backtop


Print 101 comment(s) - last by GlobleWarmingi.. on Jun 18 at 1:20 AM

Some were not impressed by Apple's WWDC presentation, cute hypocrisy

Leave it to the pesky bloggers to rain on Apple's parade.  Yesterday at its Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco, it introduced a new iPhone, new Macs and several new software releases, including the Snow Leopard OS, set to beat Windows 7 to the market with a September release.  Apple was eager to fill users in with lots of facts about the new OS and how it outdid its competitors past (Windows Vista) and present (Windows 7).

How accurate were these facts really, though?  That's what several websites examined in the post WWDC keynote wind-down.  Leading the way was blog site NeoWin, which called Apple's hypocrisy "blinding".  The site points out that Apple's attempt to brand Windows 7 as Vista 2.0 seem glaringly inaccurate. 

True, Windows 7 shares much of Windows Vista's base code, but so have the last several iterations of OS X.  If Microsoft tried for a bigger revision, like it did with Vista or Apple did with OS X 10.0, it would risk delivering a shaky, maligned product -- like OS X 10.0 or Vista (at the start of its lifespan).  Instead, Microsoft wisely chose not to reinvent the wheel, but to improve on it and make it a bit shinier.

NeoWin also argues that Apple is doing its disservice dropping support for the PowerPC family, the source of Snow Leopard's install size savings.  While this may be practical for a company with such a high rate of hardware turnover and less than 10 percent of the market, it's something that Microsoft cannot and should not do, with over 90 percent of the market.  Surmises NeoWin cheekily, "So, to recap, Microsoft has increased support for lower end or older hardware with Windows 7, and Apple has dropped it all together with 'Snow Leopard'."

Paul Thurrott, a leading Windows blogger, also took issue with the remarks.  He pointed out that Apple's claim of 75 million OS X installs, only is true if you include 40 million iPhone and iPod Touches.  With Windows use at well over a billion installs, this places Apple at around 3.5 percent (or less) worldwide market share.

He also chimes in on the Windows 7 comments, stating:

Windows 7: "Even more complexity is present in Windows 7. The same old tech as Vista. Just another version of Vista."

Snow Leopard: "We come from such a different place. We love Leopard, we're so proud of it, we decided to build upon Leopard. We want to build a better Leopard, hence Snow Leopard."

Um. They sound the same to me. Jerk.

For the record, Snow Leopard looks just fine to me. It should, after three years of development on a point release.

While also impressed about MacBook pricing, Mr. Thurrott did lavish a bit of praise on Apple amid the admonishment.  He said that Apple's decision to price Snow Leopard at $29 was "exactly right".  He also comments that QuickTime X "actually... looks good."

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Cost
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 10:55:13 AM , Rating: 5
Don't forget cost on these...MS normally gives out "under the hood" updates as service packs, but Apple is bragging that they are selling, a virtual, service pack update for a discounted $29.

I just do not understand the Apple line, hammering Win7 for being a Vista update, when OSX was God awful at launch and has cost several hundred dollars to upgrade to the point of Snow Leopard.




RE: Cost
By MeesterNid on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Cost
By Tsuwamono on 6/9/2009 11:20:54 AM , Rating: 5
it was a mac. that was my problem with it.


RE: Cost
By Screwballl on 6/9/2009 11:24:41 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
What problems did you encounter with OS X 10.5 at launch? Could you please elaborate?

Read it again please... he said OSX, not 10.5... when OSX aka 10.0 was released... it was so much worse and more problematic than Vista ever was.
With that in mind, how much did most Mac users spend to get it from 10.0 to 10.5? Around $800 (not including the $200-300 price for the original OSX)?
So how much did people using Vista spend to upgrade to SP2 (not including the original OS purchase)? A big whopping $0. Even if you include the original purchase price of the Vista OS itself, it still comes in at less than $250. Add in the purchase price of Windows 7 expected to be around the same, $250, that is still far less (for 4 updates/service packs) than Apple.


