Print 165 comment(s) - last by DiscipleOfJobs.. on Apr 9 at 11:40 AM

Young engineer Giampaolo, who considers himself "tech-savvy" is featured in Microsoft latest commercial followup to the wildly popular Microsoft Laptop Hunters commercial debut with Lauren.  (Source: Microsoft/YouTube)

At Fry's Electronics, Giampaolo considers a unibody MacBook, which he calls "so sexy".  (Source: Microsoft/YouTube)

However, he says that Apple customers are paying for a brand and look, not the actual product. He instead chooses this HP. He snags the machine for $1,099 -- a similar Mac (with a smaller 15" screen (with a smaller 15" screen, albeit with "Millions of Colors")) costs around $2,499.  (Source: Microsoft/YouTube)
Microsoft has launched the second of its tough attack ads aimed against Apple

For years Microsoft endured Apple's abuse, as its competitor aired scores of commercials, slowly convincing computer users that Windows was an error-prone, virus-burdened, inefficient, impotent OS.  Now Microsoft has fired back with the culmination of its $300M USD advertising counterattack -- a series of pointed commercials developed by Crispin Porter + Boguksy.

In the first commercial, a “Laptop Hunter” named Lauren looked at Mac computers only to find them overpriced.  Commenting that she "wasn't cool enough" for a Mac, she ended up buying an HP notebook instead. 

Now a second commercial has come out and is looking to continue the attack on Apple.  In the new commercial, a young
engineer and recent college graduate named Giampaolo goes hunting for a laptop when offered $1,500 by Microsoft's secret ad agents.  Giampaolo goes to a number of shops, including an Apple store.

While impressed with the Apple MacBook Air’s looks, which he calls "so sexy", it’s what he finds inside that is ugly.  Giampaolo, who labels himself as "tech-savvy", instead chooses the HP HDX 16 -- a PC with
an Intel 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT graphics, 4GB of RAM, and a 500GB drive, which he finds at his local Fry's Electronics.  He gets the computer for $1,099.  A comparable machine with a smaller 15" screen (albeit with "Millions of Colors"), would have cost $2,499 at the Apple store.

Pocketing over $300 after taxes, he comments, "Macs, to me, are more about the aesthetics than they are the computing power. I don't wanna pay for the brand, I wanna pay for the computer."

Giampaolo ends up taking home the computer and a little extra money.  Of his purchase he says, "You can't beat that."

Critics of the first commercial aren't likely to be happy with the second.  Some are accusing Microsoft of favoritism of HP computers (both shoppers picked HPs) or have gone as far as to claim the commercials are scripted.  Crispin Porter + Boguksy insists that they're 100 percent authentic. 

Whichever side of the aisle you fall, it’s clear that Microsoft is targeting its rival much more aggressively.  In particular, it's making a strong case that Apple users pay for the brand, not the computer, a message driven home both by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, and by the new commercial

You can watch the latest commercial here.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By meepstone on 4/6/2009 9:46:51 AM , Rating: 5
Microsoft should of done commercials like this years ago.

RE: imo
By retrospooty on 4/6/2009 9:50:02 AM , Rating: 5
Yup... It's prefectly OK for Apple to bend the truth for the past 10+ years. Remember all those ads insisting Power PC was faster than Intel ? LOL Apple even faked benchmarks to prove it.

RE: imo
By biggsjm on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: imo
By VaultDweller on 4/6/2009 10:40:08 AM , Rating: 5
So then, does that change the argument from "Macs are too expensive" to "Macs throw in overpriced components to excessively inflate the price without offering significant performance benefits?"

DDR3? Whoopidy doo, who the hell cares?

RE: imo
By Ryanman on 4/6/2009 11:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the fact you can get the RAM they put in their systems for a tenth of the price at Newegg. Even Mac-specific RAM is a quarter of the cost that an upgrade is from their website.
Not to say they're the only computer manufacturer that does it - not even close. But their margins are gross.... in the literal sense.

RE: imo
By FITCamaro on 4/6/2009 12:49:41 PM , Rating: 5
Well in all fairness Dell is the same way.

RE: imo
By RW on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: imo
By Ryanman on 4/7/2009 9:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
Not to say they're the only computer manufacturer that does it - not even close.


RE: imo
By DiscipleOfJobs on 4/9/2009 11:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
All the salami wish the face? Look at that guy rippin' up the helicopter.

RE: imo
By Doormat on 4/6/2009 2:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
One of the benefits of DDR3 is that its lower power than DDR2.

It doesn't really matter on a desktop - the article above shows a 2W differential - but in a notebook that might only be pulling 13W idle at 25W peak, 2W is 16% and 8% respectively.

RE: imo
By defter on 4/6/2009 3:51:11 PM , Rating: 5
The article above shows a 2W differential between DDR3-1066 and DDR2-800. However in idle DDR2 consumed LESS energy.

Laptops are using DDR2-533 or DDR2-667, and based those results they are likely to use less energy than DDR3.

RE: imo
By Samus on 4/7/2009 4:30:34 AM , Rating: 2
I caught this commercial during the Michigan State game...poor Michigan :(

RE: imo
By Targon on 4/6/2009 10:40:28 AM , Rating: 5
Memory only accounts for up to ten percent of the performance in a computer. As a result, unless you are looking at two computers at the same price, the speed and type of memory will not mean much.

If you pay an extra 25 percent in price for only 10 percent performance benefit, then for most people, it will not be worth it.

On a slight tangent, this is a big misconception that many people have when they are looking at the Intel i7 processors. The speed does NOT come from DDR3 memory, it comes from Intel finally putting an integrated memory controller on the CPU.

RE: imo
By PhoenixKnight on 4/6/2009 1:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was more like a 3%-5% increase from DDR2 to DDR3 for a significantly increased price.

RE: imo
By Griffinhart on 4/6/2009 2:25:31 PM , Rating: 3
The benchmarks I have seen show that DDR3 is a few % faster than DDR2 on synthetic benchmarks. But, in real world applications like Adobe Premier Elements, the practical difference is non-existant.,1697,2159834...

RE: imo
By mindless1 on 4/6/2009 7:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
... and yet that is exactly what many people do, paying for more than the lowest end system to do mostly office, email, web browsing. Machine could be 50% faster on paper but on average they get less than 5% benefit.

For example, a 1.4Ghz Tualatin Celeron is within 95% of the performance of an i7 in summed:average daily use, because the user is the bottleneck.

RE: imo
By paydirt on 4/7/2009 9:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
great point, the average PC is overpowered for the average user.

RE: imo
By cabjf on 4/6/2009 10:42:29 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly what I was thinking. They could at least do a good job of comparing models. Though I guess the general public would just believe anything they hear in a commercial over actually doing work. The three things he mentioned being important to him were portability, battery life, and power. Let's compare the model he bought to a MacBook. Note I'm actually comparing the HP recommended, upgraded version of the laptop he bought, which should be even better comparison for HP, right?

The HP he picked is 7.3 pounds, almost twice the weight compared to a MacBook, and almost twice as thick too. Not to mention that screen on the HP is only 1366x768 (upgrading would take him over his budget).

The HP is also rated for 3 hours on battery power vs 5 on the MacBook. Neither would get that much in the real world, but like EPA comparisons, 5 hours rated would more than likely make out better than 3 hours rated.

The processor in the HP is about .13 GHz faster than the one in the MacBook, but the MacBook is using PC3-8500 DDR3 RAM compared to the HP's PC2-5300 DDR2 RAM, granted the HP does come with more, but it's also running Vista.

This ad is no better than the last one where they purposefully picked a price point that excluded Apple. Either way it will probably be successful only due to the lack of critical thinking among the general public. Not the the Apple commercials are any better in terms of taking advantage of the public, but at least they tend not to fall apart after such a small amount of research.

RE: imo
By Master Kenobi on 4/6/2009 10:51:19 AM , Rating: 5
I think your forgetting that the price point is the market sweet spot where the majority of laptops and desktops are sold at. Market Analysis says 900-1500 is where most things sell well. This ad campaign clearly targets the general consumer population. It's not HP's or Microsoft's problem that Apple intentionally prices themselves out of the consumer price range and instead prefer to sit in the boutique price range.

RE: imo
By CrimsonFrost on 4/6/2009 11:06:36 AM , Rating: 5
What about the fact that had MS given him the $2500 or so, that the MacBook Air costs, and he still got the PC for say.... $2100 Then how much would the hardware specs differ in favor for the PC? The point of this commercial, at least to those of us who DO KNOW a thing or two about computer peripherals and other hardware is simple, and something I'm sure Apple is very afraid to let the consumer know about: If you have the same $2500 dollars that you might have used on a Mac and instead used all of it on a PC, you'd come out with a Laptop leaps and bounds better (as far as hardware goes) than you would a Mac of the same price. End of story, there is no argument to be made here.

RE: imo
By mindless1 on 4/6/2009 7:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to disagree with that, by far the largest selling products are priced under $800. Remember, intel integrated video is still the most popular video/system platform. Manufacturers would like to make people think the general population is choosing higher priced systems but instead we see even more of a trend to low end today than even two years ago. Rightly so, the average use of a computer does not require $900 worth of hardware, particularly with mobile laptop and netbook use.

RE: imo
By Alexstarfire on 4/7/2009 1:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
That would really only further put you into PC territory though, so his argument still stands rather well.

RE: imo
By DASQ on 4/6/2009 11:08:35 AM , Rating: 5
Uhh... why are you comparing his purchase to a Macbook when he was comparing it to a Macbook Pro?
A comparable machine with a smaller 15" screen (albeit with "Millions of Colors"), would have cost $2,499 at the Apple store

Perhaps they have a super secret 15" Macbook that I don't know about.

I don't see why you're complaining about Microsoft when, at worst, they are doing what Apple does with every one of their "PC vs. Mac" ads.

RE: imo
By Griffinhart on 4/6/2009 11:30:14 AM , Rating: 5
Part of the issue here is there isn't a model that Apple has to compare with.

The closest spec you can get with the Macbook from the Apple store is $1793 vs $1099. And while the HP is "only 1366x768" the Macbook is only 1280x800 and a smaller screen.

In addition, it will have a 320GB HD instead of a 500GB drive, no SD Card reader, No Firewire (oh, the irony), no fingerprint reader, no and a slower Video chip.

Considering that any laptop with the specs of the HP, is going to be a strong performing laptop, It's a good angle. Not only is the HP more than powerful enough to meet just about anyones laptop needs, the configuration is quite excellent. No one would sit behind a machine with those specs and think it's not powerful enough.

IMHO, this is a perfectly good comparison. You can't buy ANY new Apple laptop for $1100, much less one with the kind of specs that the HP HDX has. Hell, you could even buy yourself an extra battery that you can swap out and still be hundreds less than a comparable Macbook.

RE: imo
By Fenixgoon on 4/6/2009 1:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
so then should apple do a fair comparison of OSX vs XP/Vista and soon to be Win7?

RE: imo
By omnicronx on 4/6/2009 2:01:15 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly what I was thinking. They could at least do a good job of comparing models. Though I guess the general public would just believe anything they hear in a commercial over actually doing work. The three things he mentioned being important to him were portability, battery life, and power. Let's compare the model he bought to a MacBook. Note I'm actually comparing the HP recommended, upgraded version of the laptop he bought, which should be even better comparison for HP, right?
I guessed you missed the ENTIRE point of the commercial. They say right in it you are pay for brand and the Apple is 'Wayyy Sexier', which includes size and weight. But when it comes down to it most people are buying a computer, not a fancy lightweight case.

The Macbook air is also a terrible example to compare, this is the one Mac that actually has different hardware from all PC's, mainly because the Intel CPU in use is currently only being sold to them. (This will not last forever either)

Aside from this every single other Mac laptop or desktop can be directly compared to PC and will be far more expensive 99.99% of the time. You can still build a Quad core DDR3 PC for much cheaper than a Mac, (even brand name PC's) this is the point they are trying to get across.

RE: imo
By PrezWeezy on 4/6/2009 6:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
A small ammount of digging? How about the commercial where mac made a big deal of adding a webcam? At the time almost all laptops came with them, and no Mac desktop (other than the iMac) coems with one either without buying a Mac LCD. And you can buy an LCD for much cheaper from ViewSonic with an integrated webcam.
With a "small" ammount of digging you can debunk almost any ad from any company. But try to feed us this BS that Mac somehow has holy ads just because they AREN'T Microsoft. Everyone hates MS because they are the big guy, and if Mac was the big guy we'd all hate them just the same.

RE: imo
By retrospooty on 4/6/2009 11:37:38 AM , Rating: 3
Like I said "Bending the truth" Apple has gotten away with it (and much worse than this) for 10+ years. I am glad MS is striking back.

RE: imo
By yomamafor1 on 4/6/2009 1:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
I think its because he's tech savvy, so he knows the difference in performance between DDR2-533 and DDR3-1066 on mobile is very little. So paying nearly more than $1,000 more for the RAM that makes little difference doesn't make much sense to anyone.

You on the other hand, just embarrassed yourself.

RE: imo
By omnicronx on 4/6/2009 2:08:43 PM , Rating: 5
They also don't tell you the timings used. Low timed DDR2-800 modules can easily outperform higher timed DDR3-1066.

DDR3 at 1066MHZ is pointless, especially with how cheap DDR2 modules are, (which also happen to go up to 1066MHZ). Its just another reason for apple to tack on a few hundred dollars (with absolutely no benefit over cheaper DDR2 modules with lower timings).

The only benefit is upgradability, and on a laptop, this is not the #1 concern. You are more likely to buy a new laptop before upgradings its components.

RE: imo
By rs2 on 4/6/2009 6:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
Okay then Mr. tech-savvy, here's a little equivalence chart for you:

DDR-400 ~= DDR2-800 ~= DDR3-1600

...why is that you ask? Because the numbers tacked on to the end there are misleading. In all three examples, the RAM modules run at the same internal clock of 200 MHz, and that's why when DDR2 came out, anything less than DDR2-800 was really a step backwards from the DDR-400 RAM that was being replaced. The same goes for DDR3 memory. In fact, the primary reason for the move from DDR to DDR2, and from DDR2 to DDR3 was power/efficiency, not performance.

So while the DDR3-1066 memory may look better on paper because the numbers are bigger, it's really not very different from a DDR2-533 setup, especially when considering that for most applications, memory latency makes a much bigger difference than throughput/bandwidth, and latency depends almost entirely on the memory chip's internal clock.

So in reality, the guy in the commercial didn't do any worse with his DDR2-533 than he would have with the Mac's DDR3-1066. In fact, the only real difference DDR3-1066 would have made is to inflate the final price of the system.

RE: imo
By Shimpty on 4/8/2009 6:41:46 PM , Rating: 1
Actually apples now have a huge premium its why I stopped buying them for awhile their they were small only a $300 premium or so now they are $500+ premium almost. And to back up what I am saying

Apple 15.4 Macbook Pro stock

2499.99 for dual core 2.6 GHz, 4GB RAM DDR3, 320GB 5400RPM HDD, 9600GT GPU, 1440x900 res screen.

And the new upcoming Sager laptop

$2284.99 for quad core 2.0 Q9000, 4GB RAM DDR3, 320GB 5400RPM HDD, GTX280M, 1920x1200 15.4 inch screen, and Blu-ray.

Much higher end components and I mean much higher and still 300 less. If you configure it equally to the apple as best you can its still only $2000 that still better with a GTX280M and if you go the the one with the GTX260 its only $1800. And then ASUS's on newegg with the same specs $1500. So apple $1000 premium for a macbook pro.

And don't get me wrong I like OSX used a powerbook for over 6 yrs.

RE: imo
By Moishe on 4/6/2009 9:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
Since it was mentioned twice in this article, I wanna know what makes the screen on the Mac "better".

