I'm ok with going down this Road. OSX is a collection of other open source software combined with proprietary Apple software. I say Linux because it's the open source that everyone knows but they borrow quite a bit off other opensource. I'm using Linux as a generic term much like everyon else who doesn't understand distros and Gnm, BSD. You guys like the front end but.... It heavily borrows on Ideas within the linux world. Most of the things you like about OSX were available on linux back in 2002 or so.
When the first Core 2 Duo "Woodcrest" Xeon chips came out, I bought a Mac Pro that had 2 sets of Xeons with an almost 100% identical hardware profile (some things on the MP Desktop were actually faster) and I saved over a thousand dollars versus what Dell was charging. The price difference held fast for oh I don't know, several months. Hell, it's still definitely worth a lot more.
The difference in buying a Mac or a PC is the same as buying a Honda or a Kia.
Macs actually hold their value. There's a reason PC manufacturers are cutting their own throats to try to sell you something with virtually no profit margin what so ever.
You keep buying it if that's your prerogative.
I like my mac.
Quote:
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.
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'm ok with going down this Road. OSX is a collection of other open source software combined with proprietary Apple software. I say Linux because it's the open source that everyone knows but they borrow quite a bit off other opensource. I'm using Linux as a generic term much like everyon else who doesn't understand distros and Gnm, BSD. You guys like the front end but.... It heavily borrows on Ideas within the linux world. Most of the things you like about OSX were available on linux back in 2002 or so.
So Windows is Linux, based on your logic, or lack of it?
Do you not know that OS X came from NeXT which was bought by Apple and was the non-consumer company started by Job s after he left Apple back in the mid-1980s? Do you not know that it was based off of FreeBSD and that the GUI they created was pushed into the Mac OS, Windows, and Linux GUIs years later? Do you not know that Linux is a not Unix?
OS X is not Linux. They do not use the same kernel. They do not use the same GUI. Open source code that has found its way into both OSes has more to do with the fact that Linux emulated Unix by design, not the other way around. Windows also uses open source code but that doesn't make it Linux or Unix or OS X.
Oh I'm completely aware of this. They all have to start somewhere..... Jesus, a lot of Linux distros don't even use the same kernel. I see I've touched a sore point.... But the fact is that they are very similar... I know the history of his company and how he used open source for his own profit and greed...(just pushing buttons). No really though... it's very similar man.. That's not a bad thing. Why do you think it's a bad thing that it's based on Linux? Sure we can go back to Unix and say everything is based on that...but I'm saying OSX is closer to linux than it is to anything else and yes Apple certainly barrows heavily from the Linux world. You are in love with a brand just like I love pepsi more than Coke...I'm just saying theirs an Uncola out there.
You do realize that in my previous post that I never said the XPS 16 is better than the MBP at base price. I said it is almost as good in terms of the hardware comparison. Yet you ignored the fact that i said that and use every detail you can to try to make the MBP look better. Well I am not disagreeing with you. But just for a moment, think about the normal person who doesn't know a lot looking at these two machines and compare them. One would think that a notebook that cost $2500 bucks is better in every single way compared to the one that cost $1600. But it is not. Even down to some of the basic hardware the MBP is obviously inferior(HD, Sound, video card...just to name a few).
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The bottom line is that you should choose the machine that fits your needs. We live in a free market so we are not limited to choosing one one machine because someone tells it's good enough for all our needs. I like a machine that feels and performs a certain way but have no problem with you choosing a different machine, but don't tell me and others that our choices are wrong because you can't see why a faster, newer arch processor would cost more or why a longer lasting battery isn't important just so long as you have a battery or why an IPS display isn't better than a TN display, etc.
Why do you keep assuming that I think everyone is wrong when they buy a mac???Are mac user that sensitive that they think people are trying to restrict their free will every time some sort of criticism is thrown at a MAC? Come now you're attacking pc in this post. You even used words such as "junk" to describe products made by hp. Am I getting all up in arms and accusing you of trying to tell me what to do?Hate to see what happen if i were to call a MAC a shinny overpriced trendy junk. Oops I just did.
