Find the perfect gift for everyoneIs it uncool to be a Mac user in these tough times?
On Thursday, Microsoft started running new anti-Mac ads that are designed to take a serious poke at the one spot where Apple has traditionally been vulnerable: pricing.
All you have to do is shop for a computer to know that Macs are more expensive than Windows machines on a spec-by-spec basis. But when you buy an Apple PC, you willfully know you're paying a little extra--or sometimes a lot extra--for an Apple-designed product.
Apple fans will tell you that Apple PCs are not only slicker-looking but that they're also built better, last longer, and run a better operating system. In other words, you're not just paying the Apple premium for looks, but also for brains and brawn.
If you're a Windows fan, it's nice to see that Microsoft is finally fighting back with an effective argument after getting shoved around badly in Apple ads in recent years. But there's some interesting subtext to the ad, which follows Lauren, a very Apple-looking gal (not to stereotype or anything, but she's got that whole artsy thing going on) as she tries to buy a 17-inch laptop for less than a grand and ends up with a Hewlett-Packard PC for $699 (good luck carrying that thing around).
The key point for me in the ad is when she says, "I'm just not cool enough to be a Mac person." Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I get the feeling that Microsoft is trying to to tap into this wider notion that it's uncool to be ostentatious these days.
In other words, if you're buying a Mac, you have too much money on your hands (i.e., you got a bonus while everybody else didn't). In fact, you should feel a little guilty for overspending--and buying from Apple--in these tough times.
Translation: It's no longer cool to be cool for the sake of being cool. But it's cool to be cheap and utilitarian.
Comments?
Hunkered down in New York City, Executive Editor David Carnoy covers the gamut of gadgets and writes his Fully Equipped column, which carries the tag line "The electronics you lust for." He's also the author of "Knife Music," a novel. E-mail David. Follow David on Twitter.
She walks into the Apple store first and has to get paid to buy a Windows PC.
Great angle, "If you're poor, yet think your last little bit of disposable income should go toward a laptop, then please buy our machines! We'll even pay you!"
Why not just make a batter OS that doesn't blue screen and suck ASS... hosers.
Real world guys, you really cannot see there are choices. Choices that are good, and people want.
tipoo_: Same question, I rarely see any of their adds, what stations do they play on exopuppy?
So I'm supposed to buy some cheap PC with not enough RAM that'll choke on Vista and that'll be cool? I don't think so. No I'm all over my MacBook Pro, I'm getting work done and looking pretty damn fine doing it. Next you'll be telling me to get a Corvette!
I love the part where she strokes the keyboard with ugly stickers all around it and says she's drawn to that machine, right baby, and my MacBook Pro's keyboard lights up when it gets dark (and the screen dims) too cool for school when I'm in the lounge waiting for my flight.
macs are very nice computers that you have to pay a premium to get. If i had 2 grand to blow, i would definitely get a mac book pro.
and then proceed to put XP on it, and in a few months windows 7. I hate the Mac OS.
and i'm Cool ;)
seriously MS why the hate on Pc users ?
@ ppgreat: desperate? MS sells 10 PCs to Apples 1 at its worst
Maybe youre not cool enough for PC!!! You think??!!
but i didn't really look like that at least from wat I got !
IF it was done the other way around
like if Lauren first went to a best buy and then to the mac store and said that comment
it would have made more sense ! but now it feels like Ms promoting it's computer as cheaper alternatives to Macs !
Think before speaking. It does wonders.
@ home I'm a Mac :o)
See the difference?
+1 on the fact that MS has a commercial that I may not agree with but at least can understand.
regarding green info: i'd love to start seeing labels on electronics indicating how much carbon was required to manufacture the product and how much carbon is required to operate the product (i.e. energy consumption). without taking into account the amount of energy required to manufacture the product, other comparisons are incomplete and inadequate for truly green, "cool" folks.
Also Open Office, Firefox 3, and Thunderbird as my office/cloud suite. What else? Media Player Classic for videos... let's see... WinAmp... Free, free, free.
So let's recap... free software and no time maintaining, Maybe that's as much as your Apple machine, but I know I paid less as the initial investment half a decade ago.
I assume you're not talking about gaming, since you are talking about your time being worth something.
scripting, automation and boxee are all available on OS X. In fact, boxee has been available on OS X longer than it has on windows.
