Article:  |
Windows XP from a Mac Perspective | |
| Subject: | XP ambivalence | |
| Date: | 2002-02-12 18:32:39 | |
| From: | gostong | |
| I too recently installed Windows XP and, although I am quite satisfied with its performance (an unspeakably vast improvement over the nightmarishly bad Windows Me), Microsoft has ironically convinced me, once and for all, to purchase only Linux or Mac software in the future. The simple reason: their draconian anti-piracy system, allowing the OS to be installed on only one computer. I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with some poor schmuck like me wanting to re-install the OS if I get one or two extra PC's for my home. If I want to have an experimental second PC, or one for my kid, I'll need to fork over another $500 for Windows XP. While I fully understand Microsoft's desire to crack down on large-scale piracy, treating your innocent home users as the Enemy is certainly no way to win adherents to your cause. I will never buy another Microsoft OS again. | ||
Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.
-
XP ambivalence
2002-02-12 20:03:53 davidcl [Reply | View]
-
XP ambivalence -- Cost of Upgrade
2002-02-12 22:04:57 Derrick Story |
[Reply | View]
Good previous comments in this thread.
I think it's important to be clear about the pricing issues for both XP and OS X.
For XP, if you are upgrading an existing PC, you have to buy a copy of XP, Home ($200) or Pro ($300), for each machine. Microsoft makes sure you follow the rules on this. The upside is that I think MS holds up their end of the deal by delivering a solid Windows OS.
For Mac OS X, the retail price is $129, but I'm seeing it for $99 more and more. Even though Apple asks that you buy a copy for each Mac in your household, the truth is you can buy one copy and use it on your laptop and your desktop without Apple busting your chops. In general, I feel that Apple stays out of your business better than Microsoft.
If you buy a new Mac or a new PC, you get the OS as part of the deal, so it's a wash there in terms of OS cost.
As for pure value, Mac OS X is a better deal. It includes the OS, Apache Web server, iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, and iTools, which is an under rated Apple value-added benefit.
If you're currently running Mac OS 9, I recommend that you partition your drive and load Mac OS X on one partition and your old OS 9 environment on the other. OS X is much more stable than OS 9, and I wouldn't want to go back to 9 anymore than I would Win 98.
Life is just too short ... -
XP ambivalence -- Cost of Upgrade
2002-02-19 00:01:26 rnishimura [Reply | View]
If you have any more problems with XP on the Thinkpad 600X refer to this link:
http://www-1.ibm.com/support/manager.wss?rs=0&rt=0&org=psg&doc=MIGR-39961
The site has some useful information, unfortunately it is "organized" terribly.
I've had issues with Windows XP on the 600X and recently the bank I work for upgraded all of our machines to T22's. Works like a dream now- no BSOD's or unexplained shutdowns. I think some of the problems you encountered were related to the 600X and not XP. That said, you should ask your boss for a new IBM or Toshiba notebook to do a "fair" comparison of XP ;)
Great article, and I hope to read more of your work soon.
Derrick, thanks for this article. I've been going through similar situations. I'm currently using, on my various computers, Mac OS 9, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. In this context, Mac OS 9, which crashes a few times a day, starts to feel like Windows 98 did for you! But I can't upgrade to OS X yet because my printers are not compatible.
Oh well, at least I don't have a corporate IT department telling me what to do.