Quote

Guest wrote:
Anyway, the future is Linux.

The past was Linux. The future is Mac OS X.

(BTW, you're posting to a Mac-oriented site.)

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Well, if you count the fact that any sixth grader could hack a Mac inside a few hours being "open source" then I guess it is.

Right. That explains why there are 120,000 known viruses for Windows and zero for Mac OS X.

Quote

No one is allowed to share the Mac platform and it runs a fraction of the programs that unix or windows-based systems do

Uh, dude? Mac OS X is certified Unix.

Quote

Plus, there's no right click or a scroll wheel on the mouse.

Wow. Now you're getting close to winning MacObserver's "Most Ignorant Poster" award...

Quote

If I am going to pay $500-$1000 more for a computer

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!!

Congratulations.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
A Mid Price Notebook PC costs about $1000 and will usually outspecs an $1800 Macbook Pro.

A $1000 Notebook PC costs the same as the vastly superior-spec'd MacBook.

You're getting ripped off of you buy a "Mid Price Notebook PC" instead of a MacBook.

Quote

What MS should be bringing up is that Macs are way too expensive especially and run less software.

So, you're encouraging MS to lie?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
\What about the X-11 environment to run Unix apps?

Mac OS X 10.5 is certified Unix:
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2007/08/01.12.shtml

Its not the awful adverts that are going to send me running away from Microsoft into the arms of MAC but Vista, one year on and Vista is still awful, it makes windows NT look OK

Quote

Guest wrote:
These comments are so obviously part of some sort of annoying MS campaign. Its quite funny. I think macobserver should do a story on it. How weird is all this pro-MS BS?

It seems a lot of guests visit when there are these sort of articles. I wonder if there are people using Google Alerts, or a similar service, to find articles about Windows and MicroSoft on Maccentric websites.

As to Gates-Seinfeld ads, I enjoyed them and will miss them, but am looking forward to seeing what MicroSoft will cook up to replace the series.

A retired relic of technology and an past-it's-prime-relic of humour ... what did they expect? ... I think they would have better luck with 50 or even Brittany. Apple doesn't need to revamp it's ads anytime soon if this is the genius thier marketing department comes up with

I apologize in advance that this reply is not structured as well as it could be, but I really do not care. When I get a tiny window for my comments and have to scroll around, they will just end up whever I feel like putting them.

You moron. Why write viruses for a mac when you can get a larger distribution through PCs? That is the only reason why PCs are hit by viruses far more than macs. The fact that less viruses affect macs does not mean that macs are less vulnerable to viruses. If you are dumb enough to think that, then you should switch to an old Commodore 64 - even less viruses there. Confusing association with causation - you just wrote that so that you can sound intelligent.

I work with PCs and Macs. Both have their ups and downs. For lithography in our production environment, I prefer the macs. For the bulk of the user base, we stick with the PCs because of the ERP system.

What I do not like is seeing the PC vs Mac commercials. They are just as misleading as the commercials aired by the cable companies.

Good for you to have 300 programs on your mac. That is just as easily accomplished on a PC. Macs have a smaller share in the market, so there is less written for a mac, just like our ERP system clients. If you want to make money writing software, it makes more sense to first develop for your larger user base, which is usually microsoft-shop companies. Then you develop for the other operating systems. Desktop publishing software, graphics, etc. were usually written for macs back in the day first, and ran better, back in the day, because if you wanted these programs to run well, you needed a mac. Keep in mind that these ran better because of the processor architecture as well as the kernel. The mac processors were simplified compared to Intel/AMD and ran these types of apps well. For many of these types of apps, PCs have caught up or surpassed macs.

The point of the one you rebutted was that less programs are written for macs. Great that virtualization is available. It would be even better if it was not needed to make the program work.

For mice, the number of buttons should not matter. What matters is how users want to use a system. As long as the interface is efficient and works for the user, and if macs can do it with more or less buttons, then who really cares. More buttons does not mean a better system. Side scrolling has been pretty useless on PCs (at least tilt wheel scrolling), I have not tried it on a mac.

I agree that not any sixth grader can hack a mac.

Mac people have always said that macs are better than pcs for the stupidest of reasons. One that come to mind is that macs had no Y2K problem. Big deal. A patch fixed it. It was a bigger deal for PLCs and other equipment that had this issue hard-coded.

Quote

Master Meatleg wrote:
1)"any sixth grader could hack a Mac inside a few hours"
false premise.

2) argument from ignorance: All macs come with the Mighty Mouse, which in fact DOES have a scroll wheel (which scrolls sideways as well as up and down), and if you click on the right side of the mouse, it indeed acts like the traditional right click.

3) "it runs a fraction of the programs that unix or windows-based systems do unless you partition the drives"
argument from ignorance (again): Virtualization programs also work all windows programs now (see Parallels), all major apps (Adobe and Word for example) are produced for the Mac and the freeware/shareware for the Mac is extremely robust. I have over 300 apps on my Mac, most of them free and VERY useful tools...

4) "If Macs were on 90% of the computers operating there would be so many viruses, code problems and general terror associated with it that Apple would have the same rep as Microsoft."
Confusing association with causation

What do you get for your money when you buy a mac? Just a bunch of proprietary BS. You pay the money so that you can take your macbook to starbucks and look like the metrosexual douchebag that you want to be.

Encouraging MS to lie... Some turtleneck 5 o'clock shadow numbnuts guest said this. Comcast and other cable companies lie like crazy about their services. Mac is just following suit and doing well with their ads as a result. Mac users blindly love their product so much. Mac users just turn their noses up at the rest of the PC world as if they were better. Well, all I see are bougars!

Most of you sound like a bunch of users, power users at best. It does not appear that too many of you work in any IT-related field or have any formal education that would qualify you to make any of the stupid statements that I see in this forum. Macs and PCs are good and bad. When weighing one against the other, it just boils down to preference mostly for home users and compatibility for the business side. Compatibility can be stretched here to include company policy, IT staff education and experience, business needs, etc.

Quote

Guest wrote:
No Walls? Then Windows are useless!

I was thinking that. Without a solid foundation or walls, windows won't hold up to anything that tries to get in. Wait. I'm sorry. That IS WINDOWS.

LOL

How many pro-MS trolls does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None... they're too busy trying to piss off the Mac users on this board!
But they're clearly still in the dark about the whole Mac thing. Lol!

So a Mac is too expensive or not customizable enough for you...
DON'T BUY ONE THEN!!! It's as simple as that.

It's like saying Ferrari should build something that competes with a Dodge Neon...

About the only time I'd take my tin-can generic PC over my Mac Pro is
if someone was gonna drop it on my head. I'd probably survive the
PC. The Mac Pro (weighing in at a hefty 45 pounds) would most likely
do a lot more damage. For computing, however, the Pro kicks the tar out of
every PC I've ever owned or built... PERIOD.

It all boils down to "You get what you pay for." If you can't afford it, or don't like it,
get something else and quit bitching about it. Justifying a better OS based on jealousy,
ignorance, popularity, or expense is completely RETARDED.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What do you get for your money when you buy a mac? Just a bunch of proprietary BS!

Exactly what part of Windows ISN'T proprietary?

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Quote

xmattingly wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Seriously? What are the names of those books?
Although, I'm doubtful of how interesting they could be, coming from a person who cannot interpret a fairly simple ad campaign. Nonetheless, please post the names.

How about giving everyone your name? Since when do people who post anonymously retain the right to demand information from anyone?

Jesus, look at the number of posts coming from nameless vagrants. There should be a limit on the number of guest posts per article, if not banning them outright.

Are you the person who claimed to be 67 years of age, possess a degree in history, have four published books, and still be unable to see through a simple ad campaign?
If you are not, then why does the challenge of that person, who is anonymous, by another who is anonymous, bother you? As it appears that all comments begin closed, you could easily ignore all the ones from guests. If you are that person, then I stand by my request, which was intended as somewhat of a challenge. The poster that I was originally responding to made a claim and I am questioning it. Burden of proof lies with a claimant of fact, it is the prerogative of everyone to question an unsupported argument.

Furthermore, seeing as you hold the apparently vaunted position of being named, petty name-calling hardly becomes you. I came across this article via a link from a forum I frequent, having never heard of this site before. I was considering becoming a member, though it seems that there is a lack basic logical rigor to be found here. Thank you for assisting me in making my decision, and readily await your next response, O Named One.

Charles J.

P.S. I'm still waiting to hear those book titles.

Quote

Intruder wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What do you get for your money when you buy a mac? Just a bunch of proprietary BS!

Exactly what part of Windows ISN'T proprietary?

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

All of Apple's products, hardware and software, are comprised of proprietary infrastructure. You're correct that Windows is proprietary; however, a PC, which is the real opponent to a Mac, given that Windows is moot without a machine to run it on, is not bound to a particular company.
When I purchase a Mac, I must agree to whatever features, peripherals, programs, and design selections the Apple team thought were best. In the best of situations I can choose from a list of preset packages, though this is not satisfactory. Conversely, on a PC, I can select only the features I want and not have to pay for things I won't need.
Furthermore, when the inevitable draws nigh and my machine becomes obsolete, the old argument still stands that I would have to entirely discard all parts of the Mac, whereas on a PC I can replace parts piece-wise over time.

In the interest of fairness, I will admit that Apple machines are generally more aesthetically appealing and are potentially better for less-savvy home users as Macs are generally idiot proof. However, this does not excuse the fact that, for a user like me, who does not wish to pay for features that I do not need or want and wish to be able to customize my machine to perform the functions I desire, in the manner I wish, Macs are not an acceptable solution.

Apparently there are some creative people at Microsoft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeXAcwriid0

That was created by MS employees (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong).

I still get a kick out of that video. As for Jerry and Bill...yadda, yadda, yadda.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

Intruder wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What do you get for your money when you buy a mac? Just a bunch of proprietary BS!

Exactly what part of Windows ISN'T proprietary?

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

All of Apple's products, hardware and software, are comprised of proprietary infrastructure. You're correct that Windows is proprietary; however, a PC, which is the real opponent to a Mac, given that Windows is moot without a machine to run it on, is not bound to a particular company.
When I purchase a Mac, I must agree to whatever features, peripherals, programs, and design selections the Apple team thought were best. In the best of situations I can choose from a list of preset packages, though this is not satisfactory. Conversely, on a PC, I can select only the features I want and not have to pay for things I won't need.
Furthermore, when the inevitable draws nigh and my machine becomes obsolete, the old argument still stands that I would have to entirely discard all parts of the Mac, whereas on a PC I can replace parts piece-wise over time.

In the interest of fairness, I will admit that Apple machines are generally more aesthetically appealing and are potentially better for less-savvy home users as Macs are generally idiot proof. However, this does not excuse the fact that, for a user like me, who does not wish to pay for features that I do not need or want and wish to be able to customize my machine to perform the functions I desire, in the manner I wish, Macs are not an acceptable solution.

As this whole thread is a discussion about the Microsoft ad (and Microsoft does not make a computer, only an operating system and software), my response is not a strawman. The appropriate comparison in this thread would be against Windows (that which is being advertised).

The rest of your post is entirely dependent on what type of computer you are talking about (laptop, desktop, all in one). If it is a laptop, Apple is no different that 99.9% of laptops out there. Once configured, they cannot be reconfigured. Apple AIOs are not configurable either, much like the majority of others from other manufacturers. The desktops are configurable, with the exception of the motherboard (I know of people who have swapped out the processors on the Intel Mac Pros quite easily). The rest of the parts are easily available and not proprietary. Hard drives are off the shelf. Memory is off the shelf. Video cards are available. You can add additional items through standard, non-proprietary expansion ports. Keyboards and mice are easily swapped.

You are comparing buying a Mac with building a PC, not buying from a PC manufacturer, who uses essentially the same configuration model as Apple (offering a configuration selection). Apple does not offer as many selections as others, quite true, but Dells and Acers are not infinitely configurable either. Try getting one with no USB, only parallel and serial. But like Dell and Acer, you have third party add-ons.

I find it funny that Windows folks come here on various threads and are totally inconsistent. In some threads they say "But Macs are made from the same parts as PCs on the same line. They are just pretty, overpriced PCs." Yet in others, such as this one, it's "Macs are proprietary. Both their hardware and their software." Which is it? Are they the same as every other PC, which means they are not proprietary (by definition), or are they proprietary, which means they are not the same as every other PC?

You are correct, though, that Windows is moot!

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
You moron. Why write viruses for a mac when you can get a larger distribution through PCs? That is the only reason why PCs are hit by viruses far more than macs.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that the fundamental system architecture of Mac OS X is inherently more secure than that of XP and Vista, right?

Sure.

Quote

Then you develop for the other operating systems. Desktop publishing software, graphics, etc. were usually written for macs back in the day first, and ran better, back in the day, because if you wanted these programs to run well, you needed a mac. Keep in mind that these ran better because of the processor architecture as well as the kernel. The mac processors were simplified compared to Intel/AMD

"Simplified." Oh, so that's why Macs ran better! Thanks for explaining that to us.

They ran better because the processors were simplified. Who knew?

Quote

I agree that not any sixth grader can hack a mac.

What about gifted seventh graders? Could they hack a Mac?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What do you get for your money when you buy a mac? Just a bunch of proprietary BS.

What do you get for your money when you buy a Windows PC? Just a bunch of proprietary BS.

Quote

You pay the money so that you can take your macbook to starbucks and look like the metrosexual douchebag that you want to be.

Some Mac users in Starbucks aren't metrosexuals. Some aren't douchebags. Some aren't metrosexual douchebags.

The odd Windows user in Starbucks is a metrosexual douchebag.

Your characterization is unfair.

Quote

Mac users blindly love their product so much.

I wouldn't exactly say it's "blind" love, guest...

Somebody (a guest) doesn't understand the difference between CISC architecture and RISC architecture. Try some research. http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophomore-college/projects-00/risc/risccisc/

Reduced vs complex refers to the handling of the instruction set, not the ability of the chipset. BTW, the current line of core 2 duo chips use RISC processes and technologies.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
All of Apple's products, hardware and software, are comprised of proprietary infrastructure. You're correct that Windows is proprietary; however, a PC, which is the real opponent to a Mac, given that Windows is moot without a machine to run it on, is not bound to a particular company.

"Moot?" I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Let me help you out:

Code

moot |moōt|
adjective
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision : whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point.
? having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision : it is moot whether this phrase should be treated as metaphor or not.

Quote

When I purchase a Mac, I must agree to whatever features, peripherals, programs, and design selections the Apple team thought were best.

No, you don't.

Quote

when the inevitable draws nigh and my machine becomes obsolete, the old argument still stands that I would have to entirely discard all parts of the Mac, whereas on a PC I can replace parts piece-wise over time.

Ah, yes--the classic PC "upgrade!"

Quote

...for a user like me, who does not wish to pay for features that I do not need or want and wish to be able to customize my machine to perform the functions I desire, in the manner I wish, Macs are not an acceptable solution.

To the first point, perhaps you're right, to the second, you're definitely wrong.

As I said above, if a Mac isn't "an acceptable solution", then buy something else! Geez... I didn't see anyone at the Apple store ever put a gun to someone's head and force the money out of their wallet...

As a Mac Pro owner, I can attest that this model is EXTREMELY configurable. Most PC people aren't gonna shell out the big bux for a 4- or 8-core Xeon system anyway, even if it's to run Windows... (and PC's in this class cost easily as much as a Mac Pro, if not more!)

I'm glad you've found a justification that works for you. The Mac works for me. To each his own.

If you liked Seifeld you'll get aand like the commercials but they do seem too long for the average American's attention span...

Even though M$ the company is the dark side as personified by the "Developers, Developers, Developers" madman, Bill Gates does seem like he tries to do some good as evidenced by his large donations to charity, although yes, being one of the richest persons in the world, he probably should do and can most certainly afford...

I like Seinfeld and, not being USArian, my attention span is quite long. I don't get it because the ad is crap. And that's the point. That's why it was pulled. It didn't work.

Bill Gates can give all his money to charity if he likes - good on him - but that's not the slightest bit relevant to whether the ads can do what they were probably intended to do: thwart Apple.

Quote

LaurieF wrote:
I like Seinfeld and, not being USArian, my attention span is quite long. I don't get it because the ad is crap. And that's the point. That's why it was pulled. It didn't work.

Bill Gates can give all his money to charity if he likes - good on him - but that's not the slightest bit relevant to whether the ads can do what they were probably intended to do: thwart Apple.

Seems too soon to draw the conclusion that the commercials didn't work.

Apple needs to make a much bigger dent in the corporate world, dominated by madman Ballmer and Co. before M$ will ever even need to "thwart" Apple, still a nitch player in the computer universe although the iPod and iPhone have and will continue to certainly help more people to consider Apple computers also while they listen to music, surf the web and text message their friends (personal stuff).

This supposeded plan by Apple to lower profit margins (I guess we'll see on or about Oct 14, 2008) is a good idea since it implies even lower prices for Mac hardware, a show stopper for frugal people who won't pay 1.5 to 2x for a Mac when the PC does the same thing. OS stability is equal or actually moved in M$'s favor since Win XP forward so Apple needs to make the HW price even more competitive since they already allow the Win OS to run on their HW which gave many (but probably not as many as they had hoped for) confidence to switch/try a Mac while knowing they can still get their (corporate/paid job) work done...

Guess what?

Macs are PCs.

I'm not guessing - I know that. But the world has moved on. Macs are indeed personal computers. Everyone except for a handful of people like yourself acknowledges that when 'PC' is used, it refers to a personal computer running Windows.

This forum, just like most mac forums sound like a bunch of screamin' kids. My mac is better than your pc, or my pc is better than your mac. Unfortunately there is not much that is factual here, although many users try to make others believe that what they post is actualy fact. There are a lot of opinions in here that just make no sense.

Besides, this Seinfeld commercial is just that - a commercial. You got interested, you watched it, and now you are posting about it. Microsoft has your attention. Now you are paying attention to the non-Seinfeld commercials.

I liked the one other guest's post about the metrosexual VW driving douchebags. Funny, a little off color, but not all that inaccurate, except maybe the douchebag part. PCs are marketed to normal people and businesses, just like the newer commercials suggest. Macs are marketed to be hip and trendy.

I suppose that, as a consumer, if I had neither a Windows or Mac-based PC I would consider either, but would shy away from Macs because of the price and availability of software, even if I had no knowledge of the advantages or disadvantages of each. If Macs had the same price/performance ratio as PCs, I would be more inclined to look at a Mac.

As an IT manager at a Microsoft shop I have looked at alternatives - open souce programs and operating systems, Sun, Mac, Linux, etc. as well as alternatives to Microsoft software such as Oracle, Lotus Notes, etc. All of these are great programs. Since this is a Mac forum, to address the choice of operating systems, we looked at Macs since they were used elsewhere in the corporation, but only for specific applications.

What it boils down to is that we will remain a Microsoft shop until the alternatives can prove that it would make business-sense to transition to an alternative such as Macs. Being "trendy" does not cut it in the business world, unless you are in the fashion business or some other business where "trendy" is important.

The iphone falls into this same category. I refuse to allow an iphone to be introduced to the company. I believe that all other divisions in the corporation are taking the same stance, whether they have macs in-house or not. The iphone still has not proven that it belongs in business, where the Blackberry is proven. Granted that these devices are useful in their own right, and they can sometimes be viewed as corporate toys, the iphone is still "trendy" just like macs, and does not quite make business sense for us, as well as many others. (Also, being locked into AT&T is not such a great thing either).

Back to the point at hand -
With all this ranting on PCs vs. mac, with all the BS going back and forth, this forum looks and feels childish rather than a source of useful information. The Mac commercials give the appearance that smart trendy people should buy Macs, because it makes more sense, or something like that. I do not see to many smart people here...