What Mac OS versions can you upgrade to for free?

[homestarmy]

The title pretty much says it all.

If you have 10.4 on your mac, and you need to upgrade to 10.4.4 or something like that, is it free? Do you then have to buy it? At what point can you upgrade to?

I have 10.3.9 and am going to get 10.4, but I need 10.4.4 to run some programs for her.

Please advise, I don't know so much about this mac garbage.

 

[drag]

You pay to go from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 etc etc.

The 10.4.0 to 10.4.4 would be like a service pack in windows-land, which is no-cost.

 

[Tangman]

If you buy Tiger (10.4), you can update to 10.4.7 (the latest version) at no cost.

 

[GhettoFob]

The next paid upgrade would be 10.5 which won't be out until next year (I think).

 

[RebateMonger]

I was going to buy a cheap refurbished iMac from eBay, to help me support my few clients with Macintoshes. But then I realized I'd have to pay for probably four different versions of the Mac OS to properly support them all......

 

[ForumMaster]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I was going to buy a cheap refurbished iMac from eBay, to help me support my few clients with Macintoshes. But then I realized I'd have to pay for probably four different versions of the Mac OS to properly support them all......

why should you need more then one OS to support your clients? the upgrade from 10.4 to 10.4.7 is free. the upgrade to 10.5 isn't free.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I was going to buy a cheap refurbished iMac from eBay, to help me support my few clients with Macintoshes. But then I realized I'd have to pay for probably four different versions of the Mac OS to properly support them all......

why should you need more then one OS to support your clients? the upgrade from 10.4 to 10.4.7 is free. the upgrade to 10.5 isn't free.

Probably because lots of people still run on 10.[23].

 

[Ecgtheow]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I was going to buy a cheap refurbished iMac from eBay, to help me support my few clients with Macintoshes. But then I realized I'd have to pay for probably four different versions of the Mac OS to properly support them all......

why should you need more then one OS to support your clients? the upgrade from 10.4 to 10.4.7 is free. the upgrade to 10.5 isn't free.

Probably because lots of people still run on 10.[23].

Not really.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ecgtheow

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I was going to buy a cheap refurbished iMac from eBay, to help me support my few clients with Macintoshes. But then I realized I'd have to pay for probably four different versions of the Mac OS to properly support them all......

why should you need more then one OS to support your clients? the upgrade from 10.4 to 10.4.7 is free. the upgrade to 10.5 isn't free.

Probably because lots of people still run on 10.[23].

Not really.

I was wondering WTF that page did, until I allowed javascript on that page.

So, not a whole lot of people that use a omnigroup software use older versions of OS X. What does that prove? Besides not many people using older versions of OS X are using omnigroup software?

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
why should you need more then one OS to support your clients? the upgrade from 10.4 to 10.4.7 is free. the upgrade to 10.5 isn't free.

A quick survey of three of my Mac users showed they run different versions that included 9.x, 10.1, and 10.4.

My only reason to support their Macs is to help them with connectivity to Windows Servers. Specifically, VPNs. My reading says that Macintosh support for Windows VPNs varies, depending on the Mac OS version.

Since I won't tell a client how to do something unless I've actually done it myself, it appeared I'd have to own multiple OSes to properly support the Macs.

 

[spike spiegal]

My reading says that Macintosh support for Windows VPNs varies, depending on the Mac OS version.

Along with passive FTP, and a host of other crap. You'll be labeled a troll and Bill Gates wet-boy if you dare bring this up in an Apple forum though.

A couple friends of mine work at digital/graphics service labs, and they have to run multiple versions of OSX to support their various printers. Oddly, they've both admitted Win2K is capable of running everything in shop just fine, but obviously doesn't have quite the evolved workflows down as OSX does.

Then again Mac users do a lot of preaching that you never have to download drivers for your Mac because they all come built into OSX.

I'm also wondering what all these interations of each OS version are. "Only Windows requires constant updates and patches".

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spike spiegal
"Only Windows requires constant updates and patches".

Anyone that says that is an idiot, a troll, doesn't do anything with his computer, or is an OpenBSD user. :evil:

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: spike spiegal
"Only Windows requires constant updates and patches".

Anyone that says that is an idiot, a troll, doesn't do anything with his computer, or is an OpenBSD user. :evil:

oh puh-lease :roll:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: spike spiegal
"Only Windows requires constant updates and patches".

Anyone that says that is an idiot, a troll, doesn't do anything with his computer, or is an OpenBSD user. :evil:

oh puh-lease :roll:

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: spike spiegal
"Only Windows requires constant updates and patches".

Anyone that says that is an idiot, a troll, doesn't do anything with his computer, or is an OpenBSD user. :evil:

Patches you might get away with if you use only the default install, but updates... That's a semi-annual affair, or annual at the very least.

 

[GhettoFob]

Originally posted by: Ecgtheow

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I was going to buy a cheap refurbished iMac from eBay, to help me support my few clients with Macintoshes. But then I realized I'd have to pay for probably four different versions of the Mac OS to properly support them all......

why should you need more then one OS to support your clients? the upgrade from 10.4 to 10.4.7 is free. the upgrade to 10.5 isn't free.

Probably because lots of people still run on 10.[23].

Not really.

I find it hard to believe that only 2% of Mac users are using 10.3...

