Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Oct 20, 2008.
thanks, i'll look into that.
Typical stupid apple mentality at work.
Well, it sure sounds like a joke, even if you say that it's not.
Hi, I'm a PC and I have 3.2GHz Quad core CPU with 8GB RAM running an HD 4870 X2 graphic card. Why are you drooling Mac?
that's not you talkin, it's the yam-yam!
I think the latest batch smells of desperation but hey I'm a PC.
I really would like to see if they got the information straight but you know they probably don't and not much can be done because it would be easy to call it a parody.
Also I think the one you didn't link to is a very big shot over the bow and is something Microsoft is going to have to watch but becareful how they react to. The whole thing of not calling vista vista could easily be skewed to say that windows 7 is just vista without the same, sure its being built on windows core and its going to be very different under the hood, perception is key as they are finding out now.
Lol, that was a good pick me up, after watching the soxs lose last night. I can't wait to see what else they come up with.
Maybe that's because you haven't been looking at the sales figures.
Apple's U.S. market share was 9.5 percent in the Q3, 2008, compared to 7.7 percent a year ago. That's a 29.4 percent growth rate. The average growth rate for HP, Dell, Acer and Toshiba was 6.3 percent. Source: Gartner
Someone likes the ads.
Keep calling Apple stupid, but Microsoft (and most other companies) would love Apple's growth. And before you spout off that MS has a dominant market share, every company still needs to grow, no matter how big. MS is so big and bloated, growth is very difficult, and that is not good for stock price.
1) Vista does not allow for support of horizontal or vertical span modes. (This one really irks me)
2) Vista 64-bit does not allow you to use unsigned drivers without you specifying so EVERY reboot. MS has actively removed any way found to do so.
3) UAC as-built is worthless. At the very least give us the ability to approve a program to always perform a task so it doesn't ask us every single time that same program wants to do the same exact thing that we've already approved the last 800 times it wanted to.
Note, I'm not saying that Vista is horrible; I'm simply saying that it's far from perfect.
/Uses Vista on his machine
Vista ain't the most stable OS I've used, XP still holds that title, but it's getting closer now, and regardless of that opinion, I still use Vista exclusively. XP has had several more years of support to go with it, but I quite happily support either XP or Vista machines in my family (my tech support pool, hehehe. As soon as Apple releases their OS such that it works for more than four machine configurations I'll be more impressed. LOL
I do wish MS would table some ads doing what Apple is doing, essentially calling the other side an idiot. I don't want to spend $300 more for the same specs with a glowy apple on it. Big deal. LOL.
Apple is kind of like a cellular provider. Cellular providers are like 90% marketing and promotion, and 10% actual service. Once they've got you, they've got you. "offer good only for new activations. "
And not too original either.
Vista does have a negative image problem, but I don't think that calling it "broken" is quite a fair assessment of the os. It isn't the second coming that Microsoft wanted it to be, but it's no Windows Millennium.
Yes and the advertisement is exactly the pot calling the kettle black.
So what's "broken" with Vista that needs fixing? Or I am missing something?
Apple is getting desperate.
First of all, Vista is hardly new. And secondly, no it is not all I can say.
When it comes down to features, I could live with XP just as easily, but while XP was the best desktop OS I had used at the time it was not as stable as Vista. And yes OS Stability is the utmost importance to me. Vista is more stable than XP, works overall better with some tweaking in my experience, and stays "fresher longer." I am about a year in on my original Vista 64-bit install and see no indication of needed to reinstall like I have on every other Windows systems I have ever used. Stability and OS Freshness. Those two things are of the utmost importance to me on an OS. Obviously this is beyond having to have the needed feature sets for my personal computing experiences.
Even though the Mac ads are FULL of blatant lies and misconceptions, you gotta hand it to their marketing department...the commercials are hilarious. And people (unlike us) who don't know any better, will actually buy into this shit.
Think about it. The Mac demographic is primarily made up of idiot users (not all, but most), and these commercials pander directly to them. If you can't make Vista work for you without issues, then you might need something like a Mac with a closed hardware/software platform in which the entire package is covered by one manufacturer.
I still don't hate them any less though. I would love to get a Mac, but I hate the company and their smugness and their prices.
