Comments on: Vista vs. Mac OS X Pricing and Versions

By: Christian

Christian — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:20:06 +0000

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.

By: David

David — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:21:53 +0000

Is there a difference in the way the two operating systems use cpus? Is one more efficient at crunching data than another?

By: j. roget

j. roget — Thu, 03 May 2007 19:13:35 +0000

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.

By: Francois

Francois — Thu, 03 May 2007 10:56:08 +0000

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!

By: Virginia

Virginia — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:26:19 +0000

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!

By: Christian

Christian — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:50:31 +0000

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.

By: David

David — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:16:26 +0000

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.