# Microsoft Announces Windows 7 Retail Prices Ahead of General Availability



## btarunr (Jun 25, 2009)

Microsoft unveiled the retail pricing structure of its upcoming Windows 7 operating system, and its three important variants: Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate, elaborating on the pricing on both the upgrade and full versions. Microsoft also announced that customers buying PCs pre-installed with existing versions of Windows from select sources (retailers or OEMs), will be able to upgrade to Windows 7 at "little or no cost". The company also announced that select retailers in certain markets will be able to offer for a limited period of time, a pre-order discount scheme that can reduce the price by as much as 50 percent.

Here are the prices (in USD):
Windows 7 Home Premium - $199.99 (full version), $119.99 (upgrade)
Windows 7 Professional - $299.99 (full version), $199.99 (upgrade)
Windows 7 Ultimate - $319.99 (full version), $219.99 (upgrade)

Microsoft also detailed the global availability of the OS, and in different languages. The English version will launch on October 22. PC OEM vendors will be able to start shipping PCs pre-installed with the OS on the same day. Apart from the English version, Windows 7 in Spanish, Japanese, German, French, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Polish, Brazilian Portuguese, Korean, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese and Chinese (Hong Kong), will be available on the same day. Windows 7 in Turkish, Czech, Portuguese, Hungarian, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Greek, Ukrainian, Romanian, Arabic, Lithuanian, Bulgarian, Estonian, Slovenian, Hebrew, Thai, Croatian, Serbian Latin, and Latvian, will be available on October 31.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 25, 2009)

$320 for W7 Premium?  They better be joking about that.


----------



## aCid888* (Jun 25, 2009)

Ketxxx said:


> $320 for W7 Premium?  They better be joking about that.




I read it as $320 for W7 Ultimate.


----------



## IINexusII (Jun 25, 2009)

$320? no thanks, ill stick with pirates


----------



## Cold Storm (Jun 25, 2009)

Or do a Tech-net pro subscription for $249 and have the whole Microsoft Library for a year... Even Win 7


----------



## Salsoolo (Jun 25, 2009)

i wonder when co's drop the $.99 price labels or $199 stuff
this is 2009 ffs


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 25, 2009)

So the same prices as Vista...not really a surprise...unless you were expecting it to be more expensive than Vista, in which case this would be a surprise to you...

Edit: Win 7 Home Premium is actually cheaper...


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 25, 2009)

Yep.  I've never paid for a copy of Windows -- and now I never will.

(I'll never forgive them for the death of my boy.)


----------



## pentastar111 (Jun 25, 2009)

320 bucks eh? :shadedshu Whatever. (sighs)


----------



## crazy pyro (Jun 25, 2009)

MS can bugger off, they're not getting my cash.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 25, 2009)

I wouldn't mind paying like £120 for W7 Ultimate, but $320 works out around £200, and they can kiss my arse if they expect me to pay that.


----------



## alexp999 (Jun 25, 2009)

Ketxxx said:


> I wouldn't mind paying like £120 for W7 Ultimate, but $320 works out around £200, and they can kiss my arse if they expect me to pay that.



Just buy an OEM license, that'll be around £120 prob.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 25, 2009)

There's a pre-order thing that's going to be happening in the next few days / weeks I saw. Drops the upgrade price to $50. Only problem is I'm pretty sure its 'upgrade' with all the drawbacks of an upgrade disc. I'd rather pay for the full version.

Let me see if I can find it.



Edit:  http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=009134804


----------



## The Witcher (Jun 25, 2009)

This is outrageous !!! 

They want 320$ for an enhanced Vista O_O, they shouldn't have released Vista in the first place.

So here are my three options : 

1. I can buy the OEM version. 

2. I can download it from some pirates-cracks website. 

3. I can buy the 320$ version and feel guilty for the next 2 years just like when I bought Vista Ultimate. 

I guess I will go with #2


----------



## pentastar111 (Jun 25, 2009)

In all fairness, if the damn program does what it is supposed to do and doesn't have the bugs that Vista did upon release, in other words a "smooth" transition, then sure it will probably be worth it. IF people have to wait for a first or second service pack for it to be a smooth running OS, then no.


----------



## crazy pyro (Jun 25, 2009)

Bugger it, it's Vista SP2 with a different taskbar, I'm pirating this, I do after all own 2 vista licenses.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 25, 2009)

i dont understand again why builders are mad??? you all dont have HPs and Compaqs lol just buy the oem for 140 or whatever for ult. Why is this always new news everytime they do it?


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 25, 2009)

"Windows 7 is coming out."
   - 'omg its the greatest'
   - 'its like having sex whilst having sex'
   - 'i want to gouge my eyes out at how sexy it is'
"Its going to cost you money."
   - 'Microsoft is full of crooks!'
   - 'How dare they do something like charge the public?'
   - 'Get the EU out, we needs a witch hunt for their anti-consumer practices!'

What the hell did you expect? Leave Vista under the pillow and the OS fairy would make it Win7?


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Jun 25, 2009)

Whew! I thought Microsoft was going to screw us with another $50 increase.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 25, 2009)

Ketxxx said:


> I wouldn't mind paying like £120 for W7 Ultimate, but $320 works out around £200, and they can kiss my arse if they expect me to pay that.



OEM and Upgrade versions will be a lot cheaper.  Since the retail versions are the same price, I can only assume the OEM version will be also, so what does Vista Ultrimate run now?



PCpraiser100 said:


> Whew! I thought Microsoft was going to screw us with another $50 increase.



What $50 increase?



The Witcher said:


> This is outrageous !!!
> 
> They want 320$ for an enhanced Vista O_O, they shouldn't have released Vista in the first place.



This is exactly why they offer upgrade editions for significantly reduced prices, so that people that bought Vista won't have to pay full price to move to Win7.


----------



## Sapientwolf (Jun 25, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> There's a pre-order thing that's going to be happening in the next few days / weeks I saw. Drops the upgrade price to $50. Only problem is I'm pretty sure its 'upgrade' with all the drawbacks of an upgrade disc. I'd rather pay for the full version.
> 
> Let me see if I can find it.
> 
> ...



Sweet, $50 preorder upgrade price.  Thanks for the link, I think I'll buy my copy tomorrow.


----------



## csendesmark (Jun 25, 2009)

Windows Vista -> FULL *FAIL*
Windows7 ->  *Price FAIL*


----------



## The Witcher (Jun 25, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> This is exactly why they offer upgrade editions for significantly reduced prices, so that people that bought Vista won't have to pay full price to move to Win7.



En light me please , lets say if I wanted to format my Win7 computer I will have to format it then install vista then install the upgrade edition ???


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 25, 2009)

Well I'm not too sure about Win7's upgrade possibilities yet.  However, I know an upgrade version will be available.

With Vista, there were work arounds that didn't require you to install a previous version first, but I don't know if they have removed those loopholes from Win7.

But yes, generally the legit way to do things would be to install Vista first then install the Win7 Upgrade.  It is a little more time consuming, but you have to decide if that is worth the money saved(and it will probably save you $100+).


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 25, 2009)

something else on the sales front HALF off 2 editions 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/offers/pre-order.aspx

just buy the oem when it comes out itll be 1XX USD for ult i love how everyones memories wipe clean EVERYTIME they do this lol. JUST GET OEM. Second u can use this RC your prolly on right now till blablabla 2010 Things like Xmas sales hapen.... and launch sales too. When vista ult came out it was OEM 180. I preordered from tiger direct and got it for 139.  I REALLY dont see the problem. comon sence tends to leave ppl some times.

(sorry offtopic you here mj died ? wow)


----------



## Darknova (Jun 25, 2009)

12 Server 2008 licences....or $320 for Win7 Ultimate?

Screw it, I'm getting Technet...


----------



## TurdFergasun (Jun 25, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Yep.  I've never paid for a copy of Windows -- and now I never will.
> 
> (I'll never forgive them for the death of my boy.)



roFl!!

obscure st movie quotes ftmfw.





ms ftmfl


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 25, 2009)

I'll stick with Vista Sp2 until 7 gets a few SPs.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 26, 2009)

I bet those who cant be bothered with cracks will just download the latest available RC (which you can still install W7 updates on btw) prior to W7 going RTM, and just use one of the RC keys that are plentiful about the net.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 26, 2009)

can you upgrade the RC to the full version?


----------



## selway89 (Jun 26, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> can you upgrade the RC to the full version?



If I remember correctly you can't. I know you couldn't upgrade from build 7000 to 7100, I think goes the same for RTM to Retail etc.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 26, 2009)

selway89 said:


> If I remember correctly you can't. I know you couldn't upgrade from build 7000 to 7100, I think goes the same for RTM to Retail etc.



That's a tad annoying. I'll buy it when the RC licence runs out anyway.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 26, 2009)

I would guess yes as with any RC build I have used (7100, 7229) you could update with windows update or from a ISO burned to disc. So it would seem W7 is as good as finished and ready to ship now with MS already identifying and fixing other issues.


----------



## Scrizz (Jun 26, 2009)

ima get maself pro upgrade same as ultimate mostly


----------



## selway89 (Jun 26, 2009)

Official word is no unfortunately
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/faq.aspx  (10th Q down)
Something to do with it not meant to be used in a productive environment (RC version) and going into a non-test mode.
Hope this helps


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 26, 2009)

Thats a bit retarded. Oh well, at least upgrades from one RC to another go smoothly.


----------



## BrooksyX (Jun 26, 2009)

Sweet deal! but ill hold off as I can probably get a pretty sweet deal on Win7 from my school or I might even be able to get it for free from a friend.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 26, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> What the hell did you expect? Leave Vista under the pillow and the OS fairy would make it Win7?



Sorry for the OT, but sigged.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 26, 2009)

Hmmm just what i expected similar to Vista and yay Wile e finally changed his sig quote.


----------



## troyrae360 (Jun 26, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> So the same prices as Vista...not really a surprise...unless you were expecting it to be more expensive than Vista, in which case this would be a surprise to you...
> 
> Edit: Win 7 Home Premium is actually cheaper...



Its WAY more expencive that Vista!! Almost 2x the price!


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 26, 2009)

W7 has had a LOT of internal changes. Visually W7 looks similar to Vista, but thats where the similarities end. Most Vista drivers won't even work on the latest build of W7.


----------



## t77snapshot (Jun 26, 2009)

I'm still running Windows xp  and I was going to buy Vista sp1 Home Prem. for $99, I decided to wait for Win7 Home Prem. But $199?!!!! I'm sure it is worth it. It is hard to save uo money so I think I will just get Vista sp2


----------



## Wile E (Jun 26, 2009)

t77snapshot said:


> I'm still running Windows xp  and I was going to buy Vista sp1 Home Prem. for $99, I decided to wait for Win7 Home Prem. But $199?!!!! I'm sure it is worth it. It is hard to save uo money so I think I will just get Vista sp2



Just buy the OEM version of Win 7 Home Premium. If it's priced like Vista on launch, it will be around $130.



Darknova said:


> 12 Server 2008 licences....or $320 for Win7 Ultimate?
> 
> Screw it, I'm getting Technet...



Ditto


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 26, 2009)

t77snapshot said:


> I'm still running Windows xp  and I was going to buy Vista sp1 Home Prem. for $99, I decided to wait for Win7 Home Prem. But $199?!!!! I'm sure it is worth it. It is hard to save uo money so I think I will just get Vista sp2



Nuttin wrong with that. XP Pro is a solid OS still. Don't bother with Vista though. Why blow $100 on a outdated OS? May as well save a bit and get a OEM copy of W7.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 26, 2009)

I still say it wont truelly shine till sp1 or 2 but then i might be proven wrong on that lol.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 26, 2009)

Triprift said:


> I still say it wont truelly shine till sp1 or 2 but then i might be proven wrong on that lol.



are you using it???? the next version has "sp 1" in it already. everything works for me UNLIKE my first xp or vista. I think it was perfeclty capible and was "shineing" back in beta lol and is even better now. I think previous ms releases have trained us that SP=go. I dont think thats the case with Windows 7


----------



## CrackerJack (Jun 26, 2009)

IINexusII said:


> $320? no thanks, ill stick with pirates



don't get ultimate then


----------



## Batou1986 (Jun 26, 2009)

this is the first os since 98se that ima actually buy ive been running the beta/rc client since they have been available and it has far succeeded my expectations.
in fact it i get better performance on my rig with W7 ultimate than i did in xp


----------



## AsphyxiA (Jun 26, 2009)

I go to college and am a compSci/MIS major.  I'll pick this up for free.  From both colleges I attend


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Jun 26, 2009)

$320 for Ultimate? Nah, I think I'll keep XP x64 and Server 2008, along with Ubuntu.
7 isn't too much different than vista...and it will probably be a while until DX11 is *FULLY* taken advantage of.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 26, 2009)

HOLLY CRAP..  I know a place were the sun don't shine and they can put it there.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 26, 2009)

Batou1986 said:


> this is the first os since 98se that ima actually buy ive been running the beta/rc client since they have been available and it has far succeeded my expectations.
> in fact it i get better performance on my rig with W7 ultimate than i did in xp



same on my old and new machine i ddint need any cds for anything my printer it all worked. i didnt need to use a compatibilty or "xp mode either"  vista started out great but they stoped listing half way threw. 7 showes they leared but M$ loves to forget so i hope they keep this up EVEN AFTER release. but its my primary on both machines now. Its great.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 26, 2009)

t77snapshot said:


> I'm still running Windows xp  and I was going to buy Vista sp1 Home Prem. for $99, I decided to wait for Win7 Home Prem. But $199?!!!! I'm sure it is worth it. It is hard to save uo money so I think I will just get Vista sp2



Where did you find Vista SP1 Home Premium for $99?



Triprift said:


> I still say it wont truelly shine till sp1 or 2 but then i might be proven wrong on that lol.



SP1 and SP2 will likely improve it, but right now it is as good as Vista SP2.  After all, Win7 is based on Vista SP2 with a few upgrades.


----------



## timta2 (Jun 26, 2009)

I'm thinking of moving to Redmond, the economy must be looking really good from there.


----------



## Nick89 (Jun 26, 2009)

what version do I need to get if I need to install it on three compter in my house? cause I'm not buying it 3 times....



newtekie1 said:


> Where did you find Vista SP1 Home Premium for $99?



$99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116488

.


----------



## t77snapshot (Jun 26, 2009)

Nick89, I see you edited your post and beat me to it 



newtekie1 said:


> Where did you find Vista SP1 Home Premium for $99?



$99.99 for the OEM version > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116488


----------



## Triprift (Jun 26, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> SP1 and SP2 will likely improve it, but right now it is as good as Vista SP2.  After all, Win7 is based on Vista SP2 with a few upgrades.



wich is the way it should be looking forward to final release.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 26, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> what version do I need to get if I need to install it on three compter in my house? cause I'm not buying it 3 times....
> .



They sell them in 3 pack oems too or i think there is somethng where u can just buy a key. Im not really sure i just buy one.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 26, 2009)

hopefully there will be a way how i can extend the activation of my Win7 7100.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Jun 26, 2009)

umm... $350 is quite cheap compared to prices here
Vista costed us around $450 once converted


----------



## Cuzza (Jun 26, 2009)

How come no one likes shelling out money for something they use everyday and can't get through their important little computing lives without, the OS??

I blame China. If those pirating wankers would actually buy windows (95% of PCs in china have illegitimate windows, thats gotta be about 100million computers, lets say 1/4 or them decided to get win 7 at say $100 each, well thats big f*cken $$$$) then maybe MS wouldn't have to buttrape the rest of us as hard. oh not just china, but the rest of asia is pretty damn bad too. maybe. no hard facts here i'm basing this on my own little obscure perception.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 26, 2009)

MS arserape you regardless. They always have. Just look at how much a copy of windows has always costed. Go back as far as you like, they were always expensive.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 26, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> what version do I need to get if I need to install it on three compter in my house? cause I'm not buying it 3 times....



No version allows you to install it on 3 computers at once, legally... 



Nick89 said:


> $99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116488
> 
> .





t77snapshot said:


> Nick89, I see you edited your post and beat me to it
> 
> 
> $99.99 for the OEM version > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116488



Why are you comparing the OEM Vista prices to Retail Win7 prices?  I do hope you know the difference between the OEM version and the Retail version, and realize there is a reason the OEM version is so much cheaper.  I also hope you realize that the Win7 OEM prices will be as cheap, if not cheaper, since the Retail pricing for Home Premium is cheaper most assume the OEM pricing will be cheaper also.


----------



## jessicafae (Jun 26, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I do hope you know the difference between the OEM version and the Retail version, and realize there is a reason the OEM version is so much cheaper.



Can someone explain why the OEM version is half the price of the retail?  I assumed it was half because it comes without support (no retail support, no MS phone support).

The Vista OEM  disclaimer (taken from newegg)


> Use of this OEM System Builder Channel software is subject to the terms of the Microsoft OEM System Builder License. This software is intended for pre-installation on a new personal computer for resale. This OEM System Builder Channel software requires the assembler to provide end user support for the Windows software and cannot be transferred to another computer once it is installed. To acquire Windows software with support provided by Microsoft please see our full package "Retail" product offerings.


Maybe this also means one can not "upgrade" from the OEM version to another version.  But since the upgrade price and OEM price are the same, this doesn't seem like a big deal.

If Win7 OEM is <$99 I will be very happy to pick up a copy once my RC1 expires.


----------



## Braveheart (Jun 26, 2009)

im pre ordering pro version now.


----------



## Champ (Jun 26, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Yep.  I've never paid for a copy of Windows -- and now I never will.
> 
> (I'll never forgive them for the death of my boy.)



I can so understand where your coming from.  I won't lie, I pirated my first Vista and it had more bugs than a dog kennel.  I broke down and brought Vista 64.  I hated I did that knowing they are trying to scrape it.  I need to find me a better pirater.


----------



## Cold Storm (Jun 26, 2009)

ahh I was typing it and someone beat me.. lol... Amazon has the same deal along with Tigerdirect, Fry's, Office Depot, Microsoft Store, & Best Buy.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 26, 2009)

btarunr said:


> The English version *will launch on October 22*. PC OEM vendors will be able to start shipping PCs pre-installed with the OS on the same day. Apart from the English version, Windows 7 in Spanish, Japanese, German, French, Italian, Dutch, *Russian*, Polish, Brazilian Portuguese, Korean, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese and Chinese (Hong Kong), *will be available on the same day*.



Err, the Russian version will be available BEFORE 22 October, for sure


----------



## Easo (Jun 26, 2009)

Too much for me...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 26, 2009)

jessicafae said:


> Can someone explain why the OEM version is half the price of the retail?  I assumed it was half because it comes without support (no retail support, no MS phone support).
> 
> The Vista OEM  disclaimer (taken from newegg)
> 
> ...



Essentially, you got it right.  The OEM version is so much cheaper for several reasons:

1.) Microsoft does not have to provide support.  It is the OEM's responsibility to provide support for OEM copies.  If you buy an OEM copy of Windows for yourself, then it is your responsibility to support the OS yourself.  If you do have to call Microsoft for support, Microsoft will charge you for the support call.

2.) The OEM copy can not be transferred from one computer to another.  Once it is installed and activated on a computer, it can not be installed and activated on another.  So if you buy the OEM copy and install it on your current computer, then buy a new computer later, you have to buy another copy.  The retail version allows you to transfer the licence to another computer as long as you remove it from the previous computer first.

3.) It does't come with all the fancy packaging.  You get the disc in a CD sleeve, licence sticker, and the quick start guide, that is it.  The retail version comes in a fancy box, with a real instruction manual.

You can upgrade to a new version from the OEM version.  However, you are still limitted by the OEM licence.  So, say you have an OEM version of Vista, and you buy the upgrade version of Win7, and install it on your current computer.  When you buy a new computer, because you can not transfer the Vista OEM licence to the new computer, you won't be able to install your Win7 Upgrade.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 26, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> 2.) The OEM copy can not be transferred from one computer to another.  Once it is installed and activated on a computer, it can not be installed and activated on another.  So if you buy the OEM copy and install it on your current computer, then buy a new computer later, you have to buy another copy.  The retail version allows you to transfer the licence to another computer as long as you remove it from the previous computer first.



Pretty sure they have to transfer the license if the mainboard in the first computer "breaks," and you have to buy a replacement.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jun 26, 2009)

Dam those are expensive.


----------



## Nick89 (Jun 26, 2009)

Kitkat said:


> They sell them in 3 pack oems too or i think there is somethng where u can just buy a key. Im not really sure i just buy one.



A 3 pack OEM is like 1000$... I just want to buy one CD/DVD and install it on 3 computers. I did that with XP and had no problems....


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 27, 2009)

I guess they aren't really trying to compete w/ mac. I think I'll skip this unless I can get it for free. Not only does 7 offer nothing compelling over vista (yet), it is now overpriced (b/c I now consider mac competition, and you can get a $29 OS upgrade over there). 

Damn you MS *shakes fist defiantly*


----------



## LaidLawJones (Jun 27, 2009)

A couple of people have said it is a "lousy" upgrade disc. Would someone please explain why the upgrade disc is worse than the full version disc. I am running Vista 64 Ultimate but would like to upgrade to the Pro 7. Does anyone know if the Ultimate version is worth the extra moola.  Thanx.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 27, 2009)

LaidLawJones said:


> A couple of people have said it is a "lousy" upgrade disc. Would someone please explain why the upgrade disc is worse than the full version disc. I am running Vista 64 Ultimate but would like to upgrade to the Pro 7. Does anyone know if the Ultimate version is worth the extra moola.  Thanx.



Upgrade requires a previous version, which if you have it, great. No of course Ultimate isn't worth it, why would it be? Almost twice the price for what? Business features that you won't use. Of course if you do use them then by all means, or if you want a full language pack, or perhaps Windows will switch the versions a bit (nothing confirmed here afaik), but in all likelyhood no Ultimate is not even close to "worth it."


----------



## LaidLawJones (Jun 27, 2009)

I do own a legit version. Now if only the deal was available in Kanada. I have seen it all over the U.S. sites, but the Kanadian sites have no mention of it. I'll have to give it a few days, we're always behind.


----------



## jessicafae (Jun 27, 2009)

LaidLawJones said:


> A couple of people have said it is a "lousy" upgrade disc. Would someone please explain why the upgrade disc is worse than the full version disc. I am running Vista 64 Ultimate but would like to upgrade to the Pro 7. Does anyone know if the Ultimate version is worth the extra moola.  Thanx.



Here is MS official feature list for the different versions of Win7

Win7 Pro give automatic backup, extended support for XP mode(? more memory to run more apps?) and "Domain Join" which I don't know but guess it is a business environment intra-network system.  Win7 Ultimate adds Bitlocker (drive data encyption) and ability to switch languages of the OS (to some but maybe not all available languages).  For example I don't think the American Ultimate edition can switch into Japanese for the systems language.

The only one that makes sense for me is either the Japanese or English edition Win7 premium.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 27, 2009)

Just pre ordered W7 upgrade for $50 available until july 11


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Jun 27, 2009)

Windows 7 Home Premium - $62.99 (full version), $35.99 (upgrade)
Windows 7 Professional - $80.99 (full version), $40.99 (upgrade)
Windows 7 Ultimate - $100.99 (full version), $50.99 (upgrade)

What the prices should be.


----------



## flashstar (Jun 27, 2009)

Windows 7 should be worth the price, especially for the OEM version. Even the beta was far faster and more polished than Vista.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 27, 2009)

u2konline said:


> http://www.copyblogger.com/images/testimonial.jpg
> 
> Windows 7 Home Premium  $29.99
> Windows 7 Professional  $39.99
> ...



**Fixed.

Tell me, if Windows was this much.. Who would waste their time cracking and/or pirating it?




Didn't think so.


----------



## pentastar111 (Jun 27, 2009)

LaidLawJones said:


> I do own a legit version. Now if only the deal was available in Kanada. I have seen it all over the U.S. sites, but the Kanadian sites have no mention of it. I'll have to give it a few days, we're always behind.


 Kanada? WTF? Oh, never mind. I remember, it's right next to Amerika...


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 27, 2009)

LaidLawJones said:


> I do own a legit version. Now if only the deal was available in Kanada. I have seen it all over the U.S. sites, but the Kanadian sites have no mention of it. I'll have to give it a few days, we're always behind.



Why do you spell Canada with a K?


----------



## Triprift (Jun 27, 2009)

u2konline said:


> http://www.copyblogger.com/images/testimonial.jpg
> 
> Windows 7 Home Premium - $62.99 (full version), $35.99 (upgrade)
> Windows 7 Professional - $80.99 (full version), $40.99 (upgrade)
> ...



That would be fabbo if that was in Aussie dollars (wishful thinking)


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 27, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> **Fixed.
> 
> Tell me, if Windows was this much.. Who would waste their time cracking and/or pirating it?
> 
> ...



QFT!!!


----------



## CDdude55 (Jun 27, 2009)

u2konline said:


> http://www.copyblogger.com/images/testimonial.jpg
> 
> Windows 7 Home Premium - $62.99 (full version), $35.99 (upgrade)
> Windows 7 Professional - $80.99 (full version), $40.99 (upgrade)
> ...



That would be awesome.

$200 for Home Premium is insane.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 27, 2009)

Whats really criminal is how much MS charge per retail copy of a OS, yet HP, Dell, and all other mass producers get sold copies of Windows for pennies that still give MS billions.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 27, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Pretty sure they have to transfer the license if the mainboard in the first computer "breaks," and you have to buy a replacement.



Correct, that is the only time the OEM version is legally transferable to new hardware.



Nick89 said:


> A 3 pack OEM is like 1000$... I just want to buy one CD/DVD and install it on 3 computers. I did that with XP and had no problems....



Legally, no version available to the consumer allows you to do that, this was true with XP also.   However, if you don't really care about breaking the EUL, and don't mind making a phone call each time you install it, any version can be install multiple times...


----------



## LaidLawJones (Jun 27, 2009)

> Why do you spell Canada with a K?



My personal form of protest.  We are a socialist country with no personal rights. The government controls every aspect of our lives from birth to death.   Trudeau salute


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 27, 2009)

Fair play man. If Brown was standing in front of me right now I'd punch him in the face for all the regular folk out there the government is screwing. Repeatedly.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 27, 2009)

LaidLawJones said:


> My personal form of protest.  We are a socialist country with no personal rights. The government controls every aspect of our lives from birth to death. If any Kanadians are reading this with the "if you don't like it get out" rhetoric being generated by their brainwashed minds, trust me, I'm trying.  Trudeau salute



Uhm, I don't find any of this true living in Canada. Who's to say you aren't the one filled with brainwashed rhetoric? 

Is the Trudeau salute thing sarcastic, or do you actually idolize Trudeau?


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jun 27, 2009)

IF you are doing the beta testing of 7, you save 50% off the price of any version of windows 7, which is pretty cool.


----------



## Soylent Joe (Jun 27, 2009)

If you have the RC, can you just buy and install the upgrade? Also, I thought they were doing away with the different versions and were going to just have one...


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 27, 2009)

Soylent Joe said:


> If you have the RC, can you just buy and install the upgrade? Also, I thought they were doing away with the different versions and were going to just have one...



No, RC requires a clean install.


----------



## Cuzza (Jun 28, 2009)

I was wondering.... if you have an OEM license copy (of vista for instance) and buy a retail upgrade (7), are you still held by the OEM licence or can you install it on a different computer?


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 28, 2009)

Cuzza said:


> I was wondering.... if you have an OEM license copy (of vista for instance) and buy a retail upgrade (7), are you still held by the OEM licence or can you install it on a different computer?



IIRC if the OEM license was installed on a computer, then it is bound to that hardware, (Read the license  )

Technically you are not allowed.

Could you get away with it? Probably pretty easily.


----------



## Cuzza (Jun 28, 2009)

you can upgrade from XP to 7 right? i do have a retail copy of XP. it's really old (pre-SP) and it's a prick to install because windows update takes a shafting.


----------



## jessicafae (Jun 28, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> IIRC if the OEM license was installed on a computer, then it is bound to that hardware, (Read the license  )
> 
> Technically you are not allowed.
> 
> Could you get away with it? Probably pretty easily.



I am guessing with all the MS online "genuine MS product" validations they may have enough already in place to check hardware. I was told with MS Office if the same license is applied on two different computers with "online registration" that it causes problems, not just for the second computer but also for the first computer. 

I don't know if this is just FUD or if MS really has technology in place now to deactive both installs if the license is "invalid".  Anyone know for certain, or have experience?  If we don't online register we might avoid the issue though, but if we do that we might as well just get a pirated copy and not buy an OEM copy, since from MS perspective, they are equal.

Of course if MS was selling legal copies of Win7 for $35 or $50 or even $75 then this really would not be an issue.  It is just hard to justify spending more on the OS than the motherboard.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Jun 28, 2009)

Cuzza said:


> you can upgrade from XP to 7 right? i do have a retail copy of XP. it's really old (pre-SP) and it's a prick to install because windows update takes a shafting.



AFAIK, I think it will be troublesome if you do and won't technically upgrade, but you may have to
do a fresh install.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 28, 2009)

Cuzza said:


> you can upgrade from XP to 7 right? i do have a retail copy of XP. it's really old (pre-SP) and it's a prick to install because windows update takes a shafting.



Clean Install req. But it will install.


----------



## Darknova (Jun 28, 2009)

jessicafae said:


> I am guessing with all the MS online "genuine MS product" validations they may have enough already in place to check hardware. I was told with MS Office if the same license is applied on two different computers with "online registration" that it causes problems, not just for the second computer but also for the first computer.
> 
> I don't know if this is just FUD or if MS really has technology in place now to deactive both installs if the license is "invalid".  Anyone know for certain, or have experience?  If we don't online register we might avoid the issue though, but if we do that we might as well just get a pirated copy and not buy an OEM copy, since from MS perspective, they are equal.
> 
> Of course if MS was selling legal copies of Win7 for $35 or $50 or even $75 then this really would not be an issue.  It is just hard to justify spending more on the OS than the motherboard.



As far as I'm aware they have the capability, but never actually use it. I'm running multiple OS installs using technically invalid keys (my subscription on MAPS ran out a few months ago) yet they haven't deactivated the keys, and they are still quite happy to reactivate them even if I speak to a real person.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 28, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Here are the prices (in USD):
> Windows 7 Home Premium - $199.99 (full version), $119.99 (upgrade)
> Windows 7 Professional - $299.99 (full version), $199.99 (upgrade)
> Windows 7 Ultimate - $319.99 (full version), $219.99 (upgrade)
> ...



Wow... Apple is going to dominate Windows 7 in the notebook market... 29.99$ vs. 119.99$+. I wonder what the consumer is going to be choosing.  Microsoft is going to continue to loose market share.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 28, 2009)

Ravenas said:


> Wow... Apple is going to dominate Windows 7 in the notebook market... 29.99$ vs. 119.99$+. I wonder what the consumer is going to be choosing.  Microsoft is going to continue to loose market share.




Uh, if I'm not mistaken that $29.99 is for the Mac Service Packs. OSX 10.4->10.5->10.6. The things Windows gets for free. SP1->SP2. 

Now if you wanted to wait until the next operating system comes out for Mac and compare the upgrade price then, then that'll be a fair comparison.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 28, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Uh, if I'm not mistaken that $29.99 is for the Mac Service Packs. OSX 10.4->10.5->10.6. The things Windows gets for free. SP1->SP2.
> 
> Now if you wanted to wait until the next operating system comes out for Mac and compare the upgrade price then, then that'll be a fair comparison.



What a service pack is a large comprehensive patch that Microsoft releases all at once rather than releasing it in bits and pieces the way Apple does (aka; 10.5.1-9). All other updates that Apple releases are purely just updates rather than an actual 10.5.2 or 10.5.3. Microsoft does this the same way.

This is an actual new operating system (10.7.1). Just because Apple releases it this way doesn't mean it's a service pack, especially since Apple themselves doesn't refer to it as one, thus the general public counts this as market share. Mac OS X is a build that Apple upgrades. Similar to Windows 7 compared to Vista or even Windows XP.

Furthermore, I would say this qualifies more than a service pack:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/enhancements-refinements.html


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 28, 2009)

No, Microsoft releases patches in bits and pieces all the time. They do a roll together of all these, as well as usually they add usability. XP Service Pack 2 and Vista Service Pack 1 come to mind. Both of these weren't just patches in one installer, both majorly upgraded the system and made both OSes alot more usable. 

In the past every seperate number as in OS9 and OSX have been seperate operating systems. Just because they're on the 7th update of OSX doesn't mean this has changed. It's all the same base OS with patches, tweaks and 'upgrades'. They don't sell these Service Packs as Service Packs because they don't want their fanbase to realize that they're paying for Service Packs.

Again when OS11 or X1 or what have you comes out, then we'll look at upgrade prices.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> No, Microsoft releases patches in bits and pieces all the time. They do a roll together of all these, as well as usually they add usability. XP Service Pack 2 and Vista Service Pack 1 come to mind. Both of these weren't just patches in one installer, both majorly upgraded the system and made both OSes alot more usable.
> 
> In the past every seperate number as in OS9 and OSX have been seperate operating systems. Just because they're on the 7th update of OSX doesn't mean this has changed. It's all the same base OS with patches, tweaks and 'upgrades'. They don't sell these Service Packs as Service Packs because they don't want their fanbase to realize that they're paying for Service Packs.
> 
> Again when OS11 or X1 or what have you comes out, then we'll look at upgrade prices.



