Re: Apple's new line of commercials..

[Mitchell Spector <mitch2gs@hotmail.com>]

"Nama" <lord_philip@mac.com> wrote:

>Mitchell Spector (mitch2gs@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>>>As far as I'm concerned, Macs are overpriced, and over proprietary. And now
>>>> that they are Intel based, they are no different than every other PC out
>>>> there.
>>>
>>>Firstly, there was NEVER really any difference between Mac and PC's
>>>in terms of hardware
>>
>>    Oh? How about looking at the very core, which has had a completely
>>different microprocessor architecture starting with the 680x0 and then 
>>later moving to the RISC based PowerPC. 
>>
>>    Then there has been NuBus expansion slots, Apple Desktop Bus for
>>input devices, Zilog based serial controllers (capable of dual function 
>>as a 230 Kbits/sec proprietary network interface), SCSI and digital 
>>audio as a built-in standard, GCR encoding for floppy storage, built-in
>>firmware for supporting a GUI with a mouse as mandatory input device.
>>
>>>and from an end users point of view. 
>>
>>How about merely the fact that up until the early 90's, Macintoshes were
>>mouse driven GUI systems and PC's were primarily CLI machines with text
>>screens.
>> Yes, granted they were personal computers and used such things, but
>> claiming they were fundamentally the same is like saying an Apple II Plus
>> and a Pentium 4 system are the same because they both have displays,
>> RAM, microprocessors and keyboards.
>
>You are missing the point. Firstly we are not comparing vintage 8bit
>tech to modern tech. Nor were we comparing GUI vs non GUI. We were
>comparing rival GUI OS's, and from that point of view, the architecture
>isn't very important. Nor is the fact that it has this kind of plug or
>that kind of controller. Most users just don't care. To make an
>analogy, cars often have different types of engines (rotary, deisel,
>conventional, hybrid), and some use metric bolts and other use imperial
>(how antiquated is that) but basically they perform exactly the same
>tasks of getting the occupants from A to B.

    I thought your point above was there has never been a _hardware_
difference between Mac's and PC's. As far back as January 1984, the
Macintosh 128 and original IBM PC/AT were the same except for the
OS running on top? I corrected that statement, since it is obviously false,
and wanted to raise the point that in the past, the Macintosh was a
unique (and in my opinion superior, at the time) platform.

    In the present (2006) there is fundamentally no difference in hardware
between the Mac and the PC, I agree, but you were trying to claim that
this isn't really isn't a concern as it's been the case for the past 22
years.

    And yes, it IS now all about the GUI operating system on top today.
Which makes an interesting point, what happens when I'm running
MacOS X on my generic (non-Apple) PC box I'm typing on now? Then
where exactly does the Macintosh fit in, how do you define a "Mac"
at this point? Is it just another PC brand, like Dell, Compaq, Sony?

>>So Apple is selling a state of mind more so than an actual product?
>>Macintoshes have become more of a fashion statement these days,
>>people buying them like they would a pair of designer jeans or an
>>overpriced sports car. Or decorative art, which isn't so far off the mark. :)
>
>Look around. Lots of companies do brand advertising. However all the
>jean ads and sports car ads I've seen have never been brand adverts,
>they are selling product's pure and simple, you always see the jeans,
>you always see the sports car.

    Which is interesting, because in the past Apple used to talk about
physical hardware. Remember the old ads with the Pentium II glued to
the back of a snail? Or the Intel guy in the firesuit getting burned? They
were trying to say how awful PC hardware is and should be avoided, yet
now this is what Mac's are built on. Obviously that angle can't be used 
now.

    About the new ads, they have no meaning. Just that Apple products
are: hip, cool and fresh, while PC is: old, lame and dorky. Why? No 
reason, except you should believe what the TV ads tell you, that buying 
and using product-x will make you cool and popular, product-y will not.

     I also have to chuckle at the network ad with "Mac" talking to digital
cameras but "PC" cannot. Huh? There are dozens upon dozens of USB 
devices that cannot communicate with MacOS because there are simply
no drivers written yet (e.g. Garmin GPS, Pocket PC's, smartphones, etc).
Many users bought Virtual PC to try and get around it, with little success.

>> Lack of choice is a good thing? And that is putting a lot of blind faith
>> and belief that the one single product (versus a dozen or so for the PC)
>> will always work the way you want it, flawless in design/features and
>> automatically "the best". In any case, this may soon be moot as
>> publishers just release Windows versions of software for Mac users.
>
>When did I ever say 'one single product'? Mac owners have choices too
>you know, unless you are talking about games ;-)

    You mentioned while there is iPhoto on the Mac (one product) there are
15 equivalents on the PC side. There are limited choices in software on 
MacOS X side though, and it's going to get far more limited now that the
Mac is Windows compatible. At least that is my theory.

>>  In any case, saying you wouldn't use XP even if someone paid you is
>> just reenforcing old stereotypes about previous versions of Windows (3.1,
>> 95, 98 or ME). If you lump them all together and think of them as one,
>> that's just wearing a blinder.
>
>Errr...I never mentioned 3.1, 95, 98 or ME. My machine runs XP as I
>stated previously. Please don't put words into my mouth. It's not fair.
>Anyway, I'm done with this pointless conversation. Probably best to
>start a new topic if you want to talk about the lifespan of Apple IIGS,
>and let this topic die the death it deserves. 

    Yes, but your claiming that you won't touch Windows XP under any
circumstance. I could understand reasons wanting to avoid pre-NT 
versions of Windows but XP is pretty solid and robust. I certainly don't
think its the holy grail of OSes or have a particular fondness for it, but
it works well. So does MacOS X. I just sort of scratch my head when
someone claims that OS X is so much better than the XP these days
(cosmetic look aside). 

    This is off topic and I don't mind letting it die either. Though it is 
interesting if you look at it as the last gasp for the evolution of Apple
made computers. Apple always kept themselves different from the
IBM PC and prided themselves on that. Now it's like they've finally
given up, waiving a white flag and acknowledging the PC as the
final victor in the PC wars by adopting PC technology into Apple's.
The two final competitors have been PC and Mac. The PC had
won but the Mac was holding on, struggling to be different.

Mitchell Spector