An Apple a Day ... Keeps Windows away...

Mac OS X Tiger is the world's most advanced Operating system .... is cool to use .... has plenty of applications for home and business use including webdesigns and photography and film editing ... Apple computer is the only platform Americans have as Apple has research institute for computers in USA ...the other Bloodline IBM computers which has research facilities from which the platform for PC ' s that people use [ Dell , Acer , Gateway , Emachines , Sony , Toshiba , etc ] all use the platform based on IBM computers research .... until last year it was American .. due to business deals that IBM computers and their research facilities now belong to LENOVO of CHINA !!! that all the effort and innovation was gifted away to CHINA is a SHAME !!!

APPLE COMPUTERS have their COMPANY and Research centers AND PLATFORM - AMERICAN ...
I belive that the company and their research should be supported .... FACE the reality that all those die hard PC users boast about their PC'S would not get far in the race as the platform they would use in their computers
would have to come from LENOVE - IBM Chinese !!! I would prefer to support MAC computers all the way ...

I would like to get a Mac but I can't see spending $500 more for a computer that has basically the same specs as a Windows machine. Everyone complains about the price of Windows, yet no one takes in the fact that with a Mac you have to pay more for the hardware.

Saw the "calculator and clock" commericial last night. WEAK!! The fact they are implying that Windows machines don't have any apps is bordering on dangerous. Windows had Movie Maker way before iLife was even a product. Now Photo Story is included and is, perhaps, the easiest slide show maker I have ever used. (Yes, even easier than iPhoto)

Oh...they better watch out. Bundling gets MS sued, ya know.

"But of course ther are less because nobody uses a Mac anyway, so why bother writing a virus nobody is going to catch?"

Well, yes and no. I am not going to tout Macs superiority over PCs, mainly because I only use ibm pc based systems. I'm sorry, but there is just much more available software, hardware and other services for the pc. I do, also, use Linux/unix distros. I haven't yet had to opportunity to use a mac yet, so I'm not going to bash it mercilessly. What I AM going to do, however, is mention some common sense issues with Mac, from a consumer standpoint.

Why would I want to buy a mac when, as previously stated, there is only so much usable hardware and software easily accessible for the consumer?

I'd have to search long and hard to find a store that caters to Mac Addicts...and then I'd probably be totally clueless. The fact is, Windows came out on top of the OS race from the moment they released the first version. There is only room for 1 major company in ANY market. Everything else will always be second best.

Now...I don't know the reasons for all of the glitches and bugs in windows software, but people have to be intentionally looking for them in order to be writing virus code for them. Now tell me how many people care enough about Macs or Linux/Unix boxes in order to write virulii(sp?) that runs on them! It's far more likely that people creating windows based viruses are writing them on a non/windows box. So people from opposing OS viewpoints are attacking the big name companies that they claim to despise with every ounce of thier souls...out of what? Spite? What is so evil and wrong about the Windows OS that makes it soooo prone to viruses? It can only be that MS Windows is the main competitor in the OS market with the largest slice of the population pie...and that makes them, and the population, a much larger, more satisfying target. Why target Mac! They only have (gross underestimation...give me slack) say 10% of the OS market, with MS Windows taking up 82%...with 8% being any remaining OS choices. So hardly anyone makes Mac a virus target because they have fewer customers...not as large a populace to damage.

Ugh...sorry for the long a$$ explaination there.

Seriously folks...no reason to bash...or if you find nothing wrong with what I say, to resort to calling me a moron, or bashing my grammar. (Possibly my extreme over use of the comma and the elipsis, lol)

Looking forware to any comments (play nice boys and girls!)

Just a comment on one of your assumptions...and an attempt to put what for many is taken as fact into perspective:

"Windows came out on top of the OS race from the moment they released the first version. There is only room for 1 major company in ANY market. Everything else will always be second best."

Since when has market share implied that a product was "best". This is simply not a valid statement. Something may be most suitable or acceptable for more people by virtue of many factors, but that does not imply that it is the "best". And we can define "best" in many ways, so perhaps a definition of terms would be in order to proceed.