Please don't accuse me of doing things that I did not do. I didn't tell you not to buy a mac. I didn't tell you it's wrong to buy a mac. I didn't say the earth is going to explode if you bought a mac. If you actually read, or care to considered, what I wrote earlier as a response to your post you will understand why I responded to this article. I simply took offense to the article suggesting that Mac and PC are comparable in terms of price. Now you can go throw your money down a well, burn it, smoke it, or buy a Mac for all I care.
From the perspective of a PC guy who doesn't use Windows I'm just saying both company's treat their customers like Junk. Apple for over charging and Windows for it's bad business practices. You should all feel taken advantage of because you have been. I've been overcharged for stuff too, it doesn't feel good and it feels worse when someone points it out.
Oh I'm completely aware of this. They all have to start somewhere..... Jesus, a lot of Linux distros don't even use the same kernel. I see I've touched a sore point.... But the fact is that they are very similar... I know the history of his company and how he used open source for his own profit and greed...(just pushing buttons). No really though... it's very similar man.. That's not a bad thing. Why do you think it's a bad thing that it's based on Linux? Sure we can go back to Unix and say everything is based on that...but I'm saying OSX is closer to linux than it is to anything else and yes Apple certainly barrows heavily from the Linux world. You are in love with a brand just like I love pepsi more than Coke...I'm just saying theirs an Uncola out there.
Linux was introduced in 1991, Mac OS X used the Mach Kernal and OpenStep from the 1980's. Linux is a flavor of Unix, Mac OS X is a flavor of Unix, but Mac OS X is NOT a flavor of Linux, Linux and Mac OS X took different paths, which is why a lot of Linux commands do NOT work in the Mac OS X Terminal, and vice versa.
I have a lion li case I got for 120 bucks- small form factor and polished aluminum.
A AMD phenom 2 running at 3.8 gigs I bought for 200 bucks.
A ATI graphics card 4870 I bought for 150 bucks.
Gigabyte mother board for 75 bucks.
6 gigs of ddr 2 1066 for 75 bucks
A 500 watt power supply for 50 bucks
An operating system for 0 dollars
This is not a top of the line PC
These specs are better than anything you can get in a Mac and I put it together for $650.00.
You can blow any Mac away for a grand. Crap, you can build a PC that can control small country's for $1500
I think that says a lot.
Yes Macs do hold value better, but jesus in the tech world nothing should ever hold it's value unless youre completely delusional as to how your components age VS software.
They hold value beacuse people dont get how stuff works.
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.
Have fun with your Dull. Goodbye.
I compute on the platform that delivers the performance and aesthetics that I want. I don't give a damn if it cost me more..it's what I want.
So your telling me that OSX under no circumstances barrows any code from Linux at all? zip zero notta? And for that mater apple doesn't lift ideas from linux distros or other open source? I admitted they arent exactly the same, but it's like homosapien and neanderthal. They diverged but they still look an awful lot alike.
I'm sure it will be easy to start talking about what microsoft barrows...but I'm not talking about MS here.
So your telling me that OSX under no circumstances barrows any code from Linux at all? zip zero notta?
Look, it's not that hard to inform yourself, mitz. Connect to the series of tubes known as the Internets and do some research. I'll even help you out--start here:
I don't give a damn if it cost me more..it's what I want.
And here is the overriding factor in with Macs - the lust factor. I can't say I have ever heard anyone lust after the HP that this guy picked up in the commercial ("ooh, I can't wait for it to come out"). Since Jobs returned to Apple (in 98, right?), this has been the direction the company has gone in, and one that the rest of the industry has reluctantly moved in. Anyone remember what PCs looked like before the iMac was introduced? terrible. Since then, people actually started to care about what their machines looked like. Mac haters can say what they want, without Apple you'd still be working on a beige box with a boring OS.
The only PCs that seem to compete with this is the Vaio line, which isn't that cheaper when you look at specs. the Adamo is another example. Lets face it, would Dell have hyped this thing, let alone released it at all, if the general public wanted economy over design?
Microsoft is trying to convince people to "settle" for a PC, and usually its what the average windows user does. They look for an average OS, one that they use at the office, go to a big box store, and get another computer. Apple products (not just the computers) are things that people actually "want". Lets face it, here in Vancouver in the Pacific Centre Mall we have an Apple Store and a Sony Store - which one do you think is packed all of the time? Apple it is. Same with the Futureshop (basically a Best Buy for the US peeps) - no one looking at PCs, everyone looking at the Mac table.
