Microsoft's latest ad attacks Mac aesthetics, computing power - Page 6

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

By the way, Apple uses better parts in general for things like: hard disks, LCD screens, transformers, cabling, etc. Look it up.

Aluminum, glass, and better materials in general obviously cost more. That cost is also passed on to the consumer.

Originally Posted by Adjei

What a useless argument, why don't you line up at a foodbank instead of buying food, after all it's cheaper and everone is thinking cheap these days.

Originally Posted by slapppy

Great advantages, but it doesn't matter. It will never be mentioned on the ad. The only thing that rings a huge bell to potential viewers/buyers is the price and the seemingly bigger spec numbers on the product. For some who need a new computer or upgrade, this is good enough than the pricier Mac.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

You do have a point.

Apple doesn't really target the kind of consumer that is pictured in the ad. Would be nice to coax that segment into a Mac purchase as well, but I really don't think it's going to happen.

Originally Posted by slapppy

The Apple fanbase is hurting in this economy too.

If your a Mac user with an older Mac and just lost your job or have a fear of losing your job, had your wages cut, and you need a new computer, which will you buy?

Originally Posted by slapppy

The Apple fanbase is hurting in this economy too.

If your a Mac user with an older Mac and just lost your job or have a fear of losing your job, had your wages cut, and you need a new computer, which will you buy?

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2


Is English your first language?
Have you ever even *been* to a college or University? ...

You are a very lucky guy not to be banned form this site for all the personal attacks you make...

Forums are for debates and conversations...

Originally Posted by kpluck

Hours installing antivirus and antispyware programs? Yeah right. Vista comes with Windows Defender...

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.

Originally Posted by randomdude

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.

...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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

I'd like to think I'd chose make a long term decision and get a Mac. If I was in a position to be financially hurting and I did 'need' a new machine (which I have to assume means my current one is broken otherwise I don't see why that would be need) I would go for a used Mac over a new PC.

If I thought it was only for the short term I might go for a desktop instead of my usual notebook, which allows me to get more machine for my dollar. That in itself is something to be discussed as most people by notebooks in the US over desktops yet most people don't need notebooks, they simply want them for their portability.

There are so many things I can do to save money and cut back that don't require me to buy a new HP notebook.

Originally Posted by GMHut

I fully agree with this. Apple needs to have at least one computer in each category aimed at being "affordable quality." It doesn't have to be the cheapest. In fact it can still be the higher priced compared to comparable specs but not the highest specs out there. It just needs a medium specced computer where the base model is attractive, not stripped down, but a good machine priced at the top end of what consumers in a contracting economy will be willing to pay for the middle tier product in their overall lineup within a category.

I guess that is the difficulty Apple has always struggled with, that sweat spot of price just at the tipping point that gets people to say to themselves, "it's a little pricey, but what the hell I'm going for it" vs. "It's a high end machine and I really want one, but I just can't spend that much for a computer when I don't need really that much computer."

Originally Posted by SmilinGoat


i WANT an iMac, but with todays economy, i think im going to end up with something else. most likely the new Dell All-in-one that is releasing this month or next. the reason? cost. no other reason, there is a very large difference when spending teh same amount of money... worth $700+ in differences. in todays world, thats huge.

thats one sale right there. i would spend $300 more on a comparative apple all-in-one. i think thats a fair amount to ask, not $700+.

Originally Posted by guinness

They have the Mini, although it's still lacking in RAM and HD. Other than that, it's OK, but I think Apple could really reduce costs if they went to something a bit bigger (even an mATX board, with standard desktop components).

For most everything else has, I see a premium price, but lacking premium components. The 20" iMac and MB use fairly crappy LCDs, they use the same RAM and HDs as everyone else, but skimp a bit on HD size (when everyone else is including 250+ GB drives, Apple is still sporting a 5400 RPM 120 GB drive in the MB). And the Nvidia 9400M is just another IGP, I mean Nvidia is going to be using that GPU in their Ion platform before too long (and Acer just released a Atom-based nettop with the Ion platform IIRC).

Originally Posted by randomdude

Mac OSX is worth nine hundred fucking dollars? Get real.
I could by an entire computer for that much money.
So I get two computers with Windows, you get one with OSX, and you are honestly telling me that you think you got a better deal? What the hell is wrong with you?

Originally Posted by walshbj

OS X is worth quite a bit in time savings. I never got a virus when I ran Windows, but many people asked me for help when they got one. It was a nightmare - and you never really knew it was gone.

And Windows Update is a disgrace, plain and simple.

Is the Mac perfect? No. But I wouldn't trade mine for three PCs. I used to make my living as an MCSE, I know how to manage computers. I don't miss anything about Windows.

I think OS X is worth at least double its retail price - especially given Microsoft's price sheet.

Why can't I just stay out of Mac vs PC discussions??

Originally Posted by vinney57

The discussions of Mac vs PC really are pointless. What's more interesting is how these ads are polarising opinion in a way that hasn't happened for a while; hence the quite juvenile trolling going on here.

Originally Posted by solipsism

The ads are bringing a lot more people to these forums. I wonder if these ads will do more to sell more Macs than they will to sell more HPs. I do find it odd that they include a part where he emotionally states that the Mac is so sexy. That isn't something I would have included in a commercial against Macs.

Originally Posted by slapppy

I'd like to stay away also, but Microsoft has dealt a low blow with this ad campaign.

Rather than argue the merits between each OS/Software/Hardware, MS decides to take advantage of the current economic crisis. Its now not about why each company can truly empower the user. MS instead borrowed from the old sleazy used car salesman technique. Cheap sells.

Originally Posted by 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...

Originally Posted by SmilinGoat

yeah, and you completely ignore the fact that he loves Apples as well. just because someone is open minded enough to like both companies at the same time does not make them a troll. if they made a "i like apple and microsoft forum" then people like us would have a different place to go. but there isnt one, not one with any traffic anyway.

for now you'll just have to deal with us sound minded "trolls" and deal with having to read both sides to every story...

Originally Posted by Enlightenment

Microsoft should easily be able to beat prices for 17" laptops.

Gateway, excellent price:
- http://www.gateway.com/systems/serie...pid=ms_pseries
- $849, $1299, $1799 (has Q9000 which is quad-core).
- They use to sell a laptop with 1920x1200 17" LCD display in models not listed above. I own one and it is much cheaper than any Apple 17" laptop.

Alienware, always kicks ass:
- http://www.alienware.com/products/m1...de=SKU-DEFAULT

HP and SONY have lots of great models too.

----

I laugh when Apple fanboys tell me that Apple hardware is better, what a f*cking joke. Apple doesn't make the processor, nor does Apple make the hard drive, nor does Apple make the optical disc drive, nor does Apple make the RAM. The Microsoft computers have lots of components that are IDENTICAL as the Apple computers...and only FOOLS believe otherwise.

----

Originally Posted by nowayout11

AI doesn't post a story every time Apple has a new ad out. Why are they doing it, 3 times now, for MS ads? They're flamebaiting for traffic. Seriously, AI, grow up.

Every one of these articles/threads are going to be identical... rinse-and-repeat bickering that changes nobody's mind.

BTW, it's also weak to accuse the new posters of all being paid MS marketers. That's the result of AI's flamebaiting in the first place. Thank AI for it.

Anyway... these ads are kind of lame, mainly because they preach to the choir. Apple's Mac ads did the same thing for a long time too... until the "I'm a Mac" campaign, which was their first successful one in many years (hence why it's still running while all others were short-lived).

MS's campaign will be as short-lived as Apple's failed ones too.

Move on, AI. Your Apple stories are a lot more productive than your Microsoft ones.

Originally Posted by Halvri

There's this thing called advertising revenue that websites live on. Flame baiting increases such revenue by attracting web traffic. Again, all of you need to learn economics. Stop getting so prissy over things that keep websites like these running.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by codedude

Apple and M$ both suck royally ..........if Giampaolo was really tech savy he would picked computer and installed linux on top of it ...........only thing windows is good for is playing games and apple is good for showing off that beautiful aluminium case .......just buy core 17 latpot from acer with no OS and install linux didtro like ubuntu on it ........... linux is for people who actually want things to works .......like 20,000 google staff uses linux distro called gobuntu ........besides linux powering thier servers .even apple insider runs on linux

\tSite\tSite Report\tFirst seen\tNetblock\tOS
1.\twww.appleinsider.com \tSite Report \tseptember 1998 \t260 king st \tlinux - centos
2.\tforums.appleinsider.com \tSite Report \tfebuary 2002 \t260 king st \tlinux - centos
3.\tappleinsider.com \tSite Report \tfebuary 1999 \t260 king st \tunknown
4.\timages.appleinsider.com \tSite Report \tfebuary 2004 \taffinity internet, inc \tlinux

http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?posit...pleinsider.com


Dont be losers choose linux today

Originally Posted by overdue

iLife is free; so is Open Office-available for all. For that matter, it's widely known, at least outside of the Mac circle, that one can find open source apps for nearly all your needs on your PC. So I'd advise looking for another argument than the software niche.

I went into an apple store on the Central Coast in California, looked at a macbook air, and asked the salesguy, "why does one macbook air have flash memory for storage, and the other have a hard drive?" He paused, looked at the spec sheets, said, "hmmm...that's a good queistion....I don't know."

We had actually gone into the apple store looking for a replacement battery for my wife's three year old G4 iBook; battery life is down to less than 10 minutes unplugged.