Vista, first hand.

[dgdosen]

hee hee...

Exactly. At $200 for home upgrade upto $500 for Ultimate retail, very few people will justify that purchase, especially when they can buy a dell for $500-600 which comes with the OS anyway.

Oh wise one, how much do you think Apple is going to charge for Leopard? Tiger costs $200 for a family pack, which is what you're basically getting for the Vista upgrade.

Are you going to be shocked when Apple wants you to cough up $250 for Leopard?

 

[Eraserhead]

Oh wise one, how much do you think Apple is going to charge for Leopard? Tiger costs $200 for a family pack, which is what you're basically getting for the Vista upgrade.

Except the Tiger family pack has 5 licences, so for Vista Ultimate OEM (the only close comparison) for $214*5=$1070

On a single licence $129 vs $214, and I'm comparing to OEM versions of Windows to keep the cost down.

Leopard will only cost more if it comes with iLife, except that MS's 'iLife' features are equivalent to iLife 03 or something...

 

[JDN]

What are you going to do when Leopard comes out and it doesn't run well (if at all) on the old Mac Book Pro Core Duos? That's a very similar situation to what your friend has faced.

WHAT?!? Are you serious?? Leopard won't run on my MBP 2Ghz CD??!? If this is the case i am going to be seriously pissed off!!

 

[longmover]

What are you going to do when Leopard comes out and it doesn't run well (if at all) on the old Mac Book Pro Core Duos? That's a very similar situation to what your friend has faced.

Mate, stop freaking people out, that's just absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that anything below a C2D won't be able to run Leopard?

To JDN:

Chill out man, louden is just being a drama queen.

 

[Cooknn]

I think Vista really is the end of MS as an important company. MY 2 cents.

Windows Vista is at least much more tolerable than previous versions. Many similarities to OSX which help and one that I wish it would bring back. By incorporating 'find while you type' into Windows Explorer my required time on Vista is much more pleasant than it was on XP. Explorer also incorporated the old OSX 'Shelf' which is very nice. I wish Finder would bring that back. At no time was it more evident to me that Vista used OSX as a blueprint though, than when I ventured into System Info. I laughed out loud . Of course Vista also attempts to copy Expose' and the Dashboard, but the implementation of both is not as user friendly as OSX. All in all it's a much better OS than XP - but it still doesn't touch OSX, IMHO.

 

[weckart]

MS really pisses me off with their arrogance.
1) you can't do a fresh install on an upgrade license - changing the way the upgrade disc system has worked after allowing it for the last 5+ OS iterations!
2) you cant run the cheaper versions of vista in a VM - clearly gouging us mac users (and anyone else who gets in their way)
3) oem versions are 32bit or 64bit only, you get one and you are stuck with that version only. (And even retail gets you 32bit only, you have to pay to get the 64bit disc sent to you.)
Wanna move to 64bit later while you give it time for 64bit drivers? Tough, buy a new version of the same OS later thanks!
Want 64bit now? Please enjoy your driver hell.
4) How come they don't have family versions or multiple copy discounts? I know LOADS of people with a main desktop + laptop, not to mention the kid's and family computers. Whatever happened to software that you can install anywhere and just be allowed to have one active copy running??

As you can tell, I'm not pleased with MS's anti-competition/anti-consumer/anti-fair use policies.

1. Nonsense. As another poster has said, the only thing stopping you is your conscience. I bought an upgrade version (was eligible several times over) and performed a clean install as recommended by Microsoft. Microsoft is fully aware that this is possible and is not going to "fix" this. I thought everyone knew this by now and how to do it.
2. The fact that Vista does not exactly fly on a VM should be your main concern here. Moreover the EULA is null and void outside the US, and probably within it, too. If you paid the money for the software, who the hell is MS to tell you what you can run it on?
3. I bought a retail upgrade and got both disks, so no. Very few people will NEED 64 bit now, and those will sort out their drivers before diving in, anyway.
4. Volume licences?

 

[slicedbread]

1. Nonsense. As another poster has said, the only thing stopping you is your conscience. I bought an upgrade version (was eligible several times over) and performed a clean install as recommended by Microsoft. Microsoft is fully aware that this is possible and is not going to "fix" this. I thought everyone knew this by now and how to do it.
2. The fact that Vista does not exactly fly on a VM should be your main concern here. Moreover the EULA is null and void outside the US, and probably within it, too. If you paid the money for the software, who the hell is MS to tell you what you can run it on?
3. I bought a retail upgrade and got both disks, so no. Very few people will NEED 64 bit now, and those will sort out their drivers before diving in, anyway.
4. Volume licences?

1) as i said - if you wanna ignore conscience, legalities etc. there are many things you can do to bypass WGA, upgrading, clean installs etc. But by that token, you can do anything you wanted to really, legal or not.
With Tiger (or any OS X), you can just bang in the disc, reboot, and perform a clean install if you want. Not so with upgrade versions of vista.
NB. if you have an upgrade disc I'm fairly sure there is no where in the world where you'll find MS recommend you do a clean install. They explicitly say they expect people to upgrade with an upgrade disc.

2) VM wise, I'm sure parallels and VMware will eventually get their products to a stage where Vista is smooth enough to run in a VM (like XP is now). And buying software from MS isn't strictly true, you license it, and officially you're meant to go by the rules they set. Technically you're meant to follow the EULA - if you wanna do what the hell you want with no regard to that then whats the point of getting legitimate software?

3) Yes, but then all those OEM vista 32bit buyers are left in the lurch aren't they? My point was that OEM discs are specific to the version you bought, you can't upgrade to 64bit later without just rebuying Vista 64bit (whether OEM or retail).

4) I'm no expert, but from a consumer standpoint there is no easy way to get volume licensing for a couple of PCs I have at home. All MS's open licensing schemes seem geared for companies from small business to enterprise. Unlike the Tiger family pack I can get from the applestore, install on 5 macs I have at home and be done with it.

EDIT: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/options.mspx

Customer: Home users or small businesses requiring software for fewer than five computers
Description: Individual packages of licensed software purchased at retail
How to purchase: Licensed software can be purchased through any software retailer.

Clearly MS expects home users to shell out five times at retail - hence my original point on how Apple does family packs better.

 

[psycoswimmer]

I (still) have the last and latest rev of a 12" PB - probably 3 years old, and sure it runs Tiger and is fair for browsing, but did you try to run an universal app on it? It's dog slow. I'm sure it's comparable to a 2.0 Vista performance on some other PC (which I have at work). All hardware - apple or ms becomes obsolete. Apple hardware is sexier and more expensive to start with, and therefore you'll have to assume it's going to depreciate more over time. Hell, look at the notes on the MB and MBP web site touting the 7X speed differences. Is Apple lying?

When we get a copy of Leopard that runs faster on the same hardware as today, I'll eat my words, but I'll bet you need more horsepower to run it.

Aren't Universal Apps native on both PPC and Intel processors? Shouldn't there be no difference?

And I expect Leopard to run faster on my iMac than Tiger does. I might need to upgrade the RAM though.

 

[Phobophobia]

Aren't Universal Apps native on both PPC and Intel processors? Shouldn't there be no difference?

This is correct. Louden is just here to spread false information.

 

[crees!]

When we get a copy of Leopard that runs faster on the same hardware as today, I'll eat my words, but I'll bet you need more horsepower to run it.

I fully expect Leopard to run as good, if not better, than Tiger on my 2003 PowerBook.

 

[gkarris]

I REALLY don't know what people are talking about.

I have my own Compaq laptop with a Cel 1.4, 768 Megs RAM, and Intel 915 with Win XP and it beats the crap out of my work Dell 1.9 Pentium M with 1.0 Gigs RAM and the same Intel 915 and Win XP and the same software...

I can only use the drivers from Dell for it, I can't use the generic Intel drivers...

 

[zero2dash]

I think Vista really is the end of MS as an important company. MY 2 cents.

I agree with you on everything else (Vista sucks, people will switch [myself included]) but I think Microsoft has a lot of bridge burning to do before they go away into the night.

Granted, they burned some bridges with ME, but they quickly saved face with 2k Pro, and then again with XP. Vista either needs a) a service pack ASAP or b) to be swept under the rug ala ME with a new release. Option (b) is highly doubtful, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Vista SP1 released in record time for a Microsoft Service Pack.

Besides that, sure, there's a [majority] of public outcry in terms of Vista issues, but the brunt of Microsoft customers, and the high dollar/high volume ones are all corporations, and corporations usually stay 1 version behind, so any company (say, FedEx Kinkos where I used to work) just upgraded to Win2k (roughly) 4 years ago, I'm sure they'll rollout XP discs before they do Vista ones and by the time they do, Vista will have been through at least a few service packs and (by and large) by that time should be as solid as 2k and XP before it.

But yes, absolutely. I think right now - Vista is garbage. I like it, and I like the ideas they've implemented...although some of the things they've moved around piss me off. Why'd they have to over-complicate network properties and setting up wireless connections? Sheesh. And my Vista gripes come with driver issues, but in all fairness - I expect it with Vista. In the past, Microsoft got away with things because 98 and ME could use 95 drivers from day one, and 2k could use NT4 drivers (and XP could use 2k drivers), so driver issues weren't really an issue before. Now, they've tinkered around with all of the system files and whatnot, and I've had serious driver issues with Vista, which is why I dumped my RC and went back to XP.

 

[weg]

Not for the extra 100 - you have to factor in the vista price, which would be ~300-ish. So the cost of running two OSs is ~$400 or an extra 25-30% of the price of the machine.

For a 500MHz Celeron you wouldn't buy the Enterprise version of Vista (or do you run Mac OS X Server on your iBook? Thats about 499$ that you'll have to pay on top of the iBook, then), Home Basic is more than enough. Windows Vista Home Basic (OEM) sells for 85 bucks.

And I think the OP's friend probably just hates Vista because the OP told him that it's cool to hate Vista...

 

[dgdosen]

Not trolling...

This is correct. Louden is just here to spread false information.

I wasn't trolling - I was just noting on my 12" PB - universal apps are extremely slow! I installed the photobooth app and tried it with an iSight camera, and it worked at a snail's pace.

The point I was trying to make is that Apple notes the latest rev laptops are 7x the speed of the latest G4. I'm saying I agree - and that the old hardware is SLOW.

That's all - old hardware is slow on whomever's software you run it on.

 

[dgdosen]

Mate, stop freaking people out, that's just absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that anything below a C2D won't be able to run Leopard?

To JDN:

Chill out man, louden is just being a drama queen.

Ouch - sorry, I'm not trying to be a drama queen - but I was making an emphatic point.

And I'm not sure - is Leopard only 64 bit? If so, will they have a 32 bit flavor as well? - I have a Toshiba Core Duo at work - and it's only 32 bit -that's what makes me wonder what the roadmap for Leopard will look like. I honestly don't know.

Vista comes in two flavors where 64 bit machines can run either 32 or 64, and 32 bit machines can only run 32 bit.

 

[dgdosen]

Except the Tiger family pack has 5 licences, so for Vista Ultimate OEM (the only close comparison) for $214*5=$1070

On a single licence $129 vs $214, and I'm comparing to OEM versions of Windows to keep the cost down.

Leopard will only cost more if it comes with iLife, except than MS's 'iLife' features are equivalent to iLife 03 or something...

Actually - MS is less restrictive with Vista - you can install it on up to five machines. I'm not sure if that's part of the license, but that's how it works... That's why I compared it to the family pack.

 

[Eric5h5]

Ouch - sorry, I'm not trying to be a drama queen - but I was making an emphatic point.

OK, but you were making an "emphatic point" based on total ignorance (which at least you admit). People need to stop doing this. If you don't know, don't say anything. Or ask questions, instead of making statements. I've had any number of posts when I realize "waitaminute, I don't actually know that for sure...", so either I research until I do know, or else I just ditch the post.

Anyway, as has been stated a bunch of times on a bunch of topics, Leopard is 64/32 bit.

--Eric

 

[Eraserhead]

Actually - MS is less restrictive with Vista - you can install it on up to five machines. I'm not sure if that's part of the license, but that's how it works... That's why I compared it to the family pack.

