How about a counter advert? "I am a PC so you don't have to worry about getting a good kicking for being a Smug t**t with a false sence of supiriority"
Apple's recent campaign claiming its machines were more secure and less likely to crash or pick up a virus than Windows PCs has been cleared by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). No word on whether the smugness of comedians Mitchell and Webb is likely to break acceptable bounds though. A national press campaign …
How about a counter advert? "I am a PC so you don't have to worry about getting a good kicking for being a Smug t**t with a false sence of supiriority"
Its bad enough people complain about TV programs instead of switching over or turning off but complain about a advert in the cinema.. GET A LIFE people!!!! i want the ones who complained to be named and shamed .. lol
on a side note, my mac doesnt crash , unlike my pc's, now we run on intel maybe its time apple allowed mac os to be run on a pc
but I couldn't have said, with my hand on my heart that they were incorrect.
And "The Naughty Step" made me laugh, despite being so rubbish and gratuitous.
"Apple identified 114,000 viruses that target PCs and that it did not claim Macs were entirely immune to viruses."
The 114,000 viruses Apple have identified are not targeting PCs - they are targeting Windows. Since you can quite happily run Windows on an Intel Mac (and most of the Mac users I know are doing this in a dual-boot configuration), these viruses are a threat to any computer running Windows, including PCs and Macs alike.
Of course, Macs are also susceptible to the handful of Mac OS X viruses out there. Although these don't actually account for any real risk in the real world, it's fair to say that PCs are "immune" to these viruses since Mac OS X refuses to run on them, Therefore, if you wanted to be really picky, you'd have to say there are about 114,000 viruses for PCs and about 114,010 viruses for Macs (this doesn't include viruses for Linux, which can run on either platform).
In conclusion, Apple's adverts are misleading. This is not a "Mac vs. PC" issue, but rather "Mac OS vs. Windows". Apple should have been forced to make this clear in their ads.
How DARE they base an ad campaign on "facts". This is outrageous.
The only reason Mac's are more secure is because no one can be bothered to make viruses for them when it is not a dominant product. Why make a virus for a Mac which affects one person, when you can make a virus for Windows that affects 10 people?
"In conclusion, Apple's adverts are misleading. This is not a "Mac vs. PC" issue, but rather "Mac OS vs. Windows". Apple should have been forced to make this clear in their ads."
If you ask the average computer user what their PC runs the reply will be Windows and it's precisely those users that the adverts are aimed at. It's only, usually, the more techinical users that have an OS other than Windows installed such as Linux and the like.
Personally, I am able to differentiate between the various operating systems and understand that they are refering to Windows, so why can't others?
They said Mac and PC because a Windows PC is a PC. Nobody says "My Windows Mac", nobody says "My Linux PC".
PC in the common use of the term means a Intel compatible computer running Windows. Macs have only recently started using Intel and the architecture isn't compatible with Windows without additional software from Apple (Bootcamp).
If you want to be totally pedantic, PC means personal computer, therefore any computer you own can be called a PC no matter if it's an Apple, Dell or ZX81.
Regarding running Mac OS X on PCs...
The only reason MacOSX is so 'stable' is because Mac OS X only has to run with specific, well-controlled hardware configurations.
Can you imagine what would happen if it was thrown out to the wolves, so to speak, in the open-platform PC arena???
Their 'super-stable, secure' OS wouldn't be worth a damn, and Apple would fall flat on it's face in what would be one of the world's most memorable IT-Industry disasters in my opnion.
Those stupid ads wind me up. On one of them, the one who'se supposed to be a PC holds a sign that says "I can be a bit tricky to set up."
Bollocks. Take it out of the box, plug the colour coded cables into the colour coded sockets, turn it on. If you can't even do that, get a point-and-drool Mac.
Macs use security through obscurity. If you were a terrorists looking kill lots of people, would you attack New York City or Dublin, Ireland. Obviously, New York because there is a greater chance to succeed because of more people. Should we then conclude that Dublin is more secure than New York? The logic of this study says yes.