As for vista on a 4 year old laptop, you could, as long as you have a dual core with 2GB of RAM Vista will run fine. In 2005 dual cores were just coming around. If you don't have a dual core laptop yet, you probably don't need it, in which case you don't need Vista.
In fact there is really never any huge reason to move to a new OS right away, especially in the case of Mac. What do you get? a couple little features, and some optimizations. The only time it makes any sense to change OS is when you get a new computer.
Lastly, GREEN?!?!?! come on, just because those commercials say the Macbook is green. They still have batteries. Making the battery alone produced so much pollution, that it outweighs any other green savings.
That's not even talking about how stupid the OS is. It makes no sense whatsoever. If you say otherwise, you obviously a blind mac fan boy, so ****.
my school machine is 5 years old and running XP. after the first hour investment of installing a free antivirus solution, it takes a grand total of zero hours each week paying this mythical "cumulative upkeep" of a PC.
Also Open Office, Firefox 3, and Thunderbird as my office/cloud suite. What else? Media Player Classic for videos... let's see... WinAmp... Free, free, free.
So let's recap... free software and no time maintaining, Maybe that's as much as your Apple machine, but I know I paid less as the initial investment half a decade ago."
My XP machine is 6 years old. I use it every day using many of the same apps you do and my experience is the same. I even did away with the anti-virus "protection" as I've never managed to contract one despite a dozen years on the internet. I spend no time or resources maintaining my machine, software or hardware. It works great.
I'm writing this on a pc laptop that was a low end model 6 years ago, and still works just fine. I use firefox, avg, vlc, open office. What does this cost me? nothing. And the functionality is more than enough for me. There's no upkeep required at all.
apple makes some nice machines, but when people start to act like they're the only logical choice because of these myths (ie apple hardware lasts longer) that the fans tend to spout, it's hard to take them seriously.
My main computer is a two year old Asus laptop running XP Pro. I have a Vista upgrade that came free with the computer, but have never felt the need to upgrade. It has a 512 MB video card and a good processor. It still plays almost all of the games that come out. All I have done is upgraded the memory, installed a free anti-virus, and installed other free software. I run them every once and a while. I've never blue screened on it, I can't remember the last time I have had to crtl-alt-delete or restart because the system is bogged down.
I like the looks of a MBP, but is it worth the extra few hundreds of dollars to get a comparable laptop? No way. Anyone with an ounce of computer knowledge can do find with a Windows machine. My parents (very basic computer knowledge) have a Vista and an XP machine and never call me with problems. The Apple guys would have you believe that my parents would be helplessly chained down by the Windows OS and would be begging for a Mac. They like their computers just fine and could afford a Mac if they wanted, they just don't want it.
If that's the case then maybe Apple should sell their OS and put MS out of business. Or maybe Apple knows something you don't? Of course if they did that then nobody would buy 13" Macbooks that costs $1300 and that's where the real money is.
The reason that Apple only allows/wants their OS on their systems is because don't want it running on some inferior machine. How often do you hear about people complaining about some cheap PC (Compaq for example) that they bought? Most likely it's not because the OS sucks but more that the computer cant handle what the person want to do on it. By keeping their OS on their systems they can guarantee that it will run well.
Apple fans like you always claim that apple's OS is much better and that windows is a bloated piece of crap that requires constant upkeep (untrue). But when people ask about putting OSX on non apple machines, you basically say the same thing that you do about windows - if it was put on some other machine, it would run like crap and no longer be a perfect OS. I wonder what you would say if MS stopped selling windows, started making its own computers, and charging $500 to $1000 premiums on them.
Unfortunately what you don't realize is one of the big problems with windows is the fact it has to support so many variations of hardware and rely on driver's made by hardware companies. This causes unstable and unpredictable issues, I personally believe considering the huge task microsoft has to do to make its software work on suchb a huge variety of devices and combination's of devices they do a great job
That being said it is one of the main strengths of an apple product that they control the entire chain (hardware and software) sure it leads to higher prices due to less direct competition but it also leads to a more stable environment, easier software updates, and way easier ways of moving forward.
Personally I believe if apple tried to sell OSX on everything made by everybody it would have more issues than vista ever had. BUT they don't and for my laptop I want something light, and stable for work and travel for me the best choice is a Macbook Pro (and frankly for my work there is nothing more amazing than target disk mode on my MBP *can't get target disk mode on any windows machine*) at home I want something powerful that I can tweak, play games on, or just throw another TB drive in when needed and I run a custom built Vista 64 Desktop.
