...... 10.1 10.2 10.3 and 10.4 aren't updates for mac os x. Those are major releases like windows xp and windows vista. Please, learn a little bit before posting stupid things like this one

Hey, you forgot to mention all the FREE viri and spyware you get when you use XP of any flavor. Those yahoos at Apple still haven't let their customers have any of that fun...no matter how many updates we pay for.

Is this "article" a joke? The writer is painfully ignorant of current technology...

Along the way, Apple included iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, GarageBand and in general, an environment that works well and just stays out of your way.

OS X has also kept our household virus free, even with a pre-teen who tries out every game he finds on the web.

I must use XP for my engineering applications, and so spend the bulk of my day in that environment. If I total up my support time for XP vs OS X, all my Macs, and all my OS X upgrades, have been FREE.

Here's just one example. When using a KVM switch, my XP machine takes 5-10 seconds to recognize the arrival of the keyboard and mouse. My Mac recognizes them instantly. Over the course of a day, I waste many minute waiting for XP. Those little things add up.

trying to compare a home edition of "XP" to OSX is like comparing a tent trailer to a BMW...

are you completely that out of touch?

charing for 10.1, or 10.2 or 10.3 or 10.4 is like MSFT charging for Vista premium, and it's next 5 systems it comes out with in the next 20 years, except Mac users get it all compressed into 5 years...

geez, with people with your simplistic tales, i can see why it is so easy to snooker people like you......

jon.

10.1 was a free upgrade. Also OSX is free with a new machine. And there is no segmentation for the end user between Home and Pro.

I concur with the first comment by "no", each one-tenth OSX release is the same as a full number release of other platforms. Sort of like dog years. Why Apple does this is unknown, though Jobs may be so enamored by the OS X as a symbol that Apple uses the kludge to stay on the same number. 10.2-10.4 represents the same development and feature advancement as OS 7 - 8 - 9, only in less time. And it's a good thing. You may have had to pay more in a shorter period, but at least you got something other than the constant bug fixes our Windows cousins receive.

As the title of this website says, the views here include "gossip". For serious analysis and comparisons go somewhere else.

I think it is unfair to compare a complete OS X to a version of XP that pretty much sucks in terms of professional grade features. OS X should be compared to XP Professional not XP Home. Furthermore, OSX is an entirely new platform and these are MAJOR releases in which a brand new OS continues to receive heavy development and additional features.

Finally, Mac OSX includes excellent apps such as iPhoto and iMovie. Search is excellent unlike that ridiculous search capability in XP. I am not even going to go into the development that has gone into a complete hardware platform change from PowerPC to Intel. As a Mac user I have always welcomed the upgrades because I have always found something worthy... these are not bloatware upgrades with new assitant icons (paper clip anyone) but rather upgrades that make the system more responsive, more useful, and more compatible.

You are making the assumption that XP somehow is any where near as good as OsX and that none of its numerous warts exist.

Yeah, unfortunately, your assessment as many others have pointed out is wrong. What you have listed are not updates but considered new version releases. Perhaps using the decimal point has fooled you because you thought going from say 10.3 (also known as Panther) to 10.4 (also known as Tiger) is a small upgrade. It wasn't. Version 10.4 was a major release. You could think of 10.3 as being version 13 and 10.4 as being version 14. Just because Apple chose to use decimal increments doesn't mean it's a small update. Sorry pal!

If you're still not convinced, I'd suggest you go back and do some research to see what new features each release added. Then you possibly will be convinced, I hope.

The author is a simpleton who is clueless about the true cost of Windows ownership. The endless hours of supporting an inferior OS and the mind numbing expense of time and effort to just use it to get annything accompished far exceeds his limited grasp of modern computing technology.

* 10.1 was free.
* You don't need 10.4 in order to use most programs; many Macs can use new software with Mac OS X 10.3.9 just fine.
* You don't have to buy every release. I did not buy 10.4 because I don't need it. I will probably pick up 10.5, though.
* Nobody is forcing anyone to purchase upgrades they don't want.
* Mac OS X is Mac OS X - it's the full version of the operating system, not some scaled down version for the home...

..etc, etc...

A bargain maybe ,until you get
to use it or try and use it.Thanks anyway

This is a story, published by the test bed, for the sole reason of bringing the rage of mac users to this site, and bumping there web stats.

thanks for falling for it.

They get more money from advertisers, although they get flamed.

they just laugh at that tho.

IMO - your both retarted.

It's also worth noting that there are no OS X "upgrades" - each time someone buys OS X it is a full install DVD or CD (with the exception of those original 10.1 updater discs) - that can be installed without any previous version and with no activation or cd-key of any kind. And as others have said there is no Home/Pro distinction so OS X is better compared against the £250 XP Pro.

And each .1 upgrade has almost a XP->Vista set of new features.

Above all - each release of OS X is *faster* on the same hardware than the previous release. I run Tiger on a 400 MHz G4 and I bet it'll run Leopard just fine as well.

Those of you who keep posting that Mac OS X includes the iLife applications (iMovie, iPhoto, etc.) are wrong. iLife is only included with Mac hardware purchases, not Mac OS X. The only iLife version you get for free is the one that comes with your machine; upgrades are a separate purchase from OS X. Let's not mislead people!

One issue I have is the fact you are citing the OEM price of Windows XP Home - the main limitation of an OEM license is that you can only legitimately purchase this for a new system. Bringing the conclusion that you need to buy a new PC to run the next OEM version of Windows.

If you wish to compare OS X to Windows at least use the same retail prices. (Maybe even cite the price at the time of release)

You get extra points (as a reality warping Microsoft fanboy) for making the case that Apple added the feature of DVD playback in its updates to MacOS X. I really liked that one because DVD playback has been supported in all versions of MacOS since DVD hardware was introduced on the Mac which was prior to the release of MacOS X. I used this feature all the time in MacOS 9.

Dumbasses like this only write this kind of crap to get hits on their website so they can appear popular. Don't respond and don't forward this shite.

You must be Steve Ballmer's cabana boy to write such a load of ignorant crap. Get real.

Go get an Intel MAC to run your cheap Vista, and you will get a free MAC OS X to play with.

After some practice with the free OS and continued painful experiences with Microsoft products, you are now in the position to enjoy smooth and safe computing for free.

By the way, there is no need (nor obligation) to pay for each incremental upgrade; you may simply wait to upgrade until next time Microsoft puts out the next great thing.

All security updates (for all versions) of MAC OS X will be free, so there will be no expense.

And remember you essentially got the MAC OS X for free since you bought the machine to run Vista.

And remember, feature for feature, and spec for spec, MACs are now entirely price competitive with other brand's PCs (Dell Hewlett Packard etc.), and many recent test have shown that a MAC may be better suited (peformance-wise) to run Vista (and XP) than most PC boxes.

So what are you waiting for?

A copy of Vista and a MAC to run it on ;-)

To quote:

"IMO - your both retarted."

I hope I don't need to point out the irony here.

LOL @LexRex
...you beat me to it! :)

How funny...

It's amazing on how this article's author can type with his head up his butt and still not be part of a circus.

Now, I'd pay to see that!

Of course, we had to wait until OS X 10.3 to get an OS that really deserved the name, but…

I am a dedicated Mac user, but do think it sucks that each point upgrade costs money. People call them major releases, but I honestly think they are creating a huge rift in places like school districts that are trying to keep current and can't send truckloads of money to Apple every year.

10.2 was decent and 10.3 is exceptional. I hate 10.4, primarily because of Spotlight. I prefer the old search method any day, where it can actually find a file that I know the filename of.

Your article and comments following miss a very interesting point. I prefer incremental improvements to one all encompassing redraft. The amount of bugs is smaller to deal with and the improvements I get now versus waiting 5 years. Maybe if XP had incremental improvements, (please discount the security suplements), it would be more user friendly, less buggy and less malware prone.
Moores law implied doubling computing capacity every 18 mos, why ahould we not expect incremental improvements to match ?

Dream on Windows fanboy. Oh, and enjoy your over-priced copy of Vista and its delightful hidden presents:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

In order to take advantage of the new (I mean rip off) features of Vista, you must buy a new computer, that does not sound cheaper to me. Each Mac OS X upgrade runs on existing hardware. I am running OS X Tiger quite well on a G3 iMac DV (as well as more recent computers).

"OS X 10.1 was eventually released as a free update, so only five times more expensive!"

It was free when it was released. I remember going to an Apple Reseller with a blank disc, and they burned it for me, because it was too big to download.

Of course, you don't bother to correct your BS scree about Apple charging for CD burning capabilities, and you didn't fix the math.

Poor research dude. Apple never charged for the 10.1 update. It was free if you owned 10.0. Let's be a pro and check the facts.

Just two quick points...

1) Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 added a few new features and is considered by Microsoft to be a "new licensed version" subject to paying for the upgrade. And from what I've heard, Microsoft has committed to a paid upgrade on their major software lines every 2-3 years in the future (to provide the "free upgrade" benefit to those they get to buy into their "Software Assurance" licensing programs).

2) Microsoft didn't add features to improve user experience -- they added features to compete with Mac OS X and Linux, to solidify more fully their monopoly. Scared of iMovie? Windows Movie Maker to the rescue! Mac OS X has a built in firewall (not to mention blocks all ports by default)? Let's build in a firewall. Microsoft's motivation for adding stuff "without charging" is for greed's sake and to attempt to demotivate people from switching -- Apple charges for their innovations, Microsoft copies and offers for free only to try to avert your eyes from innovations.

FFS Don't feed the troll!

Look, besides the fact you selected listed a few things - and I know you won't believe it but OSX actually made EVERY machine you installed it on run faster and more stable. I had an Imac that went from 10.1 to 10.3 and it was faster and I went from a few system freezes a year to ZERO the past two years ... I know you don't believe it but it's exactly like the number of viruses on my Mac (or malware/trojans) - ZERO. I know you think it's some fantasy world but it's 100% true. Upgrade an OS means more features (not just what you listed) and a faster and more stable machine.

The Win service packs need to be free because of major holes and flaws in the OS - it would be like charging you for a recalled product.

The bottom line is if OSX was really a ripoff, people would complain - ask any mac user if they feel OSX 10.2 is better than 1 and if 3 is better than 2 and so on ... sure, would it want it for free - of course, who doesn't but it was a fair price to pay (pennies per day) for a better, more stable oS with hundreds of additional features - not just the 5 you cited.

"The bottom line is if OSX was really a ripoff, people would complain"

Excellent point. The only ones who do complain about it are Windows bloggers like this guy, George Ou, Paul Thurott, etc. It's never someone who has actually spent money on every Mac OS upgrade.

Our neighbor values his time at more than minimum wage and pays about $300 a year to have his XP laptop and desktop kept running well by the Geeksquad.

A service pack is not equal to a major os release. Service packs are bug fixes with a marking speak name. Mac OS X releases had major feature enhancements and major design improvements. One dot Mac X release is approximately equal to the change from XP to Vista.

What a moron!

Vista is unlikely to be able to bask in the glory very long. I'm sure Leopard will be a considerable leap over Vista. After Leopard, I would imagine OS development on the Mac could slow down.

But how many years have Windows users been forced to live in the past? Apple will be the cutting edge for the foreseeable future -- until personal computers are replaced with something else.

Dont forget to add about $50 a year for virus software subscriptions so in five years that is an extra $250.

Advantage Mac!

dont feed the trolls.

this is just another lame attempt to drive traffic to this lame-o site by bashing Apple in transparently inaccurate ways, Rob Enderle style.

http://the-ish.com/blog/?p=15

bah.

Here...read this...

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/660E746C-F388-4AC7-98F5-6CB951501472.html

Once you factor in the price of how many times the average user takes their machine to the shop for a spyware & virus removal... I am still ahead financially if I bought every version of OS X. Now, if you are a geek, you can save some money - if you reload Windows yourself. But, with lost time in productivity by fighting all of the security holes, viruses, spyware, updating this and that, makes OS X even more valuable at it's modest price.

The author of this silly article has obviously done no research into Mac OS X.
He is simply not qualified to state which OS is superior to the other in terms of value either monetary or otherwise.
We have a name for guys like him.
LOSER.
ha-ha!

Is this article some kind of joke ? Mac OS 10.1 10.2 10.3 and 10.4 are NOT Update But major realease like Window XP and Vista. Know your subject before wrinting that kind of "article"

Emil, Emil, Emil, I can't believe that you haven't deleted all of these comments. Not only does Mac OS X have updates, they are totally FREE. You don't even need to ask for them, the OS X operating system checks with Apple for you. This includes improvements, security updates (never ever had a virus), everything except VERSION changes. Unlike MSoft, Apple rarely changes the digits to the left of the decimal except when a processor change requires it. Versions, also, include the 1st digit to the right of the 1st decimal. thus, 10.3.0 is Panther and 10.4.0 is Tiger. However, 10.4.1 through 10.4.8 (or.9) is, also, Tiger. The last updates 10.4.1-10.4.9 are always FREE. Sorry, but you're NO professional!

i cant wait to parrallel vista on my macbook :)

Mac OS X is a rip-off?
vista with everything you need is 548 Euro's...
what's a rip-off?