Microsoft Enlists Jerry Seinfeld in Ad War Against Apple

[Pikemann Urge]

Not just cars, but Porsches, and really expensive Porsches like the $500,000 Carrera GT in particular. Even some car guys dislike him for that.

That car is awesome. Porsches are great examples of engineering excellence although I admit not as sexy as Ferraris or classy as Astons.

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've looked into advertising since I was about 18 and I kind of get what industry it is. I'm in the Ogilvy camp and don't subscribe to creativity or celebrity endorsements.

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything absolute like that, but it's not as simple as you make out. CP+B is basically today's Chiat/Day. Some great successes, some failures.

 

[satcomer]

A 54 year old isn't a stodgy oldster??!!

Tell that to the 13 girl/boy that thinks that 54 year old is just plain creepy and see what they tell you. FACE it man you are old.

 

[macshill]

Tell that to the 13 girl/boy that thinks that 54 year old is just plain creepy and see what they tell you. FACE it man you are old.

Yeah, and that's why they don't have 54-year-old men going up to random boys and girls in the street saying: "Psst. Wanna buy an Mac? (*opens trenchcoat*)"

But this is Jerry Seinfeld we're talking about here. And there's plenty of mid-teens to people in their early-twenties who say they and their friends watch 'Seinfeld' reruns (either for the first time or for a second or third or fourth time) saying they enjoy it; so there's a connection. Those 'Friends' were in their late-twenties and now are pushing forty, but they still draw a crowd.

Yeah, they (the intended target auidence) get that some time has elapsed, but they still make a connection to their younger, primer selves and could listen to what they have to say.

 

[Hmac]

This is indeed a problem for Apple. Jerry Seinfeld's ads will easily have every bit as much an impact on Apple as the Zune had.

 

[SDLSteve]

Yea, Seinfeld is so 90's.

 

[Prof.]

This is indeed a problem for Apple. Jerry Seinfeld's ads will easily have every bit as much an impact on Apple as the Zune had.

I disagree. Seinfeld is a has-been loser. Very few ppl, under the age of 17 and are the ones who have their parents buy them iPods and Macs for school, even know who Jerry Seinfeld is. I'm 19 and I barely know who he is. Besides, IMO, Jerry Seinfeld doesn't have the "Cool" element to help attract more/younger buyers to the Microsoft/Windows brand. My generation and future generations are going to be drawn to the Apple brand cuz they do have cool looking computers/user interfaces but above all, they just work.

 

[macshill]

I hear "cool, hip, young"... like the three go hand in hand w/ teens and 20's. You can be in your 30's and all three. You'll probably have more income and more stability and vision of your future. Who says Microsoft can't go after the 30's and 40's crowd who watched 'Seinfeld' and enjoyed it?

I'm 33 and eagerly awaited a new 'Seinfeld' eppy; the last 3 years especially. I enjoy reruns (I'm more of a middle to late series man).

Now that said, a celebrity... ANY celebrity, WON'T make me buy their product. I just don't care (it doesn't move me to accept their message and to buy).

edit: You think those those self-pitying "emo" kids (teens) are cool and hip? (Corporate-wise,) Figuring out the emotions and the buying patterns of those confused crowd would be money well wasted. Go give it to a 28-year-old who more than likely is more chartered to a path somewhere and who is more familiar w/ Jerry Seinfeld.

 

[Hmac]

This is indeed a problem for Apple. Jerry Seinfeld's ads will easily have every bit as much an impact on Apple as the Zune had.

I disagree. Seinfeld is a has-been loser. Very few ppl, under the age of 17 and are the ones who have their parents buy them iPods and Macs for school, even know who Jerry Seinfeld is. I'm 19 and I barely know who he is. Besides, IMO, Jerry Seinfeld doesn't have the "Cool" element to help attract more/younger buyers to the Microsoft/Windows brand. My generation and future generations are going to be drawn to the Apple brand cuz they do have cool looking computers/user interfaces but above all, they just work.

I see that, sometimes, irony is lost on "your generation"



(pssst...the Zune had NO impact on Apple other than to help put Microsoft in a position where they need has-been comedians to desperately help revive their brand.)


.

 

[janstett]

That car is awesome. Porsches are great examples of engineering excellence although I admit not as sexy as Ferraris or classy as Astons.

Yes, it is. At $.5 million, it better be. Seinfield is actually very into cars, but Porsches and ONLY Porsches. In fact someone had posted one of his old cars for sale on eBay, and it was an attrocity, something bad like purple with a blinding interior and matching seat belts, I forget the exact things he had done but it was horrid. Jerry has a big collection of 911s (from classic to new) that he keeps in a NYC garage.

The problem I have with it, as a car enthusiast, is the obsession with Porsches and nothing else. Sure, they're great (I own a Porsche myself) but how about something, anything, else? For that Carerra GT he could have three Ferrari F430s. I think Jerry, when he was poor, locked onto Porsche as a status symbol and never let go.

 

[(L)]

I see that, sometimes, irony is lost on "your generation"

That's not irony, but sarcasm. FAIL

 

[janstett]

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!

Hey Captian Snarky, there's one simple way to answer the question, and that would be to know what percentage of people under 24 buy their own computer and what percentage have it bought for them. Most of us have a good idea just how lopsided that ratio is.

 

[janstett]

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.

And I'm assuming with your blathering that you either have no education or you have some irrelevant liberal arts background in 16th century Gaelic folk dancing. Demographics = facts and they're the first step in understanding who is likely to buy your product, who does buy your product, and who you would like to target your product towards. You don't sell 100 foot yachts to young couples renting apartments in Detroit. It's simple facts, product x sells a% to people who have a set of attributes, b% to people who have a different set of attributes, etc. In fact, in media such as radio, the most important factor is the demographic of the listener followed closely by the number of listeners. That's how they determine the advertising rates, they don't just make up a number and see if the advertiser goes for it.

And granted a minor in Marketing doesn't make me the most qualified person on the planet, however it does mean that I've at least cracked a few books on the subject and studied it at some depth greater than zero, which I'm wagering is more than you've done. So save your armchair hand grenades for something else.

I'm sure we can get some non-scientific data from anybody here who works in an Apple store, and this is the perfect time of year considering we're in the back-to-school frenzy. How many of the systems being sold right now are being purchased by parents and how many are being purchased by kids. Completely anecdotal and unscientific but enough to make the point.

 

[firefoxnx]

Maybe that not Sienfield can save Vista

Maybe that not Seinfield can save Vista?

 

[janstett]

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.

Yet you say "to this day when you open a command prompt, DOS is there". That's clearly wrong, which means either you haven't been paying attention for the past 16 years, or you have no idea what it actually means and you think seeing a C:\> prompt means DOS is there. I'm guessing that you have only a superficial knowledge of operating systems based on this. Unless you want to discuss how the NT command processor and NTVDM.EXE actually work. Have you read any of the books on the architecture of NT specifically Custer/Soloman, cause I have.

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.

No, you made a claim that's flat out wrong on the most basic level. Windows is not based on DOS and has not been since Windows ME went off the market.

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.

OK, I'll look at each one of them and try to be brief. You can't just throw out the buzzwords and run.

Security: Mac OS puts up a dialog when it needs admin rights. Good move. Vista now does this, and in fact on too frequent of a basis (remember the "cancel or allow" Mac ads). The problem for Windows was that the original (Windows 95 branch) was unfortunately designed to assume a single user with admin rights. When they transitioned to NT, even though they supported user rights, a lot of old apps would break if they didn't have admin permissions. So NT had to bend, unfortunately. That's the app writer's fault for not making sure the app worked on NT when run by a limited user. But it's also Microsoft's fault for not forcing application writers to account for this. But today, Leopard and Vista are fairly equal on this point. Also, one could argue that NT Domains make it more robust than OSX. In other words, in large companies people log on with their domain account and have access to controlled network resources administered by a central authority without additional user logons as would be required by a Mac.

And come to think of it, my Thinkpad comes with a fingerprint reader that is accepted to be just as good as entering a password by the system, so I can grant admin permissions with a finger swipe.


Permissions: Well, for starters, my boot disc on my MacBook Pro has trashed permissions that cannot be repaired, how happy am I with that? I can't really see what your complaint is about permissions as both operating systems are fairly equal here. In fact Windows accounts for Domain user permissions here so I'd say advantage: Windows.


Viruses: Don't assume that a Mac can't get them. First, in my opinion we benefit from "security through obscurity" -- meaning since we're only 5% of the market, the evil Russian hackers can't be bothered to turn our machines into spam zombies. Second Windows has gotten better in this area, between IE7 being pretty good as far as exploits, and requiring the user to grant access to any rogue process. That's all it would require for a Mac virus. How does one get a virus? There are a few ways. The first would be a browser exploit. As I said IE7 is pretty good in this regard. There have been other exploits such as metafile or image file exploits that have been closed. The other way would be a trojan horse, a virus that hides inside a program that superficially is supposed to be useful. The Mac is not immune to that. If you download an application and it asks for admin permissions, you mindlessly grant it, don't you? Now what if that application was infected with a trojan horse? You just gave away your system. From this aspect, Windows and OSX (and Linux) are equally vulnerable. In fact, I'd say it's WORSE for OSX because it is after all based on BSD Linux and worse yet the SOURCE CODE FOR THE UNDERLYING OS, AKA DARWIN, IS OUT THERE FOR THE HACKERS TO SEE. At least with Windows, they don't get the OS source code. Again, the small installed base makes Windows the prime target for the virus exploiters.


Application installation: Yes I agree it's cool to be able to drag and drop your app to the trash. But it doesn't remove everthing (the prefs stay there and that's just as bad as having things left over in your registry on Windows). And on Windows everything is done through the add/remove programs, it's not that confusing. But I do like how you can move an app to another volume with OSX and it just works. I give OSX an edge here. Though I have to take points away because on Windows when you install an app it shows up on the Start menu, while on OSX *sometimes* it will show up on the dock, other times it will stay hidden in the app folder with no alias. This is something that confuses a lot of potential switchers, that the dock doesn't show you every application that's installed on your system and fishing around in the app folder doesn't make sense.


operating system overhead. As someone pointed out above, they're roughly equal. However, through seat of the pants I'd agree OSX is better under load.

My MacBook Pro:

Leopard at idle: 2-5%, 82 processes, 300 threads, 884 mb system memory used

Vista at idle: 0-3% CPU, 59 processes, 706 threads, 600 MB system memory used

Now granted this can vary, such as having items in startup and system daemons (e.g. I run Office on OSX not on Vista, Google desktop, quicksilver, etc.). But I'd say they're in the same ballpark. The best test would be a completely clean install of each with nothing supplemental installed.

And GOD himself admits that OSX has gotten too bloated, that's why Snow Leopard will not be adding new features but tightening up the operating system.

"patches" and "fixes" necessary. again I see them as roughly equal here. Are you telling me you never run Apple Software Update? OK, I'll take some points away from Windows for the annoying automatic restarts, that really irritates me to go to a machine that was unexpectedly rebooted overnight. But I'll take some points away from Apple for forcing us to pay $129 every 12-18 months for a "new" operating system that really isn't that new. Microsoft doesn't put out a service pack and claim it's a new operating system. Yet we'll be expected to pay $129 for Snow Leopard when it's just a fixed version of Leopard.


device compatibility. You're really not going there, are you? OK, Vista did upset a lot of people by not working properly with some older XP drivers. I'm stuck there with an HP printer. So I'll grant that. But it's countered by OSX not working at all with so many devices because they don't have OSX drivers. And I'll nip the "don't need driver discs" argument in the bud, because it's a lie. Most peripherals don't need install discs, but I can think of plenty that do, such as my RadioShark and my USB->SPDIF adapter.


networking. Yeah, networking... Like how Leopard completely broke my ability to get on my corporate wireless network but Tiger worked fine, and Apple still hasn't fixed it a year later. So all of us super-cool Mac users have to go from meeting to meeting with ETHERNET CABLES. HINT, APPLE: It's the 802.1x authentication. You broke it when Tiger came out and then fixed it, only you broke it again with Leopard. Or how you can't automatically remount a network share like you can in Windows, requiring you to to do the finder->go->connect to server every blessed time, that's great. Or how it doesn't work with Windows domains so you have to re-enter your domain account information every two seconds. Not saying OSX is bad, but I have a few pebbles in my shoe with that one.

 

[Hmac]

That's not irony, but sarcasm. FAIL

Yes...fail indeed.

One has to use a lot of smilies to clarify posts for the more...uh..."concrete" thinkers in online communication.



Let me rephrase so you and Prof. won't be confused...

"Jerry Seinfeld's ads for Microsoft will have little impact on Apple, just as the Zune had little impact on Apple".

 

[(L)]

Yes...fail indeed.

One has to use a lot of smilies to clarify posts for the more...uh..."concrete" thinkers in online communication.

Let me rephrase so you and Prof. won't be confused...

"Jerry Seinfeld's ads for Microsoft will have little impact on Apple, just as the Zune had little impact on Apple".

Thanks. Well, I wasn't confused, just nit-picking -- in fact, irony is what makes sarcasm tick, and the terms are not similes. However, I know what you mean about making things more "concrete."

 

[Quillz]

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.

And if you take the time to search a host of other unbiased review sites, you'll find dozens and dozens of examples where Windows is more efficient, better performing, etc. than Mac OS X.

Thus, Windows vs. Mac OS X is a matter of personal preference and opinion.

 

[(L)]

Hey Captian Snarky, there's one simple way to answer the question[...]

What question is that? I agree with you about young people being less likely to buy their own Macs, but how is that relevant with your assertion about "six figure" incomes and "Mercedes"? Does calling me Captain Snarky serve as a substitute for explaining yourself?

And I'm assuming with your blathering that you either have no education or you have some irrelevant liberal arts background in 16th century Gaelic folk dancing. Demographics = facts and they're the first step in understanding whom a product is marketed towards. You don't sell 100 foot yachts to young couples renting apartments in Detroit.

About demographics. Speaking of facts, the group of people the product is marketed towards is called the target demographic. I didn't need a minor in the subject to know this, and getting coy about 100-foot yachts is just another variant of your proclivity towards the obvious and the irrelevant. What would be relevant is whether you might sell Macs to young people in general (Detroit or elsewhere), or to their parents. Again and again, you equate Macs, yachts, and Mercedes as luxury items. To use my own marketing knowledge, these products have different target demographics, and what's more, the targeted consumer income level is not at all the same. Even if I agree that parents might be being considered here, it is naïve to think that you only target the consumer if the end-user may be different. Whether we like it or not, everything from Power Rangers to dorm furniture has a certain target consumer demographic and a target end-user demographic, if you'll excuse my humble terminology, and hence advertisements reflect this split. So while you are certainly (in my opinion) on target with Seinfeld appealing to parents, you certainly can't think that's the full picture, right? Likewise, you should give jmadlena more credit, and you deserve no bonus points for your minor in marketing.

And granted a minor in Marketing doesn't make me the most qualified person on the planet, however it does mean that I've at least read some books in depth on the subject by professionals and studied it at some depth in a collegiate environment, which I'm wagering is more than you've done. So save your armchair hand grenades for something else.

Despite all your huffiness and hyperbole, just alluding to having read some books about your precious "demographics" in a "collegiate environment" doesn't make you queen of the universe, nor indeed do you succeed in rebutting my accusation that you don't talk sense. If you did, we wouldn't get just more of the same. I'm starting to think you hardly remember anything other than the word "demographics," and at any rate, having studied more marketing than I have doesn't help you when you're caught blowing hot air and are just plain wrong. Even if you went to my own alma mater, you still can't twist the fact that many young people can afford Macs (especially while parents pay for other bills), many of their parents can, and neither really need luxury spending like the Mercedes-buying demographic. To just admit getting carried away would have been what I would have done in your position, but we get more of the same hot air.

"Demographics = facts," "You don't sell 100 foot yachts to young couples renting apartments in Detroit," "I've at least read some books in depth on the subject by professionals".... If you are a college graduate, you surely must recognize that these sorts of statements fall short of what one might expect from even a decent student writing a paper! Or am I wrong, and at your alma mater, this sort of bull was acceptable?

I had marketing as a minor in college. Young people don't have money to spend as they don't have jobs or if they do they are low paying.

What was the purpose of the first sentence here? If you have such knowledge, tell me something I don't know, and I might well believe you. But if you are going to tell me common sense, you don't need to toot your own horn. Whats more, you having a minor in marketing doesn't mean that people like jmadlena might not have something to contribute. What irks me most is the condescending tone you took towards that young student. Good for him/her, saving for a Mac. Maybe some students can afford to, regardless of your lack of humility. And all because of a minor? You'd think it was a PhD!

[In response to jmadlena]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.

I think it would be admirable to admit your mistake (which would make me regret my offensive attitude). Or, perhaps you just misspoke, and really do have something concrete to contribute from your knowledge of marketing, in which case I would thoroughly appreciate if you could explain how that wasn't just a load of hot air. Otherwise, it's nothing at all to be proud of.

As for me, I'm afraid I don't know anything of Gaelic studies, so I can't help you there, but I have studied some philosophy, so I can help you with your hot air. I was also taught that it's not the degree or the prestige that counts, but what earned these. You could take a lesson from my education, if you are mature enough.

 

[GGJstudios]

Security

Mac OS puts up a dialog when it needs admin rights. Good move. Vista now does this, and in fact on too frequent of a basis (remember the "cancel or allow" Mac ads).

Mac OS doesn't simply put up a dialog; it requires an administrator password. Vista doesn't. It only asks for "Cancel" or "Allow". A script could easily respond to Vista's UAC. In this regard, not only does Vista offer zero protection, it also is designed to annoy users with so many of these "Cancel or Allow" messages, that most users either blindly answer "Allow" without checking, or turn UAC off.

Permissions, specifically application permissions

In Mac OS X, by default, apps don't automatically inherit the privileges of the user's account. In Vista, by default, they do. So, for example, one app can launch another app in Vista without authentication. In Mac OS X, permission is asked and, if the app requires administrative access (such as modifying system files or software), even if the user account is admin-level, the admin-level password must be supplied. By default in Vista, no password is required. Responding to a simple "Cancel or Allow" dialog, especially when they pop up so frequently as to be annoying and easily dismissed, is NOT my idea of "security."

Viruses

Don't assume that a Mac can't get them.

I don't assume. I've never said a Mac can't get a virus. Viruses have been found in the past that affect Mac OS, but as of this date, none are "in the wild". Compare this to hundreds of thousands of viruses in the wild that affect Windows.

...since we're only 5% of the market...

... and yet, we don't have even .1% of the viruses!

...Windows has gotten better in this area...

According to Symantec's bi-annual Internet Security Thread Report, "Throughout 2007 Symantec detected more than 711,912 novel threats which brings the total number of malicious programs that the security firm's anti-virus programs detect to 1,122,311.
The report notes: "almost two thirds of all malicious code threats currently detected were created during 2007."
The vast majority of these viruses are aimed at PCs running Microsoft Windows..."

The other way would be a trojan horse, a virus that hides inside a program

A trojan horse is malware, not a virus. It doesn't "hide inside a program". It may be disguised as another program. Unlike a virus, a trojan horse can't replicate itself to other computers or networks without user intervention.

If you download an application and it asks for admin permissions, you mindlessly grant it, don't you?

Absolutely not! I only download and install known applications from trusted sites. On occasion, I've visited a site that automatically downloaded a .dmg file into my Downloads folder. My response to this is always the same: Reset Safari, delete the .dmg file and empty the trash. Again, a trojan is not a virus. A trojan requires a user to install it. A virus doesn't. Windows is awash in viruses. Macs aren't.

Windows has to give up a significant portion of system resources to keep antivirus software running. Macs don't. Without pulling out a stopwatch, run Vista and launch all your normal applications, while running any AV software you choose. Now reboot and disable your AV and see how much better performance you get from your system.

Application installation

In Mac OS X, many apps are completely removed by dragging the .app to the trash. Some leave user preference files, which are easily removed by a novice user. In Windows, watch how quickly a novice user can turn a computer into a paperweight by editing the Windows Registry without knowing what they're doing. Even if they manage not to damage Windows, chances are VERY high that they would never remove all traces of the program. Windows add/remove programs does NOT clean the registry of all entries made by the program's installation.

The dock is not a replacement for the Windows Start Menu. The dock is for user-defined, frequently used program shortcuts, not a catch-all for every program installed. I don't want every program I install to appear on the dock, cluttering it. "Fishing around in the app folder" isn't necessary. The apps are clearly listed in alphabetical order. Also, a simple Spotlight search will find the app in seconds.

Patches

Yes, I run Software Update daily. Compare the number of patches that Windows has to download compared to Apple. For every Apple patch, there are dozens for Windows. On my current installation of Mac OS X, I have had only 8 updates to the OS. Windows frequently has more than that in a day!

...But I'll take some points away from Apple for forcing us to pay $129...

Vista Home Basic: $199.95
Vista Home Premium: $259.95
Vista Business: $299.95
Vista Ultimate: $319.95

... and no one is "forced" to buy anything. Count the number of Mac users in this forum who are still running Tiger.

device compatibility

You're really not going there, are you? OK, Vista did upset a lot of people by not working properly with some older XP drivers. I'm stuck there with an HP printer. So I'll grant that.

When I plug a device into Windows, it usually either takes me through an installation process, with dialogs to respond to, or pops up the "Cancel or Allow" or some other messages. In some cases, it requires a reboot or to download drivers. When I plug the same device into the Mac, it starts working. Period.

Plug a new cordless mouse's receiver into a Vista machine's USB port. Watch what happens. Now do the same with Mac OS X.

networking

I have a DSL modem/wireless router. I also have a cable modem/airport express. With Windows, I spend 5-10 minutes configuring Windows to access those networks. With the Mac, I turn on Airport Utility, it finds the networks, I select the one I want, enter the password, and I'm connected.
Oh, and Mac OS X asks for my administrator password to change wireless settings.... Windows doesn't.

 

[The Flashing Fi]

Security


Mac OS doesn't simply put up a dialog; it requires an administrator password. Vista doesn't. It only asks for "Cancel" or "Allow". A script could easily respond to Vista's UAC. In this regard, not only does Vista offer zero protection, it also is designed to annoy users with so many of these "Cancel or Allow" messages, that most users either blindly answer "Allow" without checking, or turn UAC off.

No OS can compensate for user stupidity. If a user blindly clicks the UAC prompts, that's their own fault/problem. It's no different than a user who blindly types in their password when Mac OS X requests it, or when Mac OS X prompts the user whether they want to run a program that he/she has downloaded from the internet for the first time (which does not request a password/username).

Permissions, specifically application permissions

In Mac OS X, by default, apps don't automatically inherit the privileges of the user's account. In Vista, by default, they do. So, for example, one app can launch another app in Vista without authentication. In Mac OS X, permission is asked and, if the app requires administrative access (such as modifying system files or software), even if the user account is admin-level, the admin-level password must be supplied. By default in Vista, no password is required. Responding to a simple "Cancel or Allow" dialog, especially when they pop up so frequently as to be annoying and easily dismissed, is NOT my idea of "security."

The user in Vista does not have administrative privileges, so, even if a program in Vista inherits the user accounts privileges, it still does not have access to system files or folders without UAC intervening. If the user decides to hit accept, once again, their problem. If the program launches another program, you're right, no permission is asked, but the launched program will not have administrative access, unless prompted to do so.

Modifying system files by the user requires that the user manually go into the system and change the files permissions themselves (usually encountered by someone who wants to patch the uxtheme.dll to install custom themes). Even if you attempt to copy and paste the new file to replace a system file, UAC will prompt you, but access will still be denied after granting it access.

Viruses


I don't assume. I've never said a Mac can't get a virus. Viruses have been found in the past that affect Mac OS, but as of this date, none are "in the wild". Compare this to hundreds of thousands of viruses in the wild that affect Windows.

... and yet, we don't have even .1% of the viruses!

Once again, it's due to Mac OS X having a much lower market share than Windows. If Mac OS X ever gets the market share Windows does, Mac OS X will be plagued by the same problems.

According to Symantec's bi-annual Internet Security Thread Report, "Throughout 2007 Symantec detected more than 711,912 novel threats which brings the total number of malicious programs that the security firm's anti-virus programs detect to 1,122,311.
The report notes: "almost two thirds of all malicious code threats currently detected were created during 2007."
The vast majority of these viruses are aimed at PCs running Microsoft Windows..."

I'm stupid, you're going to have explain your point to me. Nobody is denying there are Windows viruses out there, or that there are a lot of them.

Windows has to give up a significant portion of system resources to keep antivirus software running. Macs don't. Without pulling out a stopwatch, run Vista and launch all your normal applications, while running any AV software you choose. Now reboot and disable your AV and see how much better performance you get from your system.

It depends on what anti-virus software you use. Norton sucks and uses a Godly amount of resources. I use Avira. It's free, it's light, and does the job, combined with good browsing habits. I've never ran into a problem. I don't notice a difference. The probably is a difference, but I don't obsess over small crap like that.

Application installation

In Mac OS X, many apps are completely removed by dragging the .app to the trash. Some leave user preference files, which are easily removed by a novice user. In Windows, watch how quickly a novice user can turn a computer into a paperweight by editing the Windows Registry without knowing what they're doing. Even if they manage not to damage Windows, chances are VERY high that they would never remove all traces of the program. Windows add/remove programs does NOT clean the registry of all entries made by the program's installation.

For Windows, there are registry cleaners that will fix any problems for you. I find that CCleaner is a good one. It also has many other useful functions (such as cleaning out caches).

From what I can tell, is Windows add/remove does not actually remove the program. It keeps a list of programs and a link to their respective uninstaller. When you choose to remove a program, it uses that programs uninstaller. Depending on how good that uninstaller is, it is possibly that it removes all that program's entries. Some companies bundle half-baked uninstallers that removes the files and some entries, but not everything.

Regardless, a user does not need to go in and mess with the registry in order to not have it a mess.

The dock is not a replacement for the Windows Start Menu. The dock is for user-defined, frequently used program shortcuts, not a catch-all for every program installed. I don't want every program I install to appear on the dock, cluttering it. "Fishing around in the app folder" isn't necessary. The apps are clearly listed in alphabetical order. Also, a simple Spotlight search will find the app in seconds.

What I think he was trying to get at, is that for new users, it can sometimes be troublesome to access programs. When I got my Macbook Pro, I had Tiger installed. It took me a while to access my programs, and I found that it was a bit annoying, since I couldn't just click a button and BOOM, there they ALL are. I adjusted over time, and with Leopard, I took my app folder and made a stack out of it.

Patches

Yes, I run Software Update daily. Compare the number of patches that Windows has to download compared to Apple. For every Apple patch, there are dozens for Windows. On my current installation of Mac OS X, I have had only 8 updates to the OS. Windows frequently has more than that in a day!

Just because Mac OS X has "less" patches, doesn't mean it's better. As far as I'm concerned, with the current way it's setup, it just means that the user has to wait LONGER to get OS fixes/improvements. For Windows, you get them pretty much as soon as they fix the issue. They're just different "philosophies" on how to keep an OS updated. Generally, when Apple releases an update, there area ton a fixes. It helps keep the user from constantly downloading updates, but on the downside, if you NEED a fix ASAP, you could be left waiting for a month or 3.

Vista Home Basic: $199.95
Vista Home Premium: $259.95
Vista Business: $299.95
Vista Ultimate: $319.95

Awesome. And those are the retail prices. How about OEM prices, since retail is needlessly more expensive (the only benefit you get is that you can transfer the license).

Vista Home Basic: $89.99
Vista Home Premium: $99.99 (honestly, if you're a home user, this is the version you'll ever need. The only features that Ultimate really has to offer is Dreamscene and Texas Hold'em. Everything else is pretty much some administrative tools and the networking capabilities found in XP Pro)
Vista Business: $139.99
Vista Ultimate: $179.99

device compatibility


When I plug a device into Windows, it usually either takes me through an installation process, with dialogs to respond to, or pops up the "Cancel or Allow" or some other messages. In some cases, it requires a reboot or to download drivers. When I plug the same device into the Mac, it starts working. Period.

I have never had to restart because of something I had to plug into the USB port. My printer works flawlessly in Vista (it's an old Canon and the drivers are included with Vista), my Logitech wheel works without me needing to install anything, but I do install the device profiler so I can customize it some of the functions, but it works fine without the profiler. My keyboards and such work fine. My external hard drive works fine (the only thing that pops up is a box asking me what I want to do, the same thing for my flash stick).

[/quote
Plug a new cordless mouse's receiver into a Vista machine's USB port. Watch what happens. Now do the same with Mac OS X.[/quote]

I bought a cheapo laser mouse from Best Buy earlier this year, and when I plugged it into my computer, it worked without any hassle in both XP and Vista. I didn't have to wait for it to work, it just did. Remember, this is with a cheap wireless laser mouse. Guess what happened when I plugged it into my laptop? It worked fine as well. My old Logitech wireless optical mouse worked great in both Mac OS X and Windows, without any hassle. The Dell wired laser mouse that I'm using now works fine in Mac OS X and Windows. So I don't see what point you're trying to make. Sometimes you need to install software to get extra buttons to work properly, but you need to do the same in Mac OS X if you buy a Logitech mouse with multiple buttons.

networking

I have a DSL modem/wireless router. I also have a cable modem/airport express. With Windows, I spend 5-10 minutes configuring Windows to access those networks. With the Mac, I turn on Airport Utility, it finds the networks, I select the one I want, enter the password, and I'm connected.
Oh, and Mac OS X asks for my administrator password to change wireless settings.... Windows doesn't.

That's funny. With my dad's Linksys router, in Mac OS X, if I put the Macbook Pro to sleep by putting the lid down and after an hour or so, when I come back, it doesn't automatically reconnect. In fact, I have to wait about 3 minutes for it to find the network. Then, I have to manually select the network to connect. It doesn't do it all the time though. With my Belkin router, I haven't run into this problem.

I spent the same amount of time networking my Mac and Windows to each other (including setting sharing permissions for folders and my external hard drive). It was pretty easy and has worked flawlessly.

For your network, since you're using Airport Utility, I assume you're using a Apple wireless product of some type.

However, for your network, I take it that you're connecting to the network, and you want to access files on your Mac or some other computer? When you turn on the computer, you have to type in IP addresses for the computers in the network to access their files and such. If this is the case. You can have it so that Windows automatically mounts the network drives. But then again, I have no idea what equipment you're using and what you're trying to do. All that I know is that for me, after setting the network up, I don't have to do anything in Windows to access my laptop, whereas in Mac OS X, I have to manually connect to my Windows computer.

 

[Pikemann Urge]

one of his old cars for sale on eBay, and it was an attrocity, something bad like purple with a blinding interior and matching seat belts

Yucky.

The problem I have with it, as a car enthusiast, is the obsession with Porsches and nothing else.

I know what you mean. I never only like one brand of anything. But I can understand that if he really, really likes them... why not.

If I collected computers I'd like to have more than just old Macs, but then again the Suns and SGs would be too annoying to use so I may only have Macs anyway.

 

[(L)]

Security
Mac OS doesn't simply put up a dialog; it requires an administrator password. Vista doesn't. It only asks for "Cancel" or "Allow". A script could easily respond to Vista's UAC. In this regard, not only does Vista offer zero protection, it also is designed to annoy users with so many of these "Cancel or Allow" messages, that most users either blindly answer "Allow" without checking, or turn UAC off.

Here, you mention the single point I find troublesome about all these people defending Windows. I don't really want to get into the point-by-point argument -- anybody's computer choice is up to him; if he gets it wrong, why should I care? Windows might just be the better choice for what he needs to get done.

But that's just the thing. My friends find some of Mac and Windows dialogs and error windows to be extremely rude. Macs aren't free of the problem, but it is clear to all that Windows is in a different league altogether. To use a simple example, on Windows you can get error dialogs that basically say there was an error and offer you two options: "Cancel," and "OK." The former is sometimes grayed out and not clickable. And in any case, why in hell should I ever give approval for my purchase to poop out on me? If a new car breaks down repeatedly, obviously the car is not a great product, but it's at least not adding insult to injury by asking me to OK it.

I'm not saying that that makes Macs instantly better than Windows. Like I say, some of my friends actually prefer Windows, despite this, but this sort of thing inoculates them against being die-hard fans of something they sometimes find to be below their standards, regardless of preference. I just wonder if some of the people in this silly argument actually find an insulting product worth defending so fervently, even to the extent of playing make-believe.

Once again, it's due to Mac OS X having a much lower market share than Windows. If Mac OS X ever gets the market share Windows does, Mac OS X will be plagued by the same problems.

Like this Flashing Fi person. Do you know what I'm talking about? All you say here is that Macs currently are definitely more secure, but if enough people switch from Windows, the dangers will follow. Let's say you're right, and it's that simple, which it might be. So what? It's safer now, but you'll be plagued later if and when Macs gain phenomenal market share? Windows users are plagued now! If someone says, "Windows is less secure in terms of viruses, if only because Macs aren't yet exposed to them," that's really the end of it. Windows loses, as it stands now, and playing make-believe won't change that.

I'm not saying that Macs are better in every way, or even better in general. Rather, they both have their faults, and it's childish not to learn when to say, "OK, you have a point there."

 

[bmorris]

old apple ad

isnt there an apple ad with seinfeld in it?

 

[macshill]

isnt there an apple ad with seinfeld in it?

This one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZuOtNwa-jk

Considering his show was a "a show about nothing" enough to add it into the show (Jerry and George write an NBC pilot), he did think outside of the box... just like Steve Jobs and Apple.

 

[roach]

Yes, it is. At $.5 million, it better be. Seinfield is actually very into cars, but Porsches and ONLY Porsches. In fact someone had posted one of his old cars for sale on eBay, and it was an attrocity, something bad like purple with a blinding interior and matching seat belts, I forget the exact things he had done but it was horrid. Jerry has a big collection of 911s (from classic to new) that he keeps in a NYC garage.

The problem I have with it, as a car enthusiast, is the obsession with Porsches and nothing else. Sure, they're great (I own a Porsche myself) but how about something, anything, else? For that Carerra GT he could have three Ferrari F430s. I think Jerry, when he was poor, locked onto Porsche as a status symbol and never let go.

He also drives other cars. He was involved in an accident driving a classic fiat.