Microsoft gets beautifully picky in new Mac attack
In its new Mac attack that debuted to coincide with students who can afford Macs playing basketball, Microsoft wants to make something very, very clear: truly, madly beautiful people buy PCs.
People who are picky about their hairstyle, their T-shirts, their jeans. Oh, yes, and their ability to withstand brand messages.
"I don't want to pay for the brand," says Giampaolo, who may or may not have had a bit part in "Twilight." "I want to pay for the computer." That computer should have "portability, battery life, and power."
Giampaolo says he's "technically savvy," though his car (if it is his) seems a little like an old Atari on wheels. Maybe it's a retro thing.
Still, there is one thing very different about Giampaolo's attitude from that of Lauren, the first Laptop Hunter: there is no way he's going into an Apple store.
One can only speculate why. Perhaps it is something to do with the strong rumor that, in filming the Lauren ad, she never actually spoke to anyone in the Apple store. She seems to have been in and out in fewer seconds than it takes to answer a Craigslist ad.
Giampaolo does, however, find a MacBook in an all-encompassing computer store. He declares it "so-oooo sexy." But although she's pretty and she might be a great one-night stand, she's just not a good long-term lover. Is it because she's high-maintenance? Is it because she's flighty? No, she just isn't intellectual enough for Giampaolo.
Well, he's picky, he knows what he wants and, just like his cool jeans, he goes out and gets it. This is all entirely acceptable and understandable.
There is only one thing that nags at me, in that way that a loose seam on your jeans nags at your spare tire.
If Giampaolo were technically (or is it technologically?) savvy, he'd have known exactly what he wanted from the very beginning. There would have been no need to look at a MacBook, no need to look at keyboards that were too small for his very, very large hands.
He'd have just gone straight for the Hewlett-Packard Pavilion HDX.
That would have made for a pretty short ad, wouldn't it?
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
We call this type of thing 'advertising'.
In 'advertising' the object is to make the product you're trying to sell a more attractive proposition than the alternatives. However, as some of your customers may have bough the alternatives in the past you don't want to call them an utter piece of crap because you'll just **** them off. Instead you damn them with faint praise.
I hope this post has been instructive. Certainly it has more substance than your witterings about jeans and haircuts.
Hey ?creative director? next time try blogging on this, your super expensive gold plated Mac is the most exploitable platform
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941
"It?s really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don?t do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don?t have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you?d find in Windows.
It?s more about the operating system than the (target) program. Firefox on Mac is pretty easy too. The underlying OS doesn?t have anti-exploit stuff built into it."
If you want to sound like a serious response, make your reading more pleasing. Go to school, finish what you should have started and come back with something digestible. Your grammar reminds me of windows;
Firefox on the mac is the same codebase as Firefox on Windows and Linux. It is now easier to exploit just because it is running on a mac. Also there only a few known viruses for the mac and only one or two in the wild. The conflicker virus (the one currently in the news) has infected millions of WINDOWS PC's.
Also what does your post have to do with the advertisement? And as @lil-yankee says, learn to type properly.
Is it dedicated Mac users? I don't see the content moving them. They've already made up their minds.
Is it unhappy Mac users? Don't see this - if they are unhappy they've already decided they are going back to a PC.
Is it dissatisfied PC users? I don't see the content moving them either. Being dissatisfied means that they will probably take this ad with a grain of salt - they aren't looking for cool, they want something that works.
How about happy PC users. This one's a maybe, perhaps this group needs to be reassured that they made the right choice - but if they are already happy ...
So what's left? - Those in the middle, both Mac and PC users. So they are hoping to keep their PC's users and move the Mac users. Does this ad work for either? I don't think so.
So bottom line, to me at least, is MS is spending a lot of money on an ad that's not going to accomplish much. When Apple pokes at PC it's cute, when PC does it they come across as a 60k pound gorilla.
btw I just upgraded from Tiger to Panther, sorry I waited so long. Not looking forward to going to the office tomorrow and back to my PC.
Is it happy PC users?
Everybody.
It's to get people to think, if they need something or not.
Soooooooo many MACTARDS (And yes there are macusers that are not stupid but most are) never bother to question Apple's answers or other mactard answers.
They call PC users fanatics but windoze users dont give a rats ass about brand loyalty, they simply get work done for the least amount of $.
