Apple Comments on Microsoft's Laptop Hunter Ads

[djellison]

Your concept of 'same'

Same UNDER THE HOOD.

What don't you understand?

The same processors, graphics cards, chip sets, Ram, HDD's, PSU's, sound chips, SATA controllers, Bluetooth chips....it's all the same.

Take away the shiny exterior, and Mac's and PC's ARE THE SAME.

That it what is meant by 'under the hood'.

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse, perhaps English is a second language, or if you're just taking the piss, but seriously - you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Anuba]

Same UNDER THE HOOD.

What don't you understand?

The same processors, graphics cards, chip sets, Ram, HDD's, PSU's, sound chips, SATA controllers, Bluetooth chips....it's all the same.

Take away the shiny exterior, and Mac's and PC's ARE THE SAME.

Yup. In Apple's defense, though, there are things like the battery on MBP 17", the glass trackpad on the MacBooks and MBPs, and the cable-free internal layout of the Mac Pro that set them apart from PCs from a component and under-the-hood perspective... but of course, it's not nearly enough to make it a "BMW", let alone explain the heee-uge price difference between Macs and PCs with near-identical components inside.

 

[BongoBanger]

Try actually READING the HP product literature you posted earlier: it states clearly that users should not contact either Microsoft nor HP to get a downgrade OS disk set.

FFS, you're not really getting this, are you?

I'll break it down for you:

1) Main sales support for 2000 stopped as of March 31, 2004 under three years after the release of XP. As of April 1, 2004 you could no longer get new copies of Windows 2000 - unless you were a system builder when you could up until March 31, 2005 - but you still had the right to downgrade from XP to 2000 (or NT) using pre-existing 2000 software whilst at the same time retaining the right to reinstall XP at a later date at no extra cost.

2) Main sales support for XP stopped at June 30, 2008 under three years after the release of Vista. As of July 1, 2008 you could no longer purchase new copies of Windows XP - unless you were a system builder when you could up until January 31, 2009 - but you still had the right to downgrade from Vista to XP using pre-existing XP software whilst at the same time retaining the right to reinstall XP at a later date at no extra cost.

MS have allowed a license extension for XP Home Edition to accommodate ultra low cost PCs because Vista doesn't run on these systems and MS don't believe in shooting themselves in the foot. That option runs out on June 30, 2010. They may also extend the sales period for Business and Professional until 30 April, 2010 for some classes of PC, again because Vista doesn't run on them.

Of course the OEMs charge anyone desperate enough to do so. Dell want £40 more for XP example.

So, let's see...

Windows XP RTM: 25, October 2001. Windows 2000 EOL: March 31, 2004. Say 2.5 years.

Windows Vista RTM: 8, November 2006. Windows XP EOL: June 30, 2008 (with the very specific exceptions mentioned above). Say 2.5 years. If you include the extensions say 3.5 years.

So what's the difference and why does the downgrade option to XP indicate that Vista sucks?

Simple answer: It doesn't. There are many reasons for calling Vista a failure, this isn't one of them.

How do you compute such a curve when XP is included with Vista, because the consumers demand it to be so? Which bin do the beans go in? Is it an XP sale or a Vista sale?

These are Marketshare Hitlinks stats which measure the actual OS used. Although they're not the best stats in the world they illustrate the point - Vista up, XP down.

"Microsoft only allows Windows XP Pro or Windows XP Tablet to be bundled with new PCs as restore media, which the company refers to as an "XP downgrade." This enables the company to claim having sold a Windows Vista license for all new shipping PCs; it continues to insist that PC makers ship their machines with Vista pre-installed." From that silly fansite you hate so much:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...p_to_wipe_windows_7_with_xp_through_2010.html

Sorry to say, you stepped right in it. Too much banging on your bong I'm afraid.

