Jump to content


Microsoft attack ads


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Peachy

Peachy

    Anarquista De Sartorial

  • Forum Moderators
  • 5,448 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 11:18 AM

So,Has anyone seen the two new Microsoft ads that attacks Apple's pricing and branding? It's surprising Redmond hasn't done this earlier, but I think they are seeing a significant shift from PC to Mac and they are losing market share if not in quantity then in name recognition. Linux is eating them on the netbook side and OS X on the high-end and it's now converging in the fat middle where most consumers are sitting.I don't think it has gone unnoticed at Microsoft that the Dell Mini 9 is selling like hotcakes, especially the Ubuntu version. What is also driving the Mini 9 sales is the fact that it is the easiest platform to Hackintosh, that is, installing a retail OS X Leopard on it.So here's the irony. Everyone knows that Apple hardware is more expensive than straight non-Apple hardware. But people are buying OS X not to install on Apple hardware, but on non-Apple hardware. And when they buy non-Apple hardware they still aren't buying Windows. They will choose Linux and then install OS X. Of course, Hackintoshing is an insignificant percentage, but is kinda ironic.  B)

'freedom...is actually the reason that men live together in political organisations at all. Without it, political life as such would be meaningless. The raison d'Être of politics is freedom, and its field of experience is action'.
My Flickr Photo Blog Posted Image
del.icio.us bookmarks Posted Image


#2 OFFLINE   throktar

throktar

    Message Adept

  • No Longer a Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 03:09 PM

View PostPeachy, on Apr 6 2009, 10:03 PM, said:

So,Has anyone seen the two new Microsoft ads that attacks Apple's pricing and branding? It's surprising Redmond hasn't done this earlier, but I think they are seeing a significant shift from PC to Mac and they are losing market share if not in quantity then in name recognition. Linux is eating them on the netbook side and OS X on the high-end and it's now converging in the fat middle where most consumers are sitting.I don't think it has gone unnoticed at Microsoft that the Dell Mini 9 is selling like hotcakes, especially the Ubuntu version. What is also driving the Mini 9 sales is the fact that it is the easiest platform to Hackintosh, that is, installing a retail OS X Leopard on it.So here's the irony. Everyone knows that Apple hardware is more expensive than straight non-Apple hardware. But people are buying OS X not to install on Apple hardware, but on non-Apple hardware. And when they buy non-Apple hardware they still aren't buying Windows. They will choose Linux and then install OS X. Of course, Hackintoshing is an insignificant percentage, but is kinda ironic.  :thumbsup:
Last time I was in the states, the Acer Aspire One was in very short supply at Costco. I don't recall any with any 'nix on them... I had to try 4 stores to find a couple in stock.
Non Satis Non Scire

#3 OFFLINE   Tushman

Tushman

    Forum Fiend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,804 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:11 PM

The commercials are lame - MS just wasted some good $$ for a national advertisement that probably will bring in very little ROI.  I also think it's a very pathetic attempt to curb the growing percentage of users migrating to Macs - such computer users tend to be a bit more intelligent than your average joe.  In one of the commercials, there's a male in his 20s who goes out on a shopping mission to find a laptop that meets his particular needs/criterias.  In the commercial he claims that he is a "technology savvy" individual, and yet he goes around making some truly assinine statements like picking up a mac book and noting how sexy it looks, but it lacks power.  He says "Macs are more about aesthetics... and lacks power."  I had to laugh my arse off on that one - what utter BS.  Truth is that any modern laptop sold on the market today (whether it be Mac or Windows based) has more than enough horsepower than the vast majority of the average user will ever need.Also further in the commercial he asks a sales rep "what's the biggest hard drive" that he could get with model [x].  Oh yes.... very technology savvy he is... if he was truly tech savvy, he would know he could upgrade the hard drive to just about any size he wanted.

#4 OFFLINE   Scot

Scot

    Administrator

  • Forum Admins
  • 2,019 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 10:18 AM

I wrote about this indepth in SNB and in CW a few years ago: Bottom line, Macs are only more expensive than PCs at the low end or when you want to buy a specific hardware configuration for which there's no direct correlation in Apple's model lines. In particular, if you're bound and determined to pay $500 for any type of PC (netbook, desktop, even some laptops), Windows or Linux are your only viable options. There is no guarantee that you get what you pay for, as the old saying goes. But one thing is sure: you never get what you don't pay for. So there is a trade-off for those low-end machines. And it makes excellent sense to consider Linux-based systems in that price range. You'll get better value.For a cogent analysis of the MS laptop-hunter ads from sources that do not agree, read this Computerworld article. It's always good to look at both sides of any equation.My own belief is that when you get into the TCO of Macs vs. PCs, and you factor in owner productivity, there's no contest that the Mac is the more cost effective solution over time. But I would agree that by and large, there is a small upfront added cost that some people need to pay (depending on their needs) over what they might pay for a comparable PC. Sometimes it's roughly equal, and other times it may be $100-$200 more. But there are advantages over time that may reverse the equation, including fewer interruptions, better uptime, and longer overall life.However, the new MacBook released late last year is extremely cost efficient when compared to comparably equipped business-class Windows computers typically purchased by enterprises, such as the ThinkPad T and X series notebooks. I was bowled over by the pricing in comparison to what you get -- esp. from the $1,599 MacBook. You can't look at this from a consumer point of view and be wowed, IMO. I agree that at the low-end, the 2.0GHz $999 MacBook whose design is about 5 years old is not a great comparison with the Windows fare. Nor is the similarly powered $599 Mac mini a real bargain. Apple is vulnerable at the low end of the consumer range. The company needs to deliver a netbook. I also think that there should be a $999 version of a newer white MacBook that offers a bit more than the current model. The current model should be priced at $799 or $899.But if on the consumer side you're the sort of buyer who tends to gravitate to products like the Sony Vaio notebooks (as I am) or higher-end HP or Dell models, the Mac may, again, be slightly less expensive. For me, for the way I tend to buy computers (with a very long-term TCO analysis and a high-end features and UI orientation), the Mac is not only cost-effective, but in most model lines, it's really a no-brainer.I totally recognize that many, many computer buyers focus on cash flow and figure they can suffer a little to save some upfront money. If you describe yourself as frugral on upfront hardware costs, you're unlikely to buy or be comfortable with a Mac. And that's totally OK.My main issue with the laptop-hunter ads is that MS is representing people more like me, people willing to spend more for the extras, as finding better deals and in particular more advanced hardware on the PC shelf instead of the Mac shelf. To me, that's ludicrous. I'm not saying that Apple owns the high end, but the facts are distorted by these commercials.-- Scot

Edited by Scot, 12 April 2009 - 10:27 AM.

Scot Finnie, Business & Technology Writer, Editor (that's me in the upper left corner)

#5 OFFLINE   Scot

Scot

    Administrator

  • Forum Admins
  • 2,019 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 10:52 AM

View PostTushman, on Apr 9 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

In the commercial he claims that he is a "technology savvy" individual, and yet he goes around making some truly assinine statements like picking up a mac book and noting how sexy it looks, but it lacks power.
I had the same reaction to this ad. My favorite part is when he says, "ooh it has a little camera on the screen, I like that." A.) Virtually every high-end consumer notebook has this (copying Apple, btw), and B.) Who really cares about this stupid little vid. camera? I'm not saying it won't come in handy for people using Skype video, etc., but it's just not a "high end" feature. It's a bell or whistle.Also, the MacBook isn't sexy. It's the new MacBook Pro that's a seriously sexy Macintosh -- or the MacBook Air, depending upon whether power or sleekness is what turns you on. The MacBook is a plebeian, workman-like, cost-efficient workhorse, and is not something technophiles would lust after. It's the perfect compromise between power and portability - with "compromise" being the operative word.What wows you most about the newer Mac notebooks is not their aluminum enclosures, which I could go either way on aesthetically -- it's their bright LED screens. My new Sony Vaio has an LED screen too, but it's not in the same league as the Mac screens. In use, the new TrackPads are also seriously addictive. That began with the first MacBook Air.Finally, IMO, Blu-ray is not a significant factor for notebooks these days. I looked into what it would cost to add Blu-ray to my Sony Vaio, and it was almost $900. If bought equipped originally with a Blu-ray drive, my Sony Vaio would have had a more than $500 price hike. It's just not worth it. I'm not convinced that Blu-ray is a standard that's going to last. The issue is cost. Even Netflix is now charging more for Blu-ray rentals. So long as Blu-ray is that much more expensive, it's not worth it. If I want to watch a video on a plane, I'm going to fine with one-step-down from Blu-ray. That's really the only time I need to watch video on my notebook.My point: Many of the things that the laptop-hunter ads have focused on are not realistic points of distinction. Most are in some way frivolous.-- Scot
Scot Finnie, Business & Technology Writer, Editor (that's me in the upper left corner)

