Apple takes a few shots at Windows during WWDC09

[pestbest]

You could easily say the same about M$

~Lordbob

You have a point. But actually, I don't care whether Microsoft is Anti- Competitive or not. It tells it's good points rather than other's bad points. What I care is about super exaggerated lies. Apple is super exaggerating if not lying that PCs have viruses and crashes. I hate FUD. I don't mind what Microsoft is doing cause it's natural to be Anti-Competitive but at least it doesn't spread as much FUD as Apple. Saying that this product is better than another product because of (it's good points) is ok. But saying that that product is worse than this product because it has crappy viruses, stupid crashes and needs to where a radioactive suit to protect itself is plain dumb.

 

[pillainp]

Was just thinking...
Maybe MS could come up with a new ad campaign for Windows 7: You can keep your old PC.

After all, Snow Leopard leaves all those PowerMac and PowerPC based Mac owners in the lurch. It may only cost $29, but then you have to add the cost of the Intel Mac you have to buy to run it. That means Apple has, at one stroke, trashed all those older machines.

And to think people lambast MS because their 10-year-old printer won't work with Vista or Windows 7.

 

[Lordbob75]

You have a point. But actually, I don't care whether Microsoft is Anti- Competitive or not. It tells it's good points rather than other's bad points. What I care is about super exaggerated lies. Apple is super exaggerating if not lying that PCs have viruses and crashes. I hate FUD. I don't mind what Microsoft is doing cause it's natural to be Anti-Competitive but at least it doesn't spread as much FUD as Apple. Saying that this product is better than another product because of (it's good points) is ok. But saying that that product is worse than this product because it has crappy viruses, stupid crashes and needs to where a radioactive suit to protect itself is plain dumb.

My thoughts and point exactly.
And the reason they get less viruses is BECAUSE they have less than a 15% MARKET SHARE!!!!!!

*NOTE: Please note that I have nothing against Apple or macs, this just shows one of the comics from http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/index.php.

~Lordbob

 

[jw12345]

All companies have exaggerated claims and FUD. Microsoft is as if not more guilty of it than Apple.

Corporations aren't your friend. They're out to take as much money from you as possible, not provide fair and balanced opinions.

 

[pestbest]

Too bad that even if they are not our friend, what they do still affect our impressions of them. Apple gives me a bad impression and thus, I hate it.

 

[John Henry]

Too bad that even if they are not our friend, what they do still affect our impressions of them. Apple gives me a bad impression and thus, I hate it.

I have never seen any microsoft or apple promotions or commercials so i am not influenced by any of these.

 

[rcocchiararo]

Apple takes a few shots at Windows during WWDC09 - Ars Technica

What is it with Apple and bashing Windows? They do it in their commercials, they do it in their articles, but do you ever see M$ bashing apple? Nope! M$ talks about what is good with their OS, what was improved, what needs work, etc. I know nothing about Snow Leopard save that Apple thinks its better than Seven and it is much cheaper (to upgrade). And obviously, whoever wrote that has not USED windows Seven. Which is something you need to do before writing a comparison on two competing products!

~Lordbob

innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn faccttttttttttt

microsoft has many adds now "bashing" apple, with "normal people" buying notebooks instead of macbooks for weird reasons (when only $$ is the real deal breaker for most )

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn faccttttttttttt

microsoft has many adds now "bashing" apple, with "normal people" buying notebooks instead of macbooks for weird reasons (when only $$ is the real deal breaker for most )

Wouldn't call it a weird reason, every time they go to the mac's in those commercials they say 'this one only has ----- but its $1,200' or something like that.

They are saying basically that apple rips people off in the hardware department, which is true.

ALSO I wouldn't call it bashing, bashing is like what apple did when they were moaning that W7 is just Vista, but better. When OS X Snow Leopard is the same thing as OS X Leopard, but 'better'.

 

[zigzag3143]

APPLE vs PC again

I was just comparing the MacBook Air (1.86GHz) Model with a Dell XPS 1330 and found that the MacBook Air is extremely overpriced compared to the Dell XPS 1330.

I mean I was able to get

Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.4GHz
6GB RAM
320GB HDD
128MB Graphics (not great but better then 64mb)

all for about $1.3k-ish

The MacBook Air has about

Intel Core 2 Duo @ 1.8Ghz
2GB RAM
120GB HDD
512? 256? 128mb? No clue but its a NVIDIA GeForce 9400M

for about $1.5k

=============================

Apple is just charging more for their name and because they make their products look pretty. They need to find a balance between pretty, good performance and cheap.

I agree completely with DVG. As someone who uses both all the time they both have their uses. But if Im plunking down $1500 I want bang for the buck.

Ken

 

[rcocchiararo]

Wouldn't call it a weird reason, every time they go to the mac's in those commercials they say 'this one only has ----- but its $1,200' or something like that.

They are saying basically that apple rips people off in the hardware department, which is true.

ALSO I wouldn't call it bashing, bashing is like what apple did when they were moaning that W7 is just Vista, but better. When OS X Snow Leopard is the same thing as OS X Leopard, but 'better'.

the bad thing about snow leopard being better than leopard, is that, to the naked eye, they look almost the same

while windows 7 rocks, compared to vista, in performance, and looks XD (i have 7 on my 3 pcs, my girlfriend's pc, brothers notebook, girldfriend notebook, and when the final version comes out, ill get it into my mbp bootcamp.

now, onto the M$ adds... i didnt watch em all, but there was a guy who said "for me macbooks are about looks, not performance (or not procesing power, something like that)", wich is plain stupid... at least in my country, you cant get a notebook with a cpu that much better than my mbp 2.4 ghz... you can get them for a lot LOT less, thats is indeed true (my brother bought an msi notebook with almost the same procesor, more RAM, bigger HDD, for les than half... but its obviusly not the same build quality )

 

[John Henry]

but its obviusly not the same build quality )

You said it all.

 

[jw12345]

The thing about the I'm a PC ads are that that claim that the POS cheap notebooks are the same quality as Apple notebooks, which is not true, except for raw performance, and even then is only barely true.

ANd the idea of Snow Leopard being good while 7 is bad isn't hypocritical. Apple wasn't criticizing the idea of refining an old OS. They were saying that the base is still Vista, which is widely perceived as poor quality, while their base is solid. So while MS needed to back track on their OS because of inherent problems, they only patched it up. Snow Leopard is a continuation of a good thing, Windows 7 is a continuation of a bad thing.

Whether you agree is irrelevant, their thought process isn't hypocritical.

 

[rcocchiararo]

Was just thinking...
Maybe MS could come up with a new ad campaign for Windows 7: You can keep your old PC.

After all, Snow Leopard leaves all those PowerMac and PowerPC based Mac owners in the lurch. It may only cost $29, but then you have to add the cost of the Intel Mac you have to buy to run it. That means Apple has, at one stroke, trashed all those older machines.

And to think people lambast MS because their 10-year-old printer won't work with Vista or Windows 7.

PPC macs are kinda old too, the first intel macs came out in 2005, right ?

pcs from that made running vista posible i guess, but not like present ones do.

pd: in fact, an athlon XP with 1gb... can run windows 7 decently, but utterly sucks on vista

you do have a point about NOT being able to run it at all, but o well

 

[PhreePhly]

My thoughts and point exactly.
And the reason they get less viruses is BECAUSE they have less than a 15% MARKET SHARE!!!!!!

**Graphic Removed**

*NOTE: Please note that I have nothing against Apple or macs, this just shows one of the comics from Ctrl+Alt+Del.

~Lordbob

Apple will be dancing in the streets when they reach 15%. Right now they are at about 3% worldwide and 9% in the US.

PhreePhly

 

[jw12345]

I don't think Apple cares too much about market share as long as they can make huge profits and make premium notebooks. Macs are just common enough that most applications most people need have mac equivalents or even ports. OS X is a solid OS, IMO with some better design choices than Windows, hardware is great, they're happy, I'm happy, everybody's happy. There's no money in cheap laptops, the margins are too small, so Apple doesn't play in that game, when they can sell less laptops for the same amount of money and come out with amazing brand image that they leverage for other products.

Apple isn't trying to capture the market, they just want to cater to premium laptop, students, and creative professionals.

@rcocchiararo: you are simplifying Vista's problems. When Vista was released, ~5% of business PCs were able to run Vista with aero, and not much more on the consumer side. Vista effectively locked out a much much larger percent of their market than Apple is now. Apple needs to complete the 64-bit and intel transitions and MS had its reasons also.

 

[PhreePhly]

The thing about the I'm a PC ads are that that claim that the POS cheap notebooks are the same quality as Apple notebooks, which is not true, except for raw performance, and even then is only barely true.

...

Given that the internals (the actual part that makes the notebook run) of the MacBook are of no better quality than the competing Dells, Toshibas, Sonys or HPs, the only thing that the Macs have is a pretty shell. It is pretty, and quite sturdy, but don't tell me that the internals are any better, and that's what matters.

PhreePhly

 

[jw12345]

Given that the internals (the actual part that makes the notebook run) of the MacBook are of no better quality than the competing Dells, Toshibas, Sonys or HPs, the only thing that the Macs have is a pretty shell. It is pretty, and quite sturdy, but don't tell me that the internals are any better, and that's what matters.

PhreePhly

I'm not claiming internals are better (though some of the PC comparisons lacked a few minor internal features). I don't disagree with you on that. I disagree that the internals are all that matters any more than the engine and transmission is all that matters in a car.

I will gladly pay 15-20% more for a thin, light sturdy design and, for my workflow, is a superior OS.

 

[PhreePhly]

I don't think Apple cares too much about market share as long as they can make huge profits and make premium notebooks. Macs are just common enough that most applications most people need have mac equivalents or even ports. OS X is a solid OS, IMO with some better design choices than Windows, hardware is great, they're happy, I'm happy, everybody's happy. There's no money in cheap laptops, the margins are too small, so Apple doesn't play in that game, when they can sell less laptops for the same amount of money and come out with amazing brand image that they leverage for other products.

Apple isn't trying to capture the market, they just want to cater to premium laptop, students, and creative professionals.

@rcocchiararo: you are simplifying Vista's problems. When Vista was released, ~5% of business PCs were able to run Vista with aero, and not much more on the consumer side. Vista effectively locked out a much much larger percent of their market than Apple is now. Apple needs to complete the 64-bit and intel transitions and MS had its reasons also.

Oh you're absolutely right, Apple doesn't want a large market share. OSX is security swiss cheese, and they can't afford a large marketshare. They need to keep it small.

I don't understand why everybody expects that busineses are going to embrace a new OS the moment it is released. My company, with about 4000 PC's made the move to XP completely just 2 years ago. We were on Win2000 before that. The US Army just announced that they are moving to Vista starting in August, even though Win 7 will be available soon after. This is because they spent the last 2 years making sure they were ready software and hardware wise. This is normal and smart for any large organization. They will probably transition to Win 7 in about 3 years, when Win 8 will be ready for release. That's how business works.

The sad thing is that Apple knows this, but they into gonzo marketing. They've been this way for many years. The cr*p they spewed about the dominance of the PPC chip, while getting their clocks cleaned by Intel is still stuff of legend. Of course once they moved to Intel, Apple conveniently forgot all about PPC and in fact, with Snow Leopard, no longer support it.

PhreePhly

 

[PhreePhly]

I'm not claiming internals are better (though some of the PC comparisons lacked a few minor internal features). I don't disagree with you on that. I disagree that the internals are all that matters any more than the engine and transmission is all that matters in a car.

I will gladly pay 15-20% more for a thin, light sturdy design and, for my workflow, is a superior OS.

Try closer to 15%-30% and of course the engine and transmission are the most important part of the car. That what makes it do what it supposed to do...drive.

The rest is a pretty shell, but has nothing to do with the function of getting from one place to the next.

PhreePhly

 

[jw12345]

I don't really disagree too much with anything in your post two above.

But my point with the business and consumer readiness for Vista was just that it's unfair to criticize Apple for cutting support for pretty old computers, while Vista effectively cut support for nearly all their computers. I think both were justified.

Apple with the PPC chips were ridiculous. In fact, Apple of the 90s and early 00s was ridiculous. But ever since the iPod and the intel transition, they've seemed to have gotten their head on straight. Both Apple and MS have histories plagued by stupidity and anti-competitiveness.

I really like both companies and the work they put out. But since this thread has members crapping on Apple, I'm just trying to point out MS has done similar things many many times before.

But I don't think internals are all that matter. The internals are vital, like the engine and transmission, but past a certain point, it's all about comfort to the user. Light thin laptops are simply more pleasurable to use and handle, PC or Mac. Especially to somebody like me, who is a power user in how much I rely on computers for work and do tons of scripting and 'advanced features', but the things I do aren't resource intensive.

But this really isn't a Mac vs PC debate. It's a debate on if Apple is being unfair and deceitful to little ol' innocent Microsoft.