Isn't this what Apple is doing wrong in regards to OS X?

[Rodimus Prime]

Yes, I can grant you that. But I doubt that the typical number of ac OS purchases go anywhere near the amount of Windows (lets just say Vista) update licenses.

True on the upgrading the OS. I installed an OEM version of XP on my computer when I built it. I will not be upgrading to Vista unless I can get a my brother to get me a copy though his school. My school conveniently started giving away the upgrade to vista the about 1 month of I graduated.

I will upgrade my version of windows when build a new pc.

 

[Slowstick]

True, but I should point out that most people get a new OS with a new computer (Windows side). You don't see too many people upgrade the OS on a Windows system (IE xp to vista). The release cycle of windows exceeds the lifespan of a computer. Not to mention the system requirements would necessitate large amount of upgrading that is done outside the typical person.




Yes, I can grant you that. But I doubt that the typical number of ac OS purchases go anywhere near the amount of Windows (lets just say Vista) update licenses.

Of course comparing the Mac OS licensing to Microsoft's licensing is moot
since they vary so greatly.



The install disk for OSX may function as a full version, but so do the versions of Office in that the license requires a valid prior version. The only difference is that the mechanics of verification. I can tell you that I install office 2007 upgrades on new machines all the time. There is no version already installed, I just pop in a disc from the old install of the prior version (its a full version).

OSX is a upgrade by definition of its license.

When you upgrade to a newer version of OS X, that install disc you are using is not a full nor an upgrade. It is just OS X. There is no need for a full or an upgrade because only Macs run these.

 

[pdjudd]

When you upgrade to a newer version of OS X, that install disc you are using is not a full nor an upgrade. It is just OS X. There is no need for a full or an upgrade because only Macs run these.

It's more like a restrictive upgrade license - ownership of the Mac that meets the system requirements is the valid license.

 

[mysterytramp]

Hope this is in the right forum.

Read this article about why an analyst thinks Microsoft is so successful:

Five Startegies Microsoft Got Right

Apple has a better OS, so why is Microsoft selling better even with a bad reputation? This guy has it right on the money!!

The Mac folks on this board can bitch and moan about M$ but I'd really like to hear Scott McNealy's or Bill Joy's take on this article.

mt

P.S. I've often thought that we missed a golden opportunity during the Microsoft antitrust trial ... Had the judge insisted that the operating system be spun off -- or better yet, part of an open software project -- we'd all be better off now.

 

[pdjudd]

P.S. I've often thought that we missed a golden opportunity during the Microsoft antitrust trial ... Had the judge insisted that the operating system be spun off -- or better yet, part of an open software project -- we'd all be better off now.

I doubt that the judge can override the fundamental ownership of Windows to make it open source since the court case did not deal with ownership of Windows. THere is no doubt that Microsoft owns it. The case dealt with MS's business methods which could rule that Microsoft be split up.

That is aside to the point that I do think that MS got off easy. The judge more or less said, "Your guilty but we can't do anything since you are so big and necessary"

 

[dejo]

...that install disc you are using is not a full nor an upgrade. It is just OS X.

Huh?

 

[Slowstick]

Huh?

What don't you get? Instead of quoting half of my sentence, try reading the entire post and you will see what I mean.

There is no need for a full and an upgrade version because only Macs can run OS X. You are upgrading OS X to OS X. It is just a different version. Do you see what I am saying?

As for the above postings, Microsoft has done a great job selling their software and have done way better than Apple in terms of selling software. If they didn't they wouldn't be like they are today. It would have been interesting to see what happened if the antitrust case came out differently.

 

[pdjudd]

There is no need for a full and an upgrade version because only Macs can run OS X. You are upgrading OS X to OS X. It is just a different version. Do you see what I am saying?

Not quite. You are updating different versions of the same product - its still an upgrade. Its your only choice but the fact that version numbers changed (since Tiger and Leopard are two different products) is by definition an upgrade.

Look at windows. You can start with nothing and go to version 5.2 (Windows XP). That is a full version. You can also go from version 5.0 (2000) to 5.2. Its still the same Windows, but two separate products. You are basically arguing that you don't upgrade Windows since you already have Windows

As for the above postings, Microsoft has done a great job selling their software and have done way better than Apple in terms of selling software. If they didn't they wouldn't be like they are today. It would have been interesting to see what happened if the antitrust case came out differently.

Not really. They endured in a market with little to no competition using a business model that promised everything to anybody. Not to mentioned they embraced a business model that their only main competitor (Apple) could not embrace because of their difference in business models.

 

[dejo]

What don't you get? Instead of quoting half of my sentence, try reading the entire post and you will see what I mean.

There is no need for a full and an upgrade version because only Macs can run OS X. You are upgrading OS X to OS X. It is just a different version. Do you see what I am saying?

No, I don't see what you're saying. Either it's a full version, that doesn't rely on a previous version, or it's an upgrade, that does rely on a previous version. How can it not be one of these but something else?

 

[IJ Reilly]

The Mac folks on this board can bitch and moan about M$ but I'd really like to hear Scott McNealy's or Bill Joy's take on this article.

Why, do you think their knowledge of the industry's history is equally poor?

 

[hulugu]

Not quite. You are updating different versions of the same product - its still an upgrade. Its your only choice but the fact that version numbers changed (since Tiger and Leopard are two different products) is by definition an upgrade....


Look at windows. You can start with nothing and go to version 5.2 (Windows XP). That is a full version. You can also go from version 5.0 (2000) to 5.2. Its still the same Windows, but two separate products. You are basically arguing that you don't upgrade Windows since you already have Windows...

I'm completely confused on what you're trying to say here.

There are three versions of OSX out there:

1. The boxed version of Leopard. Or Leopard Server.
2. The 'upgrade' disk of Leopard you got if you purchased a Mac right around the changeover.
3. The disk that comes with your Mac as a "Restore."

Now, each of these contains OSX, but number 3 also contains your extras like Comic Life, iWork, and iLife.

In the Windows world, you can get:

1. The boxed version of Windows. With Vista, there are seven different versions of Vista.
2. The 'upgrade' disk.
3. The OEM disk.
4. The Restore disk.

In my experience, the OSX upgrade disk is a full version of OSX, but the Windows one is not. If you have a Leopard disk and want to install it on a Panther machine, you can. But, if you have a Windows XP Home disk you can have problems putting in on Windows 2000 Pro.

In the Mac world, if you have a a real disk, you can install OSX heedlessly on any machine you desire. In the Windows world, you can't unless you've managed to play the OS disk game just right. It's more complex.

 

[pdjudd]

I'm completely confused on what you're trying to say here.

There are three versions of OSX out there:

1. The boxed version of Leopard. Or Leopard Server.
2. The 'upgrade' disk of Leopard you got if you purchased a Mac right around the changeover.
3. The disk that comes with your Mac as a "Restore."

Now, each of these contains OSX, but number 3 also contains your extras like Comic Life, iWork, and iLife.

In the Windows world, you can get:

1. The boxed version of Windows. With Vista, there are seven different versions of Vista.
2. The 'upgrade' disk.
3. The OEM disk.
4. The Restore disk.

In my experience, the OSX upgrade disk is a full version of OSX, but the Windows one is not. If you have a Leopard disk and want to install it on a Panther machine, you can. But, if you have a Windows XP Home disk you can have problems putting in on Windows 2000 Pro.

In the Mac world, if you have a a real disk, you can install OSX heedlessly on any machine you desire. In the Windows world, you can't unless you've managed to play the OS disk game just right. It's more complex.

This is why comparing Apples Licensing to Microsoft's licensing is very difficult since the nature of their licensing is very different simply because the two are sold inherently differently.

First we need to exclude server versions of OSX since their licensing is different (you also neglected to mention Microsoft's server products as well but thats not important).

The license of number one requires a Mac (which is proof of ownership of a valid OSX license) - ergo its an upgrade due to number version differences.

Number two is an assurance upgrade - a special type of disc that works only with the machine that it is included with. Its a very limited update simply due to how the Mac hardware is distributed compared with the release of OSX. In other words, Apple assures you that your purchase of a Mac computer after a certain date assures that you get the most recent version of the operating system that others would not be qualified for even if the hardware is identical. Again this is due to how Drives get imaged during their manufacture compared to the development and manufacture of OSX DVD's.

Item number 3 is a restore disc that comes with your mac. It is not an upgrade but since its restricted to specific hardware. It is not a full version either. It also is not an update because it doesn't replace any software. Its just a restore disc that is extremely limited to establishing an upgrade path.

They can contain differentiating software sets, but that does not mean anything significant. We do not distinguish different versions of Windows distributed with different computer makers with each different computer.

Comic Life, iWork demos etc are not what OSX is.

 

[Eidorian]

I'm not going to drag OS X imaging to this party.

 

[hulugu]

This is why comparing Apples Licensing to Microsoft's licensing is very difficult since the nature of their licensing is very different simply because the two are sold inherently differently.

I don't disagree, that was the essence of my point, the comparison of the $129 OSX disk and the $399 Vista disk are the only rough equivalents, but people often try to use OEM disks, which don't really exist in OSX world.

First we need to exclude server versions of OSX since their licensing is different (you also neglected to mention Microsoft's server products as well but thats not important).

I did for clarity. There's really only two boxes out there you can buy for OSX: Leopard and Leopard Server.

But for Windows, there's what a dozen?

The license of number one requires a Mac (which is proof of ownership of a valid OSX license) - ergo its an upgrade due to number version differences.

No. It's a full version. The whole kit. If it were a car, it would include wheels and a can of gas. Upgrades should mean something different.

Number two is an assurance upgrade - a special type of disc that works only with the machine that it is included with. Its a very limited update simply due to how the Mac hardware is distributed compared with the release of OSX. In other words, Apple assures you that your purchase of a Mac computer after a certain date assures that you get the most recent version of the operating system that others would not be qualified for even if the hardware is identical. Again this is due to how Drives get imaged during their manufacture compared to the development and manufacture of OSX DVD's.

Right. But, it's the same as the first, but doesn't come with the cool box.

Item number 3 is a restore disc that comes with your mac. It is not an upgrade but since its restricted to specific hardware. It is not a full version either. It also is not an update because it doesn't replace any software. Its just a restore disc that is extremely limited to establishing an upgrade path.

They can contain differentiating software sets, but that does not mean anything significant. We do not distinguish different versions of Windows distributed with different computer makers with each different computer.

So, we agree, restore disks are for restoring software.

 

[hulugu]

I'm not going to drag OS X imaging to this party.

Or Windows ghosting.


Between Windows licensing and OSX licensing, there are few direct comparisons; people pretend they exist to win arguments, but in reality there's just too many differences.
I'd also argue that Windows is far more complex once you consider all the possibilities that are out there between Windows XP Pro and Home, or the seven flavors of Vista, or the upgrade disks, or the OEM disks.

 

[pdjudd]

I don't disagree, that was the essence of my point, the comparison of the $129 OSX disk and the $399 Vista disk are the only rough equivalents, but people often try to use OEM disks, which don't really exist in OSX world.

You're right. They do not

I did for clarity. There's really only two boxes out there you can buy for OSX: Leopard and Leopard Server.

But for Windows, there's what a dozen?

Right. Servers are out.

No. It's a full version. The whole kit. If it were a car, it would include wheels and a can of gas. Upgrades should mean something different.

It can operate and be installed as a full version true. That is however irrelevant since its the license that counts. Retail OSX discs are licensed as an update/upgrade due to the fact you can only install it (legally) on a Mac. The Mac hardware (meeting system requirements obviously) is a valid prerequisite which allows you to install OSX. A full version of OSX need not to be installed already for an install to occur. Its still an update because you are supplanting one license with another. Windows works the same way - their upgrade media is nothing more than a full versioning with different license verification methods.

So, we agree, restore disks are for restoring software.

Yes. They are a different limited type of license.


One of the main contributing definitions of what constitutes a full install and an upgrade is the licensing since it defines how you can install the OS in the first place.

 

[hulugu]

...It can operate and be installed as a full version true. That is however irrelevant since its the license that counts. Retail OSX discs are licensed as an update/upgrade due to the fact you can only install it (legally) on a Mac. The Mac hardware (meeting system requirements obviously) is a valid prerequisite which allows you to install OSX. A full version of OSX need not to be installed already for an install to occur. Its still an update because you are supplanting one license with another. Windows works the same way - their upgrade media is nothing more than a full versioning with different license verification methods.



Yes. They are a different limited type of license.


One of the main contributing definitions of what constitutes a full install and an upgrade is the licensing since it defines how you can install the OS in the first place.

Occasionally, I get drafted into fixing a Windows machine and I ended up with a Windows 2000 Home machine and when I tried to install Windows XP Pro using an upgrade disk, I ended up getting bit by this bit of complexity. Of course, I just copied the data, nuked the drive, and did it anyway, but jumping through this hoop, unnecessary since I had the Windows XP Pro license, annoyed me to no end. There's no analog with OSX, I can take a Leopard disk and install it on any newish Mac.

And, I'm sure the variation of Vista will create similar headaches down the road. It's obnoxious even when I understand the reasoning behind it.

 

[Slowstick]

Occasionally, I get drafted into fixing a Windows machine and I ended up with a Windows 2000 Home machine and when I tried to install Windows XP Pro using an upgrade disk, I ended up getting bit by this bit of complexity. Of course, I just copied the data, nuked the drive, and did it anyway, but jumping through this hoop, unnecessary since I had the Windows XP Pro license, annoyed me to no end. There's no analog with OSX, I can take a Leopard disk and install it on any newish Mac.

And, I'm sure the variation of Vista will create similar headaches down the road. It's obnoxious even when I understand the reasoning behind it.

Man....licensing with Windows is a pain in the neck because of its popularity and simplicity to pirate. Ever heard of "Windows Activation" Don't need that on OS X

 

[pdjudd]

Man....licensing with Windows is a pain in the neck because of its popularity and simplicity to pirate. Ever heard of "Windows Activation" Don't need that on OS X

I work at a company that lives on Windows and I am intimately familiar with Activation and its pains. Thats why I insisted on the proper recovery discs (which all have master images backed up) so that we could avoid these problems...

 

[Slowstick]

I work at a company that lives on Windows and I am intimately familiar with Activation and its pains. Thats why I insisted on the proper recovery discs (which all have master images backed up) so that we could avoid these problems...

Me too. I worked with XP volume licensing and sometimes it is hard to avoid. Vista is much much worse.

 

[pdjudd]

Me too. I worked with XP volume licensing and sometimes it is hard to avoid. Vista is much much worse.

Oww! My freaking ears! Vista is the worst. The nightmare continues to go downhill when you realize that there is no indication that Microsoft is going to move away from these procedures. Microsoft is taking the "we don't care about your inconvenience" approach to things.

 

[Eidorian]

Reminds me of this thread.

What's wrong with Vista again? I'm enjoying my 64-bit support, deeper management console, and monitoring.

 

[Slowstick]

Reminds me of this thread.

What's wrong with Vista again? I'm enjoying my 64-bit support, deeper management console, and monitoring.

Nothing is wrong with Vista. I love Vista. It isn't as good as OS X, but none the less is great OS. Apple does a good job with advertising to make Vista sound bad. It may not be as good as OS X, but there are lots of "under the hood" features that Vista has that OS X doesn't keeping me with Vista and OS X.

Activation is what sucks with Vista.

 

[pdjudd]

Activation is what sucks with Vista.

It's one of the things that suck. There are many many things that caused me to embrace OSX at home and to downgrade my computer at work back to XP.

 

[Solemony]

Wow. What a propaganda. I can never find any good points in microsoft.....Maybe 1 or 2...