What some people seem to overlook is that the uninformed, most consumers, will not understand these differences. To them, these ads are reasonable.
You have it dead right sadly. While many of us likely know the differences say, between Nvidia and ATI video card models (or at least the series they fall in), most average computer users dont know even know what an Nvidia or ATI are, or that they compete, and in some cases what the video card REALLY does.
I think Apple does need to step up its use of RAM especially. Ram is light, cheap and in general well made accross the market. They have no excuse not to have a crapload of it in all their systems. HArddrives too, though I understand the reliability/size/weight issues involved. However its sad to see a Mac system in the lowend with 1 GB going up against systems with 4+. Just sad. I mean I built a desktop PC with 12GB for less than $200 (for the ram). Its a different world, they need to adapt how they look at ram, less of a "good markup accessory" and more as a "bite the bullet to sell systems" and "essential" mentality.
I think the PC's new ads are two things though, 1. Misleading and manipulative. 2. Effective.
Some marketting pro's really thought these ads out. If you werent either a machead of an open minded techie (I consider myself the latter) your likely to be presuaded. Though it wont break the "cool" factor -- despite the effort they put into doing exactly that.
They really are not happy. This is probably a knee-jerk reaction to cover the manufacture of inferior products by using a good old political style smear campaign. They're not overly bright considering that they too have a microsoft tax, one thing being 32 bit os's don't addrss the full 4 gig, anti-virus/malware in willy-world and the somewhat poor adoption of 64 bits when available.
This really is the way that retail works though you are taxed by one company or another in various ways and it's up to us to decide which taxes are less burdensome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei
Damn these guys are desperate, seems Apple has them scared sh!tless.
You forget to mention that those two tuners are cablecard tuners which are a complete rippoff because Cable Labs (or whatever the name) makes them be that way. Those things would sell at about $200 a piece if not more. Again, Apple doesn't compete in the home theatre area directly (Though it sorta does with the AppleTV).
Uh...yes, I agree. This is one reason why Apple hasn't bothered to deal with turning either the Mini or aTV into a DVR. The other is, of course, iTunes.
Quote:
If you look at the areas it does compete directly, such as notebooks and you look at sizes 13 to 18" (Since Sony doesn't have a 17" but does have 16" and 18" 16:9 displays) you will see as I pointed out that the prices are cheaper and you can get graphic/processors just as good as what Apple offers but at a lower price point. Alot of them come base with Intel Graphics but can be upgraded for $100-200 to nVidia or ATI. The one in this advert which is 16.4" comes default with ATI 3650 which benchmarks within a few points of the nVidia 9650 in the Macbook Pro.
You do realize that neither Sony nor Apple wishes to make head to head comparisons particularly easy right?
One such area that makes the comparison more complicated is that Sony is using 1920x1080 panels and Apple is using 1920x1200 panels.
Does it really make that much a difference? Kinda sorta...my 24" Dell monitor and my 17" MBP display have the same pixels and same usable work space. The 1080 panel is a bit shorter.
Worth a $350 dollars between the 18" VAIO and the 17" MBP? Nah, but that with OSX is.
Quote:
The desktop are more about the same price. But my point has ALWAYS been about notebooks (which is a bigger market) and there EVERY model is cheaper if you count out the 11" and 13.1" with 1600x900 display.
If you count out Sony's high end offerings of course they are cheaper. Ignoring the Z and TT models is ignoring a large part of Sony's actual profit margins.
Quote:
Sure they are more consumer orientated. But taking the most expensive Macbook Pro which is 17" and compare the 16.4 FW and you will see its much cheaper:
Sure. Of course, the AW is probably more comparable but lets not pick that one.
Quote:
Apple Macbook 13" vs Sony Vaio SR
Lets actually start with the SR closest to the lowest end MB:
SR with 2.0Ghz C2D, GMA4500, 160GB HDD, 2GB DDR2 RAM, Vista Home - $1099
But hey, lets not compare the MB to the Z with the same DDR3 chipset because...then your argument would be far less compelling.
Yes, Sony makes less expensive laptops. But again...comparing the same laptop (when you can) between Apple and Sony and they come out about the same.
When you pick laptops with older generation tech against ones with newer generation tech and say "Hey it's cheaper" you're right. But not so honest. Whatever you may think of the advantages of the DDR3 memory Sony has elected to use it for their high end 13" laptop. As has Apple. And like Apple, their lower end 13" machines continue to use the older DDR2 memory.
They are learning missinformation and fraud from some of the drug adds and promises made by propiganda against certain lifestyle choices.
We Shant get in to those here, but scare tactics coupled with missinformation on a grand scale and retraction on a small one has been responsible for many a social engineering victory.
We must remember that ms doesn't think these things up, they tent to apropriate them from those who have always used them.
To think otherwise would be accusing them of inivation, a crime that they have not yet committed
Funny thing is that had they done a "fair" comparison, there would STILL be an Apple tax, and Microsoft wouldn't have to lie about what Apple charges for products. But being greedy completely destroys the validity of the study and thus it's complete trash.
trouble is, even if they are right about the presence of a 'tax' they hurt their rep by doing things like putting software on one list that isn't on the other, putting the wrong price for mobileme (it's $99 not $149 a year) and so on.
had they been legit and accurate with what they put then folks couldn't jump on them for padding the report. but because they did, any actual correct facts will be at risk of being dismissed by association.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj
That said, Apple's Mac-PC ads twisted things as well.
actually they didn't. Apple never really twisted anything. the details they brought up about PC/Windows are all things that folks have complained about. so they used those complaints as their talking points. okay so they didn't turn around and talk about the pros of windows but hey, it's an Apple ad not a Windows one so what do you expect
While memory, hard drive space... matter, are these things really on your mind when you are shopping for a computer? I'm looking for something that feels fast, does what I need it to do, stays out of the way so that I'm not thinking about using a computer, doesn't break down on me and has a long useful life. I honestly don't know or care how much RAM is in the computer that I'm currently using.
I have a PC which I use for scientific applications that are unavailable on the Mac and a Mac for doing pretty much everything else. The Mac is easier to use and the difference in price is more than made up for by that fact. The box specs only tell a story that I doubt the average person needs to hear.
Just a quick question: you do realize that packing too many pixels into too small of a screens makes things invariably harder to see, right?
It also makes it easier to get work done if you can make the palettes as small as possible to make more room for the actual document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heulenwolf
Of the many implications of a commercial like this, the most true one is that you have more options to chose from when getting a Windows-based machine. Recently, Apple has been restructuring its product line to accommodate more users but it can't and isn't trying to compete on options. If you want a Mac laptop, there are 3 choices. Whether analyst or commercial studies properly tally up all the costs of ownership is irrelevant to this point. If your budget is X and you've decided you want a laptop or a desktop, there is usually only one Apple system that meets your needs. If you don't like the choices Apple made in the design of that one option or it doesn't fit your needs, you're out of luck. On the one hand, that situation of reduced choice strikes many folks as simpler, especially if they don't have a simple user category they fit in. On the other hand, if they know more about what they want to do with the system, Apple may or may not have accommodated their needs in that one choice. One the windows side, there is a dizzying array of choices accommodating many needs and user categories given a budget and a choice of desktop vs laptop. If you're willing to sift through, you may be able to get something that better meets your needs.
Those choices are what led last week to my wife buying what is the only non-Apple computer I've ever had in my house. She bought an HP laptop because it offered her what she needed from the hardware, and no Apple product has any of the features on her "must-have' list. She doesn't even like Windows either, and she's actually a little annoyed that Apple essentially "forced" her to go PC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
And I find it completely ridiculous that for a family with two kids running Office and Quicken they'd pick the MAC PRO as the desktop model to compare instead of the iMac or even the mini. Gee, you think if you pick the most expensive pro model on one side and a consumer machine on the other there won't be a difference in price?
As a price category, no it's not fair at all. But as a realistic comparison of what people are actually looking for in a computer, it is. For most people, if they are looking for a desktop computer, they are looking for a tower. The Mac Pro is the only tower Apple makes.
My family currently has 3 HP laptops that are 5 years old and two Dell laptops that are 2 years old. Total investment for all 5 laptops $3000.00. My daughter also has a Mac Book provided by the school she teaches at; $2000.00 for one laptop (it's no better then my two year old Dell).
Something smells fishy. 5 Years ago laptops were more expensive than they are now. A lot more. If you got three laptops five years ago, and two laptops two years ago, you'd have spent a lot more than an average of $600 per laptop.
Then you claim a MacBook costs $2000.
Your cost figures sound as bogus as this report we're discussing.
I]Sorry, most Mac users could care less about Crysis. Some of us have outgrown them.[/I]
Don't tell Apple iPhone users that! The all time top 20 paid apps and the all time top 20 free apps, 40 all time top apps in all are categorized "Games"!
Hmm... So what you are saying that the video card on the iPhone seems to be enough to satisfy users?
This is moot point. Console games are the future. Game developers are tired of the piracy and are abandoning the PC. The iPhone is considered a console.
This whole campaign is based on the premise that the recession will last a long time. When things start to turn the premise becomes weaker.
Agreed. What these jokers also don't understand is that a recession doesn't matter if you need a computer, have chosen a Mac, and can afford it. They're not going to settle just because there is a recession.
What I find strange is, microsoft owns 99.99% of the business market, virtually every business that has computers are running it on windows. Not to mention they still have over 90% of the operating system market on the consumer side, so why are they displaying such fear and grit towards Apple?
I will never truly understand Microsoft, they make way more money than Apple, have more of a foothold in business clients/servers, yet they feel it necessary to attack Apple products in such a way, this just looks like all kinds of greed. If they don't have 100% of the market/products they are not satisfied.
... and you would never guess Microsoft campaign is response to Apple making jokes on Microsoft behalf in most of their "Get a Mac" ads in the last couple of years..?
Mac users are very annoyed after only 3 new MS ads. How much do you think Microsoft leaders are annoyed after, what? 30+ ads from Apple?
I personally get a kick out of buying something at the Apple store and as the sales clerk is knocking something about Windows I ask them how they like using Windows Mobile on their handheld point of sale device. Seems like the iPhone or iPod touch should be capable enough, but they must not be.
Spoke too soon, didn't you? I knew they were working on a point of sale solution as soon as I heard about 3.0's USB and Bluetooth APIs. I was going to mention it in my last reply to your ignorant comment, but I omitted it to save time. I knew that getting those Windows Mobile monstrosities out of Apple's retail stores was one of Jobs' top priorities. I knew the only thing holding it back was the card reading hardware.
Went to Dell.com and specd out a 2.4 Ghz Studio XPS 13 Laptop with Vista® Ultimate, 4Gb RAM, 320Gb HD, some essential software for migration, office and anti-virus along with 3 year warranty. The total cost came out as $2025 (including a few discounts).
Now going to Apple's Education store (face it you are probably get this for a kid or student anyway)
A similar spec MacBook 2.4 Ghz, 4Gb RAM 320Gb HD, 3 year apple care, +iWorks +Bento works out at $1929.
So that thats PC TAX of roughly 5% before you even get it home.
There should be an advert 'Get yourself a decent laptop which you can use and is going to last your more than 3 years for under $2000'
Thinking about it, it's actually in Microsoft interest to sell you a crap computer so you will have to replace it every year, the only problem is that people a have worked this out and the alternatives are a lot better. People don't what to shut up and put up any more. PCs are cheap for a reason, they just don't last.
It is obvious that Mr. Kay has never used a Mac. Apple tax? - are you kidding? On the contrary Mr Kay, what about the Microsoft taxes in the form of all the time required to just keep the Windows system running, the cost and time for the Geek Squad calls to clean it of viruses not to mention the cost of the antivirus and security software and yearly renewals.
Mac users have none of that and are much more productive. A Mac simply works. No annoying MS crap to get in the way of your work. So which would you choose - daily frustration using Windows or the pleasant experience of using a Mac. The 13 Million people who bought Mac computers in 2008 see the pleasure of using a Mac as priceless.
Mr. Kay - you should be ashamed of yourself writing such an inaccurate story. What would your mother say? Now go to your room.
Right... First of all, Windows has only been around for what, 24 years now? Even so, most people didn't use it until at least version 3.0, which was around 1993. In any case, it doesn't matter how long you've used Windows, it doesn't change the fact that you're a liar. Even if you think you haven't had a virus, you wouldn't know because, as you've stated, you don't run antivirus.
Why is it that people like to assume that Mac users are ignorant of Windows? I know a lot of "switchers" who spent years on WIndows before making their way to the Mac. I happen to be one of them. You can't lie to me about what Windows is and is not. The best way to describe the way I feel about Windows is to compare it to a truck stop hooker, running from truck to truck, sucking off one dirty trucker after another. Keep the herpes, please.
Two years ago, I had a MacBook Pro that I bought for $1,600 that I KNOW would rape your Dell. Aside from that, you're either intentionally leaving out the things that the MacBook has that your Dell doesn't, or you're completely ignorant to their existence. I'm leaning towards the ignorance.
Lies or ignorance, which one is it? I'm serious. I can't tell the difference.
First post? Sure, you don't work for Redmond... Don't feel comfortable in an Apple Store? You obviously have an inferiority complex, because I know I wouldn't give a damn if I saw you there. Then again, I would be uncomfortable in an Apple Store if I worked for Microsoft, too.
Don't know about that guy, but here in NZ, you can bet you'll find group of Paris Hilton wannabe young teen girls, with make up and wardrobe mostly inappropriate for their age, discussing colours of iPod Nano or something else equally irrelevant. I also feel a bit silly browsing among such audience, but hey - that is part of clients Apple attracts with their image.
Quote:
A two year old Dell is better than a $2,000 MacBook? First of all, you don't give any information about either, other than a vague description of the age of the Dell and the price of the MacBook. That doesn't tell anyone anything. I highly doubt that any two year old Dell notebook is better than a $2,000 MacBook of any age.
It tells a man is more comfortable and is achieving what he needs with less effort and time on Dell than on Mac... for example; so for him, Dell is better than Mac. If you don't have problem with anyone saying Dual Core iMac is better than Quad Core Dell, you should have no problem with this as well. Computing experience is very personal. What works for one not necessarily works for the other.
Quote:
No, Mac owners do not "mess up" their machines anywhere near as bad, and often, as PC users. I've spent a LOT more time fixing the PCs in my family than the Macs, and most of my family owns Macs these days.
Maybe you are not fixing those PCs well? Just a thought...
Quote:
You know just as damn well as I do that there's probably back-end proprietary credit card merchant software that requires Windows. It has nothing to do with whether an iPhone of iPod Touch is better than Windows Mobile, because all of us here in the real world know damn well that Windows mobile is garbage. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot stylus. I have a Blackberry and an iPhone. I can hardly stand to use the Blackberry, but I'm not allowed to have the iPhone on an employee plan. Windows Mobile and Blackberry devices are so damn slow and clunky.
All of you in real Macworld, you mean. Still there were people who needed copy/paste and video recording on their phones before Apple decided they need it.
Quote:
Free antivirus doesn't work as well as paid antivirus, the same way a free healthcare clinic isn't as thorough as a real hospital. If you have a real problem, you're going to need the hospital anyways. It's just plain idiotic to run Windows without antivirus, unless you're completely disconnected from any networks and have no optical/magnetic media. No, Macs don't just "get" viruses and trojans. In order to successfully infect a Mac the same way that Windows machines are constantly infected, it would take real concrete social engineering and/or physical access to the machine. I've used Macs for years now, still no malware. Keep talking. Reality speaks for itself.
Free AV is working perfectly fine enough for a home user. And Apple is recommending their users to have AV installed on Macs. Guess that unpopular message must have been launched by some MS mole deep inside Apple's headquarters..?
Quote:
OpenOffice produces poor quality documents. Then again, so does Office. iWork, however, creates very elegant documents and it's very easy to use. Office is okay, but I prefer iWork. OpenOffice is garbage. Harder to use and messy looking documents. Most open source software is too damn generic. For example, The GIMP.
Err... yeah, right.
You do realize in real real world iWork is not even considered business grade office software? But for making colourful school assignments, I'm sure it is perfectly suitable
And messy documents are usually product of messy user. Learn how to do proper formatting on any document editing software and you'll get tidy results.
Comments
I'm a user for 27+ years no virus yet for me.
I guess it would be quite a challenge to get a virus on a 27 year old computer, with no networking, 5 1/4 floppies and cassette drives.
What some people seem to overlook is that the uninformed, most consumers, will not understand these differences. To them, these ads are reasonable.
You have it dead right sadly. While many of us likely know the differences say, between Nvidia and ATI video card models (or at least the series they fall in), most average computer users dont know even know what an Nvidia or ATI are, or that they compete, and in some cases what the video card REALLY does.
I think Apple does need to step up its use of RAM especially. Ram is light, cheap and in general well made accross the market. They have no excuse not to have a crapload of it in all their systems. HArddrives too, though I understand the reliability/size/weight issues involved. However its sad to see a Mac system in the lowend with 1 GB going up against systems with 4+. Just sad. I mean I built a desktop PC with 12GB for less than $200 (for the ram). Its a different world, they need to adapt how they look at ram, less of a "good markup accessory" and more as a "bite the bullet to sell systems" and "essential" mentality.
I think the PC's new ads are two things though, 1. Misleading and manipulative. 2. Effective.
Some marketting pro's really thought these ads out. If you werent either a machead of an open minded techie (I consider myself the latter) your likely to be presuaded. Though it wont break the "cool" factor -- despite the effort they put into doing exactly that.
This really is the way that retail works though you are taxed by one company or another in various ways and it's up to us to decide which taxes are less burdensome.
Damn these guys are desperate, seems Apple has them scared sh!tless.
Why they don't address their Microsoft tax?
You forget to mention that those two tuners are cablecard tuners which are a complete rippoff because Cable Labs (or whatever the name) makes them be that way. Those things would sell at about $200 a piece if not more. Again, Apple doesn't compete in the home theatre area directly (Though it sorta does with the AppleTV).
Uh...yes, I agree. This is one reason why Apple hasn't bothered to deal with turning either the Mini or aTV into a DVR. The other is, of course, iTunes.
If you look at the areas it does compete directly, such as notebooks and you look at sizes 13 to 18" (Since Sony doesn't have a 17" but does have 16" and 18" 16:9 displays) you will see as I pointed out that the prices are cheaper and you can get graphic/processors just as good as what Apple offers but at a lower price point. Alot of them come base with Intel Graphics but can be upgraded for $100-200 to nVidia or ATI. The one in this advert which is 16.4" comes default with ATI 3650 which benchmarks within a few points of the nVidia 9650 in the Macbook Pro.
You do realize that neither Sony nor Apple wishes to make head to head comparisons particularly easy right?
One such area that makes the comparison more complicated is that Sony is using 1920x1080 panels and Apple is using 1920x1200 panels.
Does it really make that much a difference? Kinda sorta...my 24" Dell monitor and my 17" MBP display have the same pixels and same usable work space. The 1080 panel is a bit shorter.
Worth a $350 dollars between the 18" VAIO and the 17" MBP? Nah, but that with OSX is.
The desktop are more about the same price. But my point has ALWAYS been about notebooks (which is a bigger market) and there EVERY model is cheaper if you count out the 11" and 13.1" with 1600x900 display.
If you count out Sony's high end offerings of course they are cheaper. Ignoring the Z and TT models is ignoring a large part of Sony's actual profit margins.
Sure they are more consumer orientated. But taking the most expensive Macbook Pro which is 17" and compare the 16.4 FW and you will see its much cheaper:
Sure. Of course, the AW is probably more comparable but lets not pick that one.
Apple Macbook 13" vs Sony Vaio SR
Lets actually start with the SR closest to the lowest end MB:
SR with 2.0Ghz C2D, GMA4500, 160GB HDD, 2GB DDR2 RAM, Vista Home - $1099
MB with 2.0Ghz C2D, 9400M, 120GB HDD, 2GB DDR2 RAM, OSX - $999
About the same. But hey, lets not consider the 13" white MB.
Now lets look at the 2.4 Ghz MB vs Z.
Z with 2.4 Ghz C2D, 9300M, 250GB HDD, 2GB DDR3 RAM, Vista Home - $1699
MB with 2.4 Ghz C2D, 9400M, 250GB HDD, 2GB DDR3 RAM, OSX - $1599
But hey, lets not compare the MB to the Z with the same DDR3 chipset because...then your argument would be far less compelling.
Yes, Sony makes less expensive laptops. But again...comparing the same laptop (when you can) between Apple and Sony and they come out about the same.
When you pick laptops with older generation tech against ones with newer generation tech and say "Hey it's cheaper" you're right. But not so honest. Whatever you may think of the advantages of the DDR3 memory Sony has elected to use it for their high end 13" laptop. As has Apple. And like Apple, their lower end 13" machines continue to use the older DDR2 memory.
We Shant get in to those here, but scare tactics coupled with missinformation on a grand scale and retraction on a small one has been responsible for many a social engineering victory.
We must remember that ms doesn't think these things up, they tent to apropriate them from those who have always used them.
To think otherwise would be accusing them of inivation, a crime that they have not yet committed
Funny thing is that had they done a "fair" comparison, there would STILL be an Apple tax, and Microsoft wouldn't have to lie about what Apple charges for products. But being greedy completely destroys the validity of the study and thus it's complete trash.
trouble is, even if they are right about the presence of a 'tax' they hurt their rep by doing things like putting software on one list that isn't on the other, putting the wrong price for mobileme (it's $99 not $149 a year) and so on.
had they been legit and accurate with what they put then folks couldn't jump on them for padding the report. but because they did, any actual correct facts will be at risk of being dismissed by association.
That said, Apple's Mac-PC ads twisted things as well.
actually they didn't. Apple never really twisted anything. the details they brought up about PC/Windows are all things that folks have complained about. so they used those complaints as their talking points. okay so they didn't turn around and talk about the pros of windows but hey, it's an Apple ad not a Windows one so what do you expect
I have a PC which I use for scientific applications that are unavailable on the Mac and a Mac for doing pretty much everything else. The Mac is easier to use and the difference in price is more than made up for by that fact. The box specs only tell a story that I doubt the average person needs to hear.
Just a quick question: you do realize that packing too many pixels into too small of a screens makes things invariably harder to see, right?
It also makes it easier to get work done if you can make the palettes as small as possible to make more room for the actual document.
Of the many implications of a commercial like this, the most true one is that you have more options to chose from when getting a Windows-based machine. Recently, Apple has been restructuring its product line to accommodate more users but it can't and isn't trying to compete on options. If you want a Mac laptop, there are 3 choices. Whether analyst or commercial studies properly tally up all the costs of ownership is irrelevant to this point. If your budget is X and you've decided you want a laptop or a desktop, there is usually only one Apple system that meets your needs. If you don't like the choices Apple made in the design of that one option or it doesn't fit your needs, you're out of luck. On the one hand, that situation of reduced choice strikes many folks as simpler, especially if they don't have a simple user category they fit in. On the other hand, if they know more about what they want to do with the system, Apple may or may not have accommodated their needs in that one choice. One the windows side, there is a dizzying array of choices accommodating many needs and user categories given a budget and a choice of desktop vs laptop. If you're willing to sift through, you may be able to get something that better meets your needs.
Those choices are what led last week to my wife buying what is the only non-Apple computer I've ever had in my house. She bought an HP laptop because it offered her what she needed from the hardware, and no Apple product has any of the features on her "must-have' list. She doesn't even like Windows either, and she's actually a little annoyed that Apple essentially "forced" her to go PC.
And I find it completely ridiculous that for a family with two kids running Office and Quicken they'd pick the MAC PRO as the desktop model to compare instead of the iMac or even the mini. Gee, you think if you pick the most expensive pro model on one side and a consumer machine on the other there won't be a difference in price?
As a price category, no it's not fair at all. But as a realistic comparison of what people are actually looking for in a computer, it is. For most people, if they are looking for a desktop computer, they are looking for a tower. The Mac Pro is the only tower Apple makes.
http://www.ndpta.com/
it's as bad as the report
My family currently has 3 HP laptops that are 5 years old and two Dell laptops that are 2 years old. Total investment for all 5 laptops $3000.00. My daughter also has a Mac Book provided by the school she teaches at; $2000.00 for one laptop (it's no better then my two year old Dell).
Something smells fishy. 5 Years ago laptops were more expensive than they are now. A lot more. If you got three laptops five years ago, and two laptops two years ago, you'd have spent a lot more than an average of $600 per laptop.
Then you claim a MacBook costs $2000.
Your cost figures sound as bogus as this report we're discussing.
I]Sorry, most Mac users could care less about Crysis. Some of us have outgrown them.[/I]
Don't tell Apple iPhone users that! The all time top 20 paid apps and the all time top 20 free apps, 40 all time top apps in all are categorized "Games"!
Hmm... So what you are saying that the video card on the iPhone seems to be enough to satisfy users?
This is moot point. Console games are the future. Game developers are tired of the piracy and are abandoning the PC. The iPhone is considered a console.
This whole campaign is based on the premise that the recession will last a long time. When things start to turn the premise becomes weaker.
Agreed. What these jokers also don't understand is that a recession doesn't matter if you need a computer, have chosen a Mac, and can afford it. They're not going to settle just because there is a recession.
What I find strange is, microsoft owns 99.99% of the business market, virtually every business that has computers are running it on windows. Not to mention they still have over 90% of the operating system market on the consumer side, so why are they displaying such fear and grit towards Apple?
I will never truly understand Microsoft, they make way more money than Apple, have more of a foothold in business clients/servers, yet they feel it necessary to attack Apple products in such a way, this just looks like all kinds of greed. If they don't have 100% of the market/products they are not satisfied.
... and you would never guess Microsoft campaign is response to Apple making jokes on Microsoft behalf in most of their "Get a Mac" ads in the last couple of years..?
Mac users are very annoyed after only 3 new MS ads. How much do you think Microsoft leaders are annoyed after, what? 30+ ads from Apple?
I personally get a kick out of buying something at the Apple store and as the sales clerk is knocking something about Windows I ask them how they like using Windows Mobile on their handheld point of sale device. Seems like the iPhone or iPod touch should be capable enough, but they must not be.
Spoke too soon, didn't you? I knew they were working on a point of sale solution as soon as I heard about 3.0's USB and Bluetooth APIs. I was going to mention it in my last reply to your ignorant comment, but I omitted it to save time. I knew that getting those Windows Mobile monstrosities out of Apple's retail stores was one of Jobs' top priorities. I knew the only thing holding it back was the card reading hardware.
You fail.
Might I add that Sony invented the so called 'chiklet' keyboard that supposedly Apple has 'popularized' and is featured on all Macs...
Early Commodore Pets had chiklet keyboards in the mid '80s; but I'm not sure what this has to do with this topic.
Now going to Apple's Education store (face it you are probably get this for a kid or student anyway)
A similar spec MacBook 2.4 Ghz, 4Gb RAM 320Gb HD, 3 year apple care, +iWorks +Bento works out at $1929.
So that thats PC TAX of roughly 5% before you even get it home.
There should be an advert 'Get yourself a decent laptop which you can use and is going to last your more than 3 years for under $2000'
Thinking about it, it's actually in Microsoft interest to sell you a crap computer so you will have to replace it every year, the only problem is that people a have worked this out and the alternatives are a lot better. People don't what to shut up and put up any more. PCs are cheap for a reason, they just don't last.
Mac users have none of that and are much more productive. A Mac simply works. No annoying MS crap to get in the way of your work. So which would you choose - daily frustration using Windows or the pleasant experience of using a Mac. The 13 Million people who bought Mac computers in 2008 see the pleasure of using a Mac as priceless.
Mr. Kay - you should be ashamed of yourself writing such an inaccurate story. What would your mother say? Now go to your room.
JoeCoolDaddio
I'm a user for 27+ years no virus yet for me.
Right... First of all, Windows has only been around for what, 24 years now? Even so, most people didn't use it until at least version 3.0, which was around 1993. In any case, it doesn't matter how long you've used Windows, it doesn't change the fact that you're a liar. Even if you think you haven't had a virus, you wouldn't know because, as you've stated, you don't run antivirus.
Why is it that people like to assume that Mac users are ignorant of Windows? I know a lot of "switchers" who spent years on WIndows before making their way to the Mac. I happen to be one of them. You can't lie to me about what Windows is and is not. The best way to describe the way I feel about Windows is to compare it to a truck stop hooker, running from truck to truck, sucking off one dirty trucker after another. Keep the herpes, please.
Two years ago, I had a MacBook Pro that I bought for $1,600 that I KNOW would rape your Dell. Aside from that, you're either intentionally leaving out the things that the MacBook has that your Dell doesn't, or you're completely ignorant to their existence. I'm leaning towards the ignorance.
Lies or ignorance, which one is it? I'm serious. I can't tell the difference.
First post? Sure, you don't work for Redmond... Don't feel comfortable in an Apple Store? You obviously have an inferiority complex, because I know I wouldn't give a damn if I saw you there. Then again, I would be uncomfortable in an Apple Store if I worked for Microsoft, too.
Don't know about that guy, but here in NZ, you can bet you'll find group of Paris Hilton wannabe young teen girls, with make up and wardrobe mostly inappropriate for their age, discussing colours of iPod Nano or something else equally irrelevant. I also feel a bit silly browsing among such audience, but hey - that is part of clients Apple attracts with their image.
A two year old Dell is better than a $2,000 MacBook? First of all, you don't give any information about either, other than a vague description of the age of the Dell and the price of the MacBook. That doesn't tell anyone anything. I highly doubt that any two year old Dell notebook is better than a $2,000 MacBook of any age.
It tells a man is more comfortable and is achieving what he needs with less effort and time on Dell than on Mac... for example; so for him, Dell is better than Mac. If you don't have problem with anyone saying Dual Core iMac is better than Quad Core Dell, you should have no problem with this as well. Computing experience is very personal. What works for one not necessarily works for the other.
No, Mac owners do not "mess up" their machines anywhere near as bad, and often, as PC users. I've spent a LOT more time fixing the PCs in my family than the Macs, and most of my family owns Macs these days.
Maybe you are not fixing those PCs well? Just a thought...
You know just as damn well as I do that there's probably back-end proprietary credit card merchant software that requires Windows. It has nothing to do with whether an iPhone of iPod Touch is better than Windows Mobile, because all of us here in the real world know damn well that Windows mobile is garbage. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot stylus. I have a Blackberry and an iPhone. I can hardly stand to use the Blackberry, but I'm not allowed to have the iPhone on an employee plan. Windows Mobile and Blackberry devices are so damn slow and clunky.
All of you in real Macworld, you mean. Still there were people who needed copy/paste and video recording on their phones before Apple decided they need it.
Free antivirus doesn't work as well as paid antivirus, the same way a free healthcare clinic isn't as thorough as a real hospital. If you have a real problem, you're going to need the hospital anyways. It's just plain idiotic to run Windows without antivirus, unless you're completely disconnected from any networks and have no optical/magnetic media. No, Macs don't just "get" viruses and trojans. In order to successfully infect a Mac the same way that Windows machines are constantly infected, it would take real concrete social engineering and/or physical access to the machine. I've used Macs for years now, still no malware. Keep talking. Reality speaks for itself.
Free AV is working perfectly fine enough for a home user. And Apple is recommending their users to have AV installed on Macs. Guess that unpopular message must have been launched by some MS mole deep inside Apple's headquarters..?
OpenOffice produces poor quality documents. Then again, so does Office. iWork, however, creates very elegant documents and it's very easy to use. Office is okay, but I prefer iWork. OpenOffice is garbage. Harder to use and messy looking documents. Most open source software is too damn generic. For example, The GIMP.
Err... yeah, right.
You do realize in real real world iWork is not even considered business grade office software? But for making colourful school assignments, I'm sure it is perfectly suitable
And messy documents are usually product of messy user. Learn how to do proper formatting on any document editing software and you'll get tidy results.