting.

I think MSFT is making better products right now but their marketting sucks. After all, VHS had nice marketting too. This is serious stuff.

quote:
The bundled apps from OSX still destroys Win7 stupid little apps.


You're right but there is no point in even having the discussion. Microsoft is not allowed to bundle anything good or the justice department will have their butt. There is not a level playing field here and it's the consumer that has to suffer. Don't think that iLife would stand a chance against a consumer directed, locally installed and cloud integrated MS Office.

quote:
There's nothing on the MSFT list that can compare to APPL iTunes/Quicktime/iPhoto combo. It just doesn't exist. End of story. You can spin it however you want but at the end of the day, that's how consumers will perceive it.


This comes back to marketting. You're right the consumers will percieve it that way but here's the truth: I've used iTunes and Zune and Zune utterly crushes iTunes. You can debate all day about the Zune device vs the iPod. For the actual software and online service you can tell who is the real software company and who makes fashion tech accessories.

quote:
That's a Backup solution that people would actually use. Rather than hoping for your HDD not to crash and/or setup fancy RAID system that doesn't actually backup anything.
Where's the competing product from MSFT on that dufusses?


So time machine is just a shadow copy with a nice wallpaper. It runs like crap but it's pretty and fairly user friendly. Microsoft doesn't need an answer to this, they already have one. Vista does both data backups as well as image to .vhd backups (which is nice during an upgrade since Win7 mounts .vhds as drives). It's in a typical Microsoft interface: functional, easy to use, not particularly beautiful.

For file by file "time machine" functionality Windows has had shadow copies for six years now. If you are on a 2003 corporate network or a Vista workstation just go to properties on a file to get back many previous versions.

I think you're spot on about the marketting but have overestimated how much innovation Apple has produced next to Microsoft. The real question: Does MSFT leadership understand how much their marketting guys got their butt handed to them?


I didn't know Amazon provided service packs...
By Lord 666 on 8/4/2009 9:29:10 AM , Rating: 2
If you haven't guessed, I'm counting down the days for Win 7 RTM on MSDN/Technet.




By damianrobertjones on 8/4/2009 11:26:38 AM , Rating: 2
Same here! On another note, it IS about time that U have a try of what apple have to offer to see if it offers anything over windows. I have four machines and look after 94ish and all run as intended so far so apple will have to show me something quite fancy to even think about switching to OS X.


really?
By the goat on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: really?
By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 11:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
He means any X86 system, and you know it.. 10.6 loses support for PPC so it is now a single architecture, hardware locked OS. Unlike Windows which can run on pretty much any x86 system.


RE: really?
By the goat on 8/6/2009 7:32:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He means any X86 system, and you know it.. 10.6 loses support for PPC so it is now a single architecture, hardware locked OS. Unlike Windows which can run on pretty much any x86 system.

I certainly don't know that "virtually any system" actually means "any x86 system". The statement, "Windows 7 can install on any x86 system", isn't even true. Windows doesn't run on an x86 system without a BIOS (unless there is special software such as apple bootcamp for Intel Macs with EFI).

Do you realize that windows use to work with many different CPU architectures besides x86 and AMD64? Windows use to run on Intel Itanium, DEC Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS architectures. Way more systems then Windows 7.

Saying, "Windows 7 can install on virtually any system" is flat out wrong. Past versions of windows installed on many more systems.


I wonder...
By djc208 on 8/4/2009 11:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
...how many of these copies will be installed on a hackintosh?

Wonder what kind of fit the Apple leagal team would have if 5 million coppies were sold for 3 million capable mac machines.

I'd blame the terrorists.




RE: I wonder...
By dhalilahma on 8/4/2009 11:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
ITT: Trolls trolling trolls and a few noobs who get carried away and take this Mac/PC stuff seriously.


Dubious
By rs1 on 8/4/2009 1:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new OS's biggest improvement is moving to a 64-bit kernel, with all Apple applications being rewritten to run natively in 64-bit mode.


I find it highly unlikely that they "re-wrote" all of their applications. My guess is probably they re-wrote almost nothing and simply recompiled the exiting code with a 64-bit compiler, maybe with a handful of optimizations and/or bug fixes thrown in.

quote:
With more memory accessible (among other advantages), Apple says the shift makes its applications run much faster.


That is almost certainly false. 64-bit computing is no faster than 32-bit computing in the vast majority of typical consumer-level computing tasks. The "more memory accessible" argument doesn't come into play unless you have a single process that needs more than a couple GB of memory. And if you have that, then you have other issues to worry about.

And of course, having more memory accessible does absolutely nothing if there isn't more memory installed, which in the case of an OS update there wouldn't be, so Apple's claim is just flat-out nonsense.




RE: Dubious
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 2:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
There may be a smidgeon of truth in the speed boost. 64bit processors also have sh1ttons of registers and for most function calls the parameters are passed via register rather than on the stack. This does increase speed although it makes debugging a nightmare.

For userland apps this won't show up as much at all. For kernel components that are constantly servicing DPC/Interrupts etc it can be significant.

It's not all about the available memory.


This is Apple's chance!
By Belard on 8/4/2009 3:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's right!

With all these record number pre-sales, this is Apples chance to destroy the PC market.

The market will totally flip!




Charts?
By damianrobertjones on 8/5/2009 3:51:37 AM , Rating: 2
Could some kinds person please guide me to where the charts reside? I've found a 'Top sellers' section but no charts as yet..

Thanks




price
By oneTimeDeal on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: price
By niaaa on 8/4/2009 10:46:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still hate every single notebook vendor out there selling 4gb notebook with 32bit vistas , and off course customer do not have a clue.(Microsoft should ban this).


I have one of these, but at the price of RAM nowadays does it really matter ? and with 2x2GB pple should be able to activate Dual Channel RAM and gain some access speed, even if 1Gb is left out...I didn't check on my Acer tho :P


RE: price
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 11:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
I think his gripe was that with 4gig on a 32bit box you're only going to see maybe 3 to 3.75 of that memory as the rest is reserved by the hardware. It is a bad OS choice by the OEM for that hardware configuration.

I'll go further on this overall sentiment though. Vista is a really nice OS and I've been delighted with it. It does sadden me to walk into a local store and look at all the cluttered bloatware Vista boxes everywhere. If my Vista looked and ran like the ones at Bestbuy I would be disappointed. Apple has rightfully capitalized on this.


RE: price
By steven975 on 8/4/2009 12:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Vista installed from a retail or system builder disc works great.

Vista installed from a big-box OEM disc/restore image is crap.


By Smilin on 8/4/2009 2:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW don't forget to minus 25 percent Hardware speed due to the MS Tax for all the Spyware apps you'll need to run....


-1 for being a blatant troll. That's quite the hollow and false argument you got there, Steve.


By sapiens74 on 8/4/2009 4:37:28 PM , Rating: 1
dispute what i said then

AV software cripples most Windows installs

Try Running SEP which consumes nearly half the CPU cycles at any given moment

Windows users hate to talk about that dirty little secret

Ask Anand to run benchmarks with AV enabled..


By omnicronx on 8/4/2009 4:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
Who says you have to use an AV like norton in the home environment? AVG is more than enough for me (when I must use an AV), and has a very minimal impact. As for the corp environment, the places I have seen with OSX DO come with AV software.

Personally I don't use AV at all, and MS's new security essentials has a minimal impact. I don't even notice it running, nor is their a perceivable difference between having it on and off.


By damianrobertjones on 8/4/2009 4:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
Some.... pcs, namely celerons and some with slower hard drives in work can and do suffer slowdown from AV software but the rest, including my homes pcs are fine.

We should all fast foward a few years when apple has more market share and it's esential to have and use AV software.

You do have the option of not using an AV application, especially if you stay away from malicious web pages, porn pages and the usual rubbish. Either way, people can argue time and time again which is better but at the end of the day, apple and microsofts operating systems pretty much do the same things.


By sapiens74 on 8/4/2009 5:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
So my users who got the clampi worm did what to cause that?


By damianrobertjones on 8/4/2009 5:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Clampi, also known as Ligats, Ilomo or Rscan, infects computers in drive-by downloads when people visit websites hosting malicious code that exploits vulnerabilities in browser plug-ins Flash and ActiveX"

Probably visited something that they shouldn't have. You tell me, you're looking after them? Not using AV is an option. Not a great option, but its' an option.


By sapiens74 on 8/4/2009 8:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
These users were infected even with SEP MR2 with firewall enabled.....


By eddieroolz on 8/4/2009 11:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
Then don't go to freaking website..


By damianrobertjones on 8/5/2009 3:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'd think about changing from Symantec. They supplied the first load of corp AV when I arrived here and due to an exchange/symantec issue, I'd had enough and changed to another app, only to change again a few years later to Kaspersky. At first, that did slow the celeron pcs to a halt, especially when running initial startup scan. Painful.

