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

[BongoBanger]

Yeah, what would an anti-virus company know about viruses? So instead of trusting Windows, we should trust.... you?

Tut tut, Peter. It's not trusting me, it's trusting the company that claims Windows 7 is vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses when it also claims that Macs are also vulnerable and need AV.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

PC's dont have a specific OS, windows is optional as with ubuntu, fedora, BSD, etc

There is no way I'm going to run my graphics apps in some free OS where I have to maintain everything. The big FX firms may do that, but they have an army of mouth breathing geniuses to make sure everything runs, and customized, unique apps that aren't available to the rest of us mere mortals.

if you dont like windows and you buy it for a new rig, thats kind of your own dumb fault, use something else.

Thanks for the advice. I think I'll use the Mac OS.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Tut tut, Peter. It's not trusting me, it's trusting the company that claims Windows 7 is vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses when it also claims that Macs are also vulnerable and need AV.

Norton?

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Norton?

Don't trust Norton.

Trust me.

 

[CQd44]

Is he by chance using Home Premium Edition, the premium edition which excludes XP virtualization mode?

Not sure, honestly.

 

[NT1440]

for the price of a macbook ($999) pc's dont have crap specs. $999 in the PC world will get you a lappy with gaming level specs

for $2500 the price of an imac, do you know what kind of beast machine you can get? especially if you assemble it yourself?

Changing the goalposts? You said, "PC's done have crap specs".

You said nothing of price. NOTHING.

 

[polaris20]

Not sure, honestly.

That was me, and no, it was Windows 7 Professional. And there are apps that he has not been able to get working with XP virtualization mode. He just gave up and is using VirtualBox with XP in it for those apps.

Windows 7 Pro 64-bit.

 

[cumanzor]

Damn it, I was supposed to post about the whole "hurr vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses" ******** article earlier, but it was a long day at work.

Just for this time, I'll point you guys to a site that's not pro-MS nor pro-Apple specifically: Digg's submission of the article. Read the comments.

If you are honestly trying to make fun of Windows or prove Apple's ads right or MS wrong or whatever... the joke's on you. The article is ********.

Everybody knows Windows is still vulnerable to viruses. When has MS said that W7 is not vulnerable to viruses??? Everyone knows that running Windows without AV is suicide

This article is proving nothing that was not known before. UAC is not exactly designed to prevent viruses specifically, especially if a user is going to be running the virus themselves, and they aren't running any kind of protection. In all seriousness, running a virus manually and just pressing Accept on UAC is the same as if I sent you a script that says something like "rm -rf /" and you ran it as root on purpose.

Even MS Security Essentials can stop every virus in that list. If the article said something like Windows is vulnerable to 8/10 remote exploit out there even without requiring using interaction and with anti-malware protection installed... then I'd be worried.

But hey...... I'm not expecting a MS hater to make any sense, if MS were to bundle any kind of malware/virus protection, you guys would be all over how MS is such a bad guy and crying about abusive behavior and what not.

So yeah, carry on.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

If you are honestly trying to make fun of Windows or prove Apple's ads right or MS wrong or whatever... the joke's on you. The article is ********.

Damn, you guys are way too easy! The joke is on you- we enjoy getting Windows users all riled up over tiny things. It's just good natured fun.

Just released on Ars:

While most of the world runs windows is nothing new to learn:

Just over 70% of those Windows users are still on XP:

I think that does a good job of showing what the public thinks of Windows beyond XP.

Of course, someone will come along saying "I wouldn't post a link to Ars Technica if I were you..." because in the end, we're all snobs.

Of course, the name of the article is "Windows 7 passes Snow Leopard, Linux"

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne..._term=Main Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

It could be named "People still prefer Windows XP", depending on who writes the headline and what spin they want to give it. In my case, it's to give Windows a negative spin.

 

[CQd44]

Damn, you guys are way too easy! The joke is on you- we enjoy getting Windows users all riled up over tiny things. It's just good natured fun.

Just released on Ars:

While most of the world runs windows is nothing new to learn:

Just over 70% of those Windows users are still on XP:

I think that does a good job of showing what the public thinks of Windows beyond XP.

Of course, someone will come along saying "I wouldn't post a link to Ars Technica if I were you..." because in the end, we're all snobs.

Of course, the name of the article is "Windows 7 passes Snow Leopard, Linux"

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne..._term=Main Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

It could be named "People still prefer Windows XP", depending on who writes the headline and what spin they want to give it. In my case, it's to give Windows a negative spin.

For the most part, XP still does what most people need and they see no reason to ever upgrade, even if Vista or Windows 7 offer more features and are generally better.

 

[cumanzor]

Damn, you guys are way too easy! The joke is on you- we enjoy getting Windows users all riled up over tiny things. It's just good natured fun.

Just released on Ars:

While most of the world runs windows is nothing new to learn:

Just over 70% of those Windows users are still on XP:

I think that does a good job of showing what the public thinks of Windows beyond XP.

Of course, someone will come along saying "I wouldn't post a link to Ars Technica if I were you..." because in the end, we're all snobs.

Of course, the name of the article is "Windows 7 passes Snow Leopard, Linux"

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne..._term=Main Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

It could be named "People still prefer Windows XP", depending on who writes the headline and what spin they want to give it. In my case, it's to give Windows a negative spin.

Oh you.

So people didn't want Vista, completely understandable, Vista pre SP1 was bad man. The Mojave experiment didn't do ****. Even if Vista SP1 worked fine, people didn't want it. People wanted something new. And so they got Windows 7 which as you may know, is universally regarded as "great". (IMHO, only insecure pricks argue about which OS is better for home use. People use what fill their needs, whether it is OS X, Linux or Windows).

Windows 7 was officially released only a few weeks ago so your point is moot. And, there are more people using Windows 7 already than OS X or Linux?

 

[mac2x]

$999 Macbook specs (13.3")

2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (slow)
2GB (two 1GB SO-DIMMs) of 1066MHz DDR3 (half the ram of the pc)
250GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard disk drive; (missing 100+GB of space)
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM (garbage onboard video card with no ram at all)

ASUS N81 Series N81Vp-X1 (14")
Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 2.53G (faster than the mac)
4GB DDR3 (faster and double the ram)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 1GB of video ram (WAY faster than the mac with 1GB more video ram)
320GB 7200RPM (larger and faster)

in every aspect in relation to specs the pc was faster for a little cheaper
mac specs are CRAP for the price.

And all this BS and more from someone running an illegal system.

[emphasis mine] Dell Mini 9 w/ OSX, Ubuntu, XPSP3

 

[PeterQVenkman]

So people didn't want Vista, completely understandable, Vista pre SP1 was bad man. The Mojave experiment didn't do ****. Even if Vista SP1 worked fine, people didn't want it. People wanted something new.

I'm glad we can agree windows vista is crap. Pre-or post SP1, people weren't switching in droves.

And so they got Windows 7 which as you may know, is universally regarded as "great".

I have been swayed by your compelling argument that "windows is universally regarded as "'great'". Who knew that's all it would take?

(IMHO, only insecure pricks argue about which OS is better for home use. People use what fill their needs, whether it is OS X, Linux or Windows).

I guess that makes us both insecure pricks!

So people didn't want Vista, completely understandable, Vista pre SP1 was bad man. The Mojave experiment didn't do ****. Even if Vista SP1 worked fine, people didn't want it. People wanted something new.

I'm glad we can agree windows vista is crap. But the chart above doesn't suggest that people wanted something new. It says they wanted something old: Windows XP.

Windows 7 was officially released only a few weeks ago so your point is moot.

Sounds like you've convinced yourself Windows is a good thing. Hey, more power to you. Some people like to smoke cigarettes, too. People don't always do what's best for them.

And, there are more people using Windows 7 already than OS X or Linux?

Yup. To quote the great Bullet Tooth Tony: "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity."

 

[cumanzor]

I'm glad we can agree windows vista is crap. Pre-or post SP1, people weren't switching in droves.



I have been swayed by your compelling argument that "windows is universally regarded as "'great'". Who knew that's all it would take?



I guess that makes us both insecure pricks!



I'm glad we can agree windows vista is crap. But the chart above doesn't suggest that people wanted something new. It says they wanted something old: Windows XP.



Sounds like you've convinced yourself Windows is a good thing. Hey, more power to you. Some people like to smoke cigarettes, too. People don't always do what's best for them.



Yup. To quote the great Bullet Tooth Tony: "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity."

Sounds like you've convinced yourself that Windows is bad, and that their users are stupid.

Also seems that YOU know what's best for everyone out there.

Oh well, no point arguing with someone like you then. Carry on.

 

[alent1234]

Damn, you guys are way too easy! The joke is on you- we enjoy getting Windows users all riled up over tiny things. It's just good natured fun.

Just released on Ars:

While most of the world runs windows is nothing new to learn:

Just over 70% of those Windows users are still on XP:

I think that does a good job of showing what the public thinks of Windows beyond XP.

Of course, someone will come along saying "I wouldn't post a link to Ars Technica if I were you..." because in the end, we're all snobs.

Of course, the name of the article is "Windows 7 passes Snow Leopard, Linux"

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne..._term=Main Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

It could be named "People still prefer Windows XP", depending on who writes the headline and what spin they want to give it. In my case, it's to give Windows a negative spin.

most people on PC's get a new OS when they buy a new PC since MS charges too much money for the retail disks.

Most PC's built in the last 5 years can still do almost everything people may want. I see more and more netbooks around because even their cheapo hardware is good enough for the internet and basic office work. most people i've met over the years thought their Windows version was the MS Office version. they have no idea what version of Windows they are running, they don't care and won't spend the money to upgrade

there is no reason to spend $100 or whatever it is to upgrade to the latest version of Windows or even buy a new PC. i have a 5 year old PC at work. originally it was 512MB of RAM or 1GB. Now it's 2.5GB which cost my employer $30 or so. runs Win7 just fine and it ran Vista just fine. i can max it at 4GB and it's probably good for a few more years at least.

i get my Windows upgrades for free via MSDN. if i didn't i wouldn't upgrade. no reason to

the same thing with servers. server hardware is so powerful and cheap these days it's ridiculous

 

[matttye]

Just over 70% of those Windows users are still on XP:

(snip)

I think that does a good job of showing what the public thinks of Windows beyond XP.