There are sooo many mac forums that think there is a conspiracy against them, and it's comical to the rest of us. And yes most think Mac users are complete raving idiots because of this. For instance, the conspiracy against the iphone in businesses.
Most viruses are meant are for the PC. Why? In most security challenges, OSX is the first to be hacked, so why is it PCs that get viruses. Simply virii propagation applies to real viruses as it does to computer ones. I you have many that can carry and transmit in a crowd, you spread your virus. If you have 9 in crowd of 91 people( that cant carry or trasmit the virus) the chances of those 9 getting infected are slim !
Or how about Work related. Do you know how many think that macs are the best for photo creation but forget that most programs are cross platform? Oh and for REALLY large files in photoshop, you will be using Vista 64 and NOT OSX. So with the money you saved NOT buying a mac, you bought 8 more gb of ram, and are using CS4 in 64 mode in Vista 64. So if you REALLY are a professional, you'd chose something to get your work done and not go with fanaticism.
If they get people to actually THINK and ASK QUESTIONS, then PCs have a good advertisement because many switch to Macs because they simply dont.
Dude chill out with the hate on Mac users !
it's simple Windows isn't for everybody !
you may like it but many others like me prefer OSX and Linux to some extent
for me using Windows feels like living in the stone ages
so no matter how good or cheap a PC is if it ships with Windows
I wont buy it ! Simple as that
No amount of Microsft ads are going to help
unless they Improve their Product called Winodows !
?The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don't do. You don't have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you'd find in Windows.? What part of this do you not understand?
This guy should've bought a Macbook.
Before you tell someone not to be a m0ron, make sure you're not proving yourself to be an idiot.
Every person I've ever known to buy a Mac was a Windows user prior to it. They each had a reason for buying Mac beyond just "ooooh pretty".
Actually, one of my friends is about to buy her first Macbook because her current laptop has crashed (BSOD) several times in the past 2 years. It's an OEM machine, Windows preinstalled, not past its warranty yet. Oh, funny thing, she's using HP.
The reason most Mac people use Safari is because it's better than Windows. Of course, lots of Mac users use Firefox or Camino as well. iTunes works better on Mac so I don't fault them for using it. When on Windows, I use Winamp instead of iTunes because it works better, but on Mac, I'd use iTunes too.
By the way, how many Windows users do you know who can set up their own account on Exchange? I can answer that question very easily. Counting on fingers, I won't even have to lift my hands. There might be 2 in my entire state who can competently set up an email account through Exchange.
Now, the only areas you've mentioned that have anything based on reality is that Apple is virus free and that it costs more. Of course, if you bring in a side by side comparison, including software, between a Macbook and a Laptop from any other OEM, they're very comparable.
Pretty sure you're going to complain and try and say that Mac is not virus free. Do you even know the difference between a virus and other forms of malware? If you did, you'd see that Macs are virus free. There's malware written for them, no viruses though. Actually, the only malware I've heard of recently for Mac is a trojan that required the user to install it before it could do anything.
Like viruses in Linux, the trojan wouldn't exist without each user creating it. Of course, unlike viruses in Linux, the trojan didn't have to be built from the ground up by each user.
Now, please tell me, just how is Microsoft giving Apple a run for its money with these ads? They're not even talking about the software.
The Mac OS X + hardware package that Apple offers functions. PCs function. Everything functions just fine,
The problem I have is when people bash someone else for choosing a product other than the one they chose.
If you are an IT professional, developer or programmer, Windows PCs will present no great difficulties in most cases. However, 99% of the world's computer users do not have this knowledge or expertise. And most just don't care either. They just want something to do their work, and help them at home. So really, they just want a computer that is "user" friendly, rather than "administrator" friendly.
My work is a good case in point. We have 100 people in the organization, yet I am one of maybe 5 people who are considered to have any computer knowledge, outside of the basic software programs staff use to complete their work tasks. But I am really just another dumb user, perhaps just closer to the top of the pile. Yet many of my colleagues own PCs rather than Macs, because of the negative PR spread by our IT department regarding all things Apple. So they end up buying a PC for home, and without the safety net of IT, and their Windows and set up knowledge, they find it too hard or lose patience and interest doing anything away from work. Some are lucky enough to have kids old enough to work out the difficulties for them. If their kids don't know the answer or aren't old enough yet, they are stuffed, and the PC sits in the corner gathering dust.
I know many IT staff find it hard to understand why 99% of users are dumb, but most users just want an easy to use system that does not involve much of a learning curve. While Windows does not have a steep learning curve, it is still not "user" friendly in the way Macs are. Away from work, and the safety net of IT, most users would find Macs far less intimidating, and actually enjoyable to use, and importantly much easier to set up. At work, well, you use whatever the company's IT people choose to set up for you.
All of my friends who have switched to mac actually use their computers so much more than ever before because they feel freed from most of the fear of stuffing up or not understanding what to do with Windows PCs. Plus they all love iLife, which for them turns professional and semi-pro skill sets into great quality apps that the average dumb user can use with confidence.
All you tech savvy posters can blast my friends and I for being dumb users and that is fine, but we are representative of at least 95% of the world's population, indeed maybe as much as 99%. If you are in the 1% of people who know how successfully set up PCs running Windows then great, stick with it, because you are the people that make Windows workable. For the rest of us, at home anyway, Macs should be considered, even at $500 more. After all, $500 sounds a lot until you consider ease-of-set-up (priceless), iLife, and of course OSX. Not to forget award winning Industrial Design, good resale and reliability with their hardware.
Ironic perhaps that 95% of the world uses Windows, but 95% of the world also has little or no tech savvy and struggles with set up. tm_anon makes a good case in point regarding Exchange.
I switched over to a Mac four years ago from a PC to go into the graphics and print industry with it after having done some very careful research on specs and programs, etc. for what was best suited for me and my professional needs and am now making a six figure salary with it in the industry.
I guess I'm a "m0ron" for doing that.
Thank You so much for the kind compliments!
Windoze User here. Tried mac. Next PS Will be a dual booting Hackintosh. Can't stand the crapy design of the MacBook. OS X is ok though I miss certain dedicated keys that make the Mac Far less efficient. But there is a learning curve. As for OS Stablity I hate to say it because I really, really don't like MicroSoft but Vista's more stable. More irony, it's more stable on my Mac than OS X.
Some software is only available on a PC, some industries (advertising and design related fields) are entirely standardized on the Mac hardware platform-- As it has been widely reported in the Advertising trade press, CP+B who produce these ads for Microsoft are entirely an Apple platform agency (and I'm sure many of Apple's subcontractors are running their businesses on PCs).
For fanboys to claim that Macs are always better machines for all people in all circumstances is silly.
But by the same token, claims from PC users that Mac users are only paying a premium for a logo is ridiculous. It's phony class-warfare marketing. The guy driving the Chevy hates the guy driving the BMW and will make all sorts of absurd rationalizations for why he's smarter for not spending so much money on a car just to have a status symbol. Whatever.
Apple doesn't sell on price. Neither does BMW. But both of their prices are realistic within their respective markets.
Microsoft wants to play WalMart style marketing because we are in a recession. Probably not a bad strategy.
Just as how in Mac ads, being critical of Vista was essentially the same thing as supporting Macintosh, Microsoft selling PCs is pretty much the same thing as selling Windows.
While some of that is true, the Mac ads did point out some real world problems. Sure the problems were blown out of proportion for the majority of users but they were still real world problems.
They also talked about the hardware as well as the software. In these MS ads, they haven't mentioned the software once. One of the biggest selling points and one of the major reasons for computer returns is software.
It's great that they think the OEMs have decent hardware (several do have decent hardware) but when making an ad for Windows, shouldn't Windows be mentioned?
But these problems the MAC ads point out happen just as much as they happen on a PC.
Its a rare case scenario to ever get a BSOD most users will never see one in person in there lifetime same goes for kernel panics on MAC.
Apps lock up and crash on mac to if they didn't we wouldn't have a force quit command on the dock now would we?
What does the extra money buy you? Good support and an Obnoxious glowing Apple Logo (on your Macbooks). The support is worth a bit more. But that glowing apple?
"For fanboys to claim that Macs are always better machines for all people in all circumstances is silly.
But by the same token, claims from PC users that Mac users are only paying a premium for a logo is ridiculous. It's phony class-warfare marketing. The guy driving the Chevy hates the guy driving the BMW and will make all sorts of absurd rationalizations for why he's smarter for not spending so much money on a car just to have a status symbol. Whatever.
Apple doesn't sell on price. Neither does BMW. But both of their prices are realistic within their respective markets."
