apowerr Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 Ultimate Upgrade is $230. Ultimate OEM is $180 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waradmin Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 I paid $70 for leopard and I am happy about that. Would I pay $129 for it? No I couldn't justify doing that, but for around 40% off I don't mind buying it. When you start talking about $350 for ultimate vs $129, you have a point. Leopard is a more-bang-for-the-buck OS in comparison to Vista. You get more out of leopard per dollar than you do with vista. But then consider education pricing. I wrote a blog article about the pricing of scheme Apple has vs Microsoft, and for students where I go it makes more sense to buy Vista and PC hardware than it does to buy Apple hardware. Is leopard a service pack? No. What OS had more of an overhaul? Vista, bar none. However I feel that OS X has perfected its OS enough to not require an entire overhaul, thus allowing them to release more 'service-pack' like versions. But sadly Mac users will always lose (as far as deals go), at least at my education institution because vista ultimate is practically free in comparison to OS X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scj312 Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 Any upgrade version of Vista is a full copy, you aren't limited to upgrading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 Any upgrade version of Vista is a full copy, you aren't limited to upgrading. Then why call it a upgrade, it's not wonder there is confusion with Vista versions because they flooded it with different versions. The hypocritical thing is that Microsoft FUD Linux for the same reason saying it had to many version, works out that the main distros add up to less and Vista versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scj312 Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 Then why call it a upgrade, it's not wonder there is confusion with Vista versions because they flooded it with different versions. The hypocritical thing is that Microsoft FUD Linux for the same reason saying it had to many version, works out that the main distros add up to less and Vista versions. It is only legal to use it if you own XP, which is why it is cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhbas0001 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Good point Meowy, I'd forgotten that you can use an upgrade disc to perform a clean-install as well. Interestingly, the Windows Vista install routine does not check whether or not you own a valid license for the version of Windows you are upgrading from, it only checks to see if you have another version of Windows installed. Thus, it allows you to install the time-limited version of Vista, and then use your upgrade license key to activate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Nice trick mhbas0001! I will try that when (or IF) I get Vista. Just buy the upgrade version and do a clean install. Genius! Microsoft can't blame you for it, you found a loophole in the software you BOUGHT. I would feel absolutely NO GUILT using that install method. Its Microsoft's responsibility to fix that vulnerability, not yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waradmin Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Nice trick mhbas0001! I will try that when (or IF) I get Vista. Just buy the upgrade version and do a clean install. Genius! Microsoft can't blame you for it, you found a loophole in the software you BOUGHT. I would feel absolutely NO GUILT using that install method. Its Microsoft's responsibility to fix that vulnerability, not yours. That method has been around forever. I remember doing it on my Windows 95 system with a Windows 98 CD (I had lost my 95 key), then on my newest computer I installed a dummy 98 to upgrade to XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhbas0001 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 Nice trick mhbas0001! I will try that when (or IF) I get Vista. Just buy the upgrade version and do a clean install. Genius! Microsoft can't blame you for it, you found a loophole in the software you BOUGHT. I would feel absolutely NO GUILT using that install method. Its Microsoft's responsibility to fix that vulnerability, not yours. Absolutely right ~pcwiz. It's completely legal to circumvent the install routine assuming you already own a copy of Windows. Microsoft has comfirmed that this method is completely within the EULA. Also, I've heard of another method which allows you to use an upgrade product key with a clean install, and activate it, by changing it in the command line. Not sure how legal that one is though, although as you said, Microsoft included these features in their software by design, so one has to assume they expected them to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forceman Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 So many gray areas only adds to the confusion, One version upgrade or fresh, all features, suitable price install simple as that. Sounds like Leopard to me, maybe the next version of Windows Microsoft may actually get it right and stop the madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waradmin Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 So many gray areas only adds to the confusion, One version upgrade or fresh, all features, suitable price install simple as that. Sounds like Leopard to me, maybe the next version of Windows Microsoft may actually get it right and stop the madness. I doubt it, never put too much faith into them. Roll back to Windows 1.0 for a few months then go back to vista. That is the only thing one can do to make vista feel like a worthwhile OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboldinu Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 So many gray areas only adds to the confusion, One version upgrade or fresh, all features, suitable price install simple as that. Sounds like Leopard to me, maybe the next version of Windows Microsoft may actually get it right and stop the madness. I agree Apple have made it simpler but It's not like they won't recoup their losses for offering a stand alone-cheap operating system in hardware seals. I don't think Vista's variants are too hard to understand if you read a little . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waradmin Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I don't think Vista's variants are too hard to understand if you read a little . The variants are, however unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bxfresh01 Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 They're both the same OS's, they're built off of their respective predecessors, the reason that Vista looks like it's a completely different OS is because MS has such a long gap in between releases, it gives the general public the illusion that it's been built from scratch. Updates in OS X are much more frequent hence the changes much more subtle; compare Mac OS X 10.0 to 10.5 and the changes will be much more evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboldinu Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 The variants are, however unnecessary. They are if Microsoft want to make money..Apple don't have the same problem IMO as they don't rely on sales of Leopard to gain revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVENGE Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 lol @ fanbois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts