New Microsoft Ad Campaign Targets Mac Prices

[3282868]

To be fair it's still 20 times what the average person uses so he's still a giant bowl of BS. Al Gore made a documentary about himself making a documentary. Great Global Warming Swindle is better done then his movie and everyone needs to watch it. http://www.garagetv.be/video-galeri..._Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx

Ok, I know I stated no politics, but when I read/hear comments such as this I wonder: why would Gore swindle people? Gore is loaded, and honestly has no reason to produce a movie (that he paid for out of his own pocket) to "swindle" people. You have to wonder, when more and more experts and debunkers are now admitting it's an issue, why do some people seem to be bothered so much by this dilemma? When it comes to the only home we currently reside on, I would rather be safe than sorry, in the end, conserving will only benefit. Would you risk unprotected sex to prevent disease just because you may not like the facts?

It seems more likely that debunkers have more money to make, as their message (generally) seems to be: why conserve when there is nothing to worry about, so buy buy buy, drive your cars and use up gas, spend more money to keep the economy going and screw landfills and pollution as it's all a hoax .

 

[Anuba]

As far as the Norton stuff...hey, I admit it...I have Norton Internet Security 2008 installed...cost me $28. The license is good for 3 PCs. Yup...a whopping $9.33 per pc. Every year I buy a new version rather then "renewing". A small price, in my eyes, to pay for some extra protection. So to label it "expensive" on our image is way out of line.

Hmm, Norton is notoriously resource heavy and intrusive. If this is a Vista machine and you're on the admin account, I say skip the antivirus or try something lighter, unless:

- You're surfing a lot of shady Eastern European porn and crack+serial sites where they try to cram trojans down your throat by making you click Yes to really dumb suggestions

- You're downloading tons of pirated software in which they occasionally sneak in malware

- You use an outdated mail client that doesn't catch VB scripts and .exe attachments before they can do damage, and/or you have friends who are stuck in the 90's and still forward such attachments to you

I haven't used Antivirus since the 90's. Once a year or so I install an antivirus suite and do a thorough scan just out of residual paranoia, but I've never found a single piece of malware... and I've been using PCs since Win 3.11.

 

[BruceEBonus]

So lets summarise this fairly ... both platforms have disadvantages:

Macs: By FAR the best OS and ready to go out of the box. Better quality kit and no grief - it really just does work out of the box. ...BUT .. they ARE way O
overpriced by poor $ Exchange Rates and about 25% too pricey now even for hardened users like me.

PCs: MUCH cheaper and a bigger choice of machines than the Macs. Thats it. BUT the worst OS by far. A pain to use and just doesnt work out of the box. Vista is impenetrable to use for both computer nerds and newbies alike.

Verdict: If you value ease of use and quality over cost - go Mac.

But if you value cash in your pocket and dont care about sheer hassle and pointlessly complicated operating systems - go PC.

Sorted! Finished. Done. Good.

 

[twoodcc]

Here's the laptop she got for $700
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...+17+inch+laptop&type=product&id=1218041148373
It may be 17", but it's got poor resolution for the screen size, slower ram, questonable CPU, rubbish battery, 100Mb (not gigabit) ethernet, G wireless, shared graphics memory. Comes with Vista, the list goes on.

There's a reason it's cheap...

yes there is always a reason! i actually bought one similar to that for my uncle for his work - let's just say that after one day of use, it was returned for one that costs over $1,000

 

[Stevamundo]

2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAyEkHMA7VE&feature=related catch all of idiotic MS moments

Very funny video actually. However they really need to change the Mac's text-to-speech voice to Alex!

 

[Anuba]

PCs: MUCH cheaper and a bigger choice of machines than the Macs. Thats it. BUT the worst OS by far. A pain to use and just doesnt work out of the box. Vista is impenetrable to use for both computer nerds and newbies alike.

Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? I try to remind myself that these are just opinions, but some of you are just pulling made-up stuff out of a hat. "Impenetrable to use"? "Doesn't work out of the box"? Can't you just say that you don't like it, do you have to go off on a hyperbole rocket?

It's an OS. You click on stuff, and stuff happens. And it does so when you switch on the machine. If not, then either the machine is broken or the user is lobotomized. I'm posting from Vista right now, on a computer that last crashed in 2007 and was last rebooted in January. Where can I find this "pain" that I'm supposed to feel? Is it an application, do I have to download it somewhere?

 

[Scottgfx]

This is the most important post on here. I don't understand why you people get all defensive about an Ad. It's an Ad, it didn't take your Macs away from you. Move on with your lives. Plus its only fair they take a stab at Apple for all the stabbing they've been giving.

I actually thought the ad wasn't too bad. It's a vast improvement over the Seinfeld/Gates ads. What is sad are the number of Redmond employees (and children) posting here that Macs are no better than PCs, or that Macs are overpriced.

There are also a lot of personal attacks here, saying Mac users are stupid. That is when people get defensive. I went through this crap 20 years ago when I was an Amiga user. You're going along fine until the Mac and PC users start telling you why Amiga computers suck.

How about Steve Jobs on Microsoft, *before* he came back to Apple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw

 

[ericinboston]

Hmm, Norton is notoriously resource heavy and intrusive. If this is a Vista machine and you're on the admin account, I say skip the antivirus or try something lighter, unless...

I haven't used Antivirus since the 90's. Once a year or so I install an antivirus suite and do a thorough scan just out of residual paranoia, but I've never found a single piece of malware... and I've been using PCs since Win 3.11.

Norton is a bit resource heavy but I'm not runnig NORAD. I'm on a WinXP box with 4gig ram and a quad core...my other pcs are all XP and 2gig ram and single core chips from mid 2000s. They are not sluggish and I'm never disabling Norton. Sure, if I needed every CPU cycle and disk I/O I wouldn't even install it. And when it does my weekly scan at 2am, I'm not here to see my system slow down.

I agree with you about where you get viruses...the only reason I really use NIS is because it has all the firewall and antivirus and antispyware in 1 package. Years ago I used ZoneAlarm for my firewall. Anyway, to make a long story short, I am never in fear of viruses or spyware even if I did not have Norton...why? Because I'm not visiting all those sites you listed. But to be thorough in my post, I have come across a virus or 2 over the past 10 years coming in from emails with attachments...but again, they are so obvious.

Again, $9.33 is worth the extra peace of mind...no matter how over confident I am.

 

[Blue Velvet]

What is sad are the number of Redmond employees (and children) posting here that Macs are no better than PCs, or that Macs are overpriced.

You don't have to be either to believe that Macs are overpriced. Many longtime Mac users believe that they are overpriced as well... and are questioning their value. Is this such a crime to admit?

 

[EmperorDarius]

you don't get spyware and viruses from normal websites...you get them from porn sites, sites that con you into believing you can get pirated software for free, and sites that con you into getting something legit for free as long as you download their toolbars.

...or from external drives, shared networks, safe websites which have been hacked...

 

[cristianl]

Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? I try to remind myself that these are just opinions, but some of you are just pulling made-up stuff out of a hat. "Impenetrable to use"? "Doesn't work out of the box"? Can't you just say that you don't like it, do you have to go off on a hyperbole rocket?

It's an OS. You click on stuff, and stuff happens. And it does so when you switch on the machine. If not, then either the machine is broken or the user is lobotomized. I'm posting from Vista right now, on a computer that last crashed in 2007 and was last rebooted in January. Where can I find this "pain" that I'm supposed to feel? Is it an application, do I have to download it somewhere?

You're downplaying the software to suit your opinion. Windows is a good operating system on its own (some usability flaws can be ignored by the user) but the way applications and dependencies work with the OS is an orgy that usually ends in problems for heavy users.

 

[ericinboston]

So lets summarise this fairly ... both platforms have disadvantages:

Macs: By FAR the best OS and ready to go out of the box. Better quality kit and no grief - it really just does work out of the box. ...BUT .. they ARE way O
overpriced by poor $ Exchange Rates and about 25% too pricey now even for hardened users like me.

PCs: MUCH cheaper and a bigger choice of machines than the Macs. Thats it. BUT the worst OS by far.

Can I chime in here? If there are only 2 choices (as you imply)...then 1 must be the best and 1 must be the worst. That's simple logic.

Hello...McFly! So...your OPINION is that OSX is the best...and thus by definition, Windows must be the 2nd best...or "the worst" as your roundup states it.

Sheeez.

 

[kingtj]

Not quite the whole story .....

You make it sound like Microsoft was the "good guy", sitting back and taking all the attacks Apple could dish out, patiently, and never fighting back until now??

As an I.T. professional who has been in the industry for almost 20 years, I can assure sure that's FAR from the truth. Have you ever seen those Microsoft ad campaigns in trade magazines where they make the print ad look misleading like a real "news story"? They go on about the "total cost of ownership" being less for a Windows Server product than a Linux product. Never mind the fact it's a load of B.S. (Anyone well versed in Linux or Unix server operating systems can tell you why a Linux server will run with FAR less hassles and reliability issues than a comparable Windows server. Most of the Internet is served with Unix servers, not Microsoft servers. That's no coincidence! Sure, Linux takes a little more knowledge and effort to set up initially.... but that's countered with *no* licensing hassles and limitations. Then, once one is running, it generally STAYS running - barring some hardware failure.)

Microsoft didn't directly attack Apple back in the G3/G4 days because they didn't think it was worth their advertising money.... Their most profitable software division, per employee hired, is the *Apple* division that sells things like MS Office for OS X! They make yet another OS sale every time a Mac user decides he/she would like to legally use a copy of Windows inside of Parallels desktop or VMWare Fusion, or via Boot Camp. Microsoft doesn't even MAKE computers.

They're only getting scared now because sales of Vista have lagged far behind expectations, and MS knows each sale of some kind of Windows laptop or desktop is a guaranteed sale of an OS license for them. Meanwhile, a sale of a new Mac is only a "maybe" for that sale (and with Apple pointing out Vista's flaws, even more of a "maybe" than in the past when XP was the main product being sold).

It's just that the classic "Mac Switcher" arguments don't bite on everyone, and this is where the Mac faithful blow a fuse because they thought that the corny "10 reasons to switch to Mac" campaign is all it took.

You also have to realize that PC users didn't pick the fight, Apple as a company did. 99% of the polarization you're witnessing here comes from their own ads. They decided over 10 years ago to stoop to the lowest and most despicable form of marketing -- badmouthing the competition -- and they've stayed in that gutter for 10 years (technically it started earlier, but the "Pentium Toaster" campaign they used for the G3 launch in 1999 was the day they took the fight public). If they had chosen a different path, there wouldn't be nearly as much of an aggressive tone in these discussions, but Apple has underhandedly been calling PC users idiots/geeks/nerds/losers for 10 years, so in case you're wandering why they're coming at you with torches and pitchforks and demanding that you justify your purchases, ask Steve Jobs. Microsoft put up with it for a long time, and now it's payback time... and Apple fans go ballistic when they finally get a taste of their own bitter medicine. Surprise.

 

[BVeritas]

If you take a look at the Amazon laptop best sellers, you'll see that half of the top 10 are Macs, the rest are cheap (didn't say bad, just cheap). So clearly the Amazon buyers are after quality.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/565108/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav

But, just for arguments sake, let's say you pay an extra $400 for a Mac, keep it 4 years, and you've paid a $100 a year for quality. But, that isn't where the story ends, you can actually sell the Mac and make money.

 

[AidenShaw]

OK, 1424 to go

It'll take a lot more than 1733 to get there, it's gonna take about 4517 more to be #1.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/79590/

OK, 1424 to go to be the top thread in the current news forum.

https://forums.macrumors.com/forums/4/&daysprune=30&order=desc&sort=replycount

I didn't know about the archive, but if Microsoft comes out with some new ads this weekend that record may fall too!

 

[ajmetz]

Girls don't generally want 17" - they want, small, light, cute.
Also, the higher Mac price reflects it's an aspirational product. Therefore, whilst it's cool that PCs are cheaper, - pointing out the difference in price in an ad campaign could run the risk of back firing, if it encourages one to aspire to be cool enough for a mac / afford a mac, and depicts PCs as cheap, and worth less.
Lastly, - PCs suffer from slow down after time, due to anti-virus updates, spyware, and a lack of transparency regarding startup processes, services, and the registry - making it hard to clean up after dodgy programs, and remove unwanted burdens to the system without calling in a nerd or tech person, or installing specialist tools.
This means for novices and the non-technical, Windows can become unusable within a 6 month timeframe.
Haven't encountered any such probs with OSX yet.

I still love Windows 98 though.
And my Mac was annoyingly pricey, but no regrets.

 

[Scottgfx]

...I ended up selling my newer Vista based laptop for $500 to a coworker...

One thing I forgot to mention was that I had set up that Gateway laptop with Ubuntu Linux in a dual-boot configuration. I told the buyer that he could use either of the installed operating systems or do a clean install of Vista or Linux from the CDs. He's been running the Ubuntu for about a year now and seems happy with it.

 

[techfreak85]

OK, 1424 to go to be the top thread in the current news forum.

https://forums.macrumors.com/forums/4/&daysprune=30&order=desc&sort=replycount

I didn't know about the archive, but if Microsoft comes out with some new ads this weekend that record may fall too!

i think i remember someone saying that macrumors will traditionally cut threads off after 2000 posts. adds site lag or something.

 

[ericinboston]

...or from external drives, shared networks, safe websites which have been hacked...

True...I just didn't list every origin...but from experience (personally and professionally), the people who get SPYWARE are the people surfing the types of websites I listed. Viruses traditionally have come from non-websites...so more media related...heck, I was always paranoid with the 5 1/4" floppies we passed around in high school.

I'm just saying that spyware and viruses have been something to keep in mind for a very long time (well, Spyware only since about 2000 but viruses since the late 80's). Spend the small amount of money to cover yourself (just like by buying a better lock for your home even though it came with a crappy one)...or run the risk. There's a risk in everything in life...some risks are small, some are large.

 

[skaertus]

In what way? Apart from price, the machines are pretty similar.

Both have dual core processors, both have 4GB RAM, both have a 17" screen, both have a 320GB hard drive, both have a DVD-RW drive, both have built in webcams, both have a one year warranty.

The only area where the MacBook Pro will likely outperform the HP is in battery life, but then, I don't want to be one to fall for Apple's marketing garbage on that. I'm promised 5 hours on my MacBook, I get closer to 2 and a half.

No, they are not similar. The HP Pavillion Lauren bought had a 2GHz processor, while the MacBook Pro has a much faster 2.66 GHz processor. The 17" screen resolution of Lauren's laptop is 1440x900 and the Mac has 1920x1200. The memory is DDR2, while the new MacBook uses DDR3. Not to mention the integrated video card on the HP...

 

[ericinboston]

If you take a look at the Amazon laptop best sellers, you'll see that half of the top 10 are Macs, the rest are cheap (didn't say bad, just cheap). So clearly the Amazon buyers are after quality.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/565108/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav

But, just for arguments sake, let's say you pay an extra $400 for a Mac, keep it 4 years, and you've paid a $100 a year for quality. But, that isn't where the story ends, you can actually sell the Mac and make money.

A)That web link is updated hourly...show me it over time like a 3 month period

B)4 of the 5 Macs on the list are the same...just slightly different configs like 4gig ram instead of 2g...I don't think that's quite fair to list the same machine twice that has 1 or 2 slight alterations in mem or hard drive



But forget about point B...point A is what really matters. I could log in a 4am and see what people were buying from 3am-4am...doesn't really mean much.

-Eric

 

[coday182]

I think that the 17" portable is the weak part of Apple's lineup. Just because the lowest option is still so expensive. But on my campus macbooks are seriously outnumbering the windows laptops these days. And out of all the laptops from both companies, you rarely ever see 17" portables. Every once in a while you hear someone with a 17" complaining about it beign too large. Even better though is when someone actually does bring theirs to class. The way students are packed into some lecture halls, you don't have room for anything bigger than 13". Actually I probably wouldn't even like 15" but that's just me. If they made a 13" mbp I'd be all over it.

But more about the commercial...

I think Apple should come back with a similar commercial where they give 2 college students $1000 and the first one buys the macbook and the other one buys a ~700 notebook pc and then they come back a year later and the student with the macbook still has their computer running like new, but the PC student has had to buy anti-virus software, a word processor (apple has TextEdit free), and has had to pay the Geek Squad to fix it once and now has broken the $1000 budget by a lot.

 

[skaertus]

Why does the Microsoft ad has to be so yellowish? Disgusting...

 

[Scottgfx]

You don't have to be either to believe that Macs are overpriced. Many longtime Mac users believe that they are overpriced as well... and are questioning their value. Is this such a crime to admit?

If those Mac users feel their computer are "overpriced" then they have other options. Just like the PC users that are tired of "bloatware" can look at Macs and see if they are suitable for their needs.

There is noting to "Admit". This isn't an inquisition. If they were overpriced, then nobody would be in Apple stores, buying computers.

You can try to start that argument, but it starts to sound like class warfare/envy. Honda was made an offer by the Indian government to build a lo-cost auto for their market. Honda turned down the offer, saying that they couldn't build a car, to their own standards at the price point that the Indian government was proposing. Should Honda be demonized for not making a "peoples car"?

 

[BVeritas]

I've watched both the laptop and desktop links for over a year and the Macs always occupy half of the top 10. Since each entry represents 'real' machines sold, it doesn't matter whether they are similar (e.g. if you looked at netbooks, you'd see a ton a Asus and Acers that vary little).

Here's the desktop link.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/565098/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav

PS These numbers are not for the hour, they are compiled over a period of time (e.g. a few days).

A)That web link is updated hourly...show me it over time like a 3 month period

B)4 of the 5 Macs on the list are the same...just slightly different configs like 4gig ram instead of 2g...I don't think that's quite fair to list the same machine twice that has 1 or 2 slight alterations in mem or hard drive



But forget about point B...point A is what really matters. I could log in a 4am and see what people were buying from 3am-4am...doesn't really mean much.

-Eric