Mac vs. PC: The revenge of the PC

 
February 05th, 2007 - Filed under Funny stuff by Cristian Mezei
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (35 votes, average: 3.80 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
| 78,923 views
 

Last time I wrote about an editor who made a truly awesome anti-MAC video. The videos below are made to counter the Mac vs. PC videos of Apple Inc.

These ads were made by Lauriemcguinness. Please wait a bit until all four of them load.

Work: Mac works for PC

Girl: PC gets the girl

Music: Mac doesn’t like to share

Money: Mac may be cool but PC has the money.

Credits

Writer / Director:
Laurie McGuinness
Tel | 604.307.4214
Email | mcg@telus.net
Web | lauriemcguinness.com

DOP / Editor:
Norm Li, Q Films
Tel | 604.764.5718
Email | nli@q-films.com
Web | q-films.com

PC: Brent Chapman
MAC: Evan Schulte

Women: Jamie Erickson
MAC Buddy: Keith Moore

Writer / Director: Laurie McGuinness
DOP / Editor: Norm Li
1st AC / Audio: Rob Heimbecker
Music & Audio Post: Alex Whittaker, Spinnaker Sound

Light Equipment: PAVI, Vancouver
Security: Rick Gamble

MANY THANKS
Spinnaker Sound
Bear Studios
Q Films
Ted Bishop
Ken Burke
Alex Whittaker

Submit your business or company to Webxperience! and Webotopia directories.
If you found this post useful please Subscribe with Bloglines Add to Technorati Favorites (new windows)
Tags: none
 

108 Comments so far

Stefan said:
February 5th, 2007

Funny, but not original. Thanks for sharing.

February 5th, 2007

I really don’t like that Mac is put under the PC here :P I work on a dual-core Mac G5 at my daily job and I think it is A-MA-ZING. Period. :D

sly said:
February 5th, 2007

Loved it. Time to give that mac guy a reality check. Of course, I like the real mac ads too… though they can be a bit absurd.

morgan said:
February 5th, 2007

Those are great. I work on both so have no real loyalty, just think it’s funny to see Mac take a hit ( and “yes”, most of the Mac guys I know are blowing weed)

geek @ work said:
February 5th, 2007

The videos are in APPLE QUICKTIME format. D’Oh!!!

toto said:
February 5th, 2007

I just wish that for one day only every windows-guy to have the chance to put at least one hand on a mac… any mac… Of course, that would be the Microsoft bankrupt…And nope, this is not a joke! :) Mac rulz, no matter what they say!
Cheers!

art said:
February 5th, 2007

Pretty weak…
Did any of those have a point at all?

media_lush said:
February 6th, 2007

Talk about a classic example of penis envy – this is so unbelievable that it can only be construed as, well, lame rubbish! I would bother to reply in detail to each claim but it’s so patently obvious that I think mac users would feel insulted. Heh, heh – the idea of a “PC” guy paying a Mac guy who also happens to use the costliest piece of computer hardware out there……as I said – penis envy!

February 6th, 2007

Media_lush, really, you suck :-)

media_lush said:
February 6th, 2007

ha, ha……as I said – penis envy! (/b>

Winotaur said:
February 6th, 2007

Not bad, but a bit sad really – like Vista trying to catch up on Mac OS.
And the PC guy is pretty obese, so what ‘s a girl like her doing with a dumpling like him?
Thanks for the laugh.
WInotaur

hobs said:
February 6th, 2007

while I think macs are retarded, these ads are boring and stiff

Winotaur said:
February 6th, 2007

YEAH – Well, if you don’t liike the ads, you don’t have to watch ”em – or maybe your PC doesn’t have an “off’ switch.

And thanks for your opinion of Macs – maybe you should stick to what you know.
Most Mac users were Windows users once – and once is enough.

Korayem said:
February 6th, 2007

Lovely..it’s about time the PCers had their revenge.

Winotaur said:
February 6th, 2007

Revenge? For what?
Relax, man – get a Mac!

Enoch said:
February 6th, 2007

I have used both Macs and PCs in work and for personal use…Macs are horrible. They tout themselves as being able to do all these “cool” things, but how many people actually need or want a program that Mac has but isn’t available on a PC? Macs are overpriced, overestimated, and not worth anything unless you are a professional graphic designer.

Perhaps that is why Apple doesn’t have the marketshare they so desperately want.

Winotaur said:
February 6th, 2007

That’s a meaningless attack – What do you mean by “horrible”?

Design?
Stable operating software?
No viruses?
No need for special drivers?
Slick, fast?
Run MS software?

What a stupid comment..

Enoch said:
February 6th, 2007

The sign of intellectual surrender, attacking the comment as “stupid” instead of answering the honest criticisms posted (overpriced, not sufficiently different than PCs for the average user).

Until such time as you actually answer criticisms, instead of trying to circumvent the discussion by labeling your opposition as “stupid,” you are going to come across as little more than an impetulant Mac fan-boy who doesn’t like his precious machine being called anything less than a Godsend.

Oh, and as for your virus question, the reason there are no viruses for for Macs as of now is that Apple does not have sufficient market share for the hackers and virus makers to bother wasting their time creating them. When Apple has less than 5% of the American market share, and less than 2% of the worldwide market share, it is not a feasable use of time to try to create nor send viruses to a system that will not likely yield any results.

Winotaur said:
February 6th, 2007

Go back to your games console!

Enoch said:
February 6th, 2007

Thank you for proving my point.

media_lush said:
February 6th, 2007

I always like to compare Macs and PC’s to cars. A top of the range Mac, IMO is a like a Ferrari that never breaks down and a PC is a Chevy (loads of different models) that needs to be retuned every week to maintain any kind of performance…..For anybody who’s never driven before, say, and was to test-drive both one after the other I couldn’t imagine anyone choosing the PC in a million years!

Aitrus said:
February 6th, 2007

You know whats funny? PC people make only casual comments about how these are a nice parody of the Mac Comms, and the Mac people are pissing their pants mad. Oh well, I guess that shows who has higher tolerance.

And yes, the real Mac commercials are ridiculously absurd much of the time.

As well I have no loyalties to either, its just nice to see PC get more of its deserving credit. Face it Macies, Macs are good for some things, PCs are good for the others, get over it.

Darkwynd said:
February 6th, 2007

Aitrus,

Well said, funny how much like religious zealots Mac users can get over defending their beloved G-series. I’ve had one, and I’ll keep my PC, thanks.

The real mac commercials are flat ridiculous in my opinion. My PC can do wonders with music, video, syncs to my Windows Mobile powered cell phone for a whole world of options.

And while on an Apple rant, the iPhone thinks it is some revolution in the communication world? HA. I’ve had a high-speed internet connected, full media capable Windows powered cell phone for 5+ years now…. Welcome to the year 2000, Apple.

Shawn said:
February 7th, 2007

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that these videos are being played on Quicktime?

Kenbo said:
February 7th, 2007

I’m sorry, I’m no Mac fan, but these just don’t make much sense. Like in the PC gets the girl. Why did he get the girl? What did PC do better than mac to get the girl? See? no point! It’s great that you’re trying to support the PC but, make some sense!

February 7th, 2007

Shawn, I think that was the point I think. To make them on Quicktime.

bart said:
February 7th, 2007

The Mac ads are for the retards, having nothing to do with reality. “Everything works on a Mac” my a#s. They provide the hardware and also the software already installed. On a pc you can plug some weird no name device, install the driver and voila. Show me how many manufacturers make drivers for Mac ? Absolutely all the so called “points” in those ads can be questioned and turned against the Mac if discussed with an IT pro and not a guy with the computer knowledge of Justin Long.

Roland said:
February 8th, 2007

thank for the share. very funny videos :)

February 11th, 2007

Taking the actualy computers out of this (because I think that is the way they should be seen), the commercials are just flat out funny. The Mac ads on TV focus so much on how much cooler a Mac is, and how boring a PC is. These commercials remind us that cool isn’t always better.

Bring the computers back in, and I haven’t seen a Mac program yet that doesn’t have a Windows equivilent. Maybe that equivilent isn’t as good, but it exists.

So in summary, which computer you like comes down to personal preference…

and the ads are funny.

gio said:
February 14th, 2007

lol. very funny. :) thanks for sharing.

JP said:
February 16th, 2007

I like both Macs and PC’s i dont see why all the Hard Core mac fans hate PCs so much, And why do they hate it when you dont use a PC. They are one sided and get pissed if you diss a mac they need to grow up, they both get the job done. Infact the most powerfull film editing system AVID is PC based and it blows Final Cut Pro out the water.

So to you mac fans dont be an ass it just a computer

jvp123254511 said:
February 17th, 2007

very funny! I have been using a pc for all my life and i just got a mac, its nothing but trouble, first the mouse broke then the drive broke and all this other stuff! I never had those problems with a pc! Im getting a new pc tomorrow. Also they say everything works on macs, but just about nothing does1 If its not apple-created it wont work!

Alec said:
February 17th, 2007

The original commercials were idiotic and condescending. And very well executed.

These commercials show the originals up for what they are. Somewhat less well executed (although the one about the weekends is the best of the lot and packs quite a bit of punch).

While I wouldn’t give up my Mac (a decade of experience and a lot of fine tuning and a great software/shareware library, as well as FCP) – these machines are just computers.

When Photoshop will run on Linux, I’d seriously consider making a Linux machine my main box.

Vista and OS X are both resource hogging whales. Disgusting programming and engineering in both cases. Spinning beach balls and lag on dual 2.5 GHz processors…what is that all about?

Both Mac OS 8 and Windows 2000/NT were are more efficiently programmed systems.

Rockport said:
February 19th, 2007

All were good videos. But last one made me laugh.
I only used MAC once, and it didn’t impress me much.

I totally agree with “bart” point about hardware.

Ferris said:
February 22nd, 2007

I watched these .avi’s using quicktime alternative. Take that apple!

Aeons said:
February 23rd, 2007

We each have are own opinions and because of that, we get prefer Mac over Pc or vise versa. If you read some of the previous comments you can even tell what kind of people “pc” are and the same for mac. media_lush(mac supporter)- talks about a penis to try and support the mac.(computer + penis = WTF are mac users doing??) Kenbo and Winotaur – too stupid to realize that the PC makes more money, which chicks dig. Also, any intellectual person would notice if you look in the mac supporters comments that they are: intolerant, ignorant, meaningless(they don’t even supported their point of view in an intellectual manner[they just say a good thing a mac has like Winotaur, not even realizing that the pc has a better at at least equal version of it]. While if you look at the pcs, they support their views with FACTS, not opinions like the mac supporters, and they are the complete oppisite of the mac supporters. Overall, mac supporters are mostly fun-loving people that like to mess around and are not tenacious and patient enough to learn how to actually use a computer, for the mac is very user friendly but so is a pc, if you know how to use it. Pc supporters on the other hand are probably business/hardcore/more advance users.

flan said:
February 25th, 2007

Haha, the 2nd and 4th clips were pretty amusing. How can anyone not get the point of the hot girl going for the ugly, fat, RICH PC? Come on folks, being cool can only get you so far.

inayat said:
February 25th, 2007

Isn’t a Mac just too cutsie.
I mean only for GIRLS

Adam Hubert said:
February 28th, 2007

Beautiful! It’s good to watch apple being put in its place.

Adam Hubert said:
February 28th, 2007

Alec’s Comment:
“Vista and OS X are both resource hogging whales. Disgusting programming and engineering in both cases. Spinning beach balls and lag on dual 2.5 GHz processors…what is that all about?”

Real slick…

Keep bashing these “resource hogging whales”- as I’m sure you are capable of flawlessly delivering a product executing millions of lines of code, right?

Both of these OS’s are quite complex, yet still built with ease of use. They aren’t just expensive, shiny new “toasters” which “take a long time toasting bread, compared to those other, cheaper toasters”.

Give me a break; I’m so tired of hearing people bitch about OS resource usage- which is nothing but ignorance. If you don’t want some new, rich interface to work with, then stick with your old depreciated equipment, and simply never upgrade hardware (and STFU).

Please, don’t even open your mouth about resource usage, unless you’ve seen the complexity of just what makes these magnificent operating systems, operate.

Your jaw would hit the floor if you could see the complexity of just what makes these magnificent operating systems -tick- behind the scenes.

-a

Pete said:
March 7th, 2007

“Both of these OS’s are quite complex, yet still built with ease of use. They aren’t just expensive, shiny new “toasters” which “take a long time toasting bread, compared to those other, cheaper toasters”.”

This is a poor analogy. Granted, they’re easy to use… But so was Windows 98, and so was Mac OS 7.5, and so was AmigaOs when it was around… Microsoft and Apple insist on dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator. I remember when people had to actually think about what they were doing on their PC. But that era meant that you could custom configure your OS with the options you needed without tons of unnecessary junk getting in the way.

“Give me a break; I’m so tired of hearing people bitch about OS resource usage- which is nothing but ignorance. If you don’t want some new, rich interface to work with, then stick with your old depreciated equipment, and simply never upgrade hardware (and STFU).”

This comment is ignorance in itself.

For the one part, a nice shiny new interface isn’t needed by some people to do their work. Just because some people don’t need the new interface shouldn’t mean that they have to stick with their old hardware, nor does it mean that they should have to STFU either.

For the next part… Even with a new interface, there are certain hardware and software standards that need to be met when designing an efficient OS. Having the ability to choose certain performance-hitting enhancements to the OS and being able to switch off those that are not useful to you personally should in itself be a function of the OS. Windows does not include many options in this area, and neither does OS-X.

For the second part, older OS’s have limited hardware support. Windows 98 has no support for memory capacities above half a gig, while XP has no support for memory capacities above 3.5 gigs (unless you count XP Pro x64). I suspect the situation is the same with OS versions prior to OS X. Just because newer OS’s have extended hardware support should not mean additional hardware requirements.

“Please, don’t even open your mouth about resource usage, unless you’ve seen the complexity of just what makes these magnificent operating systems, operate.”

Magnificent? No. They’re usable, although I might debate that with Windows Vista, especially with at least 10% of the resource usage taken up for encryption and checking of hardware compliance standards for HD Video that the MPAA and RIAA demanded be put into the OS in the first place… Requirements that no ordinary PC should need (Vista runs checks for hardware integrity and encryption of all related audio-visual components 30 times a second, which is paranoid beyond belief). Plus, Windows is NOT an example of the most efficiently coded OS ever. Any Linux variety, properly configured by people would prove that (I have a second box with OpenSUSE 10.2 running with Compiz – giving me all the eye candy effects seen in Mac OS and Windows Vista, but running on a 32Bit processor (single core), with a gig of RAM and a GeForce 4ti4200 card, and it still runs reasonably well – Windows Vista would run like a dog on anything but my Primary Box, assuming I ever install it there).

“Your jaw would hit the floor if you could see the complexity of just what makes these magnificent operating systems -tick- behind the scenes.”

Actually, no it wouldn’t. I refer you again to the countless varieties of Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Unix and other similarly designed BSD Compatible OS’s out there, designed so that they can be scaled from the lowest available piece of hardware right up to vast multi-processor systems with 1000s of terahertz of CPU power, terabytes of memory and petabytes of storage capacity. Most distributions have now become so much easier for the average user to install, and for the more advanced user, they can remove anything they don’t need, meaning that a system with as little as 64MB of RAM and an old generation K7 CPU can run the latest Linux Kernel and essential system services for a firewall, for instance, without struggling, yet the same Kernel will also run happily on a multi-socket, multi-core server rack with gigabytes of RAM etc, without modification at all.

Windows, out of the box, offers NO SUCH SUPPORT for this kind of scalability (Yes, they claim to be able to provide Windows Flavours for your phone, or your kiosk etcetc, but those are custom-written for those devices, and not from a configurable universal set of services that you can choose and pick yourself at install time).

Windows has components that you can choose not to install… But many of said components, while not being activated for the user, are still present on the system, and in most cases, loaded into memory for Windows to use, when they’re not actually needed. Look at a site such as The Elder Geek on Windows XP and the proof is there in the form of hints and tips on how to “optimise” your Windows bootup etcetc by disabling unneeded services through the registry, hacking certain files on your system to prevent them from loading at startup, etcetc. Then tell me about these “magnificent” operating systems.

Adam Hubert said:
March 8th, 2007

Pete, if you noticed, my post was regarding engineering/programming, not usability or hardware/software aging.

Regardless, I must reply to a few items:


Pete: “This is a poor analogy. Granted, they’re easy to use… But so was Windows 98, and so was Mac OS 7.5, and so was AmigaOs when it was around… Microsoft and Apple insist on dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator. I remember when people had to actually think about what they were doing on their PC. But that era meant that you could custom configure your OS with the options you needed without tons of unnecessary junk getting in the way.”

Well heck, I quite enjoyed my analogy… FYI, the toaster analogy is directed at the complexity behind the scenes, not the ease of use. How dare Microsoft and Apple simplify the usability of their products!!! I mean look at that silly little music toy Apple released- who uses that thing anyway? Personally, I’m with you Pete, let’s go back to Vic20 days and just type out all our commands.


Pete: “This comment is ignorance in itself.

For the one part, a nice shiny new interface isn’t needed by some people to do their work. Just because some people don’t need the new interface shouldn’t mean that they have to stick with their old hardware, nor does it mean that they should have to STFU either.”

Again: Complaints of OS resource usage is simply ignorance, and your post supports just that ignorance. I’m referring to the engineering of the operating systems (and user-specific setup), not the logistics of hardware to software age.

I suspect your understanding of “new interface”, does not relate to usability/efficiency. Upgrade your hardware to support the “new interface” which will save you time and money. Some people may not need a new interface, and may choose to opt out of using advanced technology (Typically due to fear and/or cost). Advanced software requires advanced hardware, there is no argument. I’m fairly certain the general public would like to grow with all of technology, not just “speed up” their old technology.


Pete: “For the next part… Even with a new interface, there are certain hardware and software standards that need to be met when designing an efficient OS. Having the ability to choose certain performance-hitting enhancements to the OS and being able to switch off those that are not useful to you personally should in itself be a function of the OS. Windows does not include many options in this area, and neither does OS-X.”

Yea… XP has that: System Properties, Performance.
Also, by default, those “performance hitting” services are not installed.

And doesn’t Apple have that performance slider?

Anything beyond this mechanism is outside of the (typical) user scope and should not be tampered with.


Pete: “For the second part, older OS’s have limited hardware support. Windows 98 has no support for memory capacities above half a gig, while XP has no support for memory capacities above 3.5 gigs (unless you count XP Pro x64). I suspect the situation is the same with OS versions prior to OS X. Just because newer OS’s have extended hardware support should not mean additional hardware requirements.”

Yea! I mean it’s not like they are doing anything tricky to make that wild stuff happen!


Pete: “Magnificent? No. They’re usable, although I might debate that with Windows Vista, especially with at least 10% of the resource usage taken up for encryption and checking of hardware compliance standards for HD Video that the MPAA and RIAA demanded be put into the OS in the first place… Requirements that no ordinary PC should need (Vista runs checks for hardware integrity and encryption of all related audio-visual components 30 times a second, which is paranoid beyond belief).”

Magnificent? Yes! These operating systems execute millions of lines of code; all tucked away in well organized libraries, which are then well documented on MSDN.

And how dare that pesky Vista, wasting precious resources for some silly “security” riff-raff.


Pete: “Plus, Windows is NOT an example of the most efficiently coded OS ever. Any Linux variety, properly configured by people would prove that (I have a second box with OpenSUSE 10.2 running with Compiz – giving me all the eye candy effects seen in Mac OS and Windows Vista, but running on a 32Bit processor (single core), with a gig of RAM and a GeForce 4ti4200 card, and it still runs reasonably well – Windows Vista would run like a dog on anything but my Primary Box, assuming I ever install it there).”

It’s an example of the most functional, organized, engineering “ever”.

Also, I think it’s SOOO COOOL that you can install OpenSUSE 10.2 and run Compiz to get all the neat visuals that the big boys developed. Is there any magical program for linux that installs all the neat functionality too?


Pete: “Actually, no it wouldn’t. I refer you again to the countless varieties of Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Unix and other similarly designed BSD Compatible OS’s out there, designed so that they can be scaled from the lowest available piece of hardware right up to vast multi-processor systems with 1000s of terahertz of CPU power, terabytes of memory and petabytes of storage capacity. Most distributions have now become so much easier for the average user to install, and for the more advanced user, they can remove anything they don’t need, meaning that a system with as little as 64MB of RAM and an old generation K7 CPU can run the latest Linux Kernel and essential system services for a firewall, for instance, without struggling, yet the same Kernel will also run happily on a multi-socket, multi-core server rack with gigabytes of RAM etc, without modification at all.”

Actually, you’re correct; you do not have the capacity to appreciate the engineering.

I can’t help but snicker at the remainder of that paragraph; When did we leave the topic of end-user OS? If all you have is a 64mb K7, (and a 5 man company) than by all means install linux. Let’s just hope you won’t require expanding that server.

However, if you’re looking for an enterprise level collaboration solution, (you know, that big corporate stuff), than a K7/64mg server just won’t cut it.

Pete, discussing hardware capacity holds nothing to the strength of these operating systems.

Please reply if your topic is regarding the engineering of these operating systems.

Pete said:
March 8th, 2007

Adam it looks as if you’ve skimmed my post, taken comments out of context, and then attempted to ridicule my explanations by sarcasm and exaggeration, which is… Far from rational.

So to take each of your rebuffs one at a time:

Well heck, I quite enjoyed my analogy… FYI, the toaster analogy is directed at the complexity behind the scenes, not the ease of use. How dare Microsoft and Apple simplify the usability of their products!!! I mean look at that silly little music toy Apple released- who uses that thing anyway? Personally, I’m with you Pete, let’s go back to Vic20 days and just type out all our commands.

Behind the scenes is every bit as important as the end user interface. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to simplify the user interface at all, how dare you take me out of context like that and attempt to make me look like a fool in this. I’m referring to the “optional features that can be “switched off”. Your claim about their engineering doesn’t wash especially as you claim that “turning these features off” actually prevents them from being executed at start up. This is not the case. Try uninstalling Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player on the Windows platform, and I guarantee you that, without hacking into the registry and using other similar tricks, you won’t be able to (the Internet Explorer shell is part of the Windows OS).

Vic 20? Give me a break. This is a prime example of the use of ridicule to try and back up your argument, and you’ve lost points because of it.

Again: Complaints of OS resource usage is simply ignorance, and your post supports just that ignorance. I’m referring to the engineering of the operating systems (and user-specific setup), not the logistics of hardware to software age.

Right… Let’s see if I can explain this again. If you have a mission critical application or system that depends on being able to use resources in as efficient a manner as possible, you should be able to operate on a system that uses only what is necessary to do the job. Windows Media Player for example, or Quicktime (for those mac users), tends to run TSR’s or whatever the equivalents are, in order to watch for filetypes being loaded, in an effort to lead the media player more quickly, for instance. I don’t see this as efficient software engineering when you can’t even choose to remove these components because they’re so heavily tied into the OS in the first place.

Upgrade your hardware to support the “new interface” which will save you time and money. Some people may not need a new interface, and may choose to opt out of using advanced technology (Typically due to fear and/or cost). Advanced software requires advanced hardware, there is no argument. I’m fairly certain the general public would like to grow with all of technology, not just “speed up” their old technology.

Your use of the word “technology” differs from mine. And you’re also saying that the ability to address increased hardware and software resources demands an OS that requires a bigger hardware footprint. This is not the case, as any good software engineer will know. Addressing larger memory spaces (for example) is a function of the hardware installed in the machine as well as the BIOS. Modifying an OS to take advantage of such addressing capabilities should not double your memory requirements (it’s a matter of bit length in address registers to simplify the explanation) and having an address space increase to take advantage of additional memory spaces in a machine does not require several hundred megabytes of RAM to do, no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise. As for the additional hardware capabilities being addressed, installing appropriate drivers for your hardware shouldn’t take any more memory than is required, and generally isn’t. The additional memory footprint for Windows (and to some extent OS-X) is taken up by additional interface effects, lots of additional “features” that most people probably won’t use (installed by default by the way) as well as the routines used for the previously mentioned DRM protection schemes, which if someone never uses their PC for watching HD-DVD’s and other materials released on DVD, are completely wasted.

To put it simply: Advanced software does not necessarily require Advanced Hardware, if it’s programmed for the purpose it’s designed for in the first place (eg an Operating System is principally a means of allowing you to switch on your machine and allow you to use it – media players and internet browsers are applications apart from the Operating system and should never be tied directly into them).

Yea… XP has that: System Properties, Performance.
Also, by default, those “performance hitting” services are not installed.

And doesn’t Apple have that performance slider?

Anything beyond this mechanism is outside of the (typical) user scope and should not be tampered with.

Once again, you’ve missed my point.

Just because these features can be “turned off” in the OS, doesn’t mean that these OS’s actually remove their resource allocation from memory or their tasks from the task lists in either OS. Fair to say that if a user doesn’t know what he’s doing he shouldn’t tamper with the system, but most people are competent enough to be able to tune their system for the applications they need to run. The options should be there, and they should work accordingly. Uninstalling a component of the “OS” should really mean it’s complete removal from the system, so that you have the memory, HD space and CPU cycles it used before. This is not happening.

Yea! I mean it’s not like they are doing anything tricky to make that wild stuff happen!

Quite frankly, this isn’t even a reasoned response in the slightest. No research, no checking to see what the requirements for probing the PCI bus, Northbridge, Southbridge (for 32 bit systems) or the CPU-FSB buses etc are… You just came in with that “ooh, tricky” response.

I’m sorry, but my original argument still stands.

Magnificent? Yes! These operating systems execute millions of lines of code; all tucked away in well organized libraries, which are then well documented on MSDN.

So the fact that they have documentation on MSDN, code modularised into libraries, and millions of lines of said code, makes it magnificent does it? You must be from the school of “Quantity over quality” then. Anyone can code a system that uses millions of code. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of programming can spread said code into separate libraries, and anyone with half a brain can document their work. It does not make it Magnificent in any way shape or form. You’ve completely missed he point I was making.

And how dare that pesky Vista, wasting precious resources for some silly “security” riff-raff.

Ok here it is. The funny part of this whole story is that XP already includes security features built in. Even with the installation of a second firewall, Windows Defender, and other Malware Eradicators and a Rootkit Revealer, my system requirements are still well below those of Vista, which doesn’t include anything more than that except User Access Control (which in itself would only take up a minimal amount of additional resources in itself).

In addition, the “security” that I mentioned was encrypting video content. It even goes as far as encrypting the video content as and when it’s written to the Windows Swap File, yet this same encryption is not applied to any other data. So your credit card information that you entered on X site, as well as your accounts that you entered in your spreadsheet and the important letters you wrote in your Wordprocessor will be unencrypted, but that’s ok so long as the DRM protected content is safe from people looking at it who shouldn’t.

Give me a break.

It’s an example of the most functional, organized, engineering “ever”.

Also, I think it’s SOOO COOOL that you can install OpenSUSE 10.2 and run Compiz to get all the neat visuals that the big boys developed. Is there any magical program for linux that installs all the neat functionality too?

Once again, someone hasn’t done his research. Magic? SOOOO COOOL? I’m not amused.

The features that Compiz installs with Linux are all about increasing visual functionality in the Linux OS. Linux has the same feature set that Windows does (I’d say try it but you’ll have told me you have… About 10 years ago). Linux installs have become easier to install and configure with each distribution that’s been provided. Since they’re free and open source, people have the choice of whatever distribution they wish, and can try them all out (live CD’s are popular among the community, meaning you can try it out without affecting your current system setup) without having to outlay cash or get a crippled version. My original points still stand.

