As much work as Vista needs, I hate these ads. Apples ad campaign needs some serious work... its one thing to say you have a better product but its another to insult the users of the product you are trying to compete with and draw them to you. Apple has always come across in a condescending and "cheap" fashion. For the very reason of feeling insulted I will never purchase one of their products. First it was the "switch" ads back in the day, they weren't so bad though. Then came the Intel ads last years, now these.
The last couple of US GetAMac ads have been kind of low blows against Vista. That said when my new laptop arrives I'm going to dual boot it with XP purely because it requires less running resources so games *should* play better.
Also because I can't be bothered forking out ~£200 for a copy of Vista.
Other than the odd click of the mouse on a mac I don't know anything about them and all their adverts do is slate Windows so I have no idea why a Mac would be better other than its shiny, they don't even talk about their own products.
To be honest, I find those ads quite funny but the only people they will really appeal to are those who *hate* Vista and/or are existing Mac users. The vast majority of Vista users I know think it's great, myself included. Of course there are exceptions, but there always are. I can't see Mac's sales increasing because of those adverts but I have to give them credit for being clever.
It's a bit like Guinness' advertising campaigns over the last decade or so. Their awesome adverts (the surfers, horses etc) are well liked but haven't actually increased the sales of Guinness - in fact, Guinness sales have spiraled downward since the early 90s when these adverts began. The trouble is, they look cool, but they don't sell the product in question. Same with the Mac adverts. They're funny but they don't say, "Hey! Mac's can do this, that and the other so buy one". We'll see anyway.
I still have no idea why vista was even distributed in 32 bit, there is nothing left to do with four gigs of memory
if they wanted to improve speed AND features they needed 64 bit, they really can't improve both on a 32 bit operating system, 32 bit is as close to maxed out as it can get in xp...they can add features but not with added speed, as I say, you can only do so much with 4 gigs of memory
they needed to ship their new boxes dual booted with 32 bit xp "in vista trim" for people that didn't want to get new 64 bit hardware all at once, and they needed to have 64 bit vista on the same box as the main os, dual or quad core
then people would be buying in droves and developing in droves, and there would be no way anyone could say "32 bit xp was better", games would be written every day for the 64 bit potential, people would be installing 16, 20 gigs of memory and gaming industry would be having a friggin ball
that would have been the way to go and I am amazed they didn't make 64 bit the main release with the 32 on the box for legacy purposes
as far as the mc vs pc let's get something straight to begin with;
all you are buying is an interface, they are both based on the same os technology and principles with driver and interface pacs pre installed
I don't even know how apple and microsoft still sell friggin os's with Linux coming out with driver and interface pacs pre loaded
I guess the only reason I can think of is microsoft pretty much gives their os away to the hardware distributors and users are used to the familiar face.
never the less, if I'm a hardware distributer best strategy for me would be to reload with 64 bit, 32 bit and a full driver, user interface pack of some Linux distro
I personally consider both microsoft and apple to be the America on line of operating systems, neither are giving anything at all except the convenience of familiarity
I've used both and see no discernible difference between the two, we prefer the os we learned on or the os our friends used when we started
personally, I prefer the os that's cheapest with the most programs available and I'm pretty sure that's the only reason pc is more pervasive then the macs
I dont want to go off the path from GM post but If Windows 7 is in development why on earth would M$ release Vista? It absolutely makes no sense to me. I have been reading many articles placing Vista as the "Windows Me" of modern era. why couldn't they continue to use XP and utilize SP3 as a boost until "7" is out.
Not just that. There are lots of issues and reasons why vista needed to come out. For one xp was in the market for 5 years which, for volume licensing customers makes subscription based purchasing bad value. Thats where MS really make the cash and they were demanding a new OS to justify the subscription as MS said it would be economical to be subscription based rather then outright purchasing.
Vista is fine, yeh it has a couple of issues but I have heard horror stories of the mess that 10.5 is as well so they are like for like and at least vista is more a "enterprise" grade os then OSx.
Vista was actually quite a change from XP and it will have been 4 years after Vista's release when 7 is starting to get near... and thats without the inevitable delays.
Only 3 years? Lets look at the client release history.
Windows 3.1 - April 1992
Windows 95 - August 1995
Windows 98 - June 1998
Windows Me - September 2000
Windows XP - October 2001
Windows Vista - November 2006
This is without considering either NT releases or server releases, now client and server are getting merged into one, so as of winme, we lose the 9x/msdos releases, but now we merge the NT client and server.
It has already been stated that 7 won't be as great a change as Vista was, but we will have to see.
I love the GetAMac ads cause they are funny. The original ones highlighted the bundling of things like iLife et al which is a selling point. You can certainly do a lot more with a Mac out of the box than with Windows, thats certainly been my experience anyway.
Because Apple control the hardware the systems are frequently more stable and because XCode is free there is a much wider indie developer community than Windows. Again this is my opinion and experience.
Windows has definitely improved in a stability perspective with XP and Vista with Microsoft more tightly restricting access to the kernel and driver certification being pushed more to the front.
While I and many others bash MS for the pricing and "Editions" of Windows you have to remember they don't have the hardware revenue stream of Apple. Windows is probably their biggest revenue stream. Sure I'd like to see new versions of Windows for £85 or £129 for a 5 machine family pack but I doubt that will ever happen.
Sure linux distributions are available but imo neither Gnome nor KDE is the kind of environment I would like to use day to day, and believe me I've tried. OS X gives me the UNIX underpinnings I like with a fancy pants glossy interface too.
The argument that Windows Vista shouldn't have been shipped with 32bit support is a bit odd too. Microsoft don't want to ignore a huge set of their potential market by only going with 64bit, add that to the number of Windows based games which take pleasure in notifying you that they aren't tested under a 64bit OS. Microsoft don't have the clout to drop legacy stuff from their offering in the same way that Apple can due to their control of the hardware. I mean for gods sake Windows keyboards still come with Scroll Lock which I doubt anyone really uses on a day to day basis. If Windows switched up to only being 64bit then I'd suggest dropping BIOS and MBR as well, both these systems are outdated and are approaching the time when we reach the limits of their abilities.
That said we've all been supposed to be using IPv6 for at least 5 years now or something.
The argument that Windows Vista shouldn't have been shipped with 32bit support is a bit odd too. Microsoft don't want to ignore a huge set of their potential market by only going with 64bit, add that to the number of Windows based games which take pleasure in notifying you that they aren't tested under a 64bit OS.
you are making the marketing assumption that xp had to be cancelled just because vista 64 bit was released
32 bit xp neither had to be cancelled nor should have been cancelled, vista should have been shipped 64 bit only with an option to boot to 32 bit xp
they needed to continue to ship xp when someone wanted it, they needed to ship 32 xp with the vista 64 distro on the same box, vista 64 needed to be on "c" and they needed to give xp a primary partion with a vista gui
no reason at all vista was released 32 bit and it should not have happened