Mac OS 10.4 "Tiger" on april 29th!

Originally Posted by monkeybreath

For those who are students... it is *much* cheaper to buy from the education store

youre telling me! Only £58 here

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Lew

Yes.

Same here.. I find it superior to Firefox..


Actually, on a serious note, if I can get hold of a copy of Tiger, I'll probably play around for a couple of weeks on it, then re-install panther. For me, the new features (while nice) are not enough to persuade me to part with £60 (I qualify for student discount).

The new features are more than enough for me. Smart folders, spotlight, automator, dvd player improvements. Video and sound overhaul, safari upgrade (much faster according to people have have tested it)

[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.

[downquark1]

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.

I'm afraid there's no counter argument to that, except the upgrades are a little more significant than a service pack.

Originally Posted by downquark1

I'm afraid there's no counter argument to that, except the upgrades are a little more significant than a service pack.

Much more. We get free services packs but this is a lot of new features such as spotlight, smart folders, dashboard, automator, and the video and sound overhaul which is getting overlooked here! This OS has the format for the new HD-DVD and high-def tv bulit into it, and we still get free updates of safari, itunes, quicktime, Windows media, and msn.

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.

I don't think it's quite fair to equate a move from OSX 10.3 to 10.4 with the issuing of a Service Pack by M$. Despite the naming convention Apple has opted for, what this really is is a move from version 3 to version 4 of Apple's Next generation operating system. More like going from Win95 to Win98. Apple, unfortunately, decided to do a Rover and carried on using the name 'Metro' even after the car was completely re-engineered from the chassis up, to make an analogy. I personally think they shouldv'e started again from 1.

Don't be confused by the headline marketing of all the new bells and whistles Apple has added to the OS. This is not just about adding freebie apps and applying fixes and patches. Us Apple users get fixes and patches just the same as M$ users do, the biggest ones prompting changes from 10.2.1 to 10.2.2 and so on ... (I still use 10.2.8, the last revision of OSX 10.2 before 10.3 came out). Apple makes significant improvements to the core OS with each release.

And, (can't resist a dig here), each version of OSX has actually performed better than the previous one, despite the extra features. For example anyone with a five-year-old iMac (like me!) will find that it runs OSX 10.3 as well as it ran OS9 that it shipped with way back in 2000. And it runs 10.3 better than it ran 10.2. This is quite refreshing when M$ is known for developing new versions of its OS that are a million times more bloated than their immediate predecessor and demand a relatively current PC spec on which to run.

[Chris W]

From what i have heard about Longhorn, Tiger offers most of the features that Longhorn will- so i see the change from Panther to Tiger as the eqivalent of going from XP to "longhorn"

Originally Posted by Chris T

I don't think it's quite fair to equate a move from OSX 10.3 to 10.4 with the issuing of a Service Pack by M$. Despite the naming convention Apple has opted for, what this really is is a move from version 3 to version 4 of Apple's Next generation operating system. More like going from Win95 to Win98. Apple, unfortunately, decided to do a Rover and carried on using the name 'Metro' even after the car was completely re-engineered from the chassis up, to make an analogy. I personally think they shouldv'e started again from 1.

Don't be confused by the headline marketing of all the new bells and whistles Apple has added to the OS. This is not just about adding freebie apps and applying fixes and patches. Us Apple users get fixes and patches just the same as M$ users do, the biggest ones prompting changes from 10.2.1 to 10.2.2 and so on ... (I still use 10.2.8, the last revision of OSX 10.2 before 10.3 came out). Apple makes significant improvements to the core OS with each release.

And, (can't resist a dig here), each version of OSX has actually performed better than the previous one, despite the extra features. For example anyone with a five-year-old iMac (like me!) will find that it runs OSX 10.3 as well as it ran OS9 that it shipped with way back in 2000. And it runs 10.3 better than it ran 10.2. This is quite refreshing when M$ is known for developing new versions of its OS that are a million times more bloated than their immediate predecessor and demand a relatively current PC spec on which to run.

Excellently put (although the Rover example may not be the greatest at the moment )
__________________

Originally Posted by monkeybreath

From what i have heard about Longhorn, Tiger offers most of the features that Longhorn will- so i see the change from Panther to Tiger as the eqivalent of going from XP to "longhorn"

Not really, Longhorn doesnt offer many of these new features (spotlight, automator) and certainly isnt as advanced when it comes to the video and graphic overhaul that 10.4 has (H.264, Core image/audio and so on)

http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/overv...sandmedia.html

Core Image Unlock the performance of todayââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s powerful graphics hardware and enjoy ultra-fast, pixel-accurate image processing.Core Video Enjoy amazingly high-quality video in QuickTime thanks to this advanced, hardware-accelerated video processing technology.H.264/AVC Video Codec Enjoy higher quality video at lower data rates with this ultra-efficient, fully scalable compression technology for video creation and playback. OpenGL 1.5 Compliance Experience greater graphics capabilities with full support for the OpenGL 1.5 specification.

Longhorn has been scaled back, although i hope apple have 10.5 ready to take on longhorn. MS has a history of taken ideas from the mac platform

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by Damien

Its here! The new OS for the mac conitaing features such as spotlight and dashboard is arriving on the 29th! I've been waiting for this

http://www.apple.com//

MAC users should just deal with their hangups and get a proper computer, a Windows PC, like what everyone else uses.

Same with those Linux nutters.

This blatant trolling post was brought to you by the newly-liberated Scrotnig Enterprises Ltd in association with WAZZO! washing powder - for a wash that's whiter than white!

[Chris W]

Originally Posted by Damien

Not really, Longhorn doesnt offer many of these new features (spotlight, automator) and certainly isnt as advanced when it comes to the video and graphic overhaul that 10.4 has (H.264, Core image/audio and so on)

I think you interpreted my post in the opposite way to i meant...

Microsoft are clearly going to charge a large sum for the upgrade to Longhorn- thus i view the change from 10.3 to 10.4 as similar to this- hence people should pay for it
__________________

Originally Posted by scrotnig

MAC users should just deal with their hangups and get a proper computer, a Windows PC, like what everyone else uses.

Same with those Linux nutters.

This blatant trolling post was brought to you by the newly-liberated Scrotnig Enterprises Ltd in association with WAZZO! washing powder - for a wash that's whiter than white!

[Tristan]

But....

H.264 is just another video codec, and one that everyone will be able to view when Quicktime 7 is released. If Microsoft started advertising WMV10 as a major reason to upgrade to Longhorn, I don't think many people would take them seriously.

Windows users got upgraded to OpenGl 1.5 when the video card manufacturers updated their drivers, which was quite a while ago. Are Apple really offering a driver upgrade as a selling point? And while Apple certainly lead the way in getting the video card to produce fancy effects on the desktop, that's not new in this release.

I'm not entirely sure what that Core Audio does, but from reading the page, the only new feature is the ability to combine multiple soundcards into a single logical device. That's a nice trick, but how many people are actually going to use it? Also, Windows (and, I would presume, Mac OS 10.3) has no problem recording from multiple soundcards simultaneously -- it's just a bit more tricky to set up.

And as for performing better -- Apple have doubled the RAM requirements for Tiger compared to 10.3

Don't get me wrong, I like Macs, and I'd probably get one if I could afford it. But it always amazes me that every year, most Mac owners are willing to shell out a hundred quid for some updates that other OS's get free, and a few new applications.

If Apple released a "desktop applications pack" containing things like Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator, and released it for £25 or so, then that would be okay. But even the £60 student price seems like a rip off to me, for what you're getting.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Tristan

But....

H.264 is just another video codec, and one that everyone will be able to view when Quicktime 7 is released. If Microsoft started advertising WMV10 as a major reason to upgrade to Longhorn, I don't think many people would take them seriously.

Windows users got upgraded to OpenGl 1.5 when the video card manufacturers updated their drivers, which was quite a while ago. Are Apple really offering a driver upgrade as a selling point? And while Apple certainly lead the way in getting the video card to produce fancy effects on the desktop, that's not new in this release.

I'm not entirely sure what that Core Audio does, but from reading the page, the only new feature is the ability to combine multiple soundcards into a single logical device. That's a nice trick, but how many people are actually going to use it? Also, Windows (and, I would presume, Mac OS 10.3) has no problem recording from multiple soundcards simultaneously -- it's just a bit more tricky to set up.

And as for performing better -- Apple have doubled the RAM requirements for Tiger compared to 10.3

Don't get me wrong, I like Macs, and I'd probably get one if I could afford it. But it always amazes me that every year, most Mac owners are willing to shell out a hundred quid for some updates that other OS's get free, and a few new applications.

If Apple released a "desktop applications pack" containing things like Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator, and released it for £25 or so, then that would be okay. But even the £60 student price seems like a rip off to me, for what you're getting.

You are forgetting all the enhancements that require .mac access to work. Another £100 a year. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft started offering services in Windows that require a subscription.
__________________

Originally Posted by Chris T

And, (can't resist a dig here), each version of OSX has actually performed better than the previous one, despite the extra features. For example anyone with a five-year-old iMac (like me!) will find that it runs OSX 10.3 as well as it ran OS9 that it shipped with way back in 2000. And it runs 10.3 better than it ran 10.2. This is quite refreshing when M$ is known for developing new versions of its OS that are a million times more bloated than their immediate predecessor and demand a relatively current PC spec on which to run.

All true, however we do have Pentium 3 700's (from about 1999) with 128 Meg of ram that run XP (even SP2) well. I have a P3 700 at home (with 256 Meg ram) that runs Server 2003 well. Admittedly, it has started to creak a bit now I have installed Active Directory, IIS, Windows Media Server, Coldfusion server, SQL server and Exchange server, but it is still usable..

You are forgetting all the enhancements that require .mac access to work. Another £100 a year. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft started offering services in Windows that require a subscription

Some features, all of them work but you can sync information as a back up to .mac (picture, bookmarks, address book, etc etc) but there are no features that require .mac to work. Even the feature that do have a .mac option are usually to do with putting information on .mac such as bookmarks/contacts.

Also its £69 not £100 (£50 until middle of may)

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Tristan

But....

<snip>

Don't get me wrong, I like Macs, and I'd probably get one if I could afford it. But it always amazes me that every year, most Mac owners are willing to shell out a hundred quid for some updates that other OS's get free, and a few new applications.

If Apple released a "desktop applications pack" containing things like Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator, and released it for £25 or so, then that would be okay. But even the £60 student price seems like a rip off to me, for what you're getting.

My thoughts exactly, even £59 seems a lot of money for what appears to be little more than a few new apps/tricks, of which it remains to be seen if you will use them. As an example, I think I've used Expose once (on 10.3). Decided it looked flash, and then forgot about it... I would not be surprised of Spotlight and Dashboard will be the same. And what is Automator? A front end for Applescript? I've got Applescript...