Comments on: Microsoft's joy: Apple responds to 'Laptop Hunters'

In the first direct swipe at Microsoft's anti-Mac "Laptop Hunters" advertising campaign, Apple talks viruses, crashes, and headaches.

[KingLouisXIV]

I rofl at all your comments good sirs. I think the respect should still be given to Microsoft. After these ceaseless commercials of juvenile taunts/claims it's led the public into a lemming stampede. I find it hilarious half of you argue between the price/crashing issues of the competitors. First off, yes, mac seems to have less problems with their products; but only due to the fact that they corner the market with their products, aka no third party. It's amazing Microsoft and their affiliates can keep up constantly developing products on frameworks that constantly change without direct communication with ms themselves.. What mac users need to realize, is as soon as apple starts becoming the standard, there will be a massacre of exploits used by hackers. The fact that 'A,' many exploits haven't been publicly known, and 'B' Apple releases patches in a way much like Microsoft, "give it to the public and catch the bugs as they come"; the tables may quickly shift in the understanding of quality products. Hehe, hopefully in the way of linux.. :3

[goodspeed8701]

macs crash too. they get trojans too. so whats the point? hum... misleading. We all know that vista is more stable than osx and more secured. The hacking contest always tell us how easy it is to hack a mac.

[kcotham]

You are full of it. Macs rarely ever crash, especially when compared to Windows machines. They are virtually virus, trojan horse, and worm free when compared to your average Windows machine. Vista is no where near as stable as Mac OS X (or any other UNIX based operating system). That hacking contest is a tired argument that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the way things are in the real world.

[Angmarr]

@ goodspeed8701
dude when you say stuff like that you bring the wrath of kcotham upon you.
@ kcotham
no offense

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
hacking competitions give a reward that isn't there in the real world making it worth hacking Macs

kernel panics, beachballs, graphics issues...
Macs have their fair share of problems

[kcotham]

@pithenumber

See above statement regarding software and hardware issues.

[eltoro2827]

Justin Long is a ***....why would I want to be a mac?

[MrZook]

Jeepers... whats with the fracas? When was the last time any of you, or your techie friends who are computer literate, bought a product based on a commercial?
ALL commercials are part truth and part exaggeration.
I personally enjoy both Mac and Windows computers (and a little Linux hits the spot every so often), but I dislike both ad campaigns.
And here is why:
Mac commercials "spew" truths+lies, but the customer gets blinded by image, not what they're saying.
PC commercials also "spew" truths+lies, but they have annoying people pretending to shop at Fry's (and always the same Fry's, too).
So... my point is that you shouldn't worry about what Joe Six-Pack is buying because you aren't Joe Six-Pack, and you won't let your Joe Six-Pack brother/uncle/dad buy a crap computer.

[t8]

Nice one. The best one yet. And so true.

[RompStar_420]

I have Mac G5 Power Mac and MacBook and just bought MacBook Pro, top of the line $2800 with extended warranty.

I LOVE IT!!! and every penny that I paid for it was worth it. I enjoy working with the PowerBook Pro, yes if I was 17 I would not be able to afford it, but I am not. If you are 17, go get one of those cheaper laptop for $300-$400 and load it up with Ubuntu!

[zmonster]

I guess I don't understand this article. Why would Microsoft be happy that Apple just totally diminished their advertising campaign?

[ferricoxide]

We have both in our home. My employer issued me an MBP. However, when it came time to replace my wife's Toshiba, I had to go the PC route. It was just more cost effective, and, given that it's her travel computer, the availability of BluRay cinched it.

When it comes down to it, for what I'd have spent on getting her a Mac, I could have bought two computers. What that means is, in two years, if I go and buy her another laptop at the same price I paid for this one, she'll have a MUCH better PC than a Mac bought this year.

[kcotham]

Bluray is nice, IF you have any movies in Bluray. Other than that, it's practically useless. When writable Blueray discs become available, it'll have a practical use. It'd be nice to write 50GB to a disc, do full backups of a system on one disc.

The twice as expensive argument is flawed, and basically not true. It's been demonstrated by myself and others many times.

[Angmarr]

Twice expensive is true and false @ the same time

[1] If you get a PC with the exact same specs as a MAC the price comes out pretty close, with the Mac still being slightly expensive (the Macbook is like $100-200 more expensive to a similar PC, and the PRO is about $400 more expensive to a similar PC... AS I REMEMBER)

[2] BUT here is a FACT. WHY in the hell should an AVERAGE CONSUMER pay more to get a UBER stat computer to Browse the Net, Organize Pics, Watch Movies, Word Process? When they can get a CHEAPER computer to do that???

I can get a Computer for under "$750" that i can play Hardcore games on, Yes its less powerful than a MACBOOK, but why spend more to do something I already can cheaper. AND most people DONT even play hardcore games!!!

I know what you will say kcotham, that OSX is a better operating system (no viruses, less crashes, no crapwhere, easier to use), that Macs are built better (aluminum) BUT that is not the answer to my question?

[Nicko67]

@kcotham
I'll take a piece of that, too. What you are refusing to acknowledge is that a MBP is OVERKILL for a very large percentage of users. They'd rather buy the Windows box, skip the learning curve and keep the cash, thank you! The question I always pose to someone buying a computer, or thinking of upgrading is "Does it do what you want it to?" Don't overbuy. Yah, you can go nuts on RAM and CPU, but 18 months later, they're dirt cheap. My idiot engineer, when we bought his mobile workstation, wanted 2 GB of RAM off the nose. At that time, it would have been an $1100 touch. I put my foot down. He hadn't even used the unit yet! 11 months later we did the upgrade--for $40!

You ALWAYS overpay for a Mac. Ferricoxide's point is well taken. IF you are willing to spend Mac-like money, you can refresh more frequently and ALWAYS be ahead in the specs department. Moore's Law always applies

[kcotham]

@Niko and Angmarr

There is no learning curve really. The most difficult thing about going from Windows to Mac OS is UNLEARNING all the bad UI you've been subjected to. My first computer with a GUI was an Amiga. I learned Mac OS and Windows simultaneously. And since I did learn them at the same time, I can honestly and fairly say that the Mac OS is a much easier to use, much better laid-out operating system and interface. Is Mac OS X perfect, no, just easier to use.

There are two sorts of people in this world: the sort that will buy the cheapest thing they can just to get by with, and then there are the sort of people that will buy the best thing they can afford. The former go the el cheapo Windows computer and the latter go for a Macintosh.

Your idea of refreshing more often has little merit beyond having the latest low to mid-range processor every couple of years. I sincerely doubt when you crunch the numbers you will save any money however. When you buy a Macintosh, you usually are buying the fastest, which, will in a couple of years be on par with the mid-range processors available. You are on a level of parity then. The difference is, you will not have had to put up with all the headaches of Windows for four years. And, if you so chose, you could actually resell the Macintosh for a tidy sum, not so with a used Windows machine with a low-grade consumer processor.

So, if el cheapo pedestrian performance is what you want, by all means buy a Dell from the bargain basement. If you want blistering speed, ease of use, and stability, buy a Macintosh.

[Angmarr]

If I wanted to buy the cheapest PC then I'd just get a Netbook/ Nettop/ or an old school Pentium 4 Laptop.
NO I DO wanna buy a PC that my budget can afford. Sure I can afford a Macbbok (not a Pro) But guess what I can get a Core 2 Duo + 2Gig Ram for UNDER $600. Does it have the exact same features as a Macbook NO! but does it have MORE than enough for ANYTHING that a MAJORITY of consumers need to do .... YES!!!

all Im saying man

[kcotham]

@Angmarr

Fine, if you want to put up with the headaches of Windows to save a few bucks, so be it. I don't need the aggravation, so I bought a Macintosh. In my particular case, I could have either paid more or less for a computer with the same hardware specs, it was very close. I chose the Macintosh to avoid the frustration of Windows.

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
unlearning the ui? no, its learning a new one. stop spewing FUD, Macs have a learning curve, admit it
"consumer processor"? what, Macs have processors intended for consumers

and the best thing you can buy is a machine with Windows/Linux dual boot

[kcotham]

@pithenumber

Facts are not FUD. Independent studies have shown that the Mac OS has a better designed UI, more user friendly and more efficient in motion studies. This is objective fact, not FUD. The chief problem when learning a new way of doing something, is unlearning the old way. This is fact. Humans are creatures of habit. And if you were taught bad habits (ie. WIndows' poorly designed UI), you will have problems (although not as severe as the FUD spread by Microsoft) in learning a new way of doing something. It requires a little mental flexibility that you evidently do not possess.

All you spout is "better" without any frame of reference or backing like some school-yard bully.

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
so you turn to random insults to back your opinion

I think that Windows/Linux is the best since you get excellent stability and virus protection and you also get Windows for office work, gaming, and obscure windows only apps that refuse to emulate
Windows 7 is better because I know quite a few people who are using Windows most of the time on their Macs or Linux dual boot systems [includes me]

[kcotham]

@pithenumber

You use Windows most of the time on your Mac? I thought we previously established that you don't even own a Macintosh. "Random insults"? Whatever. It would be easier to refute your crap if you wrote it in English. The lack of the ability to communicate effectively is a sure sign of a lack of intelligence.

[Hernys]

@KCOtham:
I use Windows at work and at home, in a desktop PC, a laptop and a UMPC. I haven't yet seen a crash in Windows Vista or Windows 7, ever (OK, I saw one once, but that was when I removed the OS hard drive on a computer while it was running, thinking I was removing a secondary drive, so I don't think you could blame Microsoft for that). With Windows XP I saw some crashes, but not very often (maybe once a year) and that was maybe five years ago.
@ Random_Walk: some vendors might not provide many more machines than Apple, but that's the thing: you have other vendors. There are maybe fifty completely different machines, with different form factors, quality levels, price points and specs. If you add configurations, you might have thousands of DIFFERENT alternatives. Not so with Apple. You won't find an equivalent to the OQO, you won't find something like a Thinkpad x61 tablet.
So I can't see where Microsoft lied at all, not even by omission. Apple, on the other hand, said truths on half of their ads. That means they lied on the other half. Way to go.

[kcotham]

Count yourself luck you have been so fortunate not to have experience more problems than you have, if what you say is true.

Apple is one company, not a lot of different companies, which is what you are talking about. No one company makes everything at every price point and form factor. Your argument doesn't make any sense at all. What point are you trying to make? And ALL advertising is lying in one way or another, it's the nature of it. Truth in advertising is a bit of a myth.

[setgo]

Well I think before you examine the fact that Apple has responded to Microsoft Ads, you must first debate why Microsoft feel they need to run ads against a company that has only 5-8 percent of the market share. If indeed they are at Redmond dancing around because of this response then what does this say about our dear Goliath?

[kcotham]

Because Microsoft won't be satisfied until they have 100% of the market, that's why There's a speech by Bill Gates out there (I think it was when they launched Windows 95) where he says that they won't stop until every computer in the world is running Windows. It's there in plain English.

[Angmarr]

actually Apple has 9.73% as of April 2009 = )

even as a fan of Windows I must say, I dont ever want Microsoft to become a total monopoly!

[kcotham]

@Angmarr

Keep supporting them, that's exactly what they want, total market domination. There will go innovation, good design, and good taste, right out the window.

[mickeymjay]

The mac guy should have stepped away too when the girl said something that will not get a virus. Granted, there may mabe more virus writers out there for PC, but in time, this may change.

Don't get me wrong, but have strong and week points. I have been using Windows 7 for a while now and it blows XP and Vista out of the water. I never had any virus issues with Vista and none so far with Windows 7 beta or the release canadate.

[Angmarr]

oh BTW. Excellent job CNET, another piece of amazing work creating this article to get the hate war raging, simply magnificent work. BRAVO!!

[Nicko67]

It beats watching network TV :)

[Angmarr]

LOL, ya gotta say

[KuroishI]

Microsoft is emphasizing the hardware aspect to compare with Apple and it's really not a hardware war at all. Sure, you can pull a hand full of off-the-shelf components and build a nice comparable machine that would meet or exceed Apples offerings. However, the only problem with this is that you're stuck using the Windows operating system and this is where the real problems lie. I've been a PC for the better part of my life and I must say I don't miss BSOD's, stop errors, the windows registry, hardware incompatibilities, virus's...the list goes on and on. And yes, there are more choices out there but that creates even more problems! Quality over quantity I say. DOS was an inferior rip off of UNIX, Windows was an even more inferior imitation of the Mac OS. Windows/Microsoft over it's entire life span has been trying to keep up with Apple and has failed every time, IMHO.

[KuroishI]

Microsoft is emphasizing the hardware aspect to compare with Apple and it's really not a hardware war at all. Sure, you can pull a hand full of off-the-shelf components and build a nice comparable machine that would meet or exceed Apples offerings. However, the only problem with this is that you're stuck using the Windows operating system and this is where the real problems lie. I've been a PC for the better part of my life and I must say I don't miss BSOD's, stop errors, the windows registry, hardware incompatibilities, virus's...the list goes on and on. And yes, there are more choices out there but that creates even more problems! Quality over quantity I say. DOS was an inferior rip off of UNIX, Windows was an even more inferior imitation of the Mac OS. Windows/Microsoft over it's entire life span has been trying to keep up with Apple and has failed every time, IMHO.

[Nicko67]

@Kuroishi
BSOD's ARE stop errors and if you are not missing those you either gave up on Windows BEFORE Windows 2000, or the first quality machine you ever bought was a Mac. Too bad. If you had bought a Compaq Deskpro, HP Vectra or a Dell Dimension before buying your first Mac, you would have saved yourself a lot of money over the intervening decade.

[kcotham]

@Nicko67
You lost any credibility you ever had by listing Compaq, HP and Dell as "quality" machines. Apple has been topping quality and customer satisfaction surveys for years. The three you just listed, haven't.

[kcotham]

@Kuroishl

It isn't just your opinion, it's a fact that Microsoft has been trying to keep up with Apple from the beginning and failing miserably at it. The only reason they are the powerhouse they are now is because of their corporate philosophy and the ensuing illegal business practices. There was also a measure of good timing and luck involved. They cheated, lied, stole, and blackmailed their way to where they are. And now, since they are so big and there are so many people heavily invested in them, it would take a miracle to dislodge them from that position. There are millions of poor, unsuspecting, ignorant people out there that have been hoodwinked by them for too long, people that equate computing in general and the internet with Microsoft. It sickens me to be honest. I remember a day when it was all up for grabs by companies that haven't been around for years. There were companies like Commodore that had a product that was technically superior to both Apple's and Microsoft's, the Amiga, but the dice didn't fall in their favour. NeXT had a superior product in both software and hardware as well, no dice. Biggest doesn't mean the best people. Just because most computers in the world run Microsoft software doesn't mean they are the best. Technically speaking, they've been behind the curve, playing catchup with the likes of Apple, NeXT, Sun, and even old Commodore. I hesitate to quote this, but Steve Jobs once said that "the only problem with Microsoft is that just have no taste". I completely agree with him and anyone with any sense of aesthetics and an appreciation of the finer things in life will agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw

[Angmarr]

well of cause they have customer satisfaction, people who are willing to overpay are usually satisfied before they buy. Thats why they make the switch. like asking rich people ... "are you happy with your monetary standing"

[kcotham]

@Angmarr

That makes very little sense. When you buy a Macintosh you aren't "overpaying" as you put it. You simply have different priorities, like not having to put up with third rate software and three different companies when you have a problem. Apple got those high ratings from how they dealt with customers that did have issues, they had a person on the other end of the line that spoke English as a first language and addressed the issue without putting them off to another manufacturer. Your analogy isn't relevant at all.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Apple`s ads look like a child put them together along with cheap sets and all.
MSFT put them in their place and they HAD to respond.

[kcotham]

You have got to be kidding me. You obviously have no taste and no sense of humour. The Microsoft (nice use of the stock ticker abbreviation by the way, it shows your mindset) advertisements look like they were shot with a camcorder and written by a first year marketing major.

[pithenumber]

Apple ads make everyone rofl, MS ads makes Mac fanboys run around screaming which is equally funny
so Apples ads are better since both are filled with FUD and pointless, but Apples ads make more people laugh than MS's

[kcotham]

"Run around screaming"? Whatever. Hyperbole does not suit you.

[s1rf]

Does anyone else find it ironic that John Hodgman is quite the intellectual and Justin Long is a well known screen actor?

[Vegaman_Dan]

I love it. Let's get some banter back and forth going on.

To have Apple rush out an ad so quickly means they are taking this shot across their bow seriously. The cracks in the armor are spreading. They have to take action or ... yeah. The ad is funny, but it does come across rather sadly.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Interesting how Megan's criteria also rules out the Macintosh line. Perhaps she needs to look at some other platform entirely.

Small screens? Apple offers those.
Slow CPU's? Apple offers those.
Crashes, etc, etc, etc? Apple offers those as well.

Perhaps this commercial should have had Mac say, "Hi, I'm a Kettle."

[kcotham]

The Macintosh notebooks are available in different sizes, true, but all are available with comparably fast CPUs and a stable operating system, not riddled with viruses and other malware. None of the generic PCs can say that.

[Angmarr]

Funny how apple never everrrr talks about their price = )

[kcotham]

@Angmarr

Because price is a secondary issue. It comes from an understanding that one gets what one pays for. If you get something cheap, cheap is what you get. Prices, as we've demonstrated many times, aren't that different when one compares like to like and takes the total cost of ownership into account.

[Angmarr]

Hate to keep lagging on these "extremely insightful" discussions/ arguments/ BLOOD BATHS (ok slight exaggeration), BUT prices is definitely NOT a secondary issue!!!

Frankly I cant understand why Apple doesn't make a $700ish laptop.

[kcotham]

It is a secondary issue. As I explained before, there are two different sorts of people. There are the sort that seek out the lowest price tag first, and the sort that seeks out the best quality THEN looks at the price tag.

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
if everyone were type two
I would get hundreds of orders for 8x Shanghai computers with dual GTX295's 20SSD's in RAID, and 196gb of DDR3 RAM, loaded with 7 flavours of Linux, 3 version of Windows, and Mac OS Hackintosh. oh yeah, and 90% of the customers would also order many of these machines so they can use them in a cluster
I don't [wish I did, I would be rich!]

and price is the primary issue, not everyone is willing to take out a mortgage on their next computer
and don't mention payment plans that make you pay 2x more

[kcotham]

@pithenumber

Blah, blah, blah, blah. How about putting down the pixie sticks and pizza and writing a coherent sentence?

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
who are you
my old english teacher?

[kcotham]

@pithenumber

Evidently you slept through his class. You and monkeyfun14 couldn't write a coherent sentence if your lives depended on it. And let's not even get started with your lack of punctuation. Who are you e e cummings?

[otte-o]

I'm trying to figure out why the Mac guy didn't walk off with the last statement. At least they should try to be truthful in their ads.

[kcotham]

Maybe because Macintoshes aren't riddled with malware? Maybe because Macintoshes generally use a higher class of processor? It's not rocket science.

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
3 cores vs. 2
which one will win?
I vote 3 cores

[kcotham]

@pithenumber

Show me one commercially available computer available with three cores on one chip. I know of none. Macintoshes are available with quad core cpus (as are other manufacturer's computers). Four is better than three. Oh, and the Mac Pro is available with a two quad core chips, eight is better than three. Other manufacturers make eight core computers too. Your point is?

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
Ph2 720 is a tri core

and how does 32 cores sound to you?
8 Shanghai Opty's

[kcotham]

@pi

And I ask again, so? Mac OS X is tailor made for multiprocessor computing. How many people are going to own a 32 core computer? Hmmm? And why would you want a three core processor if four core ones are readily available, or 2 x quad core processors?

[bart6426]

Yeah the other difference between ms's add and this one is that that one was about a real product, the sony vaio fw notebook, which has hd screen and blu ray and its cheaper than a mac who doesn't even know what that is. So if you ask me I'd choose real and boring over entertaining and bull crap.