For instance, AIX provides a level of robustness and functionality that neither Mac nor Windows, let alone Linux, could even dream of implementing. Does this make it the "best"? And is AIX the "best" solution if all you care about is running games and chatting and sharing P2P files? Probably not! But would you even consider using Windows for massively parallel configurations featuring an HAGEO configuration (for example, 2 redundant massively parallel complexes (supercomputers) literally located on different sides of the globe designed for high availability and instant fail over utilizing massively shared yet distributed resources, all managed elegantly from a single or redundant similarly configured HA control workstation). Yeah, in your dreams! Here AIX owns the market. I don't think Windows spell checker could even process the concept, let alone a MS applications engineer! ;-).

And because AIX trounces Windows in such an environment, does that mean that AIX is "best" and that Windows is worthless? Of course not! (Boy, the temptation to interject a smart aleck comment is simply too easy here! ;-)

So, "best" is defined in terms of your application(s) and your needs. And this 'one size fits all' solution, and the idea that Windows (or the Mac, or AIX, or whatever OS) is "best", is a specious argument! But a distinct percentage of the audience on this site is mired in precisely this emotional hangup! So just why are all the Mac/Unix bashers trolling an Apple news item?

May I suggest that while what you like or what suits YOUR particular applications and needs may be "best" for YOU, but it may not be "best" for others! And how about everyone dropping this attempt to tell others what is "best" for Them, and instead simply focusing on a given environment with its own sets of challenges and needs that works for YOU!

For me, a healthy competitive environment and a choice of environments allows me (and others) to pick and chose as I (they) need. And no, Windows does not fit all application environments as a "best" fit scenario. So I choose among the variety of environments in an attempt to find the best balance of availability and functionality.

But then neither am I trying to tell all Windows users that they have to drop Windows as many Windows users seem bent on telling Mac and other users! I keep hearing that the "Mac lacks applications" from PC users, but I don't seem to hear the same complaint from Mac users. Especially as SO MANY of de facto Windows applications were first developed on the Mac and subsequently ported over. I mean, just how many spreadsheets aside from Excel do you really need? So, many of the same old tired issues are simply specious.

There are many choices, and with the changes at Apple, folks are afforded a few more choices that many, but not all, will find useful. So make an intelligent decision as to what works best for you and enjoy it, and if you are happy with your choice, stop worrying about what others find more useful for their applications.

Does anyone else have trouble with this in Firefox?

Yeah, commercials won't play.

Macs crash less than PCs? That's news to me.

Are they also going to say how much better Macs are because there is allot less hardware and software available them? How about how horrible Macs are as gaming platforms? And what about Macs being much more expensive that PCs? There is the hassle of having to reboot back and forth between the Mac OS and Windows to be able to run different programs. Wouldn't it be easier to run Windows 100% of the time?

I guess it all doesn't matter, the commercials will fix everything.

Really? Head under a rock? Macs have been more stable than PCs for a long time, thanks to their controlled hardware.

I think you might need to catch up on about 5 years of Mac development. Compatibility is no longer a problem for Macs, other than games. Even then, the decent games make it to Mac anyway.

Wow, another arrogant PC fan boy. You people are so sad. People don't buy macs for games. They buy macs because it works. If you want games, buy a console. And have you heard of virtualisation software? It's been around for the PC for a while. Well it's on Macs now, and look Macs run the same intel chips PCs do and can run Windows inside Mac OS X without rebooting. You may want to educate yourself a little more before bashing a platform you probably haven't used since the 90s.

The reference to a quantitatively smaller risk {although not an immunity) to malware is a valid point, as is the MUCH lower instance of hangs, crashes, zombies, and forced reboots versus Windows (a factor albeit exacerbated by the use of Firefox).

(And for those of you out there waiting to debate this, it is a moot point! On any given day I do NOT have to reboot OSX or AIX, but I DO have to reboot or recover from myriad application hangs or crashes on Windows. Just a Fact.)

But, IMO, Apple does need to modify its elitist 'lifestyle' posturing at the expense of real customer education. Simply listening to a sampling of opinions and conjecture around here verifies this.

Apple would do well to also court the Linux and Windows folks, as the Mac, along with Parallel and the forthcoming VMWare OSX support will offer folks increased choice and options. And this ranges from entry level 'non-technoid' users as well as the power users who want the granular control and power the choice of environments offers.

Having run both platforms since inception (as well as several others) on a day to day basis, I definately have preferences. But for me, and I suspect for a fair number of other users, having greater choices on ONE platform offers a strategic advantage over a more limited platform. (And that being said, I would Still like to see OSX released for generic whitebox PCs as well in an unsupported version), hoping that Apple would feel confidant to differentialte its product mix based upon their design, features, elegance and value.

