Microsoft's latest ad attacks Mac aesthetics, computing power

[AppleInsider]

Continuing its advertising campaign which seeks to promote generic PCs running Windows as more attractive than Macs, Microsoft's latest spot plays up specifications over aesthetics as opposed to just suggesting that PCs are simply cheaper as the previous spot did. However, it ends up making the opposite point instead.

Following Lauren, the latest ad introduces Giampaolo, who says he's looking for portability, battery life, and power. "I'm technically savvy," he says, "I know what I want. I like a computer that allows me to customize." He's shown shopping at Fry's Electronics, where he picks up a unibody MacBook and says, "This is so sexy!"

Giampaolo then explains why he can't buy it, saying, "Macs to me are all about aesthetics more than they are the computing power. I don't want to pay for the brand, I want to pay for the computer."

Of course, it's really Microsoft that's paying for Giampaolo's computer, and Steve Ballmer is not going to pick up the tab for a MacBook. So instead, Giampaolo uses his $1500 budget to ultimately buy an HP Pavilion HDX 16t, which he says has everything he needs.



"That thing is gigantic"

On HP's website, that model starts at $1000. At Fry's, the salesman in the ad points out its typical configuration of $1,100, although HP's "recommended configuration" is $1400, still within Giampaolo's budget. However, it's an odd choice for somebody who wants portability, as the 16" widescreen model he lugs out of Fry's weighs over 7.3 pounds naked, almost twice as much as the "sexy" MacBook that's "all about aesthetics."

HP certainly isn't "all about aesthetics." The cheap plastic body of the HP Pavilion HDX 16t is 1.7 inches thick, nearly twice as bulky as the MacBook. All that size surrounds a large 16" screen with a miserably low density 1366x768 screen resolution. Giampaolo could upgrade to the 1920x1080 option, but that would have bumped him over his artificial $1500 ad budget, even when applying a $200 instant rebate HP offers.

Battery life not so good

"What would have the best battery life, that could still accommodate my needs?" Giampaolo asked while shopping. It sure wasn't what he picked out.

HP rates its built-in battery for less than 3 hours, but reviewers gave it less than two. That's not very good at all for its category. HP also offers a $150 expansion battery that hangs off the back of the already large system to give it twice the battery life. The "sexy" MacBook is rated for 5 hours with a single battery.

"It's a pretty strong contender"

In terms of power, Giampaolo's third primary need, the "recommended configuration" of the HP Pavilion HDX 16t that he apparently purchased ships with a 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo P7450 paired with 4GB of PC2-5300 DDR2 RAM, which is a slower memory architecture than Apple was shipping in early 2006 MacBooks three years ago.

The latest MacBooks that Giampaolo feared were "all about aesthetics" pair a Core 2 Duo P7350 or P8600 with PC3-8500 DDR3 RAM, delivering a peak transfer rate that's twice as fast as the HP machine Giampaolo selected.

So much for Macs being about "aesthetics more than they are the computing power," or Giampaolo being "technically savvy."

Hopefully, Giampaolo is at least technologically savvy enough to upgrade to the 64-bit version of Windows Vista (or downgrade to the 64-bit version of Windows XP) in order to actually take advantage of that 4GB of RAM, as the standard version of Windows can only actually use about 3GB of it, a technical problem he wouldn't face on the MacBook.

Given that only a fraction of the PC installed base runs a 64-bit version of Windows (Microsoft reported that less than 6% of users hitting its software update servers were running 64-bit Vista last June), there's lots of "technically savvy" PC users with loads of installed RAM their computer can't even use.

And while Giampaolo can upgrade to even more RAM, he can't upgrade his new system to use the faster DDR3 RAM specification used in the MacBook. That would make his system faster overall and allow it to take full advantage of the installed CPU's 1066MHz front side bus, which HP chose to cripple by pairing it with a 533MHz memory architecture to save money and deliver a cheap system for people who don't know what they're really buying as they shop at Fry's for good-sounding GB and MHz numbers rather than focusing on finding a computer that does the things they want it to do.

Giampaolo was distracted by marketing

Of course, with the scant money that he's saving (he could have bought the high end MacBook by matching Microsoft's money with his own $100), Giampaolo will now get to go shopping for software, where he can easily spend several hundred dollars just trying to match the features and usability of the free iLife and Mac OS X tools Apple bundles with the MacBook.

Giampaolo will also have to spend hours of his time installing and running antivirus and adware tools, and stay on the lookout for that Conficker computer worm that Microsoft is warning Windows PC users about on the front page of its corporate website.

The strangest point of this ad is that Giampaolo didn't get the portability, battery life, and power he was looking for, he just ended up with a cheap-appearing machine that obscured its real technical limitations under a flashy layer of misleading, specification-oriented marketing, the very thing he thought he was avoiding with HP: buying a brand rather than a computer. And that's exactly what Microsoft wants people to do: buy its brand rather than a computer that does what they want it to do.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[DiscoNomad]

Man these commercials are just horrible. At this rate they might as well just buy Macs for the "I a lost PC" types. Seeing that guy in the cheesy suit at CompUSA just reminds me of everything I hate about shopping at those big grocery store style computer stores. Almost every time you get some guy who doesn't know squat about technology...Apple store is a different environment completely. At least you can actually get someone to help you. As always...no contest microsoft...keep trying.

[walshbj]

I love the suggestion that a UNIX-based system isn't powerful enough for the tech-savvy guy.

[addicted44]

Originally Posted by walshbj

I love the suggestion that a UNIX-based system isn't powerful enough for the tech-savvy guy.

Actually, the "UNIX-based" terminology does not apply anymore. Mac OS X Leopard is UNIX...

And I thought the Lauren ad was bad...Some people still liked it.

This one, however, is just horrendous. The guy goes outright and says "The macbook is sexy". Apple can counter these ads so easily, but why will they, when MS is doing all their advertising for them!

[guinness]

Why not compare the HP, to the white MB that Apple still sells, that also has DDR2-667 MHz RAM and a 1066 MHz FSB?

I'm not sure if that would benefit HP or Apple more, but it's not like HP isn't the only one pairing a new C2D with older DDR2. And I'm not even sure how important DDR3 vs DDR2 is current laptops, desktops with faster RAM and lower latencies may see more of a difference, but laptops are generally slower than desktops no matter what.

Although the HP does have the Geforce 9600M, which Apple only offers on the MBP. And the article does mention that he did choose Vista 64-bit, but that's a 64-bit OS now, while Apple is still using a 32-bit kernel and PAE, until Snow Leopard, but it's still not a true 64-bit OS ATM.

[TenoBell]

I imagine if someone did benchmarks between these two machines, would totally kill the premise of this ad.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by walshbj

I love the suggestion that a UNIX-based system isn't powerful enough for the tech-savvy guy.

I find it ironic that the three things he wants are not found in the HP he chose when compared to a Mac. However, it is a notebook so it's therefore portable, and has a battery so it does have battery life and it obviously powers on after several minutes of booting up so it does meet his criteria if not compared to other machines.

Seriously though, is MS just not hiring the right people or is it really hard to find a reason to buy a non-Mac notebook. For starters, instead of focusing on reasons to choose Windows they are focusing on Macs so much that it may do more for selling more Macs than other vendor's PCs. Then there is the major issue of "preaching to the choir" in these ads. In other words, the people that these ads relate to aren't teetering being Mac and non-Mac for their next PC purchase. It's simply a waste of an advertising budget.

[aqnguyen87]

I swear if I met that guy in person I would've slapped him... its people just like him who THINK they know what they are talking about "tech savvy, GHz processor, webcam" that make me so upset... they throw around three words and think they know everything... HEY microsoft!!! make an AD comparing yourself to OSX!!! lets see movie maker and iMovie go head to head!!!...

[fellaintga]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

I imagine if someone did benchmarks between these two machines, would totally kill the premise of this ad.

That would be a huge laugh if in benchmarks the macbook unibody beat it but it would be pretty close and it does have the better graphics but then is it a backlit LED screen with good resolution I think not. I dont wan't to mock MS for the sake of it but come on do better than this.

[Feynman]

I think these are just glorified HP ads

[Stormchild]

The guy in that ad reminds me of this guy. His tech savvy is right on par.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueEnRT1K_BU

[ssampier]

Dumb. I am a PC user, but I find these ads quite juvenile.

Yes, we know that PCs are cheaper. Is that all you got?

A new thought: Microsoft your ads suck (and they cost millions). Why not use web 2.0 tech to get REAL people to make their own commercial? You can air the best one.

[CU10]

Playing hardball... typical Microsoft.

[TenoBell]

I'm not saying the MacBook would necessarily beat the HP. The premise of the ad is that he's getting a lot more power for a much less price. The benchmarks would likely show it's not much better if any.

Originally Posted by fellaintga

That would be a huge laugh if in benchmarks the macbook unibody beat it but it would be pretty close and it does have the better graphics but then is it a backlit LED screen with good resolution I think not. I dont wan't to mock MS for the sake of it but come on do better than this.

[kpluck]

I am not sure what was worse, the commercial or AI's critique?

So much time was spent talking about differences in memory speeds, which probably don't have a huge affect on performance, but AI conveniently ignored the fact that the HP has a dedicated GPU. The GPU could have a substantially bigger impact on performance depending on how the machine is used.

Also, the guy doesn't state he wants the longest battery life. He asks which laptop has the best battery life that meets his needs. He clearly indicated a preference for size and power which of course, reduce battery life.

Hours installing antivirus and antispyware programs? Yeah right. Vista comes with Windows Defender so antispyware isn't needed and a antivirus program doesn't take more than 15 minutes to install. It will come with OS updates turned on so conflicker is a non-issue. If he runs most of time as a standard user not as an admin (same as what OS X users should do) he won't have malware problems.

Can't argue about the low pixel density on the screen. Although I will say many will see that as advantage because it makes the screen much easier to read. But at least this machine has some options in that regard. Does the MacBook?

And what about the HP's firewire port, express card slot, HDMI out and, from what I can tell from their web site, an optical drive with Blu-ray capability? Don't see those on the MacBook anywhere.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't buy one of those things. I have a 2.2Ghz BlackBook and it works great for me. But I do miss some of the options that are seen on the HP. I would love the current MacBook if it had FW, HDMI out and a BD drive. I would easily trade the LED backlit display for those things.

What it comes down to is choices. Apple has made design decisions with their products and have given very few options to meet various needs. Meanwhile, their competitors continue to sell a lot of machines with a clearly inferior OS because they give people hardware choices at a reasonable cost. And for some, that is enough. It doesn't make them wrong or stupid. It just means that they want different things from their computing experience.

-kpluck

[kim chi]

ok just to set the record straight on the macbook pro 15's battery ... it pretty much sucks. i get 3.5 hours out of it if i'm lucky, with almost everything shut down, the discrete graphics turned off, and the screen only illuminated to 2 bars. i've never gotten over 4 hours in this configuration, even when the machine was new.

yes i called apple and went through the battery checking processes ... the battery is fine. it's just that the 5 hour claim on the battery is practically unachievable. what's pathetic is that mac shaved off just a little of the battery to make the mbpro thinner and weigh less. and now i just end up using my macbook white all the time, whose 2.4 ghz processor and 4gb of ram is just fine for me ... and whose battery life is more like 5.5 hours with the same behavior. i can't even leave the house with my macbook pro without taking the adapter and worrying about it.

obviously, they should have released that "breakthrough battery" -- read: more marketing gimmickry from apple as there is nothing revolutionary about the 17's battery besides the fact that it's just really effin' big -- as at least at option for the 15's. of course they wouldn't because they like to artificially make barriers between their products so they don't compete with each other. case in point: the macbook white and the new regular macbook. ironically, apple's reasoning for downplaying the white and having people shell out extra coin is coupled with the "it's your duty to be green" rhetoric their current ads are forcing upon us, but isn't this the company who made a name for itself marketing sexy plastic? wasn't and (and isn't) that old macbook white still one of their best sellers? come on, i drive a prius ... i'm green. now give me what i want.

apple people ... stop being such fanbois ... if you l like the hardware and the OS, buy the stuff ... heck even pay more for it. but don't go thinking that jobs is a god and his hardware descended from heaven. he's not and it didn't.

[nite41]

haha..The guy wants 'portability' and ends up buying a 16" laptop! Now, that is 'portability'! Wow! Hats off to the dumbness of the person who made this ad!

It's funny how Microsoft is spending money on useless advertisements. Why not use that money to make a better OS, or develop a new product?

One of the main reasons i like Apple is their constant desire to improvise.

[HiFivinFisto]

I could easily see a commercial involving Right Said Fred's song making fun of this ad.

Microsoft's marketing approach is so weird though. And I don't know what's worse, that they're so out of touch with how their product (the software, not the computer it's in) is used, or that the ad agency they're signed up with doesn't seem to know what it's doing either.

That they keep cranking out this crap and wasting Microsoft's $ is funny in a sad kind of way. They're supposed to be "experts" about marketing, and it's the best they can do?

I've *NEVER* heard of someone picking a computer based on sex appeal, and hopefully won't ever meet a person who does.

Apple's done a phenomenal job this past decade of re-imaging itself as something of a designer label for computers, from the iMac's of the early 2000's to now. Microsoft can only compete with so much of that because they design software...NOT hardware (except those Zunes that kids whose parents don't love them enough to buy an iPod have to listen to).

So why hasn't Microsoft put more pressure on Dell, HP, etc. to make better looking, but still customizable/upgradeable, computers? It kind of seems like they're ignoring this half of the puzzle.

[delpt]

Everyone here is obviously biased. I have both a Mac and a PC, and Macs can't do everything a PC can without running the Mac AS the PC... and PC's are not as reliable as Macs because Macs are built to run fine exactly as-is and is restricted to a bunch of Apple anti-consumer licensing... So they are equal but on different levels.

Quit pretending that Mac is better. They are the same.

[qwerty]

If I'm not mistaking, the laptop probably has dual channel ram, meaning 533+533=1066? :o

I do admit commercial is cheesy tho.

[the_steve]

I hope Apple wakes up and realizes they don't need to extort such high prices for their hardware. Any company that has $18 billion in the bank has way too much profit margin!

[NYCMacFan]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

I imagine if someone did benchmarks between these two machines, would totally kill the premise of this ad.

Someone should. Its as if they wanted to pick the worst possible comparison for Microsoft. Who paid the maker of this ad?

I mean you could have found a machine with great specs and battery life or even gone with a gaming machine or a machine with a built in TV tuner, lots of ports, card readers, etco talk about the extra value you get with the PC.

Instead, they choose this HP machine. There has to be some kind of speed comparison cross platform somewhere right?

Or can we get a comparison on the mac with parallels or bootcamp...

[NYCMacFan]

I agree with your points. But further proof someone like you should have written the ad. Note the Blueray option, the dedicated GPU for games, maybe wider range of PC software.

Originally Posted by kpluck

I am not sure what was worse, the commercial or AI's critique?

So much time was spent talking about differences in memory speeds, which probably don't have a huge affect on performance, but AI conveniently ignored the fact that the HP has a dedicated GPU. The GPU could have a substantially bigger impact on performance depending on how the machine is used.

Also, the guy doesn't state he wants the longest battery life. He asks which laptop has the best battery life that meets his needs. He clearly indicated a preference for size and power which of course, reduce battery life.

Hours installing antivirus and antispyware programs? Yeah right. Vista comes with Windows Defender so antispyware isn't needed and a antivirus program doesn't take more than 15 minutes to install. It will come with OS updates turned on so conflicker is a non-issue. If he runs most of time as a standard user not as an admin (same as what OS X users should do) he won't have malware problems.

Can't argue about the low pixel density on the screen. Although I will say many will see that as advantage because it makes the screen much easier to read. But at least this machine has some options in that regard. Does the MacBook?

And what about the HP's firewire port, express card slot, HDMI out and, from what I can tell from their web site, an optical drive with Blu-ray capability? Don't see those on the MacBook anywhere.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't buy one of those things. I have a 2.2Ghz BlackBook and it works great for me. But I do miss some of the options that are seen on the HP. I would love the current MacBook if it had FW, HDMI out and a BD drive. I would easily trade the LED backlit display for those things.

What it comes down to is choices. Apple has made design decisions with their products and have given very few options to meet various needs. Meanwhile, their competitors continue to sell a lot of machines with a clearly inferior OS because they give people hardware choices at a reasonable cost. And for some, that is enough. It doesn't make them wrong or stupid. It just means that they want different things from their computing experience.

-kpluck

[city]

Let's compare shopping at Fry's and shopping at the Apple store or even Best Buy. Fry's has an extremely strict return policy and it's clear that they don't welcome returns even with defective merchandise per my unresolved experience. My product was missing the specialized screws to assemble. Also, some "new" items appear used. I have even heard stories of buying a "new" product with someone's else's personal information on it. It looks like they have close-outs that might only be discounted a couple of dollars. They do have a parts inventory for hobbyist.

[EndoFallTime]

Just to clear up any confusion that might arise from comments about how Macs lack the same "software", "compatibility" and "processing power" of their PC counterparts...

Macs are no longer those macs from 1999. Present day Apple computers use most of the same software as PC's. Any software you use on a PC has a Mac version or counterpart. All hardware that works on a PC, works on a Mac and usually with less issues. The reason that benchmarks of Photoshop on boot camp run faster than on the Mac is because the hardware is just that good.

Welcome to 2009, a time when Macs are better than PC's. Feel free to use Windows... but if you want it to run at full speed, you'll run it on a Mac.

This message has been brought to you by an Apple Fanboy... because it's much better than not choosing a side and hating on people who's only crime is supporting the company that actually takes care of their customers. So there.

[city]

Originally Posted by theprobably_steve

I hope Apple wakes up and realizes they don't need to extort such high prices for their hardware. Any company that has $18 billion in the bank has way too much profit margin!

I thought it was 28 billion and probably not in the bank. So companies without money like General Motors are the better. Doesn't Microsoft have some cash too?

[iVlad]

Aggg these ads are retarded and boring. At least Apple ads are made with style and humor.

[ulfoaf]

Apple hardware always strikes people as lightweight. The difference is the system isn't bloated with inefficiency like Windows. The whole concept of treating each user like it is a separate machine is flawed.

OS X simply doesn't demand as many resources. I was concerned a bit about a 2.0 ghz alum Macbook with only 2 gb of memory. Ha! It is fantastic!

I expect big things with Snow Leopard. Can you believe a company is actually trying to optimize performance? The standard has been just wait for new hardware to come out. Of course, the real goal is to make an efficient multiprocessor environment. No doubt the wave of the future.

[mj93284]

The equivalent of the MacBook is an HP DV3; they cost about $650-$1000, depending on configuration and weigh about 4.3 pounds.

Of course, the best way of running it is with Ubuntu: that way, you get inexpensive hardware, a great UI, and tons of free software. It beats both Apple and Microsoft hands down.

[randomdude]

*sound of me repeatedly hitting my head on desk*
Okay, whoever made that ad needs to be fired. Now. What the hell is MS thinking? God.

Anyways, I saw a lot of people talking about benchmark comparisons between macs and PCs, so I decided to see for myself.

I looked at a computer on Apple.com and customized it a bit.
A 15-inch Macbook Pro with

• 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
• 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2 Dimms)
• 250GB Serial ATA HDD @ 5400rpm
• 8x optical disc drive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
• NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory

costs $2099.00.

I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.

A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with

• Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
• Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
• 5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
• 320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
• 8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
• ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory

costs $1,949.00.

I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?

The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.

Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting

• A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
• An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
• HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
• Graphics card which has twice as much memory.

A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)

Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.

[smcbeaven]

Very well written article! Unfortunately, the average brainless consumer will more than likely fall for these Garbagesoft ads.

[NasserAE]

I wonder how many of those laptop hunters MS did not tell us about because they decided to go with a Mac?! But again we will never know. They probably signed a NDA!

[Mike London]

I work in the advertising industry and we have a saying that "poor innovation leads to heavy advertising" - I think this applies to MS and this advert so clearly...

[Halvri]

Originally Posted by delpt

Everyone here is obviously biased. I have both a Mac and a PC, and Macs can't do everything a PC can without running the Mac AS the PC... and PC's are not as reliable as Macs because Macs are built to run fine exactly as-is and is restricted to a bunch of Apple anti-consumer licensing... So they are equal but on different levels.

Quit pretending that Mac is better. They are the same.

Question? Why are you complaining about people on this forum being biased and using your comment to twice insult Apple while basically giving PCs a light slap on the wrist? Does that not strike you as at all hypocritical?

Also, do you have any idea what anti-consumer even means? If you're angry that it ties OS and hardware, then you shouldn't have complimented its reliability because that's precisely where it comes from. Go research Sony if you wanna begin a discussion of anti-consumerism (more pointlessly DRMed formats than the eye can see).

I'm seriously tired of you "consumerist" nazis that like to act as if copyright laws are evil because they keep you from doing something you never had the right to do in the first place. Until you have to deal with intellectual property law on a daily basis, don't presume to act as if its purpose is to destroy your freedoms.

I seriously wonder what it is you people believe you're fighting for. Does the thought of OS X being a more secure Vista somehow make you happy? Apple is a better company precisely because it doesn't have to be everything to everyone.

Anti-consumer, my g-d you have no idea what your talking about. Any idea how many times Microsoft has had to settle in court over such activities? Just because Big Brother lets you put its OS on any hardware you desire doesn't mean it doesn't leverage its market share to keep out competitors and reap royalties on in-house development tools that a developer is basically required to use. Being a little stingy with options does not make one anti-consumer: tactically trying to limit consumers to only your stuff is (ever wonder why Apple and Google make Ballmer so nervous).

I pity you if you honestly believe you're looking at equals.

[iBill]

Giampaolo (and ItalianKid) are Microsoft's bitch..

LOL

[Tofino]

Originally Posted by randomdude

snip

What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this?

snip

Mac OSX

[iBill]

Originally Posted by iVlad

Aggg these ads are retarded and boring. At least Apple ads are made with style and humor.

Yeah, Steve said it best, Microsoft has no taste.

That fact shows clearly in their advertising.

[Halvri]

Originally Posted by city

I thought it was 28 billion and probably not in the bank. So companies without money like General Motors are the better. Doesn't Microsoft have some cash too?

Don't worry about him/her. The idea that premium quality, service, & support should be cheap is already ridiculous. The further misuse of the word extort (which means to force an action) clearly gives away his mindset

[surferfromuk]

Microsoft are now LITERALLY resorting to propaganda techniques used in World War II

[surferfromuk]

Originally Posted by randomdude

*sound of me repeatedly hitting my head on desk*
Okay, whoever made that ad needs to be fired. Now. What the hell is MS thinking? God.

Anyways, I saw a lot of people talking about benchmark comparisons between macs and PCs, so I decided to see for myself.

I looked at a computer on Apple.com and customized it a bit.
A 15-inch Macbook Pro with

• 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
• 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2 Dimms)
• 250GB Serial ATA HDD @ 5400rpm
• 8x optical disc drive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
• NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory

costs $2099.00.

I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.

A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with

• Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
• Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
• 5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
• 320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
• 8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
• ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory

costs $1,949.00.

I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?

The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.

Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting

• A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
• An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
• HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
• Graphics card which has twice as much memory.

A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)

Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.

If you can't tell then Mac's aren't for you - it's that simple.