Apple fires its return salvo as Microsoft issues misleading 5th ad

1568101116

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 320
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Your "Have you ever..." comments are wearing thin. Your anecdotal experience has nothing to do with various versions of Windows being to prevent a systemwide crash.



    Have you ever heard of Blue Screen of Death? Do you have any idea why it was named as such and how it often was not caused by a Windows app or directly by the OS but by a 3rd-party app being able to take down the entire machine and why protected memory was needed to begin with?



    I think that was my first 'have you ever' comment. Have you ever learned to count?



    Please enlighten me, exactly how often was the BSOD caused by a 3rd party app taking down the entire machine. Do you have real numbers or anecdotal evidence?



    If you don't like my posts, don't read them!
  • Reply 142 of 320
    amac4meamac4me Posts: 282member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sesnir View Post


    Going the Windows route, you may pay less but the aggravation stays with you forever.



    Nicely put
  • Reply 143 of 320
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by imapcandmac View Post


    I think that was my first 'have you ever' comment. Have you ever learned to count?



    "Have you ever..." and "You ever hear..." fall into the same category. Now you're up to 3 of them.
  • Reply 144 of 320
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    Not true. It is not possible in XP for an application crash to affect the entire system. User space and kernel space are cleanly separated just the same as in OS X.



    Wikpedia states that Windows has had protected memory since Win2000, but I've seen many BSODs that would only happen with certain apps running or trying to perform certain tasks. I didn't think it was until SP2 that they got true protected memory, but that does appear to be incorrect. Since my experiences were not conjured and there obviously are ways for a poorly coded app to bring down WinXP, it must have happened another way. Perhaps it was a storage violation.
  • Reply 145 of 320
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by imapcandmac View Post


    Man, you fanboys are sensitive! I never said OS X had 'forced quits' a lot, just more than Windows in more recent experience. Seriously, since I have been running Vista, I cannot recall one lock up. Under OS X, I get one about every two weeks or a month, mostly in Safari or Firefox.



    Well, I usually don't answer anyone who is lame enough to use the "fanboy" statement because it's like wearing one of those "I'm a Moran" T-shirts.



    If you actually believe there is such a thing as "fanbois" you're ideas are pretty much intellectually bankrupt to begin with. Also, this thread is overflowing with astroturfers as it always is when the issue at hand is a Microsoft advertisement.



    Having already made the exception though ... yeah, I can pretty much state with great authority that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.



    For starters you're either not clear yourself, or purposely trying to confuse the difference between, "my app locked up," "my app is not responding," "the computer froze" and "I had to restart." These are all different things on windows and/or on a Mac so already, you seem to be just pushing a lot of generalised crap about nothing and trying to sound knowledgeable based on bullsh*tting your way through these issues.



    You don't talk like anyone who knows anything about computers. Your arguments are littered with little things that make me believe that your experience is limited to the last couple of years using Windows and a single, abortive, and very recent attempt to get to know OS-X.



    Since you might even be an astroturfer yourself, I don't think I'm going to bother to go through your stuff and point out all the errors as I intended. It's a sunny day where I am and I have a hangover so I think sitting outside in the yard is preferable to having an argument with the likes of you.



    However, I will tell you that it's pretty obvious (and has been for years), which system is more crash-prone when you are comparing UNIX (Mac) to almost anything else (Windows). So arguing that Macs "crash more" or that Windows is "more stable" or anything like that is again, kind of like putting on that "I'm a Moran" T-Shirt.



    Arguing after the fact that you are right about this when multiple knowledgeable individuals tell you otherwise just makes you look even more foolish.
  • Reply 146 of 320
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Wikpedia states that Windows has had protected memory since Win2000, but I've seen many BSODs that would only happen with certain apps running or trying to perform certain tasks. I didn't think it was until SP2 that they got true protected memory, but does appear incorrect. Since my experiences were not conjured their obviously was other ways for a poorly coded app to bring down WinXP. Perhaps a storage violation.



