Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Offers Discounted Mac OS X 10.2
WCityMike writes "Apple's decision to offer no upgrade fee to existing Mac OS X users caused a great deal of unrest amidst Macintosh users, but Amazon may have made the argument a bit moot by offering a $50 mail-in rebate, thus bringing the price down to $79 for all users. Check out their listing for 10.2, or the mail-in rebate form. I wonder if, when Apple notices all its orders are coming in through Amazon, they'll get the point?"
Definitely a very smart move by Amazon - they're bound to get a lot of Mac users' repeat business. Wonder if any other online retailers will follow suit?
I wonder if, when Apple notices all its orders are coming in through Amazon, they'll get the point?
What is the point? That people like to save money? I'm assuming that there is someone at Apple who doesn't live in a bizarro world 24 hours a day, and therefore already knew that.
I'm a little more concerned about the editors at this site, who are given thousands of stories to choose from every day, and regularly choose the ones that look like they were written by Signal 11.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
The rest of us will have to pay full price :-(
If you bought it 5 days ago and Apple won't give you a free upgrade, return it to the place you bought it from for a refund. If they're smart, they'll just accept the return on paper, and resell you the same Mac--except that having bought it today, you'll now qualify for the free upgrade.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
*throws food to the troll* Option click does everything the right mouse button does... and you can buy a different mouse from a 3rd party if you wish. None of my Mac-using friends have ever needed to do so.
If you use the current Amazon $5-off coupon, the net price comes down to $74. The promotion code is CHNKBKAMZNLT.
if only because I've got an AppleLoan and was planning on using a bit of it for 10.2...but then again I'm a student so I get it for 70 (or whatever) anyway.
Actually, that brings up an interesting point: with the rest of that loan I'm probably going to by a refurbished LCD iMac. I save $150 off list (or 100 off education pricing) getting it refurbed, but am I still elligible for the $20 upgrade or does it need to be a NEW computer purchase? I'd rather pay 20 than 70 any ol' day.
Triv
Not only do you have to feed your personal info to Amazon by placing the order, but to get your rebate, you need to feed rebate.com as well.
Even if you use a throwaway email address and a 555-1212 phone number, that'll still probably mean more junk snailmail coming to my house.
An aside: I was at Sam's Club the other day and was told that I had to get an updated membership card. When the girl was doublechecking my info, she asked, "I have '555-1212' as your current phone number. Is that right?" I said yes and she just continued on. I'm debating on whether she knew what the number was or not.
OS X 10.0 came out about 17 months ago. $130 every 18 months doesn't seem too unreasonable.
I'd not get extremely worked up over SpyMac's website. In my experience, they are perhaps the most inaccurate and outlandish of the Mac rumor sites. Or hadn't you heard of the "iWalk" fiasco? :-)
Wndows NT came out how many years ago? And how much have they charged for their point releases (AKA Service Packs)? Windows 2000 has been out for 2 years now, and I haven't had to pay for any of those service packs, either.
Charging for point releases is an insult to your customer base. Charging $130 for a point release is rubbing salt in the wound.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
why is it such a big deal to have to pay for an upgrade to your software.
no one gets all up in arms when microsoft charges for the next version of windows, why this? is it because, unlike microsoft, they didn't change the revision number enough, but chose to call it 10.2 instead of 11 (as ms probably would have called it).
it's a brand new version of the os with thousands of programmer hours put into it, yeah, it's not open source or free or anything, but give me a unix with a useable graphical interface that i don't have to mess around with to get it to display fonts correctly or recomplile my kernel or the windowing system to support my graphics card and i'll gladly pay for it too.
and yes, i use a mac. and yes i'm going to buy it.
XP Professional, the latest point release of Windows 2000, is a $199 "upgrade."
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
You're trolling, but I'll bite anyway. I bought MacOS X as soon as it was available. I got the 10.1 upgrade for free by going to the (reasonably) local Apple Store. 10.0.x was truly a poor performer, particularly in the GUI. The 10.1 release has been fast and stable for me, but in reality wasn't much more than tightening up the code and adding some device support.
10.2, on the other hand, is a pretty big change. The networking feature additions, graphics acceleration in the GUI, useful changes to included apps like Sherlock and iTunes and so on make this more of an upgrade than a bugfix. I don't have a problem with Apple charging for it, and I will buy it. I am going to wait a bit, though, and see if they give a large discount to upgraders, because I suspect that they will do so, and I'd rather not pay $129 for the OS, when I'm functional on the one I have now.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
MS has been charging for point releases for ages, they just hide it better:
Windows 95 - Windows 4.0
Windows 98 - Windows 4.1
Windows ME - Windows 4.9
Windows 2000 - NT 5.0
Windows XP - NT 5.1
OS 10.0 to 10.1 to 10.2 is no different. And 10.0 to 10.1 was free if you had a local store with the update discs, otherwise it was shipping costs from Apple.
If you visit the web page of the Apple subsiduary that covers the country where you bought the Mac and look at the Mac OS X Jaguar hype pages you will see a link to the up-to-date programs.
If you bought your mac in Spain for example you can download upgrade info from this link:
http://www.apple.com/es/macosx/uptodate/
However, it must be noted that all the updates are processed in Ireland.