We can have people from both sides of the aisle debate the pros and cons of each platform, but the average consumer could care less. Most are ignorant on specs (if these commercials succede, that would all but prove it), but everyone is capable of actually "wanting" a product. Every person on this board has made this decision at some store. If not, we'd all be eating generic food from Walmart and wearing sweatsuits. People sometimes choose to get something more expensive because the "want" it instead of settling for something else. Some people do this with computers. And that's basically what Microsoft is telling us with these commercials: "when you have to settle, buy PC"
"Better than anything you can get in a Mac," eh? Not hardly, mitz. You really haven't a clue, do you?
He meant anything you can get in a mac that cost $650. Are there any Mac that come close to that price?O yes...the mini. I guess you would prefer the mini over the spec that mitz have. Probably for the stylish looking lunch box and the great OSX.
Coming from a jack-of-all-trades experience in all things computing, I'd like to throw my two cents in with the whole Microsoft advertising campaign. I think there's a little bit of "everyone is right, and everyone is wrong" involved here. Let's leave the more obvious things aside -- the malware, viruses, etc., simply because those are external forces. Let's talk about inherent traits of both the Mac and Windows approach to user experience.
I've used a huge variety of systems over my time... CP/M, Apple ][ DOS, MS-DOS, Windows/286, Windows 3.xx, OS/2 2.0 - OS/2 4.0, Linux/GNOME, Linux/KDE, Linux/Enlightenment, Linux with no X server installed... Solaris, Windows 95-98-Me, Windows NT-2000-XP-Vista-7, AIX, XENIX, OS/400, Commodore 64, AmigaOS... and the list goes on for a while yet. In other words, I have pretty good experience with a broad range of user environments, from personal computers to mainframes and back again. I have seen really brilliant stuff on very limited hardware (AmigaOS comes to mind here) and absolute bone-headed design (ie, pre-Ubuntu Linux distributions with millions of menu options to overwhelm even power-users).
What I find particularly useful about what Apple has accomplished with Mac OS X is expressed in a very basic metric: how much does the system allow me to accomplish without the computer being a hinderance to my work? In the case of OS X, it is the best I have used with that respect.
Compare and contrast the user experience of a Windows machine to a Mac. Plug in a USB "keychain" drive. On the Mac, the OS adds an icon for that drive on your desktop, and creates a link in the /Volumes directory. That's all. On the Windows machine, a "balloon" pops up, with a sound, confirming that it recognized the drive. Another pops up soon afterwards, stating what kind of device it is. Then it pops up yet another balloon with the proper name of the device. Finally a balloon pops up to let you know the device is ready.
While these two sequences of events might seem trivial to examine, they provide deep insight into the mindset of Apple and Microsoft as software companies. Apple has a "zen"-like approach of keeping distractions to a minimum, breaking the user from his work flow only when absolutely necessary. They enforce this with strict UI standards for developers and tools within XCode to bring about a more consistent, low-key interface. The net effect of all this, plus the insistence on high-quality displays and interface hardware, creates a system that connects on a very deep human level in a near-symbiotic relationship. It's akin to a craftsman who has his one favorite tool; don't dare to make him use another one. The tool and the craftsman have become one. The same goes for a great computer interface and the user.
Now, let's look at Windows. Microsoft designed it around the "am I doing it right, boss?" approach. The system feels the need to inform you every time it's doing some piece of work for you. The problem with Microsoft's approach is that it is extremely disruptive to keeping a continuous thought pattern going with your desired task accomplishments. Windows requires the user to attend to a message that may or may not be trivial, each one requiring the same amount of momentary breaks in concentration. Add a more lax standard for developers' interfaces, and the Windows environment becomes cranial clutter; each application requiring the brain to slightly re-tool itself.
Now what on earth does any of this have to do with the Microsoft ad campaign? Well, it's quite simple. Microsoft can (rightly) go on TV and state that you can buy a cheaper computer. What it cannot claim is that you will be more productive with that Windows-based system, because most likely you will find yourself working around the distractions inherent in Microsoft's software philosophy. That is why Microsoft is betting good money over bad with this ad campaign -- because it's very difficult to pin down, in "bumper sticker" language, just why the experience of working on a Mac is better. Macs are better machines because they allow you to tap your creative potential with fewer encumbrances. The problem is -- put that in an ad.
Comments
The difference in buying a Mac or a PC is the same as buying a Honda or a Kia.
Macs actually hold their value. There's a reason PC manufacturers are cutting their own throats to try to sell you something with virtually no profit margin what so ever.
You keep buying it if that's your prerogative.
I like my mac.
*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'm ok with going down this Road. OSX is a collection of other open source software combined with proprietary Apple software. I say Linux because it's the open source that everyone knows but they borrow quite a bit off other opensource. I'm using Linux as a generic term much like everyon else who doesn't understand distros and Gnm, BSD. You guys like the front end but.... It heavily borrows on Ideas within the linux world. Most of the things you like about OSX were available on linux back in 2002 or so.
So Windows is Linux, based on your logic, or lack of it?
Do you not know that OS X came from NeXT which was bought by Apple and was the non-consumer company started by Job s after he left Apple back in the mid-1980s? Do you not know that it was based off of FreeBSD and that the GUI they created was pushed into the Mac OS, Windows, and Linux GUIs years later? Do you not know that Linux is a not Unix?
OS X is not Linux. They do not use the same kernel. They do not use the same GUI. Open source code that has found its way into both OSes has more to do with the fact that Linux emulated Unix by design, not the other way around. Windows also uses open source code but that doesn't make it Linux or Unix or OS X.
Everything you can do on a Mac, you can do on a PC/Windows.
Really?
- can you snag the power cord unconcerned that your fumble may pull your PC laptop crashing down on the floor?
- can you put your PC laptop into target disk mode so that its internal drive can be accessed and used as an external drive on another computer?
- can you run your 17" PC laptop for well over 6 hours on the internal battery alone?
- does your PC laptop provide two internal video cards?
- does your PC laptop's trackpad support multi-touch gestures?
- can your PC be safely used for Internet activities without malware protection?
- does your PC provide built-in dual boot capability?
- does your Windows PC provide pre-configured plug-and-play backup?
- does your Windows PC provide built-in virtual workspace capability?
- can you play commercial movie DVDs without installation of additional software?
...and so much more, without even taking into account the integrated capabilities of the iLife suite...
PhoenixRising, you really shouldn't post unless you know what you're talking about...
Plus you can game (natively) and upgrade your components! Shock, horror...
Is that what you felt when you discovered that Mac users can game natively and upgrade their systems' components?
The bottom line is that you should choose the machine that fits your needs. We live in a free market so we are not limited to choosing one one machine because someone tells it's good enough for all our needs. I like a machine that feels and performs a certain way but have no problem with you choosing a different machine, but don't tell me and others that our choices are wrong because you can't see why a faster, newer arch processor would cost more or why a longer lasting battery isn't important just so long as you have a battery or why an IPS display isn't better than a TN display, etc.
Why do you keep assuming that I think everyone is wrong when they buy a mac???Are mac user that sensitive that they think people are trying to restrict their free will every time some sort of criticism is thrown at a MAC? Come now you're attacking pc in this post. You even used words such as "junk" to describe products made by hp. Am I getting all up in arms and accusing you of trying to tell me what to do?Hate to see what happen if i were to call a MAC a shinny overpriced trendy junk. Oops I just did.
Please don't accuse me of doing things that I did not do. I didn't tell you not to buy a mac. I didn't tell you it's wrong to buy a mac. I didn't say the earth is going to explode if you bought a mac. If you actually read, or care to considered, what I wrote earlier as a response to your post you will understand why I responded to this article. I simply took offense to the article suggesting that Mac and PC are comparable in terms of price. Now you can go throw your money down a well, burn it, smoke it, or buy a Mac for all I care.
to be fair, they also live in attics and drink coke.
sweet !!!!!!!!!
Simbian.
The word is: Symbian. Wasn't your spell checker screaming at you? If you are going to try and insult someone, at least get the spelling correct.
Oh I'm completely aware of this. They all have to start somewhere..... Jesus, a lot of Linux distros don't even use the same kernel. I see I've touched a sore point.... But the fact is that they are very similar... I know the history of his company and how he used open source for his own profit and greed...(just pushing buttons). No really though... it's very similar man.. That's not a bad thing. Why do you think it's a bad thing that it's based on Linux? Sure we can go back to Unix and say everything is based on that...but I'm saying OSX is closer to linux than it is to anything else and yes Apple certainly barrows heavily from the Linux world. You are in love with a brand just like I love pepsi more than Coke...I'm just saying theirs an Uncola out there.
Linux was introduced in 1991, Mac OS X used the Mach Kernal and OpenStep from the 1980's. Linux is a flavor of Unix, Mac OS X is a flavor of Unix, but Mac OS X is NOT a flavor of Linux, Linux and Mac OS X took different paths, which is why a lot of Linux commands do NOT work in the Mac OS X Terminal, and vice versa.
I have a lion li case I got for 120 bucks- small form factor and polished aluminum.
A AMD phenom 2 running at 3.8 gigs I bought for 200 bucks.
A ATI graphics card 4870 I bought for 150 bucks.
Gigabyte mother board for 75 bucks.
6 gigs of ddr 2 1066 for 75 bucks
A 500 watt power supply for 50 bucks
An operating system for 0 dollars
This is not a top of the line PC
These specs are better than anything you can get in a Mac and I put it together for $650.00.
You can blow any Mac away for a grand. Crap, you can build a PC that can control small country's for $1500
I think that says a lot.
Yes Macs do hold value better, but jesus in the tech world nothing should ever hold it's value unless youre completely delusional as to how your components age VS software.
They hold value beacuse people dont get how stuff works.
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.
Have fun with your Dull. Goodbye.
I compute on the platform that delivers the performance and aesthetics that I want. I don't give a damn if it cost me more..it's what I want.
I'm sure it will be easy to start talking about what microsoft barrows...but I'm not talking about MS here.
To give you a spec idea......
I have a lion li case I got for 120 bucks- small form factor and polished aluminum.
A AMD phenom 2 running at 3.8 gigs I bought for 200 bucks.
A ATI graphics card 4870 I bought for 150 bucks.
Gigabyte mother board for 75 bucks.
6 gigs of ddr 2 1066 for 75 bucks
A 500 watt power supply for 50 bucks
An operating system for 0 dollars
This is not a top of the line PC
These specs are better than anything you can get in a Mac and I put it together for $650.00.
"Better than anything you can get in a Mac," eh? Not hardly, mitz. You really haven't a clue, do you?
So your telling me that OSX under no circumstances barrows any code from Linux at all? zip zero notta?
Look, it's not that hard to inform yourself, mitz. Connect to the series of tubes known as the Internets and do some research. I'll even help you out--start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
I don't give a damn if it cost me more..it's what I want.
And here is the overriding factor in with Macs - the lust factor. I can't say I have ever heard anyone lust after the HP that this guy picked up in the commercial ("ooh, I can't wait for it to come out"). Since Jobs returned to Apple (in 98, right?), this has been the direction the company has gone in, and one that the rest of the industry has reluctantly moved in. Anyone remember what PCs looked like before the iMac was introduced? terrible. Since then, people actually started to care about what their machines looked like. Mac haters can say what they want, without Apple you'd still be working on a beige box with a boring OS.
The only PCs that seem to compete with this is the Vaio line, which isn't that cheaper when you look at specs. the Adamo is another example. Lets face it, would Dell have hyped this thing, let alone released it at all, if the general public wanted economy over design?
Microsoft is trying to convince people to "settle" for a PC, and usually its what the average windows user does. They look for an average OS, one that they use at the office, go to a big box store, and get another computer. Apple products (not just the computers) are things that people actually "want". Lets face it, here in Vancouver in the Pacific Centre Mall we have an Apple Store and a Sony Store - which one do you think is packed all of the time? Apple it is. Same with the Futureshop (basically a Best Buy for the US peeps) - no one looking at PCs, everyone looking at the Mac table.
We can have people from both sides of the aisle debate the pros and cons of each platform, but the average consumer could care less. Most are ignorant on specs (if these commercials succede, that would all but prove it), but everyone is capable of actually "wanting" a product. Every person on this board has made this decision at some store. If not, we'd all be eating generic food from Walmart and wearing sweatsuits. People sometimes choose to get something more expensive because the "want" it instead of settling for something else. Some people do this with computers. And that's basically what Microsoft is telling us with these commercials: "when you have to settle, buy PC"
"Better than anything you can get in a Mac," eh? Not hardly, mitz. You really haven't a clue, do you?
He meant anything you can get in a mac that cost $650. Are there any Mac that come close to that price?O yes...the mini. I guess you would prefer the mini over the spec that mitz have. Probably for the stylish looking lunch box and the great OSX.
Don't you mean NextStep?
Well, technically, OpenStep.
Coming from a jack-of-all-trades experience in all things computing, I'd like to throw my two cents in with the whole Microsoft advertising campaign. I think there's a little bit of "everyone is right, and everyone is wrong" involved here. Let's leave the more obvious things aside -- the malware, viruses, etc., simply because those are external forces. Let's talk about inherent traits of both the Mac and Windows approach to user experience.
I've used a huge variety of systems over my time... CP/M, Apple ][ DOS, MS-DOS, Windows/286, Windows 3.xx, OS/2 2.0 - OS/2 4.0, Linux/GNOME, Linux/KDE, Linux/Enlightenment, Linux with no X server installed... Solaris, Windows 95-98-Me, Windows NT-2000-XP-Vista-7, AIX, XENIX, OS/400, Commodore 64, AmigaOS... and the list goes on for a while yet. In other words, I have pretty good experience with a broad range of user environments, from personal computers to mainframes and back again. I have seen really brilliant stuff on very limited hardware (AmigaOS comes to mind here) and absolute bone-headed design (ie, pre-Ubuntu Linux distributions with millions of menu options to overwhelm even power-users).
What I find particularly useful about what Apple has accomplished with Mac OS X is expressed in a very basic metric: how much does the system allow me to accomplish without the computer being a hinderance to my work? In the case of OS X, it is the best I have used with that respect.
Compare and contrast the user experience of a Windows machine to a Mac. Plug in a USB "keychain" drive. On the Mac, the OS adds an icon for that drive on your desktop, and creates a link in the /Volumes directory. That's all. On the Windows machine, a "balloon" pops up, with a sound, confirming that it recognized the drive. Another pops up soon afterwards, stating what kind of device it is. Then it pops up yet another balloon with the proper name of the device. Finally a balloon pops up to let you know the device is ready.
While these two sequences of events might seem trivial to examine, they provide deep insight into the mindset of Apple and Microsoft as software companies. Apple has a "zen"-like approach of keeping distractions to a minimum, breaking the user from his work flow only when absolutely necessary. They enforce this with strict UI standards for developers and tools within XCode to bring about a more consistent, low-key interface. The net effect of all this, plus the insistence on high-quality displays and interface hardware, creates a system that connects on a very deep human level in a near-symbiotic relationship. It's akin to a craftsman who has his one favorite tool; don't dare to make him use another one. The tool and the craftsman have become one. The same goes for a great computer interface and the user.
Now, let's look at Windows. Microsoft designed it around the "am I doing it right, boss?" approach. The system feels the need to inform you every time it's doing some piece of work for you. The problem with Microsoft's approach is that it is extremely disruptive to keeping a continuous thought pattern going with your desired task accomplishments. Windows requires the user to attend to a message that may or may not be trivial, each one requiring the same amount of momentary breaks in concentration. Add a more lax standard for developers' interfaces, and the Windows environment becomes cranial clutter; each application requiring the brain to slightly re-tool itself.
Now what on earth does any of this have to do with the Microsoft ad campaign? Well, it's quite simple. Microsoft can (rightly) go on TV and state that you can buy a cheaper computer. What it cannot claim is that you will be more productive with that Windows-based system, because most likely you will find yourself working around the distractions inherent in Microsoft's software philosophy. That is why Microsoft is betting good money over bad with this ad campaign -- because it's very difficult to pin down, in "bumper sticker" language, just why the experience of working on a Mac is better. Macs are better machines because they allow you to tap your creative potential with fewer encumbrances. The problem is -- put that in an ad.