    Before Service Pack 3, XP was garbage. What a dog that OS was. Once 2005 came to a close I got rid of that cap faster than a bad habit and switched to OS X.



    Of course, YMMV, but that's really saying something when so far may users think XP was still the best of the bunch. Yikes!
  • Reply 147 of 320
    le studiosle studios Posts: 199member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    The Macintosh was never created as the computer for everyone. It was more like the computer for everyone who was willing to pay a premium.



    Frankly I like that Macs come with a premium though it cuts both ways and sometimes even I get frustrated but the reality is I like a lot of things that Apple does.





    I like that they don't succomb to putting 50 different logos on their computers. I think I can find out that an Apple TV has a HDMI port without having the sticker on the front.



    I like that Apple doesn't install much nagware ..in fact I've never had my mac say "your trial period is up ...give us money if you wish to continue" Desktops for sale suck. Even with iPhoto photobooks or printing supplies its there as an options but you aren't harassed about it.



    I like that Apple has the balls to move forward.



    Getting rid of floppies

    Moving to USB

    Moving to Displayport

    Supporting digital display output (DVI)





    How long did it take PC vendors to get rid of parallel ports for chrissake?



    Sorry. Apple doesn't ship 17" laptops with GMA graphics. They don't ship 4 pin non-powered Firewire. They don't add card readers to their computers so that you can save $15 on that cheapo Wal Mart reader.



    What they do is make elegant computers that are highly functional to the skilled computer user. They made Unix accessible and attractive.



    So I don't give damn if a PC user doesn't understand their lineup or doesn't recognize the beautiful and sturdy unibody casing or understand Apple's philosophy. Chances are you're simply not a Apple customer and more better suited to a PC anyways.



    Thank you!
  • Reply 148 of 320
    foxyfoxy Posts: 29member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    These MS ads are getting better each time. They aren't as enjoyable as the Mac ads but I think MS is effective in conveying its point.



    i'm sorry but i disagree. they focus on only 1 point, price, and we all know that you get what you pay for
  • Reply 149 of 320
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MFago View Post


    Sorry, it's not so simple.



    Try to price out a Dell similar to a top-of-the line Mac Pro with 8x 2.93 GHz Xeon 5570, 12 GB Memory:



    Apple: $6300

    Dell: $9000



    The only way to get a PC with specs similar to the Apple is to buy from lesser-known brands (i.e. AVADirect) or build it yourself. The only limitation of the Apple is 8 memory slots versus 12.



    Even less simple: Dell uses registered DIMMs in configurations higher than 4GB. Apple uses cheaper unbuffered ECC memory in all configurations.



    Quote:

    Macs certainly can be more expensive because there are fewer models available so Apple cannot (and does not want to) hit every price point. Apple tries not to make crap. There are plenty of crappy PCs available, such as the ones Microsoft points to in their ads. Apple's prices are usually pretty comparable at the high-end. It's the low-end that needs some help.



    Honestly, they don't need that much help just a little break from the black and white thinking that only series a generic consumer with one set of tasks and a generic professional with another. Reality is nowhere near that neat and tidy. The grey area in between is vast.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sesnir View Post


    Paying a little more for a Mac only stings for the first day... then it's 5 years of pure joy.



    Going the Windows route, you may pay less but the aggravation stays with you forever.



    Its real easy to get stuck with a Mac that doesn't suit your needs these days and believe me that's just short of windows level frustration.
  • Reply 150 of 320
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    I just watched all three new ads. First, Apple doesn't "directly reference" the Microsoft ads at all. That would require Apple to mention the Microsoft ads in it's own ads, which Apple doesn't do. Perhaps, you mean Apple addresses the underlying false premises put forth in Microsoft's ads without referencing Microsoft or it's ads at all.



    Second, Apple arguably isn't doing anything it hasn't done in the past. Namely, harp on perceived Microsoft weaknesses like poor security and support.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    After appearing to remain aloof to Microsoft's jabs that Macs don't give enough choice, Apple has responded with ads which insist that poor Windows PC choices are no choices at all.