By this definition, Vista is a service pack for XP, and 7 is a service pack for Vista.

try again? You lose the price competition pretty hardcore when you follow that theme. Last I checked the 10.5.8 patch is gonna be free.

You're arguing that since its labeled OS X, its just a "service pack", but you clearly have no idea how vastly different 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6 are.

Windows is still labeled windows. 7 is a $200 service pack for a terrible Vista. I can play the ignorance game too.

There is also most definitely no way 10.1 is even remotely the same at 10.6 is. Not only was 10.1 PPC only, and a terrible mach kernel, but almost all of it has been re-written for x86 64 bit, come 10.6. I actually have a 10.1 CD and its like comparing windows 98 to windows 7, vastly improved.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> By this definition, Vista is a service pack for XP, and 7 is a service pack for Vista.
> 
> try again? You lose the price competition pretty hardcore when you follow that theme. Last I checked the 10.5.8 patch is gonna be free.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying by any means that I won't fork over 200$ for Windows 7, probably not immediately, and I will also be buying OEM Ultimate. Just in case you got that idea...


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Snip



I know you're likening OSX to NT. Do me a favor and look up OS9. Each iteration thereof was listed as an update. Now all of a sudden OSX calls it something else and therefore its always a whole new OS? Just because terminology changes, doesn't mean its something completely different. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. By my definition, Vista and Win7 are different, however you are adamantly applying it to 'NT' and ignoring what I'm saying.

There is no way you can tell me that the difference between XP SP1 and XP SP2 was any shorter of a jump than between the Mac iterations. It's widely regarded as the Service Pack that saved XP. I'm glad 10.5.8 is going to be free. 10.6 is not. This is what I'm talking about. 10.6.1 may be free. But you still had to pay for 10.6. If you choose to ignore that please don't respond. Hell, even Mac people I've talked to have referred to these as Service Packs. Its also worth mentioning that if you're telling me OSX is comparable to NT, I don't remember paying for NT then paying for my OSes. After all 10.0 was 129 on release wasn't it? I bet you by the time we're done with OSX, people will have paid as much from start to finish as people who bought XP then upgraded to Vista and onward until the OSX run was complete. If not a very similar number. When it comes down to it, Jobs has just found a new way to sell it to you.

It's laughable to start saying Mac has paid less compared to Windows. Both have their own unique costs, and while I believe Mac's pay more I'm sure you disagree. 



Ravenas said:


> I'm not saying by any means that I won't fork over 200$ for Windows 7, probably not immediately, and I will also be buying OEM Ultimate. Just in case you got that idea...



Brings up an interesting point. I bought my Vista new for $130 CAD in an OEM deal. I have seen no downside in buying OEM and I wouldn't pay full price myself.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> I know you're likening OSX to NT. Do me a favor and look up OS9. Each iteration thereof was listed as an update. Now all of a sudden OSX calls it something else and therefore its always a whole new OS? Just because terminology changes, doesn't mean its something completely different. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. By my definition, Vista and Win7 are different, however you are adamantly applying it to 'NT' and ignoring what I'm saying.
> 
> There is no way you can tell me that the difference between XP SP1 and XP SP2 was any shorter of a jump than between the Mac iterations. It's widely regarded as the Service Pack that saved XP. I'm glad 10.5.8 is going to be free. 10.6 is not. This is what I'm talking about. 10.6.1 may be free. But you still had to pay for 10.6. If you choose to ignore that please don't respond. Hell, even Mac people I've talked to have referred to these as Service Packs. Its also worth mentioning that if you're telling me OSX is comparable to NT, I don't remember paying for NT then paying for my OSes. After all 10.0 was 129 on release wasn't it? I bet you by the time we're done with OSX, people will have paid as much from start to finish as people who bought XP then upgraded to Vista and onward until the OSX run was complete. If not a very similar number. When it comes down to it, Jobs has just found a new way to sell it to you.
> 
> ...



Service packs for Windows don't offer new features, and on the surface I would wager even the techiest among us wouldn't be able to tell the difference b/t XP SP1 or XP SP3 w/o spending serious time w/ it or taking a peek at system info. Same w/ Vista. They are primarily a collection of updates and bug fixes, not upgrades. 

Iterations of Mac OSX, while still at the core the same, change the functionality and the visual experience of the OS, to the point where most w/ even a little background knowledge in OS X would be able to tell. Not a huge difference mind you, but about the same difference as say Vista>7. 7 is still Vista at it's heart, but there's a few things moved around and such and a handful of new features. 

This is why MS in this instance imo should rightly be comparable w/ Mac. Snow Leopard is Mac's answer to 7, and it's fitting b/c the jump b/t the two is really about the same (at least as far as I can tell so far, until they are both fully released it will be hard to tell for sure). XP>Vista was a much larger leap and and IMO worth more money, as was perhaps you would say Mac OS 9 to OS X. In this price war though, it seems Mac has the rare advantage of being cheaper (did I really just say Mac was cheaper ), at least in the upgrade respect (Leopard>Snow Leopard is pretty similar to Vista>7).

In summation, you are totally wrong in saying OS X versions are like SP's, but it really depends on which exact versions you're talking about, b/c the history is staggered.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

I don't agree at all. I noticed immediately updating from SP1 to SP2 in XP. Also, you're right, Window's brand new features aren't ever introduced as OS specific as Windows usually provides an update for that. Windows Search 4.0 and the likes. If you're stating that 10.6 is the answer to 7 as OS 9 - > OS 10 was the answer to Vista. Then when it comes to price you'd have paid $278.95 (129 for 10.0, 29.99 for 10.1->10.5) Where as it cost only 200 to get XP at retail and have it updated compared to its competitor over that run.

All you're stating is that paying a smaller amount more times which ends up equaling more is somehow better than paying one large sum all at once. Sure its made up for in the upgrade from 10.5->10.6 compared to the Vista to Win7 upgrade. However, like I said, over the course of OSX users will likely have paid just as much as Windows to keep their system up to date.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> I don't agree at all. I noticed immediately updating from SP1 to SP2 in XP. Also, you're right, Window's brand new features aren't ever introduced as OS specific as Windows usually provides an update for that. Windows Search 4.0 and the likes. If you're stating that 10.6 is the answer to 7 as OS 9 - > OS 10 was the answer to Vista. Then when it comes to price you'd have paid $278.95 (129 for 10.0, 29.99 for 10.1->10.5) Where as to go from XP to Vista was 200 retail.
> 
> All you're stating is that paying a smaller amount more times which ends up equaling more is somehow better than paying one large sum all at once. Sure its made up for in the upgrade from 10.5->10.6 compared to the Vista to Win7 upgrade. However, like I said, over the course of OSX users will likely have paid just as much as Windows to keep their system up to date.



I'm not stating that at all. I'm saying that this particular time Leapord>Snow Leapord is similar to Vista>7 and is priced lower. In the past I would agree that Mac OS X has been overpriced for what it has offered ($129 was too much, which hurt more b/c there's no OEM or cheap deals on the net). I never implied that logic on the current pricing should carry analogously to past instances, in fact I specifically implied the contrary.

And of course you noticed, you knew you downloaded it.  Unless you were having very specific problems the SP fixed, I can pretty almost totally guarantee you that you wouldn't have noticed if somebody else updated to SP2 w/o your knowledge.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> I know you're likening OSX to NT. Do me a favor and look up OS9. Each iteration thereof was listed as an update. Now all of a sudden OSX calls it something else and therefore its always a whole new OS? Just because terminology changes, doesn't mean its something completely different. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. By my definition, Vista and Win7 are different, however you are adamantly applying it to 'NT' and ignoring what I'm saying.



Unlike you, I actually have OS 9 CD's. I actually ran it(And helped support OS 9 computers...). OS 9 is 100% irrelevant to any sort of OS progression comparison, because the core of OS 9 is like comparing a Semi-truck to a Porsche. not even remotely the same other than the fact it ran on PPC hardware.

Windows 7 is "different" how so? last i checked the core of the OS was still very NT based, like XP, and Vista. Its the same for OS X. Both OS's have a firm foundation and are building, and progressing aspects of each. Both are also following an explicitly different development timeline.





> It's laughable to start saying Mac has paid less compared to Windows. Both have their own unique costs, and while I believe Mac's pay more I'm sure you disagree.
> .



$120 for my OS. Brought up to $150 with Snow Leopard.

How much have you paid for Vista+ Windows 7?

$130+ Windows 7.

So what was that you were saying? try doing the math before bashing a product with blind accusations?

Infact, the math for a newer computer comes out to even less, because my Macbook pro is a really old revision and came with Tiger (My brothers Macbook has Leopard and qualifies for the straight $30 upgrade.)

Show me the math I have paid more for my OS than you. You cannot. Stop spreading lies.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> I never implied that logic on the current pricing should carry analogously to past instances, not sure where you got that.



Sorry, that's left over from the past replies where people are saying Mac is cheaper. I still believe that XP was updated equally over its course as to what Mac OSX has been. I feel the same for Vista. Alot of usability has been added to these two OSes, alot more than I think you guys are giving it credit for. I feel its not getting that credit as Windows updates itself constantly, and then does a cumalitive to make it easier for re installation of the operating system. When I do a fresh install of XP, then take it up to SP3 I can tell hands down the differences. XP vanilla handles like a pig. Vista, I found was a huge jump over XP. While I had to tweak it a fair deal before SP1 came out and did all that for me (remember it was released in increments so yes, it gradually got better) I still notice without a shadow of a doubt how slow XP is comparatively. Especially when it comes to some tasks I do a fair amount of, like networking.

This ties into my overall view of this thread, with people whining about how much the OS is going to cost them. You buy it, and it lasts you for 3-5 years. If you get it OEM like I do, you pay roughly 40 - 45 a year. Comparing it to the Mac's who get updated roughly every year and a bit, its not a huge price difference. Especially when it comes to having paid the Mac hardware tax.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Comparing it to the Mac's who get updated roughly every year and a bit, its not a huge price difference. Especially when it comes to having paid the Mac hardware tax.



Straight up lie.

Leopard was Introduced October 26, 2007. Snow Leopard is September 2009.

Windows Vista was Sept. 2005, and is now replaced Oct. 2009.

Leopard has a more aggressive update schedule yes, but that is because Apple has underwent an ENTIRE platform transformation, and Snow Leopard is 100% Intel only code.

Microsoft can't even get Windows 64 bit finished. The amount of progress shown from a development standpoint from Apple FAR outshines what Microsoft has done.

Not to mention their upgrade cycles are vastly different. Businesses are still running Windows 98.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Straight up lie.
> 
> Leopard was Introduced October 26, 2007. Snow Leopard is September 2009.




Going on 6 updates across 8 years. Sorry.

Also I requested that if you were going to ignore what I'm saying, instead of actually providing me with the information to change my mind on the matter, to not reply. I'm willing to have a conversation about this but I'm not going to have one with someone being an asshat.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Sorry, that's left over from the past replies where people are saying Mac is cheaper. I still believe that XP was updated equally over its course as to what Mac OSX has been. I feel the same for Vista. Alot of usability has been added to these two OSes, alot more than I think you guys are giving it credit for. I feel its not getting that credit as Windows updates itself constantly, and then does a cumalitive to make it easier for re installation of the operating system. When I do a fresh install of XP, then take it up to SP3 I can tell hands down the differences. XP vanilla handles like a pig. Vista, I found was a huge jump over XP. While I had to tweak it a fair deal before SP1 came out and did all that for me (remember it was released in increments so yes, it gradually got better) I still notice without a shadow of a doubt how slow XP is comparatively. Especially when it comes to some tasks I do a fair amount of, like networking.
> 
> This ties into my overall view of this thread, with people whining about how much the OS is going to cost them. You buy it, and it lasts you for 3-5 years. If you get it OEM like I do, you pay roughly 40 - 45 a year. Comparing it to the Mac's who get updated roughly every year and a bit, its not a huge price difference. Especially when it comes to having paid the Mac hardware tax.



The last 2 mac OS's have come right in line w/ Windows OS's, and rightly so. They're big market spiel is "look how crappy this Windows is now come over here." And it's worked to a large part, although it will be harder w/ 7 now that 7 is already garnering so much praise ("What Vista should have been" apparently ).

I think you are a bit of a MS fanboy mad at the Mac fanboys, and really you both have your points and neither of you will admit the other is wrong. People get annoyed w/ MS for the same reason that I get annoyed w/ Mac and MS and half of the capitalist world. If I'm going to have to give you my money, you damn well better earn it. Simple as that. If people don't feel they get what they pay for they whine. In this instance I agree, 7 is overpriced. But I'd never buy a Mac.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> I think you are a bit of a MS fanboy mad at the Mac fanboys, and really you both have your points and neither of you will admit the other is wrong. People get annoyed w/ MS for the same reason that I get annoyed w/ Mac and MS and half of the capitalist world. If I'm going to have to give you my money, you damn well better earn it. Simple as that. If people don't feel they get what they pay for they whine. In this instance I agree, 7 is overpriced.



Not really, I don't harbor much of a love for Windows. I take offense at people calling me ignorant whilst not giving any solid reason why. Or not willing to sit down and listen to my viewpoint.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Going on 6 updates across 8 years. Sorry.
> 
> Also I requested that if you were going to ignore what I'm saying, instead of actually providing me with the information to change my mind on the matter, to not reply. I'm willing to have a conversation about this but I'm not going to have one with someone being an asshat.



You aren't even arguing any valid points other than Apple uses different methods of identifying software versions. *Give me the math for the operating systems you have purchased. I gave you mine. Back up your "claim" with evidence, not words.*

The only "Point" you have even bothered to express is Microsoft releases PAGES upon PAGES of **BUGFIXES**, while Apple releases bugfixes with feature improvements.

I challenge you: Name me 1 feature added with 10.5.X updates (NOT a bugfix, a usability improvement. i.e. interface change, or addition.)

Now, name me 1 feature added via SP3 that is not a bugfix.

Your definition of "Updates" cannot be applied to two completely different sets of software.

I'm going to break down your post piece by piece:


> Alot of usability has been added to these two OSes, alot more than I think you guys are giving it credit for. I feel its not getting that credit as Windows updates itself constantly, and then does a cumalitive to make it easier for re installation of the operating system.



So does OS X. Look up 10.5.7 Combo update. Ypu can update from a fresh Leopard CD install directly to 10.5.7 This is old news. Welcome to 2001.



> When I do a fresh install of XP, then take it up to SP3 I can tell hands down the differences. XP vanilla handles like a pig.


 10.5.0 < 10.5.7 too(However, 10.5.0 is perfectly usable, untweaked). Infact, apple added a specific stack option to one of the updates that I use a lot. User feedback ftw.



> Vista, I found was a huge jump over XP. While I had to tweak it a fair deal before SP1 came out and did all that for me (remember it was released in increments so yes, it gradually got better) I still notice without a shadow of a doubt how slow XP is comparatively. Especially when it comes to some tasks I do a fair amount of, like networking.



I installed 10.5.0 the other day. I ran software update, and am now running 10.5.7.

I haven't had to tweak a thing to get proper performance. Why have you? My $130 OS runs bright and shiny out of the box. When I charge a client > $40/hr, this is clearly bad for my job security.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> You aren't even arguing any valid points other than Apple uses different methods of identifying software versions. *Give me the math for the operating systems you have purchased. I gave you mine. Back up your "claim" with evidence, not words.*



Ok, XP was included with the price of my computer. However had I paid for it seperately, it would have been an OEM version at $130. Vista was purchased OEM, at $130. $260 total. I got an XP system right after it was released in 2002. If you'd gotten 10.0, it'd have been 129, with 29.99 for each of the 5 updates. If you paid less, great. 



Dippyskoodlez said:


> I challenge you: Name me 1 feature added with 10.5.X updates (NOT a bugfix, a usability improvement. i.e. interface change, or addition.)
> 
> Now, name me 1 feature added via SP3 that is not a bugfix.



Not sure exactly what you're after for the challenge of Mac there. You want an example that wasn't a bugfix or usability improvement? I guess Time Machine?

As for SP3, yea it was a roll together of bug fixes and previously supplied updates that brought new features rolled together all in one. Not the best update, but by that time I'd moved on to Vista.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Not really, I don't harbor much of a love for Windows. I take offense at people calling me ignorant whilst not giving any solid reason why. Or not willing to sit down and listen to my viewpoint.



Meh what are you going to do, some you can't argue productively with, some you can. Don't bother too much w/ the former.




Dippyskoodlez said:


> You aren't even arguing any valid points other than Apple uses different methods of identifying software versions. *Give me the math for the operating systems you have purchased. I gave you mine. Back up your "claim" with evidence, not words.*
> 
> The only "Point" you have even bothered to express is Microsoft releases PAGES upon PAGES of **BUGFIXES**, while Apple releases bugfixes with feature improvements.
> 
> ...



NAP compatibilty, couple other things. Nothing major or things many people would use but not _just_ bugfixes. Anyway I'm proud of Mac this time, but they still won't earn any of my money though until they lower their noses a bit and offer more encompassing support, and preferably allow me to choose my hardware.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Ok, XP was included with the price of my computer. However had I paid for it seperately, it would have been an OEM version at $130. Vista was purchased OEM, at $130. $260 total. I got an XP system right after it was released in 2002. If you'd gotten 10.0, it'd have been 129, with 29.99 for each of the 5 updates. If you paid less, great.
> 
> 
> Not sure exactly what you're after for the challenge of Mac there. You want an example that wasn't a bugfix or usability improvement? I guess Time Machine?
> ...



Time machine was a leopard feature from the start, just FYI.

So, you bought XP OEM in 2002. 

Wheres that computer? Your OEM license is bound to that Pentium 4 or Athlon XP machine.
*
Otherwise, you're using your OS illegally.*


> The only exception to this is the motherboard   1.  If the motherboard is replaced   2, the computer system is deemed "new" and a new license would be required.



 So, how many Licenses have you Legally been using?

And 10.0 won't run on Intel just FYI. Tiger/Leopard only. there are only 2 possible OS's for Intel mac users. Tiger came with, Leopard now comes with.  I have a Macbook pro.


----------



## Nick89 (Jun 29, 2009)

OK, you guys can cut it out, your both going nowhere. How can you guys even compare OSX to Windows? They are like two different worlds! I dont use OSX because none of the software I use works on it! 

I'll be getting Win7. I never purchased vista so its not that bad on my wallet 

Also how can you go wrong with Windows 7! It has WIN in the name! /sarcasm


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> They are like two different worlds! I dont use OSX because none of the software I use works on it!



The only thing you've ever installed are games isn't it?

I prefer to keep certain things from running on my OS.

Mainly like ad-ware. And anti-virus's. Why pay for that crap?


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Time machine was a leopard feature from the start, just FYI.
> 
> So, you bought XP OEM in 2002.
> 
> ...



Uhm, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he bought a new computer. Which if you're still insisting on comparing to your experience would have been equivalent to your pre-pro mac. Not sure where your trying to go with that but it doesn't seem like anywhere useful.




Nick89 said:


> OK, you guys can cut it out, your both going nowhere. How can you guys even compare OSX to Windows? They are like two different worlds! I dont use OSX because none of the software I use works on it!
> 
> I'll be getting Win7. I never purchased vista so its not that bad on my wallet
> 
> Also how can you go wrong with Windows 7! It has WIN in the name!



Indeed. 



Dippyskoodlez said:


> The only thing you've ever installed are games isn't it?
> 
> I prefer to keep certain things from running on my OS.
> 
> Mainly like ad-ware. And anti-virus's. Why pay for that crap?



Indeed free is better (why anyone pays for them I'm not sure). Why pay $2000 for a computer that does everything a $1000 can do better?


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Time machine was a leopard feature from the start, just FYI.
> 
> So, you bought XP OEM in 2002.
> 
> ...



Right, sorry you were wanting 10.5.x. Oh well.

Its at my sister's place, running that license. So I guess that means I've been using 0 illegally? Thanks for the *bold* showing of concern. 

I'm glad they dropped PPC. It was a bad processor. However if someone still has a PPC, as they wouldn't have been able to buy an Intel Mac when 10.0 came out, they'd have had to pay just the same. Or is 10.4 and 10.5 not backwards compatible to PPC. I don't know. If it isn't then Mac just forced them to update their hardware. Dandy, but its ok Windows does that too.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Uhm, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he bought a new computer. Which if you're still insisting on comparing to your experience would have been equivalent to your pre-pro mac. Not sure where your trying to go with that but it doesn't seem like anywhere useful.



He claims he hasn't bought Windows since 2002.

When it's quite the otherwise. He bought XP in 2002 via OEM, so he had to purchase it again when he upgraded his motherboard (Giving him the benefit of the doubt, going from his 2002 machine directly to what he has now.) which would make him atleast purchase a vista OEM or xp+Vista+Windows 7.

Regardless he is still over $300 wheres I'm still at $150+ not having to buy anti-virus, spend time tweaking to get proper performance, or scan for ad-ware, etc etc. It just works.



El Fiendo said:


> I'm glad they dropped PPC. It was a bad processor. However if someone still has a PPC, as they wouldn't have been able to buy an Intel Mac when 10.0 came out, they'd have had to pay just the same. Or is 10.4 and 10.5 not backwards compatible to PPC. I don't know. If it isn't then Mac just forced them to update their hardware. Dandy, but its ok Windows does that too.



Upgrading your mac, comes with an OS 

So you straight up bought Vista 64 OEM for your current machine? And how much did that run you?

I used to have an iMac running 10.0... so you didn't have to buy EVERY update. I have a friend still running Tiger on his Macbook. He's happily computing away.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> He claims he hasn't bought Windows since 2002.
> 
> When it's quite the otherwise. He bought XP in 2002 via OEM, so he had to purchase it again when he upgraded his motherboard (Giving him the benefit of the doubt, going from his 2002 machine directly to what he has now.) which would make him atleast purchase a vista OEM or xp+Vista+Windows 7.
> 
> ...



You also spent way more for your computer (probably about $1k more) and it can't do as much (yes I mean games).


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> You also spent way more for your computer (probably about $1k more) and it can't do as much (yes I mean games).



$1800.

So you bought an $800 laptop with a 2.16ghz c2d, x1600m, 2gb ram, and 120gb hdd in *2007?*

Um, no.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> He claims he hasn't bought Windows since 2002.
> 
> Upgrading your mac, comes with an OS



I never made that claim. Not once.

Built into the price.




Dippyskoodlez said:


> It just works.



Then why does this site exist.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Then why does this site exist.




I would like to buy your perfect OS that never needs updating. $30. kthx. PST.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Well I'm sorry but you can't just say it works and not expect that.  (It was a joke anyways, hence my rare use of smilie)

Also, I told you Vista 64 OEM $130. Bought straight up with an HDD (price not included).


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Well I'm sorry but you can't just say it works and not expect that.
> 
> Also, I told you Vista 64 OEM $130. Bought straight up with an HDD (price not included).



$130 Vista64+Windows 7x64.

$150 tiger+Leopard+Snow leopard on a machine older than yours.

If my machine was up to date, it would be $30.

How do you pay less? Or is math different where you learned?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116676

Vista 64 is $150 from newegg, though too. Where'd you find it for $130? I'd like to know.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippy, why must every post have a snide comment to me? Or at least the claim that I'm spreading lies. Why not just stuff that and try to spread the gospel, erm truth?

Why would your machine being older matter? 

And lastly, Vista Business?
http://www.b-com.ca/product.php?productid=220426&page=1

And that's CAD too, whereas I was converting it to USD from the price I bought it at at the time.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Brings up an interesting point. I bought my Vista new for $130 CAD in an OEM deal. I have seen no downside in buying OEM and I wouldn't pay full price myself.



The downside is you are your own customer support and you have no one to call (besides Microsoft who charges you for help) if you need help. So you got to look on the internet for solutions. That is the downside.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Ravenas said:


> The downside is you are your own customer support and you have no one to call (besides Microsoft who charges you for help) if you need help. So you got to look on the internet for solutions. That is the downside.



I don't mind this. Customer support is useless and simply tells you to 'try hitting reset'. I've never met a problem I couldn't solve, but every problem is one customer support can't solve.

As for the charging thing, look it up online. And doesn't Apple charge with Apple ProCare? Again, I don't know.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> You also spent way more for your computer (probably about $1k more) and it can't do as much (yes I mean games).



Lol... This is really laughable. Do you realize any Mac can install your copy of Windows XP SP2 (any version) as well as Vista (any version). It's called bootcamp. Therefore, actually yes any Apple computer can now play any windows game, through bootcamp, parallels, or emulation. You pick.

Research next time u make this claim.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Ravenas said:


> Lol... This is really laughable. Do you realize any Mac can install your copy of Windows XP SP2 (any version) as well as Vista (any version). It's called bootcamp. Therefore, actually yes any Apple computer can now play any windows game, through bootcamp, parallels, or emulation. You pick.
> 
> Research next time u make this claim.



You buying those OSes? How's about a video card that will play them?

PC
Mac


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> I don't mind this. Customer support is useless and simply tells you to 'try hitting reset'. I've never met a problem I couldn't solve, but every problem is one customer support can't solve.
> 
> As for the charging thing, look it up online. And doesn't Apple charge with Apple ProCare? Again, I don't know.



You said there is no downside, and I named it. I don't mind it either, as I own an OEM Vista 64 Ultimate copy, but you can't not think of it as a downside.

Apple will charge you based on the problem, and if you didn't get the Apple care plan with your computer. Thus far, I've never had a problem with my Macbook and I've owned it three years.

Why do you keep comparing everything to what Apple does? Lol... you have so much resisenment.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Ravenas said:


> Lol... This is really laughable. Do you realize any Mac can install your copy of Windows XP SP2 (any version) as well as Vista (any version). It's called bootcamp. Therefore, actually yes any Apple computer can now play any windows game, through bootcamp, parallels, or emulation. You pick.
> 
> Research next time u make this claim.



That's pretty laughable, since now you're talking about spending another $200-300 (boot camp+windows) on top of the already much higher price machine just to do things the "lowly" cheaper machine can do, and still the cheaper one does it better (run a few demanding games in boot camp and see what I mean).

Please, remove your foot from your mouth before speaking.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Dippy, why must every post have a snide comment to me? Or at least the claim that I'm spreading lies. Why not just stuff that and try to spread the gospel, erm truth?
> 
> Why would your machine being older matter? .



My machine being older matters, because anything newer than mine COMES with Leopard, thus its upgrade cost is a nice $30 only.

Whereas Windows 7* costs you how much?*

And by lies, I'm pointing out incorrect information you passed off as "true".

Last I checked, that qualified as a "lie".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> You buying those OSes? How's about a video card that will play them?
> 
> PC
> Mac



At this point I'm going to choose to stop responding to your posts. Enjoy argueing for the sake of argueing, I don't know how many people on this forum I've met exactly like you.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> That's pretty laughable, since now you're talking about spending another $200-300 (boot camp+windows) on top of the already much higher price machine just to do things the "lowly" cheaper machine can do, and still the cheaper one does it better (run a few demanding games in boot camp and see what I mean).
> 
> Please, remove your foot from your mouth before speaking.



Why would I care if I spent another "x" amount of money if I own both a Windows PC and a Apple computer... You're claim still holds no water. You said an Apple computer couldn't play games, and then you were proven wrong.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> That's pretty laughable, since now you're talking about spending another $200-300 (boot camp+windows) on top of the already much higher price machine just to do things the "lowly" cheaper machine can do, and still the cheaper one does it better (run a few demanding games in boot camp and see what I mean).
> 
> Please, remove your foot from your mouth before speaking.



... $200-$300? What?

I have a Retail Windows XP I have had from 2002. I haven't paid a dime for Windows since then. 

And sorry, please show me where I paid $1000 more than you for a 2.16Ghz c2d, x1600, 15" laptop with 2Gb ram.

Boot camp is no different from Native.

*Points to Medal of Honor: Airborne icon on desktop*

http://img.techpowerup.org/090628/MOH.jpg

(I'm using Windows 7 RC)


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Ravenas said:


> Why would I care if I spent another "x" amount of money if I own both a Windows PC and a Apple computer... You're claim still holds no water. You said an Apple computer couldn't play games, and then you were proven wrong.



 I don't know b/c money is important? You got me Ravenas, I clearly did not know of the wonders of boot camp and parallels.  



Dippyskoodlez said:


> ... $200-$300? What?
> 
> I have a Retail Windows XP I have had from 2002. I haven't paid a dime for Windows since then.
> 
> ...



Uhm, we were talking legal right? I thought that was your bag. How much did you pay for XP?

What do you do w/ all that wonderful power you have on that laptop. Surf the web? Listen to music? Unless your answer happens to be graphic design or video editing, a much cheaper could do similar. Even if those are your forays, you should try a desktop.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Farlex, this has simply turned into another Mac addicts defending their purchase to the death. Which every Windows thread turns into. What's worse is while they may have points that are good and valid in their favor, the fact that they can't start about this in a civilized manner kills the thread. I don't know about you but I'm out before Dippy gets starts getting even with his hammer.

Every time I try and learn about OSX the mad barking always scares me away.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> I don't know b/c money is important? You got me Ravenas, I clearly did not know of the wonders of boot camp and parallels.



Listen man, when I buy a PC game I play it on my Windows machine. That's why I have a Windows machine. When I do school work I use my Macbook. I have no bias... I use each for a purpose.

I'm just stating that yes it is easily possible for someone to play ANY Windows game on a Mac.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Farlex, this has simply turned into another Mac addicts defending their purchase to the death. Which every Windows thread turns into. What's worse is while they may have points that are good and valid in their favor, the fact that they can't start about this in a civilized manner kills the thread. I don't know about you but I'm out before Dippy gets starts getting even with his hammer.
> 
> Every time I try and learn about OSX the mad barking always scares me away.



Yeah I'll leave soon enough, but hey I still love a rousing Mac debate.  Yeah it's that nose lowering thing again that is one of the biggest detractors from mac, it's a bit odd psychological phenomenon really......


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Uhm, we were talking legal right? I thought that was your bag. How much did you pay for XP?
> 
> What do you do w/ all that wonderful power you have on that laptop. Surf the web? Listen to music. Unless your answer happens to be graphic design or video editing, a much cheaper could do similar. Even if those are your fortays, you should try a desktop.



I have no idea how much I paid way back when, but it has been used on my Athlon XP, 3 upgrades, and then my A64 system, and now my C2D. It could be considered free.

Right now as a student all I'm doing is mainly programming and the occasional Youtube video.

And I have a desktop. You might be interested in knowing I travel a lot, so a desktop is not acceptable for a workstation. Hence why I have a Macbook pro.



El Fiendo said:


> Farlex, this has simply turned into another Mac addicts defending their purchase to the death. Which every Windows thread turns into. What's worse is while they may have points that are good and valid in their favor, the fact that they can't start about this in a civilized manner kills the thread. I don't know about you but I'm out before Dippy gets starts getting even with his hammer.



I wouldn't use my hammer even If I had moderation privledges to prove a point. That's quite a rude accusation.  Not once have I ever done such, or would.

You were the one calling me an asshat for pointing out information you posted was false. Sorry, carry on spreading information that isn't true. I won't hold you back.



farlex85 said:


> Yeah I'll leave soon enough, but hey I still love a rousing Mac debate.  Yeah it's that nose lowering thing again that is one of the biggest detractors from mac, it's a bit odd psychological phenomenon really......



Notice theres an equal and opposite reaction from PC fanboys?


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> I wouldn't use my hammer even If I had moderation privledges to prove a point. That's quite a rude accusation.
> 
> You were the one calling me an asshat for pointing out information you posted was false. Sorry, carry on spreading information that isn't true. I won't hold you back.




That top statement greatly improved my respect for you. Just so you know. I apologize if I offended you. It was meant more jokingly.

And I was actually meaning asshat in where you first called me ignorant. I don't believe at the time it was false. If it actually is, instead of going about calling me ignorant, you could always just enlighten.

Again, the equal reaction from me was at being called ignorant without reason. I don't like that.

@ Farlex

I like the way Macs have gotten, I really do. I hated them in their horrendous G3 / G4 days. But the more I see of the Mac attitude, the more I'm driven away from Mac's. However the Mac attitude has been fairly low key so far, but it can take off within a moments notice. But, its what's driven me to wash my hands of Apple thus far.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Ravenas said:


> Listen man, when I buy a PC game I play it on my Windows machine. That's why I have a Windows machine. When I do school work I use my Macbook. I have no bias... I use each for a purpose.
> 
> I'm just stating that yes it is easily possible for someone to play ANY Windows game on a Mac.



What do you need more power for? Gaming or school work? But which one cost you more? I love Mac OS X I really do, I just hate Mac (I'm a big bang/buck kind of guy). 

I know it's possible but thanks for trying to educate me. Mac's graphics cards don't look so good once you try to game, and I don't consider an bootcamp +windows to be effective.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> I have no idea how much I paid way back when, but it has been used on my Athlon XP, 3 upgrades, and then my A64 system, and now my C2D. It could be considered free.
> 
> Right now as a student all I'm doing is mainly programming and the occasional Youtube video.
> 
> And I have a desktop. You might be interested in knowing I travel a lot, so a desktop is not acceptable for a workstation. Hence why I have a Macbook pro.



What I'm saying is, if you're so worried about power enough to pay that much for a laptop you'd hope it'd play a game or two. If not (or doing the other things I mentioned), a much cheaper workstation would do just as well. 

