Not iPad Ready
>doesn't animate correctly when viewed on the iPad. We can't imagine why...
Apple.com hasn't made it onto the iPad Ready Websites list yet ....
Apple's long-running "Get a Mac" ad campaign has finally been put to sleep, after languishing in limbo since its final ads appeared in October of last year. Today if you enter "get a mac" in the search box on Apple's website, the list of results is headed up by a link beginning with what appears to be Apple new advertising …
They kind of had to kill it, Windows 7 hands down beats OSX in every possible catagory, it's fast, sleek, good looking, huge range of software, oh, and it runs OSX in VMWare.
Anything the "I'm a Mac" tried to do would be sour grapes at Microsoft, ahem "owning" Apple in the OS stakes. They only manage a lame "let's upgrade... to OSX instead of Windows 7!" lame.
....you can run Windows 7 in any manner of VM's too.
Since moving to a Mac 4 years ago, i've not yet found a need to install any version of Windows though. I find a stable, solid, incredibly fast, easy to use OS refreshing. Windows 7 is indeed a big step forward, an 8/10 for the blatant copying of Leopard, still a bit clunky by comparison though, still uses that antiquated registry thing too...
"Windows 7 hands down beats OSX in every possible catagory, it's fast, sleek, good looking, huge range of software, oh, and it runs OSX in VMWare."
I think he got it the other way round...
Either case they're all evil bastards M$, Apple.. which means the only dilemma I have now is ... choosing the icon..
I choose jobs.. cause Apple fanbois are so smug.
"Windows PC support precisely 0% of Mac OS X and BSD Unix software, whereas Macs support 100% of Mac OS X and BSD Unix software."
Let's reword this to be a like-for-like statement:
Windows PC support precisely 100% of Windows and a fair portion of *nix software, whereas Macs support 100% of Mac OS X and BSD Unix software.
So, where's your fire-breathing steam now? Oh, you don't have it without your "support precisely 0%" statement. Hrm.
My Windows PC can compile and run a comparitive host of *nix-flavoured software, thanks to having source code available. Of course, one could argue just how much "BSD Unix" software there is...or perhaps how many software titles are OSX-excluse (to which there are no "suitable" Windows alternatives (Final Cut Pro is arguably one of these, due to its loyal fanbase, but its tasks can arguably be accomplished just as well on some other Windows-based application). Regardless, I'll take my Windows world of software and happily enjoy myself, while you still worry about whether Blizzard will make Starcraft 2 available for Mac.
Let me educate you. A windows PC is not a 'Windows PC', it IS the PC. It can run ANY OS a Mac can - even OSX has been successfully run on it. So successful has the PC been that Apple moved to the Intel x86 processor to play catchup, not to mention the move away from a SCSI architecture to IDE/SATA to make the tin cheaper (while keeping the cost to the punter high).
Apple machines are expensive, but nice and fluffy - suitable for your grandma even. But please, if you must slate the PC, at least spout vitriol backed up by a faint whiff of fact.
Mac OSX can run on a PC, crApple embed a chip on their motherboards to prevent installation and running of their OS on PC's. If that limitation was removed by crApple then ANYONE could run OSX on their PC. So you statistic should read.
PC can run 100% of crApple software, but is sabotaged by crApple.
PC can run 100% of PC
PC hardware can run 100% *nix OS either directly or in VM's.
Also to the other tit, Windows 7 does not copy OSX at all, if you knew anything about the history of Windows from v3.11 you would know what a stupid statement that is. Windows 7 is an improvement of XP, with some of the (few) good parts of Vista. Nothing else.
After the recent flat-out evil and bizarro-King reactions and disgusting lawsuit, journalist-attacks etc it would be very pathetic for Apple to push for this rather jovial image...
...Apple is a CORPORATION. And more recently a rather disgusting, evil one at that, I must add.
Maybe they quit because they ran out of negative things to exaggerate, which may have something to do with the vastly improved Windows 7 experience. It was overblown negativity with a kernel of truth at first, now most of their jabs are flat-out untrue.
Or, maybe they're saving their resources for their new business role: professional plaintiffs, guest-starring the gung-ho and eager to please police stormtroopers who do their bidding.
Oh, and we can't forget the "We don't have to worry about virus and worms. It just works." Virii are most likely on their way, if Apple ever becomes significant enough. And as for "It just works," well tell that to the Core i7-based iMac... or perhaps the WiFi in ANY of your mobile devices... That and try explaining to your grandma why she can't use that PC-only app she heard about from a friend.
I'm glad they ended their almost-blantly-lying ad campaign. Perhaps the "I'm a PC" and "Windows7 Was My Idea" ads were cutting too deep? I don't agree with some MS practices and solutions, but at least their consumer marketing isn't entirely forked-tongued.
So the main basis of your argument is that something may be coming to a Mac. Namely viruses, things that are incredibly scarce and to be fair you'd have to be a raving idiot to get infected by.
My 27" Core i7 works faultlessly and has done since day one. As have the 7 Mac laptop's in my friends and family possession, and the (quick count) approximately 17 iPhones - none of which have had a single issue with WiFi, Bluetooth etc.... I shan't mention the plethora of Windows machines that flatly refuse to log in with their WiFi switch enabled, or that refuse to connect to WPA2/AES networks, or Windows Mobile... oh, oops, too late!
Still, why let the facts get in the way of your argument eh?
There is no chance in the world of "virii" ever effecting Macs - there's no such thing (various articles on pluralisations of Latin based words explain why - use Google).
Viruses on the other hand are already available for MacOSX, just like Linux - there aren't many, and most require poor handling of security by the admin... But they do exist already.
The smugness of launching the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" campaign right around the time they switched to the same crappy x86 arch used in el-cheapo PCs was astonishing. It also served as a showcase of "look, the Mac dude feels superior!" which has been Apple's attitude as of late. Anyway, good riddance to that campaign, lets see what they'll bring now.
I have a feeling that the reason they are abandoning the adverts is they are concentrating more on the iPhone, iPod and the iPad. They are becoming minted with these and iTunes. I have a feeling that the next version of Mac OSX will be more like the iPad with touch screen display and so on.
IBM was successful it getting the generic "PC" to mean IBM (and compatible) machine.
MS was successful in getting the generic 'windows' to mean MS windows.
Apple, through this campaign, have now got people assuming that 'PC' means "Computer running MS windows"
I own a PC, but there's nothing MS on it dammit!
If you're running what I think you're running...Nooooo, boy, Not PC.
No, boy, you own a 'box' (plural boxen). Another acceptable term is rig.
And remember, there is always something annoying about that said box that you will constatnly grumble about. Some imperfection. Like not being able to overclock past 4.3 Ghz or something. Even if there isn't you make one up. Sort of like your wife. For many of you, that's probably the closest you'll get to having one anyways :P
Never EVER EVER say you own a PC ;)
( But seriously, not kidding now, yours is the smartest post here yet. Nail right on the head. Thumbs up! )
They claim "The Worlds most advanced operating system". That is an outright lie, both Windows and OSX have absolutely primitive file systems, NTFS and HFS are absolute dinosaurs.
How can you have the worlds most advanced os, with crappy file systems?
I won't claim Linux as the worlds most advanced file system, but at least EXT4 is a modern file system & Linux has decent memory and process management.
The funny thing is the get a Mac ads were supposed to take the piss out of Windows PCs and as anyone knows if someone calls you names to take the piss revel in them !
Microsoft took the Apple ads and made very funny I'm a PC ads, pretty sad Apple, can we have new Apple ads without the smug please ?
"Microsoft took the Apple ads and made very funny I'm a PC ads"
What? Have Microsoft made a whole load of ads that I didn't see? The MS "I'm a PC" ads are not funny, nor do they appear to be intended to be funny. Which to an extent played into Apple's hands. The total lack of any sense of humour just confirmed what Apple had been saying: "I'm a PC, I wear a suit, I'm boring, I have no sense of humour, I drive a Mondeo*, I have no sense of fun, I'm only interested in getting more work done faster" is the message I take from Microsoft's "I'm a PC" campaign.
The weird thing is that there was a time when Windows would run on hardware other than Intel, there are other OSs that run on PC hardware and MS don't own or even claim to own the name PC - so why are they running this campaign at all? "I'm Windows" would make more sense.
*Cue flames from Ford drivers, particularly those who own a Mac.
Not "why have they dropped it?" but "why is this news?".
It's rare for any advertising campaign to run for more than a few months these days. Once upon a time advertising that seemed to work could be used for decades, after all, Guinness is good for you. The advertising game has changed and corporations are suckers for it. They believe the marketing men who tell them they need a new campaign every few months and the marketing men have a vested (junket!) interest in telling the execs this.
So the real story is not that the campaign has come to an end, but that it lasted so long.
It worked. The proof that it worked was how much it got under Microsoft's skin. Microsoft's own "I'm a PC" adverts prove how well it worked. Had the original campaign not worked so well why would MS have felt the need to run their campaign? It's incredibly rare for a campaign to have generated so much interest in the mainstream media. It's unheard of for an ad IT campaign to manage this. All the sad little commentards using this discussion to further their pointless arguments about the superiority of one OS over another are missing the point. It was never the message of this campaign that was important, nor was it the product being advertised, it was the campaign itself that was clever.
MS could have run with the same campaign themselves had the advertising company come to them first. "I'm a PC and almost every software package you can buy will run on mew." "I'm a Mac and 95% of the software you can buy won't run on me." (No Mactards don't start flaming me, Wintards don't start agreeing - it's just an example.) But when MS and their fans did start doing it, it came over as desperate. Why couldn't they come up with an equally original campaign. Probably because original isn't something Microsoft excel at (see what I did there?).
I suspect that Apple probably intented the campaign to run for a few weeks or months, but the reaction that it got from MS and particularly from Windows fanbois convinced them to keep it going for much longer.
The only thing I hated about the whole campaign was the assumption that PC = Windows. Yeah, alright the vast majority of PCs run Windows, but it was yet another advertising campaign that furthered public ignorance.
...but then realised that, for literally half the price, I could buy a considerably more powerful machine.
So - basically, I had to decide if OS-X was worth paying the extra for, along with taking something with significantly less grunt hardware-wise.
This seemed to be a no-brainer!
It feels almost like Apple are deliberately pricing their kit higher to discourage people buying desktops and laptops in favour of the iPad etc.
Chris 235 posts some arguments as to why he chose not to buy a Mac and your counter-argument revolves around a childish attempt at an insult.
You do realise that that behaviour singles you out as a fanboi? You fanbois are all the same, MS or Apple you're nothing but a bunch of little children arguing in the playground over who's Dad's the hardest.
(Come back Alanis, all is forgiven.)
Well, I don't tend to take insults from strangers on the internet very seriously.
As it happens, I'm pretty-much OS agnostic. Use Windows, Linux, OS-X and various embedded Oses others in the day-job.
Boils down to: I can run the same applications I want to run on my home laptop either under Windows or OS-X. I don't really mind which, so going the non-Apple route at home seems best for me at the minute. I'd have been quite happy going with a MacBook had the prices been more reasonable.
Only really piped up because I've just been in the position of potentially going for a MacBook...
The thing is I don't think it just comes down to, as you say, OS X. There are a couple of other variables; build quality, materials, support, spec, batteries et c. Looking at it pragmatically, the Dell equivalent of the Macbook Pro would be a Precision or the Alienware models, which cost bout the same, with the equivalent Precision model being £30 more and the Alienware being £40 less. Not a lot i think you'd agree. They do make an Inspiron model that has a similar spec, only the graphics card is significantly better--an area where Apple continually disappoint--but even the Precision and Alienware use lower spec materials and components. It's horses for courses, and in my experience with both, you really do get what you pay for.
Sure - understood and those factors did play a part in my choice.
...and it was a hard choice too!
I had a good look at a colleagues new 17 inch MB-Pro last week. Nicely put together piece of kit, but there were some odd design issues. For instance, the power connector is at right angles, which means it gets in the way of an adjacent port. The build of the case is rock-solid though, no complaints there. However, Apple are still using effectively previous generation Intel / Ati components and charging a premium.
When I priced up the same 17" model with the extras I'd need, it came out in the region of £2300-ish.
Since I configure/build my PC desktops and do most of my spade work on there, I don't really need something bomb-proof laptop-wise. Something functional with plenty of CPU grunt and discrete graphics. I won't be running it on battery power, so I'm not worried about that.
In fact, since I'm using it primarily for playing live gigs with Ableton Live (replacing my old Dell XPS Gen 2), I was more tempted to get something a little less expensive and (dare I say it) - almost disposable.
I think the real point is: we all have different requirements for the machines we use which means the factors we take into account aren't constant, or necessarily obvious.
Oh dear, I should have realised how upsetting my comment would have been to a random stranger like yourself, I'm terribly sorry.
Am I a fanboy because I have a preference in computers? Perhaps. Should I worry about that? I don't think so. I think it's probably fair to say we're all fanboys of one kind or another. I favour the Macbook Pro over other laptops because, in my opinion, it's the best balance of features, quality and price available; OS X is one unique selling point, but so too is the unibody aluminium construction - a must have feature in my experience of creaking and cracking laptops of the past.
More to the point, as other have pointed out, if Chris had done some more thinking on the subject he'd have realised that the price differential between a Macbook Pro and an *equivalent* or even near-equivalent laptop is nothing like as big as he's suggesting. So yes, if he'd applied his brain he may well have come to a different decision. In reality, as he's now said (in so many words) himself, his thinking led him to realise that he didn't need all the features and build quality of a Macbook Pro, which is another thing entirely.
I've noticed on http://www.apple.com/why-mac/ that Apple's stance on viruses has changed from "Doesn't get viruses" to "Doesn't get PC viruses".
They go on to say "A mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers. That's thanks to built-in defences in Mac OS X that keep you safe, without any work on your part".
Right, so the incompatibility with windows applications is a security feature - an in-built defence feature if you will. Isn't that the type of bare faced lie you'd expect to hear from a phones4u salesperson?
The incompatibility with windows applications *is* a security feature! Unless you are suggesting that Mac's are susceptible to PC viruses. I think what you mean is a political truth, in as much as it isn't a lie to say that Mac's a free from PC viruses. There are only a couple of reported viruses that attack OS X.
It's always talked about PC viruses, at least as far as I remember over the last few years anyway. They'd be fools to guarantee no viruses whatsoever, but the fact that an Apple computer *is* immune to the millions of Windows viruses circulating the web is a major selling point, whether you accept that as a "design feature" or not.
For many years people have been saying that Macs are only secure through obscurity, and that a Mac virus will rip through OS X any day now, and yet somehow it just hasn't happened. It very obviously isn't an easy target.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020