Still. I don't qualify for the update and won't be buying from Amazon unless they extend their offer beyond the US. The end result is that me and a whole lot more from Europe are going to steer well clear of Jaguar until Apple sees some sense.
Most of us have to pay around 16% sales tax.
Apple ALWAYS prices it products higher for Europe (there's a petition online for Apple to come clean on this policy).
If Apple wants to improve revenues in Europe it knows what it has to do.
Not particularly familiar with the Windows timeline, are we?
Windows 95 had at least 4 point releases, refered to as A, B, C, D, with the last one including FAT32 support IIRC. The upgrades were free, but they weren't easy to find.
Windows 98/98SE, well, I guess I can't really argue with you there. However, Microsoft caught just as much flak for that as Apple is catching now. However, the changes from 95 were significant enough for it to be more than a point release.
Windows ME, again, had significant enough changes for it to be more than a point release (that they were completely misguided is beside the point).
As for the NT timeline, we have (off the top of my head, and using Service Packs as point releases):
Windows NT4.0 - 4.6: all service packs free AFAIK
Windows 2000 aka NT5.0 - 5.2: all service packs free
Windows XP I can't really comment on, as I haven't used it. However, calling it NT5.1 seems a bit absurd to me.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
afaik Windows XP is NT6, not 5.1 anyways.
The reason it pisses me off personally is that my new iBook is less than 2 months old by the time 10.2 comes out.
Also: Why do they put "software upgrade coupons" in with the computer if you don't get any benefit of it?
Finally: why do I have to pay the full price and can't get an upgrade price? Heck, even M$ offers upgrade pricing.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Win95A-D = 4.0.0 - 4.0.3
Win98/98SE = 4.1.0/4.1.1
WinNT 4.0.0 - 4.0.6 Unless the service packs added major features, but I thought they were mainly bug fixes.
Win 2000/NT5 5.0.0 - 5.0.2
WinXP = NT5.1 seems resonable to me.
Remember that Apple has had 11 versions of OS X so far 10.0.0 - 10.0.4 and 10.1.0 - 10.1.5.
--
The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
Nope, Windows XP identifies itself as Windows NT 5.1 in it's about dialogs.
Mac OS 10.1 is still on sale from Amazon.com for $129.00. Shouldn't Apple have asked retailers to lower this to $109.00 or something? This way if I buy OS X today, I can upgrade to 10.2 for the same price as never buying 10.1. I don't see why they wouldn't want to do this. This way, they keep selling 10.1 until 10.2 is available. If I wanted OS X today - and I was still running 9 - I would be foolish to buy 10.1 because 10.2 would end up costing me $129 + $19!
Apple could continue to sell 10.1 and offer people their upgrade incentive without making it cost more money to make the change in 4 weeks.
It could help to reduce the OS X.1 stock, IMHO.
How is Amazon sellign software at a loss going to "send a message" to Apple?
As if somehow Jaguar is "supposed" to be $79 and Amazon is "just showing Apple!"
The fact is Jaguar is worth the upgrade price. Apple has charged for its software for half a decade now and charging for Jaguar is to be expected-- and STILL a good deal.
I've been running the 6C106 developers release and this has to be one of the biggests upgrades in apple history in terms of big and little things that are different. I'm not goign to violate my NDA, but I will say that Jaguar is worth paying for.
that the company that invented the concept of "We don't see a need to ever turn a profit" is using it as a loss leader means nothing-- just that they want more people aware of the fact that they sell Apple computers.... and that they realize (even if most people don't) that these "rebates" are more often than not never redeemed. Either because they are too hard, or people are lazy or both.
I can guarantee you that Amazon is not getting jaguar for less than $100. They are taking a loss to get your business, and knoing that they won't really have to take the loss because most of you will eat the $50, leaving their average selling price around $100.
This has nothing to do with Apple. The only thing this issue brings up is that Apple users are apparently rather cheap, just as Linux users are. Or at least the people who whine online are cheap. So it goes.
IF you don't want to upgrade, then don't. Wait a year and Jaguar will be on sale for $10. If you do upgrade you'll find the value is there in the product and it was worth it. But its a free country and its your choice. Just don't expect something for nothing-- that is not a right you have.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
You don't have to pay $129 every six months. Apple has NEVER in its history charged for an OS upgrade inside of a year.
10.1 was FREE.
And the Apple software update is FREE. giving regular updates for the OS and many of your applications.
If the fact that you have to buy it is stopping you from using OS X, that just means you're cheap-- if your time is worht anything, you'll make that $100 back inside of 3 months by switching.
(I love linux, believe in it, have gotten paid developing java applications for it, but when it comes to home, I never boot the linux box and have been migrating OS 10 to all the machines. Even the 9500 which is so old its not supported. Linux just takes too much maintenance and hassle cost to manage-- I'd rather spend that time tinkering with code.)
Your bash against apple is annoying-- NeXT shipped NeXT step the late 80s-- if there was a beta it was arround then. None of the shipping OS X versions have been beta quality-- and Apple has given dozens of free updates since 10.0 came out.
That they are charging for a new release is to be expected. That Linux zeolots will whine about paying for software is to be expected as well.
That they never answer the question "If you don't want to pay, why do you expect to get paid when you go to work? Shouldn't your boss be saying "I'm paying you again for another two weeks? You spent most of the last two weeks reading slashdot!""