Work it out however you like, Windows retail should cost about $200 + $50-60 for boot camp, hence what I said.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Work it out however you like, Windows retail should cost about $200 + $50-60 for boot camp, hence what I said.



Boot camp is free. 

http://www.apple.com/macosx/what-is-macosx/compatibility.html

No idea where you got the $50-$60.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Boot camp is free.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/what-is-macosx/compatibility.html
> 
> No idea where you got the $50-$60.



B/c I've seen people charging for it and parallels. But hey, that's nice now it's just the price of Windows yay.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Boot camp is free.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/what-is-macosx/compatibility.html
> 
> No idea where you got the $50-$60.



Ignorance is bliss...


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> B/c I've seen people charging for it and parallels. But hey, that's nice now it's just the price of Windows yay.



Yes, it's called the price of buying Apple's operating system.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> I like the way Macs have gotten, I really do. I hated them in their horrendous G3 / G4 days. But the more I see of the Mac attitude, the more I'm driven away from Mac's. However the Mac attitude has been fairly low key so far, but it can take off within a moments notice. But, its what's driven me to wash my hands of Apple thus far.



Realistically all apple does is GOOD marketing. Microsoft does the same.

How many times have we seen "More secure!" "Connect quickly and easily!"

Its the same hubbub from both ends of the party when it comes to advertising features.

Apple just gets scrutinized for every word said, whereas Microsoft is assumed guilty before they speak. Where would the Cellphone market be without the iPhone?


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Ravenas said:


> Yes, it's called the price of buying Apple's operating system.



No it's called parallels costs money and I don't use it so I was confused. I'm sure this invalidates everything I've said and thus renders myself obviously a Windows ignorant freak.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> No it's called parallels costs money and I don't use it so I was confused. I'm sure this invalidates everything I've said and thus renders myself obviously a Windows ignorant freak.



I realize parallels cost money, but Bootcamp is included in Apple's operating system and installs Windows natively, it's different than parallels and in my opinion the best option.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Well. I know you aren't going to like this. It wouldn't be as advanced forward as the iPhone did add alot of usability with its OS, however there were touchscreen phones from before hand.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> No it's called parallels costs money and I don't use it so I was confused. I'm sure this invalidates everything I've said and thus renders myself obviously a Windows ignorant freak.



Parallels is just a really handy tool that isn't available to windows users as accessibly(Or at all, IDK), which is why it's such a popular software to those of us that bootcamp OS's regularly.

Should look into it.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Ravenas said:


> I realize parallels cost money, but Bootcamp is included in Apple's operating system and installs Windows natively, it's different than parallels and in my opinion the best option.



I would agree free for equivalent = better in my book. I'm not sure why there's still a market for parallels if that is the case.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> Parallels is just a really handy tool that isn't available to windows users as accessibly(Or at all, IDK), which is why it's such a popular software to those of us that bootcamp OS's regularly.
> 
> Should look into it.



What does it do that boot camp or Windows won't?


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> I would agree free for equivalent = better in my book. I'm not sure why there's still a market for parallels if that is the case.



Parallels and Vmware fusion provide basic Virtual machines on OS X like Vmware has done so in the past, but with some really nice features that aren't available for Windows.

i.e. Unity/Coherence, and Bootcamp support.

On my MBP I run OS X, and a Bootcamp Windows 7 right now. I can boot windows 7 up in Vmware, within OS X, and run programs (Even games! i.e. TF2), or reboot into Windows 7 directly ( The exact same install!)

unity and Coherence are just a big time bonus for doing homework in Visual studio and such  This can't really be explained easily without a screenshot: http://www.pcmech.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/vmware_unity.png

Unity makes Windows windows behave like OS X windows. Dock support, etc. It's extremely handy.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Parallels and Vmware fusion provide basic Virtual machines on OS X like Vmware has done so in the past, but with some really nice features that aren't available for Windows.
> 
> i.e. Unity/Coherence, and Bootcamp support.
> 
> ...



Ah I see so it'll do VM's. I myself have no need for VM's, I'd rather just do a full reboot. But that's neato I suppose.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Ah I see so it'll do VM's. I myself have no need for VM's, I'd rather just do a full reboot. But that's neato I suppose.



This allows you to run your bootcamp partition in a "VM" with 3d support so you get the best of both worlds.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> This allows you to run your bootcamp partition in a "VM" with 3d support so you get the best of both worlds.



What do you mean 3D support? And generally running an OS in a VM is going to cripple it a bit, but it depends on what your doing whether that matters. For me if you're going to spend so much money on a mac why would you then turn around and spend money on Windows.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> What do you need more power for? Gaming or school work? But which one cost you more? I love Mac OS X I really do, I just hate Mac (I'm a big bang/buck kind of guy).



The reason I use a Windows PC for gaming is because you can't make an OEM Apple machine, and Apple doesn't share its product with other computer manufactures to produce. Thus I use a Windows machine so I can be in control of my hardware, rather than my hardware being proprietary... Buying an Apple is really just as similar as buying a Dell, except better quality and longevity in my opinion. That's after my experience using Dells and HPs for 16 years of my life

Furthermore, when buying any branded computer, I will only buy a notebook. Why? Because I can't make a notebook myself. That's where Apple comes into play in my life.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> What do you mean 3D support? And generally running an OS in a VM is going to cripple it a bit, but it depends on what your doing whether that matters. For me if you're going to spend so much money on a mac why would you then turn around and spend money on Windows.



The only thing that is going to cripple an OS running in VM is whether you have the system requirements to run it smoothly and properly.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> What do you mean 3D support? And generally running an OS in a VM is going to cripple it a bit, but it depends on what your doing whether that matters. For me if you're going to spend so much money on a mac why would you then turn around and spend money on Windows.



Parallels and Vmware fusion have DX9 support, if that's what you're asking. The Mac virtualization department is quite a bit different from the PC VT world 

I haven't actually had to "Spend money" on windows in forever. Between free college licenses, and my reliable XP retail CD, I'm all set for whatever I need. 

There is no Steam for OS X  That is actually the only software I run in Windows currently. However, I can play HL2 and TF2 from within my bootcamp VM (As soon as vmware fixes their ati bug  ).

I don't plan on buying Windows 7 at all, Microsoft will hand me a free license eventually.. and if it takes a while, I always have Vista to fall back to for Steam  (Whereas I can't resist buying Snow Leopard for $30 :O )


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 29, 2009)

Ravenas said:


> The reason I use a Windows PC for gaming is because you can't make an OEM Apple machine, and Apple doesn't share its product with other computer manufactures to produce. Thus I use a Windows machine so I can be in control of my hardware, rather than my hardware being proprietary... Buying an Apple is really just as similar as buying a Dell, except better quality and longevity in my opinion. That's after my experience using Dells and HPs for 16 years of my life
> 
> Furthermore, when buying any branded computer, I will only buy a notebook. Why? Because I can't make a notebook myself. That's where Apple comes into play in my life.



I would agree with that, and as such I have no problem recommending Apple's to certain folks. They are certainly better than most dells or HPs, and hey if you got cash to burn why not. I just would never do it, b/c for me if all I'm going to be doing is school work and browsing and such (which is what I would do on a laptop), I don't feel like I should have to spend $1000 to accomplish that. Thus I'll go w/ the $500 bang/buck every time. There are some great $500 computers out there, you just have to look. I would love to have a Mac, but I think they should start at $500 (for the current $1k one).


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 29, 2009)

Ravenas said:


> Furthermore, when buying any branded computer, I will only buy a notebook. Why? Because I can't make a notebook myself. That's where Apple comes into play in my life.




Heh, I went with no Notebooks because I couldn't customize them. I actually spent time looking up DIY notebooks to see if I'd get one that way. The only reason I actually do own one is because I shredded it apart, resoldered some chips on it and fixed my sister's broken laptop she'd given to me.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Parallels and Vmware fusion have DX9 support, if that's what you're asking. The Mac virtualization department is quite a bit different from the PC VT world
> 
> I haven't actually had to "Spend money" on windows in forever. Between free college licenses, and my reliable XP retail CD, I'm all set for whatever I need.
> 
> ...



Well really in my opinion the importance of Windows for gaming is due in large part to the proprietary Direct X software that Microsoft created. Want DirectX 10? Well Microsoft forces you to upgrade to Vista for that. I really don't think most consumers realize that.

Developers have quite literally become exclusive Direct X developers only because the computer gaming market has reached an all time low in comparison to others platforms. 

OpenGL is an equivalent or if not better platform for graphics in comparison to DirectX, and it's free + open source!







 Yet since the computer gaming market is beginning to fade away as time passes developers aren't going to develop their games for both OpenGL and DirectX (with the exception of id and EA, and id will probably begin to stop since they are now owned by Betheseda). The only thing keeping the PC market alive for now is mod friendly games and MMOs. Which in the future consoles will take this market from the PC as well.


----------



## a_ump (Jun 29, 2009)

i read a couple times by posters that OEM OS's can only be activated on 1 computer at a time. I call bullshit, simply because i used the same OEM DVD for Vista on my computer, my bro's, and my friends, with no problem activating them and all 3 comps are still activated. Course i never download and install that windows update that checks the legitamecy of your copy of windows....lol who in the hell would?

I think it's a bummer that developer's went DX instead of openGL, then people wouldn't have to have a specific OS to run a game at max visuals. i'm really interested to see what DX11 brings. Honestly if it's just barely better looking that what DX10 can do i'd be fine with it so long as DX11 is more streamlined for performance. Shit if it has the same capabilities visually as DX10 i wouldn't care either, i just want them to code games for DX11 so that most games can look like crysis without requiring the top of the line video card.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 29, 2009)

a_ump said:


> i read a couple times by posters that OEM OS's can only be activated on 1 computer at a time. I call bullshit, simply because i used the same OEM DVD for Vista on my computer, my bro's, and my friends, with no problem activating them and all 3 comps are still activated. Course i never download and install that windows update that checks the legitamecy of your copy of windows....lol who in the hell would?
> 
> I think it's a bummer that developer's went DX instead of openGL, then people wouldn't have to have a specific OS to run a game at max visuals. i'm really interested to see what DX11 brings. Honestly if it's just barely better looking that what DX10 can do i'd be fine with it so long as DX11 is more streamlined for performance. Shit if it has the same capabilities visually as DX10 i wouldn't care either, i just want them to code games for DX11 so that most games can look like crysis without requiring the top of the line video card.



In my opinion... Developers aren't going DirectX they are quite literally locked into it. Since the PC games market is so small they are obviously going to use the operating system with the largest market share. Well if you're a games developer for Windows, then you're required to use to DirectX. 

Thing is... This is also true for the Xbox. Microsoft in my opinion has created a unfair but smart, strategic advantage on its competition by doing this with the Xbox. Developers for the PC who are small and can't afford to code their game for another graphics interface such as OpenGL are obviously going to go and develop their game easily for the Xbox. Valve is a perfect example... Valve will not release Left 4 Dead or Orange Box on the PS3 simply because it will require resources that they simply don't have.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

a_ump said:


> i read a couple times by posters that OEM OS's can only be activated on 1 computer at a time. I call bullshit, simply because i used the same OEM DVD for Vista on my computer, my bro's, and my friends, with no problem activating them and all 3 comps are still activated. Course i never download and install that windows update that checks the legitamecy of your copy of windows....lol who in the hell would?



Microsoft will activate this, yes.

Legally, the OEM license is bound to the original motherboard it was first activated with.

*Legally, and what a user can get away with*  are vastly different as always 

i.e. Read the actual EULA.


----------



## a_ump (Jun 29, 2009)

ah so basically microsoft says "your not allowed to, but here's your key anyways" lol


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 29, 2009)

> Legally, no version available to the consumer allows you to do that, this was true with XP also. However, if you don't really care about breaking the EUL, and don't mind making a phone call each time you install it, any version can be install multiple times...


It's true this copy of Vista hp 64 is on It's 7th pc!!!! I've even had to talk to a person once I claimed "my mother board had burned up and since it was no longer for sale i had gotten the next best model under warranty-same brand- They then gave my new# However this can only be done "Running 1 pc with that copy" you cannot have 2 pc's with same copy unles you purchase the Full retail edition.


----------



## a_ump (Jun 29, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> It's true this copy of Vista hp 64 is on It's 7th pc!!!! I've even had to talk to a person once I claimed "my mother board had burned up and since it was no longer for sale i had gotten the next best model under warranty-same brand- They then gave my new# However this can only be done "Running 1 pc with that copy" you cannot have 2 pc's with same copy unles you purchase the Full retail edition.



correction, you cannot *legally* install an OEM OS on more than 1pc at a time . but as i mentioned my vista install came from an OEM dvd, and 2 other pc's are still running vista from the same DVD.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 29, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> I know you're likening OSX to NT. Do me a favor and look up OS9. Each iteration thereof was listed as an update. Now all of a sudden OSX calls it something else and therefore its always a whole new OS? Just because terminology changes, doesn't mean its something completely different. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. By my definition, Vista and Win7 are different, however you are adamantly applying it to 'NT' and ignoring what I'm saying.
> 
> There is no way you can tell me that the difference between XP SP1 and XP SP2 was any shorter of a jump than between the Mac iterations. It's widely regarded as the Service Pack that saved XP. I'm glad 10.5.8 is going to be free. 10.6 is not. This is what I'm talking about. 10.6.1 may be free. But you still had to pay for 10.6. If you choose to ignore that please don't respond. Hell, even Mac people I've talked to have referred to these as Service Packs. Its also worth mentioning that if you're telling me OSX is comparable to NT, I don't remember paying for NT then paying for my OSes. After all 10.0 was 129 on release wasn't it? I bet you by the time we're done with OSX, people will have paid as much from start to finish as people who bought XP then upgraded to Vista and onward until the OSX run was complete. If not a very similar number. When it comes down to it, Jobs has just found a new way to sell it to you.
> 
> ...


You are missing something about OS X here. Apple just uses a different naming scheme than most. Point releases are a major release. Snow Leopard will essentially be OS 17. They just choose to keep the OS X name for marketing reasons. Each point release of OS X brings very significant changes to the core and features of the os. It is in fact a new os. It would be like MS calling their OS Windows X and just adding a point after, so Win 7 would be Windows X.7. More clear now? It's nothing more than a different naming scheme.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> He claims he hasn't bought Windows since 2002.
> 
> When it's quite the otherwise. He bought XP in 2002 via OEM, so he had to purchase it again when he upgraded his motherboard (Giving him the benefit of the doubt, going from his 2002 machine directly to what he has now.) which would make him atleast purchase a vista OEM or xp+Vista+Windows 7.
> 
> ...


It's only a matter of time before OS X viruses happen, Dippy. Don't get complacent.



farlex85 said:


> That's pretty laughable, since now you're talking about spending another $200-300 (boot camp+windows) on top of the already much higher price machine just to do things the "lowly" cheaper machine can do, and still the cheaper one does it better (run a few demanding games in boot camp and see what I mean).
> 
> Please, remove your foot from your mouth before speaking.


It plays games in Bootcamp just as well as it would on a dedicated Win PC with the same hardware. Bootcamp is just a non-destructive repartitioning tool, multi-OS bootlaoader, and Windows driver package. When you boot to Windows, it's 100% native. No emulation or anything of the sort.


Ravenas said:


> The only thing that is going to cripple an OS running in VM is whether you have the system requirements to run it smoothly and properly.



There is still a performance loss in using any VM, regardless of platform.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

Wile E said:


> It's only a matter of time before OS X viruses happen, Dippy. Don't get complacent.



I'm waiting 

I honestly don't even think Norton AV has been updated for Intel.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 29, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Upgrading your mac, comes with an OS
> 
> So you straight up bought Vista 64 OEM for your current machine? And how much did that run you?
> 
> I used to have an iMac running 10.0... so you didn't have to buy EVERY update. I have a friend still running Tiger on his Macbook. He's happily computing away.



Upgrade your PC and it comes with an OS also.  Don't forget, you can go out and buy a pre-built and it comes with an OS, just like a Mac.  Most of us here, choose not to buy pre-builts simply because we want the flexibility of building our own, something that is impossible on the Mac side of things anyway.

If you want to focus strickly on the mainstream consumer, then PCs come with OSes just like Macs do.  And when you upgrade, you get a new OS also.

And it is very true on both sides that you don't have to buy every "update" or whatever you want to call it.  I still happily run a laptop with Win2000 on it.  The difference is that Win2000 is still recieving at least security updates from Microsoft, while OSX 10.0 recieves no support from Apple, and hasn't for years. Even if you assume people took the free upgrade to 10.1, that version hasn't been supported for years either.  And for the most part, support from Apple in the form of security patches(and yes OSX needs security patches) ends very quickly after a new product is released.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 29, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> And it is very true on both sides that you don't have to buy every "update" or whatever you want to call it.  I still happily run a laptop with Win2000 on it.  The difference is that Win2000 is still recieving at least security updates from Microsoft, while OSX 10.0 recieves no support from Apple, and hasn't for years. Even if you assume people took the free upgrade to 10.1, that version hasn't been supported for years either.  And for the most part, support from Apple in the form of security patches(and yes OSX needs security patches) ends very quickly after a new product is released.



