3 ms·

And Snow Leopard was only $29 if you had Leopard. Microsoft charges you a lot more for Windows.

nickbp 16y ago
That's because Snow Leopard was Apple's equivalent to a Service Pack.
orijing 16y ago
Don't forget though that operating systems don't come out nearly as often for Microsoft--once every 3-5 years, and you don't pay for service pack upgrades. Apple makes you pay for those service packs (Think Snow Leopard). BTW upgrades (although more frequent) cost $129 usually, so in the end Mac users pay a lot more for their operating systems because they have to pay for all the service packs, and each OS upgrade (which comes more often) costs as much.
- shaggyfrog 16y ago
  So you're saying that less frequent updates is better than more frequent? And when you say MS doesn't charge for "service packs", you're playing semantics. Apple doesn't charge for point updates, either. As to your final point, I don't recall ever "having to pay" for "all the service packs". Basically, you're not making much sense.
  - orijing 16y ago
    1. No, I am not saying that. Please try to understand what I'm saying. I meant less frequent updates you have to pay for. 2. What do you mean "playing semantics"? Its service packs are about as frequent as OS X's. 3. I am referring to the incremental updates (Like Snow Leopard) despite having already paid for Leopard, which I am comparing to service packs. Basically you're not making an attempt to understand my point, and instead trying to confuse other readers with your confusion.
    - shaggyfrog 16y ago
      Both Windows and Mac OS X have major updates that you pay for, and minor updates you don't pay for. You are trying to create a distinction where there is none. Mac OS X doesn't have "service packs", so I don't know how you can say they are "less frequent" -- they simply don't exist, as such. That's what I mean by semantics. You're talking FUD like a computer store sales drone.
bconway 16y ago
And Snow Leopard was only $29 if you had Leopard. Most expensive Service Pack I've ever bought, though.

That's because Snow Leopard was Apple's equivalent to a Service Pack.

Don't forget though that operating systems don't come out nearly as often for Microsoft--once every 3-5 years, and you don't pay for service pack upgrades. Apple makes you pay for those service packs (Think Snow Leopard). BTW upgrades (although more frequent) cost $129 usually, so in the end Mac users pay a lot more for their operating systems because they have to pay for all the service packs, and each OS upgrade (which comes more often) costs as much.

shaggyfrog 16y ago
So you're saying that less frequent updates is better than more frequent? And when you say MS doesn't charge for "service packs", you're playing semantics. Apple doesn't charge for point updates, either. As to your final point, I don't recall ever "having to pay" for "all the service packs". Basically, you're not making much sense.
- orijing 16y ago
  1. No, I am not saying that. Please try to understand what I'm saying. I meant less frequent updates you have to pay for. 2. What do you mean "playing semantics"? Its service packs are about as frequent as OS X's. 3. I am referring to the incremental updates (Like Snow Leopard) despite having already paid for Leopard, which I am comparing to service packs. Basically you're not making an attempt to understand my point, and instead trying to confuse other readers with your confusion.
  - shaggyfrog 16y ago
    Both Windows and Mac OS X have major updates that you pay for, and minor updates you don't pay for. You are trying to create a distinction where there is none. Mac OS X doesn't have "service packs", so I don't know how you can say they are "less frequent" -- they simply don't exist, as such. That's what I mean by semantics. You're talking FUD like a computer store sales drone.

bconway 16y ago

And Snow Leopard was only $29 if you had Leopard. Most expensive Service Pack I've ever bought, though.