To be fair to all: the $30 upgrade is only available for those who are already on 10.5 (Leopard). If you're upgrading from 10.4 (Tiger), it's $169 (but also includes iLife and iWork). Upgrading from either Vista or XP is $120.
The fundamental difference between MacOS and Windows machines when it comes to price is this: Apple does not allow its product to reach trailing edge status. For example, yes, you can buy a $300 Windows machine, but it will in all likelihood have the barebones amount of RAM, a small hard drive, a low end OS (either XP or Vista Home). The machine is out-of-date the moment you hit the cash register. Apple does not do this. Even if you buy the cheapest laptop, you're still getting the latest OS, strong enough processing and memory, and an ample hard drive. So when I hear people comparing the cheapest Windows machine versus the cheapest MacOS machine, it's never a fair fight simply because the cheapest MacOS is almost always as strong as a mid-level Windows machine. As for AppleTV: that thing has been around for over two years now, and I still can't figure out the point of it out of the box. Yes, if you hack it, you can do wonderful things to it, but most users ain't hackers. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Kevin M.<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Jason Carpio<[email protected]> wrote: >> That windows computers are cheaper than Macs. > > Well, the new Mac OS (which goes on sale in a few days) will sell for > $30. How much is the replacement for Windows Vista going to cost > consumers? > > I own a Mac and I use PCs. Yes Macs are expensive, but, in many cases, > they are worth it. I would love to see Apple sell a scaled down Mac > (strip away the Garageband, MobileMe, and other timewasters) to > directly compete with Windows-based computers. But, truth is, they > don't need to. I'd guess Apple has exactly the market it wants (plus > or minus a few hundred thousand users here and there). By keeping > their corner of the market unique, they can offer unmatched customer > service and target the upper end consumer... the ones who still > believe in paying more for a quality product sold to them by > knowledgeable retail workers. Macs aren't for everyone. They aren't > trying to be for everyone. But, in another five or ten years when > Microsoft has to bail out of the Office suite and any new operating > systems because both have been rendered irrelevant, Apple will be > doing fine. > > To the topic of Apple's TV setup, there isn't much to lure me to it. I > can watch most of what I want online and, with one cable, connect my > MacBook to my television and watch it on a big screen. I don't think a > standalone Apple unit would make much of a dent in the market unless > it managed to directly tie in some sort of internet interface which > would allow it to do on its own what I do with my laptop and TV. But > around the same time Microsoft scales back production and distribution > of what it is currently known for, television will be changing, too. > The concept of different networks delivering content will be lessened, > in favor of the sort of click and watch features found on sites like > Hulu on in video podcast form on iTunes. In short, most TVs (remember > when they were called consoles and/or sets?) will need to do more > easily (wirelessly) what I presently do by dragging a cable across my > living room carpet. > -- > Kevin M. (RPCV) > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