I'm don't know this for sure but I'm wondering, Does the guy driving the chevy feel jealous of the guy driving the BMW and so feel the need to convince himself that BMW is just about the status? Maybe its the same with PC users... (I'm not one)
What people use will not change unless they can run any software on any platform. That is not going to happen. So PC people will remain PC, Apple people will remain Apple. The only people that will change will be new users, and most of them get set in their ways by whatever their parents provide at home.
In my opinion the Mac market share is high enough. I don't want more idiots tainting the brand. Owning a Mac used to be special; it used to be something that particular people choose. Now the brand is tainted by people who are influenced by ads. Microsoft is targeting back. While I don't think it will convince anyone to buy a PC that was considering buying a Mac, (Apple's Market share isn't high enough yet for that) but they can keep targeting the people who are influenced by ads. I don't want those people to be calling me for tech support anyway. Let them call Dell and HP, Microsoft, etc.
I don't know where you get your market share numbers, but they're wrong. Microsoft has 88.14% of the OS market, to Apples 9.77. Apple has picked up 2% in the past year, but nowhere near what you're claiming. Get your facts straight, don't make numbers up. BTW - my source is http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8.
The Turion sucks, but the Radeon HD 3200 is actually a fairly powerful GPU, far superior to Intel Integrated crap
AV is free
Macs are possibly more reliable, but largely because Mac users are so limited in what they can install on their computer, that they have a much smaller potential for a bad application or compatibility issue. If you were to limit your hardware choices on a PC to what comes with the HP, sony, Compac, etc. when you take it out of the box, and you limited your software to a realtively small number of applications from Microsoft, Adobe, and some other really big and reliable companies, then I am absolutely sure that you would have a totally reliable machine. Of course you can also add to the mix the fact that the Mac OS is much smaller and more limited in it's capabilities (although perfectly adequate for most users), that also limits the number of possible security holes. You could run Linux on your PC and get pretty much the same functionality and simplicity as a MAC, but you wouldn't have to pay the punishing premium that Mac demands for the privilage of running a less capable OS.
Until you got to that part of your post, you were actually saying decent stuff. How about we all pretend you only had one paragraph instead of 2 since your second one came entirely out of your ass.
1. True -Macs and PCs now use pretty much identical hardware. That means the real difference is the OS and installed software that comes with the computer. The "Apple premium" is what you pay for that OS and software. If you want to include elements of the hardware design (size, weight, durability -whatever) that's fine. But the real difference is the OS and the installed software.
2. True - There are hundreds of thousands more software titles available for the PC platform. There are also billions more insects in a single US state than there are humans on the planet. The numbers mean nothing. Software availability is meaningful only in the sense that a user is or is not able to do whatever task she has in mind. Those who would argue "limited choices" are only valid if they are comparing software on hand and available to the purchaser. In other words, the fact that there may be 1,000 different word processing titles written for Windows is meaningless if I only ever see two or three titles in my local stores -which is the reality for most of us.
3. False -"The Mac OS is more limited in its capabilities." Where does that absurd idea come from? Not even Microsoft is peddling that idea. The truth is, the Mac OS is extremely powerful. The human genome was decoded on a Mac, not a PC. There is more evidence to suggest that the opposite argument is true: The Mac OS is more powerful than Windows. Why else would Windows constantly, continually, try to copy it? And Apple's decision to sell the OS only in its full-power form means any user can take advantage of it, whereas Windows licenses its OS in pieces, charging you more to be able to do things like burn discs or run certain kinds of software.
We could go on and on about security and other topics, but really the captain's arguments aren't worth the time. As another poster said already, some industries use Macs, and others use PCs, and people should choose the machine that works best for them and best meets their needs. Flaming rages and childish name-calling are a waste of time. Go buy a PC. Go buy a Mac. Whatever. It's like gay marriage -your choice in no way effects me, and my choices shouldn't effect you.
I would also agree with the higher availability argument. There's a lot of competition between pieces of PC software. Lots of it. For instance, I have a choice of IE, FF, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and more for my browser. I know of several office quites, and even more media players. Each one fights the other for market share in a world where most people own PCs. I guess you could say this competition only exists because of PCs' already large market share, but the fact is that it exists and the merits of so much choice cannot be denied.
Mac OS X is limited in the capability of installing on hardware other than Apple hardware. ;) Why would I even want that, though? If every company wrote their own drivers for OS X, the system would face the same issues that Windows has on so much hardware (freezes, "blue screens") since hardware manufacturers suck at writing drivers. Apple would never put their perfect environment's image at risk.
