[kcmac]

Now what will happen to the Macs are more expensive than PC's theory with Vista now going public?

This seems to be something blogs and news outlets just haven't covered. That is more of a story to me than who copied who, etc.

The requirements necessary to run all the Vista goodies adds a little pressure to the PC vendors. I guess they can still leave off features but still.

Thanks M$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. hahahahahahahaha.

[Ganesha]

It will just get rehashed over and over. Just like how macs only have a one-button mouse, never mind every Mac that still comes with a mouse that can make right click.

Someone just told me in another forum that he could build a top of the line mac for 1/2 the cost. Then had to resort to the who needs four cores anyway excuse when he couldn't.

[kcmac]

I'm not talking about people with the moxy to build their own. I'm talking about buying stuff right off the shelf or over the internet.

I think this will be quite interesting to watch. It is pretty easy to see, especially since Apple went with Intel, that if you make all the features equal the Mac is often times winning this battle. Now, the starting point for PC's will be a little higher if not equal in a lot of cases I am betting.

[Gossamer]

Even the bottom end slowest Intel Mac made (Core Solo Mini) can run Vista fully, Aero and everything.

[mitchell_pgh]

Most the off the shelf stuff, (even the low end $399 computers) will run Vista with most (if not all) the bells and whistles.

Apple has shipped computers that couldn't do everything the OS could in the past.

[DuckRacer1]

Originally Posted by Ganesha 

never mind every Mac that still comes with a mouse that can make right click.

Just an FYI, the Mac mini doesn't come with a mouse.

[Rumor]

I don't think Vista is going to add that much of a cost to buying a new PC. Vista will have a price drop within 12 months.

[mitchell_pgh]

I think Microsoft is just happy that it's out. I haven't seen much fanfare regarding the launch... which I'm sure Microsoft is a little happy about as it's been SO long and SO late.

If I were a PC person, I'd probably wait a few months and consider upgrading if my computer would handle it. The thing is... they have gone SO long with an upgrade that many people will need a new computer (or significantly upgrade their XP system) to upgrade. I don't feel the same with on OS X because there are regular ~18 month significant updates... slowly phasing out the older hardware. When you have a 5 year gap... you essentially phase out a considerable amount of hardware overnight.

[Rumor]

True. Look at how far technology has progressed in the last five years. Processor speed has about tripled or more, computers hold considerable more RAM and video cards are better than they have ever been.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I don't think Vista is going to add that much of a cost to buying a new PC. Vista will have a price drop within 12 months.

It's not the cost of Vista that will make the difference — it's the cost of hardware capable of running Vista.

For instance, the Sony Vaio is $2100 on Amazon. An identically equipped MacBook, strangely enough, is only $1725. And that's with Amazon's $100 discount on the Vaio.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's not the cost of Vista that will make the difference — it's the cost of hardware capable of running Vista.

For instance, the Sony Vaio is $2100 on Amazon. An identically equipped MacBook, strangely enough, is only $1725. And that's with Amazon's $100 discount on the Vaio.

But the MacBook is $2024 with a retail Vista Business license.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

But the MacBook is $2024 with a retail Vista Business license.

But you also get OS X.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

But you also get OS X.

And iLife, and all that other great stuff. I'm just saying that if your goal is to run Vista, it'll still cost. Luckily I have 3 legal licenses to Vista Business, all free.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

But the MacBook is $2024 with a retail Vista Business license.

So it's still cheaper even with two operating systems. Lawlz.

[Gossamer]

Well the Vaio comes with a hybrid graphics system, card reader, and weighs 3.7 pounds vs. 5.2 for the Macbook...that's pretty significant.

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Well the Vaio comes with a hybrid graphics system, card reader, and weighs 3.7 pounds vs. 5.2 for the Macbook...that's pretty significant.

Preloaded Software
Includes Sony Click to DVD (for easy DVD creation), Microsoft Works, Microsoft Office 2007 Student and Teacher Edition (60-day trial), Symantec Norton Internet Security 2007 (with 60 days of Live Update).

Dimensions & Weight
This notebook measures 12.5 by 1.5 by 9.3 inches (WxHxD) and weighs approximately 4.1 pounds with the standard battery (included).

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by kcmac 

Preloaded Software
Includes Sony Click to DVD (for easy DVD creation), Microsoft Works, Microsoft Office 2007 Student and Teacher Edition (60-day trial), Symantec Norton Internet Security 2007 (with 60 days of Live Update).

Dimensions & Weight
This notebook measures 12.5 by 1.5 by 9.3 inches (WxHxD) and weighs approximately 4.1 pounds with the standard battery (included).

Where are you getting your info? from the link Chuckit posted:

Cases and Expandability
Size (LWH): 9.3 inches, 12.5 inches, 1.3 inches
Weight: 3.72 pounds

[kcmac]

It was at the bottom of the page of the link by Chuckit. (First listing is what you pasted in.)