To many people are so blinded by their bias they can't see that both sides have a purpose and its up to people to decide what is right for them, and for the job they want it to do.
I don't think you quite have it. There are two logical reasons for Apple not to sell OS X on other machines.
1) They don't have to build in support for the multitude of products out there. Limited support on a limited platform means less driver and software conflicts to solve. It's good for stability without extra work on there part.
2) By not allowing it on other machines Apple gets All Mac Sales. That's better for their bottom line.
Both of the above work as long as Apple is willing to remain a niche player.
So now OSX would have to support many more processors, like VIA, more video cards, many more types of networking cards and drivers, a load of video card and web cam's and god knows how many motherboard chipsets they would have to support.
OSX would probably go from a very stable system, to one that crashes and has many more security issues than we see today. The Apple advantage is that not only do they write the OS, they make the machines.... Take away either one of those, and Apple is instantly on the same footing as MS....
This ad is great... I didn't see all the Windows users complaining over those MAC v PC commercials, but if one pops up that flips the other way.... wow, they come out screaming... Just like the Obama supporters that complained 6 months ago of a Bush 400 billion dollar deficit and now instanstly we need almost a 2 trillion a year deficit because the Messiah says we do..
There are some nice PC's that can be had for very little money.... Are Mac's built good? Sure.... does a 1200 premium in price for less hardware make sense right now for me?? No....
I don't know where you get your info and stats that photoshop runs faster on a Mac because it's DAMN fast on my PC running Vista 64.
Of course they make ridiculous profit margins... using cheap Chinese slave labor.
Even if there was no AMAZING Mac OS X operating system and we were all hopelessly stuck with windows, I'd still buy the more expensive Apple computer.
Considering all the problems you inherit when you 'save money' by buying a PC instead of the Mac, its a no brainer...
I know I probably sound like all the other stuckup Apple fanboys out there, but no, I've just had to step back and make an honest evaluation of things, and this is where I've come out at.
Dropping the 'cool' factor completely, if the windows operating system and the hardware available for it, would more efficient, reliable and userfriendly than the mac, would I switch to it? Ofcourse! But as things stand right now, windows has a long ways to go...
Microsoft is probably going to be able to convince a lot of people to buy a PC instead of a Mac, and those people are going to be happy, ONLY because they've never owned a Mac.
Windows users as a whole are technically illiterate and can not make distinctions that you are making.
I don't believe you have any applicable experience. Please don't tell people that you know what you're talking about, and then tell them to buy a Mac because it's got all the best hardware.
If you're that great of an IT guy, you would have went with a linux distro or even openbsd.
Plus, those high quality parts came from the same place as a lot of Dell equipment as well for awhile (dunno if they still do though).
Operating Systems vary based on needs and preference. Most of the time, for personal use, there really is no need and its down to preference (unless you want to play video games, then its Windows). Anybody who knows even an intermediate amount of knowledge about computers can be happy with either Windows or a Mac.
I build all my computers at home using very high quality components for bad ass gaming rigs. Apple doesn't even come close!
"Because Apple packs the highest quality components into their computers while other brands like HP, Sony, Acer and others, are all trying to to find ways to cut corners to be able to bring the price down."
You do realize that a) Apple doesn't manufacture their own products, and b) outside of the case itself, the innards of almost all computers are basically the same, right? Have you ever opened a computer? Go pop the case on a Mac Pro and a similarly spec'ed HP Elite and then tell me how different they are.
IMO we have to do more with less and be more efficient - with a Mac I am so much more efficient. Hell, I can restart in 25 seconds and that time saving alone pays for one of my staff (if I had to wait with a windows PC)
I love how PC fanboys change and distort facts
accept it MS is still forcing last gen Bios technology
while Apple has been on EFI for years !
you guys always bash Apple on using slower hardware
how about other stuff like EFI,Unibody build quality, Magsafe connector , Led backlit screens, backlit keyboard, multi-touch touchpads etc !
all this conviniently left out while processor speeds and ram are constantly mentioned
guess wat these things will make more difference to the user than Processors cores
Face it Ms isn't perfect they don't directly sell their products but force it down people's throats through OEMS and pass on the blame game to keep costs cheap
I'm not saying Apple is perfect either but they atleast aim for perfection instead of cheap !
On the other hand, the laptop she bought runs Windoze and that's a fatal flaw. I'd rather not have a computer. I've been using MS based systems since 1982 (boy, am I old!), but switched to Apple
two years ago. Under no circumstances would I ever buy another Windoze box.
So name one thing that's wrong with windows. And give concrete examples and not buzz words.
"Then you need to buy upgrades."
If you're a gamer. Sure. Then the BMW logic suddenly makes sense. I have a friend who always makes sure he has the latest video card. He's thrown in an extra stick of RAM, and he bought an external hard drive. He's upgrading because he wants more performance.
However, a 10 year old PC works just fine. A Pentium III on 512 MB of RAM running WIndows 98 will still run Firefox 2, Thunderbird, and older versions of Microsoft Office (certainly notepad for notetaking, or one of many cloud solutions).
If you buy a PC, you have to have basic knowledge of how to maintain it. You have to run antivirus, sure, as well as practicing good browsing habits. Would you park your car in a bad neighborhood with the doors unlocked? How about with the doors locked, but with an iPod on the dashboard or something. Do you practice good driving habits like coming to a complete stop at stop signs, etc.?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can get something that works just fine for years for incredibly cheap if you practice a little responsibility as a user and you're not braindead.
I used your thought process when I purchased my last car. I traded in my 2002 Honda Civic for a 2004 Chevy Cavalier because I went back to school and wanted to get out of my car loan. That was the worst financial decision I ever made. My Cavalier has had nothing but issues. The car sometimes does not want to go into first gear, on hot days the speedometer and tachometer stop working all together, it makes noises in the dash board and ac. After a little investigation at safercar.gov these are standard issues with 2004 Chevy Cavaliers. Chevy cares nothing about quality.
I learned a valuable lesson. I've known lots of people who have purchased a Compaq or HP laptop and they worked all of two years and died. They are left purchasing another computer at the cost of $400 or $500 in the same life span of every Mac user I know whose computer is still running. Not to mention all of the data lost, lost production time, etc. The only PC company that compares with the quality and service of a Mac is Dell. If you research Dell products you find that they run in nearly the same price range as a Macs. Why? Because you are purchasing a quality product. This means that the "Cost" issues is really just propaganda.
So the lesson I learned was to buy a quality product and you will save in the long run.
Should have kept the Honda. Like Mac's... They just work better.
if you know what you're doing, the inexpensive method makes sense.
If you don't know what you're doing, maybe the extra cost is worthwhile, I dunno.
Plus, upgrades are only required on PCs if you actually want to upgrade. Most of the time things will run on an old PC too. But you can make it run faster. Its cheaper to upgrade a PC than it is to upgrade a Mac. In fact, its just easier in general plus you can generally expand your PC's functionality a lot more than with a Mac (unless you got a mac pro).
Carefull with that BMW analogy. After having bought one new I'd take a Chevy any day. But hey, you sure look cool driving it, right?
You do know that vista with 4gb of ram and leopard with 1gb of ram will open and run the same apps at the same speeds? i don't have any tables or charts to show you, but go to an apple store and open photoshop on the lowest end macbook and then on you new pc laptop. the specs on a pc might be better, but osx on low end macs seems to load programs just as fast or faster than high end pc's.
In addition, by the time someone buys the equivalents of iwork and ilife ($79 each or about $88 for 5 user licenses), for a windows machine, you can go ahead and add on another $300+ to your pc purchase.
then they are a whole lot of idiots
just check out Applepalace.com
their stuff is sold out half the time
It's funny but 2004-05 Powerbooks function better have more batterylife and better build quality than many of the cheap 700$ vista laptops people buy now !
it speaks volumes about the quality of Windows and cheap Pcs !
That's not true. On a spec-by-spec basis, the prices are comparable. However, when detailed specs are ignored, an entry-level Windows box with lower specifications is going to be, unsurprisingly, less expensive. With a computer, like a car, you pay for quality and features, including size, screen quality, component quality, built-in features, and built-in software.
One valid argument is that people don't NEED all the features of a Mac. Most people don't need 802.11n, bluetooth, LED backlighting, or a lighter weight machine. Most people don't need the latest standards, and can go with last year's models. Heck, most people can get away with a desktop - because who is going to lug around a 12 pound bag filled with laptop spare battery, power adapter, cables, and so forth?
I've done spec-by-spec. I built my last 5 computers. Macs generally don't win that argument unless compared to expensive manufacturers that people claim are rip-offs to begin with.
BTW, I have a 17" Toshiba Qosmio that weighs over 10 pounds that I lug to campus every day. It is not that hard. No, it doesn't have Windows on it. Runs flawlessly with openSuse 11.1 with about 4 mouse clicks.
People are idiotic lemmings, using market share is even more idiotic.
Besides, I bet few of that 90% actually made a conscious decision to use Windows.
Saying that people like Windows 90-7 might just be the most stupid thing written at CNET this month.
I just bought my recession friendly Mac mini and guess wat It runs even Photoshop and other graphic intesive apps fine ! maybe not at pro levels but more than good enough for a beginner like me !
I can go on about how I'll save money in the long run because of the time I saved using leopard over windows ,low power consumption and Resale value blah blah
but I'll just say that I got wat I paid for too and so do Pc users who enjoy using their computers !
and BTW all the Mac users I know never feel like they paid too much for a Mac
but I will say this that Apple is seriously limiting it's user base by not providing wat a few consumers want like a 15-17" laptop in the 1000$ range cause no consumer should be paying for a 2000$ Macbook pro for running consumer level applications !
or for that matter a upgradeable mac tower that many have been screaming for in the 1000$ range !
as long as you fit into the Apple product Line it's all fine and good
but if your needs deviate then Apple has no answer !
Kind of why the only Apple desktop I own is the new mini !
-
by lovemylinux
March 27, 2009 7:14 AM PDT
- I love articles like this. Years ago I was an ardent MAC fan. I still use my Powerbook 5300cs with system 7.5.3 to do my financials using Quicken 1986. It's a great machine that keeps on ticking. Before that I had a Performa 475 (25 MGHZ) that I used for years. Apple made products back then that you could use for many years. About 5 years ago, after buying a Windos 98 piece of junk and fooling with that to keep it running, I decided to go back to MAC for a more reliable product. Then it hit me - MAC and Windos were going down similar paths (planned obsolescens) and I was tiring of chasing them into bigger and better every 2-3 years. So, I started looking into alternatives. For the past two years I have been running Linux (Ubuntu) on a $200 Walmart Everex gPC with 1.5 GHZ VIA (low energy 2 watts max per hr) with and 80G hard drive - CDRW - USB 2.0 etc. Here is the kicker - it works flawlessly. The OS and all of the software is open source (free). You can still have your Windos and Mac OS sitting in a different part of your hard drive at the same time and boot whatever system you want at that moment. Linux updates itself regularly and is secure. There are thousands of applications that you can download from secure repositories that match about anything out in the commercial world. If you like the software you keep it on your system - if not remove it (easily) and nothing is lost.
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
-
-
by ZetaZeta_
March 27, 2009 11:40 AM PDT
- Listen to this man.
-
Like this
-
-
by SNOOP_ROCA
March 27, 2009 11:51 AM PDT
- This is a few (And I mean FEW) people that have linux, good choice man (Not sarcastically)
-
Like this
-
-
by viper396
March 27, 2009 1:07 PM PDT
- Other then impressing a handful of other Linux users who do you think really cares?
-
Like this
-
-
by Jeremy Chappell
March 28, 2009 2:56 PM PDT
- I think Ubuntu is who Microsoft should really be worried about. Now I use a Mac, most of the time. I have a (hand built) system with Ubuntu for "projects" (I work in IT) and it's great. Every release of Ubuntu is easier, and better, and it's really good now. It seems near "critical mass" where the manufacturers support it. If that happens and you can walk into a store and see "runs on Ubuntu" stickers on stuff, well then it'll be ready for the masses. Seriously it's THAT GOOD. All that's stopping it is currently it's tricky to buy stuff and know it'll work. (Mostly it does)
-
Like this
-
-
by montex66
March 29, 2009 6:26 PM PDT
- This morning I was reading online with my nearly 10 year old Powerbook G3 Pismo, as I do every day. It run OS X (10.4.11), connects to wifi and is up to date on security patches. Tell me again how Apple's products don't last?
-
Like this
-
Showing 1 of 9 pages (354 Comments)So while I plan to use my Mac as long as it will last - I'll never go back to either Windos or Mac for an operating system. And oh, by the way - you can have all of the Mac eye candy on you desktop running on a Windos PC like I do now.
Like it or not planned obsolescense keeps people employed and keeps the technology industry moving forward. What real motivation is there to design and build better technology if everyone was content to just run old PC hardware? Running Linux on some obsolete computer does not keep very many people in jobs.