Quick tweaks later, ok.

I'd imagine that the users/clients still clicked on something they shouldn't have. Firewall and AV, we both know that it doesn't matter in the case of happy fingers. Shame.


By Smilin on 8/4/2009 6:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
dispute what i said then


OK. You're wrong.

First off, you said spyware and now you are talking about AV. Whatever, lets talk about both.

quote:
AV software cripples most Windows installs


MOST huh? Cripples huh? I haven't seen ONE crippled so show some data or abandon the statement.

Neither cripples an OS yet both may not be needed. AV just slips in as a filter driver in the filesystem stack and has a very tiny CPU footprint. If your AV software runs like sh*t then you need to get different AV software or stop configuring it to scan entire network shares whenever you open explorer. It's not a Windows issue at all.

Spyware uses no CPU cycles unless a scheduled scan is running when the user is not around. I do not know a single person using anti-spyware although I'm sure tons of people are. It's just not necessary unless you're "click accept" happy while trolling the back alleys of the intarwebs.

SEP (Symantec endpoint protection I assume) is not necessary in the slightest. Windows already has a firewall built in and the antivirus features can be found in much more lightweight products. Having said that it still does not result in 50% CPU utilization.

If your whole argument was based on someone running junk on their computer then that is a user problem, not a Windows problem. The same thing would happen to a Mac. Your argument is a big FAIL.

quote:
Ask Anand to run benchmarks with AV enabled..


YOU ask him. Want to take bets on how much AV software drops the framerate of crysis? Do you really even know how computers work?

quote:
Windows users hate to talk about that dirty little secret


If by dirty little secret you mean "made up FUD spewed by Mac vs PC commercials" then yes, actually we do like to talk about it. Crap like what you're talking about does not survive well in the light of logic, reason, and facts.

I think in fact that YOU don't want to talk about it...much better to just believe what Apple tells you than to face the reality that you payed way too much for a computer that can only play the "catch the monkey" banner ad game.

Next, lets talk about how much YOU think that MY computer crashes. Since you've never seen my computer you'll again have to rely on the FUD from Apple rather than the facts and the argument will end the same way.


By sapiens74 on 8/4/2009 8:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
Bro

I work on a team which support 40k Windows boxes

and SEP cripples them

We have had to update to MR2 just to have it stop dropping shared drives

Stop drinking the MS Koolaid and get a real job working in the industry you claim to know so much about.


By Smilin on 8/5/2009 10:28:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stop drinking the MS Koolaid and get a real job working in the industry you claim to know so much about.


Stooping to personal insults is the first warning sign that your argument sucks. You have no idea what I do or who I work for and based on "supporting 40k Windows boxes" I assure you that you are the little man here by an order of magnitude.

SEP is a chunk of crap but it does not cripple the performance of Windows.

Your dropping shared drives is due to dropped tcp packets in the network stack. It occurs just above NDIS as packet sniffers still see the packet. It has nothing to do with the performance of the application or CPU load. I was one of a few who investigated the bug as it was thought to be an SMB problem.


By web2dot0 on 8/5/2009 1:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
I can personally tell you that when I run SpywareDoctor 6 on my PC, it seems to slow to a halt on a AMD 3800 X2.
Could be buggy software or bad software interaction, but it is what is it. Also, try running the software under VMWARE.

I'm forced to disable it and run the scanner once a nite to make sure I didn't catch anything during the day.

You can say what you want, but no benchmark exists today that have AV enabled. Those are the facts.


By damianrobertjones on 8/5/2009 3:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
Machies with standard hard drives suffer the most with the constant disk thrashing. 7200rpm drives, not so much.


By Smilin on 8/5/2009 10:32:10 AM , Rating: 2
/facepalm.

Stop running spywaredoctor 6 on your pc then.

What do you need it for?


By Alexstarfire on 8/5/2009 8:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
You sir, are a moron. My one and only insult in this post. You don't try to disprove something, you try to PROVE it. If you're trying to disprove something then pretty much anything could technically happen or be true since there isn't necessarily any evidence to prove is false. Hell, there could actually be cheese in the center of the earth/moon, but since we can't actually drill down that far into either object it's impossible to say. Though it'd be the most bizarre and unlikely thing ever if it was true.

And same goes with God. You can't prove or disprove he exists since there is no evidence for either side.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki