Vista vs. Mac OS X Pricing and Versions
The marketers are running Microsoft these days and the proof is in the Vista Launch and it’s multiple and confusing versions.
When XP launched, it actually launched in only two versions, Home and Pro, that were fairly easy to discern. As time wore on, and as Microsoft failed to launch Vista anywhere near it’s projected launch, additional versions got tagged on including the two you mentioned as well as separately shipping 64-bit versions.
Here’s a quick comparison to clearly display how the marketers have lost their minds.
Mac OS X Pricing
Mac OS 10.4 -> $129
Mac OS 10.4 Family Pack (5 computers in the same household) -> $199
Windows Vista Pricing
Windows Vista Home Basic -> $199 ($99)
Windows Vista Home Premium -> $239 ($159)
Windows Vista Business -> $299 ($199)
Windows Vista Ultimate -> $399 ($259)
(upgrade cost in parenthesis)
The Mac OS comes cheaper (especially if you have more than one machine) and you get the full OS, not one chopped into pieces by marketers.
Microsoft plans to also add Small Business and Enterprise additions in the future. This doesn’t include server editions yet to come, of which Mac OS X has only one at $499 for 10 clients and $999 for unlimited clients.
These multiple versions are clearly about pulling more money out of people’s confusion and don’t in any way serve the customer. It’s depressing to say the least that I’m already fielding questions from relatives and friends about what version that should or should not buy. For the time-being, it’s clear that sticking with XP is the safest bet until they get the kinks worked out.
Permanent Link
You could also think about it this way: Apple charges each time it releases a new OS - there’s no “upgrade” option. Since 2001, Apple’s released 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 (and 10.5 isn’t too far away). If you were to start with a Mac running 10.0, and upgrade each time a new version was released you’d have paid $516.
Windows, on the other hand, is better about releasing more incremental upgrades (Service Pack 1, Service Pack 2, etc…) at no additional cost.
It actually appears as though the total cost of ownership for Mac OS X might be a bit higher than Windows if you ask me.
Each service pack for Windows didn’t exactly offer a whole new list of features, simply a less terror-prone, less hole-filled OS.
I can’t say I see a constantly improving Mac OS with new and exciting features every year or two as a deficit. It’s a nice trick to pretend that Mac OS users are getting shafted by getting real updates to their OS, while Windows users wait five years for their first real feature upgrade.
e-how helps you pick which version of Vista you need. Kinda silly, but hey.
I started using Vista at my new job at Microsoft, since it seemed appropriate, and it has its pluses and minuses. The main thing I notice is, with the new gadget that shows your CPU and RAM usage, you can see just how much of a resource-hog certain programs are, but sometimes for no reason at all my CPU usage spikes into the red-zone for extended periods. Go Vista!
Vista is just too expensive!
Also why a zillion versions?
If I found a magic lamp with a Genie in it, one of the wishes would be that everybody boycott Vista until MS release only one version (or 2 at most) at a REASONABLE price!
So that more people can afford it and buy a licenced software instead of running a pirated version.
Many people with limited incomes might be tempted by running a pirated version of Vista with all the bell and whistles instead of paying a cheap but dull Vista home basic.
I do not advocate piracy, I am just saying that if things were rightly priced, there would be less piracy as well.
MS is supposed to produce software for everybody so it should be priced at an amount that everybody can afford. It’s like they move their marketing strategy from a kind of commodity product to something like a luxury product where only the people with the $$$ can afford to pay for the extra options. I understand that for cars but not for OSs. I guess that MS forgot that OS stands for Operating System!
I still can’t get over the amount of features promised by Microsoft that were eventually axed and never made their way into Vista.
You’re essentially paying for a prettier interface with a marginally more stable OS ( something those service packs are meant to achieve ). And the new security model is an absolute joke. The user should be unencumbered by security, not have it smashed into their face like a pie.
Is there a difference in the way the two operating systems use cpus? Is one more efficient at crunching data than another?
That depends largely on the data you are crunching, but it should be noted that Windows Vista has difficulty making use of over 3GB RAM while Mac OS does not.