Get a Mac (UK) Ads - Classic :-D

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 29 Jan 2007, 21:46

Featuring David Mitchell and Robert Webb (aka - Mitchell and Webb):

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.a ... /1/28/6786

My fave is the PC Restarting - Classic

It also made me chuckle when they inadvertently made out Apple's are rubbish in a work place and no good for spreadsheets or word processing.

It's all a load of old rubbish but is funny to watch and think people believe it

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 30 Jan 2007, 09:42

Doesn't work for me - choppy video

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 30 Jan 2007, 20:47

You are downloading not streaming them right?

If so what version of QuickTime are you running? I have 7.1.3. Try downloading the latest version:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html

Obviously untick the tick boxes and choose Standalone not the Itunes version. That is unless you have an Ipod, and you may as well install it separately anyway.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 31 Jan 2007, 09:39

I may have the ITunes version installed

I'll check. Shouldn't I uninstall it first?
I'm running 7.1.3 (AFAIK).

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 31 Jan 2007, 11:07

Don't you have the Apple Software Update? I thought that took care of the updating side of things.
Latest version of QT is 7.1.3 (so you're OK there) and iTunes is 7.0.2. You don't need to uninstall anything, as the video doesn't rely on it.
Try watching 'em from here. And click on 'Small' for the video size and step up from there, in case it's a processor or memory thing.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 31 Jan 2007, 11:21

Thank you Kurgan

Those run a bit better, I think its our crappy processor/memory thats slowing things down.

Funny ads BTW, LOL at the "Restarting" one

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 31 Jan 2007, 22:58

Good to see you've seen them. It shouldn't "really" be your PC as those ads I posted are only 3.5-4.5Mb a piece.

grim_tales wrote:I may have the ITunes version installed I'll check. Shouldn't I uninstall it first?

No. I was just saying you only need that version if you have an Ipod.

QT is the same in both.

grim_tales wrote:I'm running 7.1.3 (AFAIK).

Help, About. AFAIK isn't You Know.

Kurgan wrote:Don't you have the Apple Software Update? I thought that took care of the updating side of things.

Only if you have it ticked to do so.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 01 Feb 2007, 02:49

Remembered that there are a few more ads in the US than here, and they've got a Vista specific one, too

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 01 Feb 2007, 21:08

Cheer Kurgan.

I don't believe for a second half those headinngs, sure they could be partly true but the way the Mac is worded you have to wonder why more people don't use it.

The Mac only has less viruses because less people use it not because it's more secure.

“You get the feeling that Microsoft's managers put Mac OS X on an easel and told the programmers, ‘Copy that.’”

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 02 Feb 2007, 00:53

bradavon wrote:Cheer Kurgan.

Alright, but don't do it by yourself otherwise you'll feel a right plonker.

I don't believe for a second half those headinngs, sure they could be partly true but the way the Mac is worded you have to wonder why more people don't use it.

You mean the titles of the ads? They're pretty accurate, the networking one especially. Gisele's not too bad, either

The reason that I think more people don't use them is because of unfamiliarity and fear of change. But when you switch to a different brand of DVD player or TV, it takes a little time to familiarise yourself with the on-screen menus and the remote controls. It's pretty much the same thing.

The Mac only has less viruses because less people use it not because it's more secure.

Aside from the fact that it is more secure (;)), even if we say it's not; even if we say it's worse, why should it bother you? I'm actually happy to be in the minority if it means that I don't have to worry about viruses cos no-one but academics are making 'em. The one proviso is that I'd want no drawbacks; I wouldn't use Linux at home as there are some drawbacks in terms of driver support for things and so on, but that's not the case with the Apple machines.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 02 Feb 2007, 01:40

Kurgan wrote:You mean the titles of the ads?

Yes all that marketing babel at how great they are. I'm just saying I always find marketing headlines misleading is all.

For example the Intel one. I'm sure the Mac OS X is optimised for Intel's Core 2 Duo but then so is Vista.

Kurgan wrote:You mean the titles of the ads? They're pretty accurate, the networking one especially. Gisele's not too bad, either

There's a networking one with Gisele?

Kurgan wrote:I wouldn't use Linux at home as there are some drawbacks in terms of driver support for things and so on, but that's not the case with the Apple machines.

True. I'll agree with you there.

Linux falls over due to complete driver support, no rock solid documentation and I hear you have to configure "everything" before it works. When I was about 18 I'd have loved that idea but not any more. Sure I love tinkering but I also love things to just work.

Say what you will but since XP things generally do. I've no doubt they do with Mac OS X too.

I've no doubt unlike some that Apple's are great computers (even though their locked in nature bugs me) but then I personally think Windows today is also. It's improved greatly since XP SP2 was released.

I do have a question about the driver one. Is the hardware base for Apple really low? As I find it well frankly impossible to believe Mac OS X out of the box has ALL drivers for ALL Apple hardware and it's the manufacturer optimised driver not a cut down version.

That's simply not possible. I can't remember what version it was but I had to install printer drivers on to an Apple Mac once from CD.

I do find it odd all these ads are effectively saying the Mac is great at being creative but pants at office work. It makes me think maybe they are.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 02 Feb 2007, 01:45

bradavon wrote:The Mac only has less viruses because less people use it not because it's more secure.

“You get the feeling that Microsoft's managers put Mac OS X on an easel and told the programmers, ‘Copy that.’”

Err, no. While common sense does dictate that the vorus writers are obviously focussing on Windows over Mac because of the vast difference in the nuimber of users, Mac OS is immensely harder for virus writers to crack because it doesn't have the same registry system Windows does. The Windows registry really is the mother of all stupid inventions.

As far as those ads go, I think at the moment there really are no known viruses for Mac OS X.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 02 Feb 2007, 01:48

That may have come across as a blanket statement Shingster but it wasn't meant as one. I just meant well as I said Mac OS as loop holes too, all software does. And as actually as I said if you have a lot less people trying to break it you really don't know how less or more secure it is.

What does it have instead of a registry out of interest?

I am getting bored of defending myself against you all the time, nit picking at every comment I make.

Those adverts while funny are pretty pathetic too, sure it's an advert but it's also playing on people's opinions of Windows when they know full well to most people it's all they've tried. So can make anything up as few have tried it to disagree.

Why is the guy in a suite for Windows but jeans for Apple? The implication isn't remotely accurate.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 02 Feb 2007, 01:55

I've found the Ms. Gis one, classic

-

http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple ... 80x376.mov

It's odd on Windows MS add software into the OS and they get slammed, Apple do it and they get praised. Weird!

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 02 Feb 2007, 02:28

bradavon wrote:What does it have instead of a registry out of interest?

Well, i'm no expert on Mac (or Windows for that matter), but I think they use property list files that are stored in your main user library. The important difference is that they have two library folders to keep installed files seperate from critical system files, so it's not only harder to install something that will fuck up a variety of files but also your system should remain safe from harm.

bradavon wrote:I am getting bored of defending myself against you all the time, nit picking at every comment I make.

You know Brad, you really have turned into a whiny little bitch! If you don't want people to correct you, stop talking shite! THINK before you post - it really is that simple!

Over the last few days i've picked Grim up a few times on mistaken comments he'd made. Did he whine? Did he cry "why is Shingster picking on me?". No, he listened and stood corrected like a real grown up. Someone pointing out that you're wrong is no big deal, it happens to all of us.

bradavon wrote:Those adverts while funny are pretty pathetic too, sure it's an advert but it's also playing on people's opinions of Windows when they know full well to most people it's all they've tried. So can make anything up as few have tried it to disagree.

Remember my comment on thinking before posting? If those adverts made one faulty comment about Windows, Microsoft's lawyers would be shoving slander suits up their ass as I type.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 02 Feb 2007, 03:16

Sure I love tinkering but I also love things to just work [...] Say what you will but since XP things generally do. I've no doubt they do with Mac OS X too.

But it's these differences that are the key. Yes, both do work (certainly XP was Microsoft's best OS to date) but if you've got the option of buying two things which do the same job, but one is more prone to viruses and so on, which would you choose?

I do have a question about the driver one. Is the hardware base for Apple really low? As I find it well frankly impossible to believe Mac OS X out of the box has ALL drivers for ALL Apple hardware and it's the manufacturer optimised driver not a cut down version.

For all Apple hardware that's been released, the drivers for Apple products are within the system. I remember having to install an Airport card (wireless card) into my sister's iMac and not having to install the drivers on the machine. There was a setup program from the Airport router already on the machine that needed to be run, but that was it.
For some things, drivers aren't necessary. I've got a Sony digital camera and camcorder, and just plugging them in loads up iPhoto or iMovie accordingly. No drivers to be installed, just straight into the program that deals with the peripheral.
Printers are different. I've installed a HP which just went straight in, and I've got an Epson which needed the drivers. Once they're in, they just do what you want to do with them.

I do find it odd all these ads are effectively saying the Mac is great at being creative but pants at office work. It makes me think maybe they are.

Well, they do mention that they run Microsoft Office.

Those adverts while funny are pretty pathetic too, sure it's an advert but it's also playing on people's opinions of Windows when they know full well to most people it's all they've tried. So can make anything up as few have tried it to disagree.

Just trying to understand of your last sentence... do you mean that Apple can make anything up as few have tried MacOS to disagree?

Why is the guy in a suite for Windows but jeans for Apple? The implication isn't remotely accurate.

What is the implication? That the Apple machines are 'cooler' looking than the average PC? I'd say that's pretty bang on.

It's odd on Windows MS add software into the OS and they get slammed, Apple do it and they get praised. Weird!

Have you tried using Windows Movie Maker?!

[quote+"Shingster"]Well, i'm no expert on Mac (or Windows for that matter), but I think they use property list files that are stored in your main user library. The important difference is that they have two library folders to keep installed files seperate from critical system files, so it's not only harder to install something that will fuck up a variety of files but also your system should remain safe from harm.[/quote]
I'm not an expert on Macs either, but from what I know, I'm pretty sure that's correct.

And as for you two bitching and sniping, cut it out. Brad, you've gotta stop being so sensitive and Shingster, you could do with being less caustic.
Ah, who am I kidding? I enjoy reading these things as much as the next. Go knock yourselves out, in the back and forth, thread-posting sense.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 02 Feb 2007, 03:29

Kurgan wrote:And as for you two bitching and sniping, cut it out. Brad, you've gotta stop being so sensitive and Shingster, you could do with being less caustic.
Ah, who am I kidding? I enjoy reading these things as much as the next. Go knock yourselves out, in the back and forth, thread-posting sense.

This is Brad we're talking about here, he stubbornly refuses to see reason 99% of the time and sometimes you've got to be rudely blunt to get your point through his thick skull. My original post wasn't caustic at all, and look at the reaction it got.