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Charging for point releases is an insult to your customer base. Charging $130 for a point release is rubbing salt in the wound.
I see. Your problem is with the name. Apple should have called it Mac OS XP and then it would have been ok.
To think that XP isn't a "point release" is just silly.
You're making an argument based on naming, not the value of the product. Silly.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Jaguar has a new graphical subsystem called Quartz extreme. It has a refined aqua interface - yes, tehy changed the ui. And it has lots of other stuff.
10 was an upgrade on nine. This is an upgrade. ITs worth paying for.
You should be bitching if there wasn't enough new stuff in it, but unless you're running it you can't make that complaint.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
The registration is not enforced. Just don't be connected to the net when you go thru the process and then, it will say "you can register by doing such and such".
Registration is valuable-- you get discounts, and good info from Apple.
Making the registration easy is great for the average person-- they don't have to mess with it.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
" Generic hardware at speed x is $500.
Apple hardware at speed x is $2000."
You're an idiot.
Every time I've done this comparison, the Mac was about %10 cheaper, and usually still had extra stuff.
But then, you think an XBOX is the same as a PowerMac G4. Fucking idiot.
Please don't breed.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
The little bugs in OSX are driving me batty. I love my fp imac, don't get me wrong, but there's two issues that are really driving me nuts - not automatically reconnecting to my 802.11b network after reboot, and losing my icon sizing/folder preferences after reboot. In either case, it doesn't matter if the reboot is a crash or a restart. If those are fixed, plus the new features, it might be worth my $79. maybe.
Every time I've done this comparison, the Mac was about %10 cheaper, and usually still had extra stuff.
You still claim this even after I easily proved you wrong? Please explain to me how Apple can charge twice as much as the Dell with the Dell having 2.25x the clockspeed, and yet your Macs are "10% cheaper".
And by the way, a Mac is only 20% faster clock-for-clock, on the average, according to deep tests that I've seen (sometimes the Mac is faster, and sometimes the PC is faster).
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I'm aware of all the "OSR" releases MS has done. With Windows 95, it was impossible for a user to legially have a copy that supported USB and FAT32 without buying a new computer that had it bundeled. Windows 95 Retail has one service pack that updated a few things, but didn't add much.
MS realised their mistake and later revised the retail copies when Windows 98 came out (thus around 99, the copies at stores were all Windows 98 SE). But again, there wasn't a free upgrade path here either. If you wanted the minor improvements, you had to buy a new copy (I can't remember if the upgrade version of 98SE worked on 98).
My version numbers came from either "winver" or "ver" at a command prompt. Thus saying NT 4 SP6 is 4.6 is a bit misleading. In Mac terms, it would be 4.0.6. And of course the Mac OS X line has seen plenty of free updates, the latest being 10.1.5, adding features like better text rendering (cleartype or whatever) for Carbon apps, more driver support, and tons of other things.
10.2 is a major jump any way you look at it. I understand them charging for it, I just don't understand the lack of an upgrade path. Their $20 up2date thing is just in place to keep people from returning computers between now and when 10.2 ships.
Calling XP NT 5.1 makes sense to me. It works and functions much like NT 5.0 (Windows 2000) on the inside, it just adds a ton of fluff, some new programs, and some other minor things. Basicially the same differences between 10.1 and 10.2.
They may be cheaper but PC's still only run Butt-Ugly-Time-Waster-OS.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Apple only wants to sell to "real countries" >;]
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Maybe if Mac hardware weren't so over priced people wouldn't bitch so much. It's not like people are buying this software to run on hardware Apple never sees a dime from the sale of. Apple gets you coming and going; when you buy the hardware and later when you upgrade the OS.
It's not like Apple supports their hardware for very long anyways. OSX doesn't even support hardware made less than two years before it came out (Lombard DVD player, for instance)! Add to that the serious design flaws that Apple refuses to take responsibility for (G3 powerbook hinges, power connectors with inadequate strain relief, all sorts of cracking and other plastic problems) and it adds up to a lot of pain when shelling out for OS upgrades.
Still, it's the best operating system you can buy and that's certainly worth something.
burris
Discounts? What discounts? Oh, you mean those now worthless coupons that I got with my copy of OS 10.1 that claimed to give me a discount on the next version?
Good info? A bunch of Apple marketing drivel is all you ever get from them, chock full of such good grammar as "blazingly fast" and such ad-ese.
No, my posts are not always popular. I'm a Mac user, remember.
r am eletter.cgi?%2F2002%2F05_may%2Ffeatures%2Fcw_aesho wdown.htm
r am eletter.cgi?%2F2002%2F05_may%2Ffeatures%2Fcw_aesho wdown.htm
m
Feeling like martyring yourself on the mac sword? Do you use them just because you percieve them to be unpopular?
"Well, since their hardware already outperforms (MTBF, useable life, ROI) nearly all x86 hardware out there, I'd say they have a good head start.
"Informed dialog? I'm ready when you are"
No, you are not ready. You took the sucker's position. cut-n-paste:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getf
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/cgi-bin/getf
http://www.teamlambchop.com/bench/303results.ht
(the dual G4 1Ghz is in 207th place @ 7 hrs 7 minutes, right behind the dual 933mhz PIII which is 3 minutes faster. Top place is held by an Athlon @ 2 hrs 48 minutes.)