RE: Cost
By solgae1784 on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Cost
By cabjf on 6/9/2009 12:31:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
As far as Apple's claim during WWDC, they did got one thing right - despite what other people might think, Windows 7 is just that - a refined Vista. Unfortunately, this also means Apple shot themselves to their feet as well - Snow Leopard is also mostly just a refined version of Leopard.


I think that was the point. Vista had a bad launch and now has a bad reputation. Leopard, on the other hand, continued to fairly consistent evolution of Mac OS X. So would you pay more money to fix something that's (perceived to be) broken or less money to improve something that isn't?


RE: Cost
By inighthawki on 6/9/2009 2:45:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Think of, for example, 10.4 upgrade to 10.5 the same as Windows 2000 upgrade to XP (5.0 to 5.1) or Vista upgrade to 7 (6.0 to 6.1).

Thats not even CLOSE to being the same. the windows version updates (5.0 to 5.1 etc) are the KERNEL version, the version of the underlying NT subsystem, whereas OSX's 10.4 to 10.5, for example, is just a simple naming convention to signify the next update.
quote:
As far as Apple's claim during WWDC, they did got one thing right - despite what other people might think, Windows 7 is just that - a refined Vista.

No it most certainly is not, they did a LOT of work under the hood to make MASSIVE performance enhancements as well as redesigning some of explorer (taskbar and mods to the explorer window), as well as provided useful features and tweaks based on user feedback. 7 is not just a refresh of vista, it has many differences and you should go look them up.
quote:
Snow Leopard is also mostly just a refined version of Leopard.

All of the 10.x releases are just modifications and updates of each other, of course snow leopard is an update of leopard, apple even said so themselves.


RE: Cost
By MeesterNid on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Cost
By Screwballl on 6/9/2009 12:47:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
10.0 and 10.5 are not the same operating system.


Yes it is... thus the "10" version aka OS "X" which is also reliant on the kernel version. 10.1 was an update to 10.0 and so on up the line. That is like saying the original XP release is not the same OS as XP with SP2 or 3, or Vista original release is not the same as Vista with SP2.
OSX 10.0 and OSX 10.5 ARE the same OS, 10.5 just includes updates to the base OS. The same as the original release of Vista is the same as Vista SP2. The SP2 just adds updates and features to the base OS.

The difference between XP and Vista is the equivalent of going from OS9 to OSX, they ARE different operating systems.

The main difference is that Apple charges its customers for the same "updates" and "service packs" that Microsoft does not.

quote:
The best part is that all the people saying how horrible Apple is etc, etc have probably never used one of their products for a long enough period of time to really judge in any capacity.


That is a wide sweeping over-generalization... most of us here at DT have used all the different operating systems enough to know what works and what does not, and also enough to know that Apple is getting away with a business model of charging customers for service packs and updates, where Microsoft and open source operating systems do not.


RE: Cost
By wallijonn on 6/9/2009 2:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
where Microsoft and open source operating systems do not.


One should not use "Microsoft" and "Open Source" in the same sentence. :nono:

I see Win7 as a OSX killer; I really believe it is that good. Just so long as spyware, viruses, trojans, BHOs and browser hijacks are kept under control.

I am disgusted that Apple dropped PowerPC support. Sooner or later I'll have to get rid of my G4-933. And it'll probably be back to a Win7 box. I'll probably end up installing Ubuntu on my G4. Or buy a 24" wide screen Mac box.


RE: Cost
By MScrip on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Cost
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 5:03:49 PM , Rating: 5
And if everyone buys Macs, the Black Hats will follow along. Face it, Windows is much more secure than a Mac, because Macs just dont get tested as much, due to lack of install base to Pwn.

If you took the entire hacking/virus writing horde and promised them millions/rewards/whatever the hell they want to blow up Macs, OSX would crumple up like a cardboard box run over by a semi.

There is just no reward in doing this type of thing on a Mac, thus, it is "secure" due to community indifference.


RE: Cost
By 67STANG on 6/9/2009 7:35:34 PM , Rating: 5
I believe the term is "Security through obscurity". It comes free with every Mac.


RE: Cost
By MScrip on 6/9/2009 9:51:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you took the entire hacking/virus writing horde and promised them millions/rewards/whatever the hell they want to blow up Macs, OSX would crumple up like a cardboard box run over by a semi.

But since the hackers don't focus on Macs... that makes Macs more secure, right?


RE: Cost
By Helbore on 6/10/2009 2:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
Tha'ts like saying a house with no doors or Windows is more secure because its in the middle of a forest, instead of in the city. People can't see it, so you're secure.

Until someone sees it - then you're screwed.


RE: Cost
By MrWho on 6/10/2009 9:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
So I'll just stick with my PC and install Linux/FreeBSD/Whatever - I'll run away from Windows *and* keep my hard-earned money in my pocket.

Just to say that I have nothing against Mac hardware (okay, except for the price) - it's the OS that stresses me! So I have a nice handy first-generation iMac with Ubuntu running on it - and I quite enjoy it!


RE: Cost
By jconan on 6/15/2009 3:03:31 PM , Rating: 1
then why install bootcamp if you wanted windows out???


RE: Cost
By inighthawki on 6/9/2009 5:39:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I see Win7 as a OSX killer; I really believe it is that good. Just so long as spyware, viruses, trojans, BHOs and browser hijacks are kept under control.

TBH, this day and age, the only way to really get any of that junk is to download it yourself and install it personally, especially with vista. XP SP2 is very secure, and vista far more than that. As of vista, there really isn't much need for an antivirus at all unless you like to click banner ads and download "codecs" to watch porn...

People are just still paranoid, part of this is due to apple's ads saying that windows is very insecure and gets a lot of viruses, when in reality the average user probably won't run into one in a VERY long time, if ever.


RE: Cost
By Kary on 6/10/2009 12:28:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As of vista, there really isn't much need for an antivirus at all unless you like to click banner ads and download "codecs" to watch porn...


I thought so to, unfortunately my sister, within 2 days of getting a new PC proved me wrong by installing a Note/Calendar program that had about 15 of it's buddies tagging along that infested her brand new PC (and she promptly blamed it on her kids...after telling me she was the one who installed it to keep track of things).

As for a Mac, if they are completely immune to such attacks then it is probably for the same reason my 8086 is immune to all such attacks...it just isn't capable of running software.

PCs really REALLY do need to work on security, though.
1.Windows should track installs instead of trusting the programs installer to track them and WINDOWS should be in charge of making sure the program is completely removed instead of trusting the program to take care of undoing itself.
2.Which Codec is used for what needs to be more transparent.
3.DLL files should only be allowed to load when that program loads.
4.... (saddly, the list goes on)

I'm not for Macs, but there is still lots of room for improvement on PCs (and Macs)


RE: Cost
By eddieroolz on 6/9/2009 3:48:24 PM , Rating: 1
Nah, we're just relying on reason here too.

Reason is subjective. Don't try to be a smartass of the pack.


RE: Cost
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 11:27:00 AM , Rating: 5
Turn up your hearing aid, its history lesson time...

Most people forget that the underlying code in OSX is over 10 years old at this point. OSX was initially released in 1999 and was not a very fun system to use. I will give it to Apple, it works very well now, but, like Vista, it was a buggy mess at first.

For those of us that live in both camps, and remember the start, 1999 was a very bad year...Windows ME and OS 10.0 were awful.

In the years since, ME evolved into XP and OSX has evolved into Snow Leopard. With Vista, Windows was "rebooting" the Windows line like OS makers have done before. The real issue I have is that we are 10 years into OSX and where is the next Apple innovation or growth? Where is OS 11? They keep adding service updates, which work well, but now MS is stealing the mantle of innovator. They are the ones being daring and trying new things and Apple keeps playing the same cards, over and over again...


RE: Cost
By StevoLincolnite on 6/9/2009 11:36:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
In the years since, ME evolved into XP


I think you will find Windows XP evolved from Windows 2000, which evolved from Windows NT and not from a Windows 9x iteration, however some technology's might have made it's way from ME to XP, but I try not to think of that to keep my sanity and forget that ME ever existed...