And probably pretty true. You have to measure a Sony at the hinge area. Thick as an NFL linebackers thigh. :-) And they are always pretty good at confusing you with battery weights and other accessories. Still lighter than the Apple offerings but still not elegant. The wedge shape does not appeal to me anyway.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by DuckRacer1 

Just an FYI, the Mac mini doesn't come with a mouse.

You fail at reading. Please try again.

And yet, even the Mac laptop lines can do right-click by holding two fingers on the trackpad while clicking. In my mind this is more elegant than "feeling" for the right mouse button and lends itself to better lines on the computer. Maybe it's because I'm used to a Mac, but when I use a PC laptop I am constantly accidentally hitting the right mouse button and having to reposition my clicking thumb. And the two-finder scrolling feature is by far more elegant than a scroll wheel. When I show people this, they are amazed. Do many PC laptops have this feature yet?

[TailsToo]

I love how blown away people are when I show them how well my MacBook Pro wuns XP - there are still a lot of people who don't know that they can get the best of both worlds now.

[jmonty12]

To those thinking of buying a Mac now because they will also be able to run Vista... wait! You might as well get OS X 10.5 (Leopard) for free with your computer and also maybe the newest iLife. These can't be too far off now.

[Chuckit]

Yes they can. WWDC was scheduled two months early (but still four months off) this year, putting it within the range of time when Apple is supposed to release Leopard. This means we will probably be able to get Leopard at the latest possible date — four or five months from now.

[mduell]

Wal*Mart has a 15" laptop with Vista for less than $500. That's $1500 cheaper than any 15" Mac laptop.

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Wal*Mart has a 15" laptop with Vista for less than $500. That's $1500 cheaper than any 15" Mac laptop.

Yep, nothing's nicer than a 15" screen at 1024x768!

EDIT: I looked it up, and I stand corrected. It's actually a 1280x800 widescreen. It even has a "Spcaious 60GB hard drive" (their misspelling, not mine). And it's only Vista Home Basic, which means no Aero effects.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

And it's only Vista Home Basic, which means no Aero effects.

Which in all seriousness is the best reason to get Vista.

[Strupat]

What? I can waste time playing with Aero, but it is not my favorite or the most useful improvement to Windows. Not by a long shot.

[driven]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

Yep, nothing's nicer than a 15" screen at 1024x768!

EDIT: I looked it up, and I stand corrected. It's actually a 1280x800 widescreen. It even has a "Spcaious 60GB hard drive" (their misspelling, not mine). And it's only Vista Home Basic, which means no Aero effects.

also: You have to buy from Wallmart for this 1.4Mhz Celeron screamer. I'd feel dirty just thinking about shopping there.

[kcmac]

What's the point of upgrading if you can't have the goodies?

I still say thanks M$.

[Eriamjh]

Vista is only more expensive at the retail level. When Leopard comes out, it will be $129 (likely). With discounts and such, probably sell for around $100.

But the computers that come with Vista will continue to be cheap. The user isn't going to notice a lot. Many of them will never see a Mac anyway, so how will they know they should pay more for the Ultimate edition?

[driven]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Vista is only more expensive at the retail level. When Leopard comes out, it will be $129 (likely). With discounts and such, probably sell for around $100.

But the computers that come with Vista will continue to be cheap. The user isn't going to notice a lot. Many of them will never see a Mac anyway, so how will they know they should pay more for the Ultimate edition?

I've been seeing some computers ship with Vista home basic. That's just rude. At least they can upgrade online .... once they get home ... and realize they've been shafted.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Vista is only more expensive at the retail level.

Plus licenses are selling for about half price on eBay: Business is about $160 instead of $300 and Home Basic is $100 instead of $200.

[driven]

Not sure I'd buy a software license of any kind on ebay

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by driven 

Not sure I'd buy a software license of any kind on ebay

Agreed. And with WGA even falsely accusing legitimate licenses of being invalid, imagine your argument when the one you bought is no good?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Vista is only more expensive at the retail level. When Leopard comes out, it will be $129 (likely). With discounts and such, probably sell for around $100.

Vista Home Premium is $119 (full install, not upgrade)
Ultimate is $200, but it includes some significant features that OS X lacks (like the ability to be run in a virtual environment).

[driven]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Vista Home Premium is $119 (full install, not upgrade)
Ultimate is $200, but it includes some significant features that OS X lacks (like the ability to be run in a virtual environment).

Home Premium won't run under VMWare?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Vista Home Premium is $119 (full install, not upgrade)
Ultimate is $200, but it includes some significant features that OS X lacks (like the ability to be run in a virtual environment).

For 32 bit.

Once nice thing that Microsoft does with Windows Vista OEM is they've seperated the 32 and 64 bit versions. With Leopard you get both the 64 and 32 bit versions for $129.

Not to mention for OEM Vista that copy of Vista can never be seperated from your motherboard.

[brokenjago]

Originally Posted by mduell

Vista Home Premium is $119 (full install, not upgrade)
Ultimate is $200, but it includes some significant features that OS X lacks (like the ability to be run in a virtual environment).

You pay $119 for Vista Home Premium, but get no technical support.

[kcmac]

[QUOTE=goMac;3296134]For 32 bit.

Once nice thing that Microsoft does with Windows Vista OEM is they've seperated the 32 and 64 bit versions. With Leopard you get both the 64 and 32 bit versions for $129.

/QUOTE]
Uhhhh....I could be wrong, but OS X is one version. There is no 32 and 64 bit. It is one version.

And how or why is it nice that Vista separated this?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by kcmac 

Uhhhh....I could be wrong, but OS X is one version. There is no 32 and 64 bit. It is one version.

Leopard ships in both 32 bit and 64 bit flavors. I'm assuming Apple will ship them both in the same box and install both seamlessly. It's the same way that the core of Tiger comes in 32 and 64 bit flavors, yet they are both seamlessly installed without the user ever knowing there are two flavors of OS X.

So Leopard will technically have 4 versions, PPC32, PPC64, Intel 32 bit, and Intel 64 bit. Everything will be included 4 times, once for each version of OS X. Think of it this way. In Tiger currently everything ships in duplicate. Once for Intel, and once for PowerPC. This is hidden from the user using Universal Binaries. But really a Universal binary is two copies of the same program superglued into one copy. With Leopard, we'll have quad binaries, 4 different copies of the same program all glued into one.

</tangent>

Originally Posted by kcmac 

And how or why is it nice that Vista separated this?

It was sarcasm.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by driven 

Home Premium won't run under VMWare?

The license doesn't allow it, just like OS X.

Originally Posted by goMac 

For 32 bit.

64-bit is the same price; buy what you need.

Originally Posted by brokenjago 

You pay $119 for Vista Home Premium, but get no technical support.

Same as retail copies of OS X.

[driven]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The license doesn't allow it, just like OS X.

I didn't even know you *could* run OSX under VMWare. :-O

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Leopard ships in both 32 bit and 64 bit flavors. I'm assuming Apple will ship them both in the same box and install both seamlessly. It's the same way that the core of Tiger comes in 32 and 64 bit flavors, yet they are both seamlessly installed without the user ever knowing there are two flavors of OS X.

So Leopard will technically have 4 versions, PPC32, PPC64, Intel 32 bit, and Intel 64 bit. Everything will be included 4 times, once for each version of OS X. Think of it this way. In Tiger currently everything ships in duplicate. Once for Intel, and once for PowerPC. This is hidden from the user using Universal Binaries. But really a Universal binary is two copies of the same program superglued into one copy. With Leopard, we'll have quad binaries, 4 different copies of the same program all glued into one.

</tangent>



It was sarcasm.

Well that is interesting. Then it will ask you to insert disc 2 like in the old days of multiple CD's but this time with DVD's?

Yeah. I figured you had the sarcasm button on. Just makin sure.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by kcmac 

Well that is interesting. Then it will ask you to insert disc 2 like in the old days of multiple CD's but this time with DVD's?

I can't talk about specifics (though I'd like to), but yeah, Apple will have to come up with some way of dealing with the size of all the binaries increasing. They'll be shipping all four versions of OS X in one box most likely, just as Tiger currently ships with two versions in the same box.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I can't talk about specifics (though I'd like to), but yeah, Apple will have to come up with some way of dealing with the size of all the binaries increasing. They'll be shipping all four versions of OS X in one box most likely, just as Tiger currently ships with two versions in the same box.

The difference in size created by universal binaries is not even linear. For example, iTunes is 70 MB. Of this, less than a third is taken up by the universal binary code. The implication that universal binaries horribly bloat executable size is just plain not right.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The difference in size created by universal binaries is not even linear. For example, iTunes is 70 MB. Of this, less than a third is taken up by the universal binary code. The implication that universal binaries horribly bloat executable size is just plain not right.

Well ... it's partly right. The executables need to be duplicated for each platform. Common things (resources, data, etc.) can be used by any platform and does not need to be duplicated. That's why you saw the numbers that you did.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The difference in size created by universal binaries is not even linear. For example, iTunes is 70 MB. Of this, less than a third is taken up by the universal binary code. The implication that universal binaries horribly bloat executable size is just plain not right.

You're right, but remember there are tons of binaries that ship with OS X. Command line tools, libraries, etc. It's not going to be linear, but it's not going to be a small difference either.

Going by your numbers, we're talking about a %30 increase in size at the least. (Since binary size is doubling)

And also, to be fair, not every app is going to be shipping 64 bit. But just like in Windows, Apple has to get everything they ship working in 64 bit so that developers writing 64 bit code have libraries available to work with.