You're right. It is a silly fansite. You might want to ask what class of PC their reference to shipping copies refer to. I'd also point out that the article - which has yet to be confirmed by MS although it wont surprise me when they do - refers to the Windows 7 downgrade process. It's also not the first time MS have allowed a downgrade to the penultimate version either.

 

[awmazz]

Are you being intentionally obtuse. Do you even know what 'under the hood' actually means. Under the hood means exactly 'except in appearance'.

What's your point? People should spend six times the price to have the insides of a computer that they'll never, ever look at, be a bit shiny? Is that it? Is that all Mac's bring to the table?

Not at all. I've said it half a dozen times already - if you can't see or appreciate good design, then it holds no value to you. If it holds no value for you, then it's impossible for anyone to convince you why you should pay extra for it. Don't even bother asking people why you should. They can't tell you why you should even buy it all.

And here is the crux of your entire argument:

Take away the shiny exterior, and Mac's and PC's ARE THE SAME.

It's based entirely on excluding one of Apple's strongest points. Why are you doing that when doing a direct head to head comparison and valuation? Because that part doesn't matter to you so it's not a factor. It matters to others though, so please stop projecting your own values as if it's a given for everybody. We're not all the same, you know.

I'm the opposite of you. In fact, I insist on good design when making a purchasing decision if I can afford it. It's essential. Like you in reverse, I simply can't fathom why people actually choose to pay less for a similar but poorly designed product when they're not forced by poverty to do so. It's beyond me. Since the advent of the B&W G3 I've always felt that I've always gotten more than my money's worth with every Mac purchase. Luckily with Apple I don't need to sacrifice functionality (they are the same after all, according to you, are they not?) in order to have it. I just pay a little more, is all.

 

[djellison]

same after all, according to you, are they not?) in order to have it. I just pay a little more, is all.

Six times more, given your comparison earlier.

 

[Anuba]

It's based entirely on excluding one of Apple's strongest points. Why are you doing that when doing a direct head to head comparison and valuation? Because that part doesn't matter to you so it's not a factor. It matters to others though, so please stop projecting your own values as if it's a given for everybody. We're not all the same, you know.

It's one thing to put together a machine that's near-identical to a PC, throw in a nice exterior design and OSX, and add an "Apple tax" for this. If people want to pay for that, then fine. But: It's an entirely different thing to cut corners and give people components that are inferior to those used in comparable PCs. For example, the 2007 iMac 20", a machine they were sued over because they used ancient 6-bit twisted nematic LCD screens that couldn't even display smooth gradients. This is the equivalent of BMW saving a few bucks by replacing the leather seats with plastic imitation and hoping that nobody will notice. And on the previous-gen MacBook Pro they pulled a fast one and replaced the TI firewire chipset with a useless AGERE chipset. On their most expensive *pro* machine! Apple has got to stop it with those goddamn snake oil peddler tricks if they want to be trustworthy. If I pay extra to get a premium product, I expect to get the best stuff, not a box of fruit where only the top layer is fresh and everything underneath is rotten.

 

[mcdermd]

Life Without Walls..... Life With Viruses And Invaders!

Life without walls? Why would I need Windows then?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Life without walls? Why would I need Windows then?

haha my thoughts exactly.

TV: "Life without walls..."
Me: "Where the hell do the windows go???"

 

[Anuba]

Life without walls? Why would I need Windows then?

Unless your walls are made up of nothing but windows...

 

[Wikinerd]

Vista SP1 and SP2 are free, I think that pretty much takes care of any "buggy" issue.

Perhaps Microsoft, however, could discount the Windows 7 upgrade kits from Vista a bit more than in the past.

No, you misunderstood. SP1 and SP2 are *expected* to be free—they're bug fixes as well as security fixes, after all... Without them no one can and will use Vista as an operating system that it is today.

And remember, Mac OS X also had these "Service Packs"... Apple released 3 more builds for Mac OS X 10.0 (which is 10.0.4); this is *expected* of them—what was not expected was that they would give away 10.1 for free.

 

[Wikinerd]

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-...1&qpdt=1&qpct=4&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=120&qpnp=4

The green line is Vista. You'll note the line is steeper than Mac OS X 10.5. Seems public confidence has - at least in part - been restored.

Of course Vista will always be tarnished in some people's eyes so W7 is a necessity for MS. And yet it's still growing faster than OS X 10.5.

Go figure.

Instead of just Vista market share you might like to view the overall market share... Which is steadily declining. Vista's growth is due to people actually buying new computers and are sometimes "locked" in by manufacturers not providing XP drivers, and due to the relative abundance of XP copies out there.

Simple questions then:

1) Do MS have a consistent business practice of allowing downgrades to previous versions of Windows? Yes or no.
2) Is Vista's market share going up roughly in parallel to XP's decline allowing for a small amount of leakage to Mac OS X? Yes or no.
3) Is Vista's increase in 2009 greater than that of Mac OS X 10.5's?
4) Is Mac OS X's 10.5 market share still tiny in comparison to Vista's? Yes or no.

Feel free to take your time on this one.

1. Yes. That's different this time. Instead of publicizing downgrades to soothe the enterprise, they're actually promoting for people *not* to downgrade...
2. "Roughly parallel"... And who else can be "leaking marketshare"? Did Linux's meager 1% leak more than 4% to OS X?
3. Yes. Duh. That's why we call Microsoft a "monopoly"...
4. Yes. But note that Mac OS X's market share doubled in size in less than 4 years... (tripled in 9 years... impressive feat if you ask me...)

Which is? Aside from the Vista capable scandal - where people quite clearly do deserve to be compensated - I can't think why they would. Certainly Vista was a mess when released in terms of driver support for some devices but then those of us who remember XP's launch will tell you what an absolute horror that was.

Exactly. But there's more to it...

"BogoBanger wants to argue this point. Cancel or allow?"

... As well as other "features" that did more harm than good... (high requirements due to "aero"..., and what about overall idle resource consumption?)

As has been mentioned, SP1 has fixed the issues and driver support exists. The 'Vista Capable' people should be compensated everyone else is fine now. I also believe that MS will allow a free upgrade to W7 to anyone who buys a Vista equipped PC after end June. I don't recall Apple offering anything similar.

What about those who suffered driver problems? ...

And for the "Free upgrade", Apple usually gives a discount to those who bought their computers after a certain date, so that they can upgrade Mac OS X with $10 instead of $129—they did this every time there was a major upgrade... For example, Leopard was sold at $10 to people who bought their computers after a Aug. 30,07 I think...

Unless your walls are made up of nothing but windows...

...Or walls made of glass...

You know, I really want to believe you, but my lying eyes are telling me otherwise.

A Dell Optiplex GX280:

A Mac Pro:

What specifically are you seeing that my eyes are deceiving me otherwise that enables you to claim they are exactly the same? Or more to the point what are you not seeing. Or can't see. The difference is chalk and cheese and plain as day to me, yet for yourself and others you claim to see these two vasty different things as identical. I'm just not getting it, sorry.

For one I didn't see the EFI....

 

[Anuba]

And for the "Free upgrade", Apple usually gives a discount to those who bought their computers after a certain date, so that they can upgrade Mac OS X with $10 instead of $129—they did this every time there was a major upgrade... For example, Leopard was sold at $10 to people who bought their computers after a Aug. 30,07 I think...

That's standard practice across the software business. Once a new version is announced, it will kill sales of the current one, so they offer everyone who buys the current version a free upgrade to the upcoming version. MS did the same with Vista (buy XP now, get Vista when it's ready).

 

[mcdermd]

Unless your walls are made up of nothing but windows...

Hey, I was just there a couple of weeks ago. The FAO Schwartz next door is a lot more fun.

 

[AidenShaw]

For one I didn't see the EFI....

And tell me please, why should I give a rat's @ss about whether my PC uses EFI or BIOS?

After my OS boots (actually, after it *starts* to boot) is there any advantage whatsoever to EFI?

I didn't think so.... Mac fans shouting "EFI" are a sorry bunch.

That crowd used to shout "but it's not titanium". And they shouted "but it's not PowerPC". Now to shout "but where's the EFI" is just sad.

 

[tubbymac]

Unless your walls are made up of nothing but windows...

Every time I see a picture of that Fifth Avenue Apple Store it still amazes me.

 

[Setmose]

FFS, you're not really getting this, are you?

I just don't see the point in debating with someone as ill informed as you appear to be.

Yet you continue to do so. In a "silly Mac fansite" no less.

What part of:

"In ALL previous releases, Microsoft *forbid* manufacturers from bundling a downgrade OS with the unit at the point of sale, and *forbid* them even to provide the downgrade OS afterward, as a programmatic bid to push the consumers toward adopting the new OS. (But if a consumer did downgrade to the sanctioned downgrade version [scrounged from a 3rd party retailer's remaining stock, or an IT multi-license image] they could still get warrantied repairs from the manufacturer.)

With Vista, and only with Vista, Microsoft caved in to consumer demand and allowed the manufacturers to bundle XP with the unit as disks in the box, at cost to the manufacturers (Dell, HP, et. al.) themselves, and to advertise that fact as a *feature*. Why? Because a very significant number of consumers wouldn't buy a new machine without XP."

don't you get?

Jeez, you are completely out to lunch and in a state of cognitive dissonance and denial. Windows is not oxygen. Get a life.

 

[diamond.g]

Yet you continue to do so. In a "silly Mac fansite" no less.

What part of:

"In ALL previous releases, Microsoft *forbid* manufacturers from bundling a downgrade OS with the unit at the point of sale, and *forbid* them even to provide the downgrade OS afterward, as a programmatic bid to push the consumers toward adopting the new OS. (But if a consumer did downgrade to the sanctioned downgrade version [scrounged from a 3rd party retailer's remaining stock, or an IT multi-license image] they could still get warrantied repairs from the manufacturer.)

With Vista, and only with Vista, Microsoft caved in to consumer demand and allowed the manufacturers to bundle XP with the unit as disks in the box, at cost to the manufacturers (Dell, HP, et. al.) themselves, and to advertise that fact as a *feature*. Why? Because a very significant number of consumers wouldn't buy a new machine without XP."

don't you get?

Jeez, you are completely out to lunch and in a state of cognitive dissonance and denial. Windows is not oxygen. Get a life.

The really sad part is even though those people are getting XP (or even 2000 in some cases - DOJ I'm looking at you!) they are still paying for the Vista (business) license.

 

[Wikinerd]

That's standard practice across the software business. Once a new version is announced, it will kill sales of the current one, so they offer everyone who buys the current version a free upgrade to the upcoming version. MS did the same with Vista (buy XP now, get Vista when it's ready).

No... He used that as one of the "advantages" of using a PC (Vista, specifically)... Take a look at the quoted message in my prev. post...

And tell me please, why should I give a rat's @ss about whether my PC uses EFI or BIOS?

After my OS boots (actually, after it *starts* to boot) is there any advantage whatsoever to EFI?

I didn't think so.... Mac fans shouting "EFI" are a sorry bunch.

That crowd used to shout "but it's not titanium". And they shouted "but it's not PowerPC". Now to shout "but where's the EFI" is just sad.

...Because, 1. the EFI provides a much better interface, 2. the EFI, with a little extra Apple's "top-secret" boot code, allows you to boot into Mac OS X as well as emulate BIOS so you can boot into another other x86 OS... Actually this is physically why Mac OS X is tied to Macs... 3. the EFI is more reliable 4. the EFI is supposed to replace BIOS, which is, for some reason, not phased out even after nearly 35 years... why not use something of the "future"?

Psst. That's why successful EFI emulation is what is most sought after in the Hackint0sh community.

(as for actual EFI vs BIOS discussion, EFI wins hands-down. It's BIOS's replacement, after all... If you want to know what's so good about EFI, take a look here: http://www.deviceforge.com/articles/AT4903582708.html )

That crowd used to shout "but it's not titanium". And they shouted "but it's not PowerPC". Now to shout "but where's the EFI" is just sad.

... The only thing EFI is not there for is as decoration...

(Interestingly, the only points where you don't give a "rat's @ss" about [or you just ignored them] are points where Microsoft is behind on... Is it just me or am I seeing a correlation?)

So what's the difference and why does the downgrade option to XP indicate that Vista sucks?

Simple answer: It doesn't. There are many reasons for calling Vista a failure, this isn't one of them.

Gosh. I'm guessing it's all our fault now. It's an indicator of failure...

... And let's not go into semantics, okies?

These are Marketshare Hitlinks stats which measure the actual OS used. Although they're not the best stats in the world they illustrate the point - Vista up, XP down.

That wasn't what you said earlier... It was literally *funny*...

1) Do MS have a consistent business practice of allowing downgrades to previous versions of Windows? Yes or no.
2) Is Vista's market share going up roughly in parallel to XP's decline allowing for a small amount of leakage to Mac OS X? Yes or no.
3) Is Vista's increase in 2009 greater than that of Mac OS X 10.5's?
4) Is Mac OS X's 10.5 market share still tiny in comparison to Vista's? Yes or no.

(Normally, and logically, "going up" means a "positive correlation". "Decline" means "negative correlation". Having both in a graph would create an X and unless you were taught differently at school, two lines forming an X are not parallel with each other.)

————

@Anuba... Sorry for taking away the joke about the 5th avenue's "Walls of windows",... But I have to protest that windows are, by definition, "openings in walls" covered with some sort of transparent or translucent material.

 

[BongoBanger]

Yet you continue to do so. In a "silly Mac fansite" no less.

What part of:

"In ALL previous releases, Microsoft *forbid* manufacturers from bundling a downgrade OS with the unit at the point of sale, and *forbid* them even to provide the downgrade OS afterward, as a programmatic bid to push the consumers toward adopting the new OS. (But if a consumer did downgrade to the sanctioned downgrade version [scrounged from a 3rd party retailer's remaining stock, or an IT multi-license image] they could still get warrantied repairs from the manufacturer.)

With Vista, and only with Vista, Microsoft caved in to consumer demand and allowed the manufacturers to bundle XP with the unit as disks in the box, at cost to the manufacturers (Dell, HP, et. al.) themselves, and to advertise that fact as a *feature*. Why? Because a very significant number of consumers wouldn't buy a new machine without XP."

don't you get?

Jeez, you are completely out to lunch and in a state of cognitive dissonance and denial. Windows is not oxygen. Get a life.

We could argue this back and forth but, frankly, I'm not a fan of banging my head off a brick wall. When you have actual numbers that quantify 'a very significant number of customers' as opposed to 'a small minority in very specific circumstances' we can talk.

 

[Wikinerd]

It's gonna be interesting to see the sales pitch for Win7, not to mention the critical reception. The biggest change this time around is that they've put this woman in charge of the Windows experience:

They recruited her from the Office 2007 team, she's the one who threw out text menus in favor of ribbons:

And by doing so (throwing out text menus) I will never buy another copy of Office again.

(Not-so-long ago, I liked Office for it's functionality, easy to use shortcuts, and self-explanatory text. Then came Office '07... I gave it a try, went to Oo.o every time I'm on Windows, and never looked back. Big clumsy icons and that "Ribbon" interface can be nice, but once the novelty of the idea rubs off, that interface proved to be worse than ever before. First was all the precious screen estate wasted. Second, nothing is where they are in any other app—GUI consistency. Third, it's just... bad. It's confusing, but confusing is an understatement. I ran out of words that can accurately describe the "ribbon"'ed experience—nothing short of "red tape" to stop you from getting work done....)

Apparently they liked her job so far... she's now in charge of Windows 8.

Well that sounds like a fun ride for Apple and most UNIX and UNIX-like OS's out there...

We could argue this back and forth but, frankly, I'm not a fan of banging my head off a brick wall. When you have actual numbers that quantify 'a very significant number of customers' as opposed to 'a small minority in very specific circumstances' we can talk.

Reduced to arguing semantics, are we?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-Vista-XP-downgrade,6187.html
http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-article/17594/one-third-vista-pcs-downgrade-to-xp

(A somewhat respectable firm puts it at 35%—figure seems to be universally accepted)

And as of March 09 Vista's share is at 23%, XP's at 63%... Data from the same source you cited earlier...

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

 

[Wikinerd]

---post deleted by author ---

 

[diamond.g]

<snip>
...Because, 1. the EFI provides a much better interface, 2. the EFI, with a little extra Apple's "top-secret" boot code, allows you to boot into Mac OS X as well as emulate BIOS so you can boot into another other x86 OS... Actually this is physically why Mac OS X is tied to Macs... 3. the EFI is more reliable 4. the EFI is supposed to replace BIOS, which is, for some reason, not phased out even after nearly 35 years... why not use something of the "future"?

Psst. That's why successful EFI emulation is what is most sought after in the Hackint0sh community.

(as for actual EFI vs BIOS discussion, EFI wins hands-down. It's BIOS's replacement, after all... If you want to know what's so good about EFI, take a look here: http://www.deviceforge.com/articles/AT4903582708.html )



... The only thing EFI is not there for is as decoration...

(Interestingly, the only points where you don't give a "rat's @ss" about [or you just ignored them] are points where Microsoft is behind on... Is it just me or am I seeing a correlation?)
<snip>

I think his point was once the system has started to boot the OS EFI/BIOS does nothing for you. You only care when your system is booting. So touting EFI as an advantage is pointless. BTW Vista SP1 X64, Windows Server 2008 (and R2) X64 and Windows 7 X64 all support booting/intallation from/on EFI.

My only gripe about EFI is that in Apples implementation you have to boot into BIOS to do any tinkering with system clocks. Or you have to run the ZDnet tool that can't decouple CPU base bus speed from RAM base speed.

 

[Sehnsucht]

A Mac Pro:

Found some better photos for you:

 

[Wikinerd]

I think his point was once the system has started to boot the OS EFI/BIOS does nothing for you. You only care when your system is booting. So touting EFI as an advantage is pointless. BTW Vista SP1 X64, Windows Server 2008 (and R2) X64 and Windows 7 X64 all support booting/intallation from/on EFI.

My only gripe about EFI is that in Apples implementation you have to boot into BIOS to do any tinkering with system clocks. Or you have to run the ZDnet tool that can't decouple CPU base bus speed from RAM base speed.

Well my point is that if you have the EFI with Apple boot code then you would be able to run OS X.

 

[Sehnsucht]

And tell me please, why should I give a rat's @ss about whether my PC uses EFI or BIOS?

After my OS boots (actually, after it *starts* to boot) is there any advantage whatsoever to EFI?

I didn't think so.... Mac fans shouting "EFI" are a sorry bunch.

That crowd used to shout "but it's not titanium". And they shouted "but it's not PowerPC". Now to shout "but where's the EFI" is just sad.

As if most fanboys actually know what EFI or BIOS even is.

The fanboy camps are basically the same when it comes to actually knowing anything about whatever it is they're cheering for.

Mac fanboy: Mine looks cooler!
Windows fanboy: Mine can play games!

But I bet if you asked either one to explain a sudo command or how overclocking works, then they'd both go crawl under a rock.