RE: Cost
By AlexWade on 6/9/2009 12:40:51 PM , Rating: 5
The only thing that Windows ME gave to Windows XP was System Restore. Everything else was a Windows 2000 carryover or unique to XP.


RE: Cost
By Oregonian2 on 6/9/2009 3:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
XP's big thing was adding compatibility features to make the NT environment it inherited from Windows 2K that it's built upon more compatible with Windows 9x programs. I don't mean the NT environment was changed, I mean along the lines of virtual-machines and/or virtual environments per-process to give individual processes a more compatible environment. It was a way to get rid of the 9x line of software and maintain the NT line that continues into Windows 7.

P.S. - Right click (in XP) on a .exe file and see the compatibility options one can set for it, just in case it's a win 9x file -- rarely needed, but did help sometimes when XP first came out.


RE: Cost
By adiposity on 6/9/2009 6:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect.

There were several features in Me that were not in '98, which eventually made their way to XP.

One was the scanners and cameras sub system (called Windows Image Acquisition). This allowed the addition of scanners/cameras with requiring the use of the TWAIN system. The drivers were simpler to write and had a standard interface on XP. People use this feature every day at my work. It made its debut on Me.

Another was the software app Windows Movie Maker.

Another was the software DVD player that could play DVDs without a hardware decoder.

Windows Me was pretty much garbage, and if you didn't want these features you probably stuck with 98 or jumped to 2k. But it wasn't until XP that these features were available on a NT kernel.

-Dan


RE: Cost
By teldar on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Cost
By Bender 123 on 6/9/2009 11:49:36 AM , Rating: 2
It was the last in line of 9x series and was the first to drop legacy DOS as training wheels. Despite our desire to forget ME, many of the features introduced in ME were carried into XP...Base code is completely different, but the desired plan and feature set are very similar.

The decision to drop DOS was huge, in the day, and it was the first of a break in the cycle of old systems Microsoft had done.


RE: Cost
By Griswold on 6/9/2009 12:38:03 PM , Rating: 3
You're right with the design bit, but neither ME nor XP were the first to drop DOS. That was NT (years before ME) followed by W2K, succeeded by XP.


RE: Cost
By WW102 on 6/9/2009 12:36:16 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You damaged your believability there


The word you are looking for is credibilty.

I would assume believeability, if a word, would refer to Santa and Easter Bunny.


RE: Cost
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/9/2009 11:49:15 AM , Rating: 3
Whoa! ME evolved into XP?! Windows 2000 Professional evolved into XP. ME was the end of the DOS-based 3.1, 95, 98 line. XP was the end of the NT, 2000 line. Totally different kernels. ME killed the consumer line of Windows.


RE: Cost
By joemoedee on 6/9/2009 12:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
The OP isn't exactly wrong with the ME evolved to XP point.

It all depends on how you look at it. From a technical standpoint, yes, it's an incorrect statement. We all can agree that NT was the base for 2K, which in turn was the base for XP.

From a consumer's standpoint, it is a correct statement. The transition, or evolution, for the mainstream consumer was from Win 98/98SE/ME to Windows XP.


RE: Cost
By omnicronx on 6/9/2009 2:10:28 PM , Rating: 1
Windows XP = the merging of NT and 9x lines. Sure MS may tell you that there is no 9x code in XP, but we all know that is most likely untrue. I know for a fact that XP mimicks Windows 9x for many legacy pieces of hardware, this is one of the reasons that XP has a much larger array of hardware support than 2k.


RE: Cost
By just4U on 6/9/2009 4:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
From what I remember about WinME .. they tried to take bit's and pieces of what worked in 9x and meshed it (kinda sorta) with some NT features. XP was the first consumer OS to move to the NT kernal.. Course that didn't mean that they didn't have a few things thrown in for backwards compatability with 9x which had a massive install base.


RE: Cost
By BikeDude on 6/9/2009 5:50:16 PM , Rating: 3
There are still some very fundamental differences.

In Win9x/ME 16-bit processes have complete access to the metal. Meaning they can stop the interrupt controller (o 21 ff in debug.com IIRC), wipe out the interrupt vector table (f 0:0 L ffff 00 does the trick in debug.com) and generally cause lots of confusion and loss of data.