 

[Zugzwang152]

Originally posted by: GhettoFob

Originally posted by: Ecgtheow

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I was going to buy a cheap refurbished iMac from eBay, to help me support my few clients with Macintoshes. But then I realized I'd have to pay for probably four different versions of the Mac OS to properly support them all......

why should you need more then one OS to support your clients? the upgrade from 10.4 to 10.4.7 is free. the upgrade to 10.5 isn't free.

Probably because lots of people still run on 10.[23].

Not really.

I find it hard to believe that only 2% of Mac users are using 10.3...

me too, there's entire generations of G3-early G4 Macs that will run Panther fine with enough memory, but will choke on Tiger.

 

[homestarmy]

Yeah, I believe those statistics do not serve their purpose here. I find it unlikely as well.

And on the note of OS performance above, will I see a performance decrease going into 10.4 from 10.3.9? I am using a Mac Mini, the original version. I believe the middle one that has a cd burner and is 1.4 GHz if I recall correctly. Does anyone know if those came with 512MB or 256MB of RAM? And any info on upgrading that? Do they take laptop SO-DIMMS? Proprietary?

Thanks so much, I am a Mac n00b (and for the most part cannot stand them, though I do like the design of the mini, minus the rear power button.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: spike spiegal
"Only Windows requires constant updates and patches".

Anyone that says that is an idiot, a troll, doesn't do anything with his computer, or is an OpenBSD user. :evil:

hmmm... i could've sworn you're an openbsd user...

 

[spike spiegal]

My Fav. Apple users hate it when a PC newbie makes a comment like "Mac's suck because you can't upgrade hardware on them".

The universal response from the Mac user is "Mac's are just like PC's in that they use pretty much the same parts now with the only differences being the drivers used. HD's, RAM etc are all pretty much the same"

Nobody would argue with that at all.

Hell, you can run pretty much boot and run any Windows OS on the new Mac Pro - native.

However, when I corner Apple users about why they can't choose their own hardware platforms like other grown-ups, I get a bunch of quasi/mystical replies about Apple's being different and superior in some way. I keep bringing up how a single processor 3ghz Core 2 Duo will out run a dual processor 2.66ghz Power Mac and be much cheaper to build, but Apple fanboys are still living in denial. Unfortunatley the Indian Engineer who got your out-sourced job won't have these issues doing simple math, and likely won't use an OS where's he's told what hardware he's allowed to run it on.

Quote from an Apple forum I read a few weeks ago:

"The new Apple Power Mac shows once again the superiority of Apple design over the Windows / Intel Juggernaut".

Yo RainMan, Intel inside.

 

[n0cmonkey]

You shouldn't see much of a performance change going from 10.3 to 10.4. Possibly a slight increase.

Mac Minis take regular DDR sticks, although the PPC machines tend to be a bit picky. The originals came with 256MB. A random stick of (I think) kingston is working fine in mine though.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: spike spiegal
My Fav. Apple users hate it when a PC newbie makes a comment like "Mac's suck because you can't upgrade hardware on them".

The universal response from the Mac user is "Mac's are just like PC's in that they use pretty much the same parts now with the only differences being the drivers used. HD's, RAM etc are all pretty much the same"

Nobody would argue with that at all.

Hell, you can run pretty much boot and run any Windows OS on the new Mac Pro - native.

However, when I corner Apple users about why they can't choose their own hardware platforms like other grown-ups, I get a bunch of quasi/mystical replies about Apple's being different and superior in some way. I keep bringing up how a single processor 3ghz Core 2 Duo will out run a dual processor 2.66ghz Power Mac and be much cheaper to build, but Apple fanboys are still living in denial. Unfortunatley the Indian Engineer who got your out-sourced job won't have these issues doing simple math, and likely won't use an OS where's he's told what hardware he's allowed to run it on.

Quote from an Apple forum I read a few weeks ago:

"The new Apple Power Mac shows once again the superiority of Apple design over the Windows / Intel Juggernaut".

Yo RainMan, Intel inside.

I want to run XP on my Ultra10. Oh, wait, Microsoft tells me what hardware I can run Windows on too... Oops.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I want to run XP on my Ultra10. Oh, wait, Microsoft tells me what hardware I can run Windows on too... Oops.

That's not fair. It would be more work for ms to get windows running on other architectures. From a technological standpoint, Apple's decision to limit os x to specific x86 hardware is completely arbitrary and probably leads to extra work (in the form of piracy prevention).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I want to run XP on my Ultra10. Oh, wait, Microsoft tells me what hardware I can run Windows on too... Oops.

That's not fair. It would be more work for ms to get windows running on other architectures. From a technological standpoint, Apple's decision to limit os x to specific x86 hardware is completely arbitrary and probably leads to extra work (in the form of piracy prevention).

It is fair. It would be more work to add support for more hardware on the part of apple too. They would have to support all of the ****** hardware people buy instead of just the ****** hardware they sell.

Just like Apple, Microsoft has limited its hardware support by choice.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I want to run XP on my Ultra10. Oh, wait, Microsoft tells me what hardware I can run Windows on too... Oops.

That's not fair. It would be more work for ms to get windows running on other architectures. From a technological standpoint, Apple's decision to limit os x to specific x86 hardware is completely arbitrary and probably leads to extra work (in the form of piracy prevention).

It's not a technological decision, it's a business decision, and arguably the right one.

Apple is a computer hardware company, and they got burned badly during the Gil Amelio era when they licensed the platform to clone makers. They simply don't have a core business model based on software licensing, and they aren't stupid enough to believe they have one today. Look at the iPod, iTunes is probably break even but the iPod is a massive cash cow for Apple.