Return on Investment: Paying SEVEN TIMES AS MUCH for a computer that is HALF AS FAST
Usable life: what is the usable life on a computer that is 2 years obsolete when you purchase it? Where did the "5 year mac" go?
Mean time between failure: based purely on OS X's upgrade cycle and time to install upgrades give you 99.8% reliability. But the spinning beach ball of death adds another few hour a year down. 99.6%. Then the CD won't eject and is now missing the paperclip hole. 99.5%. Then the printer stops responding, reboot again 99.4%. This app needs 9.2 to run, classic is no go 99.1% Cracked hinges on case 1 week down 97%.
Not exactly 5 nines. Not even 2 nines. In fact, that is a 9 and a 7.
MTBF is less than 2 weeks. Better than win98. Not as good as straight FreeBSD. About the same as Win2K. Wonderful. Just as reliable as an OS with 64,000 bugs.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
"Every time I've done this comparison, the Mac was about %10 cheaper, and usually still had extra stuff."
m
0 C: maccentral.macworld.com/news/0102/26.carmack.shtml +carmack+mac+pc+slashdot&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Compare again.
You took the sucker's position. cut-n-paste:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com
"Benchmark Duel: Mac vs. PC, Round II"
http://www.teamlambchop.com/bench/303results.ht
(the dual G4 1Ghz is in 207th place @ 7 hrs 7 minutes, right behind the dual 933mhz PIII which is 3 minutes faster. Top place is held by an Athlon @ 2 hrs 48 minutes.)
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:Eob9RvdJLC
I ask you: Did you really do any research at all?
If the 733 G4 is not as fast as the 1Ghz PIII, as Carmack stated, how do you expect the Dual G4 1Ghz to compete with a dual 1733 Athlon or Dual 2.2 Ghz Xeon?
The Mac can't even use a professional graphics card like the Quadro 900XGL or 3D Labs Wildcat III 6210. No usb 2.0. PCI bus limited to 180 MB/s. No DDR memory in their workstations. 133fsb G4 can't take advantage of DDR anyway. Insane priced monitors using old flat panel technology. Is lack of hardware support a "feature"?
Open your EYES because the only "extra stuff" in a mac is price!
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
The software development costs are a small fraction of the retail package price, so arguments that it is "worth it" based on functionality are almost meaningless.
What it comes down to is that Apple needs money again to make the stock holders happy, and they have something that a sufficient number of people are going to buy, whether its is earth-shatteringly different or merely a so-so upgrade. And the reason why Apple gets to set the prices is because Mac users have already sunk costs into their machines--they aren't going to switch because of a $120 upgrade. But if Apple does that too often, they risk losing customers.
There is nothing wrong with any of that. We knew that Apple and other companies work that way when we bought our Macintoshes.
I'm probably not going to upgrade: my Mac does exactly what I want, and I see no point in paying money and risking that it will get slower or stop working altogether.
This has nothing to do with Apple. The only thing this issue brings up is that Apple users are apparently rather cheap, just as Linux users are. Or at least the people who whine online are cheap. So it goes.
Rational agents in a market economy are "cheap". That's what makes market economies efficient. It's the people who are not "cheap" that create problems for the market. Like people who keep paying millions of dollars to outfit their companies with slow, insecure, unreliable, buggy software despite the costs. If those people behaved rationally and were "cheap", certain big computer companies would actually either have to shape up or get out.
what am I getting for $129, an IM client?
...off the top of my head...
There are a lot of ways to answer that, but for me
1. Windows file sharing and browsing
2. GUI for the ipfw firewall
3. Sherlock 3
4. Printer sharing (finally)
5. Shareable internet connections including wireless
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Hmmm.
No, I think you're not very familiar with the mac time line...
I'll try to be complete... but I probably will make mistakes and be incorrect.
System 6
6.0 - 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.3, 6.0.4, 6.0.5, 6.0.6, 6.0.7, 6.0.8
System 7
7.0 - 7.0.1, 7.0.1p
7.1 - 7.1.1, 7.1.2 (And System 7 Pro)
7.5 - 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3, (7.5.4 skipped) 7.5.5
Mac OS
7.6 - 7.6.1
8.0 - ???
8.1 - ???
8.5 - 8.5.1, 8.5.2
8.6 - ???
Mac OS 9
9.0 - 9.0.1, 9.0.2, 9.0.3, 9.0.4
9.1 - 9.1.1, 9.1.2
Mac OS X
Public Beta:
10.0 - 10.0.1, 10.0.2, 10.0.3, 10.0.4
10.1 - 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.1.4, 10.1.5
10.2 -
Well, as you can see apple have had major and minor point releases to...
Heh.
Its just that they have a different version scheme
The major point releases tend to be paid upgrades..., but note that that means UPGRADE pricing.
the minor point releases tend to be free... and these days they come via software update anyway.
Point is... Having paid for OSX 10.1 many people would greatly appreciate upgrade pricing to 10.2, rather than full retail.
Anywho, back to the timeline, you'll notice apple tends to use the second (major point) for major upgrades... the first number is for serious technological changes normally...
6 was a unified system including optional multifinder, and hd support.