In NT, all you could do is make life difficult for your own VDM. The user could easily run each 16-bit process in its own VDM, so life was much less complicated.

XP is like NT in this regard.

Sure, MS did a lot to ensure backwards compatibility. But XP still builds on the NT code base without any notable compromise. They did not revert back to Win9x' mixed 16/32-bit mode. 64-bit XP (and Vista) completely dropped 16-bit VDMs. (helped by AMD of course)

Perhaps you are referring to the Windows Driver Model? The modified NT driver model that was adopted by Win98 and carried through to Win2k IIRC? That is still NT technology... Not something dragged out of the Win 3.1 dark ages.


RE: Cost
By just4U on 6/9/2009 8:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
I just remember in the early days of WinXP being able to get certain dos programs running so I figured they'd have some backwards compatability built in or atleast a work around for it.

I have arguments with people all the time that say XP isn't NT based and I was always positive (still am) that it was the first NT Operating system that was made for the masses.. no 9X stuff at all.


RE: Cost
By icanhascpu on 6/9/2009 2:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
If the other guy needs a hearing aid, you need glasses, because you got some facts wrong.

One ignored requirement of being a snotty know-it-all is actually knowing what you're talking about.


RE: Cost
By teldar on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Cost
By MeesterNid on 6/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Cost
By AmbroseAthan on 6/9/2009 12:19:21 PM , Rating: 3
Honestly?

There have been a total of 7 of 7 OS's (consumer) for Microsoft in 19 years now if you include Windows 7 (I did wonder where that came from). 8 if you want to include 3.2.

Windows 3: 1990
Windows 95: 1995
Windows 98: 1998
Windows ME: 2000
Windows XP: 2001
Windows Vista: 2006
Windows 7: 2009

In that same time frame Apple has twice as many being each new update is considered a new OS, not a service Pack:
Mac OS 7.0: 1991
Mac OS 7.1: 1992
Mac OS 7.5: 1995
Mac OS 8.0: 1997
Mac OS 8.1: 1998
Mac OS 8.5: 1998
Mac OS 9.0: 1999
Mac OS 9.2: 2001
Mac OS 10.0: 1999
Mac OS 10.1: 2001
Mac OS 10.2: 2002
Max OS 10.3: 2003
Mac OS 10.4: 2005
Mac OS 10.5: 2007
Mac OS 10.6: 2009


RE: Cost
By IH8U2 on 6/9/2009 12:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
What no Windows NT, or 2000? What about CE (pocket PC)?

Windows NT 3.1: 1993 (numerous SP's)(dropped in 1998, for Win 2k)
Windows CE: 1996
Windows 2000: 2000


RE: Cost
By Syran on 6/9/2009 12:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
To his credit, he is only including the official "consumer" PC versions of Windows. CE was for mobile devices, and 2000 was only released for corporate use.


RE: Cost
By Syran on 6/9/2009 12:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There have been a total of 7 of 7 OS's (consumer) for Microsoft in 19 years now if you include Windows 7 (I did wonder where that came from). 8 if you want to include 3.2.

Windows 3: 1990
Windows 95: 1995
Windows 98: 1998
Windows ME: 2000
Windows XP: 2001
Windows Vista: 2006
Windows 7: 2009


I guess by 3.2 you mean 3.11? Which was actually more of a NT 3.5 precursor. 3.1 Would technically have been the last of the 3.x consumer OS imho, and it was a big change from 3.0 iirc.

You also forgot the OSR 2.0, 2.1, and 2.5 releases of Windows 95, which were never released in retail, but did include many upgrades that you simply didn't get in any form of other upgrade to 95; the biggest being USB support.

Finally, 98 also had 98SE, which you did have to pay to upgrade to, however, iirc, it was a nominal fee of $20-30 at the time.

The biggest issue with all the naming was that Windows 2000 was originally supposed to have a home version, that was not considered ready for the consumer, and hence, ME was put out at the last minute. It's the primary reason for the big change of names, which they went through again for XP.


