The earlier Mac versus PC ads were mildly amusing and entertaining, but the one I saw last night was, well....it was just obnoxious. If I ever had a desire to buy a Mac (and I really have never had a desire to do so), the ad I saw last night would have changed my mind. It was was just low and petty.
Pony99CA
· 1 month ago
Good points, but there's one minor error.
The switch from XP to Apple is not a lot easier than switching to Apple.
That second "Apple" should be "Windows 7", right? ;)
Steve
doogald
· 1 month ago
If you are going to accuse Apple of distortions, is it really ok to make them yourself?
Snow Leopard may have some bugs, but it is nowhere near the buggiest version of OS X, and I doubt that anything will ever be as buggy as 10.0 (10.1 was actually a free upgrade.)
And this Apple dictatorship that you speak about? I guess that you are talking about the iPhone? (How is that different from the Zune HD, by the way? Having fun finding cool apps and stuff for that?) But please explain the closed world for Macs, where everything comes from Apple? Are you suggesting that there are no applications for OS X that do not come from Apple, or are not approved by Apple? This seems to be what you are implying. (It's an incorrect implication, or a distortion.) You also imply that Windows is better because there is a larger software catalog. That sounds like a familiar argument that I hear about phones on this site. No, wait, that's right - a large software catalog means nothing because all of the applications are fart applications, right?
As for this: "Oh, by the way, where is the part in the commercial that says that Apple does not allow you to install Mac OS X in your PC and that means that all your hardware investment is useless and you will have to buy Macs that is a lot more expensive than your current PCs."
You did know that this was an ad for Macintosh COMPUTERS, right, not OS X? You do not have to make a useless investment if you are going to buy a Mac - because you are already buying the Mac! And moving to a Mac is pretty simple. I was able to manage it myself, but for neophytes you can but One To One membership for a year for $99 and they will move things over for you when you buy a Mac. Probably comparable to what a BestBuy Geek Squad or something will charge for the same when going from XP to Win7. But, compared to moving from one Windows computer to another, well, it's just as easy. Or hard, whichever you want to think of it.
As for the extra cost, whatever. I'm willing to spend a little extra for something that is better. What I see from low-cost PCs these days doesn't excite me - cheap parts, cheap cases. You get what you pay for, I guess. (Plus a load of pre-installed crapware.) Whatever floats your boat. But you can get started on a Mac for as little as $599 (a bit extra if you want to add an Apple keyboard, but you can use your old PC keyboard, mouse and display if you wish.)
I've tried the W7 RC, and I think that it's fine. Overpriced, but worth the upgrade, based on my use of Vista. W7 is that much better.
Also, as for the ads, I posted this elsewhere, but, paraphrased:
"I think that the Mac ads are not targeted at the typical person who is a member of [mobilitysite]. The general public 'knows' that Vista was bad, and, to them, these ads will probably be effective. Microsoft can say all that they want that Windows 7 is great (and I agree that it is), but the very people who are probably most at risk of malware issues, slowdowns from the install of the massive crapware that comes with most consumer Windows PCs, the people most likely not to have updated anti-malware apps, are the people who will be most tempted by a potential switch. Technophiles will not be fooled, but they are not the ones being targeted."
Phonascus
· 1 month ago
I knew ctitanic was going to rant about these. Next time I need to put some money on it.
Pony99CA
· 1 month ago
Just like we can bet that Roughly Drafted/Apple Insider will diss pretty much anything by Microsoft (Windows Mobile, Zune HD, etc.).
Steve
jimtravis
· 1 month ago
Apple attacked MS for the upgrade process from XP to 7. If I have a 2005 era XP machine, it may take awhile to upgrade from XP to 7, but it is possible. Let's see, is the upgrade track for a 2005 era Mac easier? Heck no, not possible since no PPC based machine can be upgraded to Snow Leopard.
Concerning an earlier post about cheap parts etc. in low cost PC's All my hardware failures have been with Apple hardware, usually just after AppleCare expired. My $500 "cheap" PC's have been more reliable, and have lasted longer than my alleged "well built" $2500 Macs with similar levels of use. Also, all required OS re-installs have been with Apple equipment, no re-installs necessary with Windows.
McDave
· 1 month ago
Well done! You lasted 3 paragraphs before the U-Turn. I'm one of the 85% of Mac users who also has a PC - because I have to. Unfortunately our IT Dept have assumed that role of dictator you were talking about and I'm afraid (like most) their arrogant & inept assumptions as to how I need my systems to work falls way short of Apple's insightful design. Better to be locked in by excellence than locked in by ineptitude (& before you do the standard thing and blame the user - the Mac showed me it wasn't me)
Geeks should upgrade to W7, Consumers should pick the only consumer-viable option out there - Apple!
McD
Pony99CA
· 4 weeks ago
If you have a PC at work, I wouldn't count you in that 85%, because that was about households. If you have a PC at home required for work, I'm not sure whether that was counted or not, but we'll assume it was for sake of discussion.
However, most IT departments don't restrict you to PCs because they're "arrogant" or "inept"; they do it to keep costs down. Having to train techs to support both PCs and Macs would increase their budget; only having to support one system (whether it be PCs, Linux or Macs) is cheaper.
As for the Mac showing you that it wasn't you, I think you may have misinterpreted that. If you couldn't figure out how to use a PC, but the Mac made things simpler so that you could, it sounds like it was you -- you can use "simple" things but not "complex" things. (That's not an insult -- some people's brains are wired differently, just like some people are good at math while others aren't. It doesn't mean that you're stupid; as you alluded to, it just may mean that you're not a geek.)
Steve
McDave
· 4 weeks ago
"They do it to keep costs down". That statement assumes they have the ability to understand the full impact of their decisions and hence the full associated costs. They don't, like many back-office functions, they'll never really understand the business to which their technology's being applied or what business productivity really is so the whole concept of cost/benefit is way out of their field of understanding.
I couldn't agree more, people do have different capabilities & aptitudes in different areas. Some people are able to grasp real-world concepts and generate results, others are good with simplistic logical translations. Why would corporate IT management (or executive management for that matter) place the complexities of the former in the hands of the latter?
As far as platforms are concerned I think I'd rather have the fluidity of MacOS & the design regimes of it's applications than the needless, convolution of Windows software (a result of the geeks being too 'arrogant' to listen to people capable of real design & providing countless, pointless options instead). But hey, that's just an opinion based on using both.
McD
Pony99CA
· 3 weeks ago
"They do it to keep costs down". That statement assumes they have the ability to understand the full impact of their decisions and hence the full associated costs. They don't, like many back-office functions, they'll never really understand the business to which their technology's being applied or what business productivity really is so the whole concept of cost/benefit is way out of their field of understanding.
As you mentioned, it has to do with cost/benefit. The benefit of letting just you use a Mac probably isn't enough to justify the cost of training people to support the Mac. Can you justify that the savings generated by your using a Mac outweighs the costs to IT? Or, scaling up, that the cost of supporting Macs across the organization justifies the costs to IT?
I couldn't agree more, people do have different capabilities & aptitudes in different areas. Some people are able to grasp real-world concepts and generate results, others are good with simplistic logical translations. Why would corporate IT management (or executive management for that matter) place the complexities of the former in the hands of the latter?
Probably because business people don't understand IT, and the IT people tell them supporting multiple systems fails the cost/benefit test. (Or maybe IT people are just lazy and don't want to learn something more. :D)
As far as platforms are concerned I think I'd rather have the fluidity of MacOS & the design regimes of it's applications than the needless, convolution of Windows software (a result of the geeks being too 'arrogant' to listen to people capable of real design & providing countless, pointless options instead).
Out of curiosity, what is one business application where Windows is so convoluted that using a Mac would justify additional IT costs? I can accept that a Mac might save a user a little time each day, but what application would really benefit from that in a big way.
Steve
McDave
· 3 weeks ago
Now remember, not all of us in business are 'cost centres', some of us actually generate the revenue and it goes a bit like this; if my Mac's smooth integration & fluidity save me "a little time" say half an hour per day that's 5% of a 10 hour-day that's lost time which I could have used to make money. I'm one of 700 revenue generators within my company which produces around $200m of gross profit per year. 5% of $200m is $10m per year!
I would say that because that's gross (not net) profit that reduced cost efficiencies in IT relating to new platform adoption would translate less of that profit to the bottom line but with OSX having no CAL charges, the actual desktop costs not being far off their enterprise PC equivalents (if there are such things) and even the MacBook Pros having two spare 9-cell batteries built in easing the Opex even further we'd have to refute the old wisdom - if it ever existed.
As for business not understanding IT - there's me thinking the latter existed to assist the former - silly me!
The biggest cost saving we can make is to run apps through a real business performance assessment, switch off the servers & send the staff home but we'll have those Macs installed first.
McD
Name
· 4 weeks ago
I am too new to computers to give a preference on Macintosh or Microsoft. Too old and somewhat of a dinosaur I guess. I am trying to learn enough to see if a purchase is in my future. My comment is on the article, itself. I have been tainted by the comments in this article because of the mispellings and grammer. I had to read it twice because I felt I was too distracted by the article itself that I could not focus on the intended information. You lose credibility when your task is to convey information and you wind up looking like a teen ager trying to text on a cell phone. And yes, "misspellings " and "grammar" was a joke.
Pony99CA
· 4 weeks ago
I generally feel the same way about spelling and grammar -- if the person is a native English speaker. Frank, however, is not -- I think Spanish is his native language. He is, however, a Microsoft MVP, so lots of people have found his advice helpful.
If one person on the Web using poor grammar or spelling is enough to "taint" your opinion of a product, chances are you won't find any products that aren't tainted. ;)
Steve
Name
· 3 weeks ago
PCs are for people who don't know the difference between a VW and a Porshe, its simple and true
Pony99CA
· 3 weeks ago
PCs are for people who don't know the difference between a VW and a Porshe, its simple and true
The only thing "simple" is your analysis. Did you ever consider that people do know the difference and don't need or don't want to (or can't afford to) pay for a Porsche?
Two things are apparent, though. First, you don't know the difference between Porsche and "Porshe" (or "it's" and "its", for that matter). Second, it must be nice in your elitist fanboy world.
Steve
doogald
· 3 weeks ago
The Mac world actually is quite nice. You should try it ;).
Roberto
· 3 weeks ago
I'm a happy Mac owner and have been since 1998 but I love Window's machines. I usually have anywhere from 5 to 8 XP or Vista machines at my house that are in dire need of technical support. They are usually all mucked up with trojans, spyware and viruses that they are rendered unusable. I have a small group of people that I support regularly and there is always someone in that group that is in need of assistance. I also work on Macs and the fact of the matter is that most of the Mac related issues are hardware, usually bad RAM chips from third party vendors or hard drive directory issues (very rare) and easily repaired. Windows machines are now and always have been vulnerable and problematic. Not to mention Vista was as slow as a giant sea turtle compared to OSX...
All Comments
That second "Apple" should be "Windows 7", right? ;)
Steve
Snow Leopard may have some bugs, but it is nowhere near the buggiest version of OS X, and I doubt that anything will ever be as buggy as 10.0 (10.1 was actually a free upgrade.)
And this Apple dictatorship that you speak about? I guess that you are talking about the iPhone? (How is that different from the Zune HD, by the way? Having fun finding cool apps and stuff for that?) But please explain the closed world for Macs, where everything comes from Apple? Are you suggesting that there are no applications for OS X that do not come from Apple, or are not approved by Apple? This seems to be what you are implying. (It's an incorrect implication, or a distortion.) You also imply that Windows is better because there is a larger software catalog. That sounds like a familiar argument that I hear about phones on this site. No, wait, that's right - a large software catalog means nothing because all of the applications are fart applications, right?
As for this: "Oh, by the way, where is the part in the commercial that says that Apple does not allow you to install Mac OS X in your PC and that means that all your hardware investment is useless and you will have to buy Macs that is a lot more expensive than your current PCs."
You did know that this was an ad for Macintosh COMPUTERS, right, not OS X? You do not have to make a useless investment if you are going to buy a Mac - because you are already buying the Mac! And moving to a Mac is pretty simple. I was able to manage it myself, but for neophytes you can but One To One membership for a year for $99 and they will move things over for you when you buy a Mac. Probably comparable to what a BestBuy Geek Squad or something will charge for the same when going from XP to Win7. But, compared to moving from one Windows computer to another, well, it's just as easy. Or hard, whichever you want to think of it.
As for the extra cost, whatever. I'm willing to spend a little extra for something that is better. What I see from low-cost PCs these days doesn't excite me - cheap parts, cheap cases. You get what you pay for, I guess. (Plus a load of pre-installed crapware.) Whatever floats your boat. But you can get started on a Mac for as little as $599 (a bit extra if you want to add an Apple keyboard, but you can use your old PC keyboard, mouse and display if you wish.)
I've tried the W7 RC, and I think that it's fine. Overpriced, but worth the upgrade, based on my use of Vista. W7 is that much better.
Also, as for the ads, I posted this elsewhere, but, paraphrased:
"I think that the Mac ads are not targeted at the typical person who is a member of [mobilitysite]. The general public 'knows' that Vista was bad, and, to them, these ads will probably be effective. Microsoft can say all that they want that Windows 7 is great (and I agree that it is), but the very people who are probably most at risk of malware issues, slowdowns from the install of the massive crapware that comes with most consumer Windows PCs, the people most likely not to have updated anti-malware apps, are the people who will be most tempted by a potential switch. Technophiles will not be fooled, but they are not the ones being targeted."
Steve
Concerning an earlier post about cheap parts etc. in low cost PC's All my hardware failures have been with Apple hardware, usually just after AppleCare expired. My $500 "cheap" PC's have been more reliable, and have lasted longer than my alleged "well built" $2500 Macs with similar levels of use. Also, all required OS re-installs have been with Apple equipment, no re-installs necessary with Windows.
Geeks should upgrade to W7, Consumers should pick the only consumer-viable option out there - Apple!
McD
However, most IT departments don't restrict you to PCs because they're "arrogant" or "inept"; they do it to keep costs down. Having to train techs to support both PCs and Macs would increase their budget; only having to support one system (whether it be PCs, Linux or Macs) is cheaper.
As for the Mac showing you that it wasn't you, I think you may have misinterpreted that. If you couldn't figure out how to use a PC, but the Mac made things simpler so that you could, it sounds like it was you -- you can use "simple" things but not "complex" things. (That's not an insult -- some people's brains are wired differently, just like some people are good at math while others aren't. It doesn't mean that you're stupid; as you alluded to, it just may mean that you're not a geek.)
Steve
I couldn't agree more, people do have different capabilities & aptitudes in different areas. Some people are able to grasp real-world concepts and generate results, others are good with simplistic logical translations. Why would corporate IT management (or executive management for that matter) place the complexities of the former in the hands of the latter?
As far as platforms are concerned I think I'd rather have the fluidity of MacOS & the design regimes of it's applications than the needless, convolution of Windows software (a result of the geeks being too 'arrogant' to listen to people capable of real design & providing countless, pointless options instead). But hey, that's just an opinion based on using both.
McD
As you mentioned, it has to do with cost/benefit. The benefit of letting just you use a Mac probably isn't enough to justify the cost of training people to support the Mac. Can you justify that the savings generated by your using a Mac outweighs the costs to IT? Or, scaling up, that the cost of supporting Macs across the organization justifies the costs to IT?
Probably because business people don't understand IT, and the IT people tell them supporting multiple systems fails the cost/benefit test. (Or maybe IT people are just lazy and don't want to learn something more. :D)
Out of curiosity, what is one business application where Windows is so convoluted that using a Mac would justify additional IT costs? I can accept that a Mac might save a user a little time each day, but what application would really benefit from that in a big way.
Steve
I would say that because that's gross (not net) profit that reduced cost efficiencies in IT relating to new platform adoption would translate less of that profit to the bottom line but with OSX having no CAL charges, the actual desktop costs not being far off their enterprise PC equivalents (if there are such things) and even the MacBook Pros having two spare 9-cell batteries built in easing the Opex even further we'd have to refute the old wisdom - if it ever existed.
As for business not understanding IT - there's me thinking the latter existed to assist the former - silly me!
The biggest cost saving we can make is to run apps through a real business performance assessment, switch off the servers & send the staff home but we'll have those Macs installed first.
McD
If one person on the Web using poor grammar or spelling is enough to "taint" your opinion of a product, chances are you won't find any products that aren't tainted. ;)
Steve
The only thing "simple" is your analysis. Did you ever consider that people do know the difference and don't need or don't want to (or can't afford to) pay for a Porsche?
Two things are apparent, though. First, you don't know the difference between Porsche and "Porshe" (or "it's" and "its", for that matter). Second, it must be nice in your elitist fanboy world.
Steve