7 was the modern classic system (ie with a desktop), and permanent multifinder, virtual memory, aliases, etc etc
8 was with the funky platinum look and a nanokernel (The XP of Classic Mac OS I suppose).
9 saw the introduction of the cleaned up classic APIs as the Carbon APIs which allows Carbon apps to run natively on OSX, and really long filenames etc.
X was of course OS X
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
OS X 10.2 is recompiled against a whole new compiler and set of libraries (gcc 3.1) which necessitates a full round of testing and development, it adds new features, like hardware accelerated compositing engine, IPv6, new networking software (Rendevous/ZeroConf), new printing software (CUPS), new UI interfaces (like spring loaded folders, a popular request), handwriting technology (Ink), as well as improved SMB browsing, remote disk access, and performance improvements.
Now the real question; do you want to argue over a point release?
I would think a point release adds drivers, enhanced stability, enhanced security, or enhanced reliability. A major (not point) release would add features (check) and change the way the OS is used (check), while a point release doesn't change anything except fix 'issues'.
GPL Deconstructed
Back when I was running SuSE, a new release came out every few months. You didn't hear people bitching about the upgrade cost, especially considering that SuSE didn't put ISOs online. I have used every version since 6.4, and have always wanted that one new feature.
$129 is annoying, but is not that big of a deal.
The middle mind speaks!
9.0 - 9.0.1, 9.0.2, 9.0.3, 9.0.4
9.1 - 9.1.1, 9.1.2
You forgot 9.2 - 9.2.1 - 9.2.2
OK, here's the way it works with Apple.
Once a year you get a major system release, and about six months later a minor free update.
So if you paid for 8.0, 8.1 was free.
paid for 8.5, 8.6 was free. (and 8.6.1)
paid for 9.0, 9.1 was sort of free ($19.95 for the CD)(and 9.1.2, 9.2, 9.2.2)
paid for 10.0, 10.1 was free.
Pay for 10.2.
Here's the thing people are missing. They are getting all hung up on the number of the release, and I think this is why Apple kept the code name Jaguar on it. It should be 10.5, but Apple wants to keep using "X" for a long time, and having "OS X (11.0)" doesn't sound right, so they will be taking baby steps for the numbers for a while.
As far as "is it worth $129?" Hell yeah! I played around with it at MacWorld Expo for a while, and it's an amazing upgrade!
Shit, I spend $100 on Starbucks every month or so... ;)
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Hmmmm, I bought a Vovo 240... shouldn't I get a new one cheap??
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Forget the name... it's not a point release.
And Win 95 to Win 98 was just a point release.. they just hid the name (4.0, 4.1)
This is a major rewrite of many parts of OS X... Apple wants to keep the number in the low 10's is all.
OS X had plenty of free "service packs" since 10.0. I paid for 10.0 over a year ago...
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
What, are you afraid to leave your house? I walked into CompUSA and said "please give me the 10.1 update." They did, with no exchange of money. That's known as "free!"
Plus it came with the Mac OS 9.2.1 CD and a book.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Yeah, whatever, that hasn't stopped anyone in the publishing or pro music fields from using Macs, and largly ONLY Macs. I know because I work in both fields.
Usable life: what is the usable life on a computer that is 2 years obsolete when you purchase it? Where did the "5 year mac" go?
Gee I dont know, at my one job we still have some 9500's and a 7100 with a 266Mhz G3 upgrade, these have been running 8 hours a day all week since like 1996. I still have my PowerCenter 132 with a 500Mhz G3, it runs fine. I could try and run OS X on these, but why bother?
What can you run on a PC from 1996?
Mean time between failure: based purely on OS X's upgrade cycle and time to install upgrades give you 99.8% reliability. But the spinning beach ball of death adds another few hour a year down...blah blah blah
I don't have any of these problems. In one year running OS X I have crashed 5 times. Even at work running OS 9 I crash maybe once every three weeks.
At home I run Photoshop and Quark in Classic, print to an Epson printer, burn CDs with two CD-RW drives... no problem here.
Must be operator error!
And just for the record I have 12 Macs. Most are very old and they still all work.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Gee I dont know, at my one job we still have some 9500's and a 7100 with a 266Mhz G3 upgrade, these have been running 8 hours a day all week since like 1996. I still have my PowerCenter 132 with a 500Mhz G3, it runs fine. I could try and run OS X on these, but why bother?
Don't even start on upgrade path. You paid 300 bucks for a 266 mhz sonnet card when you could have paid 200 bucks for a Ghz+ processor and motherboard. You ain't going to make it far on a 266mhz G3 on a 50mhz bus.
For $3500 new mac prices, you can buy a complete new system every 9 months for 5 years.
Macs HAD good hardware. Apple stopped funding hardware upgrades when they started on OS X. Now they have a great OS and crap hardware.
It's not your fault. They are just significantly behind. OS X is not "slow". the fucking hardware is.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
You forgot 9.2 - 9.2.1 - 9.2.2
:)
Yep, sorry
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
A true sign of ignorance is making assumptions... I paid $50 for a 266Mhz NewrTek card dumbass, and $100 for the 500Mhz XLR8 G3 card for my PowerCenter. I didn't have to buy a new motherboard or replace all the RAM inthe machine either. And the system bus on the PowerCenter is 66Mhz, not 50. You don't own any Macs, do you?
For $3500 new mac prices, you can buy a complete new system every 9 months for 5 years.
Oh yeah, I want to buy a $530 PC every 9 months! I don't know what you are smoking... I paid $1600 for my G4, with 384 MB of RAM, and an Ultra-SCSI card. Right now that will buy you an 800Mhz machine. Mine is older than that.
Macs HAD good hardware. Apple stopped funding hardware upgrades when they started on OS X. Now they have a great OS and crap hardware.
You just sit and make this stuff up right? Or are you off your medication? Apple still makes great hardware, but the CPU problem lies with Motorola. The Xserve is an example of the direction Apple is heading. Few things to keep in mind. The G4 CPU does not work well with DDR... Apple had to be creative to get that to work. The fast backside cache speed effectively negates the 133Mhz bus speed. Apple is about the only maker using 64-bit 133Mhz PCI slots, plus the main memory controller now communicated directly with the PCI bus. There are a lot of good things Apple is doing.
It's not your fault. They are just significantly behind. OS X is not "slow". the fucking hardware is.
My 466Mhz G4 runs OS X just fine, thanks. I have yet to have a problem doing anything I need to do on it. When running CubaseVST I have no problem getting 16 tracks of audio, with effects, and as many MIDI tracks, and still only have about 55% CPU utilization. It's not a race you know. A fast computer is not a substitute for having a small penis... People get so OCD over having the newest gear, if your machine works well for you it doesn't have to be the fastest/newest. That would be like buying a new car every year with a bigger engine. Will you get to that next red light any faster than the next guy? I make a living on my computer and just because it's a year old and half the speed of the latest G4s hasn't caused a problem. And next month I can get a 1GHz CPU upgrade from Sonnet for about $600.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
So, what you are saying is: "OS X update is free ... on the USA territory".
I dont know, I dont live outside the US... from what I understand it was made available elsewhere. Frankly, I really don't care. ;)
Explain to me, why and how the company (Apple), claiming itself as a leader of internet technologies, hesitates (or does not want) to release ISO images on their web (or ftp) sites, where I can download lots of other software update packages? And don't tell me that ISO is bi - it's not big when is published by Linux and BSD vendors.
Apple has many updates and even entire operating systems available for free download from their web site and FTP servers. You can still download Mac System 7.5 is you want to... for free, as disk images.
Apple said the 10.1 update would not be available as a download. part of the reason was the size, but the real reason was probably a hack that someone came up with that turned the update into a full installer. That would have let anyone install OS X 10.1 on a Mac that didn't have 10.0.x for free.
By the way, I hope you understand the different between "free distribution" and "free update". Can I ask in CompUSA for "installable from scatch distro of OS X"? I don't think so.
OS X is not free, but the 10.1 update was to people that already bought 10.0. And CompUSA *was* making CDs of the 10.1 upgrade for free if people asked.
OS X is not free. Unfortunately for both Apple and customers, it is not because Apple makes money on OS X (no way to cover OS distribution expenses with $130), it's because some very unprofessional people make decisions in Apple.
Why should it be free? They used to charge $90 for Mac OS. Is Windows free? Since it already comes with so many PCs, MS could just give it away. The hardware is paying for it anyway. That's your logic. Once a year Apple releases a new version of Mac OS, and charges for it. Six months later they have a free update, i.e. 10.0 -> 10.1. So 10.2 is a paid OS release, and the next one will be free.
This is not hard to figure out you know.
Also, Apple doesn't use ISO images, they use DMG files.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
From MacMinute: "Overwhelming demand caused Amazon.com to retract its $50 rebate for Mac OS X 10.2. Amazon.com caught the attention of the Mac community earlier this week when it rolled out the exclusive rebate, but pulled it yesterday afternoon without notice. 'Customer response exceeded our wildest expectations so we're not continuing the rebate at this time,' Ling Hong, an Amazon.com spokesperson told MacMinute. 'But obviously all the pre-orders that we received during the time that the rebate offer was posted on our site will be honored.' Hong said all orders place up until 7:00 pm PDT yesterday will be eligible."
"the CPU problem lies with Motorola"
You admit there is a problem. Motorola/Apple.. who gives a damn. you are the one who is paying for obsolete hardware, fool.
Not like your G4 has a zif socket so you can upgrade the CPU when apple gets over their "problem".
Why pay good money for something you KNOW has a serious flaw.
"I bought a Ferrari but it has an old yugo engine in it... but it IS a Farrari"
The G4 1000 is available now:
Encore/ST G4
Pre-order now
Available August, 2002
SG4-1000-2M
$699.95
700 bucks for a processor that is as fast as a 1Ghz PIII @ $104.
You have bought into a scam. They stick an old CPU into a shiny box and you go oooooh, prettty shiny... looks so fast. Slow. Again, slow
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
First you write:
Not like your G4 has a zif socket so you can upgrade the CPU when apple gets over their "problem".
and then you write:
The G4 1000 is available now:
Encore/ST G4
Pre-order now
Available August, 2002
SG4-1000-2M
$699.95
So, I can or I can't upgrade my processor? Also , preorder does not mean the same as "available now" D'Oh! The model out now runs on the 100Mhz bus machines... mine is a 133MHz bus. That upgrade will be out in September. I thought you have all these Macs and you don't even know the difference in the models!
