Apple Officially Ends 'Get a Mac' Campaign, Revamps 'Why You'll Love a Mac' Feature

[furi0usbee]

it's a good thing I saved the HD version of all the ads.... 438.5 MB. Also, my Mass. lic. plate is GETMAC. Only could put 6, but wanted Get A Mac. I guess I can keep mine, since technically it wasn't the campaign, but I'm just telling people to get mac.

 

[Eric S.]

Actually, all PCs have a piece of technology that originates form the 80s and hasnt changed much since.

*BIOS* Cough.

And every Intel CPU up to the present wastes silicon implementing 8086 real mode for its "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" boot sequence.

 

[hippo9]

it's a good thing I saved the HD version of all the ads.... 438.5 MB.

Was that all 66 ads?

 

[Vulpinemac]

Question:

How come Apple doesn't tout that web pages (html type) render so much better on a Mac.

Has anyone seen the type rendering in Windows? It's awful!

As a web developer designing on a Mac, when I test in Windows I always cringe on how bad the type looks after I am used to seeing it on a Mac.

Often my clients have the same reaction when they compare them side by side.

It has actually made a few people I know switch.

Have you ever considered that you're using fonts that don't scale well in Windows or in IE? I've discovered that using a font that is more Apple-friendly doesn't look as good in IE, and the other way around, as well. It's almost like looking at the difference between Charcoal and Courier. Even when creating a newsletter, for some reason Times New Roman looks better across the board than Ariel.

 

[AidenShaw]

And every Intel CPU up to the present wastes silicon implementing 8086 real mode for its "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" boot sequence.

Since an 8086 had 29,000 transistors, I think that it isn't a strain on the 731 million transistor budget for a Core i* CPU .

ps: I'm sure that you meant Intel x86/x64 CPUs, since things like the Intel ARMs and i960 (probably Itanium also) don't have true "real mode".

 

[Vulpinemac]

Where are Dell machines made? Are they still being assembled in Ireland or have they moved to China like everyone else? I'm asking because something must be up with import duties, exchange rates etc that makes the difference between Dell and Apple pricing in the US so small. I see this "when you add all the options to a Dell machine it costs the same as a Mac" argument from time to time, but everytime I've checked dell.se vs. apple.se I find it impossible to make any Dell config cost roughly the same as an Apple config.

OK, before I try this... yes, we know about plastic vs. aluminum and cable-free vs. messy interior, but unless anyone can put a correct pricetag on that we can only go by specs. So...

Mac Pro quad 2.66 basic configuration
3 GB RAM (3x1)
1x 640 GB HD
1x GT120 512 MB
1x Superdrive
OS X, wired keyboard, wired mouse
AppleCare 3Y plan

26990 SEK incl VAT ($3408)

Dell Precision T3500
(that's a certified workstation from their professional series, not the flimsy plastic consumer garbage)

Quad Xeon 2.8 W3530 (they no longer have the 2.66 W3520 used in the Mac so I have to pick the closest)
750 GB HD (no 640 available option)
3 GB RAM (3x1)
1x NVidia Quadro FX580 512 MB
1x 16x DVD+/-RW
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit, wired keyboard, wired mouse
3Y on-site support included

16388 SEK incl. VAT ($2069)

So that's a $1339 difference even with slightly better specs on processor and hard drive. The Dell has a bit of "pro tax" as well, for certification etc, which makes it much more expensive than the consumer models. Other than differences in enclosure and design, and OS, these really are comparable machines.

You intentionally overlooked a number of intangibles as well as certain hardware differences. While I'm being too lazy to go out and link to them, I might point out that despite your belief that they use almost the exact same components, Apple, across the board, requires much, much tighter tolerances for those components than any competitor at those prices. Components that Dell, Gateway or one of the others could get at $5/ton Apple would have the manufacturer sift and pick out the ones that measure within half of a percent or less of the labelled value, both raising the cost but also preventing the accumulation of 'just in spec' components that can stack up to the point of the end product out of spec and problematic. Any one component in a generic PC might be within 'acceptable' limits, but if a number of these components happen to fall in series, the circuit itself could fall well out of spec, causing issues that are prevent proper operation but become undetectable when trying to troubleshoot.