That is complete rubbish. After another quick google for "Vista Licence" I found this on Microsoft's website:

2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must
assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the “licensed device.”
A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.
a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may
use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. Except as provided in the
Storage and Network Use (Ultimate edition) sections below, you may not use the software on any
other device.
b. Number of Users. Except as provided in the Device Connections (all editions), Remote Access
Technologies (Home Basic and Home Premium editions) and Other Access Technologies
(Ultimate edition) sections below, only one user may use the software at a time.
c. Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version, such as 32-bit and
64-bit. You may use only one version at one time.

(bolding added for emphasis)

I fail to see 5 anywhere (but one does seem to be mentioned a lot) in the licence so you can't compare it to the OS X Family Pack .

EDIT: If it isn't in the licence you aren't allowed to do it, especially as it says specifically it works on one computer.

Ouch - sorry, I'm not trying to be a drama queen - but I was making an emphatic point.

And I'm not sure - is Leopard only 64 bit? If so, will they have a 32 bit flavor as well? - I have a Toshiba Core Duo at work - and it's only 32 bit -that's what makes me wonder what the roadmap for Leopard will look like. I honestly don't know.

Vista comes in two flavors where 64 bit machines can run either 32 or 64, and 32 bit machines can only run 32 bit.

No, Apple understands ease of use so it'll run on 32 AND 64 bit computers as Steve Jobs said in the WWDC Keynote, a quick google for "Leopard System Requirements" confirms it. Hell even Apple's site says it will be 32 bit too .

 

[contoursvt]

Actually - MS is less restrictive with Vista - you can install it on up to five machines. I'm not sure if that's part of the license, but that's how it works... That's why I compared it to the family pack.

Maybe for the MSDN version but not a retail or OEM version...should be one instance then.

 

[macfan881]

i agree Vista is horrible its bascly nothing new or that apple hasnt done allready and it just feels rushed i think its a repeat of ME all over again and the sad thing is i dont think Microsoft Doesnt see it so i think were gonna deal with this os for a while and i think you will start seeing more switch to mac/linux esp now since linux is slowley but steadly coming out with more Wifi capabilties and with leapord also will see more people switch to

 

[clevin]

my brief experience with vista in compusa give me more detail than OP's first hand, which I fail to see any detail about the OS.

I only spent 2 minutes on Vista at compusa, so no comment on any functionality aspect, just one word for the UI.

Its beautiful.

 

[TBi]

Its beautiful.

I quite like the new interface too. It's very smooth and polished.

I was almost thinking that the UAC was ok though. Until it started asking me, twice every time, if i wanted to delete the file i was deleting, every time...

 

[panzer06]

Vista works fine under Parallels

I installed Vista on my mac, and it's horrible. and I guess because of the drivers, there's no Aero interface. I mean, it's just hideous too.

</RANT>

I have a Macbook Core Duo 2.0 GHz and Vista works reasonably well, transparent menus and gadget thingee, office 2007 runs well, including the Visio hog! The only downside is my fan runs near constantly while Vista is running. I never have this problem if I'm using XP via Parallels.

Granted I really only use Vista on my Mac to access Visio, Project and Access because there are no Mac versions.

Even with my crippled on-board GMA950 the experience is passable.

Note: I do assign Vista 1GB of RAM vs. the 512MB I assigned to Win XP. (I have 2GB on the MB)

I much prefer OS X and tend to use a concurrent XP install rather than Vista when I must use a Windows program.

I have a dedicated PC for games but only until I can afford a new Mac Pro with a high end video card.

Cheers

 

[bigandy]

Someone on another thread was running Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) on their 6 year old Powerbook.

I have Tiger running on a 450mhz iMac G3, and it's fine. My girlfriend has a 700mhz G3 iBook, and it runs Tiger without fault. While some features aren't very usable (Dashboard *ahem*), they're both very usable.

Which I don't even think was called a powerbook, but a prismo.

It was a PowerBook, it's codename was Pismo.

 

[deputy_doofy]

Well, my friend did actually buy his first Mac this past weekend. As I suspected, he immediately put Windows XP on it for work, but it was Vista that drove him to the "light" side. It may take him a while to fully appreciate OS X, since he will still be using Windows a lot, but I think he'll like it. I also think he's the kind of person who will appreciate BOTH OS's, and use them for their strengths.