Once again, different company, different product audience. Apple meets the needs of its audience quite well IMO. If you don't like it, don't buy it. 

Samsung no longer supports my model of LCD. Maybe we should all be hating on them too, for killing the 204B. 

Microsoft supports old software well past its lifetime. This is also why we have 2 version of windows, a 32 and 64 bit. This is also why the transition for Microsoft is so utterly painful.

Vista should have been the primary inroads for 64 bit, windows 7 should have been 64 bit only IMO. Help eliminate this rediculus version list, and obscene pricing.

but hey, why not add a whole parallel product line to confuse consumers. They already don't know what they're buying anyways.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 30, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Once again, different company, different product audience. Apple meets the needs of its audience quite well IMO. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
> 
> Samsung no longer supports my model of LCD. Maybe we should all be hating on them too, for killing the 204B.
> 
> ...


You can't blame the lack of a 64bit transition entirely on MS. They are fighting an uphill battle against lazy developers, and chip companies still releasing 32bit cpus. They have to follow market demands, and unfortunately, right now, the market still demands 32 bit versions of Windows. Linux is in the same boat, at least as far as needing to support hardware is concerned.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 30, 2009)

> You can't blame the lack of a 64bit transition entirely on MS. They are fighting an uphill battle against lazy developers, and chip companies still releasing 32bit cpus. They have to follow market demands, and unfortunately, right now, the market still demands 32 bit versions of Windows. Linux is in the same boat, at least as far as needing to support hardware is concerned.


Really we can blame MS, 64 bit can run 32bit so yeah it's Microsofts fault, it would not take long at all to rid our selves of 32bit if MS would just stop makeing 32bit. and yes i agree 7 should only be 64bit


----------



## Wile E (Jun 30, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Really we can blame MS, 64 bit can run 32bit so yeah it's Microsofts fault, it would not take long at all to rid our selves of 32bit if MS would just stop makeing 32bit. and yes i agree 7 should only be 64bit



No, 64bit can't run 32bit drivers for example, but even if you don't take software into account, the chip makers are still producing 32bit only chips. A 64bit OS won't even boot on a 32bit chip.


----------



## Cuzza (Jun 30, 2009)

A Cheese Danish said:


> AFAIK, I think it will be troublesome if you do and won't technically upgrade, but you may have to
> do a fresh install.





Dippyskoodlez said:


> Clean Install req. But it will install.



I would definitely be reinstalling. So that's cool, thanks.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 30, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Once again, different company, different product audience. Apple meets the needs of its audience quite well IMO. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
> 
> Samsung no longer supports my model of LCD. Maybe we should all be hating on them too, for killing the 204B.
> 
> ...



You mis-understood me.  I wasn't trying to say that Apple was wrong, or that it was even a bad thing that the older versions of OSX isn't supported.  I was just commenting on your claim that you still run 10.0, which is proof that people on Apple's side don't have to upgrade.  While it is true that they don't have to upgrade, neither do the people running Windows 95, but if they want continued support they do have to upgrade.


And OSX is more expensive in the long run than Windows, assuming that you buy a copy every new release.  So you should really get off your OSX-is-cheaper high horse.

Window's transition to 64-bit was much nicer than OSX's.  With Winodws it was "you got an old app that you need to use, fine we offer 32-bit support for that".  With OSX it was "you got an old app that you need to use, too fucking bad".



Wile E said:


> You can't blame the lack of a 64bit transition entirely on MS. They are fighting an uphill battle against lazy developers, and chip companies still releasing 32bit cpus. They have to follow market demands, and unfortunately, right now, the market still demands 32 bit versions of Windows. Linux is in the same boat, at least as far as needing to support hardware is concerned.



Very true also.  While Apple dictates what hardware OSX is run on, Microsoft does not have that luxtury, at least not nearly as much as Apple does.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> You mis-understood me.  I wasn't trying to say that Apple was wrong, or that it was even a bad thing that the older versions of OSX.  I was just commenting on your claim that you still run 10.0, which is proof that people on Apple's side don't have to upgrade.  While it is true that they don't have to upgrade, neither do the people running Windows 95, but if they want continued support they do have to upgrade.
> 
> 
> And OSX is more expensive in the long run than Windows, assuming that you buy a copy every new release.  So you should really get off your OSX-is-cheaper high horse.
> ...


That's not true at all. 32 bit apps still work. 

Hell, when they went Intel, the PPC apps still worked (and still do work). PPC is supported until Snow Leopard releases.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 1, 2009)

> No, 64bit can't run 32bit drivers for example, but even if you don't take software into account, the chip makers are still producing 32bit only chips. A 64bit OS won't even boot on a 32bit chip.


And those are generally for products like Netbooks and not new Pc's. As far as for New pc's Name 1 new cpu without x64 architecture (The Atom is not a Pc cpu), x86 programs can easily run under x64 with WOW64, so again why Keep x86 going for Pc's, when older x86 cpu's have already hit their practical limits with there existing x86 Os's. Now when it comes to products like Netbooks MS would do themselves a favor and not offer an OS under the Same name line,such as, instead of W7 32 Starter maybe -Windows GO- for example,But for Pc's it should only be offered at x64.
Oh yeah, It's been at least a year since I've seen a x86 Pc product,That's not sold for something like a netbook,It's highly unlikely your going to buy a Pc with Windows 7 and use something that needs x86,and if you do it's time to upgrade anyways!!!!!!!!


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> And those are generally for products like Netbooks and not new Pc's. As far as for New pc's Name 1 new cpu without x64 architecture (The Atom is not a Pc cpu), x86 programs can easily run under x64 with WOW64, so again why Keep x86 going for Pc's, when older x86 cpu's have already hit their practical limits with there existing x86 Os's. Now when it comes to products like Netbooks MS would do themselves a favor and not offer an OS under the Same name line,such as, instead of W7 32 Starter maybe -Windows GO- for example,But for Pc's it should only be offered at x64.
> Oh yeah, It's been at least a year since I've seen a x86 Pc product,That's not sold for something like a netbook,It's highly unlikely your going to buy a Pc with Windows 7 and use something that needs x86,and if you do it's time to upgrade anyways!!!!!!!!



Whether you like it or not, Atom qualifies as a new PC part. As does Nano. Atom is very much in demand right now, and therefore, so are 32bit OSes. It wouldn't make sense for MS to abandon 32 bit with Atom's popularity. It's simple economics.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 1, 2009)

> Whether you like it or not, Atom qualifies as a new PC part. As does Nano. Atom is very much in demand right now, and therefore, so are 32bit OSes. It wouldn't make sense for MS to abandon 32 bit with Atom's popularity. It's simple economics.


I do not think The Atom or the Nano are Home Pc Cpu's they are for mobile platforms and as such are marketed that way, so i believe it would be in Microsoft's interests not to abandon 32bit Os's but market them for such product's and not Home pc's.Now as far as Home Pc's they should abandon 32bit Os's as it is a total waste For current Home Pc hardware


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> I do not think The Atom or the Nano are Home Pc Cpu's they are for mobile platforms and as such are marketed that way, so i believe it would be in Microsoft's interests not to abandon 32bit Os's but market them for such product's and not Home pc's.Now as far as Home Pc's they should abandon 32bit Os's as it is a total waste For current Home Pc hardware



Then how do explain the mini PCs and All in ones based on Atom? The market is still there, therefore 32bit will still be developed.

Not to mention the business side of things. They want to attract major corporations into using a new OS. Very many of these companies may rely on older computer controlled equipment that has no 64bit drivers. If there was no 32 bit version, they would have to spend even more money to upgrade hardware, or at very least commission a team of programmers to write and debug custom drivers. Both adding unwanted expense.

You are thinking in far too narrow of a market. If the demand for 32bit wasn't there, MS wouldn't make it. But as it stands, the market still calls for 32bit, whether we like that fact or not.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 1, 2009)

> Then how do explain the mini PCs and All in ones based on Atom? The market is still there, therefore 32bit will still be developed.


Yeah exactly, if MS would market W7 32 towards these systems and not towards home Pc's that would be fine by me.


> Not to mention the business side of things. They want to attract major corporations into using a new OS. Very many of these companies may rely on older computer controlled equipment that has no 64bit drivers. If there was no 32 bit version, they would have to spend even more money to upgrade hardware, or at very least commission a team of programmers to write and debug custom drivers. Both adding unwanted expense.


Exactly Right! again, We call this progress. Look business's are getting huge Tax write off's to upgrade and I mean huge like 100%, if they spend enough so why offer old crap!!
And look at it this way how much longer do you think MS is going to offer 32bit,what like 2 years
It's how the economic stimulus plan work's, companies upgrade  put us to work and we all progress


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 1, 2009)

Look I'm not saying take XP 32 or Vista 32 off the market I'm just saying leave it at that. Most companies are still running Xp with Office 2003, and when they upgrade they should do so with 64bit OS's, it only makes business sense to do so, unless they are misinformed. 
As for Netbooks and all in ones I do think MS should make a 32bit OS but not call it W7 as it will not have nearly the same features as W7 That's why I think MS would do best to call it something different.
The main rerason I think MS is still offering 32bit is this, BAD PUBLICITY, they cannot afford to have another Vista Blunder, you know cause a lot of people still think Vista sucks when it far exceeds Xp in every way. They just don't need more press on how most Pc's are not compatable, so they will offer 32bit until people get to know W7 as  A RELIABLE OS and then will most likely cut 32bit support


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 1, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Y
> Window's transition to 64-bit was much nicer than OSX's.  With Winodws it was "you got an old app that you need to use, fine we offer 32-bit support for that".  With OSX it was "you got an old app that you need to use, too fucking bad"..



Instead, Microsoft milks supporting old, outdated tools and utilities, and CODE, to the point where it hinders a users's experience of the product.

instead, Apple forces developers to do what they do best. Fix the broken stuff.

God forbid a company force developers to not be lazy with their products 

Normally they are given quite a lead time with advancing their program, too. Carbon not being supported was known at the start of the Intel transition, and is finally being phased out with Snow Leopard. 

Hardly Apple's fault, for doing their job of properly progressing their software.

Instead, we have Microsoft keeping VB6 alive on life support, because people are too ingrained into ineffecient, and pile of shit code. if Microsoft didn't design these half assed solutions in the first place, they wouldn't be in the upgrade mess that they are now. (Looking at you office 2007, deciding to drop Lotus Notes support. Way to make our life hell.)



jmcslob said:


> And look at it this way how much longer do you think MS is going to offer 32bit,what like 2 years



Since win7 is releasing 32 bit, probably another 5.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 1, 2009)

> Since win7 is releasing 32 bit, probably another 5.


I really hope not. and your right about apple well said


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2009)

Wile E said:


> That's not true at all. 32 bit apps still work.
> 
> Hell, when they went Intel, the PPC apps still worked (and still do work). PPC is supported until Snow Leopard releases.



You're right, I didn't mean app, I don't know wny I said app, I was talking more hardware.  I got so many calls from people wondering why they couldn't get certain hardware to work with their new Mac when it worked fine with their old.  Printers were a real nightmare, as it seems printer manufacturers really lag behind on releasing support for 64 bit on both platforms.

And the PPC app support has been laughable at best, half the PPC apps never worked, forcing consumers to either wait for an x86 port, or find a different product if one existed.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> Instead, Microsoft milks supporting old, outdated tools and utilities, and CODE, to the point where it hinders a users's experience of the product.
> 
> instead, Apple forces developers to do what they do best. Fix the broken stuff.
> 
> ...



I find it funny how you contradict yourself in the same post just to try and make Microsoft look bad.  You bitch about them not dropping support for old code and instead milking it, when in reality they are simply still trying to support as many hardware configurations as possible.  This is in fact a good thing, IMO.

Then you turn right back around and bash Microsoft for dropping Lotus Notes support...A platform so ancient running on code so old, most of the industry agrees that it should have died ages ago.  But instead it hasn't, and has continued to recieve new releases for the sole reason that it continued to have Microsoft Office support...

There is no point in arguing about it really though.  Apple's transition and Microsoft transition was very different because the two are in different business models.  Microsoft has always had to support as many hardware configurations as possible, while Apple doesn't.  It was a lot easier for Apple to transition to 64-bit than it was for Microsoft because Microsoft still *has* to support 32-bit hardware.  While Apple can tell anyone not capable of running 64-bit "Fuck off, go buy some new hardware".  After all, forcing people to buying new hardware by dropping support for hardware only a few years old is part of Apples business model also.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 1, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> And the PPC app support has been laughable at best, half the PPC apps never worked, forcing consumers to either wait for an x86 port, or find a different product if one existed.


Lol? Rosetta was an amazing creation. Wolfenstein Enemy territory is still PPC. And guess what? It still plays fine on my C2D. 



> I find it funny how you contradict yourself in the same post just to try and make Microsoft look bad.  You bitch about them not dropping support for old code and instead milking it, when in reality they are simply still trying to support as many hardware configurations as possible.  This is in fact a good thing, IMO.


Sure, supporting standards that weren't even good in the first place for 30 years is always a good idea. Go play with your VB6 some more.


> Then you turn right back around and bash Microsoft for dropping Lotus Notes support...A platform so ancient running on code so old, most of the industry agrees that it should have died ages ago.  But instead it hasn't, and has continued to recieve new releases for the sole reason that it continued to have Microsoft Office support...


Yes, because did you even know they dropped Lotus support? It's not advertised. We only found out because we got a support call from our payroll department, crying because excel wasn't working with their setup. Only to find out, we can't upgrade their office, because they dropped 100% Lotus support.



> It was a lot easier for Apple to transition to 64-bit than it was for Microsoft because Microsoft still *has* to support 32-bit hardware.  While Apple can tell anyone not capable of running 64-bit "Fuck off, go buy some new hardware".  After all, forcing people to buying new hardware by dropping support for hardware only a few years old is part of Apples business model also.


Microsoft should leave vista alive for 32 bit, and windows 7 for 64 bit. Everyone's happy. Which is exactly what I proposed earlier.

And of course apple can say "fuck off" to people wanting snow leopard that cannot run it on their current hardware.

Why?

Because all intel macs are 64 bit. If you can't run snow leopard, that means you're running PPC still.

Convenient? Or just well played cards?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Lol? Rosetta was an amazing creation. Wolfenstein Enemy territory is still PPC. And guess what? It still plays fine on my C2D.



Yet it fails to support productive apps...:shadedshu



Dippyskoodlez said:


> Sure, supporting standards that weren't even good in the first place for 30 years is always a good idea. Go play with your VB6 some more.



Could that statement be anymore trollish flamebait?  I would expect a mod to at least attempt to act like one.  Are you even capable of having a discussion without posting flamebait statements like these?  It seems like every discussion I see you post in, you are trolling and Microsoft bashing.  Your a mod, act like it...  A normal forum user shouldn't need to tell you these things...

At the time VB was developed, there wasn't anything better.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> Yes, because did you even know they dropped Lotus support? It's not advertised. We only found out because we got a support call from our payroll department, crying because excel wasn't working with their setup. Only to find out, we can't upgrade their office, because they dropped 100% Lotus support.



Actually, yes I did, because I prefer to educate myself instead of just bashing Microsoft whenever they do anything.  And I jumped up and down with joy when I found out.  No one should still be using Locus Notes, the program was a POS the day it was released, and it is an even bigger POS today compared to the alternatives.

And if you are trying to open Lotus files in Office, you should have converted them to Office files a long time ago...:shadedshu




Dippyskoodlez said:


> Microsoft should leave vista alive for 32 bit, and windows 7 for 64 bit. Everyone's happy. Which is exactly what I proposed earlier.



That isn't Microsoft's business model, and would piss off a lot of people with 32-bit hardware, me being one of them.  There are still brand new computers being released on the market without 64-bit support, Microsoft would be idiotic to not support these computers with their latest OS.  Again, Microsoft doesn't have the luxury that Apple has, they don't control the hardware their OS runs on.  They would be bashed beyond belief if they dropped 32-bit support in Win7, look how badly they were bashed when they raised the minimum memory up to 512MB...

In fact, if they did drop 32-bit support from Win7, I bet you would be one of the first ones to bash Microsoft for doing it...



Dippyskoodlez said:


> And of course apple can say "fuck off" to people wanting snow leopard that cannot run it on their current hardware.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



I find it odd how completely wrong you are here.  For someone that loves Apple so much, I would expect you to actually know what you are talking about when it comes to them.  Or at least do some research.

The first iMacs and Macbooks used the standard Core Duo, with no 64-bit support.  According to Apple, Snow Leapard will work with these processors...meaning Apple is still doing exactly what you are bashing Microsoft for, supporting 32-bit and confusing the transition...

