# Leopard priced at $129



## ambandla (Jun 12, 2007)

As per Steve jobs announcement, Leopard comes in different versions.

1) Basic version - $129
2) business version - $129
3) premium version  - $129
4) ultimate version - $129

Confused? hehe. 

Dude It's Apple. Don't ever think of multiple confusing versions of single OS. It's just one version that has everything in it and sells for $129. Beat that Microsoft. 

Just look at the video : *news.com.com/1606-2_3-6190253.html?tag=ne.video.6190253


----------



## kalpik (Jun 12, 2007)

Nice..


----------



## amitava82 (Jun 12, 2007)

very well priced..


----------



## aryayush (Jun 12, 2007)

> *A Cruel Surprise.*
> Jobs drew gasps of disapproval when he introduced the “basic version of Leopard” for $129, and then mentioned a new "premium version.”
> 
> It was also $129, Jobs explained to the hushed, rumoring audience, which then burst into applause. Jobs continued introducing “a new Business version at $129, a new Enterprise version at $129, and a new Ultimate version at $129,” all to thundering applause and cheers.


[Via RoughlyDrafted]


LOL! 
Steve Jobs does humour right.


----------



## nepcker (Jun 12, 2007)

There's also a Server version. (Mac OS X Server)

But this shouldn't confuse users.


----------



## praka123 (Jun 12, 2007)

Leopard yet to be launched?


----------



## Ravirdv (Jun 12, 2007)

supposed to launch in oct 07


----------



## gxsaurav (Jun 12, 2007)

Add to it the minimum cot of $799 for a Mac Mini


----------



## kumarmohit (Jun 12, 2007)

Around Rs. 33,000 in India, Remember GX, we still talk and transact in Indian Rupees in India


----------



## aryayush (Jun 12, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Add to it the minimum cot of $799 for a Mac Mini


Oh really? I don't need to buy a Mac Mini to run Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard". It runs just fine on my existing Mac.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jun 12, 2007)

Yup, it runs fine on your "existing" Mac. What about a new buyer?


----------



## aryayush (Jun 12, 2007)

Oh, and I guess anyone buying Vista would not need to purchase a computer to run it?


----------



## ~Phenom~ (Jun 12, 2007)

Steve Jobs taste and sense of humour are just incredible.


----------



## nepcker (Jun 12, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Yup, it runs fine on your "existing" Mac. What about a new buyer?


 Well, OS X comes *included* with Macs, at no extra cost.


----------



## amitava82 (Jun 12, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> Oh, and I guess anyone buying Vista would not need to purchase a computer to run it?


LoL I'm loving it..


----------



## gxsaurav (Jun 12, 2007)

> Oh, and I guess anyone buying Vista would not need to purchase a computer to run it?



nah, if he already has a computer then it will run vista just fine.

To run Mac OS X Leopard you need to buy a new Apple Computer.



> Idiot. OS X comes *included* with Macs.



So do u mean that Leopard will not be available on shelf for Arya to buy


----------



## Pathik (Jun 12, 2007)

^^ lol... me 2...


----------



## nepcker (Jun 12, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> So do u mean that Leopard will not be available on shelf for Arya to buy


 No, I meant that if you buy a Mac mini ocne Leopard will be available, Leopard will come included with it -- you don't have to pay extra.


----------



## ambandla (Jun 12, 2007)

@gx_saurav. 

Price of Leopard is almost equal to Windows XP Professional x64 edition.

I can get a mac mini shipped with leopard for 35k or make it 40k.

Vista Ultimate itself is Rs.15k. Hardware required to run it will cost you around 20k. I am talking about hardware that keeps vista alive without hanging the desktop.

And say welcome to Vista's numerous bugs, driver issues, incompatible softwares blah blah blah.

Something that I forgot to mention:

Leopard single-residence, five user license : suggested price of $200. 

awesome pricing strategy.

from Microsoft online marketplace: 

Windows Vista additional license pricing (online, phone, or packaged version)
 Product Estimated Retail Price (U.S. dollars)*  

  Windows Vista Home Basic Full
 $179.00

 Windows Vista Home Basic Upgrade
 $89.95

 Windows Vista Home Premium Full
 $215.00

 Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade
 $143.00

 Windows Vista Business Full
 $269.00

 Windows Vista Business Upgrade
 $179.00

 Windows Vista Ultimate Full
 $359.00

 Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade
 $233.00


----------



## goobimama (Jun 12, 2007)

^^ Aren't you forgetting the 64bit/32bit version difference?


----------



## iMav (Jun 12, 2007)

ambandla said:
			
		

> And say welcome to Vista's numerous bugs, driver issues, incompatible softwares blah blah blah.


 what driver issues, what incompatible softwares  i havent faced any issue may be these mac boys try to run their mac applications on vista and then say software compatibility nahi hai


----------



## nagarjun_424 (Jun 12, 2007)

my next purchase is a macbook pro 15"... cant w8 2 get my hands on it! boo windows! im ditchin u! sry bill!  i was waiting for leopard all these days... will it release in india by october?


----------



## sandeepk (Jun 12, 2007)

$129. That is a very good price compared to very costly Windows Vista!!! Also only one version to include all the functionality for a consumer is also the thing that MS should take into consideration while launching their new OS next time.


----------



## iMav (Jun 12, 2007)

sandeep ji i think  forgot the price of the mac book or the mac  add that also please


----------



## gxsaurav (Jun 12, 2007)

Windows is over prices, yes. But most people consider only the Ultimate edition for Vista, when Home premium is all they need for $300.

& For $ 300 they get full MCE Suite, Best file browser in the world, one of the best media player in the world, plethora of technologies & suparb hardware & 3rd party support. An OS that you will use for next many years


----------



## goobimama (Jun 12, 2007)

Hardware maybe but support? I dont think so. 

I recently got a Core 2 Duo for the office. Busted during the lightstorm. Gave it for repairs. Took fifteen days. Came back its still not working. That's what support you get for crappy hardware. With apple, if they have to take that long, they provide you with a standby piece. And it always comes back working...

And we are sure that Vista is going to be used for many years to come....MS isn't that capable of releasing a new OS for at least another 7 years...


----------



## aryayush (Jun 12, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> nah, if he already has a computer then it will run vista just fine.


Yup, it runs fine on your "existing" computer. What about a new buyer?



			
				gx_saurav said:
			
		

> To run Mac OS X Leopard you need to buy a new Apple Computer.


nah, if he already has a Mac then it will run Leopard just fine.



You just cannot factor in the cost of the hardware to help your stupid argument when we are discussing the price of the operating system.




			
				amanbandla said:
			
		

> I can get a mac mini shipped with leopard for 35k or make it 40k.


Why even assume that? It costs thirty five thousand bucks and not a paisa more. 



			
				iMav said:
			
		

> what driver issues, what incompatible softwares  i havent faced any issue may be these mac boys try to run their mac applications on vista and then say software compatibility nahi hai


Here's a lesson for fellow forum members, too much association with gx_saurav turns you into a liar too. Wasn't it you who was getting BSoDs on using instant messaging programs? We, human beings, call that incompatibility. 



			
				iMav said:
			
		

> may be these mac boys try to run their mac applications on vista


Oh, rest assured no one does that because it is not possible. The reverse, however, is possible. 



			
				nagarjun_424 said:
			
		

> my next purchase is a macbook pro 15"... cant w8 2 get my hands on it! boo windows! im ditchin u! sry bill!  i was waiting for leopard all these days... will it release in india by october?


November.


----------



## ambandla (Jun 13, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Windows is over prices, yes. But most people consider only the Ultimate edition for Vista, when Home premium is all they need for $300.
> 
> & For $ 300 they get full MCE Suite, Best file browser in the world, one of the best media player in the world, plethora of technologies & suparb hardware & 3rd party support.



How good is a MCE suite if I have to struggle configuring a TV card to MCE. What about starters?

Only things that I see good in Vista are Media player and IE7, which I can install on XP too. Rest is bull****

Superb hardware and 3rd party support???

In one of the old posts regarding tv tuners, you said that pinnacle Mediacentre does not work with Vista. There are countless such applications and you say superb? 



			
				gx_saurav said:
			
		

> An OS that you will use for next many years



Well, correct statement should be "An OS that you SHOULD use for next many years. 

eg: Halo 2 PC edition runs only on Vista. huh. what is this? Microsoft forcing end users to move to Vista. huh.



			
				aryayush said:
			
		

> Why even assume that? It costs thirty five thousand bucks and not a paisa more.



hehe. Assuming apple will cut down the dual core version to 40k 
That means a core solo mini for 35k and coreduo mini for 40k


----------



## QwertyManiac (Jun 13, 2007)

ambandla said:
			
		

> eg: Halo 2 PC edition runs only on Vista. huh. what is this? Microsoft forcing end users to move to Vista. huh.


Yeah, that sucks. They think Vista might sell like XBOX  Not long before a patch for XP comes in .. Got scene info running hot on being quick to do that


----------



## i_am_crack (Jun 13, 2007)

I like my PC running MAc OS......awesome...I Think $129 Pretty affordable..Atleast reduceses Piracy

My 2 cents

eBRo


----------



## sandeepk (Jun 13, 2007)

iMav said:
			
		

> sandeep ji i think forgot the price of the mac book or the mac  add that also please


 
Yes, that should be considered but only if you don't have any Mac already. $129 is very justified for only OS. Obviously H/W cost is going to be more than that of a OS. Do you consider Windows Vista Ultimate Full for $359.00 is justified? Add to that the cost of H/W atleast Rs. 20,000-22,000 ie. roughly $500 to run Vista with minimum functionality. So the total cost of system is nearly $860. This is ridiculous.


----------



## Sukhdeep Singh (Jun 13, 2007)

sandeepk said:
			
		

> Yes, that should be considered but only if you don't have any Mac already. $129 is very justified for only OS. Obviously H/W cost is going to be more than that of a OS. Do you consider Windows Vista Ultimate Full for $359.00 is justified? Add to that the cost of H/W atleast Rs. 20,000-22,000 ie. roughly $500 to run Vista with minimum functionality. So the total cost of system is nearly $860. This is ridiculous.



Vista Ultimate Full is not 359$. Sells for around 200$. Dunno abut India but i got it from US


----------



## mohit (Jun 13, 2007)

sukhdeepsinghkohli said:
			
		

> Vista Ultimate Full is not 359$. Sells for around 200$. Dunno abut India but i got it from US



Dunno how you got it for 200$, it still sells for 350$ in the USA.

*www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116140


----------



## ambandla (Jun 13, 2007)

sukhdeepsinghkohli said:
			
		

> Vista Ultimate Full is not 359$. Sells for around 200$. Dunno abut India but i got it from US



Did you get Vista Home premium?

Vista Ultimate that has everything is available for $350 - $399


----------



## Sukhdeep Singh (Jun 13, 2007)

mohit said:
			
		

> Dunno how you got it for 200$, it still sells for 350$ in the USA.
> 
> *www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116140



My cousin bro works for Microsoft. He gifted me 

But i see it is available on Ebay International for that price


----------



## ambandla (Jun 13, 2007)

sukhdeepsinghkohli said:
			
		

> My cousin bro works for Microsoft. He gifted me
> 
> But i see it is available on Ebay International for that price



I think that ebay seller is trying to get rid of it. 

seriously, I would not trust such sellers on ebay. Just check how much reputation that seller has.


----------



## gxsaurav (Jun 13, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> > Here's a lesson for fellow forum members, too much association with gx_saurav turns you into a liar too. Wasn't it you who was getting BSoDs on using instant messaging programs? We, human beings, call that incompatibility.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## aryayush (Jun 13, 2007)

ambandla said:
			
		

> hehe. Assuming apple will cut down the dual core version to 40k
> That means a core solo mini for 35k and coreduo mini for 40k


You've got it backwards, buddy. There is no core solo Mac in the market, none at all. The lowest configured Mac Mini also has a Core Duo processor and it retails for *Rs. 34,999 including taxes*.


----------



## goobimama (Jun 13, 2007)

^^ But still, as of now the Mac mini is not worth it unless they upgrade it to C2D, which I think they will soon.... hope they don't discontinue it or something though.


----------



## led_shankar (Jun 13, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> *Is it Vista's fault that developer decide not to release Vista compatible products for there old offerings, so that people buy the new once.* Is it Vista'a fault that nVidia is no longer supporting GeForce FX after 4 years of it's release in Vista.



Strange. We linux losers whine about the same when it comes to ATI drivers/popular software not being available there.


----------



## aryayush (Jun 13, 2007)

Ha! Ha! Owned.


----------



## praka123 (Jun 13, 2007)

led_shankar said:
			
		

> Strange. We linux losers whine about the same when it comes to ATI drivers/popular software not being available there.


then there is no replies it is Linux's fault,but not Vista's I suppose


----------



## gxsaurav (Jun 13, 2007)

There are already Open source "nv" drivers out there, isn't it? Besides, nVidia & ATI are gaming graphics card companies & we all know the status of games in Linux. In this context, maintaining an active gaming grade driver team for Linux is near useless.

For OS grade drivers, open source community is already making nv drivers, although slow


----------



## eddie (Jun 14, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> Besides, nVidia & ATI are gaming graphics card companies & we all know the status of games in Linux. In this context, maintaining an active gaming grade driver team for Linux is near useless.


 Status of gaming in Windows is enormous still we see Vista users complaining about Graphics drivers? If we go by your logic then Vista should have had stable and high performance drivers since its RC releases 

PS: I somewhere read that a 5 license pack of Leopard costs just $199. If you can find 4 Mac friends then your effective cost could come down to just $40


----------



## aryayush (Jun 14, 2007)

WOW! I did not know that. If it is true, one of us can buy five copies and then nepcker, mail2and, goobimama, I and a fifth person can share it.


----------



## iMav (Jun 14, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> Status of gaming in Windows is enormous still we see Vista users complaining about Graphics drivers? If we go by your logic then Vista should have had stable and high performance drivers since its RC releases


 not having drivers is not MS fault ... if i remmber corectly and i think u would be informed as well that drivers for gfx cards are made by the hardware guys like nvidia and ati


----------



## gxsaurav (Jun 14, 2007)

@ el moooo

U forgot that Vista is a complete new architecture. WDDM Drivers which are DX 9 as wella s DX 10 compatible. nVidia right now is maintaining 6 drivers sets.

On Linux it is a different story, drives can be easily made if there is substantial driver demand & if they are worth making. If in the end the user is going to run the OS only (mostly) then why maintain an active driver team? Just add features when required & bug fixes are already there in nv drivers. The current Linux drivers support OpenGL 2.0 completely. Now what is left is bug fixing & maintaining an active linux team is not justified. The OS works with current drivers fine na...so why release monthly updates, when one size doesn't fits all.


----------



## nepcker (Jun 14, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> WOW! I did not know that. If it is true, one of us can buy five copies and then nepcker, mail2and, goobimama, I and a fifth person can share it.


 You didn't know that OS X comes in multi-user license?

Mac OS X comes in two versions: Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server. Both can be purchased in both single and multi user licenses.


----------



## goobimama (Jun 14, 2007)

> WOW! I did not know that. If it is true, one of us can buy five copies and then nepcker, mail2and, goobimama, I and a fifth person can share it.



The question will be, who gets to keep the box!


----------



## Sukhdeep Singh (Jun 14, 2007)

goobimama said:
			
		

> The question will be, who gets to keep the box!



Hmm Maybe Windows user


----------



## i_am_crack (Jun 14, 2007)

yeap only the Window Geniune User....Unlike me cause i only have Oem version with no media....


----------



## mail2and (Jun 14, 2007)

goobimama said:
			
		

> The question will be, who gets to keep the box!


 

Is there any doubt about that?


----------



## aneesh kalra (Jun 14, 2007)

Slightly off topic but are graphic cards not available for the mac mini means will your regular pci express card not fit into it.When I asked the mac dealer guy he quoted 37k for the mac mini with 60 gb and 7k for 128mb card


----------



## aryayush (Jun 15, 2007)

nepcker said:
			
		

> You didn't know that OS X comes in multi-user license?
> 
> Mac OS X comes in two versions: Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server. Both can be purchased in both single and multi user licenses.


I knew about the multi-user license but I never knew it came _that_ cheap. In fact, I think mehulved might even be wrong.



			
				goobimama said:
			
		

> The question will be, who gets to keep the box!


Uh oh! That will be a problem. I know I want it. I have my MBP's box, of course. 

I know what we'll do. I'll pay a little extra and keep the box. Or better still, I'll buy it and ship it to all of you (I already have some experience with that now) and keep the box to myself.


----------



## goobimama (Jun 15, 2007)

No way you are shipping anything to me. Remember what happened in the last consignment (angry smiley). (Just kidding smiley)


----------



## aryayush (Jun 15, 2007)

Well, I have a nice little spindle this time around. 

Don't you still need CS3?


----------



## gxsaurav (Jun 15, 2007)

> Slightly off topic but are graphic cards not available for the mac mini means will your regular pci express card not fit into it.When I asked the mac dealer guy he quoted 37k for the mac mini with 60 gb and 7k for 128mb card



The graphics card which you get normally in the market will not work in Mac. 

Mac mini is very small to fit your own graphics card. For 37k it comes with Intel GMA 950 which is good to run Mac OS X but not good to run Windows Vista in Boot camp

iMac comes with a Radeon X1600 which is again good enough to run Mac OS X but ATI is knows to have OpenGL Games performance problems & there drivers suck (nVidiot here )

Mac Pro comes with either a Useless GeForce 7300 GT or Uber High End Quadro cards, & Quadro cards are not meant for gaming. Again good enough to run Mac OS X but not for running Windows Vista in dual boot with gaming.

The only Desktop is Mac Pro while iMac & Mac mini are closed systems which cannot be upgraded other then the RAM manually. If Apple doesn't support upgrading then you have to hack which will break warranty.

In Mac Pro, you cannot just buy a graphics card available in the market & plug it in Mac Pro. It will not work as Mac graphics card come with EFI Compliant ROM chip which only works with Mac.

Bottom Line : Mac cannot be upgraded, unless you call upgrading RAM as the only upgrade possible.


----------



## aneesh kalra (Jun 15, 2007)

What I thought was that since now all mac minis are core2duo equipped they should essentially support adding your own graphics card even micro-atx boards allow you to do that,although a mac mini is smaller than that but they should atleast offer graphic cards at moderate prices but a 128 mb graphics card for 7k is daylight robbery,he suggested that intel gma 950 is enough but I know what crap even x3000 is.


----------



## aryayush (Jun 15, 2007)

Mac Minis have Core Duo processors, not Core 2 Duos.


----------



## aneesh kalra (Jun 15, 2007)

Ya sorrry for that was searching for imacs on safari(windows)while writing this so the typo.The point I was wanting to make is that it is no longer that apple has ibm power pc procys so they should be comparatible with the hardware as well or do the macs derive their perfomance from the fact that the os is linked to a fixed set of hardware.I mean that is the whole superiority of the mac is only due to their os which is itself a derivative of x window system  which is alo used by linux so with the same set of hardware as the mac would a hypothetical better than leopard  linux os perform better.


----------



## goobimama (Jun 15, 2007)

> Don't you still need CS3?


Ah. I've just converted one my friends to a mac idiot. He downloads all kinds of stuff which I then get for free... meaning i got CS3...
Apple's more than just a fruit now


----------



## aryayush (Jun 15, 2007)

OK, the jig's up. I know you wrote that blog entry yourself. 

No kidding, I'm even half serious. Are you sure that is another person? *www.tachypic.com/image/14133.jpeg


----------



## eddie (Jun 15, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> In fact, I think mehulved might even be wrong.


 Eddie is not wrong  The licensing is known as Family Pack
*www.chaosmint.com/macintosh/articles/panther-licensing.shtml

The article is about Panther but it applies to Leopard as well (you can check from Apple store). Now the whole point is what does your _conscience_ say


----------



## aryayush (Jun 15, 2007)

OK, sorry for the good-up and thanks for the _great_ news. 

I didn't get the last sentence though... "what does my _conscience_ say"?!


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jun 15, 2007)

Chaosmint said:
			
		

> So, you're thinking -- "well, I just get 4 friends together". Well, technically, you can't. According to the terms you can install on 5 Macs at one time "*as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household.*"


 This puts all the  mishmash to rest .


----------



## aryayush (Jun 15, 2007)

Wo cares what the terms say. I'll do with it what I will.


----------



## eddie (Jun 15, 2007)

aryayush said:
			
		

> I didn't get the last sentence though... "what does my _conscience_ say"?!


 This is mentioned in the link I gave





> This means that licensing compliance is left to the _conscience_ of the users involved.


So Apple will not stop you from installing the OS on 5 machines at different locations in any which way and it totally depends on your conscience. No activation or network authentication.


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jun 15, 2007)

eddie said:
			
		

> This is mentioned in the link I gaveSo Apple will not stop you from installing the OS on 5 machines at different locations in any which way and it totally depends on your conscience. No activation or network authentication.


but it does not mean that it is correct legally according to the license .

it's like saying it allright using pirated copies of softwares coz companies r not coming to yur home n telling u that it is wrong .


----------



## eddie (Jun 15, 2007)

Zeeshan Quireshi said:
			
		

> but it does not mean that it is correct legally according to the license .


 I am not in this thread to give a lecture on whats legal or illegal. I just informed about a licensing method from the originating company about their operating system. It is on one's own self to decide what they want to do...not for me to preach.

We should be talking about legalities in a related thread and this is not the types.


----------



## sakumar79 (Jun 15, 2007)

Just the same as it is not allowed to encourage use of piracy (through this forum) in Windows and other software, using 5-user licenses by disregarding the terms of the contract is tantamount to piracy... Please keep talks of such to PMs instead of putting it on the posts... 

Arun


----------



## aryayush (Jun 15, 2007)

WOW! People really act weird on this forum sometimes.


----------



## sakumar79 (Jun 15, 2007)

Huh?


----------



## Zeeshan Quireshi (Jun 15, 2007)

Just one simple thing .

If OS X is as good as Macboys bring it out to be 

then why doesn't apple release it for All x86(and x86-64) PC's n capture the whole market with such a good OS 

NO they won't and they can't because then they'll know how hard it is to maintain drivers n compatibility with almost infinite combinations of hardware configurations out there rather than just make it compatible with a handful of configurations .


----------



## nepcker (Jun 16, 2007)

Because Apple wants OS X to run on Macs only. It's like a USP of macs.

Mac OS was once allowed to run on other hardwares too, but with OS X, it is now only for Apple hardware.


----------