This isn't to say that an Apple computer can't have problems, only that Apple does what it can to minimize those problems. Apple believes that reliability up front is cheaper than servicing down the road. Apparently it's working because Apple still holds the highest Customer Satisfaction ratings for their hardware and their service, while Dell falls to barely over 50% in both hardware and satisfaction. That so-called Apple Tax is paying for an intangible that can only be measured over time. Yes, there will be some problems, but on the average, Apple products have fewer than any competitor.

Now, you may want to say I'm just blowing smoke, but I've worked worked for a manufacturer for Apple, and have seen entire shipments of parts returned because a certain percentage fell outside of their specs in random testing. Our QA had to redesign our own testing facilities and went so far as to help Apple redesign theirs to ensure we got similar results--not changing the testing equipment, but the environment in which they were used--eliminating all EMI to get the most accurate readings possible.

 

[furi0usbee]

Was that all 66 ads?

No, these are only 44. These are the only ones that were available on Apple's site.

 

[iPhone3Gusr]

i dont see why they would end the campaign. i havent looked over the entire thread but i dont see why they would stop the ads.

 

[philnolan3d]

So does this mean no more half-truths and blatant lies? Probably not.

 

[Anuba]

You intentionally overlooked a number of intangibles as well as certain hardware differences.

I think I said at least twice that I'm aware of these differences (intangible and other), but it was in response to a post stating that Dell+options to bring it up to Mac specs = same price. I didn't "intentionally" overlook anything, I can't not overlook things if I don't know what they are.

If comparisons are invalid due to "intangibles" and "certain hardware differences" then why are we doing them at all? The best we can do is pick the same or similar components out of those you are able to pick.

We know that Apple's gross profit margins are much wider than Dell's (33% vs. 18%), so whatever these intangibles and hardware differences are, they don't appear to be costing Apple anything extra.

While I'm being too lazy to go out and link to them, I might point out that despite your belief that they use almost the exact same components, Apple, across the board, requires much, much tighter tolerances for those components than any competitor at those prices.

Maybe they do, but this is about $1300. It's not about 100 bucks give or take, it's $1300... you can buy an MBP 13" or an iMac 21.5" for the price difference. Even if you stack up aluminum enclosure, cable-free interior, tighter quality control and OS X development and whatever else there is, does it account for 1300 bucks?

Either way, my main point still stands: Dell updates their prices regularly to reflect the dropping costs of main components such as CPUs, which is why the W53XX is now in their bargain bin (a year ago, a T3500 with a W53XX was much closer to the Mac Pro in terms of price). Apple does not, instead they exploit the dropping costs to widen their margin over time. If Apple sold the current baseline Mac Pro for $1900 or whatever it's worth now, or if they always offered the latest CPU generation from Intel (without having to do some big official "refresh" ceremony), the so-called Apple tax would be much easier to accept. In that case I'd buy a Mac Pro right now, since the current (old) quad 2.66 is more than enough for my needs, but I'm not going to buy it at a price that's based on what component prices were a year ago. I'm OK with paying Apple tax, but not double Apple tax.

 

[philnolan3d]

Long: "Hi. I'm an iPad."

Hodgman: "And I'm a Wintel Tablet."

Long: "Hey, Tablet, you look down. What's the matter?"

Hodgman: "Things just aren't the same without my trusty old stylus."

[...]

Sounds just like apple to compare their current tech to 5 year old competitor tech.

 

[philnolan3d]

And I like the overall look of MacOS better, it jsut looks prettier. But Windows 7 has come a long way to making things more even.

What? How is a 1998 era brushed metal and solid gray UI prettier? I ran OSX for close to a year and the UI was one of the things I disliked the most.

 

[Anuba]

What? How is a 1998 era brushed metal and solid gray UI prettier? I ran OSX for close to a year and the UI was one of the things I disliked the most.

Um... the brushed metal look has been retired, it's all about grey gradients now.

Win 7 is certainly an improvement over Vista, but it still carries over some of its most butt-ugly elements. For instance, the title bar. First they made it semi-transparent, then they realized this would result in title bar text sometimes becoming invisible, so they added a hideous white blob behind the text to provide some contrast. Instead, perhaps they should've realized that the original idea with transparent title bar can't have been very good if they needed to smear white goo on it to make it work.

I'm also not very happy about the fact that the window borders are extremely thick (a waste of screen space) or that there's some weird diagonal texture embedded in the semi-transparent window elements to emulate some sort of reflection. Gloss effect overkill = tacky.

The grey on the Mac desktop UI might seem a little boring, but it's all about getting the OS out of the way, so that you can focus on the content instead of being distracted by colored elements all over the OS. The OS X UI is more tasteful overall. What I don't like about it is all the outdated Aqua stuff with the "shiny pill" look - oval blue buttons and scrollbars, spinning beachballs etc, I'm not a 9 year old girl. Also, the primary UI font (Lucida Grande) is ghastly. I wish they'd use a plainer sans typeface like HelveticaNeue or Arial, like on the iPhone UI (looks like Helvetica but I'm not sure).

 

[philnolan3d]

Sorry I think all of those Vista / 7 things look great. See this screenshot I took from OSX, can you tell me at a glance where to click if I want to move the window on top (currently active)?

As for the brushed metal I was thinking of Quicktime for Windows which still looks like that.

 

[Eric S.]

ps: I'm sure that you meant Intel x86/x64 CPUs, since things like the Intel ARMs and i960 (probably Itanium also) don't have true "real mode".

Yes, you're right. I should have been more specific.

 

[rdlink]

Yes, Better Hardware

Better hardware? Design, yes of course, but hardware no way!

Better hardware, yes. Hardwares is not just the processor and the video card. Hardware is also the display, and the interface devices, and the case. And Apple overall provides better hardware than any PC maker I have ever used.

I have a 5 month old Dell Latitude enterprise class laptop, the best Dell I have ever used in my life sitting on my table right now. Hardware-wise it can't hold a candle to my year old MacBook Pro.

My Windows 7 experience is better on the MBP than it is on the Dell. And that's largely due to superior hardware.

 

[Anuba]

Better hardware, yes. Hardwares is not just the processor and the video card. Hardware is also the display, and the interface devices, and the case. And Apple overall provides better hardware than any PC maker I have ever used.

I have a 5 month old Dell Latitude enterprise class laptop, the best Dell I have ever used in my life sitting on my table right now. Hardware-wise it can't hold a candle to my year old MacBook Pro.

My Windows 7 experience is better on the MBP than it is on the Dell. And that's largely due to superior hardware.

I was nodding up to those last two sentences. Not my experience at all.

I tried Win7 64-bit and it would freeze on my MBP 17" within an hour after startup (everything completely stuck, pressing the power button for 10 seconds was the only remedy). I switched to Win7 32-bit and it worked flawlessly for about a month, until I started getting the BSoD within 2-3 minutes of booting into Windows. Did some research on the web and found out that this was a common problem with the HFS+ support, you had to disable it by renaming a couple of ".sys" files. Now I'm running Win7 32-bit without HFS+ and it's stable, until I plug in my 30" monitor (a Dell 3007WFP hooked up to a Mini DisplayPort-to-dual link DVI adapter), then it will freeze within 30 minutes or so. You could pin the blame on Windows, but really... it's just not that unstable on a normal PC, it takes a Mac w/ BootCamp.

On my iMac 24" I have Vista Ultimate 32-bit installed. No freezing issues or HFS+ problems there, but it won't come out of sleep mode (neither hybrid sleep nor normal sleep), it just sits there with a black screen with a mouse pointer in the middle until the system spontaneously reboots. Admittedly I've seen the wake-from-sleep trouble on one "real" PC, a Dell XPS700 gaming tower, but that thing was a really weird and unorthodox construction to begin with (littered with custom solutions by Dell and NVidia, it's a wonder it ran at all).

So, no, in my experience the Boot Camp thing isn't solid by a long shot. I hope it works better on Mac Pro, I think Apple has tighter QC for Boot Camp when it comes to that particular machine.

 

[Azathoth]

Yes I guess on could call it "taste" but from an esthetic point of of view I think it is hard to argue. One may be "used to it" but that does not make it better.

Here is an example:

WINDOWS

MAC

Hard to argue that Mac version is not cleaner, clearer and smoother and easier on the eyes.

Check to see if the Windows AA setting is optimised for the sub-pixel layout of the display. In Windows 7 settings (use search with 'fonts' or so). I've found windows font rendering to be fine, in some cases better than on my Hires AG MBP15. Linux font rendering is still pretty poor though...

 

[digdogdigdog]

w0000t

im so glad its backkkkkkkk
this morning
http://www.apple.com/ca/getamac/ads/

 

[Samuel91]

Aww geez..