#6 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 12:15 PM

View PostScot, on Apr 12 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

My own belief is that when you get into the TCO of Macs vs. PCs, and you factor in owner productivity, there's no contest that the Mac is the more cost effective solution over time. But I would agree that by and large, there is a small upfront added cost that some people need to pay (depending on their needs) over what they might pay for a comparable PC. Sometimes it's roughly equal, and other times it may be $100-$200 more. But there are advantages over time that may reverse the equation, including fewer interruptions, better uptime, and longer overall life.-- Scot
I don't doubt that for someone who spends the time at the keyboard that you do, that this is a valid point.  But I would bet that you are the exception, and not the rule, when it comes to Mac users.  I would bet that the averaged Mac user spends less than an hour a day.  (Unless they are gaming.) I know that in my own case, I spend a considerable portion of my day at the keyboard of a DIY PC costing far less than $500 and my "down time" is negligible.

#7 OFFLINE   Scot

Scot

    Administrator

  • Forum Admins
  • 2,019 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 01:55 PM

Would have to completely disagree with that point, Lewmur. Most of the Mac users I know are business people and power users -- more advanced than most Windows users.What's more, it doesn't matter to the point I'm making whether they use the computer 12 hours a day or one hour a day. All that would change is the productivity advantage. The longer lifespan and fewer problems are huge advantages that unless you've seriously used both Macs and Windows you really don't have a good sense of. Besides, I only rattled off three advantages. There are others -- security and the cost of security products and their updates, for example? The system overhead they require? The fact that Macs can address much higher RAM capacities in 32 or 64 bits. The software bundle is unified and lets you pass your personal data from calendar to address book to email (and beyond). This is still just the tip of the iceberg. The list of advantages is much longer than people realize.The truth is that people who use Macs quickly get to the point of being bored with the constant nattering complaints about the cost factor. You know the expression RTFM! ? That's how many Mac users feel about people who complain about the cost of Macs. The acronym would be changed to TAFM though. I'll give you a hint: The T stands for Try. People who complain without actually giving something an honest real-world trial are, to be honest, clueless and their points of view don't represent an honest and full-fledged assessment.I'm not aiming these comments at you, specifically, Lewmur. I have no idea whether you've been on a Mac for 12 years or something. The point I'm trying to make is that I believe many Windows-only (ever) users believe deep in their souls that they're right because few Mac users ever bother to argue the point the way a Windows user thinks. Mac users quickly get into "squishy" things like productivity and what it "feels like" to use a Mac. That's an argument that Windows users think sounds goofy. "Real men" don't care about the user experience and pretty colors, after all.The reality for many Mac users goes something like this: If you can't be bothered to try this out for yourself before you condemn it, why should we bother to spend any of our time trying to convince you? You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. Free your mind and we'll give you the reasons. Give a Mac an honest 30 days (cold turkey on Windows), see what you think then.Because I was just like that myself. I had used Macs from 1985-1989 and again from 1994-1996. So I thought I knew what I wasn't missing. It wasn't until I forced myself into a three-month trial in 2006 that I realized that OS X on Intel is was a powerful combination. For dyed in the wool Windows users, as I was, it's a conversion.-- Scot

Edited by Scot, 12 April 2009 - 02:13 PM.

Scot Finnie, Business & Technology Writer, Editor (that's me in the upper left corner)

#8 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 05:08 PM

View PostScot, on Apr 12 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

Would have to completely disagree with that point, Lewmur. Most of the Mac users I know are business people and power users -- more advanced than most Windows users.For dyed in the wool Windows users, as I was, it's a conversion.-- Scot
I've been in the computer business since 1980 and have owned my own computer since 1985.  I've never paid for a "security app" for my personal computer.  But I think somehow you've confused me with a Windows fan instead of a PC fan.  All PC's don't run Windows.And you'll never convince me that the majority of Macs are commercially owned.  In a sense, high income people will consider their time worth so much that even saving a few minutes every now and then makes spending a few thou worth it.  But you can't convince me the average PC user would be better off spending the extra money for a Mac.Edit:  Oh, the cruel irony!!  As I brag of the "negligible" down time I have, I get a virus on my Windows machine.  But, I really didn't loose any time because I just kept working on my Linux box while my free Avast "security app" took care of the problem. :(

Edited by lewmur, 12 April 2009 - 05:51 PM.


#9 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 05:59 PM

View PostScot, on Apr 12 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

The reality for many Mac users goes something like this: If you can't be bothered to try this out for yourself before you condemn it, why should we bother to spend any of our time trying to convince you? You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. Free your mind and we'll give you the reasons. Give a Mac an honest 30 days (cold turkey on Windows), see what you think then.For dyed in the wool Windows users, as I was, it's a conversion.-- Scot
Sell me OS X to run of my DIY box, and I'll give it an honest try.  But I'm not going to spend my hard earned money on Apple hardware when they admit the OS, which is where the security lies, will run fine on x86 hardware.

#10 OFFLINE   throktar

throktar

    Message Adept

  • No Longer a Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 10:27 PM

<<Finally, IMO, Blu-ray is not a significant factor for notebooks these days. I looked into what it would cost to add Blu-ray to my Sony Vaio, and it was almost $900. If bought equipped originally with a Blu-ray drive, my Sony Vaio would have had a more than $500 price hike. It's just not worth it. I'm not convinced that Blu-ray is a standard that's going to last. The issue is cost. Even Netflix is now charging more for Blu-ray rentals. So long as Blu-ray is that much more expensive, it's not worth it. If I want to watch a video on a plane, I'm going to fine with one-step-down from Blu-ray. That's really the only time I need to watch video on my notebook.>>Funny but my HP Pavilion Dv7 came with Blue-Ray, eSATA, HDMI, 4GB RAM for $1100.00 on sale. You may believe Blue-Ray is no big deal and totally unnecessary in a laptop. But I can enjoy the HD experience on any High Def screen, especially the big 55" to 65" ones... and all I have to do is connect it to my HP laptop. No need for a player that is stuck in one location.
Non Satis Non Scire

#11 OFFLINE   throktar

throktar

    Message Adept

  • No Longer a Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 11:15 PM

Now as to a "Apple Tax" or not-- There is no one who can claim Apple costs less. The hardware just costs more period. Always has and always will. What the Apple platform takes from you is choice. You are basically reduced to a simple either - or. You buy it or you don't.Take the cute little Mac Mini-Base price $599 Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz with 1 GB RAM, 120 GB HD, BlueTooth, Wireless N, Firewire, 5 USB portsOptions are limited- Bump the mempry up to 2 GB and you can add $50. Want more space, then you can add a 250 GB SATA HD for an additional $100So you are now looking at $599 + $150 = $750 Want even more memory and a larger HD? That will move the price up to $750 + $225 = $924What can I build on my own? Now here is where the "choice" factor stands tall and simply burries the Apple platform and the Mac Mini.I'll start with the Intel Atom 330 (board and CPU $89) Add 2 GB of RAM ($27 and maybe even cheaper) A Samsung slim 8X DVD ($65) or an even faster external HP 20X drive for $59; a 320 GB HD will cost me $90 and for $20 more I can bump that to 500 GB. Does Apple offer a fast SSD at any price? NoDepending on the case I choose I may have room for 2 HDs (like the Mini-Box M350) or any combo I choose like 1 large SATA and one fast SSDI need BlueTooth so that will run $45 from Linksys (USB-BT100) Wireless N in either single channel or dual channel from $65 to $80 and from a bunch of name brand manufactures. Again more choice!Let's add it up-MB and CPU $89PS               $472GB RAM      $27Case            $50Slim DVD      $65500 GB HD    $110USB BT         $45DLink x-range Nwireless         $65Total             $498I just paid $426 less than I would have for the Mac MiniIs that a tax or does OS X just cost $426 more?Can I build a car puter from the Mac Mini?  It could be done but what a kludge!!! Does Apple offer such a case? No I can take the above off the shelf components and stick it all in a sweet VoomPC-2 Auto enclosure ($80) and hard wire it to my car for only the difference in the case which is only $30 more.Again, your choice with Apple is really just buy it or not. Take it or leave it.Now in defense of the Mac Mini... I do get a faster CPU, Firewire, and the option for more memory but that costs more like an extra $150.When you get right down to it, I can build 2 systems for the price of a single Mac Mini.I'll take choice any day over Apple...
Non Satis Non Scire

#12 OFFLINE   jolphil

jolphil

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 01 May 2009 - 08:11 AM

Hi Guys,I have read this thread for some time and been thinking about it..I must confess that the last Apple I owned was an Apple 2..That said,I also confess that I use Windows for less and less..Mostly Linux..I have no dog in this hunt..  Many are commenting about the Commercials and tactics MS is now using on TV..Do I not remember that Apple had the Bill look alike and the teen actor putting down MS for well over a year.. Was that not also for lack of a better word "stupid"?  It seems to me that this latest salvo is just pay back..We all know that MS did not get where they are by being passive...Anyway thats my take on it..jolphil

#13 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 01 May 2009 - 10:21 AM

I'm actually enjoying the whole thing.  Apple attacks Windows for being an unreliable piece of junk and MS attacks back calling Macs overpriced toys for rich kids.  Meanwhile the Linux users get to stand on the sidelines and cheer them both on. :)

Edited by lewmur, 01 May 2009 - 10:21 AM.


#14 OFFLINE   throktar

throktar

    Message Adept

  • No Longer a Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 01 May 2009 - 08:14 PM

Seriously, will Linux EVER be in the fray?
Non Satis Non Scire

#15 OFFLINE   Webb

Webb

    Multithreader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 01 May 2009 - 10:19 PM

View Postthroktar, on May 1 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

Seriously, will Linux EVER be in the fray?
No.Linux still doesn't work "out of the box".  99% of your hardware will work with it but there is always one device that doesn't.And the fonts are crappy.And it can't run "real" games.Etc.
The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error. - HAL-9000

You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I don't understand what's gone wrong with it.  - George Hanson, 1969

A bad day at golf is better than a good day at work.


Posted Image
Jim

#16 OFFLINE   jolphil

jolphil

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 02 May 2009 - 08:19 AM

View PostWebb, on May 1 2009, 10:19 PM, said:

No.Linux still doesn't work "out of the box".  99% of your hardware will work with it but there is always one device that doesn't.And the fonts are crappy.And it can't run "real" games.Etc.
Hello.I will tell you a recent event..I had a desktop box running a wireless USB stick for the internet..I also have a hard drive rack, one, with Vista,one with XP, and one with Mandriva (Linux) installed on the same box...I had an occasion to break down the box to move it to a different location..When setting it up again i plugged in the USB Wi-Fi stick in a different port..Heres what happened:Vista, did not find the network..It was however ,not too hard to let it reconfigure the internet.took approx 5 mins..XP, Did not find the network..It took several trys to establish a network connection..Took approx 15 mins..Mandriva 2009.0,Found the internet on the boot up provcess..Took 0 minutes.. Comment #2 about fonts..The fonts I am using now on Mandy are every bit as good as on any MS operating system..I am not a fonts expert but they may be even using MS fonts for all I know..Comment#3 Games..I have maybe 75 games on my Mandy..Many of which I have not ever used..I have heard that Linux will not be as good as games developed for windows..I can't say for sure on that one..My last comment..I have Mandy linux with astronomical programs,math plotter programs,Python development programs and numerous other things that are either not available for windows or that I could not afford them in the first place if they were available...My last comment is:Enjoy your Windows or Mac..  Edit..Jolphil :thumbsup:

Edited by jolphil, 02 May 2009 - 08:24 AM.


#17 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 02 May 2009 - 09:42 AM

View Postjolphil, on May 2 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Vista, did not find the network..It was however ,not too hard to let it reconfigure the internet.took approx 5 mins..XP, Did not find the network..It took several trys to establish a network connection..Took approx 15 mins..Jolphil :thumbsup:
I laugh every time a Windows user brings up the old bug-a-boo about Linux and hardware.  The latest versions of Linux distros are so much better than Windows when it comes to hardware that it just proves whoever made the comment has no idea what they are talking about.

#18 OFFLINE   throktar

throktar

    Message Adept

  • No Longer a Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 02 May 2009 - 08:24 PM

I laugh when peoples opinions somehow miraculously trump reality. How many years has the computing world been told that this is the year that Linux captures the desktop? Every year the cry goes out more intense than the previous years.YES, Linux hardware support is getting better. But folks, it's not a static world. Windoze gets better each year as well.

Edited by throktar, 02 May 2009 - 08:25 PM.

Non Satis Non Scire

#19 OFFLINE   Webb

Webb

    Multithreader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 02 May 2009 - 08:34 PM

View Postlewmur, on May 2 2009, 09:42 AM, said:

I laugh every time a Windows user brings up the old bug-a-boo about Linux and hardware.  The latest versions of Linux distros are so much better than Windows when it comes to hardware that it just proves whoever made the comment has no idea what they are talking about.
I install Linux every couple of years to see if it's gotten any better.It invariable fails to work with at least one piece of hardware - but I don't know what I'm talking about.
The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error. - HAL-9000

You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I don't understand what's gone wrong with it.  - George Hanson, 1969

A bad day at golf is better than a good day at work.