    Two of the three new TV spots debuting this week directly reference Microsoft's "Laptop Hunters" ads, which since their debut in March have insisted that Windows PCs offer more choice for less money.



  • Reply 151 of 320
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Foxy View Post


    i'm sorry but i disagree. they focus on only 1 point, price, and we all know that you get what you pay for



    They're also focusing on configurations which is where Apple comes up short. You can't get a consumer 15" or 17". If you want those screen sizes, you have to get the absolute top of the line.
  • Reply 152 of 320
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,404member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by satchmo View Post


    Don't know about others but to me, her voice is so annoying it might as well be a broken record.



    Ah, with a name like 'satchmo' I can understand why the quality of voice is important.......
  • Reply 153 of 320
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    If you are going to quote people, Quad, then at least provide an attribution.



    Should have provided a link . .



    http://threatpost.com/blogs/snow-leo...y-all-relative



    I only really subscribe to a specific part of what he says (follow the link on the site for the whole article.)
  • Reply 154 of 320
    foxyfoxy Posts: 29member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    They're also focusing on configurations which is where Apple comes up short. You can't get a consumer 15" or 17". If you want those screen sizes, you have to get the absolute top of the line.



    And MS is fighting back how precisely? By harping on cheap hardware. Let me spell out the absurdity of that: they don't sell hardware! This is the truly bizarre aspect of these ads. If MS wants to fight back, let them put OSX and Vista side by side (on a Mac using Parallels? Now that would be poetic!) and compare feature by feature.
  • Reply 155 of 320
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post


    One thing - After 3.5 years how much would you be able to sell your home brew PC for? I traded my iMac G5 for $500.00 to the local dealer in town for a brand new iMac.



    My Mom is still using my 2003 iBook for basic computing.



    I'd probably still be using it (like I am with my current PC), or part it out, since I can still do that with some PC parts, usually the same usually can't be said for a Mac. I don't think I've thought about selling it, just give it to relatives, or part it out. I wouldn't want to buy someone else's old computer, personally.



    It's nice that you can sell such an old computer, but I don't care, and there is a finite use I can get out of a computer, before I need to upgrade, but with how SW isn't catching up with the HW, I still haven't found a need too.



    Current PC BTW:

    Athlon X2 64 3800= (o/c to 2.4 GHz), Socket 939

    2 GB DDR400

    2x120 GB (EIDE), 1x320 GB (SATA) HD

    8x DVD burner (EIDE)

    ATI HD 2600 Pro (AGP)

    SB Live! 24-bit sound card

    Vista Business SP1 (32-bit)

    Some generic 450W PSU

    About a dozen USB 2.0 ports, 3x FW400. eSATA

    Cooler Master G690 case



    Before the dual core X2, I had a single-core version and a different mobo, that ran XP for about 3 years, and I had maybe 3-4 BSODs, mainly because of the Nvidia card I had at the time.



    I think the most expensive part was the case, at about $100. the video card was only $25. The video card isn't the greatest, but it's the same one that Apple included in their mid-level iMac before the last refresh. Works well enough for older games on my 1080p Sony Bravia though.



    I could get a new PC with all the bells and whisles, but I'm waiting on Win7, and even then I might just stick with Ubuntu x64. With Apple, it doesn't matter, because I can only get a couple different variations, but I'm not sure if I care anymore, as I got a Mac, but I've become disappointed in Apple, as they've become so consumer-centric.
  • Reply 156 of 320
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Foxy View Post


    And MS is fighting back how precisely? By harping on cheap hardware. Let me spell out the absurdity of that: they don't sell hardware! This is the truly bizarre aspect of these ads. If MS wants to fight back, let them put OSX and Vista side by side (on a Mac using Parallels? Now that would be poetic!) and compare feature by feature.



    They are fighting back in the only ways that really makes sense in a 30 second spot, by comparing the tangibles of HW configs. They are comparing price and by association the configurations of those prices. Apple is just one PC company with a setup like boutique shop. There limited model line is a valid concern for many who would consider a Mac if they could get cheaper HW setups. I don't think their commercials are meant to pull in new customers, but are designed to maintain current customers, especially those on the fence on whether they should a Mac a try despite the higher initial cost for most models. I find that to be a very valid.



    Apple hasn't really focused much on the OS side of things with their ads, though they have on their included software and the concerns people have had over Windows "issues". Both are playing the cards they have well.



    As for your idea that MS should compete with comparing OS X to Windows I have to assume you are kidding. There is nothing MS could gain and plenty they could lose if they did that. A 60 second commercial could use the first 2 seconds to show you how to take a snapshot of the display and find the image on your desktop, the other 58 seconds would be how to do the same thing in Windows... if you are very fast.
  • Reply 157 of 320
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    It will never happen- Apple has us in a Catch 22. If you want the OS you have to get the Hardware - no matter how over priced or cheaply made. If the OS was available all over the spectrum, Apple would tank. People would opt for other manufacturer's hardware - hand's down. They (Apple) are afraid to license out the OS. So many of us have to wait between generations of inadequate hardware until Apple comes up to speed.

    Now where is that iPad?



    hey your zune is showing
  • Reply 158 of 320
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    Let's face reality. Macs have a 4% world market share because they are way too expensive.



    Why are Macs so expensive? Because Apple's senior management destroyed the company by raising the prices of Macs way beyond anything reasonable so that they could line their pockets with billions of dollars of illegal, backdated stock option bonuses.



    That's why Macs are way too expensive for Apple to grow beyond a 4% world market share. Shame on those individuals who placed their own self interest ahead of the company's interest.









    By the way, what's keeping them from lowering prices RIGHT NOW?



    bullshit



    mac in there class are way higher than 4 percent



    first off delete from the list all p.c. under 1000 $$

    then delete all the cloud clone company sales



    then factor in that macs last much longer than most p/cs

    \\mac owners love there p/c and take great care of them



    also mac are priced for what is inside

    Mac's always include the doors and the tire's and the steering wheel

    mac os is great

    vista sucks

    window 7 is vista

    and all that is inside like iphoto imovie iweb itunes an on and on all sync together

    And all that media 100-gig's to over 2 tb;s worth can hang tough in the mac and out side hard drives . Yet your access to all this media data is the same. And fast too . Open imovie and its all there .



    So that movie I am making looks great with cool photo's added and sound good to w/some live pink floyd thrown in . And since I know shit about all this computer stuff I'm happy mac makes is simple and safe to use .



    Mac's don't crash

    mac users don't spend days on the phone to India

    Mac users go to a store and get things fixed on the spot for free .





    mac users feel sorry for you guys
  • Reply 159 of 320
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CJD2112 View Post


    A few commentators mentioned their surprise to Apple's response to the Microsoft advertisements, in that they are surprised Apple is acknowledging the Microsoft ads at all. My first thought is that it seems Apple is focusing more on the general consumer and less on the PROsumer, evidenced by many of Apple's recent hardware and marketing decisions.



    For example, as a graphic/web designer, I was extremely shocked in Apple's decision in releasing high glossy LED LCD displays. Apple's Cinema Display's were a top choice for many photographers and professionals who needed an IPS panel with excellent screen to print capabilities. The high glossy displays in the PRO line (MacBook Pro and 24" LED LCD Cinema Display) are baffling to those who utilize displays as a primary tool in their profession. The Cinema Display's were a good alternative to the high price Eizo display's and were also a good choice for those who are moderate professionals (meaning the non-Annie Leibovitz's of the world). They offered an excellent anti-glare IPS LCD screen with 178 degree viewing. The new LED LCD display's are TERRIBLE for editing as they unnaturally increase display contrast, producing prints that are much darker than on the screen (forget about Photoshopping images on a high gloss LED LCD, I dual mirrored an LED LCD alongside a previous generation 23" Aluminum display and attempted to Photoshop images on the 24" LED LCD, the 23" display showed true output and it was extremely off - both displays were calibrated). As well, the only way to eliminate glare is to increase the display brightness to unrealistic levels, and then balancing the light in the room so that the screen and ambient room lighting are equal. Producing a glossy display in the Pro lineup forces many professionals who depended on Apple's displays to shop elsewhere (MacBook PRO's are now off limits to professionals who rely on their display to convey accurate images). Currently my five year old Aluminum Display needs replacing as the brightness and overall panel consistency are going (it's been used almost daily for 8-10 hours at a time, so it was worth the investment). With the (long overdue) release of a new Cinema Display, I was hoping I could replace my dual display setup with the same setup, two 24" LED LCD displays, and pocket the difference (admittedly the $899 price for a 24" LED LCD with a USB hub, 2.1 speaker system and built-in web cam is a good bargain, especially when compared to other LED LCD display's in the market - which currently there are very few). It appears as though I will have to fork over more than $3,000 USD for two EIZO displays to equal the same quality of my current 23" IPS Apple Aluminum Display's.



    My point in this comment is that it seems Apple is becoming more concerned with the general consumer and less concerned with the pro-sumer. This is perhaps the reason Apple is interested in fighting in the general consumer market. In the past Apple has stated that Microsoft competes in the world of "beige boxes", which isn't their market. Yet increasingly each year it seems Apple is expanding into this very market, at the sacrifice of their past pro-sumer market. The introduction of the 24" LED LCD display was initially marketed for their portable lineup (until recently with the release of DisplayPort Mac Mini's and Mac Pro's, but Mac Pro owners have to deal with the extremely short chords of the LED display's as well as the limited choice of high glossy/exuberantly bright displays). Myself as well as a dozen or so other professionals who are in the market for new displays are forking over more cash for EIZO (or even NEC) displays. Even design firms that invested in previous generation white non-glossy iMac's that are looking to upgrade are at a loss with the new high glossy systems. MANY, and I mean MANY, design firms began investing in Intel Mac's as they are able to run Windows and Mac OS X. Offices opted for this as less long term costs were paid out to IT office managers/assistants, as well as other third party applications.



    In short, it seems Apple is more concerned with the "dumbing down" of its product lines in order to sell more systems to the general consumer. Instead of low volume/high costs sales for professionals, Apple is more concerned with high volume/lower cost of sales (and by lower cost that is in comparison to the higher cost of Apple's Pro lineup). Producing hardware that limits the con/pro-sumer with regards to available options, and investing more research and development into consumer grade products seems to clash with Apple's previous market history.



    i hope you feel better now after your long tirade . need a hug ??, anyway the glossy looks great .



    and apple invests a ton of money for research .



    and dude you got lucky getting away with using a cheap graphic screen for a while . you guys make a ton of money so go buy the correct top o line screen you need

    glossy rocks



    peace
  • Reply 160 of 320
    physicsphysics Posts: 24member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    It will never happen- Apple has us in a Catch 22. If you want the OS you have to get the Hardware - no matter how over priced or cheaply made ...



    The hardware is more expensive, although not excessively so as the build quality is generally higher than that of the typical PC. If you want hardware quality comparable to that of Apple's you would probably have to go with a vendor like Lenovo, and you would surely have to pay more there.



    Dell, at least, used to offer machines that although not of the highest quality were a good value for the performance and reliability versus the cost, and their return/replacement policy was excellent.



    I think it boils down to giving people what they want. Different people have different needs and priorities. Everybody is better served when there is healthy competition in the marketplace. I think it is good though that Apple retains tight control of their products and can continue to insure compatibility of hardware and software, as long as they don't try to abuse that position. Since it's unlikely that Apple will ever gain market dominance over MS, I don't see Apple getting tempted to abuse a monopoly status.
Sign In or Register to comment.