# New Mac Commercials



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Coming from a hardcore Microsoft guy, these commercials are pretty clever and funny.

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/


----------



## Laverne (Feb 17, 2005)

"_I've_ got bundled software..... yep..... got a clock.........."

That cracks me up every time! !rolling


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

They are cute, but the one on viruses is a little misleading.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Bogy said:


> They are cute, but the one on viruses is a little misleading.


Mac users have escaped the onslaught of viruses in the past because they're in the minority and most virus writers have PC's, which for the most part are more vulnerable. However, now the reverse seems to be true. The security firms are now warening about virus attacks on Mac's running the new OS.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)




----------



## Laverne (Feb 17, 2005)

!rolling

Umm..... I actually think the PC guy is cuter than the Mac guy... :blush:


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

From listening to a lot of tech podcasts, it looks like Macs are finally catching on a lot of people are buying their first Mac. One of two things will happen

1)	Apple will grow and gain a certain percentage of the market share (nothing too big) and then be in a standstill a la Firefox
2)	Apple will get 40% of the market and 60% of all new virus’

While I said the commercials were clever, they don’t do anything for me, I’d still never waste my money on a Mac. Buying an iPod is as much as an Apple freak I’ll become. 

Nice cartoon Bogy, I needed a slap back into reality


----------



## kc1ih (May 22, 2004)

Cholly said:


> Mac users have escaped the onslaught of viruses in the past because they're in the minority and most virus writers have PC's, which for the most part are more vulnerable. However, now the reverse seems to be true. The security firms are now warening about virus attacks on Mac's running the new OS.


And the security firms are full of it, just trying to create a scare so they can sell software to Mac users. Shows that the Mac market has expanded to the point where it is now being targeted by the fear-mongering virus software makers.

Truth is, there are exactly zero viruses which have ever had any effect on any computer running Mac OS X. The software manufacturers are cleverly not saying that when creating the illusion that Macs are in danger.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

kc1ih said:


> And the security firms are full of it, just trying to create a scare so they can sell software to Mac users. Shows that the Mac market has expanded to the point where it is now being targeted by the fear-mongering virus software makers.
> 
> Truth is, there are exactly zero viruses which have ever had any effect on any computer running Mac OS X. The software manufacturers are cleverly not saying that when creating the illusion that Macs are in danger.





> A malicious script that spies on Apple Mac users was discovered over the weekend. The malware, which has been dubbed 'Opener' by Mac user-groups, disables Mac OS X's built-in firewall, steals personal information and can destroy data.


http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39164062,00.htm


> SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Benjamin Daines was browsing the Web when he clicked on a series of links that promised pictures of an unreleased update to his computer's operating system.
> 
> Instead, a window opened on the screen and strange commands ran as if the machine was under the control of someone -- or something -- else.
> 
> ...


http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/04/30/apple.security.ap/

Looks like you've been reading outdated Mac websites.


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

Pretty clever but I'm already tired of 'em.

I am going to buy a Mac now so I will be the jeans and t-shirt guy instead of the goober.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Pretty clever but I'm already tired of 'em.


Really? I've only seen the Virus one on TV and I only saw it once while channel surfing. I went to check out the new update for QuickTime and went back to Apples home page and they we're spotlighting their new advertising campaign so I checked it out. I had no idea there was a series commercials.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Those ads don't do a thing for me because they're so transparent, a la the 1st frame of the cartoon Bogy provided, which is far more clever than the Mac ads IMO. If your OS is *so* superior, why do you have to take the approach of mocking the other OS? Sorry Apple, I don't buy your hype.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Not being one to fall into cults, the main reason I never went with a Mac from day one was because I didn't want to be involved in one (cult). One thing I learned about ALL Mac users, they all prostrate themselves to the almighty fruit with a bite taken out of it. For years you had to contribute a much greater % of your income to even own a Mac and then the software was more costly as well. Much of the internet was out of reach to Mac users for reasons I never understood but a number of my Mac friends ended up buying a PC for that purpose. They were all high priests in the Mac cult so there must have been a good reason. Personally, I would have a Mac here if it wasn't so tied to a single company and so vulnerable to one man's decree. While the PC is close to that too, Microsoft and Intell are not the only con trollers of the future of the PC, there is a huge collection of alternative sources all independent of Microsoft. With Viruses, I work in comfort everyday that I have a good proven reliable source for protection that has never failed me. The ones who get stung, are the same types of people who go to a prostitute and think they don't need a condom. Same goes for Macs, just that there aren't many prostitutes where Mac users hang out. 
BTW- both the characters in Bogy's cartoon talk from the side of their mouths, Laverne. What is it that you find cute about that?


----------



## Laverne (Feb 17, 2005)

DonLandis said:


> BTW- both the characters in Bogy's cartoon talk from the side of their mouths, Laverne. What is it that you find cute about that?


:lol: I was actually referring to the PC guy in the commercial, not the cartoon.

It was just that the cartoon was trying to point out that the Mac guy is supposedly more aesthetically pleasing and desirable than the PC guy, in the commercials. But not everyone (including myself) will see it that way.  (The PC guy is squishier! HELLO!!! )


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

The commercials are funny. But I consider the "restart" commercial to be false advertising! I use a Mac (G5) at work and have to restart it more often than my 3 PCs at home combined! I am not alone. Of the 10 people who work at that office, 8 have serious crashing problems and especially e-mail program conflicts that crash the macs at least weekly.

Telling people that macs don't crash is a lie, pure and unadulterated!

The "better" commercial is another lie. It is software dependent and not OS dependent. Making photo-books and music, with the right software on a PC is just as easy as with a Mac. It may have been true 15 years ago, but not today.


Apps. Doesn't every single windows machine comes with Windows Media Player? Again, the commercial is funny, but inaccurate and misleading. (that is a euphamism for a lie)

My digital camera and my phone work with my PC at home. The Mac at work doesn't recognize my phone. It sees its there, but it will not connect to it. Another funny commercial that lies to you about capabilities of one product over another.

Again, commercials don't have to be accurate (and these are definitely not accurate) they just have to make an impression. These are funny commercials and they do make an impression. But they lie about the product's capabilities. Why? because that is the only way this company feels it can gain market share.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

What I want to know is what model camera that is in the Networking commercial and where the picture was pulled from.


----------



## pjmrt (Jul 17, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> Not being one to fall into cults, the main reason I never went with a Mac from day one was because I didn't want to be involved in one (cult). One thing I learned about ALL Mac users, they all prostrate themselves to the almighty fruit with a bite taken out of it. For years you had to contribute a much greater % of your income to even own a Mac and then the software was more costly as well. Much of the internet was out of reach to Mac users for reasons I never understood but a number of my Mac friends ended up buying a PC for that purpose. They were all high priests in the Mac cult so there must have been a good reason. Personally, I would have a Mac here if it wasn't so tied to a single company and so vulnerable to one man's decree. While the PC is close to that too, Microsoft and Intell are not the only con trollers of the future of the PC, there is a huge collection of alternative sources all independent of Microsoft. With Viruses, I work in comfort everyday that I have a good proven reliable source for protection that has never failed me. The ones who get stung, are the same types of people who go to a prostitute and think they don't need a condom. Same goes for Macs, just that there aren't many prostitutes where Mac users hang out.
> BTW- both the characters in Bogy's cartoon talk from the side of their mouths, Laverne. What is it that you find cute about that?


The commercials are pretty good. And as a mac person (always suspected I was forever young and hip  ) I have to somewhat disagree with your cost comments. It is true that Macs traditionally have been a little more expensive than PCs. Only a little more because of the extra speed of the PPC processor. And for that extra cost, one gets something that's been traditionally a lot more stable. Need I mention the day or so I spent rebuilding the software on my PC (which I also own) when I upgraded to Windows Me. Never had that kind of problem happen with any of my Macs. My only problem has been software - much more available for Windows. The software quality I still think favors Macs - especially for video editing, graphics, and music composition. Hot games and an OS that eats as much ram as you can throw at it - go PC 

The mistake Apple made is that they held tight to their OS and included proprietary ROM chips to make the thing work. By the time they experimented w/ "clones" it was too late. If they had let go of the hardware end and licensed their OS like Microsoft, we might all be running Jaguar instead of XP.


----------



## pjmrt (Jul 17, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> Telling people that macs don't crash is a lie, pure and unadulterated!
> Tony


I don't have a G5 (wish I did however). But neither my G3, nor any generation before it had crash problems even remotely approaching my PC (home or work).

As to the virus discussion. Given enough time a hacker will find a weak point in any OS. But Mac's OS and Linux, both of which are based off UNIX, are inherently less susceptible to virus attack. The link by Bogy, I believe was the first OS X virus since it came out in 2001 - 6 years! Not bulletproof, no, but a whole lot more secure - and certainly not needing weekly (sometimes more often) security updates from Microsoft just to remain pseudosafe. Much less than 1% of the viruses out there effect Macs, and most of those are macros running thru Microsoft applications like Word and Excel.

http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2003/08/29.1.shtml


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

_"The commercials are pretty good._

Oh my! Can't believe you said that. I have always considered you one with high ethics and integrity as evidenced from your other posts! All the spots they did rely on degrading the competition, pointing out and exxagerating some flaws and myths about PC's. Generally, in the business of advertising, this is a low rent tactic used by businesses that have no real substance on their own to stand on or, have become desparate to generate sales for survival. I know Macs are great machines and the software is equally well done so why the negative advertising and insults? I'll tell you why. It is obvious that Apple is realizing a business model shift in that it's computer division is in real trouble. The ipod end of the business has become a huge success for Apple and the Mac computer division has been flat for several years. Mac users love their Macs, and love the company to a fault. But, they are not successful in spreading the word to build enough new sales to compete with the new success, the ipod. Therefore, I see the ads as a last ditch effort of desperation for the division before Steve pulls yet another surprise and begins to build PCs with windows OS. It took quite awhile but the same thing happened to Amiga computers and left Newtek scrambling to find a new base. Recall the Newtek Toaster? In the Video world, it was King but all that success failed to keep Amiga afloat. Today, the Toaster runs on a PC. Ask their development people why didn't they go with the MAC? They'll tell you. Didn't want to make the same mistake twice. 
Have you ever seen a spot by Microsoft that does likewise? Frankly, I haven't really seen many ads on TV by MS and don't recall any that exxagerate Mac's negatives. In particularly, none to poke fun and insult the people who purchased the competitive product. As commercials go, they are bottom feeder stuff.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

DonLandis said:


> Recall the Newtek Toaster? In the Video world, it was King but all that success failed to keep Amiga afloat. Today, the Toaster runs on a PC.


And from a Toaster user from way, way, way back when...1980s, I can safely tell you that the current Toaster set-up for Windows is the most unstable POS on the planet! Unfortunately there is nothing better for that kind of stuff. A Tri-Caster comes close.  But when I use Toaster I make a change, save settings, make another change, save settings, make another change CRASH! Restart, reload settings, make a change save settings, make a change CRASH! rince, repeat.



pjmrt said:


> I don't have a G5 (wish I did however). But neither my G3, nor any generation before it had crash problems even remotely approaching my PC (home or work).


At work this is the third upgrade of Macs I have been through. Not one single Mac I have used has been imune from crashing with spectacular regularity. What Macs do is what XP does not. It explodes the application and not the OS. But once in a while, the ap explosion is so bad that it takes the OS with it!

My macs at work crash at least once a week. I use applications like I=movie, Final Cut HD, Word, (e-mail do not know its name), 4d Database, Calendar, Excel and Navigator. I use other aps, but every single one of the ones listed above bomb on me AT LEAST once a week with the exception of e-mail. That bombs once a month or so.

See ya
Tony


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

I've used both extensively with graphics hungry applications like CAD (computer aided drafting) software. My WinXP machines are the most stable without a doubt and they run high end applications that just flat aren't available for Macs. My home XP box can run for months without being rebooted unless it's necessary when installing software or a patch. Sometimes XP will hiccup when trying to run old software from the Win95 era but not very often. Everything a Mac will do a PC will do. Macs can't do everything a PC will do.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Tony- Pleased to meet another old Toaster head! My Toaster days were short lived when I moved from 3/4Umatic to beta SP and required higher quality video for broadcast work. Never did like Lightwave coming from a 3D Studio / Autodesk background. I was a beta site for Yost Group back then. Anyway, yes, the Toaster was quite stable but not very high quality. Sorry to hear the latest is a POS. Youre the first one I've heard from who even used one. At NAB opoor Kiki was talking to a crowd of few passerbys, not like the days she was the biggest draw of no standing room to see her demos on the Toaster. 

Earlier it was mentioned that Windows Me was a POS or to that effect. Fact is Windows Me WAS! I don't know why anyone ever installed it because it was a well known fact that Me was unstable when first released. Stable but limited was win2000. Xp SP2 is the best, IMHO, to date and it never crashes, never has the BSOD. The ONLY issue I still have with Windows id memory release and it is important to reboot the machines at least once a week, but more often on those systems I have with less than 2G RAM.

I would not say that PC's can do anything a Mac can do because I know the Mac can run Avid Media composer, I think its called. I don't know of a PC equivalent. How about Macromedia Projector. I almoist bought a Mac just to do that but ended up making a better business decision and outsourced my Projector projects to a Mac associate. 

You all should know that while I mostly work in the PC world, I am quick to use a Mac or anyother tool to get the job done if necessary. It is true that I have never had to resort to FCP because there are many PC tools to do thesame thing faster and cheaper. However, I have completed and saved many a FCP editor's day with my Vegas, Fast VM, even Serious Magic's Ultra in post on a recent project. Most stuff can be done on both some things only on a PC and others only on a Mac. To be successful, you need to recognize that fact and be willing to use the tool, the right tool to get the job done.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

Must reply to Don to maintain my dignity and respect. Digressing, I really don't know is PC's will do everything a Mac will do in your graphics world. I do know with authority that Mac's can't perform complex finite element analysis, curved surface arrays, LaPlance transforms, fourrier analysis and a host of other advanced engineering functions and output those calculations in a graphical Von Mises stress plot. Probably not because the hardware cant handle it but because the software just isn't, and never will be, written for it. And trust me, we've produced static graphical presentations that took 2 days for a mainframe to render. Digressing again, the latest versions of our software has been written for XP as opposed to UNIX. The graphical presentations and animations are several hundred percent faster than they used to be.

BTW Don, anything AutoDesk ever produced was and is an insult to serious mechanical engineers. I could write a book on what crappy software this despot company produces. I realize this is a strong statement but I can back it up with 20 years of experience.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

Don, the one reason to upgrade from Win98 to WinME was networking.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Back in my 3D Studio days, I had networking with Dos 5.0, then ti use some other windows based software such as Elastic Reality and 3D Studio network rendering, I went from windows 3.1 to Windows for Workgroups. I think not that networking was requiring Win Me. Most people I knew who got stuck with it was not their decision. It was on the computer they bought!

ntexasdude- Autocad is about as industry standard a cad program for doing architectural CAD as you can get. It is still today. If you are upset because it won't do stuff it wasn't designed for then you really need to learn to use the right tools for the job. 3D Studio has always been the best of the low end animation programs. In it's day the main competition was Lightwave but that only ran on a Toaster. The advantage of 3D Studio was version 3 and 4 with the introduction of plugins, called IPAS modules. No other 3D animation had this capability. Plus, as mentioned earlier it supported network render farm technology as well as single frame controllers and film recorders. But this stuff never did your math for a physics report.  BTW- It's been too many years since I had diff Eq but I recall it was "Laplace" Transforms not "Lalance. "


----------



## Capmeister (Sep 16, 2003)

Laverne said:


> !rolling
> 
> Umm..... I actually think the PC guy is cuter than the Mac guy... :blush:


And this, Laverne, is one of the reasons we love you.


----------



## Laverne (Feb 17, 2005)

:blush: Gawsh! :blush:


Y'all know I love you too! :grin:
:group:


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

DonLandis said:


> Back in my 3D Studio days, I had networking with Dos 5.0, then ti use some other windows based software such as Elastic Reality and 3D Studio network rendering, I went from windows 3.1 to Windows for Workgroups. I think not that networking was requiring Win Me. Most people I knew who got stuck with it was not their decision. It was on the computer they bought!


I did not mean to imply that ME was the first PC operating system with networking. I also set up my first network with DOS (and people think networks can sometimes be finicky today).  
The reason why ME was worth upgrading to for me was that at the time I was using Internet Connection Sharing, and while other parts of ME might have been less stable, the ICS portion was vastly more stable.


----------



## ntexasdude (Jan 23, 2005)

DonLandis said:


> ..........ntexasdude- Autocad is about as industry standard a cad program for doing architectural CAD as you can get. It is still today. If you are upset because it won't do stuff it wasn't designed for then you really need to learn to use the right tools for the job.......


I won't argue it's not the industry standard but it's not even close to being the best - for anything. The only reason it's the standard is because it was one of the first CAD programs back in the 80's and it is so entrenched and millions of of engineers simply don't want to learn something far superior and cheaper. I'm not upset, I use the right tools and AutoCAD ain't one of them.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Bogy said:


> Don, the one reason to upgrade from Win98 to WinME was networking.


ICS was in Windows 98SE. There was never a compelling reason to install Windows ME. In fact Microsoft discontinued support for WinME a year before they discontinued support for 98SE.

The next generation of Windows ME may well be XP64.

Did you know that Microsoft gave serious consideration to using the name ME on XP Home? It verily boggles the mind.

I think the key going forward is to avoid any product that is produced by a company with Microsoft Partner status. Being a "Partner" seems to mean that you must spend valuable development time making sure your product won't run on other platforms.


----------



## Bogy (Mar 23, 2002)

harsh said:


> ICS was in Windows 98SE. There was never a compelling reason to install Windows ME. In fact Microsoft discontinued support for WinME a year before they discontinued support for 98SE.
> 
> The next generation of Windows ME may well be XP64.
> 
> ...


Yes, ICS was in 98SE. However, it was very unstable. Everything had to load exactly right or it would not work. I sometimes had to reboot 3 or 4 times to get the connection to work. ME did not have that problem, and remained connected far more of the time. For anyone using ICS it was a great improvement and a compelling reason to install ME.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Connectivity was never an issue for me in the early days of networking. The main issue was not the OS but rather the older topology and the issue of collision detection. Before the Switch type routers, all network systems were unstable or lacked accuracy to some extent due to packet collisions. Some of the most puzzeling issues I had was to send a document to the printer off another machine and having a word mispelled in the middle of it happening at random.


----------

