Sign In
Register
Help
"with it's great designs"
Microsoft ads continue to defy logic
MultiQuote
#16
richcon 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 154
- Joined: 08-February 05
Posted 16 April 2009 - 05:41 PM
PC does not mean "personal computer" in a generic sense, and it never has.
The "PC" was the name of a specific computer created by IBM in 1981, which ran a Microsoft-provided operating system on an Intel chip and was widely cloned by the likes of Hewlett Packard and Dell. Those computers were advertised as "PC-compatible", and later, simply as "PC"s. All modern Windows PCs are direct descendents of that original computer, hence the term.
Macs are not descent from that computer, so Macs are not "PC"s.
The "PC" was the name of a specific computer created by IBM in 1981, which ran a Microsoft-provided operating system on an Intel chip and was widely cloned by the likes of Hewlett Packard and Dell. Those computers were advertised as "PC-compatible", and later, simply as "PC"s. All modern Windows PCs are direct descendents of that original computer, hence the term.
Macs are not descent from that computer, so Macs are not "PC"s.
#17
walfy
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 02-January 04
Posted 16 April 2009 - 06:09 PM
Watch out, Mac fans (myself included). You might get what you wished for. If Macs continue to climb in popularity, as Microsoft obviously fears with their ads, you'll see viruses attacking Macs one day, bogging us down like our counterparts sailing the Pee Seas today.
#18
tjh8spamtrap
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 16-April 09
Posted 16 April 2009 - 06:10 PM
What cracks me up more than anything are the comments that follow articles like this one. They're the same on any Apple focused website. They make me laugh, because YOU aren't the target audience, and yet, Apple owners get all worked up about them. These ads are transparent to any savvy computer user, both OS X and Windows based. These ads are designed to influence people who are cost conscious consumers. That's it! Computers are intimidating enough to unsophisticated buyers. They can't tell the difference in the technology, but they can tell the difference in what they see and what the price is. In that sense, these ads are BRILLIANT!
Caveat: I own Apple and HP machines.
Caveat: I own Apple and HP machines.
#19
interactiveDNA
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 31-October 08
Posted 16 April 2009 - 06:14 PM
My sister got a Mac Air and my net-top is 10 times faster! and only cost me $289
#20
ajlp09
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 12-March 09
Posted 16 April 2009 - 06:20 PM
wow your ignorant. it's $130 for a new version of the operating system...like windows has vista/xp/me/etc...os x has jaguar/tiger/leopard/etc...id much rather pay $130 for something useful than microsofts $300 OS that works terrible, looks terrible, and just doesnt work...you can send me as much hate mail you want but when you have 81% or mac users loving os x leopard, and 27% liking vista, i think that says something;)
Message was edited by: cpoff
Message was edited by: cpoff
#21
dbag65
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 14-January 09
Posted 16 April 2009 - 07:02 PM
The OS upgrades Apple sells aren't required for system stability. They are enhancements and additional features.
Apple releases free updates and fixes regularly. Microsoft's "Service Packs" are just big bags of updates and fixes. If there were additional features in those, I missed it in the 13 years I was a Windows user.
I have several friends running older "cats", not even updating regularly, and having no system issues.
Just wondering. Wouldn't Vista (oh, any version, I had home premium) be a be a paid service pack for XP (any version here too, I had pro), being a paid service pack for for 2000 or ME being a paid home user service pack pulled largely from NT, following 98 being a paid service pack for 95 being a paid service pack for Windows being a paid service pack with errily Mac like graphics for DOS by the logic in your post?
Apple releases free updates and fixes regularly. Microsoft's "Service Packs" are just big bags of updates and fixes. If there were additional features in those, I missed it in the 13 years I was a Windows user.
I have several friends running older "cats", not even updating regularly, and having no system issues.
Just wondering. Wouldn't Vista (oh, any version, I had home premium) be a be a paid service pack for XP (any version here too, I had pro), being a paid service pack for for 2000 or ME being a paid home user service pack pulled largely from NT, following 98 being a paid service pack for 95 being a paid service pack for Windows being a paid service pack with errily Mac like graphics for DOS by the logic in your post?
#22
LowededWookie
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 02-July 06
Posted 16 April 2009 - 07:09 PM
Apple doesn't charge for service packs you idiot.
Apple's version of the Service Packs are the Combo Updates.
You're thinking of full releases which are the equivalent of WinXP to Vista only better.
Apple's version of the Service Packs are the Combo Updates.
You're thinking of full releases which are the equivalent of WinXP to Vista only better.
#23
kcidsremmus
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 13-February 09
Posted 16 April 2009 - 07:12 PM
The reason these ads exist in the first place is because Steve Balmer has dictated the message, and everyone is carrying it out. Its his money. Real add people would never create such a stupid campaign.
Face it. Steve Balmer is a one-trick-pony. The old story of not being able to fool all the people all the time comes to mind.
But so far no one has stood up and said that the emperor has no cloths.
Face it. Steve Balmer is a one-trick-pony. The old story of not being able to fool all the people all the time comes to mind.
But so far no one has stood up and said that the emperor has no cloths.
#26
lwdesign
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 651
- Joined: 28-September 05
Posted 16 April 2009 - 07:28 PM
richcon said:
PC does not mean "personal computer" in a generic sense, and it never has.
The "PC" was the name of a specific computer created by IBM in 1981, which ran a Microsoft-provided operating system on an Intel chip and was widely cloned by the likes of Hewlett Packard and Dell. Those computers were advertised as "PC-compatible", and later, simply as "PC"s. All modern Windows PCs are direct descendents of that original computer, hence the term.
Macs are not descent from that computer, so Macs are not "PC"s.
The "PC" was the name of a specific computer created by IBM in 1981, which ran a Microsoft-provided operating system on an Intel chip and was widely cloned by the likes of Hewlett Packard and Dell. Those computers were advertised as "PC-compatible", and later, simply as "PC"s. All modern Windows PCs are direct descendents of that original computer, hence the term.
Macs are not descent from that computer, so Macs are not "PC"s.
Please do some research before you make such bold and incorrect statements. Yes, PC was part of an IBM computer name, but where do you think they got the initials? Here's what 2 dictionaries have to say:
The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition:
personal computer
n. Abbr. PC
A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in an office or at home or school.
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn:
PC: personal computer: a small digital computer based on a microprocessor and designed to be used by one person at a time
Neither definition specifies the operating system, so all computers that aren't big honking mainframes are PCs, whether they run Mac, Windows, OS2, Linux, Unix or LostDog OS (OK, I made that last one up). General usage of the term over the past 25 years has colloquially aligned PCs with Windows, as differentiated from Macs. This is why Apple's ads say "I'm a Mac" then John Hodgman says "I'm a PC."
However, stating that PC does not mean "personal computer", then bringing up the name of an old IBM machine as the "true" source is silly and completely false. It was called an IBM PC because it was a personal computer. Use a dictionary and Internet reference sources before you forward something that is merely your own opinion masquerading as "fact." Wikipedia.com is a great source of data, and I highly suggest you use it.
#27
StarWarsEpisode7
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 05-May 05
Posted 16 April 2009 - 07:58 PM
The OS upgrades Apple sells aren't required for system stability. They are enhancements and additional features.
Apple releases free updates and fixes regularly. Microsoft's "Service Packs" are just big bags of updates and fixes. If there were additional features in those, I missed it in the 13 years I was a Windows user.
I have several friends running older "cats", not even updating regularly, and having no system issues.
Just wondering. Wouldn't Vista (oh, any version, I had home premium) be a be a paid service pack for XP (any version here too, I had pro), being a paid service pack for for 2000 or ME being a paid home user service pack pulled largely from NT, following 98 being a paid service pack for 95 being a paid service pack for Windows being a paid service pack with errily Mac like graphics for DOS by the logic in your post?
Apple adds about 2 new features and charges you $130 for it. Seriously. Something like Expose (which isn't even necessary on Windows due to Windows superior taskbar) or Time Machine could've easily been added for free. $130? Yeah right, Apple.
Vista is a new OS compared to XP, a superior OS at that.
Apple releases free updates and fixes regularly. Microsoft's "Service Packs" are just big bags of updates and fixes. If there were additional features in those, I missed it in the 13 years I was a Windows user.
I have several friends running older "cats", not even updating regularly, and having no system issues.
Just wondering. Wouldn't Vista (oh, any version, I had home premium) be a be a paid service pack for XP (any version here too, I had pro), being a paid service pack for for 2000 or ME being a paid home user service pack pulled largely from NT, following 98 being a paid service pack for 95 being a paid service pack for Windows being a paid service pack with errily Mac like graphics for DOS by the logic in your post?
Apple adds about 2 new features and charges you $130 for it. Seriously. Something like Expose (which isn't even necessary on Windows due to Windows superior taskbar) or Time Machine could've easily been added for free. $130? Yeah right, Apple.
Vista is a new OS compared to XP, a superior OS at that.
#28
cupofjoe
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 14-April 09
Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:09 PM
So I HAVE to use Windows XP at work. I have a ThinkPad and it hung up on me when I was trying to login. I did a force reboot by pressing the power button down. It then booted and gave me blue screen error!
STOP: c0000218 {Registry File Failure}
The dumb thing was LOCKED UP in booting and all I did was a force power down. Wasted yesterday and today but managed to keep several IT support folks very busy.
All you MS fan boys out there that say this never happens are full of it. The support guys told me that it still happens to folks more than it should. XP is SEVER YEAR OLD and they STILL can't fix THAT bug? What a joke.
As a loaner the IT guy gave me a Mac Book Pro to use and told me I wouldn't have any problems with it. I work for a FORTUNE 50 company and they ARE USING Apple in the Enterprise. They have one guy supporting about 350 systems at the moment in my area.
Windows 7 will have to be a LOT better than what Apple is giving me now for me to even consider another MS OS. I find it funny how all of the kool-aid drinking MS fans are bragging how much better Windows 7 is going to be.
When it is better than OS X and it doesn't need anti-virus software and they drop that stupid registry hack then call me. Otherwise I have work to do and it doesn't involve fixing my PC and re-installing my software.
Please tell Bill Gates to fire Ballamer and put Steve Jobs over the place. MS needs someone with vision and knowledge of how to build a computer. MS doesn't even have anyone at the top that even knows how to SELL THEIR PRODUCT.
MS has some great programmers. It is just obvious to me that still buried in the kernel is a bloated OS as old as the PC industry. The stupid DOS shell is still in there. My 'silly Mac' know has a POSIX shell and comes with a TON of development tools and Open Source software.
Jobs did a VERY cool computer like the iMac and had courage to gut the legacy OS AND hardware.
MS just sat around and got lazy. If MS spent more time on building a NEW OS and less time on "what do we call it this time?" The world would be a better place.
Adding a 7 to Windows does NOT make it a NEW OS. Vista will be looked back on as the OS that killed MS just like OS/2 killed IBM. They have nobody to blame but Ballmer for this one. ;-)
Give me a break.
STOP: c0000218 {Registry File Failure}
The dumb thing was LOCKED UP in booting and all I did was a force power down. Wasted yesterday and today but managed to keep several IT support folks very busy.
All you MS fan boys out there that say this never happens are full of it. The support guys told me that it still happens to folks more than it should. XP is SEVER YEAR OLD and they STILL can't fix THAT bug? What a joke.
As a loaner the IT guy gave me a Mac Book Pro to use and told me I wouldn't have any problems with it. I work for a FORTUNE 50 company and they ARE USING Apple in the Enterprise. They have one guy supporting about 350 systems at the moment in my area.
Windows 7 will have to be a LOT better than what Apple is giving me now for me to even consider another MS OS. I find it funny how all of the kool-aid drinking MS fans are bragging how much better Windows 7 is going to be.
When it is better than OS X and it doesn't need anti-virus software and they drop that stupid registry hack then call me. Otherwise I have work to do and it doesn't involve fixing my PC and re-installing my software.
Please tell Bill Gates to fire Ballamer and put Steve Jobs over the place. MS needs someone with vision and knowledge of how to build a computer. MS doesn't even have anyone at the top that even knows how to SELL THEIR PRODUCT.
MS has some great programmers. It is just obvious to me that still buried in the kernel is a bloated OS as old as the PC industry. The stupid DOS shell is still in there. My 'silly Mac' know has a POSIX shell and comes with a TON of development tools and Open Source software.
Jobs did a VERY cool computer like the iMac and had courage to gut the legacy OS AND hardware.
MS just sat around and got lazy. If MS spent more time on building a NEW OS and less time on "what do we call it this time?" The world would be a better place.
Adding a 7 to Windows does NOT make it a NEW OS. Vista will be looked back on as the OS that killed MS just like OS/2 killed IBM. They have nobody to blame but Ballmer for this one. ;-)
Give me a break.