"(And for those of you out there waiting to debate this, it is a moot point! On any given day I do NOT have to reboot OSX or AIX, but I DO have to reboot or recover from myriad application hangs or crashes on Windows. Just a Fact.)
"

I'd like to say this is just a fact for YOU... I personally never have crashes or forced reboots on my windows PC... it will stay running for weeks at a time without issue... It all really comes down to your machine and how well you keep it (just like a car, or any other piece of equipment)

Oh boy, another ignorant Mac fan boy. Look at you taking like you think you know something. You are so special that you have a Mac, aren't you? Well let me tell you something, you're not special. I can have any computer I want, but I don't get Macs because the cons by far outweigh the pros. PCs just work, Macs don't. There is nothing a Mac can do that a PC can't, but there are allot of things PCs can do that Macs can't. All kinds of topnotch companies make PCs and PC components. I just recently built a system with an Asus motherboard with a dual-core processor that will spank any Macs ass. And it's not an Intel, it's an AMD. Yeah, I have options that you don't. I can also run all kinds of operating systems including Windows and Linux and ANYTHING I need to do on a computer, I can do with this one, and that includes gaming. No need for a console, a second computer or a dual boot system. This is all-in-one, baby! And running an OS in emulation isn't the same as running it natively. YOU are the one who needs to educate yourself, not me. You say people like me are sad? People like YOU are sad because you are blinded and brainwashed by apple with your superiority complex. Changing your stories all the time, saying Macs are better because they have slow IBM chips and PCs suck because they use Intel. Now Mac uses Intel. Saying Windows Sucks because its command line, now Macs are command line. Etc. You people are crazy. I'm sick of you people riding in on your high-horse talking down on every computer and OS on the planet, saying Apple Is God. Well, you and you little sacred group can stay with Apple. No sweet off my back, Apple will never hurt the PC world. It's only a matter of time before the proprietary Apple company dies because PCs will live forever!

With all that said, I'm not saying Macs suck either, let me get that straight. I just personally believe that PCs are a little better. Apple makes good stuff including computers and their OS. It's the Apple USERS that can be annoying.

M.Sweazey, I think you did something wrong with your Windows. I use Windows at home and at work. I rarely reboot my machines. I always use hibernate - super fast startup. I only reboot when I really have to.

And no, my Windows apps dont crash that often either.

Sure OS X is a great OS, but so is Windows.

It is a fact for ME! And for many others! And yes, the machine is kept at the latest tested patch releases and system management done on a routine basis including restoring a fresh image on a routine basis!
Terminal emulation (Hummingbird Exceed) on a Windows box is a nightmare at best! And 'hibernation' has nothing to do with that to which I refer, as I don't use it at all - nor sleep mode(except the monitor), (except to say that Windows evidently has some issues with these modes). And I would say that varying applications and tasks DO have an impact on your experience. And I am assuming an environment where best practice system management is practiced as a given! Not some, "Well gee, it worked when I bought it from Circuit City 4 years ago! And I haven't changed nothin' since! I ain't stupid enough to do that!! And by the way, what's that virus stuff they keep talking about? Do I need that? Can I get it from Kazaa like I got all my other stuff?" Is anyone adding anything new of value here?

And the functionality of Task Manager to effectively manage processes is exceptionally limited - when it works at all, as the lack of 'varieties' of kill are a distinct limitation, if they work at all...

So if your machine or applications never crash you obviously aren't doing what 'we' are (and that 'we' is a Large number of people!), as this is not some isolated instance limited to a particular machine - but is common to many workplaces utilizing best practice system management as well as others doing similar tasks. I have no need to manufacture some fictitious issue here. I am simply making a valid observation that effects Many people and environments, and I am not trying to fight the petty 'which OS is best war' - as I live by necessity in several.

But the observation of many that the Mac (or AIX, or of the many Unix variants) are more stable is valid. And that includes functioning in mixed environments with various applications. If this bothers you, well then, I guess it bothers YOU. This issue is quickly put to rest by a perusal of server uptime logs viewed simply as a function of environment! But for some reason some feel the petty need to fight this battle forever as if this is the Only measure of an environment's worth. If it were the only measure, I wouldn't be using Windows at all! But it is NOT the only measure!