Ok, let me use small words so you can follow. I can, and have, built my own PC. I have one in my house. It doesn't run Mac OS X.
My G4 runs Mac OS X, so that's the hardware I choose to use. Where is the "flaw" in my G4?
It runs great and has been running almost crash free for a year. And the applications I use on a daily basis run just as fast on the much "slower" Mac as the PC. I guess SGI and Sun have been ripping people off with pricey slow clocked RISC CPUs too, huh?
I could either buy a new G4 for $1600+, or a new CPU upgrade for half the price... ooh that's a tough one! And when the new G4s are out, they might use DDR SDRAMs, so my 1 gig worth of RAM would be of no use to me.
I have no interest in a new PIII CPU because it wont run in the G4, so I could care less if it's $104 or $1.50. And sorry, but the MPC 7450 at 1GHz is faster than the PIII at almost twice the clock speed. NASA did a good white paper on this. Sure there are faster x86 CPUs out now, but it doesn't stop my G4 from working.
You can post as many video editing benchmarks as you like, but I don't do video editing, and I can post Photoshop bench marks. Either way my computer works as fast as I need it... 20 seconds off a Photoshop filter does not make up for having to deal with Windows! Also most broadcast TV is edited on either SGI or Macs... nobody's complaining yet.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Your are a fucking idiot.
You think a computer with twice the clock speed is a faster computer? Its not, its actually slower.
Probably about half as fast.
And, as I have done time and again, comparable machines are cheaper when you buy from Apple.
You haven't proven anything-- except that you don't grasp the basics of computer architecture.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Oh yeah, real authoritative stuff.
One guy comparing abandonware (the avid system) a product that has never been optimized on the mac and was abandoned with final cut pro came out.
And you think John carmack is an authority on cpu performance? Sheesh.
You can't defy the laws of physics and economics--- even if John Carmack claims they don't exist.
Your position is one of ignorance. And thats something you should not be proud of.
I have proven my case.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Oh, great, I can manufacture those by the hundreds!
You think I could sell them on eBay to people who want the discount?
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Seti@home
PowerPC G4 2 1000 133 512 133 7.5 7.5 Mac OS X 10.1.3 3.03.powerpc-apple-d1.2 1 7:07 Hours
Pentium III 2 933 133 256 133 7.0 7.0 Win2000 sp1 Win CLI 3.03 2 7:04 Hours
Athlon Palomino 1 1600 133 512 133 12.0 12.0 Win2000 Win CLI 3.03 1 3:34 Hours
Athlon Palomino 1 1900 200 256 200 9.5 9.5 Win98SE Win CLI 3.03 1 2:48 Hours
Raw numbers.
LOWER IS BETTER
Which means the G4 is slow.
$2,999.00 for the dual G4.
$1500 for an identicle PC, superdrive/firewire/gigeathernet/flatpanel etc.
Except for one thing: Dual 2100mp Athlons @ 1733mhz.
Well over twice the performance at half the price. That makes the PC a 4 times better value.
Buy two of them if you want to spend the money.
In 24 hours, The Dual G4 will have completed almost 7 work units.
The Two Dual Athlon MPs will have completed 32 work units.
Same price. With ALL the options including the superdrive.. On two machines.
All the benchmarks are the same. This is not a best case benchmark. Applications across platforms are the best indicators.
Apple lies to you.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Your are a fucking idiot.
Oh, the irony. And nice, well-thought out argument, dude.
You think a computer with twice the clock speed is a faster computer?
No, I think a P4 with (over) twice the clock speed is MUCH faster than a G4.
Its not, its actually slower.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. Look at REAL benchmarks, not ones doctored up by Apple. A photoshop filter is not a real benchmark; it's a contrivance. Once again, sometimes a P4 is faster, sometimes a G4 is faster. On the average, a G4 is about 20% faster clock-for-clock.
Probably about half as fast.
So now we've gone beyond even Steve's "twice as fast" lies and we're up to that a G4 is FOUR TIMES FASTER than a P4 clock-for-clock?? On ALL benchmarks?? Please, show me the proof. Show me 10-20 non-Photoshop benchmarks (which Adobe specifically optomizes for Apple) that, when averaged, produce a 4x winner for Apple. I dare you.
And, as I have done time and again, comparable machines are cheaper when you buy from Apple.
Please, show me the comparison. Even allowing that an 800 Mhz G4 is equivalent to a 1.8Ghz P4 Dell, please explain how Apple is cheaper when it costs twice as much. I dare you.
You haven't proven anything-- except that you don't grasp the basics of computer architecture.
Now, don't make me explain how brain damaged Apple's memory architecture is. And I've always thought those 533Mhz bus speeds on PCs are overrated.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Wow, it hasn't taken me 7 hours to do a set at home work unit since... what, 1998?
All this desperation to defy physics and economics is annoying.
I should probably stop feeding the troll.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Bitgeek, you are delusional.
First, you have no seti account.
If you do, please tell us what it is.
Second: "May 13, 1999
The Windows and Mac versions of the client were put online today. This happened to coincide with a national TV news story, and immediately our FTP server was overwhelmed. We hastily borrowed several old Sparc IPCs and set them up as FTP servers, but this didn't solve the problem."
When it started the fastest Mac did work units in 12 hours. (after they fixed the 10 minute work unit bug) since then, seti has trippled the ammount of processing done to each work unit.
Perhaps a better benchmark is RC5.
RC5 class 3 benchmark optimized for altivec on a G4 1000: 4531 kkeys/s
RC5 class 3 optimized for SSE on a 1800mhz Athlon XP2200: 6151 kkeys/s
If you have numbers by all means post them.
I belive you are either lying or delusional though.
Post some damn numbers.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Now you don't care about the territory of the term free being applied to the OS based on BSD which is build internationally...
Mind rephrasing that in English?
Ah, but you want to use American inovations...and not have to pay... typical. What's wrong with your country? They can't make their own computers?
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Bytemarks, Photoshop, hell, ever fair comparison done has born me out.
By the way, I was talkign about intel chips. That you compre a year old PowerPC to the latest AMD processor is telling.
But then, you've got a fantasy to maintain, so keep prosting slanted and non-objective "comparisons".
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Yeah, idiots like you think a 1 bit buss that runs at 500MHz is "twice as fast" as a 128 bit buss that runs at 250MHz.
Why I wasted time arguing with someone who calls themselves "reality master 101" is beyond me-- normally I ignore children.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Did the sub-gigahertz G4 win out over the 2.0GHz Intel behemoth? Well, yes and no. In terms of win-loss, the Pentium 4 handily beats the G4 scoring five wins to one. However, the G4 showed impressive strength in the RGB-to-CMYK color-conversion test by turning in a time of 23.6 seconds compared to 38.8 seconds on the P4 system -- a noticeable 64 percent quicker (view results). This particular test was the black eye that brought down the P4's overall average.
Image rotation scored the Pentium test box a small victory. The P4 was able to finish this task in 16.3 seconds compared the latest G4 at 17.5 seconds -- 7 percent faster.
The P4 won the Gaussian Blur test and Unsharp Mask test. The G4 managed to turn in times of 9.1 and 11.0 seconds respectively, but the P4 bested it with times of 6.7 and 4.7 seconds -- 36 percent and 134 percent faster, respectively (see results). Impressive percentages, but in terms of actual time the differences weren't enough to average out the P4's color-conversion defeat.
Image reduction and Lighting Effects were our two final tests. The P4 was able to finish reducing the image in 1.7 seconds -- about 88 percent faster than the G4's time of 3.2 seconds (see results). The P4, with its optimized Lighting Effects plug-in, managed to win this test with a time of 8.6 seconds beating the G4 and its time of 9.8 -- averaging 14 percent faster (view results).
ONE FUCKING TEST
Out of hundreds of applications and benchmarks that can be used to compare the systems, the G4 wins ONE FUCKING TEST. Apple marketing plays that test for all they're worth.
"Benchmarks demolish Apple speed boasts":
http://www.theregus.com/content/39/24272.html
"The G4 scored between 147 and 187 on the floating point tests, while the Pentium III scored 297. Today's Pentium 4's double that figure, and as a result, today's PCs are four times as fast as Apple's professional line in some situations."
As tested by a mac zealot site:
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
He tests the machines himself, post the numbers. The G4 does not come close to taking any of his benchmarks. He still likes the mac better because it is not windows XP.... Well neither is windows 2000 or Linux/FreeBSD
Perhaps Apple's next speed upgrade will be FOUR G4s. They might be able to compete with four of them. As it stands, two are not as fast as one mid range (sub $700 system) PC.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
normally I ignore children.
Now I know that you're pretty young. Only someone in their late teens or early twenties would say something like that. Just for the record, since it seems to matter to you, I'm 37.
But you continue to ignore my question. Loads of people have posted real world benchmarks of various applications that show that you are wrong. But hey, maybe we're all wrong. POST THE LINKS. Prove me wrong.
You claim in your sig that "A 1GHz PPC G4 is 2 to 4 times as fast as a 2GHz P4. Stop lying with SPEC, look at architecture, actual performance"
Come on, prove it. If that's true, that a G4 can execute 4-8 instructions in the same clock cycle as a P4 executes 1 instruction, then it should be EASY to find benchmarks that prove this out. My only request is that it CANNOT come from Apple.
Of course, since in the past you have posted that you value honesty, I would assume that if you fail to prove this, then that sentence will disappear from your bio. After all, I wouldn't expect you to lie about the performance of Macintoshes. You wouldn't do that, would you?
And of course, I'm STILL waiting for a breakdown on how the Macintosh is twice as expensive as the Dell, yet you claim it's 10% cheaper. Please explain that as well.
Come on! Now is your chance to strike me down! Smite me with your righteous fury! Post the benchmarks and the value breakdown!
In fact, tell you what. You post 10 benchmarks that show that a 1 Ghz G4 is 2-4 times faster than a 2 Ghz P4, and I will set my sig to your post to draw attention to the superiority of the Apple platform. I'll do a huge Mea Culpa and bow down to the Great God Apple. Come on, you can't turn down that kind of publicity for your beautiful Macintosh! Now's your chance to rub it in my face! Big slam dunk IN MY FACE.
I await your lesson to be administered.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.