Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Dec 01 9:20 pm)
Subject: OT: Apple's PC & Mac guy commercials and Vista
Quote - Linux - my brother has had to track down some specific patches for a leak in Apache, then he foud out that this particular patch required another patch, he had to hunt down that one too, he had to make sure he had the correct patch for the distro he's running. in short, it took almost a day before he had patched the Linux servers, while the Windows and UX machines were patched in minutes.
Tell him to install YUM if he uses RedHat. Problem solved (seriously). I've had zero problems w/ updating RHEL and Fedora Core machinery that way... it's fully automatic and covers any dependencies found (the only time I really did anything with 'em is to update the JDK, which was custom-compiled). Oh, and SuSE can be updated easily via YaST. As for Windows, yes, putting patches in is easy (rebooting aside) - the problems arise when the patches undo the security measures put into place. For instance, the example I posted originally involved my previous employer... we had well over 100 servers, with two of them running Windows (the rest running a combination of RHEL, Solaris, and FreeBSD). ALL of them had to maintain Department of Defense Security Technical Implementation Guideline requirements ( see these for details). Every time a round of patches went in, odds were very good that the Windows machines would fail their STIG audits immediately afterwards. Audits of RHEL machinery post-patch were always good, with no potential compromises. Same story with FreeBSD and CVSup pushes, as well as Solaris. Systems Administration is a lot more than simply sticking in patches... they have to work w/o compromising or deteriorating what you have in place. > Quote - I've run a Windows server OS permanently connected to the Internet for over 5 years now. My logs tell me they're regularly scanned, and sometimes an automatic attack is tried. Nothing has ever broken through.
Then again, nobody will really spend time to break into a simple home network. If your defenses are good enough to withstand automated attacks, you're fine.
That's a rather dangerous stance to take, IMHO, for many reasons: 1) Security Through Obscurity doesn't work. Bot Herders want numbers, not value. 2) With the advent of rootkits and some rather primitive logging capabilities that Windows has (compared to other OSes, they are primitive), I wouldn't trust them - external logs are more reliable in Windows' case. 3) One word: Rootkits. In any other OS but Windows, processes cannot hide themselves from view. > Quote - Big companies is another matter, of course. Hackers WILL spend time and effort to break in, so you need better defenses.
While I agree that there have been trends of targeted hacking, I'm still very confident that the bot-herders are more prevalent, and they really don't care what they hit, as long as it has an IP address. > Quote - Penguinisto I can imagine that. I've never had to hunt down a driver. If I do update a driver, it's taken me all of 2 minutes to find it and another 2 to run it. Also, as to security, I don't spend a lot of time running anti-anything. Those things run in the middle of the night while I'm asleep, so I don't much notice them.
Like I said - you've been lucky. Ask anyone who does anything serious with a computer, and you'll find a far different story (or even not-so-serious, if recent NVIDIA driver troubles on Vista are any indication). > Quote - Keep in mind, if Macs ever become really popular, then you too will be running all those programs.
That's not much more than an urban legend, and here's why: OSX (like any other *nix derivative) has a completely different internal architecture which doesn't allow a binary (program) to gain system-wide reach without explicit permission from root. Apache on Linux outnumbers IIS on Windows in the Web Server industry for years on end... and yet nearly all Linux installs run just fine w/o any sort of A/V software. PHP could certainly use some improvements in that arena (or rather, people who write PHP pages need to know how to write a secure app), but the OS itself w/ reasonable security measures in place (and no A/V software) is in no danger that I'm aware of. The whole 'market share = vulnerable!' argument is merely a smokescreen, IMHO... mostly perpetuated in various tech forums by Microsoft fans and actual MSFT astroturfers (folks literally paid or bloggers who have been bribed by Microsoft to comment favorably for Windows). Now, I'll be the absolute last human being to tell you that any OS is immune, but as far as operating systems go, there is at least one line that sits on the bottom of the list of "secure". Oh, BTW: Linux can and does run on Mac hardware, both PPC and Intel. Has had that ability for years. (Google for "Yellow Dog Linux" :) ) It also runs comfortably on CPU's such as Sparc, RISC, ARM (PDA's ranging from PocketPCs to Palms to Treos), mobile phone sets, and even IBM z-Series mainframes. The whole Apple commercial thing isn't really Macs Vs. PC, but OSX vs. Windows, if that helps. There... had my say, no need for anyone to go further down the rabbit hole, I suspect. I refuse to make anything degenerate into some sort of religious flamewar. If you manage to escape being turned into some script kiddie's bot, great. I wish you luck. Me, I'm only looking at odds here, and I find them to be better on non-Microsoft products. Cheers, /P
I do a lot of very "serious" things on my computer. That's why I haven't bothered with Vista.
