Numberzz Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Congratulations! You contradicted your own point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 HEY LOOK AT ME IM AN ATTENTION WHORE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassJAw Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Vista was actually completely built, and not based off an older OS. False, Vista is still built on NT technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 He's just bitter coz vista is lame compared to Leopard, and he knows it! I'm not saying Mossberg is the last word, but if you think about what he says, it's so true... Mossberg is Steve Jobs' little Wall Street Journal {censored}. He almost certainly gets paid to write for Apple. Otherwise, comparing the OS X release schedule to that of Window's to this point is pretty stupid and pointless. Folks it is "apples and oranges", obviously. However, Apple's approach is clearly superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Puppy Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Noooooooo offense people... But if you are going from 10.4 to....... 10.5, that's not a new OS... You are still running the same os...Notice the 10 in the front.... Meaning that it still is OS 10...Nothing new... What follows after the period is the version number....Meaning that you are running the new version of the same damn os... Okay, fine here is an example... Firefox 2 and Firefox 2.0.0.8 Both releases are the same thing, it is still Firefox v2...Also notice that with every 0.0.#, it only goes with bug fixes and what not...They don't advertise like it's a brand new internet browser every freakin' time... It is just like how Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.0, and Windows XP is Windows NT 5.1. According to your logic, Windows XP is just a service pack for Windows 2000? hahaha! This is so funny. "SERVICE PACK" = n.n.x, where there is a change in x "New Operating system" = n.x, where there is a change in x "Brand new operating system" = x, where there is a change in x "Update" = n.n.n.x, where there is a change in x. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quixos Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 i don't usually contribute to these debates, but i'll say a couple of things. despite the many irritating changes to os x 10.5 (it's taken an effort on my part to deal with the itunification), leopard is so much more responsive, and so much faster than tiger, that unless 10.4.11 gets the same pep (and a.receiptdb, as an example), 10.5 can't be called a service pack. neither vista, nor leopard, are service packs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U.C. Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Yup Leopard is much faster, much smoother. At first it looks just like a service pack. But you look a bit deeper and its much much more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDoggyca Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 personally I can;t wait for CodeName Windows 7 comes out... Scrapped NT kernel.... No explore.exe (infact no serivecs form any previous windows OS) built form scratch. problem how and how many %^%$ will wine becuz it will have no Backwards compatibility? come on ether u get one thing or another but never both.... I so can;t wait when windows is rebuilt from scratch and NOTHING works on it form the past.... sign of only the future head.... as for OSX 10.5.0 it can be consider a SP as one stated 0.0.X (is patches) 0.x.0 (Is consider a service patch (revised version) x.0.0 (is brand new line of the prodect) lets looks at windows look at xp build 5000 <> Vista Build 6000 in theory new os as it no longer in the build range of XP or 2000? Xp kernel 5.0 Vista kernel 6.0 (vista SP1 with windows 2008 server kernel 7.0) so in theory Vista sp1 could consider it a new os all over again becuz the kernel is no longer in the 6.x line... but come on well alll GOT suckered into buying a Serive Pack fomr Mircosoft.. how can tell me when Windows 98 and windows 98 SE <<<<yes we did have to pay for the serivce pack **upgrade** at the times there waz no such thing as service pack... but yes Windows 98Se waz infact a SP for windows 98 that you did have to pay for..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fryke Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Gosh, this discussion is stoopid. It's simply not directly comparable. Apple sells the bigger upgrades every 18 to 24 months nowadays. They're called "upgrades" and get the fancy cat names. Every 30-60 days you get free "updates" that enhance the stability, security and features etc. Not happy with that? Go elsewhere. Paul Thurott is a guy who likes to play flamebait. He knows _exactly_ that Leopard is not a service pack for Tiger. But he needs the attention, because that's what he's paid for. No attention = no readers = no money. It's _that_ easy. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquisitor06 Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Too be fair, in the link to the Walt Mossberg review of Leopard, to the right side he dresses Apple down about iWork, of which OpenOffice, Microsoft Works, Google Apps, and of course Office 2003/2007 are clearly superior to. He also got the fact that Leopard doesn't run on PCs wrong, too. And yes, Leopard is a service pack, kind of...So is Vista, kind of. I just know that Vista's service pack won't cost $120. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted November 4, 2007 Author Share Posted November 4, 2007 If you say Windows Vista is a new version because of it's build numbers, 5000 --> 6000, you can also say that Leopard is not a service pack. Leopard goes from 8Xxx --> 9Xxx. Either way, if Vista was a service pack, than Leopard is. If Vista wasn't, Leopard isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Get things straight: I am not an OS X fan or anything, I use OS X and Windows equally so heres what I have to say: I agree with numberzz, if Leopard is a service pack then so is Vista. Vista is just XP with a RAM hogging interface called Aero and a few minor new features (BitLocker anyone?) Leopard is Tiger with an updated Darwin core (9) and some speed improvements and new apps. You can look at it either way, opinions depend on which way you look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empreality Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I say it is stupid to put a price on a Linux system...Isn't Mac OSX a variation of it? Because come on, Fedora, Ubuntu....ALL FREE! Virus-free, customizable, open-source, can be made to look like Mac OSX and Vista... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 This topic makes me laugh, should be in the subforum of 'nonsense talk', Paul is that sad he likes to get defensive about leopard as though it's taking over Microsoft market, he must be a shareholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r3volution11 Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Why even argue about it? The whole thing is foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empreality Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Why even argue about it? The whole thing is foolish. Ah come on! It's all about e-{censored} size... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted November 10, 2007 Author Share Posted November 10, 2007 Why even argue about it? The whole thing is foolish. Your mom is foolish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboldinu Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 I say it is stupid to put a price on a Linux system...Isn't Mac OSX a variation of it? Not exactly. Vista was actually completely built, and not based off an older OS. What? It's still windows...It's not an entirely new OS. Basically, ever since 10.1 you have been paying for the same old operating system....Over and over again........................Just because it has a cooler name, doesn't mean it's better than what is already best... Have you used OS X 10.0 and 10.1, and then 10.2 etc..? I realise the changes aren't as dramatic as say XP > Vista (Time and cost though are the compromise) but the difference between OS X 10.0 and 10.5 is indescribable.. IMO The 10.X updates are bigger than service packs but less than a new 'operating system' such as between XP and Vista... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 IMO The 10.X updates are bigger than service packs but less than a new 'operating system' such as between XP and Vista... Agreed. Apple releases new versions frequently and MS releases them once in a few years but Apples new OSes aren't a WHOLE LOT different from the older editions whereas MS's makeovers are pretty complete (except in the Windows 95, 98, ME era). But when you look at the big picture, Apple is more bang for your buck. The new OSes aren't expensive, only $129 and you can get bargain deals later for half price on the net. Windows costs $500 for a good featured retail install and with that you could buy 3 or 4 copies of OS X. 4 Copies of the newest version of OS X = better value that 1 copy of the latest Windows Although MS's makeovers ARE complete, you can't exactly say that you are going to get a whole lot more than what you were getting before by upgrading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhbas0001 Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 Apple is more bang for your buck. The new OSes aren't expensive, only $129 and you can get bargain deals later for half price on the net. Windows costs $500 for a good featured retail install and with that you could buy 3 or 4 copies of OS X. 4 Copies of the newest version of OS X = better value that 1 copy of the latest Windows Not neccessarily. I bought my upgrade copy of Windows Vista Home Premium for AUD $149, which I expect will be the same for most people who upgrade to Windows Vista since they're likely already running an earlier of Windows. $149 dollars every 3-5 years doesn't stack up too poorly against $129 a year (or $516 over the same period) in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 $149 dollars every 3-5 years doesn't stack up too poorly against $129 a year (or $516 over the same period) in my book. Agreed. Also, you can always buy the OEM versions of Windows which are cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 An upgrade would work for most but what about new system builders who don't currently have an OS installed? The prices for a full retail copy are outrageous. And you can't compare Windows to Mac OS X really. Mac OS X is an overall better OS than Windows. And the copies of OS X you buy are not upgrades, they contain a full retail version so you can install it even if you don't have an OS installed on your system. Mac OS X costs $129 per year FOR A COMPLETE OS (not an upgrade copy) and Windows costs $400-500 per 3 to 5 years for a non-upgrade full copy. The price per 5 years comes to about the same and Mac OS X is a better OS than Windows (I will expect arguments here) and thats what you'd opt for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhbas0001 Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 And the copies of OS X you buy are not upgrades, they contain a full retail version so you can install it even if you don't have an OS installed on your system. No arguing that Mac OS X is a good OS, and is certainly worth the money if you've got spare cash. I feel I should point out however, that whether or not the Mac OS versions you buy at a shop are full or upgrade versions doesn't really matter, since if you own a Mac, you're already running a qualifying version of Mac OS anyway, so you're always going to have an OS on your system to begin with. My understanding is that most people who buy new versions of Mac OS X use the upgrade option when installing it anyway, rather than a clean install. Also, regarding Vista, it's possible to install a full version of the OS on a new, custom-built PC, and then install the upgrade license from within the new install, however I will concede that's a legally questionable approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboldinu Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 $149 dollars every 3-5 years doesn't stack up too poorly against $129 a year (or $516 over the same period) in my book. From the {censored} smith website the Home premium upgrade cost is $299 AUD, I assume these are retail prices; the cost most people would be buying it for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhbas0001 Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 Sorry, you're probably right. I think I got this copy under the academic licensing programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts