Microsoft Remains on Offensive with 'Apple Tax' Report and Latest Laptop Ad

[KnightWRX]

Apple has shown the ability to adapt, but certainly Microsoft has too. (Going from "missing the boat" on the Internet to anti-trust charges in a few years show how effectively they adapted to that change.)

Actually, the anti-trust charges were because they were still missing the boat. Instead of joining the most open of networks and adapting to it, they tried to adapt the network and close it up for their own profit.

With Internet Explorer 8, it seems that they are finally joining everyone else in recognizing that the Web needs to be Open to everyone. Standards need to be followed as drafted, needs should be drafted in these standards for everyone to implement, and not just implemented as vendor only features.

Microsoft in 2009 is just now "getting it". Is it true or is it just a new way to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, I guess time will tell.

As for your shot at Apple (again), can you please stop doing that ? Your credibility is spiraling down faster and faster with each such comment. If you hate Apple so much, why do you waste your time here ?

 

[Eidorian]

Apple doesn't make products for every single category, which is part of your criticism of them. So which is it? You and the other Apple haters type up a list of specs and then call everyone who disagrees "fanboys" and "elitist." You say that brands have no sway over you, yet you love everything Microsoft makes. I'll bet all the clothes you wear have labels in them, too. You are being a total hypocrite and just arguing in circles over nothing.

I've already ceded your superiority because you use Microsoft products and hate Apple products, what is it going to take to make you go away?

They make in operating system that can run on any x86 hardware. Too be honest we care about the hardware choices and the application support that Windows provides. I don't necessarily say that we extol Microsoft the virtues or Windows itself like some Mac users do. I gives us what we want just like a Mac can give someone what they want. What's wrong with that?

Did I mention that yes I do own a MacBook and I like it.

 

[tubbymac]

IMO, the replacement-of-Steve (whenever that comes...its not important when it is) probably won't be as much of a risk/concern as will be the replacement-of-the-replacement-of-Steve, since by that point there will probably no longer be any direct Corporate Memory of the struggle of the 1990s, etc...only that which has been successfully passed along.

I don't quite agree. I think Apple completely sucked without Steve Jobs and was heading towards bankruptcy until he came back. In the same vein, Microsoft is really sucking big time now without Bill Gates as the main man. I know both companies try to downplay how important those two men are, but things just aren't the same without them.

 

[sushi]

Apple has shown the ability to adapt, but certainly Microsoft has too.

With a few missteps on the way.

If you want to see Microsoft adapting to the future, look up "Windows Azure" (http://www.microsoft.com/azure/default.mspx).

Microsoft is investing several billion per year to adapt to a network based infrastructure. (Also known as "the cloud".)

It definitely is going to be interesting to see how the "Cloud" changes the way we do things. Windows Azure definitely looks good.

Over the past few years, it's been interesting to see how dot Mac had changed into Mobile Me, Google changes, etc. Comparing now to just 5 years ago, you can see big changes. Yet these changes have slowly occurred over time.

Anyway, I agree with the premise that if Apple and Microsoft are still around in 30 years, they won't be known for desktop operating systems.

While we don't know what the future will be in 30 years, we can look back 30 years and see the changes since then. Huge changes since 1979. From now until 2039, it will be even more dramatic as the technology curve continues to accelerate.

 

[AidenShaw]

As for your shot at Apple (again),...

The "buggy whip" comment comes from the belief that a long-term focus on building a better desktop client OS is a recipe for irrelevance. Phones, MIDs, tablets, netbooks, ... are going to be the predominant "terminals" in the network age.

The compute power of the terminal becomes less important as the computing and I/O move into the cloud.

The only "shot" at Apple is that Microsoft understands this. Apple, I'm not seeing much evidence that they are - but I do see evidence that gadgets seem to get more attention than computers.

That might be good for Apple shareholders, although it will disappoint a lot of Mac users.

 

[-hh]

Apple has shown the ability to adapt, but certainly Microsoft has too. (Going from "missing the boat" on the Internet to anti-trust charges in a few years show how effectively they adapted to that change.)

Understood, but the problem is that the way in which MS "adapted" to things like the Internet was simply to apply their usual business model, not change their business model.

If you want to see Microsoft adapting to the future, look up "Windows Azure" (http://www.microsoft.com/azure/default.mspx).

Microsoft is investing several billion per year to adapt to a network based infrastructure. (Also known as "the cloud".)

The Cloud won't be an effective replacement until bandwidth and computing power are both ubiquitous (which includes an airline flight anywhere in the world, and a tent in the middle of the Amazon) and cheap. Consider how much a simple 10bT connection costs today: the reality is that it needs to come down by probably two full orders of magnitude to be a viable replacement to the effective Status Quo.

If Apple does that, they'll be a "buggy whip maker" fighting the "horseless carriage".

YMMV, but I see Win7 as "Just Another Horse"; its simply not a huge paradigm shift to the horseless carriage.

Similarly, I hardly consider products such as the iPhone and iPod Touch to be merely a 'better horse': their iApp store is nothing that Palm didn't do ten years ago...but Palm probably never had a billion downloads. Something's different (at least so far).

Or, in my opinion more likely, they'll mostly abandon the Mac platform and concentrate on gadgets. That seems to be their current direction, as far as I can see.

Sure, the Personal Computer will invariably adapt and change.

However, we do always have to remain aware of market forces that influence purchasing habits, and one of the key things is lifecycle costs including the cost of services.

Personally, I expect that someone very soon in the USA is going to release a Netbook that includes a monthly ISP subscription of some sort, which will be used to subsidize the initial purchase price of the product. However, just like the iPhone, its going to be a "$2000 over 2 years" magnitude of a true financial cost, which is going to limit its longer term acceptability to the consumer.

One nice thing with a personal computer is that except for internet access, it doesn't really "Cost" you to keep one of them around the house...or in the case of a household that already is paying for an ISP, the additional cost of "one more" is effectively zero.

Some of us can remember when you couldn't own your own telephones: you had to rent them from Ma Bell, and if you wanted two extensions, that was two rental fees. This pattern was repeated over and over: in the first home I bought, it had a dead telephone jack in the master bedroom - the reason why was because when the customer stopped renting the 2nd phone, the phone company came back to the house, collected the phone and then cut & removed the wire too.

That was done because of their business model...which hasn't survived.

So the contemporary question is: are we seeing evolution to today's business models, for both Apple and Microsoft? And to that end, what does this MS marketing campaign really do ... and is it supporting that change (if any) to their business model?

Promoting 'value' can be a good thing, but it can also be a Slippery Slope that then screams 'cheap'. The biggest problem that MS has is that they've not really hit a Home Run for a compelling consumer product...ever. Instead, they're the "Embrace & Expand" King.


-hh

 

[-hh]

I don't quite agree. I think Apple completely sucked without Steve Jobs and was heading towards bankruptcy until he came back...

Given the insane product proliferation of that period, it can be argued that Apple tried the GM business model of trying to be "Everything for Everyone".

Effectively, the Mac Clones were another swing at the same plan.

Fortunately, before 'Strike 3' came, Steve returned.


-hh

 

[KnightWRX]

Given the insane product proliferation of that period, it can be argued that Apple tried the GM business model of trying to be "Everything for Everyone".

Effectively, the Mac Clones were another swing at the same plan.

Fortunately, before 'Strike 3' came, Steve returned.

I think this point is not driven enough into some newcomers heads. The constant whining for the "Everything for everyone" Mac computer, and the "Apple as a software vendor" just won't go away until people take a long hard look at Apple's history.

 

[tubbymac]

Given the insane product proliferation of that period, it can be argued that Apple tried the GM business model of trying to be "Everything for Everyone".

Effectively, the Mac Clones were another swing at the same plan.

Fortunately, before 'Strike 3' came, Steve returned.

That's why I'm against the idea of Apple making cheap netbooks, or minitowers, or midtowers, or anything too close to the realm of the PC. That's just a market that other companies like Walmart and Microsoft are considerably better at already. Apple has found a few niches and has created new markets. It's quite successful at that and should stick with it. Leave the cheap stuff for the other companies.

Never rule out Microsoft in any market though. They are incredibly patient. I remember when the XBox was laughed at and the Playstation ruled the consoles. But Microsoft kept chugging along and kept cutting costs, and today the XBox 360 is one of the cheapest consoles you can buy, and it's pretty much winning the war over the PS3. Sometimes in market share the cheapest product wins eventually. Meanwhile Nintendo is laughing at them both and still has killer sales because they pulled an Apple trick and found a niche (the casual game market) and innovated (motion controller). If Nintendo tried to please everybody and compete directly they would have been slaughtered. Same thing would happen to Apple.

The big market is based on the lowest cost. Compete in that arena without being anywhere as cheap and it'll be history repeating itself.

 

[pwn247]

At the moment, it's obvious that Microsoft is focused in on Windows 7. They know, and we know, that Vista didn't turn out like expected.

In this new Microsoft ad campaign ("laptop hunters"), Microsoft urges us to buy PC notebooks. One problem: Microsoft doesn't make PC notebooks, they distribute no hardware, and they simply don't make computers. They do, however, produce an OS. Unfortunately, they can't sell the OS. Not once in any of the commercials do they compare Vista to OS X, and that's because Vista can't compete (and let's be honest, OS X has some major advantages over Vista right now). So that's our issue.

But they've discovered a simple way to force Vista onto the customer:
Customer needs a notebook -> Buys an HP -> Vista is preinstalled (ka-ching) -> User doesn't want Vista? -> Microsoft + HP refuse XP drivers -> End users gets f***ed up the a**.



So overall, while PC notebooks are cheaper in this downing economy, Microsoft fails to look ahead. Changes are being made, and (hopefully) the economy will pick up. There will be less of a need for cheapy computers, and people will have the opportunity to take advantage of their funds on-hand to purchase something a little higher in their price range (in this case, a Mac).

 

[Diseal3]

That's why I'm against the idea of Apple making cheap netbooks, or minitowers, or midtowers, or anything too close to the realm of the PC. That's just a market that other companies like Walmart and Microsoft are considerably better at already. Apple has found a few niches and has created new markets. It's quite successful at that and should stick with it. Leave the cheap stuff for the other companies.

Never rule out Microsoft in any market though. They are incredibly patient. I remember when the XBox was laughed at and the Playstation ruled the consoles. But Microsoft kept chugging along and kept cutting costs, and today the XBox 360 is one of the cheapest consoles you can buy, and it's pretty much winning the war over the PS3. Sometimes in market share the cheapest product wins eventually. Meanwhile Nintendo is laughing at them both and still has killer sales because they pulled an Apple trick and found a niche (the casual game market) and innovated (motion controller). If Nintendo tried to please everybody and compete directly they would have been slaughtered. Same thing would happen to Apple.

The big market is based on the lowest cost. Compete in that arena without being anywhere as cheap and it'll be history repeating itself.

The day apple understands this the better, however you whole post is a very good example of things how they are. *applause*

 

[KnightWRX]

The day apple understands this the better, however you whole post is a very good example of things how they are. *applause*

The day apple tries to be that, is the day Apple becomes irrelevant and dies. They do not need to participate in the Big market. They are a niche player.

 

[-hh]

The day apple tries to be that, is the day Apple becomes irrelevant and dies. They do not need to participate in the Big market. They are a niche player.

A wise man just recently said:

"I think this point is not driven enough into some newcomers heads."



A bit more seriously, there's probably underlying reasons for this educational gap within the Interested-in-a-Mac community. My hunch is that it probably correlates some to "number of years Mac" which also correlates to age...to a certain degree, the oldtimers are not unlike the USENET Pioneers when The September That Never Ended hit.


-hh

 

[janstett]

I rest my case..........

If you were a lawyer, you would be disbarred for incompetence. Here's why:

The X-fi specs even list it as 24 bit/96k which is still 100K less then High Def Audio.

There is no textbook definition for high *resolution* audio. The defacto definition is anything better than CD quality (44.1kHz, 16-bit sampling). Getting the sampling rate up to 48kHz helps. Getting 24-bit samples helps. Having a lossless codec helps. So to say 48-24 sampling isn't high res is foolish.

Further, there is a point of diminishing returns. Increasing the sample rate to 96kHz helps increase detail but not "twice as much" as 48kHz. It takes twice as much data to reflect a subtle improvement. I consider myself an audiophile of sorts, and I can hear the difference between lossy and lossless CD; I can hear the difference between 44/48kHz and 96kHz - especially in string instruments such as guitar, and piano. There is a vibrancy and warmth, a depth, that is missing at lower sampling/bitrates. This is what the vinyl fanatics were on about all this time. But a causal listener who can't tell the difference between 128kbps AAC and a CD probably won't spot the difference.

I listen to a lot of high-res audio (SACD, DVD-A, etc.). I have an extensive collection of 96kHz and above music. Do you even know what you're talking about?

Finally, I'll point out that most high res sound cards cannot output 192kHz with 5.1 -- they are limited to 96kHz in multichannel mode and can only do 192kHz in stereo mode. And that's fine, because that's how the DVD-A spec wants it. I have only come across three 192kHz DVD-A stereo recordings and I'd be hard pressed to tell it apart from 96kHz.

The quality of the sound really isn't a whole lot different, your still listening to what? 24bit/48k audio off the BluRay or DVD disc, which is a fraction of true High Def digital audio.

I'll point out to you that all movie soundtracks are mastered at 48-24. Until we get better theatrical surround, that's the max to expect out of any film. Blu-Ray will give you 48-24 lossless sound. And as someone who actually listens to Blu-Rays (I'll go out on a limb and say you don't watch Blu-Rays with Dolby True HD or DTS HD Master Audio sound), it's better than the 48-16 lossy sound you get out of a normal DVD. Gotta love how you're telling people the quality of sound isn't any better and isn't truly high-res when I don't think you would even have experienced any of this first hand. Especially not on a Mac. I'll also point out that your impression that Blu-Ray is limited to 48-24 is wrong. Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA are both capable of up to 192kHz stereo and 96kHz multichannel, but again films are mastered at 48-24, so until somebody records a concert in 96-24 or puts other material out that would have gone on DVD-A or SACD in the past, the majority of sound you'll get on Blu-Ray will be 48-24 lossless.

NOW, talking about the MacBook Pro's audio output options ... your going to love this, trust me! Most MacBook Pro's actually do have a Digital Audio out, its a multi-Purpose output, the Digital output, which is BUILT IN on all the MacBook Pros, specs are as fallows: 24bit/44.1 - 192K

Yeah, I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about now... That digital audio out is SPDIF (Sony-Philips Digital InterFace). That would be an archaic means of delivering digital audio, limited to 1.4mbps. Completely incapable of delivering anything better. Incapable of delivering anything more than Dolby Digital, DTS, or stereo max 96kHz LPCM. As opposed to something modern like HDMI, which is capable of delivering 7.1 channels of LPCM, Dolby True HD, DTS HD MA, et al at up to 192kHz and 24-bit.

so lets take a quick review of this

X-FI: 24bit/92K
MacBook Pro: 24bit/192K

Yeah, Mr. Lawyer, you might want to check your specs again. The MacBook Pro (which is just using the REALTEK HD AUDIO CHIPSET, oh sorry, did I pull back the curtain?) is only capable of 192/24 in stereo mode. Which is convenient because IT DOESN'T EVEN OFFER MULTICHANNEL OUTPUT LIKE THE X-FI.

And please check the specs page -- the X-Fi does 96kHz in multichannel mode and 192kHz in stereo, just like the Realtek, er, Macbook.

In addition, I can GUARANTEE you physically CANNOT tell the difference between 48K audio and 96K audio.

I guarantee you I can. Tell me, how much 96kHz music do YOU have that you are basing this upon? I'll gladly share my list of high res music if you'd like.

and before you start, I do need to remind you that the MacBook Pro's audio out is Digital and can be transmitted via Toslink... which means... 5.1 audio is possible!!!

Yeaaaah, pity about it only being possible with 512kbps Dolby Digital or 1.4mbps DTS, which are both 48-16 and lossy... Not a problem with something that's not 20 years old, like HDMI.

Really, you're an audio engineer, and you don't know that?

I rest my case..........

You lose on appeal.

 

[iPhoneNYC]

I find it amusing that MS is running essential a political campaign against Apple. It's just anti-Apple - and the casual viewer would have no idea as to exactly what PC was purchased. All in all, I feel these spots will either keep Apple's share the same or actually go up.

 

[janstett]

Don't recall or see the reference to viewing distance vs. screen size. Look hard, but you won't find it, not even in High-Def.

That's extrapolated from your antiquated argument that 1080p is only neccessary on a 42" screen or higher. You do know that's what screen size arguments are based on, right?

I just think the idea of having a blu-ray player in 16" notebook is hilarious. Not exactly the "cinematic experience" when your screen is 16" and your sound is coming out of two crappy internal speakers.

So why does Apple put DVD Player.app in OSX if it isn't a "cinematic experience" and sound comes out of two crappy internal speakers? If you theoretically had anything better than 1440x900 available on a Macbook, you'd want to suffer decreased detail just for the sake of it?

On a small display, it isn't about having a "cinematic" experience. Yet people do watch movies on their laptops for some reason unbeknownst to you. So why would you want MPEG artifacting and fuzzy upscaling when you could have the superior detail off a 1080p Blu-Ray?

And let's not forget about our bretheren with 17" Macbook Pros, complete with 1920x1080 screens. Why should they have to settle for 720x480 being upscaled (poorly, at that) to 1920x1080 when they watch a movie? Why is Apple giving them a 1920x1080 screen instead of a gigantic 1440x900?

I would be careful with purchasing your favorite movies all the time. How many times are you going to watch them? By the next time you watch that movie, there is a good chance you will have better technology.

And I would be careful about purchasing a computer, they have better technology all the time

By the way, how do you like watching football on your 22" monitor? Are all of your HD channels looking pretty nice? You must feel like you are in the action. I would rather watch a movie on an old black and white 32" analog Zenith TV than a 22" Westinghouse HD Monitor. That's just how I feel about it. I don't expect everybody to agree with me.

Well, let's see, if I'm working on my computer and keeping an eye on a football game on my 22" monitor (it's a Vizio, by the way; it's very hard to find a small screen with 1080p resolution), it's just fine and looks gorgeous. Of course, I watch this set when I'm in my office and working on my Mac Pro with a 30" screen. I got it because I was sick of the scaling artifacts playing XBox 360 in 720p upscaled to 1680x1050. If I want to focus purely on the game, I'll watch it on my 65" TV in my home theater.

See, I actually WATCH HD content on a variety of screens -- from a 15" 1680x1050 Thinkpad to a 22" 1080p Visio to a 2560x1600 30" monitor to a 50" DLP to a 65" DLP set. I'm telling you Blu-Ray looks good everywhere, better than DVD. You're the one with your head in the sand saying it's unneccessary below 42". So to all you readers, who do you believe -- the guy who actually watches HD on a variety of screen sizes, or the guy who says it isn't necessary?

How does having a 22" HD monitor make you a home theater expert again? I feel like I'm talking to a priest about the best way to conceive a child. Don't spit the history of cars and monitor resolution comparisons at me. Let's talk about experience for a bit. Compare the overall experience if you can.

You really want to get into it? I'm all for it. You're the one saying you'd rather watch a 32" analog TV and can't see the point of high def on a small screen... But I embrace Blu-Ray everywhere, High-def everywhere, from a 15" laptop to a 65" home theater, and I demand 1080p even on a small display

Congratulations on your search in Wikipedia. It doesn't make you a genius either. Your missing my point. Let's substitute VW with Ford Festiva so you can move on. I'll be "more careful" next time.

I know cars (no Wiki needed). You don't. I'm suspect of your HT chops if they follow suit to your attempt at a car analogy.

If you want to look beyond ATV, you could easily look at what cable providers have started offering with OnDemand. It's not 1080p yet, but give it some time.

Sigh... Cable is compressed-to-hell MPEG2, and many cable operators reencode the channels to decrease bandwidth (increasing artifacting in the process). On demand is usually compressed even worse. I have on demand. It's garbage. Broadcast HD is good but Blu-Ray is far superior -- higher bitrates (I've seen upwards of 45 mbps), better codecs (H.264 and VC1, not just MPEG-2), better sound (Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA and multichannel PCM instead of 540kbps Dolby Digital).

It's pretty naive to think we've reached the pinnacle of bandwidth. In 1981, 300 baud modems were pretty sweet, but nobody thought that we arrived.

It's also pretty naive to think we're ever really going to have this nirvana of downloading video instantaneously over the internet in good quality without interruption. It's especially naive when ISPs are revealing that their so-called unlimited usage isn't really unlimited, and they start charging more for high bandwidth consumers or throttling down their bandwidth. We can dream, but it's just not attainable now. Probably not for the next 10 years. Keep dreaming about it, but don't expect it anytime soon.

As good as a BLU-RAY movie looks, it is not the final frontier by any stretch of the imagination. So before you get your panties in a bunch because Apple products do not use/license a Sony product, just remember there is a lot more to come.

Yeah, like what? I know about red cameras and 4k, and some stuff going on in Japan, as well as some 3D applications, in addition to the current high referesh rate and frame interpolation going on... And if Apple resists something that is good and here today, what makes you think they're going to be in any hurry to adopt anything better in the future? They can't even do HD disc (which is well established, based on existing technology, and simple to adopt).

So the next Macbook will have a 4000x2000 3D display with a holographic disc player, is that what you're saying? If they follow what's going on with Blu-Ray, the PC will have it first.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Given the insane product proliferation of that period, it can be argued that Apple tried the GM business model of trying to be "Everything for Everyone".

Exactly. Back then, "Dellpple". Their line of product offerings was too large and unwieldy and the cloning almost killed them. THANK GOD that craziness was done away with just in time.

 

[janstett]

I didn't see any jabs at the lack of Blu-ray drives, but I'm betting MS is already got an ad lined up for that one..

The irony is that MS is no fan of Blu-Ray either -- they backed the rival HD-DVD format hard... There is no Blu-Ray playback on the XBox 360.

 

[MikeTheC]

Exactly. Back then, "Dellpple". Their line of product offerings was too large and unwieldy and the cloning almost killed them. THANK GOD that craziness was done away with just in time.

It was one of the first things Steve noticed when he returned. In fact, there was (and I'm trying to think when it was, but it was definitely in 1997-8 timeframe) a keynote that Steve did at which he said, in part, that even on a personal basis he and the other members of Apple's BoD had a hard time deciding for themselves and recommending to friends which model of Mac to buy, simply due to the proliferation of so many different models.

You could tell from how Steve expressed his frustration that those guys pretty much all had some significant "WTF?!?" moments.

The irony is that MS is no fan of Blu-Ray either -- they backed the rival HD-DVD format hard... There is no Blu-Ray playback on the XBox 360.

Interesting, isn't it?

Actually, I've never really supported any of the new standards simply because I don't agree with the notion of turning people's entertainment centers into annual-upgrade money pits. There's still a bunch of people dragging their feet on this, and as far as I'm concerned, good for them. Despite its technical advances, I don't hold with HDMI or the HDCP protocol which is associated with it. I don't like fences (in this sense), I never have, and frankly I don't think I ever will.

In addition to all of this, the tv in our entertainment center (which, for the record, I barely use at all -- perhaps once or twice in a year) is an RCA ProScan 27". So what is it exactly I would hook one of these new systems up to if I did own one? For me, if I can't pull it down off the 'net, I'm not going to bother watching it. Period.

 

[D4F]

To me those ads are quite good.
40 pages on a Mac related site rofl.

It grabs attention that's for sure. Which kind doesn't really matter. Success.

 

[polaris20]

I think we should change the name of the site to gamingandmoviewatchingoncomputersrumors.com

Because a good portion of the people here complaining always mention BD or gaming, and it's getting old.

There's more to a computer than that.

 

[rotta]

Back to the ads, maybe....

In these ads, Microsoft is trying to associate real people with PCs, and hoping for some - or many - Apple fanboys - or maybe Apple Inc. - to show their most elitist and ugly faces going after the PC , i.e. "real people".

Looks like they succeed....

 

[ynk1121]

I said it before and I'll say it again. I think Microsoft screwed up with this ad. Apples problem isn't with their laptops. IMO the prices aren't that bad for what you get. It's Apple's desktop line that is a complete joke. Who would buy laptop parts in a desktop computer? The only desktop Apple makes that's nice performance wise is $2,500 or higher.

 

[Trajectory]

In these ads, Microsoft is trying to associate real people with PCs, and hoping for some - or many - Apple fanboys - or maybe Apple Inc. - to show their most elitist and ugly faces going after the PC , i.e. "real people".

Looks like they succeed....

Yes, they suceeded in bringing out all of the Windows zealots en masse to become ugly and elitist on an Apple forum. 95% against 5%. Big man!

 

[BongoBanger]

Yes, they suceeded in bringing out all of the Windows zealots en masse to become ugly and elitist on an Apple forum. 95% against 5%. Big man!

Really? Looks more like 10% Windows zealots, 10% screaming Apple fanboys and 80% people with balanced opinions to me.