If the whole Apple commercial thing isn't Macs vs. PC, then there are a number of commercials in the series that make no sense at all. And, why call the other character "PC"?
I disagree with you on the "smokescreen" argument. You are welcome to the opinion, but I don't see it as based on fact. Either the OS is immune from attack or it's not. Either it's an attractive target to those who want to do a lot of damage, or it's not. If the reason isn't market share, then I'd love to hear what is.
Could be worse, could be raining.
No Redhat or Suse (by the way, the one time I tried to install Suse the first things that failed were YAST and YAST2. Had to do everything by hand). Debian and Slackware (everything is Slackware now). My brother's problem was on Debian.
Bot herders ARE automated processes. Those are stopped by the security measures I have in place. Most bots target badly secured XP Home systems and will bounce off a decently configured router and/or a decently configured Win2K/Win2k3 server.
My defenses will not stop a determined hacker who'll spend hours to figure out how to break into my system. But it's rather unlikely that a hacker WOULD spend that time. Nothing of interest on a home system. And in the time he would have to spend on breaking into my network, he could have turned several hundred XP Home systems into his zombies.
Logging - both Windows and my ADSL router(running a VXworks derivative) are set to audit connection attempts and more. Almost everything is stopped at the router, the very, very few things that manage to pass the router are stopped by Win2k3 server.
By the way, I don't run antivirus or antispyware on my workstations. I regularly check them using an online scanner. Haven't had a virus in 5 years. Some tracking cookies, that's all.
Driver problems - not since I switched to only buying A-quality components.
In short, simply by not being a complete idiot I don't have any problems with my Windows systems.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Quote - I do a lot of very "serious" things on my computer. That's why I haven't bothered with Vista.
If the whole Apple commercial thing isn't Macs vs. PC, then there are a number of commercials in the series that make no sense at all. And, why call the other character "PC"?
I'll lay it out in a simple chain: * Linux, FBSD, Solaris and the like on PC hardware doesn't suffer the same maladies. * But, most folks think "Windows" when they think "PC's", no? Therefore - the Apple ads are a hit against Windows primarily, with the likes of Dell and HP as secondary targets. > Quote -
I disagree with you on the "smokescreen" argument. You are welcome to the opinion, but I don't see it as based on fact.
While there are no statistics per se, there is enough logic to support it (again, I refer you to Apache vs. IIS). > Quote - Either the OS is immune from attack or it's not. Either it's an attractive target to those who want to do a lot of damage, or it's not.
You're speaking in absolutes when security threats are much less clearly defined. Specific corporations and entities are attractive targets to theives, blackmailers, and other organized criminals. Generic home users are attractive targets to Bot-Herders, who are in it to rack up a large distributed network of slave machinery for subsequent sale or rent to the highest bidder (spammers, DDoS artists, what-have-you). > Quote - If the reason isn't market share, then I'd love to hear what is.
Three words: Ease of penetration. If I'm out to compromise any given number of machines, which is easier: a) an operating system with numerous and ongoing flaws which can be easily exploited over a network, or... b) operating systems which require a higher level of skill and patience (not to mention risk of detection) to co-opt Either way, the number of users are in the hundreds of millions. Put this way: If Linux were easy to infect with something, one could very easily co-opt millions upon millions of high-bandwidth 24/7 server-based targets. Instead, we find script kiddies going after machines which may or may not be on when needed, may or may not even have a broadband connection, and may or may not have their hard drives flushed at any time due to a number of internal errors. HTH, /P
I find the commercials rather entertaining too. I've been a PC (DOS/Windows) user for 20+ years at home and at work, but also have used a variety of other OS's. I don't take any offence at the commercials (of course I've used the term Macentrash to refer to Mac's and Microslop to refer to Microsoft), and can actually relate (first hand experience) with the humor.
Will the idea of being "cool" help sell Macs? All I have to say is SUV and Hummer (or H2). How many of these actually see any serious back/off road travel. Just try to get a Hummer, H2, or large SUV on a bonafied "jeep" trail in thick brush or trees, and see how well it does, and how much paint you have left on the sides. Yes, SUV's can be handy to have for general on highway, everyday use, but how many of those very expensive 4x4 gas hogs ever really see any off highway use. Why are they so popular? Is it because thousands and thousands of Americans have a real need for a 4+ passenger 4x4 vehicle, or is it because you are "cool" if you drive one? So yes, the "cool" factor does sell, even at price ranges in excess of $50,000!!
Will the Mac/PC commercials influence what I buy in the future? Not a chance, as I buy what I feel fits my needs best, not what is cool.
Oh, and I do own 2 SUV's and 4 PC's. Both SUV's spend a great deal of time off the highway (typically for evening/weekend work), and 4x4 use for travel on snow/ice packed roads. They are however the smaller 2 door variety, which are highly manuverable off road and in tight situations. The PC's help supplement the income from my day job, and provide some entertainment for the family. Right now having a Mac at home is't an option, since the software I use only runs on a Windows machine, and "PC's" are cheaper. If in the future I can run the software required for my consulting work on a Mac, and the cost/performance were equal to a PC, I would have no problem using a Mac.
__________________________________________________________
My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......
I would expect no less of PhilC than that he wishes to speak no ill of anyone. But I'm not as nice as Phil. I switched my company from PC to Mac after our servers were nearly wiped out by a series of virus and hacker attacks in 2001 and 2002. Although my staff still complains about cross-platform compatibility (Microsoft Office for Windows versus Microsoft Office for Mac) of large client spreadsheets and presentations with embedded objects, I've noted that nearly all of them have switched to Macs for their personal use. Perhaps it's still true that "once you go Mac, you never go back." I work with both Macs and PCs all the time, but with the PC's it's usually fixing problems (drivers, viruses, spyware, freezes and crashes, etc.) while with the Macs it's usually showing users how to take advantage of some labor-saving aspect of OS 10. The latter is a far more productive activity, to say the least. Mac users have a right to be at least a little smug because their computing is easier. Not perfect, or even more creative (rickymaveety), just easier. And perhaps cheaper, too: since my company no longer has the ridiculous system and per-seat maintenance costs that we had with Windows, we can put our money to work elsewhere. Our experience with Vista (we still have a few PCs) has only proven to us that Microsoft deserves whatever grief Apple wants to give them for taking so long and spending so much money to come up with a bloated imitation of an OS that's been out for several years. Vista is The New Coke, Budweiser Select and the Volkswagen Phaeton: a painfully clumsy, big-company attempt at a transformational product and image. Meanwhile, Mac OS 10.5 is on the way, along with (hopefully) more of those funny ads.
The Dual Xeon Core 2 Duo (fastest Mac Pro) is very, very fast indeed. And very, very expensive. I wonder how it would fare head to head against a QX6700.
My current "dream PC" is a QX6700, Intel BadAxe2 mainboard, 8 GB DDR2-667, nVidia 8800GTX. Costs about € 3800 including XP Pro 64bit and VAT.
The fastest MacPro with 8 GB DDR2-667 (and a slower graphics card!) costs about € 6000 including VAT.
Dutch prices.