And hence an additional reason for a platform allowing me to run concurrent environments that best interfaces with the necessary applications and environments offers additional advantages.

But thanks for letting me know that you have to 'maintain' a computer! I will be sure to ask our mechanic what that means! I wonder what weight and brand of oil it needs! So many things to keep up with! ;-)

Parallel already has, and VMWare has running in the lab for future release, virtualization for the OSX which allows CONCURRENT use of the environments...meaning that you don't have to reboot over and over! They run at the same time on the same machine! So I guess this feature will render some of the typical Windows user skills at rebooting via necessity obsolete!

And unfortunately, with Macs starting at $599 (oh, now someone will just have to find a PC that sells for $15 cheaper which will supposedly prove something!), they don't have to cost more! Of course, can a PC user find a commercially manufactured PC that outperforms the dual 2.5GHz dual core G5 descktop for less then ~$3295?

All of these objections may perhaps be valid for a person who has trouble understanding the concepts such as is presented above, but others don't seem to feel the same.

And for some adolescent reason, that concept seems to really upset some of those feel that Windows is the only system and who are determined to tell others what THEY have decided that others MUST like rather then to let them make their own decisions based upon their needs and desires.

And no, Only using Windows is not a solution for many. Deal with it.

"Yeah, I have options that you don't. I can also run all kinds of operating systems including Windows and Linux and ANYTHING I need to do on a computer, I can do with this one, and that includes gaming. No need for a console, a second computer or a dual boot system. This is all-in-one, baby!"

"There is nothing a Mac can do that a PC can't, but there are allot of things PCs can do that Macs can't."

And who is "running an OS in emulation"?

Please, no one tell the poor boy that the new Intel based Macs are simply "PCs" adhering to the latest incarnation of the Intel architecture roadmap!

It will really confuse him to discover that the new Mac is exactly that which he says has the advantage! It IS a "PC" (in the Window's vernacular)! Albeit in the latest incarnation!

Right now, the ONLY difference is that Apple provides the newer Intel EFI interface rather then the more traditional dated BIOS and the new Macs can run OSX while his standard PCs can't. Hopefully that will soon change, either by Apple's choice or by third party efforts.

And whether "Mac will hurt the PC world"? Huh? I think the point is that Apple has just provided an additional option to select for those who are a bit more open minded regarding the use of a "PC". Oh...

And yet, if you try to do that on a PC (Run Mac OSX,) you get sued.

Nice...

Claim Macs are better because you can dual boot Operating Systems, or, in the future, run them concurrently.

...while conveniently forgetting the reason this isn't possible on PCs is soley due to Apple going after anyone who tries.

Does that mean MS is better because they allow their OS to be run on alternative hardware? (Wouldn't that make Linux the best OS ever?)

If Mac hardware and software is so fast and stable, why is no one using them as servers?

It means that currently on a Mac you have an Additional choice of a concurrent environment.
If it's of value to you, great. If not, don't use it... but why are you so threatened by this? Methinks thou dost protest too much!
It's simply one more choice that some find advantageous. That functionality is what is better for some!

Why are you SOOOO threatened by this and the fact that others may disagree with YOUR assessment? Obviously You don't want it. OK...go play your games. Others do. Deal with it.

And who is Apple suing for trying to run OSX on a non-Apple PC?

And what does Linux, the kludgy Unix rewritten by Windows folks to look like Windows Without applications that an ordinary person can't run, have to do with this? It's just 'one' more environment that you have to choose from as well. If it works for you, great. It doesn't work for all.

huh? The X-Serve has been one niche where Apple has done extremely well, and quite frankly, where I have run into more of them then on the desktop! Plus they administer both Unix and Windows environments extremely well.

I am amazed at the shoot from the hip, ignorance (ignore-ance , unawareness) expressed by so many with such axes to grind! No servers? Come on guys...

I've never seen one used in a mission critical environment. There seems to be very few SOHO using it, and that was only after the prices were slashed by more than half because it wasn't selling.

X-Serve "prices slashed by more then half"? Where do you get this crap? They have always started at $2999!

And please let me know where you can find X-Serves for less than half price!

Look, if you can't bother to deal with facts, why do you simply make this nonsense up?

1-It just works. (It does can I take any MP3 player and plug it into a mac and have it just work? Just like the iPod NO)

2-You can make amazing stuff.(I can make amazinf stuff on a windows machine at a cheaper price).

