So cost wise it makes a lot of sense that this “upgrade” costs more than the next Mac OS upgrade. Because it’s the equivalent of 6 Mac OS upgrades rolled into one.

This argument gets funnier every time the Macalope hears it. Yes, not releasing anything but bug fixes for years and years was a feature.

No one put a gun to anyone’s head and forced them to buy Jaguar or Leopard or any of the other OS X releases in the years since XP came out. If you wanted to skip a release, you still got bug fixes (the Macalope’s not sure how far back Apple still does bug fixes, certainly not to Puma, the contemporary of XP which was release in late 2001, by the way, but far enough). And the fact that you could actually buy new features and use them in the interim is of value.

Not to mention if you have a machine that came installed with XP instead of vista it’s probably either too old (or a netbook) and the hardware wont’ be able to support win7.

Actually, this is less true than you’d think because so many Windows users (particularly businesses) have been choosing to downgrade to XP instead of running Vista on newer hardware. Now, businesses wouldn’t want to run an upgrade anyway because they’d rather use a clean image, so there is that.

Nicbot actually has a pretty good point and the Macalope’s assessment of what hardware would run Windows 7 was off. He thought the Mossberg piece said something about machines that were just a few years old having trouble, but the minimum requirements (which are probably at least slightly specious) are 1 Ghz with 1 gig of RAM. And the point about PowerPC machines getting left out in the cold has some merit. The Macalope’s working up a more detailed response to those.

M$ making win7 a clean install even if you’re upgrading is the best option. Aside from pointing out that it’s not the next system but two systems later (as bad as it was don’t forget vista) you have to allow that XP has been around forever. Seriously XP was released in 2002. TWO THOUSAND TWO! In that time Mac OS has had half a dozen major upgrades and many more minor upgrades, most of which they charged for. All the while M$ was handing out service pack upgrades for free. So cost wise it makes a lot of sense that this “upgrade” costs more than the next Mac OS upgrade. Because it’s the equivalent of 6 Mac OS upgrades rolled into one.

Not to mention if you have a machine that came installed with XP instead of vista it’s probably either too old (or a netbook) and the hardware wont’ be able to support win7. Which is why they’re suggesting the machine upgrade too.

This posted from a guy running Linux. All the OSes have their positives and negatives, but the author’s argument is totally invalid in every possible way.

Win 7 will run great on a 3 year old machine…and way better than Vista obviously.

I agree that no upgrade path from XP to 7 is a big problem, but honestly…it’s worth it.

“And when you’re starting all over again, why not consider a Mac? Which you can buy two doors down?”

Well, you can consider it, but all of the programs you already paid for will not work with it, but will work with Win7. Also, you can go buy one 2 doors down, but it will cost you 2-3 times as much.

Having done both sides of the computer equation as a consumer, I can attest that paying $1200 for a computer with a better experience AND fewer support issues, and one that will probably last a good # of years just the way it is, is a much better alternative than paying $500 (@$220 for the OS upgrade for Windows, or $129 for an Apple Disc as you’re proposing), and it runs like sh*t, AND if you DO install an unsupported OS on unsupported Hardware, chances are your support when needed will be… Nil. Plus that $500 machine will make it – what – a year or two, maybe? before you invest another $500 for another crappy $500 computer?

I learned long ago that buying QUALITY once is cheaper than buying CRAP two or three times. Windows (OS & hardware) is the latter. Of course, as with everything on teh interwebs, IMHO.

Because you can buy that new PC (with monitor) for $500 and that new iMac (mini doesn’t include a monitor) STARTS @ $1199. Coming from a guy who has installed OS X on Sonys, Compaqs, Lenovo, etc. all of the hardware is the same, Mac is nothing but different OS. So when you put it that way, your new iMac has $500 of hardware and a $700 OS. Which is cheaper again?

That is a most excellent point!

For most XP users the switch to Mac might actually be easier than the switch to Windows 7 because the Apple Geniuses will transfer their files for and guide them through using the pre-installed Mac apps.

Yes, Snow Leopard would require someone with a non-compatible processor to buy a new machine, and as the Macalope responds, that applies to people with machines at least 3-4 years old. The CPU manufacturer changed (would you prefer to have PowerPC processors still?)

Now… Apple has been moving towards 64 bit operating systems. The upgrade path is to install Snow Leopard. Windows has 32 bit and 64 bit editions. You need to pick one. And you can’t upgrade from Vista 32 bit to Windows Seven 64 bit without doing a reinstall.

Apple has just been adding 64 bit code into their one edition.

Also of course the upgrade is only cheap if you have Leopard. What, Panther users should get $30 upgrades? If you have the last version, it’s $29. As compared to Microsoft which says if you have XP or Vista you have to pay well over a hundred bucks regardless of which of the six editions. And you can’t crossgrade from one verison to another unless you buy Ultimate (the most expensive upgrade).