I'm done arguing, you clearly have little clue as to what you are even saying.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> You're right, I didn't mean app, I don't know wny I said app, I was talking more hardware.  I got so many calls from people wondering why they couldn't get certain hardware to work with their new Mac when it worked fine with their old.  Printers were a real nightmare, as it seems printer manufacturers really lag behind on releasing support for 64 bit on both platforms.
> 
> And the PPC app support has been laughable at best, half the PPC apps never worked, forcing consumers to either wait for an x86 port, or find a different product if one existed.
> 
> ...


I agree with this explanation, for the most part. Maybe disagree on some of the details, but yeah, most of this can be explained by both Apple and MS operating on completely different business models. MS could never get away with operating like Apple. BTW, in defense of Apple (because your post does come off as a bit anti-Apple) this transition to 64bit really only excludes PPC based Macs. They are well old enough, I would think. So it's not like they are doing something completely horrible. They've been saying that Leopard is the last PPC release since they first went Intel. People have had plenty of warning to get their affairs in order.

AS far as MS needing 32bit support, I agree. It still needs to have it, at least right now with 7. Tho I think 7 should be the last. MS's market is much larger. It has to support ALL current x86 and x86-64 hardware. Apple can get away with dropping 32bit support because they're OS is written for very specific hardware, MS doesn't have that luxury. I'm glad they stuck with 32bit on 7. At first I thought it was silly, but then I realized how well 7 performs, and realized it would be great on a netbook, unlike Vista.


I also disagree on the PPC support. Trusty me, it is very, VERY good. I still have a G5 PowerMac sitting here to compare to my Core2 iMac. When we got the iMac, almost everything that ran on my G5, still ran on the iMac, including PPC only apps. Adobe, MS Office, Maya, Cubase, Reason, and a bunch of others I can't think of, all worked without a problem. The only exceptions were those that require specific drivers and such. Yeah, they took a little bit of a performance hit, but considering it had to emulate an entirely different architecture, and do it seamlessly, Apple did one hell of a job on it. Even you have to admit it.


----------



## hat (Jul 6, 2009)

Remember these prices are retail. Most of us will be using OEM
Additionally Vista SP2 still works fine, and hell, so does XP... nothing wrong with XP except for no dx10 support (which really isn't a big deal...)


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 6, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I agree with this explanation, for the most part. Maybe disagree on some of the details, but yeah, most of this can be explained by both Apple and MS operating on completely different business models. MS could never get away with operating like Apple. BTW, in defense of Apple (because your post does come off as a bit anti-Apple) this transition to 64bit really only excludes PPC based Macs. They are well old enough, I would think. So it's not like they are doing something completely horrible. They've been saying that Leopard is the last PPC release since they first went Intel. People have had plenty of warning to get their affairs in order.
> 
> AS far as MS needing 32bit support, I agree. It still needs to have it, at least right now with 7. Tho I think 7 should be the last. MS's market is much larger. It has to support ALL current x86 and x86-64 hardware. Apple can get away with dropping 32bit support because they're OS is written for very specific hardware, MS doesn't have that luxury. I'm glad they stuck with 32bit on 7. At first I thought it was silly, but then I realized how well 7 performs, and realized it would be great on a netbook, unlike Vista.
> 
> ...



Thank you.  I'm sorry if it came off a little Anti-Apple, I didn't mean it to.  If anything, the only thing I don't like is when people try to compare Apple to Microsoft and say Microsoft is wrong for doing something differently than Apple.  People need to understand that they have different business models, and essentially different customer bases.  The customer bases might overlap in certian areas, but for the most part they are different.  So they have to act differently.

My only problem with Apple dropping PPC support is now a lot of people's Power Macs aren't supported.  Those were extremely expensive mahcines, and sold well into 2006.  To have no new OS support on a computer that is only 3 years old sucks, IMO.  I really feel bad for all the customers of the expensive PPC machine that Apple is screwing over with the latest OS release.  IMO, they should have supported PPC for at least 10 years after the Intel switch.  As there are some pretty expensive, and pretty powerful PPC machines still in use today.  Even if support for PPC was limitted to G5s only, that would be enough IMO, but there should be some PPC support still.

And you are exactly right, Win7 needs 32-bit support because Microsoft still has a huge 32-bit hardware install base.  Remember the huge backlash Microsoft had to deal with simply because they raised the memory requirement to 512MB...image how bad it would be if they required a 64-bit processor!  Apple can do things like dropping support for huge amounts of hardware still in use today, because it fits their business model, and their customers expect it.  However, Microsoft can not.

And Vista runs wonderfully on my Netbook, it actually runs better than XP Home did.  The memory management on Vista is so much better than XP, even though it doesn't look like it from the outside(as more memory tends to be taken up at any one time).  I can't wait for Win7 though, it should be even better than Vista on netbooks.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 7, 2009)

IF you buy VISTA OEM right now you get a W7 upgrade coupon for W7 for VISTA hp,business & ultimate 
IF you Buy W7 hp or ultimate or business RETAIL you get THE FAMILY PACK LICENSE 3 PC'S FOR EACH COPY FOR THE SAME HOUSE


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 7, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> My only problem with Apple dropping PPC support is now a lot of people's Power Macs aren't supported.  Those were extremely expensive mahcines, and sold well into 2006.  To have no new OS support on a computer that is only 3 years old sucks, IMO.  I really feel bad for all the customers of the expensive PPC machine that Apple is screwing over with the latest OS release.  IMO, they should have supported PPC for at least 10 years after the Intel switch.  As there are some pretty expensive, and pretty powerful PPC machines still in use today.  Even if support for PPC was limitted to G5s only, that would be enough IMO, but there should be some PPC support still.



I had a G3. I had a G4 powerbook Ti, and a Powerbook G4 AL.

I also know an admin of many PPC's, including a few G5's in his inventory.

Leopard is fine. Get over it?

I know I certainly don't care about dropping support, nor have I met a single mac user that does. It's called technology. It gets outdated. It's not like those PPC systems are useless. Most apps on them run fine, and will forever you just can't have the latest and greatest CS4, boo hoo. You don't have any ability to take advantage of the hardware acceleration and such being added in the programs anyways, on a PPC.

Sometimes you just have to give up old technology. Often times, its for the better. Windows users need to learn this. ... -.- Look at how long the Floppy took to kill off. 32 bit is a parasite that will -never- die, without a little force.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 7, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> I had a G3. I had a G4 powerbook Ti, and a Powerbook G4 AL.
> 
> I also know an admin of many PPC's, including a few G5's in his inventory.
> 
> ...


Dippy, you can't kill 32bit when 32bit cpus are still being designed and released.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 7, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> IF you buy VISTA OEM right now you get a W7 upgrade coupon for W7 for VISTA hp,business & ultimate
> IF you Buy W7 hp or ultimate or business RETAIL you get THE FAMILY PACK LICENSE 3 PC'S FOR EACH COPY FOR THE SAME HOUSE



Is this 100% true? You're saying if I buy Vista OEM I can get an upgrade coupon for W7 that can be used to get a retail version of Ultimate or Business allowing me 3 PCs for one purchase? I have 3 PCs, 1 running Vista and 2 that are / will be running the Windows 7 RC 7100. Will this deal continue past the release date of Win7? I wasn't going to buy Windows 7 right away, I was going to wait until my RCs were nearing their end of use date. By then I'll already be 6-7 months into the release of Windows 7. If I wait until then, will I lose out on the free upgrade coupon?


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 7, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Dippy, you can't kill 32bit when 32bit cpus are still being designed and released.



I love how true, yet rediculus this statement is.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 7, 2009)

> Is this 100% true? You're saying if I buy Vista OEM I can get an upgrade coupon for W7 that can be used to get a retail version of Ultimate or Business allowing me 3 PCs for one purchase? I have 3 PCs, 1 running Vista and 2 that are / will be running the Windows 7 RC 7100. Will this deal continue past the release date of Win7? I wasn't going to buy Windows 7 right away, I was going to wait until my RCs were nearing their end of use date. By then I'll already be 6-7 months into the release of Windows 7. If I wait until then, will I lose out on the free upgrade coupon?


not quite
oem=oem
retail=retail
If you buy oem now you get to upgrade oem
Edit: to be honest i'm not seeing it for the retail version's i can only find it for the oem's
Edit: but the retail version's of W7   ultimate will still have the family license
Edit:according to zdnet W7 home premium may also have the family license but is not confirmed and business may not be offered with family license
edit:http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1145&tag=nl.e550


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 7, 2009)

> I love how true, yet rediculus this statement is.


i know exactly what you mean......
Seriously why continue to make new 32bit software for old technology....And i don't care if the Atom is a new proc or not it's still old technology just made smaller and more efficient... really nothing new about..so why not just re-lable the old crap for it...


----------



## Wile E (Jul 7, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> I love how true, yet rediculus this statement is.



How is it ridiculous Dippy? Apple has a vested interest in hardware, therefore they only need to support 64bit on Snow Leopard so they can push new sales of their systems to those that still have PPC macs, but want Snow Leopard. Apple is known for forced hardware upgrading (although this time it's not artificial).

MS has no vested interest in hardware, so there is no benefit to them dropping 32bit support. If they drop 32 bit support, they lose sales to an entire market segment. Dropping 32bit support actually LOSES them money, as they don't sale hardware to make up the losses.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 7, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> I had a G3. I had a G4 powerbook Ti, and a Powerbook G4 AL.
> 
> I also know an admin of many PPC's, including a few G5's in his inventory.
> 
> Leopard is fine. Get over it?



If Leopard was fine, there wouldn't be a need for new releases to replace it.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> I know I certainly don't care about dropping support, nor have I met a single mac user that does. It's called technology. It gets outdated. It's not like those PPC systems are useless. Most apps on them run fine, and will forever you just can't have the latest and greatest CS4, boo hoo. You don't have any ability to take advantage of the hardware acceleration and such being added in the programs anyways, on a PPC.



This statement is laughable, and again I think at this point you are trying your hardest to come off as a troll.

I certainly don't care that you don't care.  I also doubt you spent $10,000 on a Power Mac either...I bet those people care.  I also bet those are the same people that would find not being able to use CS4 a problem.  The professionals that I've talked to that use this stuff on a daily basis are all pretty annoyed...

But again, your statement also rings back to the different customer bases that Apple and Microsoft have to deal with.  On the consumer level, Apple has molded their customers to say exactly what you have.  They have molded them to be perfectly accepting of their perfectly capable hardware being made obsolete by Apple.  They are used to simply throwing hardware away, and buying new.  After all, that is one of the major ways Apple makes money.  It is a hardware company just as much as it is a software company.  So getting people to buy new hardware along with the new OS is in their best interest.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> Sometimes you just have to give up old technology. Often times, its for the better. Windows users need to learn this. ... -.- Look at how long the Floppy took to kill off. 32 bit is a parasite that will -never- die, without a little force.



Unfortunately, that isn't Microsoft's call.  They don't make the hardware, so they have to continue 32-bit support.  Windows users aren't used to being forced into hardware upgrades, and they certainly don't do so willingly.  Especially when the hardware is only a few years old.  

To an extent, I agree though, Windows users need to learn to give up and move on at some point.  Pentium IIIs still shouldn't be in use, yet people still bring them into my shop.  And they will often times spend more moeny for me to fix them, then it would cost to just go out and buy a new machine...

With Apples drop of support of PPC, at least the PPC computers were out of production for some time before they did it.  What you are asking Microsoft to do is simply stop support for hardware that is still being produced today.  That means computer that are still being sold today, computers still sitting on the shelves in stores, would not support the latest OS.  That would idiotic.  The hardware/processor manufactures need to make this transition before Microsoft does.  Intel and AMD are the ones that you should be putting the blame on, not Microsoft.

There needs to be a point where old hardware simply isn't support anymore, I certainly can agree with that.  However, I think 3 years is far too short.  5 years would be a little more realistic to me.  Hopefully, we are nearing the end of 32-bit processor production, and we start to see Intel and AMD move to 64-bit only production.  And hopefully, this means that by the time the next version of Windows after 7 is released, it will require 64-bit.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 7, 2009)

In other words, Intel and VIA need to make Atom and Nano both 64bit. (Bet that would speed them up quite a bit too.)

And I think if I bought a PowerMac Quad I would be a bit upset if it was already being made obsolete. I think Apple should've waited one more OS release to drop PPC support. Although, in their defense, at least they did warn everybody this was coming.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 7, 2009)

Wile E said:


> And I think if I bought a PowerMac Quad I would be a bit upset if it was already being made obsolete. I think Apple should've waited one more OS release to drop PPC support. Although, in their defense, at least they did warn everybody this was coming.



So why is noone upset about AMD not supporting 754 and 939 anymore?

My 939 A64 is much newer than a G5, yet i don't hear you guys crying.

If anything, PC's are the king at abandoning old hardware. Difference is, Microsoft wastes their time catering to people that aren't willing to upgrade.

Also, chances are if you rely on CS4 work, you aren't using a $10,000 G5 from 5 years ago. You have a c2d or better. If you spent $10,000 on a G5 right before intels launched... well, frankly you're a dumbass. GTFO my internets.




Wile E said:


> How is it ridiculous Dippy?



it's rediculus because hardware vendors are damn well aware of the incoming 64 bit transition. Microsoft is making the right call supporting 32 bit on atoms, obviously.

I called it rediculus, because the hardware is intentionally crippled, while 64 bit designs are continuing to take over the market. Its pretty obvious.

Yet they're after quick cash.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> So why is noone upset about AMD not supporting 754 and 939 anymore?
> 
> My 939 A64 is much newer than a G5, yet i don't hear you guys crying.
> 
> ...


Broken analogy. 754 and 939 still support the newest non-apple oses, Win 7 included.

And those $10000 G5's aren't 5 years old. G5's were sold until mid-2006. The big model was the PowerMac Quad.

You seem to forget I own Apple products, Dippy. I like them. I have a Core 2 iMac 20", 1.6GHz PowerMac G5 and my iPhone 3G. The difference between you and I is, I'm not a blind follower. I recognize a company's flaws when I see them. 

Not everything Apple does is right or golden. As another example of where they force hardware upgrades for no good reason, why doesn't iPhone 2G get MMS support with OS 3.0? It's perfectly capable of it.

Or how about when they dropped G3 support in Panther and Tiger, yet the hackers showed that those G3 notebooks they sold until the end of '03 were perfectly capable of running both, just as well as they ran 10.2. Both OSes even still had the needed kexts in them for the G3 machines. Apple blocked them with a hardware check. A simple prom flash enabled both 10.3 and 10.4 to install.






Dippyskoodlez said:


> it's rediculus because hardware vendors are damn well aware of the incoming 64 bit transition. Microsoft is making the right call supporting 32 bit on atoms, obviously.
> 
> I called it rediculus, because the hardware is intentionally crippled, while 64 bit designs are continuing to take over the market. Its pretty obvious.
> 
> Yet they're after quick cash.


But you are bitching about it like it's MS's fault, but it's not. Bitch at Intel and Via for making these 32bit chips.

MS's hand is forced in that area.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> But you are bitching about it like it's MS's fault, but it's not. Bitch at Intel and Via for making these 32bit chips.
> 
> MS's hand is forced in that area.



If microsoft had the balls to make Windows 7 a 64 bit only OS, and leave Vista for 32 bit support, hardware guys would probably quickly change their tune. They wanna sell it with the LATEST AND GREATEST!


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> If microsoft had the balls to make Windows 7 a 64 bit only OS, and leave Vista for 32 bit support, hardware guys would probably quickly change their tune. They wanna sell it with the LATEST AND GREATEST!



How is it about balls? They would lose sales if they did that. It makes no financial sense for them to discontinue 32bit development. It's purely in the hands of the hardware devs.


----------



## DaveK (Jul 8, 2009)

This is most likely going to be $1 = €1 like most things, it's $199 in the US and in Ireland it will probably be €199 which is $275 and so on, pffft.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> How is it about balls? They would lose sales if they did that. It makes no financial sense for them to discontinue 32bit development. It's purely in the hands of the hardware devs.



Oh yeah, I forgot, Microsoft wants everyone to buy Vista all over again.


Except this time, with EXTRA BLING!


----------



## Wile E (Jul 8, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot, Microsoft wants everyone to buy Vista all over again.
> 
> 
> Except this time, with EXTRA BLING!


And Apple does the same, so your point is moot.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 8, 2009)

Wile E said:


> And Apple does the same, so your point is moot.



Yeah, snow leopard is pure bling. That is why its got almost no graphical UI changes. 

And snow leopard is $200.

