Apple slams Vista, Windows PCs in three new ‘Get a Mac’ ads (with video)

Mac Daily News ^ | Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 11:14 AM EDT

[Swordmaker]

Apple has begun airing three new "Get a Mac" ads on U.S. network and cable television.

In "Pizza Box," PC stoops to disguising himself as a pizza to get college students to even look his way.

Apple "Get a Mac" ad: Pizza Box

In "Throne," PC sits atop his throne, but Mac puts a damper on his fun.

Apple "Get a Mac" ad: Throne

In "Calming Teas," Windows PC offers user "calming teas" to deal with the mess that is Windows Vista.

Apple "Get a Mac" ad: Calming Teas

See the ads in various sizes and qualities via Apple.com here.

[RobRoy]

I’m gonna look at a mac mini.

[Crusher138]

You miss my point.

Take a machine you bought in 2001 and try to run Vista. IF Vista supported the hardware (unlikely) it would run like a slug.

Vista came out five years after XP. Would have been four, but it was delayed by bugs...

XP Requirements

Minimum
Processor 233 MHz
Memory 64 MB RAM
Video adapter and monitor Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher resolution
Hard drive disk free space 1.5 GB or higher
Drives CD-ROM drive or DVD drive
Input devices Keyboard. Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
Sound Sound card. Speakers or headphones

Recommended

Processor 300 MHz or higher
Memory 128 MB RAM or higher

Try running Vista with that machine...

Heck, take a LOADED machine from 2001 and it would not be able to run Vista in any way.

Yeah, you can stay with the older operating system. There are Apple users still running OS 8....

[dennisw]

I had a scheduled PC laptop replacement at work a couple of weeks ago and it is an HP with Windows XP Professional.     My last three Personal Computer purchases at home were HP's.     My wife's laptop is a Toshiba with Vista and my HP also has Vista.

I always understood that Mac users invented calming tea!     I stay calm by knowing that I have never felt pompous enough to consider owning a Mac.

I must say that my TI-99/4A was my first ever, and still the favorite of my heart.

You've been on computers for a long time
I really think the build quality of the majors such as Dell Acer and HP are very good, much better than they used to be
First they nailed the build quality for desktops....
Then they moved to laptops
They are selling very very little shoddy product

I prefer XP but my Compaq laptop came with a dual core Intel processor, Vista and 2gb ram
I shut off the eye candy so it looks like a Windows 2000 computer
I have no complaints

[TheBattman]

If Apple wants to really bring down Microsoft, they should drop the price of a mac.

While I understand what you are trying to say, Apple is gaining (slowly) market share without lowering prices. But the big deal - Quality Control. Some Apple prices are indeed higher, but there is more to that higher price than a name and pretty machine. Engineering goes beyond typical OEM PC builds. Apple doesn't simply get the cheapest commodity components that appear to have similar specs and slap together hardware. Apple does far more R&D, and codes for said combinations of hardware. This leads to a much more stable and reliable piece of hardware. Apple's OS is only one component of the typical Macintosh stability. Tight hardware controls makes a big difference as well - but also adds some to the price.

Combine that with a margin higher than the industry average, you get a company with some leeway to keep the quality flowing.

[TheBattman]

If I need a new computer and one is $500 and the other $2,000, I'm going to have to get the $500 one.

I don't know of a single "PC" for $500 that compares in any way to a $2000 Apple product.

Pro-line machines, Apple actually comes in less expensive than comparable PC hardware.

Consumer line - a $500 machine comes closest to the $599 Mac Mini in features. Of course the Mini does not come with a monitor. You might get a low-end PC with a monitor for $500.

[mysterio]

I agree that Apples are superior. But you have to dumb it down to reach the reality of the problem. Many if not most computer buyers just go in and look at a couple machines and buy the one that's cheap and will run a word processor and the internet. They look at the sticker and feel cool about what the sticker says, but that's about it.

Apple would probably be better for even those users. They have a chance to get those users. The fact that they are selling a kind of mini-mac indicates that they want those users. But they will not get those users if most of their computers are much more expensive than a PC. They will continue to get a lesser percentage of the market share.

Read the Art of War. You strike when your opponent is weak. Vista has made Microsoft the weakest it has been in 20 years. If Apple slashes prices and offers a better product, they can sink Microsoft. If they allow Microsoft to regain dominance, they will be playing number two for longer.

[Fishrrman]

“Mac’s do not allow you to run anything but their stuff, and that includes running other peoples stuff in an emulated environment. Furhtermore, PC’s allow you to run a plethora of applications and operating systems from a plethora of hardware manufacturers. In addition they cost four times as much as a PC for the same performance. So in my opinion MAC’s are the machine for elitists by elitists”

My good man, do you have ANY idea what you’re talking about?

You can buy ANY Mac out there today, and choose to install Vista or XP, erase the Mac OS, and run it _as a PC_, never booting into the Mac OS at all.

ALL currently-sold Macs use Intel hardware and are - essentially - the same as “PC’s” with the addition of a few customized chips related to the Mac OS.

That’s why there are “hacks” that get OS X working on generic PC hardware. But it runs better on a “Mac” (again, Mac-labeled INTEL hardware).

But you don’t need any hacks to run Windows on Macintosh hardware.

If you don’t believe what I’ve just written above, visit any Apple store and ask for a demonstration. They’ll be happy to provide one.

- John

[HAL9000]

Twenty seven years without an Apple product.

Thirty years and a month with my first Apple product - and it still works.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

If Apple wants to really bring down Microsoft, they should drop the price of a mac.

And that is all that really needs to be said.

I would buy a Mac book tomorrow if I could get one for the same price as the Dell laptop I bought that runs XP Pro.

[Swordmaker]

Could that be due to the fact that Mac is just now only reaching 8% of the market?

No. 8% of the market is 35,000,000 OS X Macs.

Viruses have been written targeting fewer than 12,000 computers (Witty Worm) and viruses have been written targeting iPods running Linux... probably fewer than 1000 in the entire world. Try again. There's another reason.

[Gay State Conservative]

I'd never get within a country mile of a Mac.

Why?

Because I bought Beta.

[CodeToad]

“Try running Vista with that machine...”

My point is that you do not have to run Vista. You can run XP. In fact, you can still run Windows 3.11 if you want. It may not be supported, but if you have the license, feel free.

[SunkenCiv]

:’)

[ReignOfError]

I’m gonna look at a mac mini.

I have one, and I've been largely happy with it -- I needed to move up to Intel, and didn't have the budget for a Pro. These are the drawbacks:

• No card slots
• Uses 2.5" SATA drive, more expensive to replace or upgrade than 3.5"
• Upgrades are limited to HD and RAM, and aren't easy to perform
• Only has one FW port, and it's FW400

If these aren't significant limitations for you, the Mini is definitely worth a look. My long-term plan is to move the Mini to my entertainment center when I upgrade to a Pro.

[ReignOfError]

The analogy of computers to cars is overused, but that's only because it works. Year in and year out, the best-selling vehicles are not the cheapest. Comfort and smart engineering count more than raw performance and rock-bottom price when you're talking about something you're going to use for hours on end. And that's a far, far greater price differential than with computers. Apple can bring down its prices, it has, and I hope it does further. But the least expensive Mac will not ever compete on the basis of price alone with the cheapest PC. It's just not going to happen, because using low-end components and shoddy build quality would be ruinous to the Apple brand. Plus, Apple has to bear all of its own R&D costs, where the beige-box PC makers can lean on each other, Microsoft and Apple.

Read the Art of War. You strike when your opponent is weak. Vista has made Microsoft the weakest it has been in 20 years. If Apple slashes prices and offers a better product, they can sink Microsoft. If they allow Microsoft to regain dominance, they will be playing number two for longer.

And that's fine. Business is not war; in war, the overriding goal is to defeat the enemy and end the war. Businesses, at least those that last, work on a longer time frame.

Market share is not the overriding goal. Microsoft's business model is based on maintaining hegemony, but Apple's is not. Which is the healthier company: GM, with around 20% market share, or BMW, with around two?

I'd rather see Apple continue to create great products, to build the company and the brand, then to throw all its resources into trying to defeat Microsoft at a stroke. I'm betting on the tortoise.

[js1138]

Worked for AMD against Intel, didn’t it?

[ReignOfError]

Worked for AMD against Intel, didn’t it?

I'm not sure if that's sarcastic or not, and I don't know enough about that field to know how well AMD is doing. the company is still alive and profitable, which is more than you can say for, say, Cyrix.

AMD, like Apple, has survived against a seemingly invincible competitor, in part by diversifying -- buying ATI ensured their status as a major player. Unlike Apple, their flagship product is/was a mostly undifferentiated commodity, so they had to offer customers a compelling price advantage.

I didn't mean to completely dismiss market share in my previous post. It is significant, of course; a larger share attracts more developers and provides a greater incentive for folks to build compatible Web sites, for example. I'm happy to see Apple's gains, as well as those of *ixen; every gain for not-Windows is a gain for portable code. I'd just rather see Apple continue its impressive gains for as long as possible rather than go all-in to try to dethrone MS.

[js1138]

Apple is making a big mistake with iTunes. It comes up with mor updates than XP, and every update tries to sneak in Safari. This is microsoft-like behavior and it pisses me off.

I’m switching to MediaMonkey, and when My iPods die (as one of them seems to have done) I’m looking at generic MP3 players.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

No. 8% of the market is 35,000,000 OS X Macs.

So that means that the market is 437,500,000 for PC. This obviously makres PC a much more attractive target for hackers.

Viruses have been written targeting fewer than 12,000 computers (Witty Worm) and viruses have been written targeting iPods running Linux... probably fewer than 1000 in the entire world.

Sorry, this is a strawman argument. Try again.

Try again. There's another reason.

Perhaps there is, but the fact is that Mac's market share is just not big enough to attract signifigant hacker interest. But hang on, as it's market share leaps and bounds up past 9% of the market, who knows?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I’m switching to MediaMonkey, and when My iPods die (as one of them seems to have done) I’m looking at generic MP3 players.

I already have, my I-pod was one of the worst products that I have ever owned. Came with hard drive problems, that Apple couldn't or wouldn't fix. Don't know which....I have found the Apple tech help both online and the people at the "genius bar" to be totally less than helpful.