Tell me, my good man, what do you have against the Kool-Aid?
Smugness, that's a nice word to describe it. Arrogant is another, overpriced is a given, elitist ranks up there too. But cultish... that's the real winner.
"You can't think different unless you think just like us..."
Why would anyone thats capable of building a PC buy an Apple desktop? Surely its not quality. Besides, if you do a little research, youll find that its fairly easy to shoehorn OSX onto a PC. For shits and giggles, I installed it on my laptop; it ran OK but wasnt very useful to me. Eventually I removed it and reclaimed my lost hard drive space...
You forgot "clueless"...
I think the real question is what was broken with XP that needed fixing (after years of what was essentially paying for the privilege of beta testing, that is), besides Microsoft's sales figures?
It's so funny listening to all of you so-smarter-that-Mac guys defending an operating system released not because XP had some huge void that Windows users were clamoring for, but because MS decided it was time to sell you all a new OS. Vista has some cool bells and whistles, but why again does an XP user really need to fork out hundreds for it? And you Vista defenders are the geniuses?
See my post about sales growth. Apple is doing great.
Your same pointless logic could be applied to any apple product. What was wrong with the previous IPod? IPhone? OS? What was wrong with the previous *insert anything here that happily makes and keeps introducing as new* and basically forces you to use the newer stuff?
It's funny listening to you so-smarter-than-PC guys defending a company that does the exact same thing but on a much larger and aggressive scale. Hypocrite.
Even great can be still desperate.
Anyways, I think that the Apple commercials are slander and surprised that MS isn't suing. Commercials like that continue to hurt perception. I just spend a good part of the night arguing with someone who thinks Vista isn't XP compatible. This is a good, good friend of mine who I offered to give a copy a Vista to, but he wouldn't take it. This is a guy who is still hung up on DOS and it took him forever to switch from 98SE to XP as well (same problems he has with Vista now, except worst, he feels that everyone, the media, is with him this time) and now he considers XP the be all, end all of windows. And worst of all he want to get a Mac, because he feels that Microsoft creates a new OS just to force ppl to spend money to upgrade...he is in the music industry surround by people who tell him how wonderful Macs are...
Did anyone say that XP users needed to upgrade to Vista? For many XP users, upgrading to Vista is a terrible decision, especially if they're using older hardware or poorly supported software.
If you have an existing system with XP that works, there's no reason to upgrade to Vista. If you're buying a brand new system, however, there's really no reason to not get Vista.
Ok, let's look at this from the Apple perspective for a second.
What is the purpose of Snow Leopard considering Apple itself has stated in not so many words that Snow Leopard is a "patch" to "fix" performance related issues with Leopard. Consider the biggest thing Apple is harping on about with Snow Leopard's release: the fact that they're "trimming the fat" with Snow Leopard, effectively reducing the size of the codebase that makes up Leopard itself.
In other words, after 5 full blown OS "service packs" (OSX 10.1. through 10.5) with some new features tossed in with each one (that they CHARGE FOR mind you), and yes I'm well aware that most people would consider them totally independent OSes as they each stand on their own, one would easily see that Apple has had plenty of time to "trim the fat."
Why now? Did it take the Apple "Geniuses" in the coding cubicle farms this long to realize "Hey, we can do this better... and smaller... maybe even faster..."
One could take the comment above about XP being one big beta test and translate/apply it directly to OSX just the same. That's the problem with these kinds of debates: neither side can seem to see the POV from the other side. Funny how that works, ain't it?
Apparently us "so-smarter-than-Mac" guys have got something going on, I guess.
At least we're not paying for service packs. Although... the latest 10.5.5 Combo Update turned out to need 2 reboots to be fully installed and fully updated, and it's over 600MB. Even XP SP3 ain't that large...
Sorry, just how many updates and bug fixes and patches are contained in that Combo Update? Several hundred? Yeah, thought so...
I didn't realize that MS charged money for Vista beta.
You do realize that Mac users frequently fork over hundreds of dollars for hardware that is much cheaper for PC. Sure, you can argue that the computers look better, etc, but in the end, aren't those just "cool bells and whistles" since the base hardware is the same?
Can't argue with you there. Its iPods and iTunes making most of their money.
Vista has a higher take than XP did over this amount of time. Yet people are still claiming it is a failure.
A nice youtube feature on mac:
BTW, I am typing this on a Macbook Pro and I love it. I have a Q6600 with Vista 64 bit running 8 GB RAM and a GTX 260. I believe why not have the best of both worlds.
BTW, my wife found the Mac commercial funny. So did I. At the least it is entertaining.
Well, sorry to burst people's bubbles but I see a usefulness to both platforms.
Actually, Microsoft spends more on marketing every year than Apple does on marketing and R&D (you know, the stuff that Microsoft and other PC builders end up copying) combined.
And yeah, Vista has been "fixed" ever since SP1 came out in March. The commercial is ridiculous. At the same time, has Microsoft really given up on rehabilitating Vista's image? It didn't even occur to me that they stopped using the name Vista in their advertising until I saw these.
Yeah, well I'm a MacPro, with Dually Quad Xeon 2.8's, 8 gigs of server-class RAM, and Quad-1Terabyte sata2 drives. I handbrake a 2 hour move to h264 for a 480p set-top box in under 16 minutes, with 2-pass and 5.1 audio encoded. I also edit hi-def video using Final Cut Studio, which is then exported and sent off for DVD pressing and digital-to-film processing for distribution.
Now if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black...
I don't like macs that much, but that was funny as shit
Well, until just recently they weren't spending that much on advertising for Vista, and MS's marketing budget covers a much wider range of products than Apple's. Apple has been spending big bucks on Mac for quite a long time.
Hooray for you for comparing a $6000 server to a $1200 desktop.
When it comes to the whole paying for service packs. I really don't think it is far to bash apple for doing something that Microsoft themselves have done. The only difference is that Apple tells you the version number in the name, Microsoft doesn't. What I mean is that even though ever verison has the same major release number and only changes the minor release number, that doesnt' mean that it is just a service pack.
For windows on the home side you have Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista and comming soon windows 7. As you can see there are more than 3 versions between 3.1 and 7 meaning that more than 1 OS was labeled as 4, 5 or 6. Windows 95 was 4.0 - 4.9, 98 was 4.10 and ME was 4.90, XP was 5.1 and Vista is 6. As you can see 3 different versions share the 4.x name, however all 3 are very much different. Same on the professional side. You have NT4, windows 2000, windows xp, vista, windows 7. In this case windows 2000 is 5.0. Again windows 2000 and XP are both 5.x, however they are very much different.
Now, on the Apple side, it is very possible that some of the releases are going to be like 10.6 and just be service packs. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there was a few times where it the change was pretty much a new OS and not just a minor upgrade.
Exactly....some people seriously need to do their research before blanket statements about how much Apple spends on. Worldwide numbers, including salaries of s&m staff, and all creative budgets. Source is their SEC filings.
Sales & Marketing: $2,963M
Sales & Marketing: $18,166M
Just because you see more Apple ads while you're sitting there watching "Chuck" doesn't mean that Apple spends more than MS....it means you're being targeted more effectively. When was the last time you picked up a tech magazine and saw an Apple print ad? Vs an MS ad?
Try $3300. And it also makes me $200/hr for video editing. I have a dual-core athlon64. It plays games nice.
Why are you even arguing? You know you can't win in a price comparison. That your comeback is "it's only 3x more expensive, not 5" is telling.
Again, those numbers are fairly irrelevant because you're not directly comparing the services that they're used for. If you've got Zune vs. iPod or Vista vs. Mac, then that's worth posting. Microsoft vs. Apple isn't.
I have one for you then...
WHY does apple charge you for what are essentialy service packs? Im sory but paying for going from version 10.1 to 10.2 is NO differant that paying to change from XP to Vista, Apple has been charging for OS features for years that didnt work properly and then charging you when they "update" there OS, give it a new animal name and Voila you need to buy it..... 90% of what was in the last update should have been a free service pack....
Quiet, actual facts and figures mean nothing here, not when you have the power of fanboy opinion!
Again, MS spends more than Apple does on R&D and marketing combined. Its crazy how some people here will create their own realities to go along with their fanboy preconceptions.
How many video game consoles does Apple produce?