Actually, you’re correct; you do not have the capacity to appreciate the engineering.

Whatever your opinion of my “capacity”, it still does not take away from my point in the first place, that the end user should be able to rely on an efficient OS. Most people don’t give a stuff what the “engineering” is like, as long as they can depend on their OS to do the job they bought it for.

I can’t help but snicker at the remainder of that paragraph;

Snicker all you like. Some of us actually would like to have a grown up discussion instead of behaving like fan boys.

When did we leave the topic of end-user OS? If all you have is a 64mb K7, (and a 5 man company) than by all means install linux. Let’s just hope you won’t require expanding that server.

Didn’t you read what I said about scalability? I don’t think you did, because if you had, you would have gotten the part about the same Linux distribution being usable on a server cluster with terabytes of RAM and multiprocessor support. Obviously you decided to leave that part out for your own argument. Doesn’t mean my original point didn’t exist. So… Nice try.

However, if you’re looking for an enterprise level collaboration solution, (you know, that big corporate stuff), than a K7/64mg server just won’t cut it.

No of course it won’t. And yes… I know that big corporate stuff… Trying to ridicule my understanding of the use of enterprise servers in corporate IT solutions is not going to win you any prizes, especially as all you do is make yourself look like a fool for trying to be so insulting in the first place. Congratulations for doing so.

My point about Linux is that it’s running enterprise servers of larger scales than a lot of Windows IIS servers are. You just try and make the claim that this isn’t the case, and I guarantee several large corporations will prove you wrong on that score.

Which brings me back to the whole resource usage argument again. Now I’ve absolutely no doubt that you’ll take only what you can argue against in here and pull everything out of context as you did last time, but for everyone else, this is my point. Linux is capable of operating from a small scale on older hardware and provide a usable desktop interface with the same functionality as Windows XP (and with Compiz, Windows Vista too), but it is also capable of utilising hardware on large scale corporate platforms and render farms in 3D. The Kernel and the components that are designed to plug into it are loaded ONLY when necessary, and the system is scalable from the low to the top end. Only the components selected by the user are loaded at startup, and applications like the numerous Open Source Media Players can be installed or uninstalled by choice without leaving traces on the system to slow things down. Windows, by comparison is not like this. Look up the difference between Modular and Monolithic and you’ll have an explanation of the difference between these two types of OS.

My original remarks about resource usage still apply.

Adam Hubert said:
March 8th, 2007

I’m just not interested in writing articles back and forth with you. The bottom line is functionality and ease of use.

What YOU seem to miss is why I’ve originally posted here, which was directly related to programming/engineering comment made about Vista and OS X.

Let’s break down the points, and please keep your response concise.

1.) Why would you uninstall IE? I personally enjoy the ability to jump from file system browser to internet browser. It is nice to have default “features” to fall back on if all other 3rd party apps fail (maybe that’s just me). Also, I think this point has reached its age. It seems like I hear that same argument quite often: “But with windows you can’t remove IE”, most always with Linux users.

2.) Pete, you state Linux has the same feature set as Windows… Serious comment?

3.) Sounds to me like you’re a fan boy of Linux, don’t be a hypocrite.

4.) I did miss the part about scalability; Why are we swaying from enterprise solutions? I’m not debating the many applications for this at all.

5.) I question your understanding of “practical” enterprise solutions, and I certainly could care less about any prizes I’ll win with you.

6.) Shall we post some figures on enterprise IT environment for fortune 500/1000 globally?

Now, I have no doubt that you’ll cloud your next post with sensible (sounding) information to distract from the simple points I’m trying to make here.

Keep it short and concise, and try not to lose your temper.

Darkwynd said:
March 8th, 2007

Argue about the ‘higher level’ technology behind these competing OSs all you folks want, fact is, the common user will not even start to understand what you are talking about.

Who cares? High-end geeks, thats it. The Average Joe wants to buy a PC, turn it on, and be good to go. Internet, Email, Media, Security… all in place. No god-awful kernel compiling, RPM management, etc.

Linux will likely NEVER be the average user OS, Pete, so why are you pushing it in a discussion about PC vs Mac? High-end, customized enterprise systems are going to vary GREATLY from industry to industry. But guess what, the point of the ads that these videos mock are in NO WAY aimed at the IT Professionals and/or highly specialized computing needs, but SOHO users. And they want out-of-the-box functionality.

Pete said:
March 8th, 2007

Concise and to the point? so be it. Please refrain from any sarcasm in the future…

What YOU seem to miss is why I’ve originally posted here, which was directly related to programming/engineering comment made about Vista and OS X.

Your comments were an attack on people who complained about resource usage, as is their right. My response was in that respect. My points in that regard still stand.

1.) Why would you uninstall IE? I personally enjoy the ability to jump from file system browser to internet browser. It is nice to have default “features” to fall back on if all other 3rd party apps fail (maybe that’s just me). Also, I think this point has reached its age. It seems like I hear that same argument quite often: “But with windows you can’t remove IE”, most always with Linux users.

Your preference, not everyone else’s. IE has some serious security flaws, as acknowledged by Microsoft and pointed out by various security firms. People might choose to have an alternative browser installed for this reason. That’s one reason. There are others.

2.) Pete, you state Linux has the same feature set as Windows… Serious comment?

Yes. Wuld you like to prove otherwise, with evidence to back up your claims? Unless you do I won’t bite.

3.) Sounds to me like you’re a fan boy of Linux, don’t be a hypocrite.

You’ve never met me, so I won’t bother telling you that you should never judge a book by it’s cover. I’m impressed by it’s ability to manage resources far more effectively than Windows. However, I use Windows because most software vendors have still not ported their apps across to Linux, and compatibility layers still have some work to go before they’re usable in a productive environment.

4.) I did miss the part about scalability; Why are we swaying from enterprise solutions? I’m not debating the many applications for this at all.

My point about this scalability was also to address the fact that you can have an X server with the useful features of Windows and Mac OS that most people would need to use but with a much smaller resource footprint, allowing them more memory for their own purposes.

I question your understanding of “practical” enterprise solutions, and I certainly could care less about any prizes I’ll win with you.

Then stick to the facts and don’t try to be witty or sarcastic with me. My understanding of what constitutes an enterprise solution might not come from the same level as an IT administrator of a big corporation, but I do know that massive server clusters do exist and need interoperability with each server within the network to be handled transparently. My point is that Windows is NOT the only solution, and arguably, it’s not the best. Please don’t make the claim that it’s the only choice, especially as there is evidence to the contrary available all around you.

6.) Shall we post some figures on enterprise IT environment for fortune 500/1000 globally?

They’re not the only corporations that utilise large-scale enterprise solutions. If you want to start quoting the Fortune 500, be sure to check out the companies on the DOW Jones, the FT100 Index, and the various blue chip companies that exist too. Better to have a full picture, and regardless of the numbers of those who use Windows server solutions, there are others that use Linux based solutions because it suits their needs better.

Now, I have no doubt that you’ll cloud your next post with sensible (sounding) information to distract from the simple points I’m trying to make here.

Keep it short and concise, and try not to lose your temper.

I find that last sentence a bit rich given that your initial post was far from sticking to the facts and was more conjecture and personal opinion than anything else. And for the record, I’m not even close to losing my temper, I’m not someone who thinks the internet is the only place in the universe.

Pete said:
March 8th, 2007

Argue about the ‘higher level’ technology behind these competing OSs all you folks want, fact is, the common user will not even start to understand what you are talking about.

True. I’ll come to that a little later.

Who cares? High-end geeks, thats it. The Average Joe wants to buy a PC, turn it on, and be good to go. Internet, Email, Media, Security… all in place. No god-awful kernel compiling, RPM management, etc.

I come from this from someone who wants to get his equipment to run as fast and as efficiently as possible, not because I’m a geek (although I have to admit, I am to some degree), but because I do a lot of 3D rendering so I like my equipment to run as smoothly and as efficiently as possible.

And most distro’s of Linux don’t even bother the user with that stuff any more. Package management tools like YaST, among others, have made it a lot easier nowadays to the point where, if you can understand InstallShield wizards, it’s not much of a stretch. I know, might not be the point you’re making, but it partially covers the next bit.

Linux will likely NEVER be the average user OS, Pete, so why are you pushing it in a discussion about PC vs Mac?

Because while it might NEVER be… There is a possibility that it COULD be. And it’s attitudes like this, where people say “never” that usually result in alternative OS’s like Linux from making any headway into the mainstream.

High-end, customized enterprise systems are going to vary GREATLY from industry to industry. But guess what, the point of the ads that these videos mock are in NO WAY aimed at the IT Professionals and/or highly specialized computing needs, but SOHO users. And they want out-of-the-box functionality.

That’s fair enough… And not all distributions of Linux provide that. But then again, not all machines are compatible with Windows Vista, even new hardware that meets all the requirements. The only guaranteed platform that’s usable out odf the box is the Apple solution, and that’s because they control both the hardware and the software, making that virtually guaranteed.

