What Mac OS versions can you upgrade to for free?

[kamper]

Originally posted by: 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.

They do have to support most of the **** hardware people buy. You can add hard drives, network cards, printers, other peripherals, etc and it's very much in their interest to encourage this, so long as it doesn't directly compete with things they are trying to sell. So yeah, they probably do save some work by only supporting handpicked processors on their own motherboards but I'm sure it would be far easier for them to include support for amd than for microsoft to support sparc.

 

[chcarnage]

Here's a small guide about which Mac OS version a supporter should focus on:

OS 8/9:
Question of legacy support. Most mainstream software vendors stopped their support 1-3 years ago.

OS X 10.0
Nobody should use this version, because every Mac running 10.0 also is able to run 10.1. Plus, the update to 10.1 is free.

OS X 10.1
Nobody should use this version, because every Mac running 10.1 also is able to run 10.2. However, the update is not free. But 10.2 is a big step forward in stability and usuability.

OS X 10.2
Most Macs running 10.2 could upgrade to 10.3. Whenever possible, I recommend it, because 10.3 is a performance improvement. Installed on maybe 10% of all Macs in use.

OS X 10.3
Some Macs running 10.3 can't upgrade to 10.4 but that's okay because 10.3 does the job. Performance under 10.3 and 10.4 is roughly the same. Installed on maybe 30% of all Macs in use.

OS X 10.4
Installed on maybe 60% of all Macs in use and Apple's newest OS until spring 2007.

 

[KeithP]

If you need to purchase older versions of the OS, Other World Computing has OS X 10.2 for $17.99, OS X 10.3 for $47.99 . The have OS 9.1 as well.

-KeithP

 

[CTho9305]

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.

That's a useless statistic. All that shows is that people who update their software also update their OS.

One interesting thing if you refuse accept my argument is that means that 95%+ of Mac users have shelled out over $250 on service packs in the past 2 years. The TCO of a Mac must be really high!

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
That's a useless statistic. All that shows is that people who update their software also update their OS.

One interesting thing if you refuse accept my argument is that means that 95%+ of Mac users have shelled out over $250 on service packs in the past 2 years. The TCO of a Mac must be really high!

The introduction of 10.3 was 3 years ago and many Mac users have recieved 10.3 or 10.4 with new Macs in this timespan (or may skip every second major update). But I also think that there's a correlation between software and OS updaters.

It's interesting that in Omnigroup's user base, 10.3 was adapted quicker than 10.4.

Edit And of course the 10.x updates are not "service packs".

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

One interesting thing if you refuse accept my argument is that means that 95%+ of Mac users have shelled out over $250 on service packs in the past 2 years. The TCO of a Mac must be really high!

I haven't paid a cent for "service packs." Anyone that pays for the small point updates is an idiot.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: CTho9305

One interesting thing if you refuse accept my argument is that means that 95%+ of Mac users have shelled out over $250 on service packs in the past 2 years. The TCO of a Mac must be really high!

I haven't paid a cent for "service packs." Anyone that pays for the small point updates is an idiot.

"or is an OpenBSD user" ?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: CTho9305

One interesting thing if you refuse accept my argument is that means that 95%+ of Mac users have shelled out over $250 on service packs in the past 2 years. The TCO of a Mac must be really high!

I haven't paid a cent for "service packs." Anyone that pays for the small point updates is an idiot.

"or is an OpenBSD user" ?

Much like with Mac OS X, every release of OpenBSD brings some pretty radical improvements.