RE: Cost
By BikeDude on 6/9/2009 5:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess by 3.2 you mean 3.11? Which was actually more of a NT 3.5 precursor


It was no such thing.

3.11 added some 32-bit drivers (e.g. the filesystem drivers were similar to those that were later appearing in Win95) and shared much common technology with Win95.

But NT 3.1 was written from the ground up, and shares nothing with 16-bit Win 3.x. Except the API is similar, and there are separate VDMs to run 16-bit apps. (unlike Win95 which had only one VDM which some of the OS' own code was running inside too - notably both GDI and USER)


RE: Cost
By croc on 6/9/2009 8:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
You do mean NT 3.0, right???


RE: Cost
By grandpope on 6/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: Cost
By Totemic on 6/9/2009 1:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Windows 3: 1990
Windows 3.1: 1992
Windows 3.11: 1994
Windows 95: 1995
Windows NT4: 1996
Windows 98: 1998
Windows 98SE: 1999
Windows ME: 2000
Windows 2000: 2000
Windows XP: 2001
Windows Vista: 2006
Windows 7: 2009"

For accuracy sakes, you're missing several:

Windows for Workgroup 3.11 (which included peer networking but very few used since most networks at the time were based on Novell's Netware).
NT 3.1, NT 3.5 and NT 3.51 (both workstation and server of each).

A better way to look at it is that MS had two lines of OS: The DOS/Windows based systems and NT kernel based systems. The former went from Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, WfW 3.11, 95 (with OSRs), 98 and eventually ME. With ME being the final version for that kernel based.

NT kernel started at 3.1 (roughly around the time of Windows 3.1), 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000 and then to XP. Since XP, all Windows have been NT kernel based.

As far as consumer OS is concerned, XP was the first one of the NT kernel based systems targetted to consumers (hence, XP Home). Prior versions of NT based systems were targetted specifically towards businesses (which is why they had only the Workstation and Server flavors--well, 2000 included a few more business versions: Advanced Server, et.al. and NT 4.0 also had the little known Terminal Server edition).

Yes, you could use Windows NT 4.0/2000 at home, but very few did. Largely due to the cost and the lack of driver support.

So the original comment is roughly accurate. For the consumer line, it really went from Windows (the non-NT kernel line) to XP and then Vista/7 (I'm skipping some of the specialized versions of the OS like XP Embedded).

As for the CE line, they are almost exclusively for hand held and set top devices and not for general purpose computing.


RE: Cost
By theapparition on 6/9/2009 1:28:29 PM , Rating: 3
Where you fail is that several of the MS OS's were targeted towards certain segments, meaning that no one, and I mean NO ONE would have upgraded OS's on the schedule that you provided.

For example, someone on NT4 would not have decided to upgrade to 98, in fact, that was not even a valid upgrade. Nice attempt to skew the facts.

So the OP was absolutely correct if talking about consumer OS's.

You could break it down for consumer use as:
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows ME
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7

Business use would be:
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups)
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7


RE: Cost
By JediJeb on 6/9/2009 2:18:21 PM , Rating: 1
Wasn't there also a Windows 2? I seem to remember that back in college, but really noone bought it. Windows 3.0 was the first to break out into common use.


RE: Cost
By omnicronx on 6/9/2009 2:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 are really not different OS's, 3.11 just added workgroup or networking components and a few bug fixes (thus its name Windows for Workgroups).

In fact Ms only lists 5 changes between 3.1 and 3.11

- Certificate of Authenticity

- More sophisticated hologram and an MS (3M) sticker on box

- An 800 number to call (in the United States & Canada) and check for product legitimacy

- Updated drivers

- Five updated core files

- NetWare support files (from Novell)

98 and 98SE are also the same OS, it was a mere revision, with support for faster CPU's and various bug fixes. It was basically a service pack.

So once again, MS has had 9 major Windows releases if you do not count 1.0 and 2.0 which were never really consumer releases. Everything else was essentially a service pack.


RE: Cost
By Jimbo1234 on 6/9/2009 2:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
98 and 98SE are also the same OS, it was a mere revision, with support for faster CPU's and various bug fixes. It was basically a service pack.


