Continuing its advertising campaign which seeks to promote generic PCs running Windows as more attractive than Macs, Microsoft's latest spot plays up specifications over aesthetics as opposed to just suggesting that PCs are simply cheaper as the previous spot did. However, it ends up making the opposite point instead.
Not wuite true, lets dissect:
Quote:
Following Lauren, the latest ad introduces Giampaolo, who says he's looking for portability, battery life, and power. "I'm technically savvy," he says, "I know what I want. I like a computer that allows me to customize." He's shown shopping at Fry's Electronics, where he picks up a unibody MacBook and says, "This is so sexy!"
Giampaolo then explains why he can't buy it, saying, "Macs to me are all about aesthetics more than they are the computing power. I don't want to pay for the brand, I want to pay for the computer."
Of course, it's really Microsoft that's paying for Giampaolo's computer, and Steve Ballmer is not going to pick up the tab for a MacBook. So instead, Giampaolo uses his $1500 budget to ultimately buy an HP Pavilion HDX 16t, which he says has everything he needs.
there is more to it than that...
Quote:
On HP's website, that model starts at $1000. At Fry's, the salesman in the ad points out its typical configuration of $1,100, although HP's "recommended configuration" is $1400, still within Giampaolo's budget. However, it's an odd choice for somebody who wants portability, as the 16" widescreen model he lugs out of Fry's weighs over 7.3 pounds naked, almost twice as much as the "sexy" MacBook that's "all about aesthetics."
Portability is a matter of opinion and use...I am tall and strong, and my laptop goes from my desk to my car and into the office, so anything under 10 LBS is portable to me...a small framed executive who travels 5 days a week needs 3 or so LBS to be "portable"
Quote:
HP certainly isn't "all about aesthetics." The cheap plastic body of the HP Pavilion HDX 16t is 1.7 inches thick, nearly twice as bulky as the MacBook. All that size surrounds a large 16" screen with a miserably low density 1366x768 screen resolution. Giampaolo could upgrade to the 1920x1080 option, but that would have bumped him over his artificial $1500 ad budget, even when applying a $200 instant rebate HP offers.
OK, you need to be comparing this thing to a macbook pro, I will ecplain why...keep reading...
Quote:
Battery life not so good
"What would have the best battery life, that could still accommodate my needs?" Giampaolo asked while shopping. It sure wasn't what he picked out.
HP rates its built-in battery for less than 3 hours, but reviewers gave it less than two. That's not very good at all for its category. HP also offers a $150 expansion battery that hangs off the back of the already large system to give it twice the battery life. The "sexy" MacBook is rated for 5 hours with a single battery.
Running Vista on an early 2008 macbook, I get 1:45 tops...vista is the problem. I get about 3-4 under OSX 10.5
Quote:
"It's a pretty strong contender"
In terms of power, Giampaolo's third primary need, the "recommended configuration" of the HP Pavilion HDX 16t that he apparently purchased ships with a 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo P7450 paired with 4GB of PC2-5300 DDR2 RAM, which is a slower memory architecture than Apple was shipping in early 2006 MacBooks three years ago.
The latest MacBooks that Giampaolo feared were "all about aesthetics" pair a Core 2 Duo P7350 or P8600 with PC3-8500 DDR3 RAM, delivering a peak transfer rate that's twice as fast as the HP machine Giampaolo selected.
So much for Macs being about "aesthetics more than they are the computing power," or Giampaolo being "technically savvy."
Hopefully, Giampaolo is at least technologically savvy enough to upgrade to the 64-bit version of Windows Vista (or downgrade to the 64-bit version of Windows XP) in order to actually take advantage of that 4GB of RAM, as the standard version of Windows can only actually use about 3GB of it, a technical problem he wouldn't face on the MacBook.
Given that only a fraction of the PC installed base runs a 64-bit version of Windows (Microsoft reported that less than 6% of users hitting its software update servers were running 64-bit Vista last June), there's lots of "technically savvy" PC users with loads of installed RAM their computer can't even use.
And while Giampaolo can upgrade to even more RAM, he can't upgrade his new system to use the faster DDR3 RAM specification used in the MacBook. That would make his system faster overall and allow it to take full advantage of the installed CPU's 1066MHz front side bus, which HP chose to cripple by pairing it with a 533MHz memory architecture to save money and deliver a cheap system for people who don't know what they're really buying as they shop at Fry's for good-sounding GB and MHz numbers rather than focusing on finding a computer that does the things they want it to do.
DDR2, older chipset, I give you that but 4GB of slower ram is better than 2gb faster ram, because slow DDR2 is still thousands of times faster than the HDD interface and swapping. Furthermore, this model ships with Vista 64 bit, as does every 4GB+ pc in the last year or so, since SP1
Quote:
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.
Movie Maker and Picasa are FREE...The only 2 apps that I dont have a good answer for is iweb and GB, but I use audition and Dream weaver (and mostly text editors) so I dont know about the consumery stuff...
2 years of full protection from eset NOD32 is $90, Symantec for OSX is 49/year
Click the big green shield on Windows on first boot and you get all updates installed in the background Mac cant do that...I have to click apple->check for updates
Quote:
The strangest point of this ad is that Giampaolo didn't get the portability, battery life, and power he was looking for, he just ended up with a cheap-appearing machine that obscured its real technical limitations under a flashy layer of misleading, specification-oriented marketing, the very thing he thought he was avoiding with HP: buying a brand rather than a computer. And that's exactly what Microsoft wants people to do: buy its brand rather than a computer that does what they want it to do.
Microsoft is fortunate the general public hasn't been exposed to a mac. This ad campaign will not bring back anyone who has given up on Microsoft.
There were no cost comparisons like this happening when we purchased out macbook two years ago. If you priced a mac against a vista system the mac was a better value. The mac OS was x64 native compared to the higher end vista versions. The higher end vista versions needed a more expensive graphics card to handle vista and more memory. Vista would only recognize 3G of that memory. Does Microsoft let you use multiple CPU's without an additional fee?
The feature set included with OSX should be compared. We needed to make movies from our digital video camera. We wasted several hours tracking down codec errors and DRM on windows. We wasted more money on additional software. The little white macbook gave us quick success making movies on the first try and we have never had a sigabort, system error, freeze or codec error.
Look deeper into why Microsoft is loosing market share and you will find it isn't the logo or trying to be cool.It's because users are tired of the frustration, security and performance of Microsoft based operating systems.
I recently switched over to Macs from PCs after several years of getting over the price hurdle, but bought two Mac Minis (new one for my parents, old Power PC one off eBay for myself). My main concern about buying any of the notebooks was the small displays except for the Macbook pro 17". Do the owners of the 13" usually use them with a large external monitor and use the laptop's display while only on the road, or is there some feature of OS X I'm missing that makes the small display a non-issue?
...Apple store is a different environment completely. At least you can actually get someone to help you. As always...no contest microsoft...keep trying.
I wouldn't go that far. Out of the 15 or so people on the floor there is usually only 2 of them that know anything beyond iPhone, iPod, iLife, and OS X. The one person who could answer my program is always either on break, off for the day, or has a 2 hour line of people waiting to see him/her. I find most people there to be as equally annoying as at any CompUSA or BestBuy.
Yecch, I wouldn't touch a Windows box with a ten-foot pole.
that brings up a lot of interesting questions. would you touch it with an eleven foot pole? are there things that you would touch *only* with a ten foot pole? Like, I would touch that with a ten foot pole, but a nine foot pole would just be too close.
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?
No offence, but "it's the software, stupid"! OS X, iLife, iWork, Final Cut, Logic, Aperture, Photo Booth, Front Row, other unique Mac software ... plus the ability to run Windows too if you need to slum it (more reliably than PCs, if you believe some surveys/reviews).
But it's also the hardware: lightweight but rigid unibody design, Multi-Touch trackpad, light-sensing backlit keyboard, iSight webcam, LED display, MagSafe adapter ...
Worth well over $900 to myself and millions of other enlightened Apple customers.
The equivalent of the MacBook is an HP DV3; they cost about $650-$1000, depending on configuration and weigh about 4.3 pounds.
Of course, the best way of running it is with Ubuntu: that way, you get inexpensive hardware, a great UI, and tons of free software. It beats both Apple and Microsoft hands down.
How about these ideas for future Apple Commercials...
1. Someone with a Window machine gets the credit
card bill and realizes someone has stolen their identity
from spyware on their computer....yeah, but windows is
cheaper...
2. Someone buys a "less expensive computer". Then show
them all the other crap they have to buy antivirus,
Microsoft office,backup software, etc. then provide the real
total....yeah but Windows is cheaper.
3. Show all these news reports about Conflicker and all of
the potential issues it might create, also show news about
other nasty virus issues in the past. Then show a chart at
the amount of viruses for Windows, then show OS X...yeah
but Windows is cheaper.
4. Show someone who buys Windows machine and most of
their older programs don't work on it. Then have the
person go back in the store explaining that she doesn't
understand why windows programs don't work on the
Windows Vista platform...yeah but Windows is cheaper.
That being said, I think the commercials are actually pretty good because they re-enforce what people already think of Apple computers... they're too expensive. It doesn't provide facts, but people will believe them regardless.
Doesn't matter, Microsoft is losing ground. It's not the same company it was 5 years ago and i won't be the same company 5 years from now. If low price is their main selling point, Canonical should release a commercial for Ubuntu, it's free!
I recently switched over to Macs from PCs after several years of getting over the price hurdle, but bought two Mac Minis (new one for my parents, old Power PC one off eBay for myself). My main concern about buying any of the notebooks was the small displays except for the Macbook pro 17". Do the owners of the 13" usually use them with a large external monitor and use the laptop's display while only on the road, or is there some feature of OS X I'm missing that makes the small display a non-issue?
Thanks!
I use a 13"
I imagine the 17" would be more used for a desktop replacement. In which case, an external monitor might also be a valid option.
but when I'm working on my laptop at home, or anywhere else, i rarely have a need for a bigger screen.
the only situation would be when i'm watching a movie with a friend. but that's more out of laziness...i have a tv that i usually use for that anyway, and i could always use my 20" imac if size were any more important to me. or i could buy an external display.
for me, i picked the 13" because i did not need a desktop replacement. i needed portability. i had no need to sacrifice some portability for a larger display. Some people are in that situation, just not me.
I wouldn't go that far. Out of the 15 or so people on the floor there is usually only 2 of them that know anything beyond iPhone, iPod, iLife, and OS X. The one person who could answer my program is always either on break, off for the day, or has a 2 hour line of people waiting to see him/her. I find most people there to be as equally annoying as at any CompUSA or BestBuy.
I actually agree with that. It's hit and miss at the apple store.
I recently switched over to Macs from PCs after several years of getting over the price hurdle, but bought two Mac Minis (new one for my parents, old Power PC one off eBay for myself). My main concern about buying any of the notebooks was the small displays except for the Macbook pro 17". Do the owners of the 13" usually use them with a large external monitor and use the laptop's display while only on the road, or is there some feature of OS X I'm missing that makes the small display a non-issue?
Thanks!
I'm over 50 and have both an iMac and Macbook. I use the iMac as a server for my music, movies etc. I use MacBook for portability and fun internet activities. (Email, web etc). The screen is not too small for me and yet I have significant eye problems .
I think it all depends on what you want to do. If its video editing , photography then perhaps a big screen is for you.
Welcome to a bunch of trolls that have turned this place into CNET? I don't post much, because I usually enjoy the exchanges between the more experienced and knowledgeable members.
However, you knew this was going to turn into flamebait. Just look at all the people who just signed up to give us their "wisdom"... a total infestation of people decrying "fanboys" and defending the honor of Microsoft and Linux and Ubuntu. (in fairness, some people who joined did so to defend Apple, but really -- this is the sort of thing that makes you want to contribute to a forum?)
I guess this site needed the traffic.
aqnguyen87
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tx
Posts: 2
ssampier
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
kim chi <-------- the first real troll poster
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
HiFivinFisto
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
delpt
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
qwerty
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
EndoFallTime
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
mj93284
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
randomdude
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
archangel3700
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
codedude
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
overdue
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
2kunlimited
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
joindup
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
jegs
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
Icarusmk2
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
What a great post (welcome yourself, newbie... )! I thought it was worthy of repeating, so I included the whole post in my reply.
Yeah, the level of trolling does seem to have gone up in proportion to AI's visibility. Too bad. I had found this forum to be such a sanctuary of largely like-minded Apple types who were not raging computing-bigots. I truly hope it doesn't end up like an engadget.com or cnet.com.
But what can you do.....
PS: Oops.... sorry for calling you a newbie! Although you had only 7 posts as of this one (hence my assumption), I noticed that you've been around since December 2007!
OK. If someone gave you , say, 18 grand and told you to buy a car that could go from A to B at the speed limit all day, and you could keep the change, you'd end up with... a Kia? That Beemer's just too fancy, man. You don't need it. The Honda is all frills. Both have engines, right? and 4 tires. and a gas cap.... Hell, why spend more for what you don't "need" (we'll tell you what you need, buddy.)
What a great post (welcome yourself, newbie... )! I thought it was worthy of repeating, so I included the whole post in my reply.
Yeah, the level of trolling does seem to have gone up in proportion to AI's visibility. Too bad. I had found this forum to be such a sanctuary of largely like-minded Apple types who were not raging computing-bigots. I truly hope it doesn't end up like an engadget.com or cnet.com.
But what can you do.... ...
It's not so much trolls as astro-turfing.
Microsoft pays people to come to forums like this when the advertisements are released and "play Lauren" and pretend to be regular consumers asking seemingly polite but purposely slanted questions of the Mac aficionados. It happens every time there is a Microsoft ad campaign and most of these accounts will never be seen again once the campaign is over and they aren't being paid.
Most of the people in that list (who are new here today) are quite literallypaid shills for Microsoft.
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!
So it was ok when Microsoft had 50 billion in the bank?
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!
Totally wrong dude.
Apple's profit margin on everything they sell is 32%.
Microsoft's profit margin on their stuff is 82%.
Microsoft is the one ripping you blind.
They are also the ones *forcing* the PC hardware manufacturers onto razor thin margins to compensate for the huge extra cost of their bloated OS.
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.
You're doing something wrong. the 5 hour battery life only works with a couple applications open (mostly word processing). I've gotten 6 hours out of this thing for taking notes in class (I have the top-of-the-line 15"). Of course, in that situation the screen (not the computer) puts itself to sleep if I haven't taken notes in a few minutes. Normally, semi-active use, I can get about 4-5hours of use on low screen and airport off. Also, my battery is at 100 cycles and 89% capacity... so as I said before, you are doing something wrong, or not understanding how the benchmarks work.
But you know people are just going to look at a spec sheet and see faster processor, more RAM, bigger hard drive, bigger screen, dedicated graphics, less money and agree that he made the right choice.
Apple's profit margin on everything they sell is 32%.
Microsoft's profit margin on their stuff is 82%.
Microsoft is the one ripping you blind.
They are also the ones *forcing* the PC hardware manufacturers onto razor thin margins to compensate for the huge extra cost of their bloated OS.
Apple's hardware margin is 32%. You know they're making more than that on software sales - everyone does. Microsoft is a software company. HP is probably lucky to make 10% on their hardware.
Comments
Continuing its advertising campaign which seeks to promote generic PCs running Windows as more attractive than Macs, Microsoft's latest spot plays up specifications over aesthetics as opposed to just suggesting that PCs are simply cheaper as the previous spot did. However, it ends up making the opposite point instead.
Not wuite true, lets dissect:
Following Lauren, the latest ad introduces Giampaolo, who says he's looking for portability, battery life, and power. "I'm technically savvy," he says, "I know what I want. I like a computer that allows me to customize." He's shown shopping at Fry's Electronics, where he picks up a unibody MacBook and says, "This is so sexy!"
Giampaolo then explains why he can't buy it, saying, "Macs to me are all about aesthetics more than they are the computing power. I don't want to pay for the brand, I want to pay for the computer."
Of course, it's really Microsoft that's paying for Giampaolo's computer, and Steve Ballmer is not going to pick up the tab for a MacBook. So instead, Giampaolo uses his $1500 budget to ultimately buy an HP Pavilion HDX 16t, which he says has everything he needs.
there is more to it than that...
On HP's website, that model starts at $1000. At Fry's, the salesman in the ad points out its typical configuration of $1,100, although HP's "recommended configuration" is $1400, still within Giampaolo's budget. However, it's an odd choice for somebody who wants portability, as the 16" widescreen model he lugs out of Fry's weighs over 7.3 pounds naked, almost twice as much as the "sexy" MacBook that's "all about aesthetics."
Portability is a matter of opinion and use...I am tall and strong, and my laptop goes from my desk to my car and into the office, so anything under 10 LBS is portable to me...a small framed executive who travels 5 days a week needs 3 or so LBS to be "portable"
HP certainly isn't "all about aesthetics." The cheap plastic body of the HP Pavilion HDX 16t is 1.7 inches thick, nearly twice as bulky as the MacBook. All that size surrounds a large 16" screen with a miserably low density 1366x768 screen resolution. Giampaolo could upgrade to the 1920x1080 option, but that would have bumped him over his artificial $1500 ad budget, even when applying a $200 instant rebate HP offers.
OK, you need to be comparing this thing to a macbook pro, I will ecplain why...keep reading...
Battery life not so good
"What would have the best battery life, that could still accommodate my needs?" Giampaolo asked while shopping. It sure wasn't what he picked out.
HP rates its built-in battery for less than 3 hours, but reviewers gave it less than two. That's not very good at all for its category. HP also offers a $150 expansion battery that hangs off the back of the already large system to give it twice the battery life. The "sexy" MacBook is rated for 5 hours with a single battery.
Running Vista on an early 2008 macbook, I get 1:45 tops...vista is the problem. I get about 3-4 under OSX 10.5
"It's a pretty strong contender"
In terms of power, Giampaolo's third primary need, the "recommended configuration" of the HP Pavilion HDX 16t that he apparently purchased ships with a 2.13 GHz Core 2 Duo P7450 paired with 4GB of PC2-5300 DDR2 RAM, which is a slower memory architecture than Apple was shipping in early 2006 MacBooks three years ago.
The latest MacBooks that Giampaolo feared were "all about aesthetics" pair a Core 2 Duo P7350 or P8600 with PC3-8500 DDR3 RAM, delivering a peak transfer rate that's twice as fast as the HP machine Giampaolo selected.
So much for Macs being about "aesthetics more than they are the computing power," or Giampaolo being "technically savvy."
Hopefully, Giampaolo is at least technologically savvy enough to upgrade to the 64-bit version of Windows Vista (or downgrade to the 64-bit version of Windows XP) in order to actually take advantage of that 4GB of RAM, as the standard version of Windows can only actually use about 3GB of it, a technical problem he wouldn't face on the MacBook.
Given that only a fraction of the PC installed base runs a 64-bit version of Windows (Microsoft reported that less than 6% of users hitting its software update servers were running 64-bit Vista last June), there's lots of "technically savvy" PC users with loads of installed RAM their computer can't even use.
And while Giampaolo can upgrade to even more RAM, he can't upgrade his new system to use the faster DDR3 RAM specification used in the MacBook. That would make his system faster overall and allow it to take full advantage of the installed CPU's 1066MHz front side bus, which HP chose to cripple by pairing it with a 533MHz memory architecture to save money and deliver a cheap system for people who don't know what they're really buying as they shop at Fry's for good-sounding GB and MHz numbers rather than focusing on finding a computer that does the things they want it to do.
DDR2, older chipset, I give you that but 4GB of slower ram is better than 2gb faster ram, because slow DDR2 is still thousands of times faster than the HDD interface and swapping. Furthermore, this model ships with Vista 64 bit, as does every 4GB+ pc in the last year or so, since SP1
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.
Movie Maker and Picasa are FREE...The only 2 apps that I dont have a good answer for is iweb and GB, but I use audition and Dream weaver (and mostly text editors) so I dont know about the consumery stuff...
2 years of full protection from eset NOD32 is $90, Symantec for OSX is 49/year
Click the big green shield on Windows on first boot and you get all updates installed in the background Mac cant do that...I have to click apple->check for updates
The strangest point of this ad is that Giampaolo didn't get the portability, battery life, and power he was looking for, he just ended up with a cheap-appearing machine that obscured its real technical limitations under a flashy layer of misleading, specification-oriented marketing, the very thing he thought he was avoiding with HP: buying a brand rather than a computer. And that's exactly what Microsoft wants people to do: buy its brand rather than a computer that does what they want it to do.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
The HP has a 512 MB 9600GT GPU, the Macbook has a 9400, thus you need to compare the HP to the $1999 macbook pro for the comparison to be fair.
There were no cost comparisons like this happening when we purchased out macbook two years ago. If you priced a mac against a vista system the mac was a better value. The mac OS was x64 native compared to the higher end vista versions. The higher end vista versions needed a more expensive graphics card to handle vista and more memory. Vista would only recognize 3G of that memory. Does Microsoft let you use multiple CPU's without an additional fee?
The feature set included with OSX should be compared. We needed to make movies from our digital video camera. We wasted several hours tracking down codec errors and DRM on windows. We wasted more money on additional software. The little white macbook gave us quick success making movies on the first try and we have never had a sigabort, system error, freeze or codec error.
Look deeper into why Microsoft is loosing market share and you will find it isn't the logo or trying to be cool.It's because users are tired of the frustration, security and performance of Microsoft based operating systems.
LT
I recently switched over to Macs from PCs after several years of getting over the price hurdle, but bought two Mac Minis (new one for my parents, old Power PC one off eBay for myself). My main concern about buying any of the notebooks was the small displays except for the Macbook pro 17". Do the owners of the 13" usually use them with a large external monitor and use the laptop's display while only on the road, or is there some feature of OS X I'm missing that makes the small display a non-issue?
Thanks!
...Apple store is a different environment completely. At least you can actually get someone to help you. As always...no contest microsoft...keep trying.
I wouldn't go that far. Out of the 15 or so people on the floor there is usually only 2 of them that know anything beyond iPhone, iPod, iLife, and OS X. The one person who could answer my program is always either on break, off for the day, or has a 2 hour line of people waiting to see him/her. I find most people there to be as equally annoying as at any CompUSA or BestBuy.
Yecch, I wouldn't touch a Windows box with a ten-foot pole.
that brings up a lot of interesting questions. would you touch it with an eleven foot pole? are there things that you would touch *only* with a ten foot pole? Like, I would touch that with a ten foot pole, but a nine foot pole would just be too close.
come back, demetri martin
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?
No offence, but "it's the software, stupid"! OS X, iLife, iWork, Final Cut, Logic, Aperture, Photo Booth, Front Row, other unique Mac software ... plus the ability to run Windows too if you need to slum it (more reliably than PCs, if you believe some surveys/reviews).
But it's also the hardware: lightweight but rigid unibody design, Multi-Touch trackpad, light-sensing backlit keyboard, iSight webcam, LED display, MagSafe adapter ...
Worth well over $900 to myself and millions of other enlightened Apple customers.
The equivalent of the MacBook is an HP DV3; they cost about $650-$1000, depending on configuration and weigh about 4.3 pounds.
Of course, the best way of running it is with Ubuntu: that way, you get inexpensive hardware, a great UI, and tons of free software. It beats both Apple and Microsoft hands down.
Ok. So where do i get iLife for Ubuntu?
1. Someone with a Window machine gets the credit
card bill and realizes someone has stolen their identity
from spyware on their computer....yeah, but windows is
cheaper...
2. Someone buys a "less expensive computer". Then show
them all the other crap they have to buy antivirus,
Microsoft office,backup software, etc. then provide the real
total....yeah but Windows is cheaper.
3. Show all these news reports about Conflicker and all of
the potential issues it might create, also show news about
other nasty virus issues in the past. Then show a chart at
the amount of viruses for Windows, then show OS X...yeah
but Windows is cheaper.
4. Show someone who buys Windows machine and most of
their older programs don't work on it. Then have the
person go back in the store explaining that she doesn't
understand why windows programs don't work on the
Windows Vista platform...yeah but Windows is cheaper.
That being said, I think the commercials are actually pretty good because they re-enforce what people already think of Apple computers... they're too expensive. It doesn't provide facts, but people will believe them regardless.
Doesn't matter, Microsoft is losing ground. It's not the same company it was 5 years ago and i won't be the same company 5 years from now. If low price is their main selling point, Canonical should release a commercial for Ubuntu, it's free!
Hello all,
I recently switched over to Macs from PCs after several years of getting over the price hurdle, but bought two Mac Minis (new one for my parents, old Power PC one off eBay for myself). My main concern about buying any of the notebooks was the small displays except for the Macbook pro 17". Do the owners of the 13" usually use them with a large external monitor and use the laptop's display while only on the road, or is there some feature of OS X I'm missing that makes the small display a non-issue?
Thanks!
I use a 13"
I imagine the 17" would be more used for a desktop replacement. In which case, an external monitor might also be a valid option.
but when I'm working on my laptop at home, or anywhere else, i rarely have a need for a bigger screen.
the only situation would be when i'm watching a movie with a friend. but that's more out of laziness...i have a tv that i usually use for that anyway, and i could always use my 20" imac if size were any more important to me. or i could buy an external display.
for me, i picked the 13" because i did not need a desktop replacement. i needed portability. i had no need to sacrifice some portability for a larger display. Some people are in that situation, just not me.
I wouldn't go that far. Out of the 15 or so people on the floor there is usually only 2 of them that know anything beyond iPhone, iPod, iLife, and OS X. The one person who could answer my program is always either on break, off for the day, or has a 2 hour line of people waiting to see him/her. I find most people there to be as equally annoying as at any CompUSA or BestBuy.
I actually agree with that. It's hit and miss at the apple store.
Hello all,
I recently switched over to Macs from PCs after several years of getting over the price hurdle, but bought two Mac Minis (new one for my parents, old Power PC one off eBay for myself). My main concern about buying any of the notebooks was the small displays except for the Macbook pro 17". Do the owners of the 13" usually use them with a large external monitor and use the laptop's display while only on the road, or is there some feature of OS X I'm missing that makes the small display a non-issue?
Thanks!
I'm over 50 and have both an iMac and Macbook. I use the iMac as a server for my music, movies etc. I use MacBook for portability and fun internet activities. (Email, web etc). The screen is not too small for me and yet I have significant eye problems .
I think it all depends on what you want to do. If its video editing , photography then perhaps a big screen is for you.
Welcome to a bunch of trolls that have turned this place into CNET? I don't post much, because I usually enjoy the exchanges between the more experienced and knowledgeable members.
However, you knew this was going to turn into flamebait. Just look at all the people who just signed up to give us their "wisdom"... a total infestation of people decrying "fanboys" and defending the honor of Microsoft and Linux and Ubuntu. (in fairness, some people who joined did so to defend Apple, but really -- this is the sort of thing that makes you want to contribute to a forum?)
I guess this site needed the traffic.
aqnguyen87
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tx
Posts: 2
ssampier
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
kim chi <-------- the first real troll poster
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
HiFivinFisto
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
delpt
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
qwerty
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
EndoFallTime
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
mj93284
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
randomdude
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
archangel3700
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
codedude
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
overdue
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
2kunlimited
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
joindup
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
jegs
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
Icarusmk2
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
What a great post (welcome yourself, newbie...
Yeah, the level of trolling does seem to have gone up in proportion to AI's visibility. Too bad. I had found this forum to be such a sanctuary of largely like-minded Apple types who were not raging computing-bigots. I truly hope it doesn't end up like an engadget.com or cnet.com.
But what can you do.....
PS: Oops.... sorry for calling you a newbie! Although you had only 7 posts as of this one (hence my assumption), I noticed that you've been around since December 2007!
What a great post (welcome yourself, newbie...
Yeah, the level of trolling does seem to have gone up in proportion to AI's visibility. Too bad. I had found this forum to be such a sanctuary of largely like-minded Apple types who were not raging computing-bigots. I truly hope it doesn't end up like an engadget.com or cnet.com.
But what can you do.... ...
It's not so much trolls as astro-turfing.
Microsoft pays people to come to forums like this when the advertisements are released and "play Lauren" and pretend to be regular consumers asking seemingly polite but purposely slanted questions of the Mac aficionados. It happens every time there is a Microsoft ad campaign and most of these accounts will never be seen again once the campaign is over and they aren't being paid.
Most of the people in that list (who are new here today) are quite literally paid shills for Microsoft.
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!
So it was ok when Microsoft had 50 billion in the bank?
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!
Totally wrong dude.
Apple's profit margin on everything they sell is 32%.
Microsoft's profit margin on their stuff is 82%.
Microsoft is the one ripping you blind.
They are also the ones *forcing* the PC hardware manufacturers onto razor thin margins to compensate for the huge extra cost of their bloated OS.
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.
You're doing something wrong. the 5 hour battery life only works with a couple applications open (mostly word processing). I've gotten 6 hours out of this thing for taking notes in class (I have the top-of-the-line 15"). Of course, in that situation the screen (not the computer) puts itself to sleep if I haven't taken notes in a few minutes. Normally, semi-active use, I can get about 4-5hours of use on low screen and airport off. Also, my battery is at 100 cycles and 89% capacity... so as I said before, you are doing something wrong, or not understanding how the benchmarks work.
Totally wrong dude.
Apple's profit margin on everything they sell is 32%.
Microsoft's profit margin on their stuff is 82%.
Microsoft is the one ripping you blind.
They are also the ones *forcing* the PC hardware manufacturers onto razor thin margins to compensate for the huge extra cost of their bloated OS.
Apple's hardware margin is 32%. You know they're making more than that on software sales - everyone does. Microsoft is a software company. HP is probably lucky to make 10% on their hardware.