I expect the performances to be similar. The Mac might be a tad faster, but certainly not by 50%.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Yes, you can get a Mac Pro that is as fast or faster than any comparable PC. If you're buying in the US, the Mac and PC of the same configuration and performance are about the same. My setup (Mac Pro Core 2 Duo 2 x 2.66) was $2,500, plus an extra $800 for more RAM (total 4 GB) plus $400 for a video card upgrade.
Macs and PC's use essentially the same hardware now.
Because of the way the software is written for the macs some applications run faster on the mac. AND the same is true for some applications in Windows. In the end its about the experience and personal comfort. Both are subjective and therefore subject to differing opinions.
And to address the speed of the old power pc macs - my dual 1ghz mac outperforms my 3ghz work pc in most daily tasks. Why? I don't know. Now there are some tasks that the Win box is faster at but searching for files, switching windows/apps, launching/ quitting apps is much more responsive on the mac. ( both have the same amount of ram)
Where you will notice speed differences is on apps that take advantage of hardware optimizations.
That is why photoshop was able to benchmark so high on slower mhz macs compared to top of the line pc's. If the software (such as poser) does not have these optimizations then the raw horsepower will determine the speed.
It's like saying that you have 8 processors at 2.6ghz
Its meaningless unless the applications can take advantage of them. Poser will run faster on a 4 core 3.0 ghz machine. has nothing to do with the max capabilities of the machine, rather the efficiency of the software.
Basically if you are tired of Windows it not that much more now to try Mac. If you are happy stick with what you like.
The funny thing is that the PowerPC G5 processor architecture is simply better than the x86 processor architecture. RISC, an orthogonal setup, and a reasonably large register file are some of the characteristics of a modern CPU architecture - such as the PowerPC.
This better CPU architecture goes a very long way towards explaining the better performance/GHz ratio of the G5 Apples.
Then why did Apple switch to Intel? Simply because Intel has the financial power to switch to the most modern production techniques, like 90 nm, 65 nm, and in the near future 45 nm. Motorola couldn't afford (or didn't want to buy) the newest production technology, so they are stuck at producing chips at 130 nm technology. Which means a limited number of transistors per chip and limited maximum clock speed. The G5 has hit those limits.
And now for the really funny stuff. The original 8086 was a CISC machine. Intel has always maintained backwards compatibility with the original 8086.
But RISC has proven to be a better way to make CPUs. So what did Intel do? Starting from the 80486 series, Intel CPUs are RISC, with an added CISC layer to provide 8086 compatibility.
A true RISC processor doesn't have this kind of overhead, and will offer better performance at the same clock speed and transistor count.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
IBM was the alleged nemesis of Jobs and Apple in 1983 before the 1984 release of the first macintosh. Jobs referred to IBM as Big brother, and portrayed Apple as the thinking mans, little mans, or common mans computer. Apple is still the sole producer of the computers which run its software. As long as they do business this way they will never take Microsoft or Linux, and they know it. That's why they have specialized ads which attract their core audience - people who use their computers because they help them accomplish what they want to do, or people who like to feel smug about owning a computer. As a mac owner I've never understood the latter group.
I know, the Intel switch was a shock. IBM made the chips for Apple, but more and more, IBM was an Albatross around the neck of Apple. So it was time to switch. I am glad they did. And now there are so many options for a Mac user (you can run Windows/Vista or OS9/OSX), it's like heaven. They did a good thing. ^^
I went and looked up the ads on YouTube. I found a few I hadn't see in the 15 clip:
15 clips of Mac and PC Guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7ReS_ur4Kc
Upgrading to Vista
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci2D1ig4df4
Living with Vista
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80sWifG40B0
bB
To tell you the truth I cant wait to get an Intel Mac portable. Man to be able to run decent GPS software! (Even if it is on XP via Parallels or Crossover.) Like I said there are some things that Windows just does better. GPS is one of them.
I will be buying the phone. Even though I hate Cingular with a fervent passion. I would love the ability to sync my phone through 802.11. Plus have a 4gb flash drive with me on one unit. (Hey I hope they make the flash drive a network share so that I can connect to it at home and at work from my pocket. )
I said unit.