"Security and other topics" - I said "listen to this man" because he mentioned using linux, so I don't think those other topics really come into play here.
He mentions Linux but he has the same backhanded compliment for it as he does OS X. i.e. claiming it has less functionality.
I don't really care that he mentions it. I just care that he got it so wrong.
No big deal. We bought a dell that would run it - and it cost $1,000 more than the high-end Mac Pro.
Yeah, that was a good deal.
OS X is way, way more capable than Windows. WIndows doesn't have anything like Applescript (which is one reason publishing and graphics still prefer Macs). I can't think of one capability that Windows has that Macs don't (other than the 10 or 15 programs that won't run on them).
Mac users are power users just as much as Windows users and Linux/Unix users are power users. Get over it already. You don't want a Mac, fine? But don't go pontificating about something where you have no clue what your talking about.
I've been reading all the comments posted here, and let me tell you what is true and what is not. I can say this because I have been developing cross-platform softwares and have been involved in many important joint projects (between corporations, and corporation-university).
First off, yes, Mac users have a limited choice because Mac's share is really small compared to that of PC.
It's the simple principle of market competition. The bigger the pie is, the more competition there is. Also, if the competition is fierce, consumers will be given more choices.
Therefore, yes, PC users have more choices, and some popular programs like Firefox don't run well on Macs. Firefox runs much faster and shows much more efficiency on Widnows platform.
However, it doesn't mean that Mac users are less productive than Windows users. Macs have few but powerful tools. Safari is fast, and dashboard and spaces are just wonderful. And, if you exclude the Numbers, iWorks suite is very productive and easier to use than Office suite. (Speaking of Numbers, Numbers is easy, but doesn't offer much features. We sometimes call it a "kiddie tool.")
Second, Mac is more secure than Windows.
As of now, Mac is more secure than Windows. But if you look at the code itself, Windows is more secure than Mac. Then why do we generally say that Mac is better than Windows in terms of security?
It's simple: there aren't many Mac users.
Virus and Malware developers want their "babies" to spread quickly, and to a large number of computers. From this point of view, Mac isn't a very attractive choice. Also, the primary purpose of developing trojan and other malwares is to make money by stealing identification. Why would they develop codes that will work on only a small number of computers? They can spend that time on developing a software that will penetrate into a much larger number of computers.
There was a pwn20 hacking contest last Month in Chicago, IL. In the contest, Safari was hacked in just one minute, while IE8 BETA took much longer time to be hacked. Also, in a contest two years ago, Macbook Air was hacked in just two minutes, using the Remote Disc feature.
I want to tell you. THERE ARE MALWARES TARGETED AT MAC OS X's. That's why there are Mac security tools, such as Norton Antivirus 11. But so far, there hasn't been a single effective Mac virus.
Why doesn't Mac have any virus? Think about it. MS patches its Windows products almost every two weeks, and Linux is patched by millions of developers around the world. But Mac is just NOT. Did you know that Mac's source is more closed than that of Windows? People blame on Microsoft for not sharing their source code, but Apple is far worse. We developers sometimes get really frustrated when we face this obstacle.
Thrid, yes, Macs and PCs have been identical hardwares, since Apple abandoned its IBM-made PPC platform.
But it's impossible for PC users to install Mac OS X on their computers, because Macs use EFI instead of traditional BIOS. In theory, EFI is much more efficient than BIOS, but we have not needed that efficiency, so far.
But since they are identical hardwares, there have been numerous attempts by hackers to install OS X on PCs. The OS X hacked for PC installation is called hackintosh, and hackintosh has been quite successful. The results prove that EFI isn't a big deal, and many people are thinking EFI was done to prevent PC users from installing OS X.
And yes, Macs are unreasonably more expensive than PCs. Calculations have shown that Apple is charging 40~60% premium on its products. If you assemble a PC with same specs of the bottom-level iMac ($1299.99), you can make it for less than $600, including a monitor, mouse, and everything. One of the Simpsons episodes once criticized this policy of Apple, and its "fans." (don't take this to the wrong way. I'm a fan of Wozniak. I even voted for him for "Dancing with stars.")
I wrote this article to demystify some rumors out there. My conclusion is, yes, Macs are more secure and reliable, because the crackers think it's a waste of time to develop viruses or malwares for Macs, whose number is small. But yes, Mac users don't have much choice as Windows users, and that's why many people install BootCamp or VMware on their Macs.
And last, Macs are much more expensive than PCs. But if you want to buy a Mac, go ahead. Apple has successfully established itself as a premium brand. If you buy a Mac, you may help increase your self-esteem level and people will be a bit jealous.
But it doesn't mean that Macs are superior. HP gives you many choices. Look into HP's products line-up.
Mac's are for the brain dead, the juvenile, the dilettantes, the "slow" brained, people that really just need an Etch-a-sketch level computer and not a REAL COMPUTER with hundreds of THOUSANDS of applications instead of those "iCute ones" from Apple that are aimed at the 2nd Grade Mentality.
Yet that MacTards still pay that "Mac Premium" for computeres made in the very same Chinese Sweatshops that churn out low end Dells, eMachines, Gateways and Lenovo's. Kinda proves my point .... Mac(fans) are four sandwiches short of a picnic basket.
Enjoy your Spinning Beach Ball of Wait and all this Buggy OS X Updates, Mac(fans).
The ... C-Net Censors will probably kill this posting as usual. What's that? Fair and balanced reporting and comments???
[CNET editor's note: Offensive content removed.]
Rather than bash Mac users, why not try and tell me why you use what you use instead. Of course, you might actually have to have a clue instead of just spouting what every other Windows fanboy has been spouting.
I've had experience with Windows for since Win95 all the way through Windows XP, trying each variation with the exception of ME. I was never really at ease with a computer until I switched to Ubuntu. Right now, I'm trying to figure out a problem with my roommates computer (running Windows XP). We're on the same network, mine runs perfectly and his is slow and buggy. I'm running Ubuntu 8.10 and he's running a fully patched Windows XP (reportedly fully patched).
I've read experiences from Mac users who have the same experience with OS X as I'm having with Ubuntu. Both Operating Systems "just work".
I'm not saying any OS is perfect. I'm saying these are my experiences. How about you stop bashing others and try telling us your own experiences instead. Prove you're not just a 16 year old kid living in his moms basement.
Ummm, yeah. When you comment like a '****, you deserve whatever life has deprived you. For example, the ability to not act like a '****!! So sad, so sad.
Feel free to rant and call names. Macs are well-built machines, hardware-wise. Speaking from personal experience as a software developer, since 1978, long before home computers were a gleam in Bill Gates' eyes, all the Macs I have ever owned have held up without repair for amazing lengths of time. I still have 10 year old ones that I use in valuable service every day, and the old iBook laptop I'm typing this on is probably 8 years old (don't know... bought it cheap off eBay).
As for speed, freezes, and spinning beach balls, please. I write software on XP machines all day long. XP drives me mad with how slow it is just do simple functions like launch Word or search the drive for a file.
People should just go buy what they want and what they like. But to imply that Macs are "just for idiots" is patently false. Tell that to anyone in the publishing or music industries and they'll show you the door.
Have you ever used a SSH connection ....so that you can connect to a remote server securely ? I do not think so. I think you use your computer to browse porn, do some social networking and read some cnet so you consider yourself tech savy. If you even talked about a Linuz pc then I would have understood your point. There are people who use mac for serious work and you know why because it uses the same processor that you use for windows machine and same graphics card for windows machine but the interface and operating system is far more efficient. Now a days people think IE invented browser and even here at Cnet I read article about Javascript while not even mentioning the fact that Netscape invented it. Anyway I am using a winXP with AMD64 cpu and I own a macbook pro and to tell you the truth this windows machine has been unreliable many times but my mac never died and I still use windows for some of my work people I have to communicate with people like you ....who thinks internet is invented by MS and in this work there is only 2 type of OS ...mac or windows ...in fact there are so many flavours of OS for so many different reason. Read and you will learn !
The point of what the Mac was all about a few years ago is now irrelevant. Its just like when Windows 3.0 came out. Apple touting they have a better solution through Mac OS because of its point and click experience became irrelevant, PC's now offered just the same. It got even better with Windows 95 and of course, PC's in terms of power even got better than Macs.
Its quite the same with PC's vs. Mac's today. You really are buying aesthetics, aesthetics in an economic crisis that seems like wasting money on something that's in no way better when you can get the same return on investment for something $600 to $1000 cheaper with a Windows based PC. Consumers this past quarter have spoken with their pockets, sales of Macs have dropped in addition to Apple reducing prices (still not enough) on their desktops.
you Pc users might want to actually try the O.S before making assumptions
you may like it or hate it but eventually it is the thing that differentiates Macs form Pcs !
and BTW the only people paying for asthetics are Alienware/Dell adamo users !
I tried Mac OS
is Mac OS good? yes
impressed? No
You are lucky if you had an easy trasition. I've had no such luck. Google has been my friend. The Mac Testimonials all sound like you. "Man it's the best thing ever I've never looked back" I have to get on google to find the few of us willing to say "Ok I'm having some trouble figuring out how to so something" Something like watch a video in full screen. Or play WMV files.
If you want an operating system that has a low cost of ownership, is reliable and increases your productivity - and don't mind being saddled with elegant, thoughtfully designed hardware - then go with the Mac.
Many people are too lazy to check out the competition and learn for themselves. Those who are not quickly learn that the Mac is a better choice. It's not about the sexy looks, its about the phenomenal productivity gains from a product that is exceptionally well conceived and executed.
Fanboys parade their ignorance and prejudice.
The real point is that it's okay to "think different" and buy whatever you want. Mac or PC.
(and don't get your panties in a wad because I said "Mac or PC" instead of "PC or Mac". Doesn't matter, dude)
i am not even and apple fan, but i can assume that you are leading in poor grammar.
are you serious?
if you are, Linux comes in many flavours and many of them are far superior to XP, Vista, and OS X
and its free and open source
not for everyone though, user friendliness to newbies is still sorta lacking
Given all of this, I would say about 90 percent own Macs before they graduate. I can only assume, they like the operating system better. It might be the freer form of the interface, I'm not sure, but I know many creative people gravitate to Macs. I'm not sure why PC users are threatened by this fact, or have to resort to calling Mac users smug or other things that don't really mean much. People should use what they fell comfortable using.
Thus far (I use a dual boot Mac) I am not finding OS X to have a freer form in getting anything done. I'll chalk it up to the learning curve but it's frustrating that simple things in Windows take so many extra steps in OS X. I keep looking to find the mac equivilent but sometimes it's not there, or hard to figure out. However I have time and at least I didn't put money in MicroSofts pocket buying it. Apple isn't the best company but they haven't reached out and cost me money.
Man, you are really laying your ignorance out there for the world to see with a statement like that! I have a MacBook, and you know how difficult it is to "right click"? You tap with two fingers instead of one! And that is STANDARD on each and every Apple laptop. And right-click is STANDARD with every Apple mouse that is sold today.
I'd suggest that you actually use a Mac for five minutes before you start throwing out facts that are just plain not true!
I personally love it when people call in wanting technical support for their phone, their mobile broadband card, their blackberry smartphone...and I tell them oh..mac is not supported (and laugh inside of course) and i as well go "out of my way to make sure they can use whatever they have and enable them without bias. I am concern that the technology works for them, and I try not to insert any attitude on the issue of what operating system is best for them." But of course (here in advanced technical support for sprint) we all know mac ppl are retards who spend tons of money and then get mad that nothing works for them...and of course they cop the classic macitude...
Congradulations, you now have touch sensitive software for a mouse that requires you to keep your fingers elevated at all times when using your it less you accidently "click" on something. What part about "right click" and not "double touch" was too hard for you? Some of us like, respect, and value, tactile response and don't like the document we are working on to reset the cursor or pointer thanks to a cursorary glance by our finger! Then again, I am glad Apple made it into the 1990s and finally added a second "button" to their mouse.
If you want to get technical:
From PC giant Dell for about a hundred dollars less than the much weaker "top-of-the-line" iMac I can get: TWO 24" monitors, wireless keyboard (with a numeric keypad even!), twice the RAM (DDR3), twice the Intel computing power, twice the number of 1TB HDs, duel RW blueray drives (again, twice as many as the iMac--no wait, that is infinitely more blueray drives available for the iMac), four times the graphics computing power, and four times the graphics DDR3 memory. Or I could build it all my self and save another $1000. What person who owns a Mac can say they built their own computer? Not a single one because they can't. All the yak yak about Mac's superior graphics is bull. 2GB of graphics memory whips 512MB any day of the week, I don't care what the chipset is. Plus, you can't even install a physics card into a Mac so how can they have superior graphics?
Again, until a right CLICK and scroll WHEEL become standard on a Mac I won't even consider it.
For those that said that Mac is more limited than a PC, get your information straight. I can run all software that my Dell Laptop runs on my iMac and MacBook Pro as well as all of the Linux and Mac OS software - that's 2 operating systems more than any of you.
As for the Mac Being more limited, why yes it is. While most people can do the basics on both, and while most people don't need to do more than the basics some do more.
Engineering and Gaming are two areas where a Mac flat out lacks. Meanwhile Mac is stroing in graphic design work and related fields ,but since Windows is so dominant it's all been ported to Windows and you don't have to have a Mac anymore like you used to.
Oh, and I can't run all my software on my Mac let alone Linux. Heck I even need to keep a Win 95 Laptop as a legacy machine to run some softare that Xp and beyond won't run. Life's rough all around.
I have to render and roughcut her videos, because her's just can't handle the load.
For what it's worth, her 3-year old ibook does have a firewire; the newer ones don't.
Viva Apple!
Anyone who associates a spiritual awakening with a product has obviously taken that product oh too seriously.
- by Stormspace April 4, 2009 6:33 PM PDT
- The next ad is going to be a gamer. He's going to go look at the game selection and see ten titles for the Mac and about 100 for the PC and rightly claim the PC has more choices. :)
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by aemarques April 4, 2009 6:43 PM PDT
- The ratio should be more 1000:10, actually...
- Like this
-
- by OS11 April 4, 2009 7:05 PM PDT
- Most Mac software is downloaded... not put in boxes like PC users are still forced to do... it's much more efficient.
- Like this
-
- by tm_anon April 4, 2009 7:09 PM PDT
- Let's see the game designers make a high resolution, high intensity game for OS X, Windows and Linux and we'll see which version plays better. The only catch, each system the game is played on has to have the exact same hardware configuration (as close as possible).
- Like this
-
- by Renegade Knight April 4, 2009 11:09 PM PDT
- @ OS11
- Like this
-
- by Stormspace April 5, 2009 5:03 AM PDT
- @ tm_anon
- Like this
-
- by xggrand April 5, 2009 5:29 AM PDT
- @Renegade Knight
- Like this
-
- by mikestatic1 April 5, 2009 9:02 AM PDT
- Who plays games on a PC? Isn't that what consoles are for? PC Games suck.
- Like this
-
- by kojacked April 5, 2009 2:07 PM PDT
- Damn straight!
- Like this
-
- by EricJM001 April 5, 2009 6:56 PM PDT
- Who in the world has time to play games anymore?
- Like this
-
- by pithenumber April 6, 2009 1:09 PM PDT
- @tm_anon
- Like this
-
- See more comment replies
Showing 1 of 6 pages (263 Comments)and there are about 6,300 PC games, 1,460 Mac games so the ratio is about 4.3 to 1
Get 3 Macbooks, install Windows on one and a Linux distro on one, leave the third one as is. If the Windows version, when everything else is completely equal, still has better graphics, you won't see me arguing again. My hypothesis, you'll find out that Linux and OS X are just as capable, possibly more capable, of running those high intensity graphics gamers love so much.
Who knows, if more games were made for the Mac, you might be able to buy an iMac gamers edition. It would cost more but I guarantee it would be worth it.
Downloading purchased softare is a great way to give up your right to resell it when you are done. Games especially. It's not more efficient just different and it has major issues when it comes to consumer rights. Apple loves this model. Their only saving grace is that they charge less. That's good because you will be buying it all again.
It's not about the hardware. Mac hardware is perfectly capable of playing the same games as an equally specced PC. But if you want to play one natively in OSX your search is going to be long and your options limited. Also while there may be download options for the Mac, new buyers will only be looking at what is on the shelf.
"Downloading purchased softare is a great way to give up your right to resell it when you are done. "
You DO realize that when you purchase ANY software (or any other intellectual property, for that matter), you are paying for the license to use that software, NOT the physical media it is stored on? That license is generally non-transferrable.
Try selling that "right to resell" argument to anyone who makes a living at creating software, literature, music, visual artwork... .
Yes, yes... Renkenigit, stealing is good... yessss.... good.
the thing is Mac OS and Linux don't have DirectX, DirectX is Windows exclusive
I would never buy an iMac gamer's edition, it would use crappy laptop graphics
@mike
PC is far superior to console. It might cost more, but you definitely get what you pay for
Look at Fallout 3 on your console, then compare it to what it looks like on a good gaming PC
Steam is better than all other digital distribution systems so far, Steam is for PC