Even Windows needs to be installed on some systems. And for those situations where Out-Of-The-Box functionality is based on a pre-installed system from the manufacturer, a Linux system can be pre-configured for the hardware it’s installed on and shipped in the same way, ready to go straight out of the box.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Windows is a complete pile of rubbish… It runs what I need it to and is generally stable, and for the average user they probably won’t care about how much more memory Vista uses than it needs to… But for me, someone who wants his equipment to run as fast as possible and get his render times down, then unnecessary resources is a bugbear.

Darkwynd said:
March 8th, 2007

Pete:
I can understand what you are saying, in terms of wanting maximum performance from your machine, particularly in rendering graphics. And while that is somewhat of what I would consider ‘special needs’ it is a valid point.

Admittedly, I simply have not had good luck with Linux as an end-user. Perhaps in the last year (I -think- that’s the last time I install a distro on my tinkering machine at home) the installers, and package managment has, in fact improved greatly. But this situation also lends to some of the reasons why fairly computer literate folks like myself still stuggle with Linux. Too many distro, all doing things slightly different. Diversity can make things better, but there is also a certain amount of chaos it causes as well if tools are not standardized. On a positive Linux note, I use a Red Hat build for my leased web server which I admin via shell, and would not trade it in for IIS ever.

My point was not to flame, but to point out that the arguments about what OS handles resources best, or which is better for this application or that, in my opinion, are out-of-place in context of the humor attempted to be relayed above. And please, don’t take ‘high-end geek’ as a derogatory remark. heh. I am proud to be a geek myself. :P

Adam Hubert said:
March 8th, 2007


Yes. Wuld you like to prove otherwise, with evidence to back up your claims? Unless you do I won’t bite.

I will return to that comment tonight.


You’ve never met me, so I won’t bother telling you that you should never judge a book by it’s cover. I’m impressed by it’s ability to manage resources far more effectively than Windows. However, I use Windows because most software vendors have still not ported their apps across to Linux, and compatibility layers still have some work to go before they’re usable in a productive environment.

Didn’t you call me a fan boy?


My point about this scalability was also to address the fact that you can have an X server with the useful features of Windows and Mac OS that most people would need to use but with a much smaller resource footprint, allowing them more memory for their own purposes.

Most people in enterprise will require features unavailable with X server.


Then stick to the facts and don’t try to be witty or sarcastic with me. My understanding of what constitutes an enterprise solution might not come from the same level as an IT administrator of a big corporation, but I do know that massive server clusters do exist and need interoperability with each server within the network to be handled transparently. My point is that Windows is NOT the only solution, and arguably, it’s not the best. Please don’t make the claim that it’s the only choice, especially as there is evidence to the contrary available all around you.

Don’t focus on how I choose to speak- you have applied a fairly condescending tone in return.

These cluster servers are highly proprietary (vertical market), which is not relevant (focusing on features of different operating systems, in the horizontal market). We can cluster windows servers just the same (for perhaps a render farm).

Microsoft is a great solution for a company with 5 or 55,000 employees. I’d honestly like to hear your argument against Microsoft regarding large enterprise user management, and let’s say, file management. Let’s keep this point simple.


I find that last sentence a bit rich given that your initial post was far from sticking to the facts and was more conjecture and personal opinion than anything else. And for the record, I’m not even close to losing my temper, I’m not someone who thinks the internet is the only place in the universe.

I’ll give you that.

Pete said:
March 8th, 2007

Didn’t you call me a fan boy?

Guilty as charged. Two wrongs don’t make a right however.

Most people in enterprise will require features unavailable with X server.

That’s debatable. And certain features that are not available with an X server can be provided with an addon module or by an alternative windowing environment to an X server.

Don’t focus on how I choose to speak- you have applied a fairly condescending tone in return.

All I’ll say to this is, if you choose to be condescending and insulting, then don’t expect civility back. If you want people to respond to you civilly, do the same yourself. Also, if you want people to stick to the facts, do so yourself. Fair’s fair after all.

…Microsoft regarding large enterprise user management, and let’s say, file management. Let’s keep this point simple.

This one can be debated to death. I have my opinions, you have yours. I have nothing against Microsoft producing enterprise servers, but there are alternatives which are worth looking into. Just because those alternatives are free and Open Source, does not make them any less capable or “cheap”. This is the impression I get from a lot of Windows users.

To be fair, the discussion about enterprise servers was wildly off of the initial point I tried to make about an OS that is as comfortable functioning on minimal hardware and the cutting edge at the same time, which was the point I was trying to make.

Scarface said:
March 14th, 2007

RE: Winotaur said:
February 6th, 2007

YEAH – Well, if you don’t liike the ads, you don’t have to watch ‘’em – or maybe your PC doesn’t have an “off’ switch.

And thanks for your opinion of Macs – maybe you should stick to what you know.
Most Mac users were Windows users once – and once is enough.
_________________________________________

Thats a typical Mac user defensive response! At least with a PC you have choices! Like Hardware Upgrades! Most of you Mac users are so high on your selves you think your sh#T don’t stink! probably drive a Volvo yet too! With sandals and white socks!
By the way hows the gaming going for you! Oh ya thats right! Maybe someday they will make you some so you can play with the rest of the world! Oh but I forgot, you don’t play well with others.
There’s room for both of us in this world, but most of you Mac users are just to high and might for us PC’ers! Too bad so sad, what a lonely sad sad life.

March 15th, 2007

“By the way hows the gaming going for you!”

Pretty well actually. I dual boot windows on my imac 20″ and can play all the pc games.

Scarface said:
March 15th, 2007

dual boot eh? So you you do need windows! ha ha ha!

media_lush said:
March 15th, 2007

the level of sheer blatent dumbness in this reply just made me have to reply…..I mean, just stop and think what you’re saying here….it’s even funnier if you look at this numb nuts reply before this latest

hoisted by one’s own petard etc etc….

Scarface said:
March 15th, 2007

Well if the fact that you need to boot to windows on your mac to play PC games is dumb on my part, please forgive my ignorance! I’m not knocking the mac, just the “certain users” that defend it with so much anger. pitiful.

HAHAH said:
March 16th, 2007

Man this is funny as hell, its just a f cking computer you get the same damn results no matter what, don’t try to argue just think about it. It like religion there are meant different believes but all are bullshit and will be mythology some day LIKE GREEK MYTHOLOGY that used to be a RELIGION if i offended anyone to bad chill out.
HAVE A NICE DAY :-)

Buford said:
March 19th, 2007

Dump the Mac guy–what a twerp!!

gotta life said:
March 22nd, 2007

Ho hum. Not that funny. Can’t believe it got sent to me – well, okay, yes I can believe it. It came from someone who gives directions relative to the Starbucks along the way. Sheesh, what’s this world coming to?

Phil said:
March 26th, 2007

Haha, wow That was quite the conversation those two had there. Now if I can remember what I was going to say. Oh, yeah. Sombody mentioned that there are no drivers made for mac osx, thus mac sucks. Haha, that’s so funny, I never have to download and install drivers, that part of the OS. Yeah, it’s pretty much, plug it in and it works. I love all the name- calling that goes on in these forums. I definately own Windows and OSX, and like both. Win2k was my fav, but XP is nice. I don’t like vista because it’s too much like OSX now, and it has all that encryption junk. I find OSX to be a pain for managing files, but a breeze for day-to-day stuff. Of course for serious games [other than quake4, doom3, halo, prey and ut04] I switch to XP… yeah, anyway. I found the videos pretty entertaining.

Pete said:
March 26th, 2007

I’d just like to say to Phil (nd to anyone else who agrees on this one point) that your claim that Mac OS X never needs drivers is incorrect. I’m not going to slate the platform, after all the standardisation of hardware has the unique advantage that everything talks together properly as it should, but it should be noted that there ARE some devices out there you might want to use for which the OS will have no idea how to talk to them natively, thus requiring the use of suitable drivers to allow the devices to operate with OS X.

Case in point: I own a Radium 61 Controller Keyboard. Obviously on my Windows boxes, drivers are necessary, and the keyboard assigns it’s own MIDI port on the system for it to provide communication with music software. This is also true of the Mac. The keyboard refuses to autodetect on the Mac because the OS does not know what it is without the relevant drivers (they’re included on the CD anyway). Same is true of my mobile phone, which won’t provide any functions (not even access to it’s storage) without appropriate drivers installed on either platform. Finally, I also own a copy of Lightwave, which uses a USB Sentinel Key for it’s copy protection. The key requires drivers on both the Windows and the Mac platform, which again are also included on the install CD.

Again I’m not slating the OS. I’m just pointing out that people’s belief that OS X NEVER needs drivers is not entirely accurate.

Phil said:
March 26th, 2007

Yeah, I believe you. I’ve never needed to yet but I know there’s no way every device can work with what’s built-in. I guess I should have qulaified my use of never, I haven’t had to yet, but I’m sure I will sometime.

Adam Hubert said:
March 27th, 2007

Pete,

Sorry to disappear on you – I think this debate has gone a bit off course all together.

Real quick:

“because those alternatives are free and Open Source, does not make them any less capable or “cheap”. This is the impression I get from a lot of Windows users.”

In my opinion, free is not better, it (typically) results in less effort (engineering).

I’ve worked with a great deal of Microsoft code, and have fixed a great deal of Linux code. I won’t debate commercial UNIX platforms, but I will debate the quality of Linux and its commercial implementation. My point is not about the OS foundation, it is about the questionable engineers expanding onto that foundation.

Side note: I work with Linux (engineering) commercially on a daily basis.

Would you move your family into a house, built for free, by misc. contractors? Personally? I would not.

-a

Pete said:
March 27th, 2007

“In my opinion, free is not better, it (typically) results in less effort (engineering).”

Fair comment. I suppose it depends on your point of view. On one hand, these people typically don’t get paid to do this (people often argue that they’re making less effort with the code base as a result). On the flip side, the same people that aren’t getting paid for this work are also passionate about the platform, hence their decision to do it for free in the first place (at least in the majority of cases). People who believe in what they are doing are far more likely to produce better results (given the same skill sets) than people who are only doing what they do because it puts money in the bank. Granted there is always the possibility that software engineers are being paid to work on a project they feel strongly about, but this is not likely to be the case for everyone, and as I have no personal contact with anyone at either Microsoft or Apple, I could not say what the possible likelihood is – suffice to say that the jury will have to remain out for this particular point.

It could be argued also that the quality of engineers working on an Open Source project aren’t necessarily of the same skill level as those who are getting paid lots of money to work for the main players, but then having said that, it’s not necessarily so different either (It’s possible, even likely, that some talented engineers want to make their own contribution to Linux for instance).

“I’ve worked with a great deal of Microsoft code, and have fixed a great deal of Linux code. I won’t debate commercial UNIX platforms, but I will debate the quality of Linux and its commercial implementation. My point is not about the OS foundation, it is about the questionable engineers expanding onto that foundation.”

I have to concede your point. The biggest problem is that there is no single defined standard for a lot of the things Linux could be used for (dozens of windowing environments, dozens of package management tools, different methods of install, etc) meaning that efforts in this regard tend to be fractured instead of directed properly into a single standard that people know and can work within. The OS Foundation is IMHO preferable than one which is monolithic (such as the Kernel base used in Windows) because of it’s modular design (there are, as you could probably tell me better than I know, several advantages to working in this fashion in an OS).

“Side note: I work with Linux (engineering) commercially on a daily basis.”

Personal experience: As I mentioned in a post to someone else above, I do a lot of 3D rendering. In this regard I’ve found that running a WINE layer on Linux provides my 3D software (which is unfortunately Windows/Mac only) with a 10-15% average speed boost to rendering operations over running the same software natively on the Windows platform. This is not to argue about the engineering standards you come across in your work, but it’s to illustrate that the end result is what I look for in situations such as these.

“Would you move your family into a house, built for free, by misc. contractors? Personally? I would not.”

No I wouldn’t, although I believe that this analogy is a little removed from that of creating code, especially as with a house, your family’s lives might be at risk, where as with code, this usually isn’t the case (unless you’re talking about code used for the deployment of a life support system on a sub, for example).

Personally I wish I had some more competent engineering knowledge with which I could code my own applications so I could take that knowledge and fix any problems I come across.

jafet said:
April 7th, 2007

Pcs have almost everything Macs have but they are not as good.
Pcs will always try to copy Mac. Don’t believe me??? Mac was the first one to make a Get a Mac ad and now you are trying to imitate them. The ads are in Apple Quick Time
So please PCs stop trying to imitate Macs, if you want to be better start by creating something original

Pete said:
April 7th, 2007

Jafet:Pcs have almost everything Macs have but they are not as good.
Pcs will always try to copy Mac. Don’t believe me??? Mac was the first one to make a Get a Mac ad and now you are trying to imitate them. The ads are in Apple Quick Time
So please PCs stop trying to imitate Macs, if you want to be better start by creating something original

aeons: Also, any intellectual person would notice if you look in the mac supporters comments that they are: intolerant, ignorant, meaningless(they don’t even supported their point of view in an intellectual manner[they just say a good thing a mac has like Winotaur, not even realizing that the pc has a better at at least equal version of it]), While if you look at the pcs, they support their views with FACTS, not opinions like the mac supporters, and they are the complete oppisite of the mac supporters

It’s interesting how true this last comment is and how Jafet just confirmed this. The ads are encoded using Quicktime? So what? They could just as easily been encoded using DivX AVI, but then Mac users would have had trouble viewing them (AVI files aren’t as easily viewed on the Mac platform as Quicktime). And so what if Windows (and I make the distinction between PC and Windows) has the same features as Mac OS? This is hardly surprising… This is to be expected, since they both use a fairly intuitive method of input/output to allow a user to use the computer for their own purposes.

In the end, you should not accuse an entire platform of being unoriginal when you’re using another platform that also has elements that are far from original in themselves (OS X is NOT the first multi-user, multi-tasking OS, nor is Windows, not by a long shot – that title belongs to other OS’s like UNIX (here’s a brief article I found to support this statement). Even the GUI elements of Mac OS started in Xerox, the co-operative tasking model used in Earlier Windows and Mac OS’s (before OS X adopted a *NIX like core) were far less elegant than the Pre-emptive model used by Amiga OS (which adapted such a task scheduling model from other OS’s before itself as early as 1984).

Marthix said:
April 7th, 2007

Pete kicked Adam’s ass in my opinion…

Guafenesin666 said:
April 12th, 2007

WOW! How is it that by four videos there is so much anger between users of Windows, Mac OSs, or Linux OSs? Look, there just some funny videos. It’s impossible to have a truly ideal operating system with so much software and competition out there. Worldwide business will give you that. Without competition there wouldn’t be any reason to make a good operating system. The best one available is the one you create for YOURSELF. No matter what you do to make it great there is no way everyone will be happy with it. Just enjoy the videos and RELAX.

politician said:
April 16th, 2007

Why is it that there are no PC vs Mac comercials?

The Mac vs PC comercials remind me of negative advertising used to make one look better at the expense of the other. Usually over exagerated. Pick what you like but don’t force it on anyone.

pjcharlier said:
April 16th, 2007

I wonder if there is a Coke vs Pepsi sight this interesting?!

And yes I put coke first in the question on purpose!
:)

pjcharlier said:
April 16th, 2007

I wonder if there is a Coke vs Pepsi sight this interesting?!

And yes I put coke first in the question on purpose!
:)
Maybe Mac users drink Pepsi, & Pc’rs drink coke!

Guafenesin666 said:
April 16th, 2007

I drink coke. lol.

who cares? said:
April 17th, 2007

Macs, Windows, Linux, who really cares. Each group is going to defend themselves to the last. Each has their own place in the market. Linux are good for servers (lower requirements, great stability, and fairly reliable). Macs are good for graphics, audio, video, and realistically speaking, for those users who don’t want to explore the ins and outs of computing. PCs are intended for everyone in between, which is why they are the most popular.

This isn’t to say that each can’t do everything the others can’t because, for the most part, they can. Fact is, they are all dependent on who can provide what. Linux in limited by support for hardware and software. Macs are limited by software because Apple refuses to use 3rd party vendors. PCs are limited by stability (both with software and hardware), due to the large number of 3rd party vendors and testing of those products using the Windows OS.

Personally, I’m a PC person, but I have also used Macs in the past. To me, it just seems that Macs are too friendly and have a more entertainment value, while PC are more business and gaming related.

Some of you talk about Macs not needing drivers and you would be wrong. All software that communicates with hardware needs some kind of driver, it’s just not as obvious on a Mac. Another fact is that Macs do not get hit with viruses as often as PC or Linux machines because there isn’t a benefit to virus creators when there is such a small market share. That would be like Goodyear creating a specialized tire just for a 1996 Ford Astrovan–what would be the point. Instead create a generalized tire that could be used on most vehicles on the market.

I do have to agree that Mac users do tend to be offended easier when someone blasts the precious Mac. Hey the commercials, both these and their Apple counterparts, are funny and let’s just leave it at that.

jafet said:
April 17th, 2007

I would like to agree with some of you guys, the point of these ads are just to have some fun.
Whether an operative system is better than the other is relative, so if you like Macs use them, if you like Pcs use them if you like Linux use them.
Just dont try to influence anyone.
Let your point of view be yours only.

Ferret said:
April 18th, 2007

It’s all a matter of choice. The whole point of there BEING a PC vs. Mac is choice. PCs and Macs have their own strong points, and in turn make the other one stronger (through economic struggle between Microsoft and Apple). I own a PC and use a Mac at school. I, myself, think that Macs are a little more user friendly, and something that you might want to use casually without hassle. PCs, in my opinion, work wonders–if you know how to use ‘em. Before realizing how to work my own, i found my self calling the ol’ Tech Support guy to fix my machine. After i got a little more experienced, i was able to do a lot of cool things (mostly with music and gaming). In the end, i’d PREFER a PC, since i’m more familiar with it and games have a, shall we say, more ‘comfortable’ home on the PC. I’m liking what they’re doing to the Mac (adding Windows support) but not how they are advertising it on TV (OMG MACZ ARE BETTER AND COOLER LOL PCS ARE NERDZ). But, hey, if someone gave me an intel iMac, i’d probably piss myself. (Or have an orgasm
if they gave me another mouse. The one button mouse is awkward for me.)

Stop the hate. They’re both amazing products.

Marthix said:
April 19th, 2007

every single one of you needs to view this webpage

http://theslackerz.com/index.php?Page=17

April 20th, 2007

That comic was very funny. Thanks for that.
I wrote and directed the spots the spots above. The idea was to point out the stereotypes in the original Mac ads by using some of our own. The computer you use really doesn’t matter; it’s just preference. Think of it this way; you can’t tell by looking at a video, or listening to a song, or reading a document, what kind of computer made it. Or at least I sure can’t. I’m a Mac guy myself. And the ads were cut on a PC.

April 20th, 2007

Laurie, you did an AWESME job.\

Congratulations.

April 20th, 2007

Cristian,
thanks. It’s been fun watching them get around, not to mention the Mac/PC slap fights they’ve set off on sites like yours.
Your site is great, btw. Well done. Laurie.

the boss said:
May 11th, 2007

Hey you clown, get back to work!! All of you! Do you think you’re getting paid to sit around and read this crap all day?

May 11th, 2007

Hahahah good one.

seroquel666 said:
May 11th, 2007

Do you want to pay me boss? Otherwise I’ll continue to read all this crap anyway.

the boss said:
May 11th, 2007

Seroquel, please see “Mac works for PC” and “Mac may be cool but PC has the money”. Thanks for playing.

sunsjv said:
May 11th, 2007

let see 1st microsoft copied the mac’s desktop concept now they are coping their commercials.

Oh there u go using fout letter word “COPY”.

Pls come up with something original!

Pete said:
May 11th, 2007

Haven’t we been over this one before, sunsjv? See my post above.

Pete said:
May 11th, 2007

And in addition… These “ads” are spoofs, not officially sanctioned advertising from MS or any of their affiliates. In civilised circles this is often referred to as humour.

sunsjv said:
May 11th, 2007

pete
pls don’t get offended. just becuz u pointed it out earlier. chill bro. sorry i stole u’r thought. no I did not read u’r comment. I was just commenting on my view………

seroquel666 said:
May 12th, 2007

boss, I refuse to ever use MACs. I go to school and am working to become a good citizen of America, but I still have time to read this stuff for entertainment. I don’t do it when I should be studying or working.

Adam said:
May 18th, 2007

Having worked with both a mac and a pc I’ll voice my opinions. Macs are great for video editing (final cut kids premieres ass any day of the week) and garage band makes audio stuff so much easier. Other than that there’s nothing better about the mac then the pc. Don’t get me wrong I love working on a mac, but they are overpriced.

Anonymous said:
May 31st, 2007

I couldn’t hear what they were saying so therefor i have no comment what so ever!

Hardware said:
June 3rd, 2007

So far, from my mac/pc/linux experiences, I have come to this conclusion:
Macs are good for casual users that want things to work smooth and simple
PCs are good for gaming, and hardware junkies
Linux is great for an inexpensive alternative, and has relatively few viruses

So here’s my question: Why should I buy a mac? I make very little money, but still want the high end gaming experience. Can I get a mac that can game for under $1000? the simple answer is No. and the other thing is this: as sexy as macs can look, they are well and truly overpriced. Macs have their place: with old people who want something simple, with kids who are learning, and for those who don’t give a crap about what is actually happening in their computer. I know pcs get viruses, but i really have no problem with /fdisk ing. I do some contract work for people and see hard drives dying all the time. How do i replace these in a mac? the simple answer is that I can’t. I don’t know enough about mac hardware to screw with something so overpriced. I’m very comfortable fixing pcs because everything is standardized, and everything can be replaced if you scre it up. Macs, imho need that. If macs were more standardized, then i think that more tech people would like them. I don’t need much from a pc, i just want to play my games and do my work, but if the sh*t hits the fan and i need to do some repairs, I don’t want to have to take my comp to the bloody mac store and wait for some elitist punk to tell me in condescending terms that i will have to go without a computer for a while while they ship it to some repair depot. I just want the ability to work on my own terms, and that’s something that PCs give me.
Flame me if you want, i really don’t care, but look foreword to a response. Oh, and look at the Control-Alt-Delete comics about macs.

cire333 said:
June 5th, 2007

I love when every one gives credit to Apple (mostly cause they are perceived for being so original) for the “windows environment”. they actually purchased that from Xerox along with mouse technology. Here is an exert from wikipedia.

“In 1970, under company president Charles Peter McColough, Xerox opened the Xerox PARC (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center) research facility. The facility developed many modern computing methods such as the mouse and the graphical user interface. From these inventions, Xerox PARC created the Xerox Alto in 1973, a small minicomputer similar to a workstation and personal computer. The Alto was never commercially sold, as Xerox itself could not see the sales potential of it. In 1979, several Apple Computer employees visited Xerox PARC, interested in seeing their developments, including Steve Jobs. Jobs, and the other Apple employees, saw the commercial potential of the GUI and mouse, and began development of the Apple Lisa, which was eventually introduced in 1983 for US$10,000. It was a commercial failure.

The first laser printer was produced by Xerox in 1977 when researcher Gary Starkweather modified a Xerox copier in 1971. Laser printing eventually became a multi billion dollar business for Xerox. It was known as the Xerox 9700.”

Josh Parden said:
June 10th, 2007

Dude… that was so not funny. As a pc man, I am embarrassed..

Laurie McGuinness said:
June 11th, 2007

I think you meant ‘embarrassing’.

Hiryu Toriyama said:
August 3rd, 2007

I, personally don’t like iMacs because they don’t do anything for me that I can’t do on my own, hand built PC. I’m not going to sit here and blow sunshine up the rear ends of mac users. If they like macs, that’s their perogative, and I’m not going to insult them. I am a very tech savvy PC user/builder and I know how to run Windows XP without getting viruses, and I can keep it quite stable with simple software maintenance. PC vs Mac? I don’t really care. Everyone is entitled to their own devices. I just prefer PCs cause they do what I need them to do. I also prefer the hardware upgradability.

Oz said:
September 12th, 2007

hahaha I LOVE These! Now if only they would run those on TV :)

kamakula said:
October 2nd, 2007

I keep seeing a lot of comments about lots of resources going towards UI and other behind the scenes cool things then people coming back with, BUT I don’t want it.

Tough tits. If you don’t want it, don’t use it. However, whether you like it or not, or think its necessary or not, it is good that both MS and Apple are pushing the envelope with what can be done. I can imagine a computing experience that is directed by hand gestures as if I’m manipulating 3d object, and not using a mouse at all. However, some of you will complain that with 64 processors, things would work faster with a mouse, instead of my fancy pants new 3d UI. For those people, I say, get some other OS that lets you do what you want.

Nope, I don’t think Apple or MS is obligated to dedicate engineers to reworking OSX or XP so that it can run obscenely fast on the latest computer hardware. They have a hard enough time keeping up with the pace of technology, leave that task to people who are willing to do it (mostly on linux) I think in the next few years, people will really start to see the ultimate capabilities of linux. Customize your own computing experience. You don’t like sacrificing processor time for a UI that flips your desktop around and pirouettes it in place, fine.

Pete said:
October 3rd, 2007

I thought this had been done and dusted a long time ago…

“I keep seeing a lot of comments about lots of resources going towards UI and other behind the scenes cool things then people coming back with, BUT I don’t want it.

Tough tits. If you don’t want it, don’t use it. However, whether you like it or not, or think its necessary or not, it is good that both MS and Apple are pushing the envelope with what can be done.”

In response to “don’t use it”, that’s all well and good, if the facility was included to not only disable said features, but also to remove their memory footprint from the system pool. The problem with some OS’s, and this is more prevalent in Windows OS’s especially Vista, is that while you can turn off certain features that require more resources, they’re not actually turned off properly because the memory and system resources taken by these features is not made available to the user but is instead still consumed by these now dormant features.

“I can imagine a computing experience that is directed by hand gestures as if I’m manipulating 3d object, and not using a mouse at all.”

Actually, I’m all for a system like this… Once it’s been properly implemented, it would make 3D work and other similar tasks a lot more intuitive, which can only be a good thing. This would be something I would be willing to sacrifice a few CPU cycles and some RAM for.

“However, some of you will complain that with 64 processors, things would work faster with a mouse, instead of my fancy pants new 3d UI. For those people, I say, get some other OS that lets you do what you want.”

I have to say that we’re still a long way off from that, despite my earlier comment about it being a worthwhile addition. However, I have understood the point, and I counter it with this argument. What if all of the software you use is available only on a platform that you find unusable with the hardware you have available? Find an alternative program? That’s all well and good if there is an alternative, but not everyone is in a position to take that alternative, especially if the alternatives will cost you to cross-grade.

What it really comes down to are these fundamentals. Adding features to an OS does not mean you have to consume unnecessary resources in the process. I recently tested the theory when I installed 4 OS’s on the same laptop. Currently I have XP SP2 on here because it’s the most compatible and has moderate demands (idling it’s CPU tends to spike, which I expect from Windows, but it’s memory footprint idles at around the 280MB level on a clean install).

Mac OS X 10.4.9 was on here (ok you’re only meant to use it on Apple hardware but I wanted to test my theories), and it had most of it’s native feature set available, such as the fancy GUI effects, Dock, Spotlight etcetc, with only a modest demand on CPU cycles when idle, and a 270MB Footprint most of the time unless I ran my 3D apps.

Ubuntu Linux (x64 Edition 7.04) was installed too. I installed it with Compiz Fusion, enabling window effects and decorations that combined the best of Vista and MacOS X onto the Linux platform. It was compatible with virtually all of my hardware straight out of the box, and it’s memory footprint was only slightly above that of Mac OS-X.

Windows Vista, the 32 bit Edition, Home Premium that came with the laptop in the first place, had a memory footprint of 768MB RAM and took at least 10% per core under idle conditions, and that was before I even launched any applications, on a clean install. And that’s not all on essentials or even optional components… Mac OS and Linux maintained the same feature sets in most cases, and even the missing features (all driver related) in both OS’s don’t require system resources of hundreds of megabytes to maintain, as any system programmer worth their salt will be able to tell you.

If these other OS’s can provide these features with a reduced memory overhead, then why should the one OS that doesn’t be excused? Vista x64 has even more stringent memory requirements, but this is offset by the fact that it’s also a 64-bit OS and so can address a much larger memory space (although Ubuntu is the same above with a much smaller memory footprint).

Darkwynd said:
October 3rd, 2007

“Windows Vista, the 32 bit Edition, Home Premium that came with the laptop in the first place, had a memory footprint of 768MB RAM and took at least 10% per core under idle conditions, and that was before I even launched any applications, on a clean install. ”

While each different flavor of Vista is going to be different, the memory footprint you found seems unusually high. On Vista-32 Business, I currently have a 622mb in use at the moment. While not only is that quite a bit under your reports, I will add that I have many apps running like, Outlook, IE7 (2 windows) with 8 tabs open between the two, Excel, Quickbooks Enterprise, Mobile Sync Center, multiple Live messenger chat windows, and 10 or so tray-apps that stay resident, yet I show 140mb less than you. Additionally, I get down to under 560 when I close out the bigger apps like Outlook and QBE.

Not to doubt or question your theory directly, but apparently the numbers vary from one install to another.

Pete said:
October 3rd, 2007

True, different installs often generate different system requirements based on the hardware installed. Vista Home Premium adds Media Centre to the install, which although I never use it, adds sstem resources to the footprint because of the quickstart facilities it adds to the registry.

Still… even at just under 560MB it’s hefty for an operating system.

Goldenboyvp said:
October 7th, 2007

“Music: Mac doesn’t like to share” was my favorite, iTunes sucks lol.

Well since everyone here is taking shots at each others computer preference I might as well join in on the fun.

In my opinion Mac’s are a good for people who are new to computers while PC’s are ideal for people who know what they are doing.

I didn’t really have any preferences until my first year of college. I started off using Mac since that is what my High School had and would only use my PC at home for schoolwork. Eventually I began to favor PC over Mac mainly because of the overall design (externally and onscreen).

In my opinion the PC has more of an adult oriented interface while the Mac is geared toward “fun”. In all fairness the Mac makes a great first computer because it has a lot of common software built in, but once you know how to use a computer you should consider a PC. Unlike a Mac, a PC is highly upgradeable in both hardware and software.

In regards to “Mac’s don’t get computer viruses” or “Mac’s don’t crash”, Bull Shit. I’ve seen just as many Mac’s die as I have seen PC’s. The reason you don’t hear about Mac’s crashing as much as PC’s is because Mac’s only make up 15% of all computers.

December 9th, 2007

mac is noting but a over priced pc with linux..

Godfrey said:
December 28th, 2007

YES!

Fuck Mac! Fuck Mac!

Especially the fucking douche bag mac player I wanna punch him in the face!

Fuck Man! Fuck Man!

“The Files are Fucking Gone!” LOL @ that in the other video

Money is the best one here.

Fuck Mac! Fuck Mac!

Godfrey said:
December 28th, 2007

Also: @ Alex Mielus (first name up there)

You are a stupid idiot the Mac G5 is the worst computer ever.

Fuck Mac! Fuck Mac!

Steve Jobs sucks Bill Gates rules!

Fuck Mac! Fuck Mac!

Nice 4% Market Share fuckheads!

Fuck iMac! Fuck iPod! Fuck iTunes!

And Mac is not even good at music etc. use Windows Media Player, Center, Movie Maker, etc!

Pete said:
December 28th, 2007

As a PC user… I’m embarrassed that someone like you would defend the platform.

Rachel said:
January 2nd, 2008

Wow Godfrey, I have to agree with Pete on that one.

Anyways I thought you guys might be interested to know about a recent list of why people love macs on MakeFive:
http://www.makefive.com/categories/technology/computing/why-i-love-macs

Maybe share an enlightening thought or two?

Cheers

Victor said:
January 11th, 2008

The question of which platform is the fastest has always been contentious. Last year, for example, Adobe claimed PCs were faster than Macs by running After Effects, Illustrator and Photoshop operations on both a single-processor Dell 2.53GHz Pentium 4 and a 1.25GHz dual-processor Power Mac G4. Apple, however, argued that the problem was with those particular applications and that some tasks could perform faster on a Mac with different software.

This year Apple claimed its new Power Mac G5 (which uses a 64-bit processor codeveloped with IBM) was the world’s fastest personal computer and outperformed 3GHz Dell machines using Pentium 4 and Xeon processors. Within hours, criticism surfaced that the benchmarks and testing procedure were slated against PCs.

For average home users, however, these arguments are largely academic because most don’t make the most of the processor speed they already have.

“At the end of the day, applications are not catching up as fast as the hardware,” says Andy Woo, a hardware analyst at Gartner. “Hardware, speed and power are not as critical anymore.”

To play the devil’s advocate, we ran a number of matching applications on both platforms, including Macromedia’s Dreamweaver and Fireworks, Warcraft III, Microsoft Office, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and, for the most part, we couldn’t tell the difference. That’s not to say there wasn’t any. The animation and graphic detail in the PC version of Harry Potter were slightly better while an operation in Fireworks (rotating a 472KB JPEG image) was noticeably faster on our test PCs. We ran the latter test on a Pentium 4 2.66GHz Acer T300 with 512MB RAM, a Pentium 4 1.7GHz Dell Dimension with 384MB RAM, a 1.8GHz Pentium 4-M BenQ laptop with 256MB RAM, and a 1GHz G4 iMac with 256MB RAM. The iMac was the slowest, taking 6.4 seconds, while the Dell, our slowest PC, took 2.4 seconds.

It should also be noted that even some Mac users acknowledge that the G4 processors are lagging behind Intel’s. The Mac-oriented site Bare Feats, for example, has benchmarked both and shows the Pentium 4 is faster.

PCs certainly have more software than the Mac but what’s important is whether the particular titles you want are available – and the Mac has most application areas well covered. With office software, for example, the Mac not only has a version of Microsoft Office called MacOffice but also AppleWorks, an office-like suite that comes free on iMacs. Internet applications such as web browsers, instant messaging and email are plentiful, as are utilities such as anti-virus packages.

An area in which Macs once excelled is graphics and video editing but PCs have largely caught up. In fact, Adobe recently decided to release the latest version of its Premiere video-editing software only on the PC.

However, games are a different matter. The Mac has a number of titles but it’s nowhere near as well catered for as the PC. More niche areas, such as voice recognition, are limited on the Mac. The voice-recognition package Dragon NaturallySpeaking, for example, is available only on the PC.

As such, the PC wins when it comes to software availability.

and for you mac fagots that think macs have no viruses. Its clear why, because mac isnt the worlds most used computer/software. Because when you guys keep showing yourself off over and over again your just giving programmers like me the opportunity. Macs arent well protected, any great programmer can destroy a mac. We dont waste our time though because mac isnt where the money is. The world runs on microsoft. And if mac will ever reach microsoft standings which you wont. Well go to you and destroy you

Macs are also more secure than PCs because most viruses are created for PCs. “Whereas there are tens of thousands of viruses for the PC platform, there are only hundreds of viruses for the Mac,” says Paul Ducklin, head of technology at the anti-virus firm Sophos. However, Ducklin says virus writers may target Macs more as they increase in popularity, and that macro viruses, which work through Microsoft Office, work on both platforms

nathan johnson said:
January 23rd, 2008

i have used both of them, i build pcs and ive used a G4 that a relative has on a couple of occasions. i do like the mac interface a little better, but i also have my windows settings on minimum because im an efficiency nut (also i hate the default backgrounds that came with windows xp).

pcs will always be faster cheaper and generally better, there is always competition amongst the hardware developers from mobos to graphics cards and even memory, while mac has almost no competition with its parts.

also mac has finally had to admit that they arent as good in the last couple of years and its obvious to anyone who isnt a machead……ask yoursefl why do macs now use intel chipsets and why do they now dual boot with windows. they just admitted in those 2 simple steps that macs hardware isnt as good and that their software seems to be lacking in the compatiblity department.

Michael said:
March 23rd, 2008

The old Holden vs Ford debate, the fact is that both have good and bad points.
So what is the difference between a PCer and a MACer?
PCers are Parts Converters – we don’t just use PCs we build them too!
MACers on the other hand are take-away junkies, they just buy the machine and use it.

Leave a reply

Allowed tags (XHTML): <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

RSS Readers & Technorati:

My Subscribers Add to Technorati Favorites
View Cristian Mezei's profile on LinkedIn

Subscribe & Syndication:

RSS Feed at FeedBurner NewsGator Google Bloglines My MSN Add to My Yahoo! Add to FeedLounge Add to My AOL Add to NetVibes Add to NewsBurst Add to Pluck Add to NewsIsFree

Updates by e-mail:

My Blogroll:

Blogs & Forums (RO)

Blogs & Websites

Official Blogs

Social Websites
Powered by Bloglines
Webotopia B2B Portal

Tag Cosmos: Top Tags