3 ms·
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. Appl
by 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 ago1. 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 agoBoth 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.