Snow leopard actually has a legit reason for being a seperate release. It doesn't support PPC and strips PPC code out of the OS. 2 Leopard branches would be rediculus.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 9, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Yeah, snow leopard is pure bling. That is why its got almost no graphical UI changes.
> 
> And snow leopard is $200.
> 
> Snow leopard actually has a legit reason for being a seperate release. It doesn't support PPC and strips PPC code out of the OS. 2 Leopard branches would be rediculus.



Win7 has "almost no graphical UI changes" from what I've seen also.  Most of the changes are backend changes, just like in Snow Leopard.

I assume you mean "Snow Leopard *isn't* $200".  To which I respond, neither is Win7.  Home Premium should be available for under $100.

And stripping support for hardware that is still very capable doesn't seem like a very legit reason to release an OS to me.  It seems more like they are just trying to get people to re-buy hardware...

So by your accounts, Apple is just trying to get people to re-buy hardware to run a re-release of Leopard.  While Microsoft is just trying to get us to re-buy Vista.  Which is better?



Wile E said:


> You seem to forget I own Apple products, Dippy. I like them. I have a Core 2 iMac 20", 1.6GHz PowerMac G5 and my iPhone 3G. The difference between you and I is, I'm not a blind follower. I recognize a company's flaws when I see them.



This.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 9, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> And stripping support for hardware that is still very capable doesn't seem like a very legit reason to release an OS to me.  It seems more like they are just trying to get people to re-buy hardware...



Developing PPC code is very profitable. For both developers and users.

PowerPC will also benefit greatly from a x86-64 OS.
PowerPC will also get benefit out of Grand Centeral in Snow leopard.
PowerPC Will also benefit greatly out of openCL for GPU's it doesn't have.
PowerPC Will benefit from the re-written Airport code for new airport cards not included in PowerPC machines.
PowerPC will benefit from HFS+ read and write support from bootcamp drivers.
PowerPC will benefit from Hardware Multitouch gestures that aren't physically in the trackpads.
PowerPC will benefit from Quicktime X for HD video the CPU's can't handle.

You know, you're right. I see exactly why you want Snow leopard to keep it's powerPC code.

PowerPC would reap some pretty nice benefits and totally be capable of making use of your $30 upgrade.

/sarcasm

Snow Leopard wouldn't even be useful for a PowerPC machine. 90% of the improvements are hardware related.

OS X is not directly an OS like windows, its role is much more similar to what firmware does.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 9, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Developing PPC code is very profitable. For both developers and users.
> 
> PowerPC will also benefit greatly from a x86-64 OS.
> PowerPC will also get benefit out of Grand Centeral in Snow leopard.
> ...



Most of those things don't warrant a new OS in the fist place, all of those things should be released as patches, not a complete new OS.  But then Apple couldn't strip the PPC code out, and force people to buy more hardware...

And Snow Leopard isn't even close to a firmware, you are totally full of shit on that one.

And you really don't think G5's can't handle HD Video?

Wow...

I'm done with you, you don't have a clue.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 9, 2009)

Geeese!! a little anger here
Look at like this....
Apple is garbage! for the gamer and the general public but good for professional- and i do get the firmware comment, think wireless router gui just beefed up
Microsoft is re-lableing Vista and calling it Windows 7, they have too! nobody wants to hear Vista is a good operating system(Thanks Apple)
All W7 is, Is vista done right.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 9, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Apple is garbage! for the gamer



**Fixed.

They're actually absolutely perfect for most actual "consumers".

And even then, that's making macs look they they don't have any games...

But I see a nifty half life 2 icon in my dock..


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 9, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Most of those things don't warrant a new OS in the fist place, all of those things should be released as patches, not a complete new OS.



And what does Windows 7 bring over Windows XP and vista?

Stability? performance? Minor features?

Didn't you just say these should be released as patches?




newtekie1 said:


> And Snow Leopard isn't even close to a firmware, you are totally full of shit on that one.



Its called an analogy.

THESE BE COMPLEX TERMS YO.

It's obvious snow leopard isn't "firmware", that would a moronic statement. I said fills the ROLE of firmware(For an end user). Users buy a "computer". They "use this computer" much like an mp3 player or phone. They don't understand the "OS" thing, and they don't really give a rats ass if it's GOOGLE OS 3 BILLION, or GENERIC CHINA MADE OS 1.1.

They want to DO something on it and it needs to WORK.

Instead, windows users get to worry about ad-ware, spyware, anti-virus, drivers, and everything else... Most people don't even know what ad-aware does.

But go ahead, buy your windows 7. I'm happy with my properly functioning OS. I enjoy not running anti-virus, or scanning for spyware. Maybe someday Microsoft'll get the message. It's probably gonna take google to bite them in the rear to do it, with Google OS.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 9, 2009)

Yes. Windows users have to have Anti-Virus or other scanning programs because Microsoft doesn't get that it should have a secure operating system. Those system patches? They're simply to implement things like different funny computer sounds for different tasks. Most people don't know this and keep all the sounds default. 

Apple does have viruses and the like out there for them. In fact, I remember Apple themselves telling people to run an Anti-Virus on their computer. Link for the non-believers. They just don't have a lot. Why not? Simply because people don't care to mess with the 'smaller market share' Apple, or the coder of the virus was a disgruntled Linux user. 

Furthermore, I'll point you to this article. Take from it what you will.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 9, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Apple does have viruses and the like out there for them. In fact, I remember Apple themselves telling people to run an Anti-Virus on their computer. Link for the non-believers. They just don't have a lot. Why not? Simply because people don't care to mess with the 'smaller market share' Apple, or the coder of the virus was a disgruntled Linux user.



Regardless wether it's "actually" secure is irrelevent right now.

There's nothing at the current time to warrant actually wasting computer resources on a spyware scanner or anti-virus, so why should I?

Until Mac users actually have to worry about a virus, that argument is moot. It is not a realistic problem at this point in time.

Everyone cares about that extra 30mhz on this forum, but yet allows ad-ware scanners and anti-virus to eat resources.






LOL.

/unsubscribe


----------



## hat (Jul 9, 2009)

After reading the last 2 pages.. my head is full of f***


----------



## El Fiendo (Jul 9, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Regardless wether it's "actually" secure is irrelevent right now.
> 
> There's nothing at the current time to warrant actually wasting computer resources on a spyware scanner or anti-virus, so why should I?
> 
> ...





Why does everyone assume that, as a PC user, we spend countless hours fixing our computer? Forfeiting sleep and social interaction and skin on our knuckles just to have our computers run in only the barest means of what could be considered running. Why is this the image portrayed?

You know how much time I've spent fixing and scanning my Vista install in the past 3 months? Probably less than 6 hours, 4 of which have been the monthly checkups I do. And only 3 months because that's about as far back as I can remember. I spend more time with the side of the case open tinkering hardware then I ever do fixing software. I haven't scanned my computer for a month, its about time for its monthly checkup with the Avast and MalwareBytes Anti Malware, yet I'm certain its uninfected. Past few scans that I can remember have been clean and I'm very active on the internet in terms of surfing and downloading. Windows Defender, UAC and a hardware firewall keep me plenty safe, and the monthly scan is a just in case. Yes, I use UAC. Why? In the end one extra click on only some programs won't freaking kill me. Yes, its only on some programs, maybe about 20% of the programs I use. My computer runs non stop because it folds, which means I only have to hit 'Yes' on UAC once every downtime.

Oh, and in between times Avast and Malware Bytes aren't running. I save as much MHz for folding as possible.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 9, 2009)

You know what the best part of this is.
Windows 7 is Microsoft's way of telling Apple fanboys to shut up and fuck off!
Really... It's Vista that can run on far better range of pc's
It has a family pack option
It's 32 & 64bit (though im not a fan of dragging old pc's along)
It play's games- yeah bitch's
Yeah I got the pre-order prior to this post
Yeah I cant wait until the egg sends it out on 10/22
and Yeah im glad i have a pc and not an Apple
EDIT:Before you Bitch remember this,
I do think Apple's are great machines, just not for me
EDIT: take 1 part Vista mix it with Apple Fans complaints and Voila Windows 7, now eat it and Shut up


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 9, 2009)

MacOS has a family pack option, too.  It's called "no activation keys needed."


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 9, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Instead, windows users get to worry about ad-ware, spyware, anti-virus, drivers, and everything else... Most people don't even know what ad-aware does.



Most Windows users don't worry about any of those things, and you are totally full of shit if you think Mac users never have to worry about drivers.  Hell, they have to worry if the hardware they are buying will even work with their Mac, before they even take it off the shelf....



Dippyskoodlez said:


> But go ahead, buy your windows 7. I'm happy with my properly functioning OS. I enjoy not running anti-virus, or scanning for spyware. Maybe someday Microsoft'll get the message. It's probably gonna take google to bite them in the rear to do it, with Google OS.



See, it is comments like this, where you think you are really sticking it to Microsoft, that really show how much of a blind fanboy you really are.  And serve only to discredit yourself.


----------



## DaveK (Jul 9, 2009)

What's so hard about running anti-virus software and scanning for spyware?  It's about as hard as using the LastFM client when I run iTunes, it opens itself.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 10, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> They want to DO something on it and it needs to WORK.
> 
> Instead, windows users get to worry about ad-ware, spyware, anti-virus, drivers, and everything else... Most people don't even know what ad-aware does.
> 
> But go ahead, buy your windows 7. I'm happy with my properly functioning OS. I enjoy not running anti-virus, or scanning for spyware. Maybe someday Microsoft'll get the message. It's probably gonna take google to bite them in the rear to do it, with Google OS.



In a way you're right, your average user doesn't want to worry about maintenance Windows requires, such as de-fragmentation and anti-spyware. This is the biggest reason I recommend Mac's. If someone continuously relays their frustration w/ their computer not working for some unknown reason, chances are they'd be happier w/ a mac. Unfortunately for apple though, this isn't enough to qualify them for a mac. To get that recommendation they also need to have a good chunk of cash they don't mind burning. You see the average user also doesn't want to spend $1000 on a computer, after all all they use it for is internet and maybe movies and pictures every now and then. Therefore it becomes hard to justify the price tag even though they don't have to worry as much.

For the enthusiasts your argument is totally gone though, b/c as a computer enthusiast there are two factors that make us different: enjoying the tinker; and trying to get more out of less (otherwise known as overclocking). Those vary b/t person, but they are fairly prevalent in the majority of comp enthusiasts. For this group I liken buying a mac to buying a i7 extreme 965. Sure it's sexy and I can brag (although I'm not sure why people brag about spending more money than others), but how much am I really getting over the i7 920? Convenience is really the main thing, instead of having to raise the qpi I just bump the multi. In the OS realm perhaps you'd say dealing w/ anti-virus would be comparable to raising the qpi. Sure it's a tad more work, but am I willing to do it to save $1k buck? You bet. Sexiness is great, but if I can do the same thing for less, I'll choose to spend less.

So for both groups apple falls short, which really bothers me b/c they really do have some brilliant products and marketing. They are finally putting pressure on Windows again (7 wouldn't likely exist so early w/o Mac's success) and it's showing. I'd like to see them get more aggressive though w/ their pricing, stop acting like stuck up snobs and damn well provide for all consumers, average and enthusiast especially, two big groups they are missing. I'd then like to see their market share go up, Windows price go down, Windows find a new file system that doesn't fragment and less ads on their comps, and just overall more healthy competition. We don't need a Rolls Royce in the computer game, we need Honda.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 10, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Developing PPC code is very profitable. For both developers and users.
> 
> PowerPC will also benefit greatly from a x86-64 OS.


Didn't have to be x86-64. They could've made it UB x86-64 and PPC64


Dippyskoodlez said:


> PowerPC will also get benefit out of Grand Centeral in Snow leopard.


See above answer


Dippyskoodlez said:


> PowerPC Will also benefit greatly out of openCL for GPU's it doesn't have.


If it has a PCIe slot, it can benefit with a simple gfx upgrade


Dippyskoodlez said:


> PowerPC Will benefit from the re-written Airport code for new airport cards not included in PowerPC machines.


If it uses the same slot type, the PPC machine can still benefit with an upgrade. But even still, who cares? It's not like there aren't other, better  alternatives to Airport cards.


Dippyskoodlez said:


> PowerPC will benefit from HFS+ read and write support from bootcamp drivers.


Would help me with my external mac drive on windows.


Dippyskoodlez said:


> PowerPC will benefit from Hardware Multitouch gestures that aren't physically in the trackpads.


Who cares, there are still plenty of other benefits. At least the machines would at minimum retain their current capabilities.


Dippyskoodlez said:


> PowerPC will benefit from Quicktime X for HD video the CPU's can't handle.


PPC can most certainly handle HD video, especially any multi cpu PPC.



Dippyskoodlez said:


> You know, you're right. I see exactly why you want Snow leopard to keep it's powerPC code.
> 
> PowerPC would reap some pretty nice benefits and totally be capable of making use of your $30 upgrade.
> 
> ...


Yeah, hardware related improvements, so they can force a premature hardware upgrade, for no good reason, when all they would have to do is code a few extra kexts to retain at least G5 support. 

Please Dippy, you're a mod, set an example instead acting like an Apple fanboy. You are making yourself look silly by defending the company so adamantly. They do shitty things to try to get your money, just like every single other major corporation out there. Open your eyes.

As far as viruses, there are a couple out the for OS X now. It's gaining market share, so it is going to start getting viruses. And did you know, OS X has more security holes in it that Vista or 7? So when the time of the Mac virus does come, us Apple users are going to be up shit creek.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 22, 2009)

Snow Leopard.


Why not just call it Cock In Mouth.




Sorry, but a free upgrade for buying a prebuilt, and many still have downgrades, and the abailty to talk without my hands flapping around. Priceless, for everything else there is M((@))C


----------



## joshiers8605 (Jul 22, 2009)

kinda salty


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2009)

Epic GraveDig!!!






@odameyer: If you would have read through some of the posts, you would see we already talked about this.  These prices are just the retail prices, and they are actually cheaper in some areas(Home Premium) than Vista and XP.  There will be cheaper versions available.  Expect Home Premium to go for about $99 OEM.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jul 22, 2009)

Steevo said:


> Snow Leopard.
> 
> 
> Why not just call it Cock In Mouth.



No -- please, tell us how you really feel.  Start with your childhood -- did you have any uncles?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 22, 2009)

odameyer said:


> $100 is still WAY too much. Why the hell can't they price home premium at $50 and ultimate at $90? If they fairly priced their stuff then I would happily buy their OS. I'd sooner switch to linux and not be able to use 80% of the programmes I use then pay $100 for windows.



But it's worth it!!! I don't know if you have tried the beta or not, but i have and i have seen a dramatic improvement over Vista WHICH is why I paid $50 to upgrade, yet i still would have paid $100, any way i look at it, it's the cheapest upgrade i can do to boost my system performance


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 23, 2009)

odameyer said:


> $100 is still WAY too much. Why the hell can't they price home premium at $50 and ultimate at $90? If they fairly priced their stuff then I would happily buy their OS. I'd sooner switch to linux and not be able to use 80% of the programmes I use then pay $100 for windows.



So you are willing to pay thousands for hardware, but $100 for an os to run it is too much? Sorry that argument doesn't fly.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 23, 2009)

odameyer said:


> I don't pay thousands for hardware in the first place. Microsoft just sucks basically. They are self centered thugs who care about nothing but profit.



I'm gonna let you in on a secret. Every company, I don't care what just name one. Got it? Guess why they exist. Profit. Name another one. Again, I don't care what you picked, it exists almost solely for profit. Anything and everything they do is with one end result, profit. Progress, technology, customer satisfaction, these are just other ways to get to profit. The only exception to this rule is the companies that specifically call themselves "non-profit" organizations. 

Every other company that exists in capitalism is self-centered and completely profit driven. Microsoft just happens to be quite good at it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 23, 2009)

Show me a cheaper OS that is just as functional...

Win7 is far from overpriced. Games cost $50, not OSes.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 23, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Show me a cheaper OS that is just as functional...
> 
> Win7 is far from overpriced. Games cost $50, not OSes.



Vista maybe? At least on 7's release Vista may be a bit cheaper. Name another OS one could buy? That's the real shame.



odameyer said:


> Oh that's another thing, games are overpriced, and that's one more reason I sold my money pit Xbox 360.



I agree


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 23, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Show me a cheaper OS that is just as functional...
> 
> Win7 is far from overpriced. Games cost $50, not OSes.


Exactly!!!....no one can do that..It's Sad but the only OS'es that will compete against W7 will be Vista & Xp  Mac's are Niche systems at best, and even though they advertise as a good competitor against the Pc, they are not even close to being as Functional  but they still have good purpose, which is why they fill a Niche market. Linux....... Linux has made vast improvements but still operates no better than a x64 version of W98 se. Overpriced I think not!! For now just get used to the fact that Microsoft is yo  and pay the man bitch  Don't get me wrong it would be nice if someone could offer Microsoft some competition,drop some prices,quickly advance pc's etc.... B ut no one Company or OS is even close!!


----------

