Apple Targets Windows 7 With Three New 'Get a Mac' Ads

[SactoGuy18]

I actually like Windows 7 Home Premium (I built up a second machine with a Pentium Dual-Core E2200 CPU and 4 GB of RAM and Win7 runs GREAT on this machine).

With Microsoft offering its Security Essentials software, it's far less likely users will get malware if they stick to mostly good commercial sites. Anyway, Windows since XP SP2 already loudly nags you to get security software installed, and that's why on my current computer running Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 I have Norton Internet Security 2010 installed.

Yes, there are some advantages to using a Mac (especially with iTunes and iLife already installed), but that's offset by the pretty steep price of most Mac models in any decent configuration for serious work. And Apple should work with Logitech to provide Apple-labeled ergonomic keyboards and mouse pointers, too (how about a version of the Wave keyboard with Mac-specific function keys and versions of the LX3 and M500 mouse pointers in a color to match the color of the new iMac?).

 

[MacDSmith2]

I find the "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" commercials to be hilarious!
Apple attacks their competition with very funny commercials as opposed to MS's dry, humorless "Macs are too expensive" lame excuses for commercials.

Keri

For Apple's part, the price/performance ratio of the new iMacs and Mac Mini with options for i7 quads really strikes at Microsoft's "too expensive" attacks. And for Microsoft's part, Windows 7 supposedly strikes at the heart of Apple's "Bad Vista" attacks. So they have counter-punched each other. But the MS Stores, virtual copy of the Apple stores is really ludicrous and dumb. It tells people Microsoft has no new or imaginative products, just what other people make and sell. And that will always be the rub for a company that can only make money through OEM contracts as opposed to making hardware themselves.

 

[Unprocessed1]

I actually like Windows 7 Home Premium (I built up a second machine with a Pentium Dual-Core E2200 CPU and 4 GB of RAM and Win7 runs GREAT on this machine).

With Microsoft offering its Security Essentials software, it's far less likely users will get malware if they stick to mostly good commercial sites. Anyway, Windows since XP SP2 already loudly nags you to get security software installed, and that's why on my current computer running Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 I have Norton Internet Security 2010 installed.

Yes, there are some advantages to using a Mac (especially with iTunes and iLife already installed), but that's offset by the pretty steep price of most Mac models in any decent configuration for serious work. And Apple should work with Logitech to provide Apple-labeled ergonomic keyboards and mouse pointers, too (how about a version of the Wave keyboard with Mac-specific function keys and versions of the LX3 and M500 mouse pointers in a color to match the color of the new iMac?).

I was really shocked with how smooth Windows 7 ran on my MBP. Vista was sluggish at times, but 7 felt like it could pass for the MBP's native OS.

 

[NightwalkerUK]

YAWN, do these actually work then?

 

[Bafflefish]

My experience is quite the opposite. Mail shows all my emails, Address Book contains everyone in the company and lets me find what I'm looking for twice as fast as Outlook, all meetings are in iCal. I haven't heard that the company did any upgrades for that other than Leopard to Snow Leopard.

Mail's support for Exchange has improved considerably with Snow Leopard.

However, there are plenty of things that Mail *can't* do, that makes it non-ideal for anything but light Exchange users: DL management, public folder access/management, full GAL support, etc.

Most Mail users I know who also wish to use public folders and such have to resort to using OWA, and unfortunately, you have to be using IE to take advantage of all of OWA's features (thankfully this changes with Exchange 2010, where 99% of full OWA functionality will be available in Firefox and Safari as well).

 

[Bafflefish]

I have a practice manager that believes in future proofing for like... 10 years at least. I might just get the AMD system though, I can pack a bit more ram onto that than the Xeon systems. Plus I dont need Uberduber HyperThreading. Nobody really does, they just think they do.

First of all, "future proofing for 10 years". Do you realize how idiotic that is in the computing world?

Imagine trying to run Snow Leopard on a 1999 G3 or G4, and run it *well*, or running Windows 7 on a Pentium III 500 or Athlon 500 (and have it run well).

Look at all the technologies you'd be excluding then even if it ran satisfactorily for you. Virtualization, multi-cores, etc.

Computing technology pretty much jumps considerably every 2-3 years or so. I'll never understand this "future proofing" concept when it comes to computers. Even consoles don't last that long.

I suggested a Linux Blade, trust me I tried. To him its just more parts to fail. So its gonna be an Opteron 24-Core system with external raid, and whatever money is left for an UPS and as much ram as possible!

So in 5 years or less, when he decides to replace that Opterion 24-core system, are you going to remind him of just how much he spent to "future proof" his system so far into the future? And that it didn't work?

 

[Bafflefish]

For Apple's part, the price/performance ratio of the new iMacs and Mac Mini with options for i7 quads really strikes at Microsoft's "too expensive" attacks.

I'd agree, if the i5 and i7 weren't only offered on the 24" iMac. If I want an i5, it means $2000 minimum, and if I want a i7, the only one Apple offers (the 860) is part of a $2200 system.

The iMac is great, but you can find i5s and i7s in <$800 PCs. So price/performance is still very much in the PC's favor.

 

[CQd44]

I'd agree, if the i5 and i7 weren't only offered on the 24" iMac. If I want an i5, it means $2000 minimum, and if I want a i7, the only one Apple offers (the 860) is part of a $2200 system.

The iMac is great, but you can find i5s and i7s in <$800 PCs. So price/performance is still very much in the PC's favor.

Macs have always lost in price/performance. They rely on other things to justify the price, like the OS, reliability, and customer satisfaction.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

The iMac is great, but you can find i5s and i7s in <$800 PCs. So price/performance is still very much in the PC's favor.

People still want the iMacs even though the PCs are cheaper.

 

[shaunymac]

People still want the iMacs even though the PCs are cheaper.

Exactly. Since when did mac people care so much about being raped on price? Uh, never.

Our stuff works and looks good doing it. We all know this is the first time the iMac has gotten a really beefy processor and to that these PC's better watch it.

 

[Bafflefish]

People still want the iMacs even though the PCs are cheaper.

Exactly. Since when did mac people care so much about being raped on price? Uh, never.

Our stuff works and looks good doing it. We all know this is the first time the iMac has gotten a really beefy processor and to that these PC's better watch it.

My statement wasn't to disparage the iMac. It was simply to counter the point by someone that with the latest processor releases (the i5 and Lynnfield i7s), that the iMac (along with other offerings) were now getting to equal the PC in terms of price/performance. Generally speaking, that's not true. But yes, there is much more than simply pure price/performance (component quality, vendor reliability, etc.)

And contrary to the coolaid some of you drink, systems other than Apple's can "look good doing it". Apple could do an appealing case design and still offer an i5 or i7 system for less than what the iMac is. Some of you seem to use "it looks good" way too much as a good enough justification for charging $1000 more than what it should cost. People act like Apple couldn't lower prices on their hardware. They could, but then they'd never make as much off each unit as they do now, and hence you wouldn't be able to see such "record" quarterly profits. So in the mean time, they charge more than they should, and the die hard Apple fanboys gladly slurp up whatever Apple throws onto the table.

 

[DMann]

My statement wasn't to disparage the iMac. It was simply to counter the point by someone that with the latest processor releases (the i5 and Lynnfield i7s), that the iMac (along with other offerings) were now getting to equal the PC in terms of price/performance. Generally speaking, that's not true. But yes, there is much more than simply pure price/performance (component quality, vendor reliability, etc.)

However, after one factors a 27" IPS LED 2560 x 1440 pixel Monitor into the equation, the price difference becomes even less of an issue.

 

[Bafflefish]

However, after one factors a 27" IPS LED 2560 x 1440 pixel Monitor into the equation, the price difference becomes even less of an issue.

You're right, for the 27" monitor range.

Too bad that the *only* way you can get an i5 or i7 is by going with the 27" model. That's one of the issues I have with it: Apple only offers it with the 27" model. Probably because the 27" model's case was the only one that could easily handle incorporating an i5 or i7 desktop processor design.

Remember, not *everyone* wants a 27" monitor, especially given the competitiveness of the 23" and 24" monitor range (which also include a number of S-IPS and H-IPS panels themselves).

I know my gaming system enjoys having 3x 24" monitors (AMD Eyefinity is quite nice, btw).

 

[MorphingDragon]

First of all, "future proofing for 10 years". Do you realize how idiotic that is in the computing world?

I'm only following my Boss' instructions. A blade is much more preferable, modular and upgradable but he wont listen. He ownt even possibly consider, Gasp! Upgrading when we upgrade the OS.

Imagine trying to run Snow Leopard on a 1999 G3 or G4, and run it *well*, or running Windows 7 on a Pentium III 500 or Athlon 500 (and have it run well).

Look at all the technologies you'd be excluding then even if it ran satisfactorily for you. Virtualization, multi-cores, etc.

Computing technology pretty much jumps considerably every 2-3 years or so. I'll never understand this "future proofing" concept when it comes to computers. Even consoles don't last that long.

I know I know. Being an Admin sucks. But business IT is a whole different world. I know companies which use some of the original macintoshs.

You can argue away a few grand. Not my problem. And we're running a LINUX system, not windows. So its reasonably futureproofed. A Computer from 1999 can still run modern Linux OSs relatively well. (Running like, Xfce or something)

So in 5 years or less, when he decides to replace that Opterion 24-core system, are you going to remind him of just how much he spent to "future proof" his system so far into the future? And that it didn't work?

I will, and the guy before me did. The partners do. (At least hes retiring in 2 years!) I dont even get control over the computer budget.

 

[DMann]

You're right, for the 27" monitor range.

Too bad that the *only* way you can get an i5 or i7 is by going with the 27" model. That's one of the issues I have with it: Apple only offers it with the 27" model. Probably because the 27" model's case was the only one that could easily handle incorporating an i5 or i7 desktop processor design.

Remember, not *everyone* wants a 27" monitor, especially given the competitiveness of the 23" and 24" monitor range (which also include a number of S-IPS and H-IPS panels themselves).

I know my gaming system enjoys having 3x 24" monitors (AMD Eyefinity is quite nice, btw).

Although the larger size of the 27" more easily accommodates the i5/i7s, we'll likely see quads introduced in the 21.5" iMacs in future releases after Intel's Westmere 32nm Quad-Cores become available.

 

[flottenheimer]

though I'd rather see apple putting ads out regarding the new hardware instead of mocking windows 7. more positive than negative stuff.

Word.

 

[DMann]

For me. Run Logic Audio.

Final Cut Studio, Keynote, BBEdit, and Pixelmator as well.

 

[AidenShaw]

People still want the iMacs even though the PCs are cheaper.

Some do.

Others won't touch an all-in-one regardless of the specs.

It's not a coincidence that none of the companies that offer the mini-tower alternative are selling tons of all-in-ones. Given the choice, consumers choose mini-towers over all-in-ones.

If Apple offered a Core i5/i7 mini-tower - their sales would shoot up, but Imac sales would suffer.

 

[Eidorian]

It's not a coincidence that none of the companies that offer the mini-tower alternative are selling tons of all-in-ones. Given the choice, consumers choose mini-towers over all-in-ones.

If Apple offered a Core i5/i7 mini-tower - their sales would shoot up, but Imac sales would suffer.

I keep bring this up but no one seems to take on minitowers killing all-in-one sales outside of Apple.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

Always love the new ads. Makes my day go by better.

 

[polaris20]

Mail's support for Exchange has improved considerably with Snow Leopard.

However, there are plenty of things that Mail *can't* do, that makes it non-ideal for anything but light Exchange users: DL management, public folder access/management, full GAL support, etc.

Most Mail users I know who also wish to use public folders and such have to resort to using OWA, and unfortunately, you have to be using IE to take advantage of all of OWA's features (thankfully this changes with Exchange 2010, where 99% of full OWA functionality will be available in Firefox and Safari as well).

Or.....Entourage. Seriously, why is this such an issue? It's not like Outlook comes with Windows. You have to buy that too if you wish to connect to Exchange.

At least with SL and Exchange 2007, you get something out of the box that works.

 

[polaris20]

I'm only following my Boss' instructions. A blade is much more preferable, modular and upgradable but he wont listen. He ownt even possibly consider, Gasp! Upgrading when we upgrade the OS.



I know I know. Being an Admin sucks. But business IT is a whole different world. I know companies which use some of the original macintoshs.

You can argue away a few grand. Not my problem. And we're running a LINUX system, not windows. So its reasonably futureproofed. A Computer from 1999 can still run modern Linux OSs relatively well. (Running like, Xfce or something)



I will, and the guy before me did. The partners do. (At least hes retiring in 2 years!) I dont even get control over the computer budget.

Nothing personal to you, as I know it's not your choice, but your IT dept is either seriously underfunded or your boss completely incompetent.

I can see going the length of a support contract on something, say as long as 5 years. But anything after that and you're playing with fire, as well as leaving yourself out of modern technologies while wasting money in the beginning, front loading expensive systems.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Some do.

Others won't touch an all-in-one regardless of the specs.

It's not a coincidence that none of the companies that offer the mini-tower alternative are selling tons of all-in-ones. Given the choice, consumers choose mini-towers over all-in-ones.

If Apple offered a Core i5/i7 mini-tower - their sales would shoot up, but Imac sales would suffer.

Its usually because the Mini Tower is cheaper.

 

[sailnavy]

Broken Promises

Considering that Windows 7 Pro won't authenticate for me, I think Broken Promises was fairly accurate. Yes I called tech support, yes they took my email, and then transferred me to an automated line that hung up on me after I told it that I didn't have the activation window open. Microsoft, you're fired.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Nothing personal to you, as I know it's not your choice, but your IT dept is either seriously underfunded or your boss completely incompetent.

I can see going the length of a support contract on something, say as long as 5 years. But anything after that and you're playing with fire, as well as leaving yourself out of modern technologies while wasting money in the beginning, front loading expensive systems.

I am the IT dept, I have one other person but he works only when hes needed.

Even if I need to buy a $2 mouse I have to get written approval. I get about a budget of $5k per year plus more when its upgrade time. $5K isnt much for a growing law firm. I feel like im nagging my mum for a wolly pop.