Marius Oiaga, writing at Softpedia, thinks that the nine/ten different versions of Windows Vista makes it superior in terms of choice. Here’s what he has to say:
Well, first off, there are a total of nine editions of Windows Vista. Even ten if you consider the Windows Vista Handcrafted Edition…But how has Apple succeeded in making this a negative aspect is beyond me. I get it, you only go to a Mac store and ask for an iMac or a Mac Pro and you are all set.Hold on, let me find exactly the word I’m looking for. Oh yes: bwahahahahaha.But what if you are like me? What if you actually welcome the choice? What if you want to build your own system, from the ground up? What if you are fond of the right-click button? My home PC not only runs Windows, but Ubuntu too. What if instead of Vista Ultimate, you only need Home Basic? God forbid you will ever want something different than Mac OS X. Because the only choice is Windows. And since it runs on Macs…
Seriously? The difference here, Marius, is that the one version (two, if you include Mac OS X Server) of the Mac OS includes all of the features. It’s not like there’s something missing from OS X you can only get if you spend the extra gazillion dollars to upgrade it.
Not to mention that part at the end where you totally contradict yourself by pointing out in one sentence that you might want to run something other than Mac OSX and then mentioning in the very next breath that you can install Windows on your Mac. Or, we hasten to add, any version of Linux.
This, my friends, is the kind of person who wants to buy a box with Bill Gates’s autograph on it.
[image from Penny Arcade]
I'm a little tired of people using the one-button mouse argument...
But then again, it's an easy indicator that tells you whoever wrote the article is ill-informed and shouldn't be taken seriously.
That should have a name, like Godwin's Law. Let's call it McCullough's Law: a Mac/PC comparison is instantly pointless if it mentions right-clicking.
Whoop! Whoop! Smugness Alert! Whoop! Whoop!
However swell it is to have an OS that is fully featured (allowing us to run iTunes and Comic Life at the same time) and that it is tied to only one brand of computer (with all the trials and tribulations that implies), having various flavours of an OS may not be a bad thing.
End users do not all have the same needs from their OS and computers - and if a user can purchase, say, a notebook running a processor other than a cutting edge Intel using a basic (but fine for them) OS at half the price (or better) of a MacBook, then more power to them.
Apple Apologists may not like it (if only because we don't have that option), but let's not get too The Stevo in our smugness, hmmm?
PS - and just what the frig is wrong with wishing for a two button mouse/trackpad?
;-)
Baz, I don't think your comparison to hardware holds water. If you're saying that the tradeoff to better performance is lower cost, as it is with hardware, then how do you explain that the fully featured version of OS X costs $129; cheaper than any full, non-OEM version of Windows.
My point is that there aren't features of OS X that are being held back to dredge more money out of consumers (the $1.99 802.11n patch notwithstanding).
Having two or three different version of an OS is one thing-but nine? And to make matters worse, Microsoft touts the advanced nature of its latest OS, while ghettoizing many of the marquee features into the higher-priced versions. I honestly feel bad for the average, non-tech-savvy consumer who wants to walk into a store and buy the right version of Vista.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with wishing for a two-button mouse/trackpad-but suggesting, as Oiaga did, that you simply can't have a two-button mouse with OS X is not only disingenuous, but flat out wrong.
I apologize if the tone conveyed in the piece above was "smugness," but if that's what's needed to combat Oiaga's tone of "idiocy," well, I call 'em like I see 'em.
Ah, but Dan, no OSX ever cost $129. The cost of the OS is currently the cost of a new Apple computer.
Boxed versions of the OS that cost $129 are essentially an upgrade to be applied to your older, but reasonably current, Mac. But yes, one could argue it is cheaper than the upgrades to Vista.
But its not a full version, to be installed on an Intel machine of the user's choice - so that price cannot be compared to what is out there in a full install Vista.
Not every user needs every bell and whistle that may accompany a full OS. Nor may they own the hardware capable of running it - and that holds true of Mac machines, too. WinOS users have the opportunity to upgrade to a 'Lite' version on less-capable machines or, if need be, by a whole new notebook with the OS installed for a little above $500. Mac users must blow twice that if there current notebook won't handle the the current OS.
OK, nine is excessive - but perhaps one is too few?
Perhaps I'm the exception that proves the rule, but my PowerMac G3 has made the transition from OS 9 to Panther (skipped Tiger, because it was too much of a pain), and I plan to move it on up to Leopard when it comes out. That computer's almost eight years old, and it's ticking along fine; would you consider it "reasonably current?" I've also installed Tiger on an iBook G3/500-it doesn't run great, but it's useable, and that's just with 256MB of RAM. Double that and the machine would be fine for most common tasks. I'd be awfully surprised if Vista would install on any computer as old as either of those.
OS X versions in my experience have also gotten substantially faster over time, unlike the Windows versions I've used.
And if the cost of upgrading to OS X includes the cost of buying a new Mac, I fail to see how it's any different from having to buy a PC with enough horsepower to run Vista.
Sure, every user might not need every bell and whistle, but how much are you going to cut the price for removing, say, Dashboard? And how will that affect development costs? The amount of time the engineers have to spend making sure things work on all the different versions would probably necessitate the kind of price hike that Vista has.
Come the end of the day, I just think that having one version is far simpler. Sure, you might have extra features that you don't need when you buy it-but then again, you might someday find that you want those features, and will end up inordinately pleased that you don't have to go out and pay a bunch extra for the privilege of having them.