However there was no service pack to make you 98 installation a 98 SE installation. You had to go out and buy another copy.


RE: Cost
By Totemic on 6/9/2009 10:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
"3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 are really not different OS's, 3.11 just added workgroup or networking components and a few bug fixes (thus its name Windows for Workgroups)."

No.
Windows for Workgroup 3.11 and Windows 3.11 were two different SKUs. They were not the same thing.

Windows 3.11 was actually an update to Windows 3.1. You couldn't buy a copy of Windows 3.11. You bought 3.1 and updated it to 3.11 (imagine service pack).

You could however buy Windows for Workgroup 3.11. The big thing with WfW 3.11 was the inclusion of 32-bit file system access and also the inclusion of a TCP/IP stack--unfortunately it was a stack that couldn't bind to a SLIP or PPP connection (which is why people still used Trumpet Winsock...whoa, there's a flash back), which is what everyone used for dial up internet access.


RE: Cost
By sprockkets on 6/9/2009 5:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I don't know, like not being able to Cut and Paste correctly without data loss, you know. Seems like apple just can't get the basics right ever.

Oh, and btw, the latest update gives better battery life to macbooks and even netbooks for whatever reason. Best part is, it screwed up monitor detection properly.

But, but, I though Macs "just work."


RE: Cost
By Locutus465 on 6/9/2009 11:08:48 AM , Rating: 2
If that servivce pack is a full install then I'll pick it up for $30 and finally hack my desktop to run Vista/OSX...


RE: Cost
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/9/2009 11:26:08 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I just do not understand the Apple line


Its easy. Start with smug arrogance and remove logic and consequence. That will get you 90% of the way.

The final 10% is masochism and can only be understood by depriving yourself of meat and dairy for years.


RE: Cost
By JoshuaBuss on 6/9/2009 6:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
This post is the first one I've seen in a long time that I think deserves a 6 XD


RE: Cost
By nayy on 6/9/2009 12:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't anything wrong with charging $29 for a minor OS update. Is not really a service pack since it adds new functionallity. Yes XP SP2 did add new functionality but that was more of an exception than a rule for microsoft, Sp are meant to be mainly about security and stability.

Besides what % of the apple users is going to perform an OS upgrade, Apple knows that most people will get Snow Leopard with their next computer, the update price is more of a kick in the nuts to Microsoft than anything else. May be something good will come out of it and MS will lower the update price to Win7


RE: Cost
By SoCalBoomer on 6/9/2009 5:47:31 PM , Rating: 3
So what new functionality is there in Snow Leopard that is worth making it an OS upgrade over what a major service pack does for Windows?

Snow Leopard:
Fully 64bit - wait, I thought OSX was ALREADY 64bit - they've been advertising as such for a few years now. . . only it wasn't and they're only NOW going fully 64bit? Hmmm.

Safari 4 (which is causing some people issues, I guess) - but that's not OSX, that's a separate program (or should be, but the rules for MS/IE don't apply to Apple/Safari)

Exchange support - okay, that's good. Still - an OS revision for that? That's not really OS related, that is specific to several bundled software packages. . .

iChat, smaller install base, faster. . . you know, it sounds like it's nearly all "under the hood" - which it IS and THAT means it's a service pack. . .

So, Apple-tistas, you get to pay for what Windows-tistas get for FREE! This time, you REALLY get burned! Always before, you did have an argument that there's enough new stuff to count as an upgrade. . .

But this time. . .nope. You're stuck with a service pack that doesn't even really change the name and changes very little about the OS itself (that you can see). . . it's Leopard made smoother. . .made "snowier". . . It should be OS 10.5.1 - Leopard Fixed - hell, it should be Neutered Leopard! LOL (just kidding)


RE: Cost
By aftlizard on 6/9/2009 12:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree and Apple also has one other advantage over MS in this; they can afford to subsidize the costs of OSX through their hardware sales. Yes MS has a hardware business but it doesn't came anywhere close to the profit that it generates for Apple.


RE: Cost
By aftlizard on 6/9/2009 12:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
came=come.

*umm yeah, it sounds dirty.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki