Rewriting code does not exempt an installation from being a "service pack." If a service pack is merely defined as a single installable package that does not change the Major version then both Windows 7 and OS 10.6 are service packs.
For the most part, every update contains lots of "rewrites" to the code. The larger the update, the greater the number of rewrites. Service Packs for Windows tend to be large rewrites of core code and add functionality. Mac OS 10.x packages tend to be similar in scope but are not offered for free.
I would say that unless there is a major revision to the way that the kernel and filesystem operate, then we cannot call a new OS anything other than a service pack. This is what the jump from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 was and Mac OS 9 to Mac OSX was. Since Windows 7 merely tweeks the kernel and maintains the NT filesystem, then it is just an iterative update. Mac OS 10.6 tunes the kernel and maintains the filesystem, so it too is an interative release.
To gauge the value of either Windows 7 or Mac OS 10.6 by price alone is stupid. You must judge it based on the improvements and fixes that the respective operating system brings to the table. Max OS 10.6 is bringing a tuned OS but no significant UI changes, so its value is relatively small. Windows 7 brings substantial UI improvements and fixes many of the Vista/XP issues. For a Windows user, Windows 7 represents a significant change while for a Mac user 10.6 represents a minimal change. Thus, both seem priced accordingly.
As an aside, Mac OS 10.6 does have one change that is larger than Windows 7 when you consider that 10.6 completely drops support for non-intel based chips. This, to me, represents the largest change and causes me to lose a great deal of respect for Apple. But that's just because backwards compatibility is very important to me. Windows, for better or for worse, has always attempted to maintain backwards compatibility, and XP Mode is no exception.
I hope this presents a clear argument why the service pack argument is kinda moot. Thanks for reading!
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Rewriting code does not exempt an installation from being a "service pack." If a service pack is merely defined as a single installable package that does not change the Major version then both Windows 7 and OS 10.6 are service packs.
For the most part, every update contains lots of "rewrites" to the code. The larger the update, the greater the number of rewrites. Service Packs for Windows tend to be large rewrites of core code and add functionality. Mac OS 10.x packages tend to be similar in scope but are not offered for free.
I would say that unless there is a major revision to the way that the kernel and filesystem operate, then we cannot call a new OS anything other than a service pack. This is what the jump from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 was and Mac OS 9 to Mac OSX was. Since Windows 7 merely tweeks the kernel and maintains the NT filesystem, then it is just an iterative update. Mac OS 10.6 tunes the kernel and maintains the filesystem, so it too is an interative release.
To gauge the value of either Windows 7 or Mac OS 10.6 by price alone is stupid. You must judge it based on the improvements and fixes that the respective operating system brings to the table. Max OS 10.6 is bringing a tuned OS but no significant UI changes, so its value is relatively small. Windows 7 brings substantial UI improvements and fixes many of the Vista/XP issues. For a Windows user, Windows 7 represents a significant change while for a Mac user 10.6 represents a minimal change. Thus, both seem priced accordingly.
As an aside, Mac OS 10.6 does have one change that is larger than Windows 7 when you consider that 10.6 completely drops support for non-intel based chips. This, to me, represents the largest change and causes me to lose a great deal of respect for Apple. But that's just because backwards compatibility is very important to me. Windows, for better or for worse, has always attempted to maintain backwards compatibility, and XP Mode is no exception.
I hope this presents a clear argument why the service pack argument is kinda moot. Thanks for reading!