Posted Image
Jim

#20 OFFLINE   ross549

ross549

    I live here.

  • Forum MVP
  • 9,185 posts

Posted 03 May 2009 - 04:28 AM

Folks,Let's please keep this civil.... everyone has their own opinion, and everyone is entitled to it. Please be respectful of what others have to say. Thanks. :)As far as hardware is concerned, no operating system will support all drivers and configurations out of the box with no configuration. The closest I have seen is OSX, but if you do not use Apple hardware, you have to figure out the driver situation ahead of time. That can end up being time consuming.At the same time, every time you install Windows, you have to install the drivers for all your hardware. The best at hardware detection I have seen overall is the linux kernel. Yes, some hardware is left behind at time, but it is getting better and better. I just built up an old Dell system for a streaming server, and all the hardware was detected out of the box.Part of the problem with the hardware picture is that everyone is tied to Windows. If it does not work there, why bother releasing it? Naturally, you have to cater to the majority player on the market. However, the vendors should be fairly open with their other customers too..... let the linux guys build up the drivers for the kernel, and they will end up with more sales. The sole reason I put nvidia graphics cards in any system that I build is that they have excellent driver support on the linux side.Adam
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy it.
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#21 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 03 May 2009 - 11:25 AM

Quote

I install Linux every couple of years to see if it's gotten any better.It invariable fails to work with at least one piece of hardware -but I don't know what I'm talking about.
Two years is a lifetime when talking about computer technology.  The fact is that Vista and Win7 orphan a lot more hardware than the latest Linux distros.

#22 OFFLINE   throktar

throktar

    Message Adept

  • No Longer a Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 May 2009 - 06:33 PM

I think the key here is "your millage my vary."Last month I tried to install Ubuntu, Cent OS, and Mandriva on an Acer Aspire One. All three failed to recognize all hardware. After fussing with them for a week I tried the Win 7 beta. It found everything except the wireless but after the 2nd round of automatic updates wireless was working without I might add, any user imput on my part.That is just one piece or fairly new hardware. I'll happily wave the Linux banner when the "out of the box" experience matches Windoze.
Non Satis Non Scire

#23 OFFLINE   lewmur

lewmur

    Discussion Deity

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts

Posted 03 May 2009 - 09:20 PM

View Postthroktar, on May 3 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

I think the key here is "your millage my vary."Last month I tried to install Ubuntu, Cent OS, and Mandriva on an Acer Aspire One. All three failed to recognize all hardware. After fussing with them for a week I tried the Win 7 beta. It found everything except the wireless but after the 2nd round of automatic updates wireless was working without I might add, any user imput on my part.That is just one piece or fairly new hardware. I'll happily wave the Linux banner when the "out of the box" experience matches Windoze.
I have an Acer Aspire myself and had no problems with the proviso that you choose the Vesa option the first time you boot the LiveCD.  What forums did you visit to solve your problem?  Ubuntu 9.04 handles wireless flawlessly.  OTOH, I couldn't find Vista or Win7 drivers for either my ATI TV Wonder card or my HP scanner.As it happens, I spent half a day today getting a friends Windoze system back up and running.  Good ole trojan horse got him.  Had to do a "repair" install to unlock the registry or even see the CDROM drive.  Naturally, that meant I had to reinstall all of the drivers and lo and behold he had no idea where the driver CD was.Once I finally got the machine back up and running, I spent 30 minutes installing Linux Mint 6 as a dual boot and told him to learn to use it or next time he could spend a couple hundred bucks getting a repair shop to get his Windoze operating again.

Edited by lewmur, 03 May 2009 - 09:38 PM.


#24 OFFLINE   Gary

Gary

    Forum Fiend

  • No Longer a Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,831 posts

Posted 06 May 2009 - 09:38 AM

The only Business that I ever saw a Mac in was either a school or a business that was heavy into Graphics.

#25 OFFLINE   Gary

Gary

    Forum Fiend

  • No Longer a Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,831 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 06:48 PM

View PostWebb, on May 1 2009, 10:19 PM, said:

No.Linux still doesn't work "out of the box".  99% of your hardware will work with it but there is always one device that doesn't.And the fonts are crappy.And it can't run "real" games.Etc.
It does not run real anything. The only app I got to run in linux well was Firefox and that will even run on a MAC.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users