RE: imo
By SpaceJumper on 4/6/2009 10:02:52 AM , Rating: 3
I found the Apple screen is less reflective when comparing with the majority of the Windows machines. My Toshiba laptop screen is actually looking better the Apple laptop screen.

RE: imo
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 12:57:27 PM , Rating: 3
I found the Apple screen is less reflective

Unless you are using an older macbook, the new ones are awfully glossy...

RE: imo
By Belard on 4/7/2009 2:09:30 PM , Rating: 3
Lenovo ThinkPADs are sold with matte (NOT GLOSSY / reflective) LCD displays. A big reason to choose those over any thing else. What retard thought having a reflective display showing your own face as "a good idea"?

And starting at about $600, the ThinkPAD SL-500 has those features. ThinkPAD SL500 stats (ordered recently)
2.2Ghz Core2Duo
2GB of RAM
160GB HD (didn't need larger)
15" screen (14" avail) (Glossy is optional)
DVD Burner
HDMI and VGA output, 4 USB ports, SD/MMC slot (yeah)
Liquid keyboard pass-through, internal roll-cage
Vista Business with WinXP Pro
2 year Damage Warranty
$830 delivered.

RE: imo
By biggsjm on 4/6/2009 10:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
The mac screen supports a higher resolution.

RE: imo
By Griffinhart on 4/6/2009 11:38:19 AM , Rating: 2
Which Mac? The Macbook which would be almost $700 more expensive? Nope. The Macbook is 1200x800 vs 1366x768. That means the Macbook is lower resolution. To get the higher 1440x900 you need to get the Macbook Pro and spend at least $1100 more to get a 4GB machine with a smaller hard drive.

That's not to say the Macbook or Macbook pro aren't nice laptops, simply that they are much more money.

RE: imo
By Commodus on 4/6/2009 5:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's 1280x800, and the pixel count is virtually identical -- all that happens is that you trade a bit of height for extra width.

The difference is that Apple's notebook doesn't take up as much physical space.

RE: imo
By lightfoot on 4/6/2009 6:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
1200x800 vs 1366x768 - the pixel count is virtually identical -- all that happens is that you trade a bit of height for extra width

I know I'm a lowly PC user and don't have a shiny computer case like you do, but my computer comes with a calculator - something you might want to learn to use since you clearly can't do math.
1200x800 is 960,000 pixels.
1366x768 is 1,049,088 pixels.
That is 109.3% more screen area than the Mac.
10% more area is not virtually identical.
You are trading a little height for a lot of extra width - resulting in a much better screen resolution.

RE: imo
By mindless1 on 4/6/2009 11:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
If only we could trade a little width for a lot of height, it's getting a bit ridiculous that everything is designed around watching an HD movie on a laptop. Bring back 4:3 ratio!

RE: imo
By aegisofrime on 4/6/2009 10:55:21 AM , Rating: 3
That's funny, because I read that the LCD on MacBooks actually support only up to 262k colours.

RE: imo
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 1:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
No, what is funny are people who can't use the internet to check facts before posting.

"LED-backlit glossy widescreen display with support for millions of colors"

Using the internet is hard....

RE: imo
By erple2 on 4/6/2009 1:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think that the grand parent was referring to the fact that all TN (Twisted Nematic) based LCD screens are in reality only 6 bit (per RGB triple). That means that they can actually only display 262k (2^18) colors simultaneously. However, that's true with almost all laptops available today anyway, so that's not a fair comparison.

Using clever tricks, however, you can get away with a human eye seeing "millions" (but not quite 16777216) of colors, using a dithering effect though. I have not read anything to suggest that the new Macbook Pro screens have anything other than a TN based panel.

I do find it curious that Apple says "Millions" for their laptop screen, but specifies "16.7 Million" colors for their Cinema Displays. It also says it supports millions of colors, it doesn't say that it displays millions of colors. Is there a difference? I don't know.

RE: imo
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 1:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
Does the Macbook display 'millions of colors'? Yes, but... and I emphasize the 'but'... as you said, they use dithering software to achieve this effect.

So in a way, they are being truthful when they say millions, but not so truthful about how they achieve this. Apple even has a lawsuit in which Apple settled with the plantiff:

For design professionals, such as myself, I require a display that can reach the full gamut of the adobe color spec. Everyday users would probably never notice the difference between dithered and full display of the color gamut, but professionals absolutely will, especially in print production.

RE: imo
By Alexstarfire on 4/7/2009 1:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
I notice it, it just really doesn't matter to me. As you said, it's really only going to affect professionals who need exact colors.

RE: imo
By ChugokuOtaku on 4/6/2009 11:37:15 AM , Rating: 2
probably anything from size, contrast ratio, or the gloss finish made these guys think it's "better"

or maybe the mac used LED for backlighting?

but even that shouldn't offset the price tag by more than $100

RE: imo
By smackababy on 4/6/2009 10:20:37 AM , Rating: 5
I love how people get upset that the commercials might be scripted. It is a commercial... Like Apple has't used "scripted" benchmarks to lie to people. One of my good friends is a programmer at Apple, and he only owns one because they give him a new one every year.

RE: imo
By Solandri on 4/6/2009 9:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
And even if it wasn't scripted, does anyone seriously think Microsoft would air commercials where the user picked a Mac? It's a commercial, not a documentary - it's supposed to be biased.

RE: imo
By Alexstarfire on 4/7/2009 1:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
Very true, although it would make for one hell of an interesting discussion if MS did post an ad in which the user chose an Apple.

RE: imo
By WoWCow on 4/6/2009 11:08:13 AM , Rating: 2
Except, like a few years ago, the Apple products were like SUVs and Hummers being sold like hot cakes. One does not care about practicality when one is uneducated and rich.

I suppose it is time for them to finally grab that rich tasting slice of pie that is not apple.

RE: imo
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 11:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
Contrary to popular belief, I do appreciate Apple's knack for clever marketing and smart branding to build their niche market.

Nevertheless, you are paying for the label. I paid for it, and I know first-hand that people will pay more for style/label/brand. Look at clothing, cars, and sunglasses, etc.

Some people will want you to believe that Apple hardware is magically better, but that is a falsehood. Of course, we all know who that is, but I digress. I don't plan on posting 500 more posts just to prove that point, as has been proven over and over again.

RE: imo
By msheredy on 4/6/2009 11:51:04 AM , Rating: 1
Some people will want you to believe that Apple hardware is magically better, but that is a falsehood.

Exactly, Apple doesn't make it's own hardware, they outsource it just like everyone else. When I speak of hardware I speak of chipsets, harddrives etc. not the actual computer.

What makes Apple products superior is how their software works so seamlessly with the hardware that they choose to put in it. Throw in the best designs and you have yourself a winner, or in this case a MAC.

RE: imo
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 12:02:46 PM , Rating: 4
What makes Apple products superior is how their software works so seamlessly with the hardware that they choose to put in it

Well, let's analyze this statement for a moment. Why does it work so 'seamlessly'? That would be because of the limited hardware configurations for the Mac. OS X doesn't have to work with millions of different hardware configurations. I have said it before, that if Apple was in MS's shoes, they would have the same issues.

RE: imo
By DFranch on 4/6/2009 12:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly the point I make every time somebody tried to tell me how superior a mac is. Considering the endless combinations, Windows does an amazing job or making everything work together. Apple would curl up in the fetal position if they had to deal with array of hardware configurations windows does.

RE: imo
By DFranch on 4/6/2009 3:05:43 PM , Rating: 4
Also, I love it when people say the mac doesn't need anti-virus. The mac is consistently the first platform hacked during hacker competitions. The only reason it isn't a big problem is who wants to waste their time writing a virus which can at best infect 3% of the computers in the world. If Apple had a respectable market share you can bet they would make a bigger deal about anti-virus.

RE: imo
By Aloonatic on 4/6/2009 4:00:53 PM , Rating: 4
Macs may would surly be worth hacking if they are mostly bought by rich people with more money than sense. Surly their bank details are worth getting hold of as they will have plenty of money and probably don't keep track of it too well :p :)

RE: imo
By lightfoot on 4/6/2009 7:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
Macs are protected primarily by herd immunization. Macs make up less than 15% of the population of computers in the "herd" of the internet computer population. A virus specifically targeting Macs would likely have no effect on Windows machines and thus would have difficulty propagating over the network due to the fact that 85% of the population is "immunized" to the infection.

It is not really protection, it just prevents as rapid a spread of the virus.

RE: imo
By Pirks on 4/6/2009 7:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
Another protection of Macs against viruses is the lack of large corporate deployments based on ancient versions of Mac OS, say Mac OS 9.

Compare it with museum like corporate XP and Win2K based networks straight from 20th century. These museum exhibit lovers are just asking for the Conficker or something.

RE: imo
By rdeegvainl on 4/8/2009 7:58:43 AM , Rating: 2
Another protection of Macs against viruses is the lack of large corporate deployments based on Mac OS.

fixed that for you

RE: imo
By Pirks on 4/8/2009 12:14:22 PM , Rating: 1
RE: imo
By Scott66 on 4/6/2009 9:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
It is not Microsoft that make its OS work with endless combinations of hardware.

The makers of the endless combos of hardware make damn sure their equipment meets Microsoft's system requirements and pay Microsoft a fee to verify conformity.

RE: imo
By callmeroy on 4/6/2009 12:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
I do believe sunglasses and clothing is an excellent example of paying for a brand.

What ? You paid "how much" for those jeans that look identical to the much cheaper ones I bought? What! You paid EXTRA for them to be torn?

Oh so your $300 sunglasses protect your eyes better than my $30 sunglasses? ok um...btw....mind if you spring for dinner since you don't seem to value you money, might as well have it benefit me....:)

RE: imo
By Aloonatic on 4/6/2009 3:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is here is that there is a slight improvement in quality, but obviously not 10x the quality, if you know what I mean?!

What people are really paying for however is a status symbol. They know that it is expensive, and they know that it doesn't really have a much greater intrinsic value but what it does say is look at me, I can afford to spend/waste sooo much money on these things and what's more, if you had the money you would too, just to let everyone know how successful you are.

Sure, you'll say that you wouldn't now, but I would wager that if you had the cash to burn and you wouldn't notice it in your monthly budget (not that you would probably have one if you were that wealthy) you would think "what the hay" and buy a pair (or two) and that slight improvement in quality is something that you can both afford and suddenly want.

Sure, your $30 sunglasses protect your eyes, but when you see someone in $300 dollar sunglasses you think that their eyes are probably being protected from a lot more sun, in more tropical and exclusive places than your $30 shades could ever dream of going, and that's the difference.

Not really sure how that relates to Macs tho, to be fair :)

RE: imo
By jimbojimbo on 4/6/2009 4:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
mind if you spring for dinner since you don't seem to value you money, might as well have it benefit me
As long as he gets to tell everyone that he paid for your dinner and how great he is because of that I'm sure he wouldn't mind.

RE: imo
By Alexstarfire on 4/7/2009 1:15:54 AM , Rating: 2
Those $300 might actually work better than your $30 pair, but I do get your point.

RE: imo
By arazok on 4/6/2009 12:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
I like the “I’m not cool enough for a Mac” tag line. Microsoft needs push that line at every opportunity until we all puke. It’s plays to the anti-establishment nonsense that all the Mac fanboys use to justify using a Mac in the first place. Make the Mac the new establishment and market MS as the underdog.

RE: imo
By mondo1234 on 4/6/2009 10:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
IMHO, the thing you have to remember is that commercials like this don't always work when your not the underdog. The other thing is, people are starting to wonder why MS doesn't mention their own product in their own ads in that they may be too embarrassed to mention Vista. I have never really watched the apple ads, but now MS comes across as stooping to apples level and being scared to lose 1% market share to Jobs, not to mention Balmer does it when Jobs is on sick leave looks weak. If you have 90% market share, doesn't that speak for itself? Not much confidence in Redmond.

RE: imo
By Alexstarfire on 4/7/2009 1:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
So in your opinion you choose between letting apple get away with it which makes MS look bad, or you fight back which also makes you look bad, great choices. Go pull your head out of your ass for a second and use the brain that was given to you.

RE: imo
By mondo1234 on 4/7/2009 11:05:44 AM , Rating: 2
So in your opinion you choose between letting apple get away with it which makes MS look bad, or you fight back which also makes you look bad, great choices.

Thats right. Apples been doing this for over 30 years, and it hasn't made them king. If they want to blow money on worthless ads, who cares. They didn't change anything.

Go pull your head out of your ass for a second and use the brain that was given to you.

Bet that really works for you in High School. Too bad its not the same with a $150 billion company. People expect more from the top performers. MS used to have different ad campaigns when Bill Gates ran the company.

If you cant take other peoples opinions, go to a different blog

RE: imo
By Alexstarfire on 4/7/2009 3:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you still can't use your brain. My point was that no matter what they choose, from what you said, they are going to look like the bad guy. I think that while the commercials are interesting to watch, they are crap. So much information is being bent or just plain left out. That's marketing for you. Probably 99% of all ads are flat out lying to people, in some way.

And I would hardly consider DailyTech a blog.

RE: imo
By mondo1234 on 4/7/2009 5:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you still can't use your brain

And I would hardly consider DailyTech a blog.

My brain works just fine, and obviously better than your eyes. You have obviously misinterpreted the four lettered word next to the authors name. I am referring to the part at the top of the article where it says:

New Microsoft Commercial: Apple Users Paying for Brand, Not Product
Jason Mick (Blog) - April 6, 2009 9:19 AM

So in your opinion you choose between letting apple get away with it which makes MS look bad, or you fight back which also makes you look bad, great choice

Sorry, its a maturity thing. My point is that there is nothing to gain by these ads especially when you are the 800 lb gorilla. If you are on a date and a 7 year old calls you an A$$hole, you are probably the person that would kick the kids A$$ because you dont want the kid to get away with it. On the other hand, you probably dont realize that fighting back in that situation makes you look like a child to your date. You are obviously intimidated by the child but need to prove you are stronger.

I do agree with you that they are crap and not worth the time. I dont watch the apple commercials either. The world might expect this from Apple, but they dont expect this from Microsoft and they shouldn't stoop to apples level. Is Balmer so insecure about his company that he needs to do this? I will have to stick with my opinion that "commercials like this don't always work when your not the underdog."

RE: imo
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/7/2009 7:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
Should "have" done, not should "of" done.

By ltcommanderdata on 4/6/2009 9:57:46 AM , Rating: 4
Because, an HDX 16 weighing in at more than 7lbs isn't portable by anyone's measure. And even the most recent Anandtech review of the Dell XPS 16 shows Apple laptops offer superior battery life characteristics.

The HDX 16's 16" screen also only has a 1366x768 resolution which really isn't much more than what the MacBook or MacBook Air offers.

He is right that it is about choice and customizability. In this case, he optimized for price, raw screen size (but not resolution), and GPU power at the expense of portability and battery life.

By JasonMick on 4/6/2009 10:16:10 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, but an Apple laptop with decent hardware was way out of his price range. To get one, he'd have to pay over twice what he paid for the HP. You can't fairly say that he sacrificed portability and battery life by picking HP over Apple. Apple has no similarly priced offerings, other than the MacBook (original) which has grossly inferior hardware.

If he wanted that he could have picked a smaller HP/Dell/etc. with a longer battery life AND gotten a cheaper price, like Lauren did....

By Doormat on 4/6/2009 10:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't Lauren get a 16.4" laptop, like this guy did? That doesn't seem smaller to me.

By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 11:15:38 AM , Rating: 1
Apple has no similarly priced offerings, other than the MacBook (original) which has grossly inferior hardware

I wouldn't say 'grossly inferior'. Not in the least. While lacking more of the standard options of a windows-based laptop, the macbook does offer a solid product in that the OS is super stable and the construction of the laptop is definitely a higher grade than most midrange and even high-end laptops.

I have had my macbook pro for quite a while now, and I can say I have been pleased with it. It's just that when people try to make it seem that Apple products are miles above PC products, it's just wrong. Being on both sides of the fence, I know that each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

What it comes down to is personal taste, nothing more.

By teohhanhui on 4/6/2009 12:26:10 PM , Rating: 3
Try to compare the build quality of a MacBook to that of a MacBook Pro...

By mmntech on 4/6/2009 10:17:04 AM , Rating: 5
Battery Life is where OS X totally wipes the floor with Vista. This was the primary reason I went with a Mac a couple years ago, this coming from a former PC fanboy.

What I don't understand is why Microsoft is just focusing on the hardware aspects of Apple systems in these commercials, especially given they're a software company. I guess there really is nothing in Vista to brag about. The Apple commercials have benefited Microsoft if nothing else since for the first time in some 15 years, there was viable competition in the OS market to give their a kick up the backside. Without OS X or Ubuntu, MS would probably not have made the large number of changes they did with Windows 7, or pushed it's release date so far forward. They know they dropped the ball with Vista.

I do run Vista Premium BTW and from my own experience, it's certainly not as good as OS X, or even it's predecessor, in a number of areas. I also have the Windows 7 Beta and already it's a superior OS to Vista. It's lighter, has a more streamlined GUI, and feels less cluttered.

By Targon on 4/6/2009 10:48:26 AM , Rating: 4
When it comes to Windows based machines vs. MacOS based machines, you have two aspects, the OS and the hardware. The OS itself is more of a religion, because no matter how good the OS is from a design point of view, the UI is what makes many people prefer one over the other.

Most people who prefer a Windows based system and know what they are talking about KNOW that the fundamental OS for MacOS may be better, but if you hate the UI and have no way to change it, you WILL avoid MacOS. At the same time, there are many Mac users that hate the feel of Microsoft Windows, and it isn't about how fast it feels or anything like that. Different operating systems will appeal to different people just because of the user interface.

So, that is why Microsoft is targeting the hardware side of things. If Apple opened MacOS to work on ANY computer, then Microsoft would have a much harder time with the hardware focus. So, buy a "normal PC" with Windows for a lower price, or buy an Apple with the higher price tag. If Apple were to release laptops down in the $650 price range, and Desktops down in that same range, Microsoft would also have more difficulty with their current tactic.

By drebo on 4/6/2009 11:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
My Dell XPS 1210M gets roughly 6 hours battery life with wifi turned on and general office tasks/internet browsing.

That's more than enough for me.

By mac2j on 4/6/2009 4:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
Because, an HDX 16 weighing in at more than 7lbs isn't portable by anyone's measure. And even the most recent Anandtech review of the Dell XPS 16 shows Apple laptops offer superior battery life characteristics.

And to all the DDR3 vs DDR2 people also....

This guy could have stayed almost within the $1500 limit and still upgraded to 6GB of RAM (+100) and gotten an extra battery (+99) and upgraded to the 1920x1080p display (+175) which point his laptop is clearly superior to any Macbook under 2500 and arguably under 3000.

So is OS/X > Vista = YES, is OS/X + $1500 > Vista = NO.

And 7lbs for a 16" laptop really isnt that bad ... the 17" Dell I'm using right now is almot 9lbs and I take it everywhere with me.

By adiposity on 4/7/2009 1:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mean "- $1500"

Another difference is..
By ZeeStorm on 4/6/2009 10:34:07 AM , Rating: 1
Different operating systems? Does Microsoft take into account that some people don't want Vista/XP and rather use OSX? I'm not anti-windows, but there are some things that OSX just does better. They gotta think that it IS a different kind of computer, they're not competing for 100% of the same market (although for the majority of people they are). Especially for those out there that want the Mac, but bootcamp Windows. They get the best of both worlds, so Microsoft isn't losing out there.

RE: Another difference is..
By Master Kenobi on 4/6/2009 10:41:28 AM , Rating: 2
If Apple would stop forcing their branded hardware if you want OSX that would be a valid comparison. As it stands though your stuck with crapple hardware if you want OSX (Or care enough to break the ToS/EULA) and whitebox one yourself (with varying degrees of success).

You made a good point though, since Boot Camp (It's been wildly popular in this area) Apple has simply handed Microsoft another win and more money, all the while bashing their OS. Some days I get the distinct feeling that Apple doesn't know if it wants to be a Software provider or a Hardware provider. They keep trying to do both and its only limiting their ability to compete in the market. If they focused purely on one or the other they could probably expand their marketshare at a noticeably faster pace.

RE: Another difference is..
By cabjf on 4/6/2009 12:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe, just maybe, Apple wants to be an appliance company. They know that the majority of the public doesn't make a distinction between hardware and software on their computers. How many people think about what engine their car has? Or what their refrigerator uses to keep food cold?

Boot Camp was a way to break down a wall preventing people from moving to Macs, taking advantage of the fact that they run on the same architecture now. If people can still use some of their old software or even fall back to Windows completely, they feel there is less risk in trying out an Apple computer.

Contrary to commonly held beliefs, marketshare is not the only (or even the best) measure of success for a business. Look at all the cash Apple has on hand, with no debt at that. They seem to be doing alright for themselves without focusing on marketshare or just doing hardware or software alone.

RE: Another difference is..
By Pirks on 4/6/2009 1:00:35 PM , Rating: 1
they could probably expand their marketshare at a noticeably faster pace
Maybe they are just looking for high profits instead of high market share?

RE: Another difference is..
By Scott66 on 4/6/2009 10:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Apple wants to be a computer supplier and realizes that a computer is both hardware and an operating system. Therefore they design both parts to work together and create a unique experience for customers. It continued the holistic trend with iphones and ipods

You may stomp around and criticize but Apple knows what it is doing and is still making significant money.

RE: Another difference is..
By itzmec on 4/7/2009 4:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
didnt know apple designed computer hardware.

RE: Another difference is..
By Screwballl on 4/6/2009 11:05:49 AM , Rating: 2
Just remember that most people look at price and physical characteristics and don't know the difference between DDR2 and DDR3 much less a 8800GSM versus a 8400GSM, so when they see the "familiar" Windows for half the price, of course it will sell more.

As I am an anti-Vista IT person and using the beta of Windows 7, I really do think W7 has so much more to offer. I have been suggesting people looking to update/upgrade to just use Vista or XP for now but definitely upgrade to W7 when it is released. MS needs to start offering "free upgrade to Windows 7 when released" program with some sort of Demo on newer laptops... or even a "Wubi" style installer/uninstaller with a beta W7 (or mostly read-only) so people can check out the difference...

RE: Another difference is..
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 11:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 is far superior to Vista. I realize that Windows 7 is what Vista was meant to be, but I am glad MS is finally giving a crap about their customers.

I have been using Win7 beta for about 2 months now on my home machine, and it's been solid. Would I say it is on par with OS X? Definitely.

RE: Another difference is..
By FITCamaro on 4/6/2009 12:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
As I am an anti-Vista IT person and using the beta of Windows 7, I really do think W7 has so much more to offer

The same code base with a GUI refresh, lower memory usage, and a few different default options?

RE: Another difference is..
By Master Kenobi on 4/6/2009 12:57:29 PM , Rating: 4
Funny, most IT people that know how to do their job have no problem with Vista. Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista SP2, but yet seems to avoid the bad press that Vista got, even though its the exact same operating system. I find it amusing that people bitched and moaned about Vists changing the UI, yet Windows 7 changes it even more and people act like its no big deal. The Vista hate is nothing but smoke and mirrors, no real truth behind it. Windows 7 is Vista SP2 rebadged to avoid the bad press that Vista got from a few overvocal whiners in the press.

RE: Another difference is..
By davemang on 4/6/2009 1:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't agree more.

RE: Another difference is..
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 1:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
It may be Vista SP2, but they are branding it as a new product. We shouldn't be paying for what should be a service pack. Nevertheless, I will definitely be purchasing a copy.

I was an early adopter of Vista, and alot of complaints about it had merit. Of course, after SP1, those complaints were pretty much dead in the water.

RE: Another difference is..
By kc77 on 4/6/2009 8:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, most IT people that know how to do their job have no problem with Vista.

Sure and Dell, HP, and IBM just keep on offering that XP downgrade option for it's business customers just because they are kind. Vista has and still does have some serious problems with stability running programs that run just fine on Windows XP. File transfers are generally slower. Infopath 2003 has some weird quirks with Vista. AutoCad also has problems. Printer support isn't anywhere near as comprehensive as it is in XP.

There is no historical time when a downgrade option was offered all the way until the next release of an OS (ME was just avoided). I've been in IT going on 15 years so to say that problems with Vista are just made up is complete crap. Of all of the people I know servicing machines almost all still run XP. We didn't skip Vista for some unexplained reason. We tested it and it fell flat in a lot of areas. Was SP1 better? Yes. But it still didn't warrant upgrade unless we were willing to take the machines past the 2GB mark. At 2GB we were seeing faster start up times, but nothing that really mattered in a business setting. Those start up times just couldn't justify the headache of working through a new set of issues that didn't exist before.

The money was better spent VM'ing the servers and adding ram there in order to improve terminal service applications. We got much more bang for the buck than adding it to the clients just to run Vista, which provided little benefit to the big picture.

Now did we have the wherewithal to fix most of the issues? Yes. We had worked on a couple of workarounds and fixes for mandatory applications, but the question at the end of the day was "why?" What was Vista providing us in a business setting that we didn't already have a solution for? The answer was "not much."

Microsoft is desperate :)
By tshen83 on 4/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 5:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
You are making several assumptions with this comment.

1. That it's Microsofts fault for the blue screen.

2. That it's HP's fault for the blue screen.

3. That it's eithers fault for the blue screen.

4. That they will even get a blue screen.

Get with the times. The Mac vs. PC horse is dead and thoroughly beaten. You think Macs don't crash? Really? Then why do Mac support sites exist? Why does Apple have a support department if nothing ever goes wrong with a Mac or "They just work"?

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By tshen83 on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 5:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
Cool story, bro.

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By Pirks on 4/6/2009 6:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Most Adobe stuff ran better on the OSX
Hey, I've got a designer buddy of mine, working for some ad agency (printed ads that is), he mentioned a couple of times that he also noticed that Adobe apps run better/smoother on OS X versus Windows on approximately same hardware. I wonder if there's a system to these claims and it's not really an urban legend? Or is it?

Anyone here who's got experience with Adobe ID for example? Or something like running several large Adobe apps like ID simultaneously under Win vs OS X? What are your impressions?

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 6:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't respond to his rhetoric since most of it was fanboy-ism, but from personal experience, I don't notice any difference.

At home I run an i920, Asus P6T6 with 12GB DDR3 and an Intel 160GB SSD for my OS drive. When things just happen instantly, how can you really notice a difference? The only time I have felt a real difference was working with massive print files and using filters. My PC was definitely snappier than my Mac Pro here at work. Although it's nothing to write home about.

The only real way to distinguish the performance difference would be benchmarks. I haven't been able to find any with pc vs. mac Adobe benches.

The whole "it feels faster" doesn't count. Hard numbers are what we need here.

By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 6:41:02 PM , Rating: 1
Well after doing alot of looking around, there just aren't any real Mac vs. PC articles, at least not from Mac-only or PC-only sites that would be biased towards their respective platforms.

This brings me to one conclusion: Nobody gives a shit. That's right. It's about personal choice. I chose what is going to get the job done that I need it to do. I am a designer and a programmer. I like the Mac and that is what we use at work. Is it faster than my PC? No, but that's my personal opinion. If we are judging what 'feels' faster, than yes, my PC is faster.

Use what YOU like, and fuck everyone else and their opinions.

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By tshen83 on 4/6/2009 6:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
I am not a fanboy of Apple. I in fact hate Apple's "halo effect" tactic of forcing you to buy their hardware if you want OSX legally. OSX is just too beautiful as a desktop environment, it takes the choice of hardware away from you.

I dream of a day when you can buy a OSX license for $129 and can install it on a Dell or HP or VMware Workstation. Or better yet, can buy a Dell or HP with OSX preinstalled.

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By Pirks on 4/6/2009 7:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
OSX is just too beautiful as a desktop environment, it takes the choice of hardware away from you
The very fact that Apple engineers work with small subset of PC hardware is what allows them to spend the bulk of their time to develop and polish the OS features, instead of spending their time to make their OS functional on the gazillion of PC hardware configurations. Hence you can have either the polished highly advanced OS which you call
"too beautiful as a desktop environment" or the gazillion of supported hardware configuations, but not both.

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By tshen83 on 4/6/2009 8:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
You will be surprised to find out how much PC hardware OSX really supports. Hint: OSx86 runs pretty much on most HP and Dells already, just unofficially.

Second, you are arguing that Microsoft actually spends time with the drivers themselves, which is false. The responsibility of driver development had been pushed down to hardware vendor's side since Windows 95.

Once the hardware is abstracted, I don't see why a beautiful desktop environment can not be run on a gazillion of supported hardware configurations. All it needs is Steve Job's policy change to allow HP and Dell put OSX on their machines. Drivers will come almost in an instant.

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By Pirks on 4/6/2009 8:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
OSx86 runs pretty much on most HP and Dells already
Yes, it runs, but how well compared to real Macs? Is the experience exactly the same? Are you guaranteed that your HP/Dell/Acer/noname/etc will work out of the box as seamlessly/flawlessly/smoothly with OS X as a real Mac? With all the OS X bells and whistles like sleep/hibernation and official Apple updates? With the same stability/reliability?
The responsibility of driver development had been pushed down to hardware vendor's
We've seen the results of that already. Remember BSODs in nVidia Vista drivers? Ever tried to connect something like Royaltek GPS receiver to your Vista? Shifting driver development to China is asking for trouble. You can check my words if you don't believe me. Just buy Royaltek USB GPS receiver and try to make it work in Vista. You'll understand everything once you've gone through that.

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By tshen83 on 4/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By Pirks on 4/6/2009 9:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
So you can see that OS X doesn't work on a generic PC as flawlessly as on Macs. Experience is not exactly the same, and this was my point. Apple engineers could have chosen one of the two paths. Either make OS X work flawlessly on any generic PC, or make OS X work flawlessly on a small subset of PC hardware and spend more time on developing and polishing features. Obviously they've chosen the latter, 'cause it's impossible to choose both at the same time. It's impossible because Apple's resources are not unlimited, they can't do everything at the same time.

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By tshen83 on 4/6/2009 9:51:11 PM , Rating: 1
"So you can see that OS X doesn't work on a generic PC as flawlessly as on Macs."

Well, Steve Jobs intentionally prevented it from working so that he can sell more Macs. In fact if you are a kernel developer, you will see just how much BS the Apple guys put into their OSX code base so that normal Dell/HP doesn't work as flawlessly. That is hardly an argument for showing Microsoft sympathy though.

"cause it's impossible to choose both at the same time."

Microsoft's problem goes beyond the BSOD jokes I put out. They simply don't get "it". Much of Microsoft's dominance comes from the model of distribution contracts from Dell/HP back in the windows 95 days, basically completely takes away a consumer's right to choose an OS. Since the return of Steve Jobs and adoption of Intel CPU in Macs, OSX had improved so much more than Windows had. Sadly both company see the need to protect their own section of the monopoly.

I am taking off for the day. Macs are PCs. People, just get over it.

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By jjmcubed on 4/6/2009 9:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Stupidity? or the fact that sometimes people don't agree with what other people say? Yes, I can think for myself as can many other people out there. Just because I don't agree with what you say doesn't make me stupid...

RE: Microsoft is desperate :)
By Nekrik on 4/7/2009 2:45:04 AM , Rating: 3
Back in the old PPC days most Adobe products were written and optimized specifically for the PPC architecture, hence all the benchmarks Jobs displayed showed a considerable advantage for the OSX/Photoshop configs. Now days they should be relatively similar, I believe in the early Mac Intel days Macs had a disadvantage running Photoshop under Rosetta. If there is a substantial difference I would look for other explanations, AV on Windows and not the Mac (or other apps running at startup), networking apps or possibly HD Drive speed/cache, etc...

By Whaaambulance on 4/7/2009 3:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
This is true. When I first started graphic design, we were using the old Power Mac 7200 Desktops. Mainly because of the print industry, Apple was the best platform for Adobe products as well as QuarkXpress.

We had several NT machines in the college lab, and well, anything adobe really ran like a dog on them. But then again, Mac OS 7 wasn't the most stable OS back then.

But now, there isn't much difference. The main difference would be the limitless configuration options you have when building your own PC vs. what is available to you in the Apple store.

By BIGFOOTPI on 4/6/2009 9:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
"He gets the computer for $1,099 . A comparable machine, albeit with a better screen, would have cost $2,499 at the Apple store... Pocketing the remaining $400 ,"

$400? Shouldn't it be $1400?

RE: typo?
By Brandon Hill on 4/6/2009 9:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft gave him $1,500, the machine cost $1,099. He pocketed $400.

Of course they don't take into account tax, but you get the idea.

RE: typo?
By yacoub on 4/6/2009 10:13:08 AM , Rating: 3
So he couldn't have purchased the Mac option anyway, hehe

RE: typo?
By ltcommanderdata on 4/6/2009 10:17:53 AM , Rating: 1
Well if he was looking for portability and battery life as he said then the MacBook would have been a good option. The trade off would be mainly weaker GPU and smaller screen although the resolution is about the same.

RE: typo?
By xti on 4/6/2009 10:34:03 AM , Rating: 3
trade off? or deal breaker?

RE: typo?
By omnicronx on 4/6/2009 2:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
The article says he pocketed 300 after taxes.

RE: typo?
By jimbojimbo on 4/6/2009 5:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
In the first commercial she bought a printer with her left over money. I'm assuming this guy did something similar.

By FITCamaro on 4/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: Microsoft
By RamarC on 4/6/2009 9:47:06 AM , Rating: 5
but the sideburns and turtleneck crowd loves apple! they think macs are sexy. real men know women are sexy -- computers aren't. now androids on the other hand...

RE: Microsoft
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2009 9:59:45 AM , Rating: 1
lol Fit.

Didn't you know ? 'Tech Savy' means you also have to have the queer eye somewhat.

Great move by MS with the new commercials, but it's clear they are trying to pull more Apple users to their side. I have lots of 'tech savvy' friends. None of us grease our hair up, wear lots of jewlery, or go limp wristed in turtlenecks. Infact...does ANYONE wear turtle necks anymore in real life ?

RE: Microsoft
By erple2 on 4/6/2009 2:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
Of course! When it's 20 below zero with a howling wind, turtleneck's are essential. That's when I wear one.

RE: Microsoft
By DigitalFreak on 4/6/2009 10:50:29 AM , Rating: 2
Of course I don't have sideburns or wear limp-wristed turtleneck sweaters. So maybe that disqualifies me.

Wow, that describes Steve Jobs perfectly!

RE: Microsoft
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 11:27:58 AM , Rating: 2
You guys are going to awaken the gimp... shhhhhhh.....

By KayKay on 4/6/2009 11:03:36 AM , Rating: 3
I think a very important point that both the 'Lauren' and 'Giampaolo' commercials make is that the consumer has a wide variety of choices when it comes to what computer they can buy, given their budget constraints / personal requirements.

Lauren wanted a 17" laptop for under $1000. There's only one 17" Mac and it's over $2000. She was able to go through the aisle at BB and find the one she wanted.

Giampaolo wanted a laptop with a dedicated graphics card, and lots of HDD and RAM, and still fit under his budget. There wasn't a Mac that was in his range.

And a valid point I'll bring up is that Mac fans may say "PC users don't have the Choice of what OS they run, they're stuck with Windows". If there were other options available, I'm sure they would consider it. Seeing as how running OS X on a non-mac is deemed "sinful/illegal", that option is out the window, and the lack of PC Gaming support on linux, the result is the outcome of lack of other options.

RE: Choice
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 11:58:30 AM , Rating: 2
And a valid point I'll bring up is that Mac fans may say "PC users don't have the Choice of what OS they run, they're stuck with Windows".

That isn't really a valid point. What are Mac users options? Running VMWare with a copy of Windows. So that would be rather hypocritical of them, right?

RE: Choice
By stromgald30 on 4/6/2009 8:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
It reminds me of this spoof:

I have a mac...
By BusterBluth on 4/6/2009 3:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
And I don't think the point these commercial make is mute.

However, when I bought my Macbook Pro a couple years ago the prices seemed slightly more competitive.

The Mac Pro desktop was also much more competitively priced about 4 years ago, now it has become a bit ridiculous.

RE: I have a mac...
By Saen11 on 4/7/2009 1:25:17 AM , Rating: 2
I am so glad to see some good counter adds after all these years. The earlier adds with Bill were terrible, but these new ones work well and hit Apple in the right spot.

I can not understood how Apple that does not support gaming, sets themselves up as being "more fun"! That they show the PC guy as some fun hating, corporate stooge, ultra nerd!

What I would give to see an ad with the Mac guy shot by a M4 rifle, and the PC guy saying something like, "Oh my bad, just practicing for the new Call of Duty, got to get my A game back. Dam I forgot you wont be joining us. Still spending all your time listening to indie music and writing your blogs? Crap I guess that means you are not going to respawn are you. That's a lot of blood. Most players usually survive one shot. Hmm. I gotta go... Hang in there"

Failing that, at least they are pointing out the high price, worse hardware of most Apple products.

RE: I have a mac...
By Pirks on 4/7/2009 2:37:29 AM , Rating: 2
What I would give to see an ad with the Mac guy shot by a M4 rifle
M4? Meh. How about a Scorpion?

just my input...
By wraithlabs on 4/6/2009 10:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
It amazes me how tight the ranks are on either side of the debate. I own a number of PCs and a number of Macs. I enjoy using both. Windows has the benefit of working good on nearly every device and Mac's OS has the benefit of working great on only specified devices.

People seem to be very troubled and angered by the "Apple Tax". This extra money tacked on after you tally up the cost for the hardware includes a number of benefits. You are paying this extra fee in return for an outstanding OS, great support, and style. While a laptop can go up significantly in price by slapping an apple logo on it, so do many other products, it's called branding. It is the same reasoning people use when they buy a Dell PC rather than one built at a small local store. Although the hardware may be very similar, they pay to have the brand name and the support and other benefits that go along with it.

RE: just my input...
By TallCoolOne on 4/8/2009 3:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a long time Windows user who never had a reason to buy a Mac until last year when I wanted to do some iPhone development. I bought an aluminum Macbook and have enjoyed using it ever since. The solid feel of the aluminum chassis says "quality" to someone used to mass-produced generic PC laptops. I still use a PC desktop however for .NET development and gaming. I use both for general use tasks like web browsing, but on the PC I miss having the gesture commands available with the Macbook's trackpad. I tend to use the trackpad just for gesture commands while using an external mouse.

I never had a problem with PCs. I build my own and like having a variety of hardware to choose from. I've never had a major virus or other malware effect my system in 20 years because I'm careful. The Mac's much touted virus "immunity" is not a major difference for me. What is different is that feeling of quality. The Mac is my classy BMW while the PC is my functional, yet uninspiring, <Insert broke American carmaker here>.

like a good looking person with no money
By onerec on 4/6/2009 10:29:17 AM , Rating: 1
come on guys, APPLE is selling products with high prices but the hardware is not good enough. Its like a person with a nice look but have no money.

By mindless1 on 4/7/2009 12:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
Strange comment, the majority of the world's population doesn't have much money and beyond makeup, looking good tends to come from being healthy which many value more than money. Having both is even better, but if life is not art then what is the point?

By Cheesew1z69 on 4/6/2009 11:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
Sony is just another company where the name is being paid for, back 15-20 years ago, Sony was worth it, not anymore!

By bkslopper on 4/6/2009 10:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
A gallon of milk weighs more than 7 pounds. Seriously people. Just one more reason gym class should be mandatory.

This is a bad comparison
By silversound on 4/6/2009 2:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
They should compare a product have similar weight, size and build. smaller laptops with same spec always cost more than bigger laptops due to air flow problems. air vs levono x300 is a better comparison

By noonie on 4/6/2009 6:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
I used to use Microsoft OS products because they provided more function over Apple OS products, but I no longer consider this the case. Microsoft has been pursuing more form over function for the last 6 or 7 years while Apple has been pursuing more function over form for the same amount of time. It appears that they have meet in the middle and my next computer purchase will not be as straight forward as past purchases. I will have to take a close look at Apple computers and consider the specific purpose and software I want to run before I make my next purchase.

By sapiens74 on 4/7/2009 2:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
Charging $200 bucks for the phone than tell me the $199 iPhone is too much...

By Belard on 4/7/2009 2:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
Another actor... okay, someone who hasn't pass acting class yet. Either way, another paid buyer.

1 - where do they find these people
2 - BB & Frys has to give them permission to video inside the store.
3 - HP and BB/Frys help pay for the ADS.
4 - This "tech savy" guy doesn't seem so tech savy...

But better than the Seinfield commercials.

But Mac Guy, he's real.

MS DOS revisited
By Casual Observer on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: MS DOS revisited
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2009 5:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
Dude this isn't 20 years ago. Nobody knows what the hell you are talking about, and it's just not relevant anyway.

RE: MS DOS revisited
By Whaaambulance on 4/6/2009 5:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
Old people need love too....

So much fail on the youtube comments...
By Fenixgoon on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By Master Kenobi on 4/6/2009 10:37:44 AM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately social websites like Youtube attract pretty much the bottom of the gene pool. If you want a good sampling of why the population of the US (and the world) is incredibly brainless, look no further than social networking sites. The things you will find written there amaze and horrify me. Most of the posters there are poster children for birth control.

RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By sbtech on 4/6/2009 11:23:41 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with this as well. Social networking sites, except some business ones like linkedin or xing which do have some benefits, are for people who have plenty of time, for misguided children who has yet to understand that identity comes from achievement in work - not by writing on virtual walls, or people not into doing something important with life - have plenty of time at hand.

My comments might seem a bit harsh, and some people might just make a page, or have some subgroup(technology, architecture, etc.) using the site as a form of network, but from the wierdos I know, you cant have a serious discussion with them. Certainly there could be exceptions.

And if your concept of don't buy from some company so inclined to get your business is to be followed, with all those Apple adds, one should stay as far away from Apple as possible, eh?

RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By mindless1 on 4/7/2009 12:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
Except for those who are self-employed, identity should definitely not come from work which is merely doing what you are required or ordered to do.

Identity comes from all of life's experiences, expressions, preferences, cultural influences, genetics, age, level of fitness and untold other factors. The old ways of thinking of self identity as "I am (insert job title here)" mean little these days with people moving through several jobs in their lifetime and in the case of the "children", they don't yet have the skill sets to have that great job so it would be pointless to think they have no identity until their first respectable job.

There is more to life than work, I hope you someday realize this.

RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By Alexstarfire on 4/7/2009 5:30:58 AM , Rating: 2
When he said work I didn't take it to mean just work work. I took it to mean things to work for, like a good education, being a good person (for some anyway), staying in shape, etc..

By mindless1 on 4/8/2009 1:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, but I wouldn't call being a good person "work", and play instead of work can be a good way to stay in shape.

RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By stromgald30 on 4/6/2009 8:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL. So delusional. Microsoft crying for business? I'm speechless at how ignorant that is. Microsoft is on the far end of the spectrum from the US automakers, and not close to being in decline.

Apple can only dream of OS X having the sales/profits that Vista has. Note that I'm not saying Vista is better, its just that MSFT has made much more money off Vista than Apple has off OS X, and Microsoft is far from desperate.

RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By Pirks on 4/6/2009 9:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
MSFT has made much more money off Vista than Apple has off OS X
Considering that Apple is a hardware maker and MSFT is a software maker - did you seriously expect something else?

RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By tshen83 on 4/6/2009 10:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. Both Apple and Microsoft are software makers at heart.

The only difference is the bundling tactic. Apple bundles its software with its own hardware(BTW, Apple doesn't manufacture the hardware. It designs it and then contracts out to Taiwanese manufacturers like Quanta) Microsoft bundles windows through lucratic contracts with Dell and HPs. Both are technically against the consumer's freedom to choose software.

RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By Daeros on 4/6/2009 11:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. Both Apple and Microsoft are software makers at heart.

The only difference is the bundling tactic. Apple bundles its software with its own hardware(BTW, Apple doesn't manufacture the hardware. It designs it and then contracts out to Taiwanese manufacturers like Quanta) Microsoft bundles windows through lucratic contracts with Dell and HPs. Both are technically against the consumer's freedom to choose software.

Wrong. If you read back into the days of Mac OS licensing, when Apple pulled the plug, you will see lots of interviews and press releases stating that Apple is a hardware company. They made iTunes to sell iPods, and they make OSX, iLife, and iWork to sell computers. Apple's competition is Dell or HP or Sony, not MS.

By Whaaambulance on 4/7/2009 3:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
Apple's competition is Dell or HP or Sony, not MS

Wrong. If you think Apple is competition to any of the above, you need to check your facts.

Apple is a niche market. iPhone and iPod aside, Apple computers are roughly 3% of the market in total. Apple's pricing points immediately make them non-competitive to the big PC OEM's. Steve Jobs said it himself "I don't know how to make a $500 computer that isn't a piece of junk." and because of that, he firmly planted Apple into its own market.

RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By Whaaambulance on 4/7/2009 3:08:29 AM , Rating: 2
And one more thing, if you have the time, you should watch these videos

Apple is a software developer. They want the best possible experience for their software, so the best method of doing that is on their own platform.

If you were to take a Mac Pro, part it out and sell the parts for the same price Apple is charging you, they wouldn't do very well. So no, they're main focus isn't hardware, it's the complete user experience. By controlling the platform, their software will run exactly as intended.

If you were to take OS X and sell it to the masses to install on any hardware they wanted to, you would be taking away the stability of the platform.

RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By Pirks on 4/7/2009 3:18:00 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't Apple's revenue stream driven by mostly hardware sales? Isn't OS X sales revenue just a very minor part of their revenue stream?

RE: So much fail on the youtube comments...
By Whaaambulance on 4/7/2009 3:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
Well let's look at it this way. What is it about the Mac that really makes it stand out? The operating system, of course.

But like I said, they are selling the platform as a whole. It's the user experience. It's a package deal. They would never sell one without the other, so saying they make all their money from hardware wouldn't really be correct.

By Pirks on 4/7/2009 3:48:18 AM , Rating: 2
saying they make all their money from hardware wouldn't really be correct
One could say Apple makes their money _mostly_ from hardware sales, and a little bit from software sales. Microsoft is the opposite - they make most by selling software and a little bit by selling hardware.

This was the point of my original post to stromgald30 above.

In other words I disagree with stromgald30's idea to expect Apple to make any significant profit from OS X sales, unlike Microsoft making profit from Vista. OS X sales are a minor part of Apple's income, while Vista sales are the primary income source for MS. So these are _very_ different things when you consider them sources of income for their "parent" companies.

Wouldn't he pocket more $$?
By seraphim1982 on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: Wouldn't he pocket more $$?
By HaB1971 on 4/6/2009 9:51:55 AM , Rating: 5
Posting - not reading the article = LOL Life fail

By DigitalFreak on 4/6/2009 10:52:41 AM , Rating: 1

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki