I was nodding in agreement up until that last part. ME was a parody on Windows, the epitome of everything that sucked about 3.11, 95, 98 and 98SE. It crashed twice as often as 98 and somehow managed to be less informative when it did. Microsoft ended Mainstream Support for Me in 2003, only 3 years after the launch, which by MS standards is the equivalent of burying it and running away.
Well, like I said, I used it and I never had issues with it. I never experienced the stability problems that people claim it had. I used it because of two reasons. One being the Windows 98SE license I had was being used on another computer, and XP was going to be out in less than a year so I didn't even want to bother with spending so much money on software in such a short time. Plus the computer it came on was my secondary system, an eMachines of all computers. It was as stable for me as a Win9x based OS could be.
It doesn't surprise me that MS stopped supporting it so quickly. It was available not even a year. During the time it was available systems were being sold with Windows 98SE and Windows 2000. Plus Windows XP was released about a year after Windows ME launched. Plus Windows ME wasn't preloaded on systems immediately, it was sort of a prolonged upgrade program. So it wasn't on the market very long and most people had the choice of 98SE, 2k, or ME. Plus MS was pushing XP hard by that point, letting people know it was coming and soon.
To pick apart all of your lame arguments trying to cut down my LEGITIMATE research on the XPS, but I have work to do. So I'll just say this:
So why choose the XPS and not the Studio XPS which offers far more than both the standard XPS and the MacBook for less money?
And the fact that you bring up a trialware argument means that you didn't do research.
And, again, whats with the comparing the XPS to the MacBook? Like I said, people don't buy the MacBook for the "features" or claimed (but false) build quality as Apple and the fans would have you believe, they buy it because they want a Mac and its the only one they can afford.
Of course, comparing the XPS to the MacBook fails anyway, because the Studio XPS 13 offers dual GPUs, LED screen, same processor as the MacBook Pro, double the HDD space on a faster drive, 4GB of DDR3 RAM, etc.
A realistic comparison shows that you can get systems that will beat the $2,499 and $2,799 MacBook pros for around $1,299.
My research was based on going to the Dell EPP site. I configured the machine to match, as best as possible, my MacBook. It didn't make it. Never will, as long as Vista is on it.
You know that Vista is more capable than OS X, right? And, again, why not the Studio XPS? The original XPS is being phased out.
I bought my MacBook at the Apple store, (Discounts can be had there) and bought my RAM from Newegg. It was Crucial, which is better than most OEM (unless they use Micron).
Average person can't get a discount at an Apple store, so discounts don't apply to everyone.
I work in IT. I make a very good living doing so. I support PCs, own PCs, have built many, many PCs over the years, and now own a MacBook. As someone who has stood in the same place you're standing now, looking at the situation with the same myopic view, I can unequivocally state that, of all the computers at my disposal, including multiple Windows XP, Linux, and Windows 7 computers, both physical and virtual, when I go home at night I use my Mac. Why? Because it just works better.
Good for you. I have my MacBook right here on my desk and my notebook PC running Vista right next to it. I prefer Vista because it runs better, its more stable, and the OS is all around more capable. If I want to watch a movie or play a game in my spare time, I don't have to reboot the computer and deal with Apple's bad Windows driver support. I can just simply start doing what I want to do.
As far as the statement that Vista is more stable than Leopard, PULLEEEASSE! Clean the sand out of your ears when you pull your head out of the ground. Your talking to someone who's extensively used every operating system MS has released since DOS 5. Vista is crap. You either know that, and are living in denial, or don't know it, and are too dumb to debate the topic.
Like I said, I have my PC right here running Vista. I've run Vista on 3 MacBooks and 4 different PCs in the last 2 years. Never a single problem on any of them. The only problem on the MacBook relates to Apple deliberately holding back driver support for the touchpad.
And sure, let's debate why you feel Vista is bad and Leopard is better. Let's look at Leopard for a minute. Let's say I want to connect my MacBook to my HDTV. After I deal with the mess of adapters and cables required, why can't I just disable the built-in display without sleeping the system and waking it with an external device? With my PC I can just plug in the HDMI cable and Windows does the rest for me. Why can't I set custom resolutions in Leopard without having to buy 3rd party software that essentially hacks support in? Why can't I cut and paste in Finder? Why can't I watch blu-ray discs? On that same token, why can't OS X use full bitstream decoding for video playback like Windows? Why is it that "sandboxed" apps can crash and take down the whole OS, like Safari? If IE crashes in Vista or XP nothing happens to the OS. I can go on and on you know.
Ask yourself this: If Vista is all that and a bag of chips, why is MS rushing to get Windows 7 to market less than two years after it's release, when they let XP go for 6 years?
XP was around for so long because idiots kept scrapping the work that was done on Vista and restarting it. It happened a couple of times. What we know as Vista was supposed to have been released in 2003. It wasn't intentional on Microsoft's part to let XP go that long.
By your very own logic, if Leopard is so great, why is Apple in such a rush to get Snow Leopard out when it hasn't even been 2 years yet? In fact, look at Apple's release cycle for OS X. Apple basically had an annual release cycle there for awhile. In fact, 10.0 and 10.1 were released in the same year. But we all know that DID happen because 10.0 was junk and needed that update to make it somewhat useable.
So going by your logic, Apple releasing Snow Leopard (and other revisions) so quickly is the result of the OS being bad and needing quickly replaced. At this point, Snow Leopard will be released much sooner than Leopard was in comparison to the previous release. Meaning it was about 2 and a half years between Tiger and Leopard but less than 2 years between Leopard and Snow Leopard. If I use your logic, thats because Leopard isn't up to snuff and needs replacing.
I mean, let's face it. Leopard is bloated and is missing a lot of key features it should have. Apple is calling Snow Leopard more of a speed and maintenance release. Funny how Microsoft said the same thing for Windows 7.
So why is it that MS getting Windows 7 out so fast is bad but Apple doing the same for Snow Leopard is good? Why is it that your logic only applies to MS and not Apple when the situations are very much the same?
Oh and you should remember that, aside from XP, Microsoft also has a 2-3 year OS development cycle. So them getting Windows 7 out about 2.5 years after Vista is right on schedule with the way they've been in the past and the way they were with their server OSes during XP's life, and the way they would have been with Vista if not for some people who should have (and probably did) gotten fired.
They know it. I know it. You should either know it or get a Mac, because not knowing it makes you too naive to navigate in the dangerous jungle that is the Windows OS.
I guess you missed the hundreds of posts I've made on this forum where I said I own a Mac? And the one thread where I even posted pictures?
As far as what this commercial was meant to do, it was MS taking the only road they had. "We know we can't compete on quality, so we'll talk about price."
Oh yeah? Let me know you can finally play blu-ray in OS X. Windows does everything Mac OS does and more. The same can't be said about OS X.
Oh, just an FYI: When I bought my Mac I was specifically looking at the price vs. the quality of the build.
If you bought a Mac for build quality then I can tell you from MULTIPLE experiences that you're in for a serious shock in the near future.
I have configured, worked on, repaired and built enough computers over the years to know that $600 laptops are an extreme waste of money. Write that model number down. Try to find it on HP's or Best Buy's websites in 6 months. Try to buy parts for it in a year and a half. Not generic parts, like memory and hard drives. Proprietary stuff.
HP has a 6-8 month update cycle just like Apple does. Again, similar situations between Apple and a competitor. Yet your logic states that what the competitor does is bad but Apple doing it is good. Why is that? Like I said, HP updates their product line every 6-8 months, but unlike Apple, they bump the specs of the systems as the newer parts become available. So of course you won't be able to find that system in 6 months. It will have been replaced. The same way my particular UniBody MacBook won't be available in 6 months because Apple will have cycled their products with some sort of update. Why is it bad that HP does this but good that Apple does it?
Oh and if you want parts for that HP, why not go to HP's part store? My HP just happens to be a year and a half old and guess what? I can still go there and buy all the proprietary parts I need. If I need the LCD power inverter, or the separate reinforced DC input, or the audio jack board, or whatever, its still there for me to buy.
One more thing I want to comment on..
A lot of people here and at other Apple related forums have made ridiculous comments like "Microsoft is getting desperate!" Please explain this to me. How is Microsoft getting desperate? There are more than 10 times as many people using Vista as there are Mac users TOTAL. There are hundreds of millions more using XP. Windows PCs are still outselling Macs by very very large numbers. Worldwide, Apple's marketshare is in the low single digits. Netbooks are all the rage right now. The vast majority of them run Windows, with more running Windows being added every day and the Linux based offerings disappearing. Apple doesn't even make a "netbook". So how exactly is MS getting desperate?
And another thing, why would I want to disable SuperFetch? I like having my most used apps open instantly. Vista only takes about 50 seconds to boot for me. Thats from power button press to IP address. At that point Firefox opens faster than Safari in OS X.