(Does that mean I need to activate the Language content advisory?)
Quote - Then why did Apple switch to Intel? Simply because Intel has the financial power to switch to the most modern production techniques, like 90 nm, 65 nm, and in the near future 45 nm. Motorola couldn't afford (or didn't want to buy) the newest production technology, so they are stuck at producing chips at 130 nm technology. Which means a limited number of transistors per chip and limited maximum clock speed. The G5 has hit those limits.
A couple of things: * The G5's were made by IBM, not Motorola. It is essentially a stripped version of IBM's Power5. * The switch to Intel had more to do with the fact that IBM couldn't build a laptop-sized G5 w/o boiling the user's reproductive glands, or that didn't require a laptop battery the size of a car battery (there's a reason why my dual G5 has a 650W power supply in it as standard). :) Notice that there was never a G5-based laptop on the market... Apple had been chafing at that for a very long time. /P
Sorry, my bad. The 68000 series was Motorola, not the PowerPC.
Heat is one of the issues indeed. 65 nm chips produce significantly less heat than 130 nm systems and need less power.
IBM does have the financial resources for 65 nm production tech. Maybe they just weren't interested in a relatively small market with small margins?
Small market itself is not an argument. IBM still produces AIX workstations and AS400 mainframes, not exactly mass market products.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Oh no no, you got it partially - the G3 and G4's were Motorola tech. In fact, I remember back in 1999-2000 that Apple and Motorola were publicly bickering at each other because the G4's were stuck at 500MHz w/ no improvements in sight at the time. Heh - 65nm is almost old news by now... Intel has publicly announced production Core2 chips with 45 nm tech coming out the 2nd half of this year, and AMD will likely follow-up in 2008 sometime if they can get their fabs built and running in time. But I do agree BTW, now that I see what angle you were coming at it from... we had the same idea, just different approaches to it. :) Cheers! /P
Quote - I agree with Phil, I hate this kind of ad. Ths reminds me of Politics.
Funny, I never really considered that commercial a slam against PCs. I thought it was more directed towards the OS Vista....which is really hideous to work with because of that "security" feature that asks for permission [practically everytime you press a computer key or do anything...or rather try to do anything. Highly annoying and the commercial is bang on about how annoying it is.
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
This is correct - Apples are (as of last year) built w/ the same PC hardware components (Intel CPU's, NVIDIA or ATI video cards, PCI/-X/e, SATA hard drives, what-have-you (AAMOF, my old dual G5 uses SATA drives and has two video cards - one from NVIDIA and one from ATI... the only difference between those vidcards and Dell's is the BIOS flash on them). You can just as easily install and run Windows on a shiny new Mac w/ Apple's BootCamp (which rigs the MBR to allow it and OSX to live together, I believe). PC hardware (as stated before) with Linux or other Non-Windows OSes on it doesn't experience crashes, malware, or most other woes on nearly the scale that Windows does. (besides, if Apple was poking at a fellow *nix-based OS, the guy would have a goatee and would likely be wearing anything besides a 3-piece suit). /P
LOL, now if she had a sledge hammer in one hand and a bottle of vallium in the other, it would be even more accurate.
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
That's the Fatima lady (the first one). You remember, the one who was seen on the BBC, CNN, and Reuters showing up in photographs whenever a disaster occured in Lebanon. There's a whole series of her over at thepeoplescube.com, a very very funny place for the politically correct. warning this web site is graphic intense and not fun for dial-ups.
Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things! ; )
Nobody is going to buy a computer based solely on a TV ad. At least I certainly hope not. The purpose of these ads is not to bash PCs per se, but point out that if you are considering buying a new computer there are some very good reasons to consider a Mac as opposed to a PC. And they do that quite well. If they can get you to go look at a Mac, then they have served their purpose.
I have both a PC and Mac. You will have to pry my Mac from my cold, dead hands. The PC is just a constant source of irritation for me. I need it for a couple of things only and only use it if I have to. This is the second PC I've had and I have had more hardware trouble with both of them than I have ever had with any of the Macs I've had.
As for XP pro, it's an improvement over Windows 98 for sure, but it's still full of security holes. I'm sure the only reason I don't have too much problem with viruses on it is that I rarely download anything on my PC. The fact of the matter is (for whatever reason) you just don't have to worry about that shit on a Mac.
Yes, you can do graphics on a PC now. And do them pretty well. But compare what you see on a Mac and what you see with the same monitor on a Windows machine and you will see a dramatic difference in picture/color quality. There's some difference in the way they handle graphics information and it is quite startling when you see it side by side. And once you get used to that quality, you will never be happy looking at a PC monitor again.
PCs aren't better because there are more of them in use. There are more of them in use because Bill Gates made some smart marketing moves with Windows. And contrary to what someone else said, he made an operating system for idiots. It tries to do EVERYTHING for you whether you want it to or not. Most people who use PCs are not building them themselves, nor are they doing any upgrades themselves. But, yeah, they better live near a store with parts and either learn to do it or know someone who can, because something is sure to go wrong every few months.
You have to looks at what your needs are when you buy a machine. If your needs can be equally served by a Mac or a PC, then I'd recommend buying the Mac. Things will go much smoother. If not, then buy a PC. But, be prepared to be tearing your hair out every so often.
The guy in the suit is Microsoft obviously, and even looks like a chubby youthful version of Bill Gates. I take it the hipper Mac is supposed to be Jobs, but Jobs was never that hip, or that nice. They could add Linux to the commercial, but those companies seem to be oblivious to it. Someday they will regret their myopic vision, but that's in the future.
At least for now they provide a little entertainment, even if it is theater of the absurd.
You notice Apple doesn't bring up Server, professional, or office software in its commercials. That's because, at Apple, they are running Microsoft software on their servers, and Microsoft Office software on their desktops. Ironic isn't it. It's not as innovative as the i-phone, i-pod, or what ever Steve Jobs and company plaster the letter I on next, but it gets the job done.
It's a good thing Microsoft does that boring IT, and professional work well, or else who would....Apple?
Apple does make really nice desktop software for its computers, and I like to use it, but Apple isn't the best, computer company period. They do what they do well, and Microsoft does what it does well, which isn't desktop software out of the box btw. Windows can be customized to work well, but most computer companies don't seem to take the time.
Is Apple a cult?
Every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following five
characteristics:
- It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its
members - It forms an elitist totalitarian society
- Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not
accountable and has charisma - It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds,
recruit people - Its wealth does not benefit its members or society
Let's run through the numbers shall we?
- Yep, see
http://www.macevangelist.com/ - Yep, see http://cult-of-mac.utu.fi/
- Yep, All hail Steve!
- Yep, check with Apple legal on this one
- Unless you own stock, Yep
Looks like a cult to me.
It was not IBM or Microsoft that made the PC THE office computer. It was Lotus 1-2-3.
It was not Apple that made the Mac THE desktop publishing machine. It was Aldus Pagemaker and QuarkExpress.
Those were the "killer apps", the reason a company would invest in IT. Those were the reasons both Apple and PC/Microsoft got their installed base.
The "killer apps" for Linux are probably Apache, MySQL and PHP.
All three environments are branching out. You can do office work on a Linux system, you can do desktop publishing on Windows, and you can run a Web server on a Mac (since OSX).
But all three environments still cater to their bases best.
So in the end it's still the applications that determine what hardware and OS are most suitable in your own particular case.
I think Vista is Microsoft second step in branching out to the living room, the first step being Windows Media Center. They're trying to turn the PC into a home entertainment center. But both Microsoft and the PC hardware itself have a long, long way to go.
What do you expect from a TV? You expect it to work and show you moving images within seconds of turning it on. You expect it to always work. It doesn't need updates. It doesn't crash. It is absolutely silent - no humming fans. In standby mode, it consumes very little power, a few watts at most.
The PC hardware and software still has a very long way to go.
Apple will probably make a move in this direction too. And Apple also has a very long way to go.
We'll see.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Apple isn't trying to sell anyone Apple servers in their commercials, so why should they bring it up? And they do bring up Microsoft Office. They point out that they can run it as well as a PC. Who cares who makes the software? The point of these commercials isn't just the OS. It's the whole package. And it's aimed at the consumer level. For the market they are aiming at, these commercials are perfect.
Quote - (besides, if Apple was poking at a fellow *nix-based OS, the guy would have a goatee and would likely be wearing anything besides a 3-piece suit).
Here's how it'd look with Linux in it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuVjpZtXGME http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJtS-FywqQ4 or BSD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjXkEHHIJBY
I think the commercials are silly, but MS is notorious for slinging mud themselves (balmer sort of has a problem opening his mouth without attacking someone- and he's very high on the MS payroll and seems to love making outrageous claims). At least with the apple commercials, it's done in a silly way- that people know are jokes. When Balmer make's rediculous claims to large audiences (often time very misleading), it is done with a sense of honesty- even if it's very much based in questionable research or just pure spin.
I've used dos/windows since the early 90s, and have since used both Mac OS X and linux for work. My next PC for the house will be a Mac- it's a fine machine and does what it does. I seem to always have to tinker with my windows machine to get things to work- and linux....well, it is a great platform for C++ development and general use. But, it's hopeless with the absence of any commercial applications:(
Quote - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuVjpZtXGME
In 1995, that was very true. They need to update it a bit, though... not much the case these days. I can pop in an Ubuntu disk and it picks up practically everything w/o any need for drivers (though we call 'em "modules" in Linux-land; dunno WTF these people were thinking). > Quote - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJtS-FywqQ4
hehehe... but take away all those linux-based servers and you'd get... No MMPORGs. No CounterStrike. No BF2. No real multiplayer at all outside of a mere handful... hope you really like Halo ;) (But for games? If it don't have a Mac port, it'll most likely run under Cedega on Linux). > Quote - or BSD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjXkEHHIJBY
BSD is dead. Netcraft confirms it. (...cue lots of clueless individuals completely missing the reference...) /P
I'd think they would be thrilled to announce that just as they could MS office, they too could run Microsoft Server Software, or Linux Server software. If they are truly the whole package they might create a whole package deal. You are only part of the package if you are just a desktop os, but the commercial makes it easy to overlook it. Frankly I'd just like to see that chubby PC guy get one little victory...."Why Mac you mean you use Microsoft too, but I thought you said it was crappy, derivative"...... I hope you didn't take anything I wrote personally DTHURGRIF.
Server-side, it's a whole other dogfight. *nix has the majority there, market-wide. Windows Server (NT, 2k, 2k3) has roughly 30% split and shrinking (...and IMHO they're mostly small business rigs w/ little to no full-time dedicated IT)... ...and among the smallest slivers of market shares, there is X-Serve (Apple's OSX-based server). The reason Apple doesn't fare well in the server market is because it is rather redundant: OSX and X-Serve have a BSD *nix core... and there are already a huge number of *nix and BSD-based servers out there which are proven at the enterprise-level. /P
Most Unix using companies I know are shifting from expensive proprietary Unixes (IBM AIX, HP UX, SGI) on exprensive proprietary hardware to Linux-based clusters on PC hardware.
There's a BIG Linux cluster being built in Groningen (The Netherlands) by IBM. Over 3000 blade PC servers, dedicated to handling the enormous data streams from a radio telescope array. A very interesting project.
Novell Netware seems to have gone the way of the dodo. It was a very good at file and print services, but I seem to remember that it was a nightmare for server based computing. Maybe that's why.
Windows server OSes have always been targeted at smaller businesses that didn't have the computing needs - and budget! - of the big businesses. Windows server OS certainly feels the bite of Linux - but the proprietary *nixes feel it harder.