It's more like average joe doesn't feel the need to update his OS with every release.

Lots of people buy computers with whatever OS is current at the time, then don't buy anything else until their computer dies.

That said, vista does have a bad rep and a lot of people did decide to skip it and wait for 7.. give it a year or two and have another look at those percentages. I think 7 will take a significant portion of XP's share.

 

[polaris20]

Damn, you guys are way too easy! The joke is on you- we enjoy getting Windows users all riled up over tiny things. It's just good natured fun.

Just released on Ars:

While most of the world runs windows is nothing new to learn:

Just over 70% of those Windows users are still on XP:

I think that does a good job of showing what the public thinks of Windows beyond XP.

Of course, someone will come along saying "I wouldn't post a link to Ars Technica if I were you..." because in the end, we're all snobs.

Of course, the name of the article is "Windows 7 passes Snow Leopard, Linux"

It could be named "People still prefer Windows XP", depending on who writes the headline and what spin they want to give it. In my case, it's to give Windows a negative spin.

Dude, Windows 7 just came out. Most consumers upgrade when they buy a new PC. Most businesses wait a few months before upgrading.

I think you're going to see a significant surge in a few months for Win7. It's already got a much bigger growth curve than Vista did at the same release time period.

Clearly Vista was a dud, and for good reason. But Windows 7 definitely is not.

 

[Nano2k]

I think that the new Acer notebook with a mobile Core i7 cpu and high-end graphics card for the price of basic 13inch Macbook Pro goes a long way to explain the difference between Windows PC's and Mac's.

No matter how great you think OSX is, it's difficult to justify the extra cost with any technically realistic argument (not the usual virus, stability BS). A Windows notebook with components which do not even yet exist on any Macbook for the price of the entry level Macbook Pro speaks for itself to the tech savvy user.

PS. I own Mac and PC.

 

[cumanzor]

I think that the new Acer notebook with a mobile Core i7 cpu and high-end graphics card for the price of basic 13inch Macbook Pro goes a long way to explain the difference between Windows PC's and Mac's.

No matter how great you think OSX is, it's difficult to justify the extra cost with any technically realistic argument (not the usual virus, stability BS). A Windows notebook with components which do not even yet exist on any Macbook for the price of the entry level Macbook Pro speaks for itself to the tech savvy user.

PS. I own Mac and PC.

Any words on how good is the mobile i7? Been wondering about that for a while.

 

[davelanger]

If apple would just cut their prices in half, they could take a huge chunk out of the number of PC users but what is the point for apple, sure they could double the number of users but they would not be making any more money.

Its really too bad macs cost so much, they really are a better computer and OS, but apple makes you pay for style too which is stupid

 

[Wakashizuma]

If apple would just cut their prices in half, they could take a huge chunk out of the number of PC users but what is the point for apple, sure they could double the number of users but they would not be making any more money.

Its really too bad macs cost so much, they really are a better computer and OS, but apple makes you pay for style too which is stupid

The use the exact same components as PCs out there so one wonders how they are better. Are you telling me that all Intel processors that Apple uses are somehow made with better care?

Nothing is impossible in Apple's fantasy land! Stick to that 4% worldwide marketshare and try your best to maintain it at that!

 

[jnc]

The use the exact same components as PCs out there so one wonders how they are better.

I can't tell if you just fancy an argument, but...Their functions and their build? Design, multitouch, keyboards, magsafe etc.

 

[CQd44]

I can't tell if you just fancy an argument, but...Their functions and their build? Design, multitouch, keyboards, magsafe etc.

A lot of those are just personal taste. Design? I'm not too big on how macbooks look. keyboards? it's difficult for me to type on them. Multitouch? I've no experience with it but I'm happy with using backspace and shift+backspace to go backwards and forwards when I'm browsing. Magsafe? I've heard lots of stories about those getting really hot and causing damage, but I guess lots of hardware fails like that.

 

[jnc]

A lot of those are just personal taste. Design? I'm not too big on how macbooks look. keyboards? it's difficult for me to type on them. Multitouch? I've no experience with it but I'm happy with using backspace and shift+backspace to go backwards and forwards when I'm browsing. Magsafe? I've heard lots of stories about those getting really hot and causing damage, but I guess lots of hardware fails like that.

All fair enough, but "I don't use / like it" does not mean it isn't there. The original point seemed to be "they use the same processor, so they're the same computer" which isn't quite the case... the differences extend beyond the OS and the pricetag

 

[CQd44]

All fair enough, but "I don't use / like it" does not mean it isn't there. The original point seemed to be "they use the same processor, so they're the same computer" which isn't quite the case... the differences extend beyond the OS and the pricetag

Very true, you pay for more than the actual parts. If that were true there would be little profit to be made for anyone :]