backtop


Print 125 comment(s) - last by droplets.. on Apr 24 at 11:31 AM


Mother and son aren't big Mac fans, same as their Laptop Hunter predecessors, Lauren and Giampaolo.  (Source: YouTube)

A Best Buy employee helps young Jackson explore the Sony Vaio.  (Source: YouTube)

Lisa is really excited to get her extra money.  (Source: YouTube)
This time Microsoft is going for the moms

First there was Lauren, the redhead who picked an HP over a MacBook and stole millions of internet users' hearts.  Then there was Giampaolo, a young engineer who picked an HP over a MacBook Pro due to the high cost.  Together the pair have kicked off Microsoft's new anti-Apple commercial segment, that looks to hit Apple where it hurts -- its high prices.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer led off the attack several weeks ago blasting Apple, saying that its customers are paying $500 for a logo.  Now Microsoft is airing the third in its popular series of Laptop Hunters commercials -- and this time it's going for the moms.

Crispin Porter+Bogusky hands Lisa $1,500 to find a new computer, searching at their local Best Buy.  She ends up perusing the store with her son Jackson.  She peeks at the Apple computers and while she comments that "they are pretty" her son Jackson is not a big fan, stating that they are "a little small."  Lisa also comments, "These are way more money dude!"

Mother and son also peek at HP computers and others, but surprisingly don't pick an HP, like the previous two Laptop Hunter commercials (so much for brand favoritism theories).  Lisa ends up instead finding a Sony VAIO FW with Blu-Ray and a big screen.  Jackson is content.

Assuming the laptop they picked was the base model Best Buy carries (special options typically require an order), it retails for approximately $899 and has middle-of-the-road specs.  It comes with a middle-of-the-road Intel T6400 Core 2 Duo processor, a relatively underpowered Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD graphics, and 4 GB RAM.  The screen is an XBRITE-HiColor 16.4" 1600 x 900 display.  The whole thing is slightly heavy, weighing in at 6.83 lb.  The battery life is approximately 2 hrs and 45 min, according to reviews.

The mom pockets a couple hundred dollars and the traditional "Congratulations, <insert name> its a PC." rolls. 

In all reception of the new commercial among the tech community seems to be slightly better than the second commercial, though still falling short of the first.  Overall, her computer, like the HPs, is not true 1080p, but it does have the advantage of Blu-Ray (though the processor and graphics are weak).  However, some are calling the Microsoft's attacks increasingly tired and not direct enough.  Writes CrunchGear, "Adding commentary to these things is getting fairly tedious. The Mac attack wasn’t very egregious..."

However, given how long Apple has run its own attack ads, it only seems fair to give Microsoft some time to respond in kind.  Ultimately the commercials prove an amusing distraction, though though the latest two have been overshadowed by the popularity of the initial installment.

You can check out the ad for yourself here.


Comments     Threshold


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

By sinful on 4/11/2009 1:25:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Disagree all you want, unless you've got some benchmarks to back that up (and there aren't any), it's just wishful thinking.


I think you've drank WAY too much kool-aid:

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2008/06/mac-perform...

To summarize, your Intel mac scores a 2,869 on CPU/memory benchmarks, while your iBook G4 scores a 715.

For the math impaired, that's more than 4x faster.

According to Apple marketing, the Core2 Duo is "Up to 6x faster" than the iBook G4.

In other words, the benchmarks show it being 300% (4x) faster, Apple claims it is 500% faster (6x), and you are claiming it is 20% (0.2x) faster.

Uhhh, right. What to believe, what to believe...?

Of course, don't let common sense smack you in the face - because common sense dictates the Core2Duo is going to be substantially faster than the G4.

You're talking about a chip with a FSB of 800Mhz vs. a chip with a FSB of 133Mhz.
(For those that didn't catch that, the FSB is 500% (6x) faster).

The Pentium III's FSB is more advanced than that of the G4.

And in terms of CPU, you've got 2 x 2.2Ghz vs. 1 x 1.33Ghz.

That's 3x the "Mhz"!

For your statement to be true, you're saying an 800Mhz G4 is faster than a 1.6Ghz Core2Duo - and not just a little, but by a WIDE margiin.

I think it's pretty obvious you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're not even remotely benchmarking CPU performance (i.e. you're benchmarking Disk IO performance or something of that nature).

quote:
The bottom line is that the PPC CPUs are clock for clock much faster than even Intel's latest CPUs. Intel is beating them with clock speed and performance/watt. That's the whole reason for Apple's switch to Intel CPUs.


That may have been the case when Apple initially switched over, but since PPC has stagnated and x86 has seen improvements, PPC has been left behind.

Maybe if there had been a "G6" following the Power4 architecture, your claim would be still true today, but it's not the case anymore.

Keep in mind the G5's "true competitor" of the era was the Pentium4 -- the G5 was faster clock for clock, but the P4 outperformed the G5 by virtue of much higher clock speed.

So, initally your claim was true...

HOWEVER, Everything after the P4 has been steadily eroding any "clock for clock" advantage, and it's not true anymore.
Sorry, the Core Duo and subsequent Core2 Duo dissolved any clock for clock advantage the G4 had.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki