What is Digg?146 Comments
- thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -19/+90Upgrade?
Oh you don't have to upgrade your hardware.
Just buy a brand new computer!
"It just works"
(but don't ask how) - mattmeow, on 10/12/2007, -17/+69Vista Requirements:
800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
512 MB System Memory
SVGA (800x600) GPU
20 GB HDD
CD-ROM
OSX Tiger Requirements:
PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 processor
Built-in FireWire
At least 256MB of physical RAM
A built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card supported by your computer
At least 3.0 GB of available space on your hard drive; 4GB of disk space if you install XCode 2 developer tools
DVD drive for installation
What a horrible argument. Both OS's can support very old hardware, but why on earth would you spent the money to upgrade the OS on hardware that old? It makes no sense. Both vista and OSX are very easy to install, and upgrading hardware on both machines is the same (they are built from the same parts.) I can't even imagine how slow either OS would run on systems that old. If you need to upgrade to run Vista or OSX please just buy a new computer! - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -7/+43How can they so easily play off a PC's strengths as it's weaknesses? Upgrading is a major strength! Don't want to buy another PC? That's okay! Buy a proc from the same socket, drop it in! Same with the video cards! It's simple and any dolt can learn how in a couple of minutes.
But with Mac's your locked into a restrictive hardware scheme that makes upgrades anything but possible. And yet, Apple's amazing ability to turn a computer in a device with obsolenece is a good thing?! Holy *****, it's probably the single worst thing about Macs and that company in general.
Ugh. If I could upgrade a Mac or build a Mac, I'd have gotten one by now. I like the idea, I hate the trendy white plastic and locked systems. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32Dugg up Matt for having common sense in these futile Mac vs PC arguments that seem to break out every 5 minutes on Digg
- Hooj, on 10/12/2007, -11/+35How long will it take the fanbois to shut up?
Why does it have to be one or the other?
I have a Mac and a PC. They both have thier advantages and disadvantages. - StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -15/+36Difference being that most of Apple's OS releases don't require nearly as significant upgrades to run the new version. In fact, more often than not, each iteration gets faster.
/the more you know - consonance, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24The Operating System Council has deemed you treasonous. Using both a Mac and PC is an heinous offense against the gods.
- skinfitz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24I think a more appropriate advert would be while PC is in his wheelchair with his 'upgrades', Mac's replacement should arrive, shoot old Mac in the head and stuff him into a box.
- jdc760, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17He's a "PC," which includes more companies than just Microsoft.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Your opinion aside, they've been wildly successful. That seems to be all that matters in marketing.
- hyperpasta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17My school owns blue iMacs, which were produced in the late 90's-early 00's, running Tiger. Not Panther, Tiger!
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18> Difference being that most of Apple's OS releases don't require nearly as
> significant upgrades to run the new version. In fact, more often than not,
> each iteration gets faster.
People think I'm lying when I say this. I have an old 500Mhz G3 iBook. I've had Jaguar, Panther and Tiger installed, and each upgrade gets faster and the UI gets more responsive. I don't know how the hell that works, but I tend to doubt it's going to happen again with Leopard. Still, it's pretty impressive that even on old Macs, OS X gets a speed bump with each upgrade. - r0ck3tm4nn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Or you could use your brain and buy the same ***** off newegg.com. Its the year 2007: Macs use intel processors and are no different from PC's hardware wise.
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18"Don't want to buy another PC? That's okay! Buy a proc from the same socket, drop it in! Same with the video cards! It's simple and any dolt can learn how in a couple of minutes." - betterth
Yeah, this is the pretty picture the PC world paints for you. Unfortunately, it rarely rings true. I know, because I've built my own PCs.
By the time you're ready to upgrade your processor, guess what? The new ones use a different socket! Your motherboard is now worthless. Oh, and that PCI graphics card won't work anymore, that's old school. You say you just bought an AGP card? Sorry sucker, we're using PCI Express now. Where have you been?
Goodbye motherboard, goodbye processor, goodbye video card. Ah, might as well build an entirely new PC now. Oh, and by the way, your old RAM won't work with your new motherboard either. What? Your hard drive is ATA? How quaint. SATA is the big thing now. Toss that old dog and buy a new drive.
So yes, if you want an incremental speed boost every 6 months and you're willing to pay the $$$ for the slight increases in performance on a regular basis, a PC is great. If you wait 2 years between upgrades, you're screwed. The world has moved on.
Bottom line: PCs aren't so different from Macs after all in the upgrade department, despite the rabid arguments to the contrary. - sparkalex, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Please remember people that this is about a SOFTWARE/OS upgrade. Think before you post people!! *tears out hair*
From my own personal experience, I can tell you that a 5 year old iMac can run OS X without much of an issue.
This advert is playing on the fact that newer Window OS releases always require faster hardware. Which I have also experienced first hand. - RiverBelow, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18@betterth
Try a Mac Pro... very easily customizable. The only problem is that enormous price tag. Other than that I generally agree with you. Its easy for idiots who know nothing, but personally I like to upgrade stats. Things like upgrading RAM is easy as ***** on my MacBook... I've never owned a desktop Mac though, just the MacBook. Completely impressed so far. - mostman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11WTF? Someone translate please. My verbal state-machine just threw a rod.
And you can stop making the argument that a Mac is more expensive than a PC. Its so 6 years ago. - bradtacs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16For the love of God the apple desktops are completly upgradable just like any PC desktop. I have an ATI card in mine, aftermarket RAM a generic USB / firewire card a Dell monitor and number of other modifications.
The computers like the mini and the imac are for people who just want a simple easy to use computer without having to worry about the pain in the ass of buying and setting up a system. If you don't want that then buy a desktop and modify to your hearts content! - ...---..., on 10/12/2007, -1/+9My kids both have blue iMac originals - 400 MHz - running Tiger - no problem! One is not even firewire equipped (which is supposed to be a requirement).
- ij00mini, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Direct link to the new ads:
http://www.apple.com/getamac/ - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@Mysogyny:
You might if the car companies did what the PC industry did: work on open standards and ease-of-replacement for their parts.
As it is, you can't even chat with your car's computer unless you pay an exorbant fee to the manufacturer for an interface (one, I might add, that likely costs less than $20 to build)
Still, my pretty little 240 HP refurbed bug and my made-out-of-five-dells 2.4GHz ubuntu laptop - both built for significantly less than the cost of buying a new item - speak to the viability of both. - ericmutrie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11It's the hobby side-project of the makers of the iPhone.
- astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13I love how these posts always bring out the hordes of sensitive Microsofties.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8> The only reason OS X doesn't have viruses and crap is because Apple only has 5% of the market.
Like shooting fish in a barrel, this is.
This has been pointed out many, many times but never seems to get through. That argument doesn't hold up. There are more machines running Apache on the Internet than IIS, but guess which one has more exploits and security issues. That's right. The one with the lower market share. By your logic, only Apache should be targeted for this. Strange, too, that IIS and Windows is made by the same company. Hmm... nah, that can't have anything to do with it.
Also, when you combine all the Unix or Unix-like machines (including OS X) out there, there's a massive installed base of machines running similar software (ssh, ftp, blah-de-*****-blah-blah). How come all Unix machines aren't overrun with viruses and security issues, then, if it's just a matter of numbers?
I know, just click the little red thumbs-down button over there and keep repeating that apologist line for MS. They love ya for it. - mecca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ noahhoward
The ads have certainly been a phenomenon, however, their success is very much in doubt. In fact, just a few months ago people were wondering if they were going in different direction after Justin Long's people announced that he might not be making any more ads, given that his character comes off as rather unlikable. See:
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/11/apple-ditches-mac-guy-in-new-ads.php
The critical reaction to the ads has also been largely ambivalent (so long as you don't count apple themed blogs). For instance, see Seth Stevenson's article on Slate, where he gives the ad campaign a C+, or the blog by Peter Burrows on Business Week's website where he voices the obvious concerns about the Macintosh character's likability.
http://www.slate.com/id/2143810/
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2006/05/apples_new_ads.html
I suppose if you define success as offending your target audience to mixed critical reviews, then, yes, we might call Apple's ads 'wildly successful'. If you want to be more tempered, we should acknowledge that Apple's ads have been successful in terms of being memorable and cementing Apple's image. That being said, many wonder about their success in terms of encouraging people to who are thinking about switching to go out buy Apple computers, which is probably a more important area. Further, many wonder if cementing your image as a smug brand is really a good idea (although its pretty obvious why Steve Job's likes them). - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Chances are any Mac with at least a G4, FireWire, and a DVD drive will run Leopard. Maybe even some of the faster G3s with a decent graphics card, but it will run it pretty slow. If you're running a mac with a G3/G4 500Mhz processor or less, just keep Jaguar or Panther on it and be happy to get a few more years out of it mostly worry free. I could never understand this obsession with seeing how old a computer you can run the latest OS on.
- smpdigital, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The funny thing is that it's way more likely that your computer has some kind of malware preventing you from seeing the video than Akamai being dugg.
- bblades, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10For those that still stand by the old boilerplate argument that Mac's cost more than PC's, I will ask you to do a simple exercise. Go to Apple.com and then go to Dell.com. Now take comparable models and start configuring them in a similar way. If you want add on software that will do similar tasks to what iLife does. One day I was bored and did a few of them. Compared the Macbook to a similar Dell laptop, the Imac to their mid priced desktop, and the Mac Pro to the high end XPS systems. Each time the price was almost identical give or take $50-100. For that money you get a cleaner design, iLife, OSX, and the ability to still run Windows if you absolutely must.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I have tried that. And succeeded. Many times.
Your point was...? - colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Works fine for me. Apple hosts with Akamai. I'll leave it to you to figure out why that means the download can't be dugg to death.
- elroy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Hey, as long as we're making 10-year-old bashes on Apple & their hardware:
NuBus slots sure suck, don't they? Oh, and Scully is a lousy CEO! - awhiteflame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@MacParrot:
I agree. My 5-year-old Powerbook Ti G4 @ 500MHz runs tiger no problem whatsoever. - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So does digg.
- zenerdiode, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@Misogyny
"I suppose I could replace my car one part at a time too, but I don't."
Dude, I'd feel really bad for you if your clutch or alternator went out. ;)
J/K man...you probably drive a Jetta anyways. Those things last forever...like 10,000 miles or something. - MuTeD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@S1ngular1ty1
The reason no hacker makes viruses is becuase once they sit down to learn the system, they switch. - jvq1958, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Well I must say that the ads ring pretty true with me - especially the surgery one. I started my PC life with CPM and MS-DOS machines quite some time ago . When the Apple Lisa and then MAC came out I used them for a time. I stopped using the MAC mainly because much of the software I wanted was either not available or slow to arrive. I have been using windows based PCs ever since about 1990 I guess. Every few years I upgrade my PC to take advantage of new features - components like DVD burners, bigger disks, and so on, and software - Windows 2000 and XP with the requisite service packs being the more memorable. These upgrades, when they have been wanted, have often been quite time consuming and have been full of numerous blind alleys and dead ends. Just how it is I figured. Over the years, through necessity, I have become very knowledgeable about windows and how to keep it ticking along. Whilst no longer a "programmer" I would classify myself as a sophisticated Windows user. Just before Christmas I decided it was time to update one of my Windows PCs at home. It is running XP Professional and over time with the addition of new software and hardware the system had become pretty slow. With Vista on the horizon I figured this was a good time to get stuck into it. As I was looking about at the various options I took a look at the MACBOOK Pro notebook. I decided that all things considered it was worth giving it a go - especially with the opportunity to run XP on it via Bootcamp or Parallels. I have been completely staggered at the simplicity of the process. Firstly, I was able to start with a brand new system and have it working and connected to my networks in about 5 minutes. Another 5 minutes and I was collecting emails from my Exchange server and a number of IMAP servers. I kept looking about for things to do - new windows systems ALWAYS take me a few hours to setup. After a month of operation I am super impressed by the advantages a vertically integrated solution can bring to me. I have spent less than an hour in total configuring the MAC and OS X to how I want it. This has included downloading and installing the odd bit of 3rd party software. The only tasks that have taken longer have been getting Entourage to work - mainly the Exchange connection was a bit weird (and now that I have I don't think I will actually need it) and installing windows so that I can run one or two things that I want from it.
If I value my time at zero, then I suspect the MAC may have cost me a little more. As soon as I factor the time in however the MAC wins the price performance contest hands down. This system is super fast, and most things just feel right.
By the way, before the chorus "Fanboy" I still use Windows systems every day and I expect to for quite some time, not because I especially want to, but because I have them. When their upgrade turn comes I will reassess. - astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It grows with you.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WG7pafswuTo - darkphan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Heh, XP was designed for 5 year old machines, considering its been out for almost 5 years now.
- justnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I got an AMD K6 400 MHz proc with 256 MB of RAM running XP flawlessly. I also have a 500MHz G3 running OSX flawlessly. They both can run on old hardware. As for Vista, I'm sure I will find out. Probably runs fine without the new visual effects.
I also agree with Xcheats - noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Lets see, Apple's market share has been going up slow and steady. They've been selling more computers and a lot more to former Windows users. Now, how much of that has to do with the iPod and not these ads is debateable, but, the increase on the PC side didn't seem to be as prominent until after these ads. I'm sure there's market research somewhere that supports that, I just don't feel like finding it seeing as it isn't that big of a deal.
I don't see how people are insulted by these ads. I use Macs and PCs and I can see that the things they are talking about are directed at the computers themselves, not the users. You've got to be pretty touchy (or stupid) to be instulted when someone makes a crackabout all the upgrade syour PC is going to need to support the software you will be force fed. - PueSi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I compared the prices for an iMac vs a desktop PC and you're right, they cost basically the same but the PC I customized had a 2.4GHZ processor instead of 2.16GHZ, a 19" LCD monitor instead of 17" and 256MB instead of 128 in the vidcard.I included a Vista Ultimate Edition license, for the record
So you can have the prettier Mac or a more powerful PC for the same price. The PC becomes more expensive if you buy a DX10 vidcard but on the Mac it doesn't matter since you can't play DX10 games : ) - xcheats, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6That's because they're is always a definite difference in Windows OS upgrades. There are tons of new features and a big difference. Try again -- Thanks.
- justnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What's really funny is macs have built in spell checker.
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You don't seem to understand how the economy works lad. Your grandparents pay, or would pay, higher prices BECAUSE they don't know how to do things themselves. You don't sell a product then support it absolutely free. Your peoples' skills cost them money to learn and you money to find and refine, those skills are money in the bank.
While it is not the greatest thing on earth, if you are going to buy something you can't maintain you should expect to pay someone who has the skills to do so. We aren't all techies and we don't all have techies in our families. Lifes a bitch.
FYI, if you grandparents had a Dell and needed to upgrade they'd be just as likely to pay Dell support prices instead of buying the cheap stuff and doing it themselves. They'd probably get talked into a printer upgrade too. - hansonc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"and the ability to still run Windows if you absolutely must."
for another $300 for a full version of Windows.
I wouldn't pay it either but it's the argument that has to be made - aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@S1ngular1ty1: Did you say something about macs not playing games? I was playing the Prey for OS X demo and I had the volume turned up. Or maybe I was playing Star Wars Empire At War: Forces of Corruption in Vista on my 1.83 Ghz MBP.
- MuTeD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Firefox isnt 100% full-proof.
- NewChar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@noahhoward:
Gotta' brush up on the reading comprehension pal. I was responding to the original poster who claimed that Mac users had better things to do than troll on the internet. Clearly that's not the case, especially on Digg, seeing as how there are thousands more Apple stories that reach the front page than Windows stories, despite the ~90% difference in marketshare and total users. Obviously many Mac users don't have better things to do than troll on Digg. And what's with the MS/Zune rant? Talk about typical fanboy rambling, this topic is about Apple yet you still have to bring up your hate for all things non-Apple. I don't even own a Zune and the last Windows OS I've owned was 2000. You've earned yourself a block. - S1ngular1ty1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The primary reason for infecting computers with viruses is to establish zombie machine networks that can be used to attack other computers on the internet with DDOS attacks. Lately this has been turned into a money making enterprise because hackers will basically extort website owners by making the website owners pay protection fees so their website is not attacked.
In order to do these attacks you need a lot of zombie machines. That means you must infect a lot of machines. It is a lot easier to infect a lot of machines if you exploit the most popular OS that has the vast majority of the market. That is why hackers focus on Windows. Most companies use Windows and not OS X. OS X is mostly only used for home users and OS X only has a very small percentage of the market. It would be a huge waste of time for serious hackers to try and break into OS X because they wouldn't ever get enough machines infected to be worth anything to them since not that many people use Macs.
It is a simple game of numbers. As soon as OS X is in as many machines as Windows (if ever) you will start to see a lot of exploits of OS X. - aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4All of my PC using colleagues (in our IT department) that I've spoken to have found these ads to be extremely funny and witty.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is