"...
Thats a lot better than OSX which costs about $130 per year if you want to stay up to date with 100% compatibility with new apps. ..."
I think we all know that this statement simply is not true. Neither your calculation for Windows nor the one for OS X is correct, and your assumptions about the supported product lifecycle of both systems are also wrong.
In a few weeks, even the support for XP SP1 will be dropped by Microsoft. They stick to their five year lifecycle. Doing the Math with your very own figures, XP will have cost you around 250 USD by now. I am quite positive that nobody on this planet has paid 250 USD for his copy of XP. Not even if you bought it with Software Assurance.
As for Apple: They release new versions of their operating systems every 18 to 24 months, but they do not drop the support for the last OS version. As for the new apps, well iLife 06 for example still is supported on OS X 10.3.9, and most other applications also still support the old version.
For Pro apps it is a different story, but here is the newsflash: Many professionals "freeze" their system configuration, esp. the software, until they buy a completely new machine with completely new software. And there is a very good reason for this: They do not want to break the compatibility of the components. It is the workflow that matters to them, not being on the technological cutting edge.
It also has a lot to do with cost-benefit analysis. If you use Pro applications (like Photoshop, Aperture, Final Cut Studio, QuarkXPress, AutoCad - you name it) and do upgrade, then you do not necessarily care about the few bucks more for the new operating system. You are in this business to make money with your tools, so you calculate whether you need the new tools or not. And, btw, it does not matter if you are in the Apple or Microsoft or Unix/Linux world for this.
The few bucks matter for hobbyist and private users. And let's face facts: They are the ones who really do not need to stay on the bleeding edge of technology. The only reason for a typical geek is the ego boost and the kick that he thinks he gets out of wasting his money on the newest toys.
Normal people just don't need all the updates and upgrades the industry wants to sell them.
Thats a lot better than OSX which costs about $130 per year if you want to stay up to date with 100% compatibility with new apps. ..."
I think we all know that this statement simply is not true. Neither your calculation for Windows nor the one for OS X is correct, and your assumptions about the supported product lifecycle of both systems are also wrong.
In a few weeks, even the support for XP SP1 will be dropped by Microsoft. They stick to their five year lifecycle. Doing the Math with your very own figures, XP will have cost you around 250 USD by now. I am quite positive that nobody on this planet has paid 250 USD for his copy of XP. Not even if you bought it with Software Assurance.
As for Apple: They release new versions of their operating systems every 18 to 24 months, but they do not drop the support for the last OS version. As for the new apps, well iLife 06 for example still is supported on OS X 10.3.9, and most other applications also still support the old version.
For Pro apps it is a different story, but here is the newsflash: Many professionals "freeze" their system configuration, esp. the software, until they buy a completely new machine with completely new software. And there is a very good reason for this: They do not want to break the compatibility of the components. It is the workflow that matters to them, not being on the technological cutting edge.
It also has a lot to do with cost-benefit analysis. If you use Pro applications (like Photoshop, Aperture, Final Cut Studio, QuarkXPress, AutoCad - you name it) and do upgrade, then you do not necessarily care about the few bucks more for the new operating system. You are in this business to make money with your tools, so you calculate whether you need the new tools or not. And, btw, it does not matter if you are in the Apple or Microsoft or Unix/Linux world for this.
The few bucks matter for hobbyist and private users. And let's face facts: They are the ones who really do not need to stay on the bleeding edge of technology. The only reason for a typical geek is the ego boost and the kick that he thinks he gets out of wasting his money on the newest toys.
Normal people just don't need all the updates and upgrades the industry wants to sell them.