Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Enlists Jerry Seinfeld in Ad War Against Apple
- Thread starter Gray-Wolf
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think most of the target demographic will say "Jerry WHO?"
It was a 'grown up' urban NY city show to begin with-which targeted 25-45
year olds. Those people are OUT of MS demographic target, as these people are now 45-65 years old-with a few exceptions;
I never watched the show when running because I thought it was trendy yuppy BS. AFTER it was cancelled and ran every night did I start watching it.
But now that its been re-runned to death-I dont see it listed much
You dont take this kind of action if "youve got nothing to worry about"
And then the new "Try out the new OS (i forget ) test-which is just a double blind pepsi-vs pepsi test. Which is really just VISTA....ODD to say the least
You dont do THAT either, unless sales are down in the toilet
Jerry WHO?
It was a 'grown up' urban NY city show to begin with-which targeted 25-45
year olds. Those people are OUT of MS demographic target, as these people are now 45-65 years old-with a few exceptions;
I never watched the show when running because I thought it was trendy yuppy BS. AFTER it was cancelled and ran every night did I start watching it.
But now that its been re-runned to death-I dont see it listed much
You dont take this kind of action if "youve got nothing to worry about"
And then the new "Try out the new OS (i forget ) test-which is just a double blind pepsi-vs pepsi test. Which is really just VISTA....ODD to say the least
You dont do THAT either, unless sales are down in the toilet
Jerry WHO?
No. It didn't lose money. Bee Movie Worldwide Box Office Earnings: $287,080,562
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=beemovie.htm
Speak for yourself. I work in a corporate environment, and did BETA testing for all the MS OS'es from 3.11 up to and including VISTA. Of all those, only Windows 2000 and XP were decent enough to keep in a business setting. I could at least get a few years out of a PC with those 2 OSes'. I can't say the same for VISTA. Not to mention all the incompatibilities with business applications [CRM/ERP/Payroll/Etc.] that keep the $$$ flowing. No thanks...
Isn't that the guy who got into trouble for the rant at that comedy club? LOL Just kidding... They'll probably can Seinfeld and go with Richards, b/c we all know Seinfeld is a Mac lover, not a PC fighter.
The George Lopez Show
They should have gotten comedian George Lopez. He's more current than Jerry Seinfeld. Not more hip, but more current. Plus, they used a Mac on his sitcom in the kitchen... and they actually used it!
They should have gotten comedian George Lopez. He's more current than Jerry Seinfeld. Not more hip, but more current. Plus, they used a Mac on his sitcom in the kitchen... and they actually used it!
Um, duh. M$ copies Apple, but couldn't get Ferrell so they got Seinfeld. It was a joke.
Not true. If you take the time to search the forums (and a host of other unbiased review sites), you'll find dozens and dozens of examples where the Mac OS is more secure, more efficient, better performing, etc. than Windows. My statement is based on fact, not opinion.
OK, apparently you are "fronting" on your Windows knowledge and obviously you are not a "Windows power user since 1.0". Let me give you a brief history lesson.
There are two branches of the Windows family tree. The Windows 95 branch and the Windows NT branch. It's very analogous to OSX and the previous OS like OS9.
Windows was initially a shell on top of DOS (in the 1.x/2.x days). Towards the end of the 2.x days they introduced the extended and protected modes that took away more and more of the work from DOS. That's what most people were using in the 3.0/3.1 days and by 95/98/ME DOS was just used as a bootloader and not really used by Windows. But there was some justification to say it was "built on DOS". This was the "Windows 95" branch of the Windows family tree -- Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME. That line died with Windows ME in 2000.
The other branch of the Windows family tree is the NT branch. Windows NT began life as OS/2 3.0, and it was built from the beginning to be cross platform, preemptive, multithreaded, multiprocessor aware -- remember what sad state Mac OS was in in 1989 compared to this. It was built from the ground up by Dave Cutler, the brains behind DEC's VMS operating system. In fact if NT's design is based on anything, it's based on VMS's design. It became Windows NT 3.1 by the time it was released in 1992. This went through NT 3.1, 3.5, 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, and has seen life on x86, Intel N10, Dec Alpha, Mips, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64 processors. This is NOT, I repeat NOT, hinged on DOS in any way, shape or form. When you launch a command prompt in any of these operating systems, you are NOT looking at DOS. I can go into detail to drive this point into the ground if you would like. Most people forget, but I'm sure you remember since you're a power user since Windows 1.0, after all, but Windows NT family operating systems used to run on more than X86 -- Intel N10, Dec Alpha, MIPS, Itanium, x64, and even PowerPC had versions of Windows NT. How can that be possible if it's built on DOS?
I don't think you understand enough about how operating systems are designed or how they work to say that Unix unilaterally is a better foundation than Windows (especially since you seem to think a Vista command prompt = DOS). First, OSX is based off of Berkeley Unix (which is the black sheep of the Unix family tree), the majority of Unix and Linux systems are based on the AT&T System V branch of that tree; second, Unix itself is ancient (it was invented at Bell Labs in the late 1960s) and the design reflects a lot of 1970s thinking. The Windows NT family operating systems go back to 1989 which is far more recent.
Both have evolved; a modern Unix has evolved over its Bell Labs origins, and Windows Vista has evolved over its VMS origins (note I said VMS and not DOS).
I'm not trying to defend Windows, but I know a lot about operating system history and if you're going to say OSX does something better than Windows based on an OS design decision, pony up with an argument, don't just make a nebulous claim and then speed away.
J
jmadlena
Guest
We seem to have enough money to buy iPods and iPhones... I think you need to revaluate your view of 18-24 year olds. Some of us have jobs, you know. And some of us can save money for things we want.
My dad would have preferred that I got a $400 Dell for school, but I said no thank you, saved my money and bought a MacBook Pro.
Point is, more people than ever are buying macs because of the image that Apple produces (also, the superior OS, but they don't usually know a lot about that). If Microsoft is trying to get in on that area of the market, Seinfield and marketing to parents isn't the way to go.
Microsoft knows that the college kids of today are the parents of tomorrow, and what do you think they, as parents, will buy their kids? Macs, because that is what they used in school. Apple goes for where the puck will be, not where it is, and Microsoft is catching on to that. Finally.
EDIT:
And Unix was designed for use with multiple users and security in mind. From what I can tell, Windows (NT branch) was not. Everything is mixed together in a rather foolish way in Windows. At least compared to the Unix style of architecture. I don't care if Windows' foundation was more 'recent', it isn't as modern as the NeXTSTEP foundation of OS X.
That's all very nice. However, it's simple demographics.
Most 18 year olds do not earn six figures, own a home, and drive a Mercedes.
If you break it down and look at statistics, it's pretty obvious that people just graduating high school and college are strapped for cash. They're likely to owe tens of thousands of dollars in student loans and be earning at the bottom of the payscale, and either live at home with mom and dad or rent, few own a home and the few that do won't have any equity in it. You don't need demographic studies, common sense should tell you that. People who can afford expensive luxury items are generally older professionals whose children have left the house.
Of course NT was designed with multiple users and security in mind. The big problem with multiple users that still plagues Vista is most app writers don't design with this in mind, but that isn't Windows' fault. It just isn't as elegant as OSX is about it. I give Apple a TON of credit for making the Unix foundation of OSX stay hidden so well. If you've ever spent any time trying to use a Linux such as Fedora or Ubuntu, despite all the smoothing of rough spots they've done, you always have to resort to being a console jockey and reading MAN pages to get things done. Apple gets a plethora of admiration from me for putting the Mac OS on top of Unix and keeping Unix out of the way.
Thanks for the Wikipedia-style "history lesson" and the trip down memory lane on all the releases of Windows I've used, but I'm intimately familiar with the two "branches" of the Windows family and the evolution of both Windows and Mac OS. And no, I'm not "fronting" anything, but have no intention of boring everyone with details of my computer experience, beginning with operating system programming and optimization on IBM mainframes in the early 70s and moving forward, or the computer hardware/software/consulting companies I've owned throughout the years.
For most, my point was made clearly, although I obviously erred in being too over-simplistic for someone who wants to nit-pick the details. It doesn't take going into tedious technical detail for someone to recognize the vast differences in Mac OS vs Windows. Look at security. Look at permissions. Look at viruses. Look at application installation and removal. Look at operating system overhead. Look at the number of "patches" and "fixes" necessary. Look at ease of use. Look at device compatibility. Look at networking. I could go on and on.
The point remains that Mac OS X, on a fundamental level, is a "better" operating system than Windows. You can argue all you want on the details, but it won't change the facts. Only Jerry Seinfeld can do that!
Vista incompatibilities
I find it interesting that people blame Microsoft because 3rd party apps don't work in Vista. When apps didn't work when Leopard came out I don't recall people calling for Apple to fix it, they waited on the 3rd party developer to fix their own application. SuperDuper didn't work correctly for 4 months after Leopard came out. I don't think Apple raised a finger to fix the problem, why is it expected from Microsoft.
I find it interesting that people blame Microsoft because 3rd party apps don't work in Vista. When apps didn't work when Leopard came out I don't recall people calling for Apple to fix it, they waited on the 3rd party developer to fix their own application. SuperDuper didn't work correctly for 4 months after Leopard came out. I don't think Apple raised a finger to fix the problem, why is it expected from Microsoft.
Um, the show was definitely targeted at those 18 to 34. It has gained a new generation of fans with reruns, the internet, and dvds.
Just about everyone I know knows who Jerry Seinfeld is and have seen at least a couple Seinfeld episodes.
That's at my high school, friends at other schools, college friends, etc. Get a clue.
What the hell are you talking about? The show wasn't canceled, Jerry Seinfeld decided it was time to call the show quits. It's regularly in the top ten reruns, and is shown on TBS, Fox, etc.
Give me a break. Just because you're one of the few that didn't like Seinfeld doesn't change the fact it is the most successful sitcom of all time.
How is it Microsoft's responsibility to fix 3rd party business applications? Isn't that the responsibility of the 3rd party developers?
Arguably, Mac OS X's security to some extent is better than Vista's.
Windows has permissions as well. You just have to right click on a file, go under the security tab, and you'll see the permissions. For the most part though, for much of Window's history, it was there for looks. Windows Vista's UAC attempts to implement a Unix-like implementation, by having every user, except the administrator (which is hidden by default, like in many Linux distros) having less permissions on system files (in XP and before, as long as you gave yourself administrative privileges, which is a default for the first user to be created, you could modify system files on a whim, as well as anyone who hacked the PC or any rogue programs). However, permissions are certainly there, and the implementation in Vista and Mac OS X are very similar. The reason why UAC is so much of a pain, is because many programs are needlessly needing to be ran with higher privileges, a problem with the software developers, not Windows. UAC is actually an attempt to fix the way developers create Windows programs.
But don't think that Mac OS X's permission setup is "better" than Windows. I easily messed up Leopard's permissions on my Macbook Pro while trying to change my hard drive's icon. 3 hours after repairing my disk's permissions, I eventually gave up. Weeks later, I attempted again using the same method that I did before and succeeded (but I used a different icon). Fixing the problem was easy, but it was time consuming and on the frustrating side. It's also not unusual for Mac OS X's permission's to become corrupt (usually something corrupts it, like the user (me), or some rogue program).
A downfall to having the majority of the market share. Don't be naive and think that Mac OS X is invulnerable to viruses.
Honestly, not that big of a deal. Both work pretty darn easy for me. But, Window's registry is a pain when removing files, since many software companies who do these program installers and uninstallers, do a half-arsed job with the uninstallers (since they leave crap behind). That's the beauty of programs such as CCleaner.
Alright. I'll open up Activity monitor in Leopard and tell you what I see.
The system hovers between 1% (I haven't seen it go below 1) and 3%, usually right in the middle though, for the CPU. There are 50 processes (the only program I have opened is Activity Monitor and Finder).
In Vista, right now. My CPU usage is hovering between 1-2% if I'm not doing anything like I was doing in Mac OS X. I have 51 processes running (including Firefox, Rocket Dock, as well as nTune (which I have no use for, so I should probably get rid of it later). These processes are included in the total.
For memory, in Vista, 36% of my memory is in use. This is out of 2048 megs of RAM (2 gigs).
In Mac OS X, I have 651.64 MB in use, out of 2 gigs, which is 31% (keep in mind, I have more stuff that I'm actually using in the background in Vista than I do in Mac OS X, whereas, I don't have Firefox running (which is currently using 71.98 MB) alone)).
Also, the kernel design of Mac OS X and Windows is different. Pure and simple. While Mac OS X has a lot of it's underpinnings from Unix, it also has underpinnings from the Mach Kernel (which was supposed to be a replacement for the kernel in BSD). You can run all the benchmarks you want (which I've always seen as useless, generally when trying to compare OSes). But the systems are different (notice, I didn't say whether one is better than the other, they're different, so one may do better in certain tasks over the other).
That really doesn't say much for anything. Windows and Apple have different philosophies for updating their OS. Windows basically puts them out as needed, whereas Apple decides to release a whole bunch of fixes in one release. Also, Microsoft supports their OS a lot longer than Apple supports their older OS (they pretty much drop it as soon as it's replaced).
That's subjective. There could never be a "winner." It's a matter of opinion.
Far more devices work on Windows than on Mac OS X due to there being more Windows users. Most major companies supports both, but some of the obscure companies do not. Somethings that work on both, may not be fully functional under Mac OS X (such as multi-button mice or keyboards with multiple keys).
Also, for video cards, in Windows, you have different drivers you can try (even custom ones that can improve performance). If you're a gamer, this is a pretty big deal (since some drivers may have problems with certain gamers). In Mac OS X, you're at Apple's mercy.
I've never had a problem with either Mac OS X or Windows. Then again, I don't deploy computers in a company setting. Networking Mac OS X and Windows Vista/XP was pretty easy, as well as networking Vista and Vista and XP and Vista. But like I said, this is with like 3 computers, max.
If Jerry Seinfeld is one of the headlining stars, who's below him? I'd love to see an ad with Jerry Seinfeld, John Stamos, and the guy who played Erkel, but I'd love it for all the reasons Microsoft doesn't want me to love it.
After the Microsoft Seinfeld ads are shown, the next ad will star Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen twins.
Hey guys,
As silly as it sounds to get celebrity endorsments for Microsoft, you have to realize that the agency who is doing the campaign is probably the most renowned ad agency in the states. I am currently a student at an Ad School now and after studying ads from different agencies around the world, Crispin Porter (the agency now handling Microsoft) has produced nothing but outstanding work most of the time.
I hate to say it too, since I was a Apple convert last summer and will never touch a PC again...but I can see a brilliant marketing campaign for Microsoft coming. I honestly can't wait to see what CP&B have their sleeves for Microsoft!
As silly as it sounds to get celebrity endorsments for Microsoft, you have to realize that the agency who is doing the campaign is probably the most renowned ad agency in the states. I am currently a student at an Ad School now and after studying ads from different agencies around the world, Crispin Porter (the agency now handling Microsoft) has produced nothing but outstanding work most of the time.
I hate to say it too, since I was a Apple convert last summer and will never touch a PC again...but I can see a brilliant marketing campaign for Microsoft coming. I honestly can't wait to see what CP&B have their sleeves for Microsoft!
Macs may have an image as luxury items, but it may come as news to you that you don't need to make "six figures, own a home, and drive a Mercedes" to afford one. Common sense should tell you that demographics isn't everything, and in the first place your understanding of the market is naive and illogical.
You made a couple decent points in that argument about UNIX being as great as people think in their "nebulous" imaginations, but saying this kind of completely misguided thing and prefacing it with "it's simple demographics" ... you appear to be a fish out of water in this category. What's more, you give me the impression that you're the kind of person who is quicker to criticize others than himself.
You should either stick to what you know (which is apparently ancient geek history), or take a moment to think about what you are saying. After all, some young college student says he can afford a Mac, and you tell him he can't afford luxury items like a Mercedes? Captain Obvious and Irrelevant Woman must be your parents. You are my hero!
EDIT:
I just found this. I burst out laughing at "marketing as a minor." I guess we were all supposed to bow down in awe at that one!
That explains the -- "It's demographics! Not just demographics, but simple demographics! I know, I learned at the College!" -- attitude. Look, I don't disagree with your point that Microsoft is not necessarily targeting young people -- I know they would like to say that about the Zune as well, but regardless. Still, in this day and age, I wouldn't go about trying to sound authoritative with a minor in marketing. Minor in marketing, so what! You either talk sense or you don't, minor, major, PhD, whatever. Good colleges should teach so that grads actually understand, not just declare "it's demographics!" and delude themselves.
Uhm...isn't Jerry Seinfeld kind of irrelevant now? His standup isn't really that spectacular. The guy even buys all the empty seats at his shows so the newspapers report that he performed to a sold-out audience.
If it were not for that Bee movie, I'd figure he quit the entertainment biz to become a monk.
I guess it isn't so bad. Certainly better than Justin Long. That guy needs to go on a long walk off a short dock with Shia LeBouf, and maybe the Verizon guy.
If it were not for that Bee movie, I'd figure he quit the entertainment biz to become a monk.
I guess it isn't so bad. Certainly better than Justin Long. That guy needs to go on a long walk off a short dock with Shia LeBouf, and maybe the Verizon guy.