Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tristan
Windows XP was released in 2001. If you bought it then, you haven't had to pay a penny for the service packs and updates since, including new versions of Internet Explorer, Media Player, MSN Messenger, Windows Movie Maker, etc etc. Hell, if you bought XP Pro, they'll give you the 64-bit version for free.
With this in mind, how can Apple justify charging £99 foir a service pack every 12 months?
I'm not Microsoft's biggest fan, by a long way -- I'm typing this on a Linux box -- but even they don't seem as money-grabbing as Apple.
|
How the hell can you compare point upgrades of OS X to XP Service Packs? I've been an XP user since it's release, and I didn't see any major changes to the OS in any of the service packs. The only things I've seen are security fixes. Upgrades to IE6? What a joke. They'll be showing it on the Antiques Roadshow soon.
OS X has Service Packs too. If you're using 10.3 you can update to 10.3.1, 10.3.2 etc. In those you get bug-fixes, security patches, minor tweaks to the OS - basically the same sort of thing you get in an XP service pack.
Take a look at the
list of changes in Tiger. I didn't see those sort of changes in any of the XP service packs. I bet the last time changes like that were made was when the move from 2K to XP was made. And how much did a full retail version of XP cost on release? I bet it wasn't £89.
Put it this way - MS and Apple are as money-grabbing as each other, they just do it differently. Apple upgrade yearly (though Tiger was 18 months), MS can take years. And both price them accordingly.