or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Microsoft's latest ad attacks Mac aesthetics, computing power
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft's latest ad attacks Mac aesthetics, computing power - Page 2

post #41 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomdude View Post

*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.
post #42 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomdude View Post

*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.

ITS IN THE SOFTWARE!!!
SERIOUSLY!!! Do you even watch the apple keynotes??? The hardware in the longrun is NOT what drives industries, its software... in every keynote Apple spends about 80% of the time talking about what new programs and software advances it makes and in the end posts up a 5 minute grid of what hardware is in it... the hardware may be what be physically holding the computer up, but its the software thats pumping the blood through it... most people still don't get it... YOU STILL DON'T GET IT... post all the cool software that Microsoft has made for you and tell us all how its contributing to everyone's lives!!!... dont even bother... I dont think i can stand another one of your comparision charts...
post #43 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomdude View Post

*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.

Interesting post and comparison! The only point I miss is that this should be an ad made from HP which makes the hardware, not Microsoft which makes the OS.
MS is implicitly stating their OS doesn't play any role in the choice of a PC, whereas it all comes down to price and HW performance.

For a company that only makes software this is a dangerous path, in my opinion.

Moreover.. Isn't HP the company which is evaluating (according to some rumors) the adoption of Android for their netbooks??

I think the ad is interesting, but on the other hand I also think:
- this looks much more like an HP ad than Microsoft ad
- no mention about software whatsoever
- all the "interviewed" people WOULD LIKE TO BUY a Mac but, basically, cannot afford one (yet).

As much as I like it, there is actually not much value placed in software from the part of Microsoft.
post #44 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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

Well, for what it's worth, we can look at Geekbench.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/120016 - HP, Dual Core, 2.13 ghz - gets a 2542.

Now, the late 2006 Macbook (Dual Core, 2.0 ghz) gets a 2566. The current low end Macbook gets 2691. The "low end" Macbook Pro gets 3059. For a CPU that's only about 11% faster in clock speed, you get an almost 17% increase in performance.

The MAJOR caveat, of course, is the cost - getting a Macbook pro is some 27% more expensive than a similarly equipped HP. Getting a low end Macbook is actually about 10% cheaper than a similarly equipped HP with about a 6% performance increase.

So looking at the CPU/Memory system alone, Macs more than hold their own, performance wise, against this HP. That includes Macs that are clocked at a lower Ghz. But the HP does come with several goodies that neither the Macbook nor MBP come with: blu ray, 16" monitor (with 1920x1080 option), HDMI out, etc. The Macbooks have size and weight on their side - maybe battery life as well. Possibly higher quality screens.

Really though, to say that this guy picked this laptop because macs don't perform is silly. Whatever other anecdotal evidence people come up with, at least with Geekbench, the macs hold their own.
post #45 of 521
I am also a Mac user and fan of Apple products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EndoFallTime View Post

hardware that works on a PC, works on a Mac.

This is not true. PCIe cards for [my] Mac Pro has to be made for the EFI, which limits the numbers of options. The newer ATI 4870 that Apple is selling as a upgrade, is being sold with a 100%+ premium.

Still, this does not make me want to go back til PCs. I can live with not having to choose from 100+ different models of graphics card, but I wouldnt mind having a couple of alternatives.

:-Dennis
post #46 of 521
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
post #47 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomdude View Post


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?

whr is watt hours. So depending on the consumption (in Watts) of the computer, you get (whr divided by watt) hours.

If mac/pc uses 20 watts, you would get 65/20 = 3h 15m. or 85/20 = 4h 15 min.
post #48 of 521
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.
post #49 of 521
I find it humorous that he says he has "huge hands" LOL.
post #50 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by tojfs7931 View Post

I find it humorous that he says he has "huge hands" LOL.

do you think is that some of Ballmers penis env.. MAC envy coming through in the ad?
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
post #51 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by schafdog View Post

I am also a Mac user and fan of Apple products.


This is not true. PCIe cards for [my] Mac Pro has to be made for the EFI, which limits the numbers of options. The newer ATI 4870 that Apple is selling as a upgrade, is being sold with a 100%+ premium.

Still, this does not make me want to go back til PCs. I can live with not having to choose from 100+ different models of graphics card, but I wouldnt mind having a couple of alternatives.

:-Dennis

Dude, go to osx86, become a member, boot to windows with a gpu of you choice, get the dvuce code, then ask someone fir the drivers, edit the .plist and .kext files and you'll be set. No need to pay 500% increase from apple. Ha ha

Also, I think people are unserestimatun microsoft. When vista came out, they were still dealing with several os's, now they have one, win7 and I.T. Likes it plusnew mibe looks good. While I like mac, we need good if not great windows machines, netbooks, mobile phones to keep jobs away for good and have apple release products at true price point. Pay $359 fir apple care? That covers the cost if the parts, most if the time. Apple asks for a 1000 price premium on evrything, heck, even phone cases are retail, same item at best buy or frye is 20% lower not to mention what apple charges for gpu, ram, and no mid range or crippled low end. Just be glad bread and butter iPhones might take a huge hit when 59 million have 2 year contracts expire.
post #52 of 521
Studio XPS 16:
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo P8700 (3MB cache/2.53GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
\t
LCD Panel:
Edge-to-Edge FullHD Widescreen 16.0 inch RGBLED LCD (1920x1080) W/2.0 MP

MEMORY:
4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)

Hard Drive:
500GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive

Video Card:
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 - 512MB

Sound Card:
ExpressCard Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio Sound Card

LCD and Camera:
Edge-to-Edge FullHD Widescreen 16.0 inch RGBLED LCD (1920x1080) W/2.0 MP



PRICE: $1599

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...-studio-xps-16

Seems to me that configuration is almost as good as the 15in macbook pro that cost 2500 bucks.
post #53 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by overdue View Post

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.


LOL!!!

you asked the sales guy why does one MacbookAir have flash and another a regular HD? I'm not sure who the dummy is? you can't be serious with that question.

3 year old battery - get a grip, batteries don't last forever, they lose power over time.


yeeeesh!

post #54 of 521
All this bickering about if the PC is better than the Mac is pointless for one simple reason.

In general when someone goes out to buy a new computer they will have already decided if they want a Mac or a PC. It is not like they are the same thing, they may be similar BUT they are NOT the same.

If someone has decided to buy a Mac then they will have looked at the prices and made up their mind that is what they WANT, not NEED.

People do not shop like MS are trying to show in these ads and for that reason they will have no effect on sales of Macs or PCs.

They are wasting their time and money.
post #55 of 521
If the concept of 'total cost of ownership' was more widely understood, then ads such as these would not gain traction. Does the valuation include the free-with-purchase iLife application suite? The whole premise is as pointless as an ad about trying to find a car for under $15k.
post #56 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_steve View Post

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!

You would make a great business man, just give the money away, IDIOT!
post #57 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomdude View Post

*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.

How convenient of you to ignore the backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc. They are NOT personal preferences they are VERY important and valuable features, but to include them would blow your point. What a fucking idiot.
post #58 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomdude View Post

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.

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?

The Mac runs Mac OS X. The Dell cannot. That's reason enough.

For many, aesthetics and the user experience DO count.

Yes, we can quibble about this or that spec, but ultimately, it's about running Mac OS X and the software designed to run on it, NOT about saving a few pennies up front. BTW, running Mac OS X DOES save me money in the long run.

Also, NEVER buy RAM from Apple.
Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
Macintosh: It just WORKS!
Reply
post #59 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2kunlimited View Post

Studio XPS 16:
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo P8700 (3MB cache/2.53GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
\t
LCD Panel:
Edge-to-Edge FullHD Widescreen 16.0 inch RGBLED LCD (1920x1080) W/2.0 MP

MEMORY:
4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)

Hard Drive:
500GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive

Video Card:
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 - 512MB

Sound Card:
ExpressCard Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio Sound Card

LCD and Camera:
Edge-to-Edge FullHD Widescreen 16.0 inch RGBLED LCD (1920x1080) W/2.0 MP



PRICE: $1599

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...-studio-xps-16

Seems to me that configuration is almost as good as the 15in macbook pro that cost 2500 bucks.

And your point is?

Many cars have the same specs too, why buy a premium car over a cheap model?

Why BECAUSE IT IS THE ONE THAT YOU WANT.

You can always find something cheaper, does not mean you have to buy it.

Do you buy the cheapest of everything, do you own any brands? Look at yourself.
post #60 of 521
I really don't know why M$ is comparing hardware in their ads. They don't make the hardware, so why are they advertising it? Surely they should be touting the software features that Windoze has and the Mac OS supposedly lacks. You don't see Apple comparing, say, speakers that will play sound from a Mac, because they're nothing to do with Apple. It's upto the PC manufacturer what they include or don't include with their PC, not M$.

It's not all about hardware as M$ should know. If the software that runs on the hardware is poor, then no matter what hardware you have the computer will suck. Why can't they compare the software on the PCs and Macs, can M$ not find anything better on Windoze? It sure seems that way.

Giampaolo says at the end, "I'm a PC, because I'm really picky". Seems a bit ironic that it's Windows PCs that are picky, install something it doesn't like and you're presented with a nice friendly BSOD.
post #61 of 521
Hehe, I liked that article, especially the tone
post #62 of 521
I have bought PC products in the past, before I switched to Macs. I emailed customer support at Dell and HP, both of which I have purchased laptops before. I told them that based on Microsoft's attack on Apple, that I wanted to be removed from their mailing lists and that I would never buy a PC from them again. If enough people do the same thing, I suspect that it will get Microsoft's attention.
post #63 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMat View Post

As much as I like it, there is actually not much value placed in software from the part of Microsoft.

I agree with you here. Everyone does not buy Apple on the 'sexy' bit, although it certainly helps get people interested in walking through the store doors.

I am OK with Microsoft advertising like this, but there is something not right about not mentioning their software AT ALL in any of the ads. Where software is Apple's greatest strength!

It's as if MS has colluded with all the PC makers and said 'Leave this with us guys, we'll get your market-share back on track'.

Hmmmm.
post #64 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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

http://laptoplogic.com/reviews/apple...k-2008-release
http://laptoplogic.com/reviews/HDX16t

The HP gets a pretty decent review here, because it is unbiased. It compares favorably with the Macbook.

Benchmarking could be done by installing Windows on the Macbook, but of course, you can't install OSX on a non-apple machine, which is not a plus to me.

However, Ubuntu or another Linux distro could be installed on both machines if you want to test with the best operating system available.
BTW, if it takes anybody two hours to find and install free software such as Openoffice and Avast, I would say they are stretching the truth if they call themselves technically inclined.

Get back to me when you can assemble your own machine for $300 and install your operating system on it.
post #65 of 521
"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."

DDR2 533MHz memory runs at 1066MHz front side bus so his system is not crippled. Idiot.
post #66 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by archangel3700 View Post

Well, for what it's worth, we can look at Geekbench.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/120016 - HP, Dual Core, 2.13 ghz - gets a 2542.

Really though, to say that this guy picked this laptop because macs don't perform is silly. Whatever other anecdotal evidence people come up with, at least with Geekbench, the macs hold their own.

Now that Macs have Intel under the hood, the main differences come down to the supporting chipsets and the OS installed.

As has already been mentioned above, switching from Microsoft to Linux will give any PC a huge performance boost. The current version of Ubuntu (8.10) is extremely responsive on a 2002 vintage processor, and on a new quad core machine it absolutely flies.
post #67 of 521
It does disturb me that Microsoft spend so much on advertising, and yet comes out with such poor, misguided ads when - as proven in this thread - there are angles they could take to show how they have an advantage over Macs, but instead they put out this tripe that is only going to push more people into buying a Mac? Does Microsoft actually hire an ad agency, or does Steve Ballmer write it all himself?


Quote:
Originally Posted by kim chi View Post

come on, i drive a prius ... i'm green. now give me what i want.

You are joking, right?
post #68 of 521
Good write up but you forgot to mention both of these ads are about students, meaning they qualify for 10% off which would erase the money this guy "saved" immediately.

Plus, if he waited 3 months he'd get a free iPod.
32G iPhone 4, 32G iPad 2, late 2009 15" mbp
Reply
32G iPhone 4, 32G iPad 2, late 2009 15" mbp
Reply
post #69 of 521
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.


I can see it now

Apple's next ad's give someone $1500.00 to buy the best laptop they can, and folks put in some of there own money to get a Mac!

Somehow in this commercial they say, Computer, PLUS software, PLUS headaches, PLUS viruses, PLUS Pop-ups, PLUS spy-ware - "Hell the Mac is A LOT LESS money!
post #70 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post

The Mac runs Mac OS X. The Dell cannot. That's reason enough.

For many, aesthetics and the user experience DO count.

Yes, we can quibble about this or that spec, but ultimately, it's about running Mac OS X and the software designed to run on it, NOT about saving a few pennies up front. BTW, running Mac OS X DOES save me money in the long run.

Also, NEVER buy RAM from Apple.

Hell the Mac can run windows and the Dell can't One more reason to buy the Mac.

Skip
post #71 of 521
"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."

Well it would lower the Mac price point for comparison purposes, even though the white Macbook would still have many advantages over the HP, including aesthetics, quality, superior OS, superior software, etc. But the point is that the ad portrays this ass clown as a technically savvy user, yet he fails to look beyond the most basic of specs and ignores a slew of important issues that make the HP a poor choice for his stated needs.

"And I'm not even sure how important DDR3 vs DDR2 in 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. "

If you're not sure how important DDR3 vs DDR2 is on laptops then perhaps you should withhold your comments until you educate yourself on the subject.

"Although the HP does have the Geforce 9600M, which Apple only offers on the MBP."

At no time did the dope in the ad mention the video card as a factor influencing his buying decision. And if graphics were important to him, then I suspect he would prefer something other than a huge HP display with ridiculously low resolution and widely reported poor quality and limited viewing angles.

"And the article does mention that he did choose Vista 64-bit"

NO, the article hopes he chose the Vista 64-bit OS, as that is the only option that would allow his HP computer to use all 4GB of RAM that he is paying for. The ad never mentions what version of Vista he got, and Microsoft's stats indicate that only a tiny fraction of Vista users have the 64 bit version of the OS. The insinuation is that is is very likely he purchased the machine with an OS that is incapable of using all 4GB of RAM, let alone any additional RAM he might want to install later.

"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."

While OSX still has some 32-bit components, the bulk of the OS has been 64-bit for some time now - which among other things allows Mac users to actually use 4GB+ of RAM, unlike the VAST MAJORITY of Windows users who are wasting money on RAM their OS is incapable of utilizing. So much for the myth of the power-hungry, technically savvy Windows user.
post #72 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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.

I bet you $1500 that he doesn't spend hours on this task.

Maybe you've got into the iPhone mode of thinking a bit too much. Modern PCs support automated background tasks. Virus scanners don't require any user input until something is found. Even clean-up can be automated.

I've got a desktop Vista PC and a MBP. I spend zero time worrying about viruses on either system.

Droning on about viruses for Windows is as retarded as Windows fans droning on about the single button Apple mouse. Congratulations for retaining your crown as AI's dumbest writer.
post #73 of 521
MS has no taste. It's as true now as it was back when Steve said it, as part of one of the most eloquent and thoughtful perspectives I've ever heard on the subject.

Why is everyone doing a price/spec comparison here. Who really cares?

If it doesn't run OS X and doesn't integrate well with the Apple ecosystem, why the hell would you buy it?? Yecch, I wouldn't touch a Windows box with a ten-foot pole. Why go cheap on the tool you'll be using day in, day out? It HAS to be a rewarding and enjoyable experience.

Are you kidding me, why do you think mot of us dumped WIndows in the first place? I'd gladly pay extra for what I get (and don't get, and won't get) with a Mac.

Does anyone here actually think these ads will hurt Apple? They simply confirm Apple's status and the desirability of it products. Labeling yourself as the budget brand ipso facto means there is also a premium brand . . . that you don't represent!

Apple has had the computing sector's number for years now - ever since the intro of the very first iMacs, and they've come up with a winning formula and cater to a very specific market. That won't change for a long, long time.
post #74 of 521
The Microsoft ad definitely lacks "taste". Their choice of an HPX was a poor one at best (* the guy was definitely not a techie). However it is worth noting that there are certain computer brands such as the Sony Vaio series that comes pretty close to Mac quality.

For example:

Sony Vaio FW390 Series

Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 (2.4GHz)
2GB RAM (DDR2-800)
320GB 7200rpm
Blu-Ray Read Only Drive
ATI Mobile HD3650 512MB
16.4" @ 1920x1200 XBRITE-FullHD
>> Costs $1229.99 USD

I'll say that is an actual competitor to the MacBook Pro, not the shitty HPX.
post #75 of 521
Apple's laptops have decent batteries. No, no, iPhone's case doesn't spread that wide...

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #76 of 521
Strangely enough, I actually like the ad. I don't find it as bad as most commenters are making it sound.

I don't agree with quite a bit of what the article is saying as well. "cheap plastic body of the hp"?

That seems kind of harsh, i'm not sure how AI knows that hp used cheap plastic parts on that particular computer.

Also the article goes at length comparing the macbook (13 inch) to the hp (16 inch) They're in two different categories altogether. All the guy basically said is that the macbook didn't quite meet his needs. & its true.

Maybe the macbook pro, but certainly not the macbook. Just my opinion.
post #77 of 521
Interesting. One of the things this article did was bring a lot of newbies out of the woodwork. How often has that happened?

Welcome to you new guys.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #78 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

Interesting. One of the things this article did was bring a lot of newbies out of the woodwork. How often has that happened?

Welcome to you new guys.

I'll second this. Welcome!
post #79 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomdude View Post

*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.

I would like to point out the lack of information on bus speed and cache size for the processor.
Also that sure the macbook has less memory for the graphics but it has TWO SETS. One being higher powered than the other to help save battery life. I'm not sure about macbook pro but my macbook white averages at least 5 hours of life.
Regarding the RAM, WOOPTY FREAKIN' DOO! You put 5 GB of RAM in a laptop! PEOPLE RARELY USE OVER 1.5!! I personally have never run into any problems with 2 GB of RAM while rendering FULL HD video.
Let's not forget the software which is mentioned in the article.
SongSmith(bad version of garageband) -$30
Office(standard) -$400 (iwork is $80 and macs come with Mail(outlook=mail))
I guess publisher=iweb so add another $50 to Office
(feel free to ad more I'm to lazy to look for Time Machine equivalents and same with iDVD)
post #80 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by marik View Post

Strangely enough, I actually like the ad. I don't find it as bad as most commenters are making it sound.

I don't agree with quite a bit of what the article is saying as well. "cheap plastic body of the hp"?

That seems kind of harsh, i'm not sure how AI knows that hp used cheap plastic parts on that particular computer.

Also the article goes at length comparing the macbook (13 inch) to the hp (16 inch) They're in two different categories altogether. All the guy basically said is that the macbook didn't quite meet his needs. & its true.

Maybe the macbook pro, but certainly not the macbook. Just my opinion.

plastic bodies are cheap compared to a unibody aluminum case. The guy sad portability and power he got a bigger computer which barely beats the macbook(if it even does).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Microsoft's latest ad attacks Mac aesthetics, computing power