Less viruses does not equal more secure. It just means there are less people targeting your system. And there are less people targeting it because there are less people using it. You go after what has the best chance of success, and that means numbers first and foremost.
They didn't say Windows because they are scared of being raped in court by a team of M$ lawyers. IMHO Apple don't base any of their ad campaigns on real facts, it is usually based on fashion and bended truth - this is no different.
They should have had the balls to specifically mention Windows, not PC... my Linux operating system crashes less than a Mac OS I bet (i.e: never!).. and with Beryl/Kibabar it is also alot prettier! :) Oh... and free!! :)
Maybe they should have a thin-spindly actor saying "Hi, Im a Mac - Im better than PC, honest!" while trying to steal money from the kids, then a muscle-bound superhero type saying "yeah - and Im a Linux PC you lying f**k - take this" then have the hero beat the living s**t out of mac for being arrogant, money grabbing lying little toe-rag. All the time having a M$ character rolling around in a pile of cash in the background laughing all evil like!! :)
They have spoof's of mac/pc/linux on youtube and other things... look them up, most are hilarious!
You must be young, you lucky. Macs have always had the 5% market share, but viruses plagued the original macs as well, as anybody who has owned them in the eighties/nighties can confirm. I still have a floppy case full of anti virus tools, like the then famous Disinfectant. Mac viruses were also more subtle than those affecting MsDOS, which could be threatened only by explicitly executing EXE and COM files. For example, the original mac could be attacked by a virus as soon as an infected floppy was inserted. So, the macs were easy to attack in many different ways and so they had a lot of viruses regardless the negligible market share. I am not saying that OSX is immune, but as any other Unix OS is more difficult to attack than Windows, and this is the major reason why there are far less viruses for OSX, Linux, Solaris than there are for Windows. The market share plays only a secondary role and it is MS propaganda for diverting the attention from their flawed security approach in their OS.
"The only reason Mac's are more secure is because no one can be bothered to make viruses for them when it is not a dominant product."
Perhaps you should do a little research into security on UNIX-based OSs before posting misleading statements like this in the future? ;-)
Remember how underwhelming it was at exposing Mac OS X vulnerabilities? Remember what a non-event it was? Almost all of the bugs allowed only for application crashing under specific conditions (so-called DoS), and the vast majority were third party software related. Apple also patched those flaws they were responsible for fairly quickly.
"Why make a virus for a Mac which affects one person, when you can make a virus for Windows that affects 10 people?"
Of course! I totally agree. This is precisely the reason why the Apache web server suffers from such an extensive array of vulnerabilities, as opposed to the significantly more secure IIS web server. Everybody knows that since IIS has a smaller market share, it is the safest and more secure product.
And those who think that bad and insecure coding practices, marketing-slanted compromises, and an obsessive focus on simplicity of use and backwards compatibility at all costs, without regard to real-world scenarios, are just irrational idiots.
the script kiddies cant find the right mouse button to copy and paste with;-)
* you don't have to worry about the viruses and spyware that PCs do
* it did not claim Macs were entirely immune to viruses
be both true? Either Macs are entirely immune or appropriate precautions should be taken to avoid them.
I always liked the spoof I saw where the smug mac was boring us to death and the pc guy simply went
"Well.... I can do GAMEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ GAMEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ GAMEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"
I think it sums it up really.
This is funny!! Come on... The Adverts are funny, and if Apple want to be cheeky little upstarts then let them.. We all love having a little pop at Windows from time to time.
I wish more Adverts made me laugh as much, but they will not stop me from using visio on my 'PC' :-)
All good fun!
Yawn... Another boring up-its-own-arse advertising campaign from coked up teenagers. If I didn't already own a Mac, I certainly wouldn't be getting one now.
Yes it is Mac OS vs Windows, but it's also smug fashionista vs everyone else. I don't aspire to be a smug fashionista, so bollocks to buying in to Mac lifestyle. Maybe that backfired a bit?
After having installed an anti virus program on my pc on a year old installation of windows, i was surprised to find no virus' of any kind.
That was so funny. Let me try rewording it slightly. LOL
Regarding running MY CAR on liquids other than GAS.
The only reason MY CAR is so 'stable' is because MY CAR only has to run with specific, well-controlled FUELS like GASOLINE.
Can you imagine what would happen if MY CAR was thrown out to the wolves, so to speak, in the open-FUEL CAR arena??? (You know, like running my car on alcohol, water, pee, and what ever crap is out there. My friend has a car that he runs on all this junk and it runs like crap, but he gets to bold claim that his car will run any liquid. MY CAR just runs on GASOLINE. However, it does run quite well and very reliability. )
Their 'super-stable, secure' CAR wouldn't be worth a damn, and MY CAR would fall flat on it's face in what would be one of the world's most memorable CAR-Industry disasters in my opnion. (Yep, those of us who really enjoy driving a reliable and easy to drive car, really love MY CAR and its GASOLINE fuel. Somehow we have never liked the idea of putting any old crap into our nice car.)
PS, try substuting Mac OSX for MY CAR and OS for Fuel. Just a thought.
"How can you don't have to worry about the viruses and spyware that PCs do and it did not claim Macs were entirely immune to viruses be both true? Either Macs are entirely immune or appropriate precautions should be taken to avoid them."
Easy. It is an easy enough to prove empirical fact that currently there are basically NO viruses out there in the wild for Mac OS X. None, whatsoever (apart from a few academic proof of concepts that you have to consciously download and try out if you really want to). Does that mean there are definitely no vulnerabilities in Mac OS X that could be exploited in future? No, of course not, no one is claiming that, just that there aren't any which are being actively exploited now.
Although I'm very happy with my Mac, like many others I also find the smug attitude of some Mac users quite annoying. I'm sure there are plenty of virus writers who would love to take Apple down a peg or two, so I can't believe that the current lack of attacks is purely down to market share.
I really like Windows; I think it’s an extremely *flexible* operating system. I can build the worst server in the world and somehow it still functions reasonably well, from a security and compatibility perspective. UNIX servers are never as friendly and run best on proprietary hardware and require proper configuration hence they are usually pretty tough. LINUX is a similar story but slightly more flexible, however its open source nature is a real security nightmare. Any programmer who’s ever had any involvement in its development (and we are potentially talking about millions of contributors here) has intimate knowledge of its workings. Traditionally Apple’s RISC operating systems have been a mixture between LINUX and UNIX but like Windows remained totally closed, even from a hardware perspective which is a good thing from a security perspective.
However in 1996, mainly due to a response to Microsoft’s upcoming XP, Apple started a major redevelopment of its OS resulting in OSX, which at its core runs open source code and recently they have taken the decision to move away from RISC architecture to the mainstream CISC architecture. This clearly steers the Apple Mac into the IBM clone PC arena and the similarities between the two grow closer day by day.
So bearing in mind that the major banks, retailers and credit card companies that spend millions on security still get hacked all the time, why is it that a large proportion of Apple Mac users incorrectly remain under the impression that the OSX operating system is hack proof?
Are you all under the same impression that if these banks all just used £1000 iMacs everyone’s money would be safe?
" ' you don't have to worry about the viruses and spyware that PCs do'
* ' it did not claim Macs were entirely immune to viruses'
"be both true? Either Macs are entirely immune or appropriate precautions should be taken to avoid them."
That's the beauty of the language used: Mac users DON'T have to worry about any virus with a ".exe" suffix, or anything that writes to a Windorws registry file, since they don't use that terminology. Hence Windows PCs (or, rather, their programmers and users) have to worry about THOSE malware apps and Macs (and Linux boxes, I assume) do not.
(Isn't semantics fun?)
Mac-, Windows-, and Linux-boxes DO often have to worry about the same malware if it targets a flaw in a third-party app that runs on all three systems (e.g.: the recently announced OpenOffice vuln, IIRC).
1: The truth really hurts don't it?
2: When that fancy litle contest revealed that a hacker can break into a mac was revealed... a couple of things stood out.
a: It took him 48 hours to just find the stupid thing.
b: It let loose a tusnami of seucirty breeches for the windows platform..nevermind the single braek in on the mac side.
Conclusion: People who say windows is more secure...are screwed. Not to mention stupid.
Macs aren't perfect either..but i'd rather sit on that side of the fence until such time.... Linux rules either way.
PC is any machine whos lineage comes from the IBM PC. It is a business machine intended to run either DOS, OS/2 or Windows. That's it.
You can put all the overlays of meaning to the word PC you want, but Apple's meaning in their adverts is the one I give above.
By the way, the IBM PC was IBM's answer to the Apple II. Remember those?
...check the Novell web site for their take on the "PC vs. Mac" campaign...
Apple can say PC and did not need to say Windows, because in the UK at least, it is next to impossible to buy a retail PC without Windows. All PCs in high street shops include it and even the Dell Ubuntu offering does not extend to the UK.
The car thing does not work because the principles of a gas engine does not change. Now the PC hardware does. There are compaqs out there right now running XP, that if i were to try and load the retail version of XP on it i would fail. You need to get the XP from compaq. How various pc makers implement there hard ware can change drastically. They have bios allocate a non standard memory range for add on cards.
Realistically the PC has way more possible combinations then the mac does . Not every scenario can be played out. for testing in addition to PC maker doing screwy things you have to worry about add on cards not playing fair with each other. You don't have people building thier on macs, that eliminates alot of incompatibles
This is more like Slashdot everyday...
elder norm - Heh, are you seriously suggesting the inability to work outside a restricted list of components and services is the same as trying to run a car on urine ? Pffft !
PC's are the everyman alternative. Should Apple decide to put a decent videocard in their machines and the possibility of playing games, plus reduce their prices by 50%, I'd buy one immediately due to the safety in obscurity issue.
"After having installed an anti virus program on my pc on a year old installation of windows, i was surprised to find no virus' of any kind.
You installed Windows a year ago, but you don't ever connect the computer to the internet and you install only pre-packaged commercial software?
That, or you're quite possibly the luckiest son of a b*tch to ever walk God's green earth, and I'd appreciate it if you'd send me 6 non-identical numbers (plus a, um...bonus number) between 1 and 49 please. Thanks!
What they need to do is present why they're better for a particular application on a cost v. benefits basis.
I have Windows machines, Macs (PPC ones), Linux machines, an OS/2 machine, a BSD machine, and an Amiga. Each of them serves its purpose and runs the OS and applications suited to to that purpose.
It seems a waste of time to get single-machine buyers to prefer one machine at purchase just to bad-mouth it to other single-machine buyers later for its shortcomings. The big money, it would seem, would be in getting businesses and geek hobbyists who buy computers in lots to acknowledge that the right mix of systems includes many of yours.
If Microsoft could release their own PC with all their own hardware and their own drivers it would be a completely different matter. The simple fact that Windows will run quite reliably on virtually any Intel compatable hardware, with third party drivers is miraculous to say the least.
As it was stated before: You stick OSX on a different PC setup, it would be screwed.
As for Windows security: If you have 99% of the world's hackers focusing on you, problems will be found. So what?
Regarding a previous post regarding open source vs closed source security: Open source will always *become* more secure - there are a lot of programmers looking at the code and patching up potential problems before they are attacked. Apache is an excellent example of this. Look at how many web sites use that software, compared to how few problems there are with it.
The really nice thing everyone seems to miss is that there is *no* difference between a Mac and a PC. The "mac" is now nothing but an overrated, overpriced PC that "looks coooool".
The only reason Macs haven't got 0wned is because the old Classic-era virus haven't been upgraded to MacOSX. Symantec's first AV was SAM, and guess what OS it ran on? I lost at least one Powerbook 180, one MDS88 removable cartridge, and a Jasmine 20Mb HD to some of the more nasty viruses. And guess what? One of those viruses came from a *PC*.
Most windows "virii" have been made for M$ "technologies" like the crappy VBScript (Mailissa), Windows RPC/SMB (Blaster), or ActiveX (all kinds of malware). Boot sector and REAL assembly virii have been forgotten. Only get someone to revive them and voila! Explosive virii on your "Mac-I-swear-i-am-not-a-PC".
Me? If I ever do need a Mac again, I'll stick to my old Performa. It still works, and I can still run Descent in that machine.
Those bastards! Advertising things like this Why, the next thing you know, the smug gits over at Ferrari will start advertising that their cars go faster than a Chevy. Can you believe that unmitigated arrogance? Clearly, it's nothing more than a self-satisfied plot to make Chevy owners...err, Windows users feel bad about themselves.
"mixture between LINUX and UNIX" Impossible! GPL violations right there. I assume you mean Gnu or something else entirely but the Linux kernel has never been mixed with Unix code because that would enact the death clause and the result would be still born.
"As for Windows security: If you have 99% of the world's hackers focusing on you, problems will be found. So what?"
Most of the real crackers are focusing on Linux and Mac OS X; criminals are going after windows because of the money. crackers want prestige and what's better than showing off that you've made the worlds first virulent linux or mac virus?
"If Microsoft could release their own PC with all their own hardware and their own drivers it would be a completely different matter."
Not really, windows exploitations have always been in the apps, networking and various other none hardware driver code; some are driver related but not nearly enough for your comment to make sense.
"The simple fact that Windows will run quite reliably on virtually any Intel compatable hardware, with third party drivers is miraculous to say the least."
Not really, I mean ok so it's windows but linux runs on even more hardware, it runs of x86, PPCs, Riscs, Z86s for crying out loud. windows has a rather limiting hardware scope in comparison, just look at the Firewire stack in windows, ew.
I try so hard not to get sucked into these, but this quote
Bollocks. Take it out of the box, plug the colour coded cables into the colour coded sockets, turn it on. If you can't even do that, get a point-and-drool Mac.
Um, you forgot, to download SPs (for XP), restart, download more, restart, etc., Uninstall AOL. Uninstall QuickStart. Uninstall Dell's weird wireless network software that bypasses the MS Windows wireless tools. Oh also a good idea, reformat hard drive to get back your 4GB or more of space on a hidden partition (assuming you have the OS install media, which of course a Mac ships with). And most likely, try to find a firmware update for your computer because there probably is one, although good luck sorting through what you should install and what you don't need as Dell's site will simply list every download that could possibly be for your model.
I prefer to think that they aren't deliberate falsehoods:
@Neil: "The only reason Mac's are more secure is because no one can be bothered to make viruses for them when it is not a dominant product."
False. There was a time when the Mac OS was *the* dominant OS in schools and universities, and the fact is that Macs have always been less prone to malicious software because the OS design was always more secure than anything Microsoft had. Sure, there were a lot of viruses aimed at "old-school_ Mac OS - but the primary method of distribtuion was via floppy disk. That's infinitely slower than the Internet. Furthermore, OSX is based on Linux, and Linux is secure-by-design (as opposed to "sort-of secure by third-party, crash-prone, and buffer-overflow-ridden add-on products" which described Windows to a "T").
@Wade Burchette: "Macs use security through obscurity."
False. Mac OSX uses security-by-design, as all versions of Linux should do (Lindows is a glaring exception, having been configured to run as "root," which is precisely what you should *never* do - and is precisely what all versions of Windows have doone, up until Vista).
@axx: "So bearing in mind that the major banks, retailers and credit card companies that spend millions on security still get hacked all the time, why is it that a large proportion of Apple Mac users incorrectly remain under the impression that the OSX operating system is hack proof?"
Are you under the impression that banks are running Macs? Or that they aren't suffering from the usual weakest link - the "social engineering" attack? I can attest that the majority of the problems are cause by bank employees (who, by the way, *are* using Windows) stupidly giving out access information that should have been kept confidential, and the rest by Web hacks (usually on Windows IIS servers, by the way - when the server is not running Windows, then the hack is *always* an older and well-known vulnerability, which should have been patched, for which patches were available, and which the bank's IT Department failed to patch).
Re: Hardware Differences: "If Microsoft could release their own PC with all their own hardware and their own drivers it would be a completely different matter."