3-Design that turns heads. (That is true they have nice designs)

4. 114,000 Viruses? Not on a Mac. (apple you are kidding right?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12537279/
http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=80548
http://www.washingtonpos...16/AR2006021602281.html
) That and a customer just brought a mac computer to me today with spyware on it. I don't work on macs so I sent them to the Apple store.
5-Next year’s OS today.(Dashboard widgets available with 3rd party software, RSS news reader ever hear of IE7?)
6-The latest Intel chips.(I have had the latest Intel chips for years where have you been IBM?)
7-Instant video chats. (I have this too, MSN Messenger, AIM, etc.) Nothing new here either.
8-More fun with photos. (I see this)
9-One-click websites. (Several PCs offer this feature nothing new).
10,11,12 (I Agree)
13-No hunting for drivers.(I don't need to hunt for or install driver now unless I plug in the iPod (need apple's crappy software to get that to work)).
14-Awesome out of the box.(My PC works as soon as I get it. Don't understand what the difference is here).

Yea=9 Na=5
My PC still does a better job.

"The latest Intel chips.(I have had the latest Intel chips for years where have you been IBM?)"

Obviously, not where you have been!
Let's see, with IBM seeding AMD with technology in a much smaller market (literally- as IBM doesn't make chips for the desktop with the exception of the DOWNSIZED PowerPC and now cell processors - for which they have little incentive to dump development dollars into and hence Apple's smart move to a commoditized x86 marketspace), IBM chooses instead to focus on MUCH larger CPUs.

Here, see what they were up to in October 2003!!! http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12217

And Power5 is now at the end of its lifecycle with Power6 to appear in systems within a few months.

Its an entirely different league then the relatively tiny x86 platform!

Oh, and as I simply can't resist ;-) : "...(I can make amazinf stuff on a windows machine at a cheaper price)."

Yep, you SURE can! Simply "amazinf"!!! ;-)

Dangerous commercials. The one I saw lastnight was very misleading and basically said there are over 5 million viruses for the PC and the Mac is imune to all of them.

They forgot to mention that there are viruses for the Mac that PC's are imune to...

But of course ther are less because nobody uses a Mac anyway, so why bother writing a virus nobody is going to catch?

As much as I like Apple, I don't see them continuing to sell their OS. Apple will s*** to a gadget/hardware/lifestyle company and will quit pumping tons of cash into the OS.

The s*** to Intel is evidence for my idea. Furthermore, I think bootcamp is just a market study to see if people are willing to install Windows on mac hardware. IF they "study" goes well, then they will consider other plans for the OS.

I saw one columnist who suggested that OSX be made an open source app. He suggested this would make the linux vs OSX debate the most interesting debate out there.

so hot!

These are great ads - Apple campaigns usually are hilarious and this one is no exception :)

Almost as humorous as watching the Blue Man group push Pentiums when all of their systems are Mac powered! ...Guess the check was sufficient, too bad the computers weren't.

"There's no doubt that here that Apple's looking to capitalize on things like the Vista delay and the reinforcing the overall negative perception of the PC."

Is that a that direct quote? *grin*

I saw the iLife one yesterday. Harsh, man. Calc and a clock? Sheesh...

Got to point out, though, that Microsoft got sued for bundling a media player and has spent millions defending itself in court for bundling.

Yeah, Microsoft is a monopoly and thus is held to different standards. But it's kind of amusing to see Apple openly poking fun about how it can bundle while Microsoft can't.

Gah! Don't get me started on bundling in this topic too, man...I'm likely to bust a vessel after the Google topic and some idiot's /. post on the same topic yesterday.

Very good point =). This one could be argued from all sides.

My personal opinion is that Mac's built-in applications are simple applications that do what they say they do, are unintrusive, and play well with other applications. Quicktime focuses on playing Quicktime files -- it is still necessary for users to download Windows Media components to run Windows Media.

Very interesting...

nate, if you are going to make things that SIMPLE (got sued for bundling a media player), then you'd gladly accept that these ads are telling the truth... simply. :)

MS didn't get sued because of simply adding media player to the OS. It got sued because it added the player and made real player files crash, or not run at all when downloaded from MS servers (it didn't happen on ANY OTHER server type, only on MS servers).

Or... perhaps, you are a so simple-life buddy that you don't even read what you comment on? :)