Competition is good. Linux is forcing Microsoft to make their server OS better and less expensive, while the Microsoft feature set forces the Linux community to come up with comparable features (such as easy updating). In the end, the users will profit, both MS users and Linux users.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
While we're straying from the topic:-) One thing I have noticed with the Apple OS X server software, they are putting a lot of effort into making it very easy to setup and easy to maintain. I've found that using the Software Update service fantastic. If you're a Super Server geek, then perhaps it's not the solution for you, but for small and medium sized schools and business with 5 to 100 Macs, it's got a lot going for it. That is a growing demographic. While "Market Share" is a great metric, OS X server and Apple computers generally, don't depend on share or market growth for maintaining profitability. So even with the smallest slivers they continue to innovate and develop robust solutions. While it would be nice to point to media advertising, I don't think they are the major contributing factor of the Macs current renaissance. The "Market" is maturating, people are saying "I've had a PC, it wasn't fun. Is there anything else?". Vista is saying "Get some Wow" and Apple are saying "Check us out, we're fun". I think people have had enough Wow and just want some fun.
*Novell Netware seems to have gone the way of the dodo. It was a very good at file and print services, but I seem to remember that it was a nightmare for server based computing. Maybe that's why.
*damn.. I loved Netware 3.12. that was rock solid. I once saw a server with an uptime of 5 years... the only reason it wasn't longer was, we had to shut it down and move it to another part of the server room... by comparison, the NT4 servers were struggling to run due to certain, shall we say, questionable things. namely trying to use Lotus Notes to hold an entire building firms plans, quotes, brochures etc in 1 massive database.. and the insistance of the Graphics Dept of creating their pagemaker files (90Mb plus) on the server... (Pagemaker insisted at the time that it create it's temporary file where the file was created. so you ended up with it swapping 90Mb + files back and forth over the network instead of the local hard drive...)
Remember when XP first came out? It went something like this: "I'm never upgrading to XP; Windows 95 works just fine." "I'm not upgrading to XP until they fix the driver issue." "We have had all kinds of problems upgrading to XP, so we had to go back to the previous install of Windows ME" Vista will eventually iron itself out, we just have to be patient. A new OS is a big deal, and Microsoft isn't about to take this upgrade lightly, so time will heal all wounds. As for Mac vs PC (why does there have to be such a thing?): Mac users can be quite vocal about their boxes, almost to the point of having a chip on their shoulders (some -- not all). Some will spout off about how bad Windows OS is, then brag that they can run Windows on their Macs (if it's so bad, why do you want to run it?) Others will gladly concede, like rational people, that the Mac OS has it's ups and downs and never trash talk the PC folks. I find PC folks to be less gung-ho about the actual owning of a PC and would rather talk about its sheer versatility. Some, however, will do whatever they can to downplay the usefulness of a Mac and use every opportunity to make Macs looks too expensive or too this or that. What it all boils down to is this: If you own a Mac and are happy with it, good for you. If you own a PC and like what it does for you, I'm happy for you. No one should bad-mouth their competitors to sell a product, so I agree with PhilC on this point. If you have to resort to a slander campaign then you must be trying to play catch up. I'm very disappointed in Apple for this highly misleading series of ads, but unfortunately, it will probably influence people to buy their product.
There isn't one bit of slander in those ads. But yes, Mac is playing catch up. Who doesn't know that?
And I really fail to see what is misleading about them. If PC people are so all-fired confident in your computers and operating system, why are you all so ready to get upset at someone pointing out some of the obvious flaws? I would think you should easily be able to ignore us poor misguided Mac users.
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
I made that point too, Tiari (you brilliant person, you), but people who think the Mac is perfect aren't too interested in hearing that.
They sort of gloss over it ...
As far as I know, there isn't an absolutely perfect macine or OS out there. I hope someone builds it someday, and that it runs everything, and never ever crashes or needs an update ... and it comes in all of the colors I like, and works with all of the other hardware I like ... oh, and is really simple to repair and upgrade (but it would never really need an upgrade or a repair because it would never break ... but if it did, the parts would be inexpensive).
I know .... keep dreaming, right?
Could be worse, could be raining.