MS did just that. It's called the "Xbox." And what does it do? Why, it plays games. It excels at playing games, in fact. But the operating system is burned into a ROM chip - guess how hard it is to infect a ROM chip. Go on, I'll give you three guesses! So, even Microsoft knows that a "secure" Windows PC needs two things: (1) major limitations on what software it can use; and (2) Windows must be permanently installed in such a way that it can't be modified without hacking the hardware.
And for the record - I don't own a Mac, don't especially want a Mac, and I make my living maintaining Windows PCs (and I make a nice side bit of dosh cleaning up infected Windows PCs). I do have several Linux PCs, and five Windows PCs (one Win2K, four WinXP, and one of those will dual-boot Vista as soon as I ahve time to install the beast). My job involves a lot of security work and security awareness - and my job would be orders of magnitude less work if my employer used Mac OSX on the desktop - but the same is true if he used Linux, and that's essentially free (installation still costs some time, and time is money so...). I rather like Windows XP, within certain limitations; it's excellent for playing games, after all. But it's *not* secure, and neither it nor Vista will ever *be* secure as long as Microsoft continues to support things such as Browser Helper Objects, Web browsers that are integrated into the OS, silent privilege elevation, and pushing for "bells and whistles" in the GUI at the expense of security in the kernel.
Mitchell and Webb are funny usually. Peep show is bloody awesome.
Don't see why people care about these ads so much. Not going to stop you using a PC is it.
Plus we get a far greater selection of apps, proper games, etc.
This thread is beginning to sound like a arguments I used to have when I was 10, e.g spectrum vs commodore 64
For info, the term PC pre-dates the original IBM type 5150 machine ,which was the first modern 8088 based machine, by about 9 years. The difference was that IBM used off-the-shelf parts and an off the shelf OS from a small company called microsoft which it rebadged.
Because it used off the shelf parts it was possible to clone the IBM machines and produce them without the huge price markup that BigBlue put on them. After some unsuccesful attempts to stop these copies being made, the floodgates were opened and anybody could start churning out IBM-Compatible machines, you could say that they were the original open-source computer.
Unfortunetly the person that really made the money was a Mr B Gates est. because he made the software that your cheap clone ran.
So perhaps the actual advert should be
Personal Computer derived from an original IBM machine running a Microsoft Operating system vs Mac OSX
OK so it's not that snappy. But that's why I'm not in advertising.
...is that for almost every commercial of this variety that I see, whatever the Mac says about itself is inevably either far more true for Linux, or just totally useless and misguided.
And its odd that the $600 / 2 year old Dell that I just got at work, running Slackware, performs far better than my $4000 / 3 year old G5 that I've been using. Its not only faster, but the damned gui (Fluxbox) doesn't try and slow me down each time I get it in my head to get some work done.
I might add that when done right, stability is a non issue for any platform. I've gotten 100+ day uptimes on Windows XP and 2003, I'm at like a year on one of my Linux boxes, and I pulled nearly 6 months on that G5 at work. I tend to reboot for power and hardware failures. Any moron using a computer can make it unstable, no matter what the computer. Except possibly Solaris, because it seems nearly impossible to actually make it shut down.
but I'd like to see some figures showing how many PC and Mac people click on suspicious links in emails - because I expect them to be similar in levels
Oh hell, I promised myself not to send any comments..
I also keep promising myself not to read any comments..
But I suppose its like a car crash, you need to look to see if its a bad as you think?
Dunno, but there's one thing no-one has mentioned yet (Ahh! that's the trap I'm falling into..)
"World's most annoying advert" ? Not by a long way :-)
Peace and love ;-)
Morely, i was diggin what you were saying until:
"Furthermore, OSX is based on Linux"
No it's BSD!!! BSD is UNIX not Linux. Someone mentioned "still born" if it was LINUX :) It is also closer to Solaris, HP-UX, AIX proprietary OS's and it's BSD variant is called "Darwin".
"False. Mac OSX uses security-by-design, as all versions of Linux should do (Lindows is a glaring exception, having been configured to run as "root," which is precisely what you should *never* do - and is precisely what all versions of Windows have doone, up until Vista)."
Vista? Wrong!!!! You are the first user when you set up your box, you turn off UAC (Thanks Bill for that ingenious "Bolt on") what are you? ........ ....... ....... Bueller ..... ...... ...... Bueller.... Faris Bueller. No, you are the administrator. Backwards!!! Security in OSX and any other NIX variant works because it uses the least privilege model. Even with Vista M$ still doesn't get it. They didn't need UAC they just needed all accounts on the box to be non administrators when you create them. Then ask for elevated credentials to install something. Works very well in the rest of the world. Maybe they should have ripped off SUDO like they do everything else.. err i mean put gun to head to sell them the technology. (I promise no more M$ Bashing) :P
The XBOX does have a BIOS, yes thats true but the OS resides on the HDD. They have put in blocks to keep any Tom Dick and Harry from modifying it in the BIOS. How long did that last Bill?
Since the OS is on an HDD someone could write something for it now
To all who don't think OSX doesn't run well on non-apple HW grab the latest version of Hackintosh from piratebay and build a box with the most compatible HW and see for your self. With a little homework and planning you too can run OSX on something other than Apple's over priced HW. BTW you can build one for around 400 - 600 USD and it runs very stable.
I'm not condoning piracy but i like to play with as many OS's as I can(I gave myself 40 lashes for doing it). The day Apple gets their head out of their A@#es and sells OSX to the rest of the world is the day i gladly shell out the cash.
I do have a problem with overpriced X86 hardware no matter how pretty the packaging is.
Pffft: I do know the benefits of proprietary HW in the enterprise. I really don't care about it for my PC at home.
Let the Mac guy be as smug as he wants there is more truth to what he is saying than not. Open your mind and stop freely giving your hard earned $$ to M$. You may not like Apple and if thats the case look at other alternatives like Ubuntu. Really analyze what you do on a computer. Some will find that they can't change but most can. Every OS has it's place and give thumbs up to Apple for trying to put M$ in theirs.
My 2 cents worth :)
Hey guys keep talking I've nearly cooked a marshmallow in the heat of all the nerdrage in here.
I dunno I have a win2k box that don't crash. It runs 24/7 and has ran for over a year straight with no reboots or crashes (only reason it went down was we lost power)
I use it as a web, FTP, and an e-mail server and its never been infected by any viruses even though its been on the net and hammered for over 5 years. This is just 2k pro not server or any of the special premium versions of 2000.
so yea windows is unstable and virus ridden if you have no idea what your doing (open e-mail attachments from ppl you don't know), have no idea how to fine tune it, and use dodgy software (Internet Explorer/Outlook).
Now on the other hand my friends mac can't run for 2 days without crapping out
> " ... a Smug t**t with a false sence of supiriority"
I believe the ASA have just stated that as far as they are concerned it actually is a *real* sense of superiority.
You don't need a mac to be a smug tw@ though.
ASA have just stated what every rational computer user knows and is obvious - Macs don't get many or even any viruses and PCs get lots. Getting bogged down in smaller details, trying to "prove" that Apple are lying or have manipulated the truth or trying to find examples of virus-free PCs (although no-one came up with a popular Mac virus as argument) is only denying the blindingly obvious and taking the context of this news so far out of its intended meaning that it makes no sense. ASA are the "advertising standards" body, not especially a technology company. They spend most of their week wondering whether Persil really does wash whites white not launching a techno-religious propaganda unit intent on permitting sacrilegious heresy about the sainted windows of our lord microsoft. It just took one look at the "Code Red" (etc etc) "$2bn lost!" headlines and considered it fairly safe to say PCs were mucky machines that tended to run a lot of code their owners didn't know about. And Macs never make the 10 o'clock news for being badly built. It didn't ask why this might be so, it just looked at the blindingly obvious and simple fact that it is.
God bless the internet ... anyway I heard the A500 is selling millions more than the ST because ST graphics suck and Cubase is for losers and smug tw@s.