Leopard coming soon?

toosepin · 21 Jan 2007 at 19:55

M0KUJ1N said:
Im fairly sure that Tiger was around the £149.00 mark when it came out, as was Panther when it originally came out, a moot point anyway seeing as I said "up to £150".

You're wrong there. It was £90 when it came out.

fumbles said:
I am just pointing out that Apples new OS isnt really a new OS at all, just what MS calls a service pack. Just a bunch of updates really!

Not really - we have 10.4.X and we will have 10.5.X - those are what I call service pack updates. And we have 9 of them thorough the 10.X career. 10.5 believe it or not is what you would call an OS - not a service pack update.

dirtydog · 21 Jan 2007 at 19:55

Tiger was £89 when it came out...

http://www.apple.com/uk/pr/280405_tiger.html

Mac OS X version 10.4 “Tiger” will be available on April 29th beginning at 6.00 pm at Apple’s retail stores and through Apple Authorised Resellers for a suggested retail price of £89 (inc VAT) for a single user licence. The Mac OS X Tiger Family Pack is a single-residence, five-user licence that will be available for a suggested retail price of £139 (inc VAT). Volume and maintenance pricing is available from Apple.

Caged · 21 Jan 2007 at 19:58

The Family Packs (5 licenses) were and are around the £150 mark. £139 currently. Leopard will be no different.

efb

M0KUJ1N · 21 Jan 2007 at 20:01

Delving back even further, Panther was £99 when it came out

Mac OS X version 10.3 “Panther” will be available in the UK on October 24th beginning at 8:00 pm at Apple Authorised Resellers for a suggested selling price of £99 (inc VAT) for a single user licence, as was Jaguar:

Mac OS X v10.2 will be available in the UK from Saturday 24th August through the Apple Store and Apple Authorised Resellers for a suggested selling price of £99 (Inc VAT) for a single user licence.

God I cant believe Im being dragged down into extreme anal-retentiveness by the ponytail-and-goatee crew!

Caged · 21 Jan 2007 at 20:03

So the price has been coming down, excellent.

I'm fairly sure you were the one who insisted £150 was correct when you were corrected, so I don't think anyone else is making anally retentive remarks on OS X pricing.

M0KUJ1N · 21 Jan 2007 at 20:12

Caged said:
So the price has been coming down, excellent.

I'm fairly sure you were the one who insisted £150 was correct when you were corrected, so I don't think anyone else is making anally retentive remarks on OS X pricing.

I initially said "up to £150" (is there any Safari-only HTML to make that flash on and off in 72-point font, or make a go-go-gadget hand emerge from the side of a Mac and slap the user around the face repeatedly?) and I don't think the phrase "fairly sure" is endemic of insisting upon something, more like pulling a ballpark figure from the depths of my (often fuzzy) memory. As it happens, the figure I was thinking of was for the family pack not the Single-User licence, as has been shown.

Caged · 21 Jan 2007 at 21:32

Not sure if there is, I use Firefox.

fumbles · 21 Jan 2007 at 23:28

mortals said:
Get out of the linux+OSX forum with your talk of microshaft

Yes I do admit that I am quite ignorant when it comes to MacOSX.

My point was the difference between MacOSX 10.4 and 10.5 seems quite minimal to warrant paying anything at all for it!
Feel free to enlighten me in your "advanced" operating system.

Rossmac · 22 Jan 2007 at 03:19

mortals said:
Nice how microshaft released Vista in 4 different forms aswell as making 32bit and 64bit. Not trying for more money or anything

Business
Home Basic
Home Premium
Ultimate

You DO realise that the average user isnt going to buy all 4 editions? in both 32 and 64 bit!

toosepin · 22 Jan 2007 at 05:06

fumbles said:
Yes I do admit that I am quite ignorant when it comes to MacOSX.

My point was the difference between MacOSX 10.4 and 10.5 seems quite minimal to warrant paying anything at all for it!
Feel free to enlighten me in your "advanced" operating system.

The differences definatley are worthy of an extra bit of cash IMO. Especially considering the charge is that great.

Preview: www.apple.com/macosx/leopard

As I've said - we get plenty of 'standard' updates through 10.4.X (currently on 10.4.8)

dirtydog · 22 Jan 2007 at 09:59

Ah yes, OSX is finally getting system restore, which Windows has had since Windows ME

unknowndomain · 22 Jan 2007 at 10:49

dirtydog said:
Ah yes, OSX is finally getting system restore, which Windows has had since Windows ME

Not really, time machine is a full backup where as system restore backs up key files for one time where as mac os x actually backs up the whole machine in real time and allows single files to be restored or with the right plugin parts of files, some thing that no doubt will be copied in windows around the first half of the next decade, when Mac OS X will be called Mac OS XI

Hate · 22 Jan 2007 at 10:57

gotta admit, the spaces thing is a little hmm... late?

unknowndomain · 22 Jan 2007 at 11:00

Hate said:
gotta admit, the spaces thing is a little hmm... late?

Yes, any way this is exactly why I said we shouldnt go down this route, however Mac like Windows has for a while had a desktops like addon but its never been intergrated. AFAIK

Caged · 22 Jan 2007 at 12:14

dirtydog said:
Ah yes, OSX is finally getting system restore, which Windows has had since Windows ME

Which in my experience was totally useless. It's main intention was to save the system when a driver or virus totally screwed things up - something that I don't worry about with Mac OS. Prevention is better than cure.

I suppose comparing Time Machine with System Restore wouldn't give you the opportunity to have a crack at Mac OS though.

ic1male · 22 Jan 2007 at 12:47

I suppose one could say there is a massive change under the hood - the fact that all the frameworks are now fully 64-bit in Leopard. That's more than just a service pack!

Mr Jones · 22 Jan 2007 at 13:29

On thing I'm wondering about Time Machine is, how far back can it be setup to back up - and what files? I mean, if it's almost any file, brilliant but where in the world is it going to be stuffed?

High compression img file?

JonB · 22 Jan 2007 at 13:31

Since you start using it. i.e forever.

They use a clever technology which only saves the changes. Help's greatly to keep file sizes down as you dont have repeated files over and over.

As for where you either need a secondary internal hard disk, or an external storage HD.

dirtydog · 22 Jan 2007 at 13:37

Caged said:
Which in my experience was totally useless. It's main intention was to save the system when a driver or virus totally screwed things up - something that I don't worry about with Mac OS. Prevention is better than cure.

I suppose comparing Time Machine with System Restore wouldn't give you the opportunity to have a crack at Mac OS though.

I've never used System Restore, in fairness - I always disable it. Norton Ghost is my preferred solution

You would presumably acknowledge that at least System Restore is better than the OSX equivalent prior to Leopard - ie. nothing

dirtydog · 22 Jan 2007 at 13:38

Dr Jones said:
On thing I'm wondering about Time Machine is, how far back can it be setup to back up - and what files? I mean, if it's almost any file, brilliant but where in the world is it going to be stuffed?

High compression img file?

That's what I thought. I don't see how it can take a comprehensive image of your whole computer, without using a lot of disk space and resources.