LOL! Apple demanded that Microsoft stop advertising PC price advantage over Macs

murdocdv: Apple develops really old technology software sorry... I cannot believe they base their UI Shell on a Unix OS ... For me, this fact is incredible, ... For me doing new with old will always be incredible...

murdocdv, even if you account for bundled MacOS and iLife, there is no way that it is worth double the price. MacOS is not twice the operating system of Windows. In fact, if I was being really generous, they're about the same. I think Macs are actually more difficult to use and not that intuitive. My brother succumbed to the advertising and bought a Mac, and upon using it, one of the most irritating idiocies is that clicking the red bubble on the top left of a window DOESN'T close the application. It simply closes the window. Networking with Windows machines was also a nightmare and took hours to resolve, whereas it was a comparative breeze to get basic networking up and running on my Vista machines. What I DID like was the much faster resume from sleep - it's virtually instantaneous and much more reliable than Windows in that respect.

murdocdv, you don't have to be a lawyer to follow simple logic in this case (a college intro to business law pretty much covers it). Whatever your opinion, we can't use price as a literal standard for sure, again, because there are variations in price so it doesn't work. We could probably stretch it and use it as a relative standard, but with that, the relationship between the price of a Mac (high) and a price of PC (lower) still remains, so you have no point. If the high price is lowered yet remains high, there is absolutely no misrepresentation in relative standard terms.

@RobertC I am not, other's have done this to exhaustion, digging through and trying to align the hardware specs of each PC in those ads and then comparing them to the MacBook lineup and deriving the difference in just software. Anyway, if you are most familiar with Windows, there is going to be adjustment when going to OS X. Doesn't mean one way is better than the other, I could, but working in both all day long, I see pros/cons for both styles. As for networking, I network my Mac to Windows boxes at work all day long with ease. Home networking in Windows has always been a hassle, but I haven't tested that myself in a long time.

@ibarskiy Here is the most basic of Google Fu: http://www.myprofessionaladvertising.com/Legal%20Issues%20in%20Advertisi... From the article: "Advertising Law: Price All of the truth in advertising laws apply to advertising price. If you are making a comparison, it needs to be truthful. If you say that the product is being sold for "$xx" elsewhere, then in fact, other representative retailers must be selling at that price. A few small retailers selling at the higher price elsewhere are not representative of the market. Media publishers may require you to substantiate your claims before they will print your ad. Contact the FTC for more." Here's another: http://www.lawpublish.com/ftc-decprice.html Clearly, how price is represented is one of the most strictly regulated parts of advertising.

panache1023 is right on that one!!

@murdocv, Apple's OS X is a "document centric" environment. In many ways it is, as Paul has pointed out and documented well, regarded as being "simpler." That does not make it easier to use. Simpler does not necessarily mean easier, or easiest across the greatest number of tasks. Windows is both easier to use and simpler - though one might try and argue that Windows 7 and to some extent, Windows Vista, departed from being easier to use in favor of appearing to be simpler. Simpler it may be for a select few tasks, but that is a debate for another time. Windows is easier to use for more user types than OS X, because it is "discoverable" - without training a user knows where to begin (START) and may select from a variety of evident tasks (Documents, Devices and Printers, or Pictures, for example) and immediately enter into task-based routines designed to support the execution of related steps. Windows follows this task-based model throughout and draws clear separations between applications and documents. There are those that argue that the document centric model is more efficient and that the task and applications Windows model spawns multiple instances of the same processes. This is simply not true at all. Windows uses shared and parallel components throughout - so multiple instances of Word, or Internet Explorer only use a tiny portion of the resources required for the parent application. Windows assigns and manages memory and other resources similarly - sharing across the platform and weighting resources in favor of where the user's focus is. Windows also employs process allocation and isolation - so one Internet Explorer window, or tab may fault, but not always crash the parent application. MS Office applications do this as well and in each case, such isolation allows extremely granular permissions and unique policies to be applied. A bit more back on the main track... While so much that makes Windows Vista great and Windows 7 even better than say, Windows XP, is hidden, much of what makes Windows easier and simpler to use than Mac OS X, or Linux is clearly evident and it is found in how consistently its task based model is followed. Every window, in the context of the parent task, features access to additional tasks... adding a new printer, or burning to a disc, or emailing a picture are obvious examples - and all without having to launch an additional application. When the task is complete, it is truly complete and the associated processes are retired and returned to Windows and the user. By the way, the idea that even Paul has advanced, that Windows should get rid of the START MENU? Well, I say that is nutty. The start menu, as I have shared, provides THE starting point for all Windows tasks. While the same task may be more easily accessed in the systems tray, or quick launch area, any/all tasks may be entered into from the start menu. To remove it would be to deprecate Windows in ways that would make it much harder to use. I will say that I anticipate things like “Project Natal” for Windows (late 2010) will enable much more evident us of the ZUI, or Zommable User Interface by incorporating very rich combinations of physical and in the air touch with natural voice – anticipate much greater use of tiles that work well from the Office-like Fluent UI and as much finger and hand waving as you would mouse and keyboard input. I believe that recent Windows moves toward larger and more evident UI components and objects is being done to set the stage for the increased use of tiles where larger screens are increasingly more common – physical touch therefore becoming more important and relevant to smaller form factor devices – e.g., small notebooks A.K.A. “netbooks” (what a dumb name – as if to say that PC’s can’t see the cloud, or that small notebooks should not be able to do more than see the cloud). Sorry for the book. LK

Ha this is funny. Classic case of being able to dish out but falling apart when you're asked to take it

Waethorn, Are you now saying that something that is intuitive does NOT make it easy to use? Regardless, for the record, and not that you are attributing those quotes to me, but I didn't say any of them other than "Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it idiotic", and I think most people would agree with that

murdocdv, no one is claiming price is not regulated, per se. But if you read the FTC guidelines, there is no injury if the relative comparison stands. So, according to the guidelines, (and the legal definition), there is no injury so long as the advertisements represent that the price of PC is lower than the price of a Mac. Which is still true (and will be true for the foreseeable future, really). So chill. Again, Apple has made much more specific claims as to the actual properties of the product with regard to Windows in their ads, so they would be in real hot water if they tried to pursue this (non) case.

Is there any proof that this is true?

As a Mac user, I agree that if true, the Apple legal stance is indefensible and just silly. That said, the MacBook I use for my business runs like a top, the Macs I bought for my kids got them through college with minimal support from me, and the friends I've converted to Macs are not regretting the choice. Now, one daughter is using an Acer netbook running XP for her work; what a great travel machine. She loves it, and if it works for her, great. Cost is a factor in these decisions, not the decision. There are many, many other factors, and to reduce it all down to price alone is simplistic and narrow minded.

Networking in windows is simple, but of course I deal with networking all day, for the average joe it might be bit hard, but apple doesn't do it more easily if you ask me. In the workspace, OSX is difficult to integrate into active directory for instance, where something basic as sbm packet signing still doesn't work properly, even though it was one of the 300 new features that were announce/touted by Apple for Leopard. But all of that is off topic, the moral of the story is that Apple hardware IS more expensive then comparable no apple hardware, that is a plain fact. The price difference is not justfied with the components used, so the usage of phrases like Apple tax are fully justified. Not sure if the whole story is true, but if it is, Apple shows itself a very sore loser.

@lketchum The start button was dead in Vista, replaced by the orb. The start menu is just about deprecated in 7, and I wager it's totally gone in the next release. OS X has the Finder, which does nearly everything the Start Menu does. Seriously, if you want to browse all your apps instead of searching, an about 300px wide non-resizable menu is the way to go?

"The start button was dead in Vista, replaced by the orb. The start menu is just about deprecated in 7, and I wager it's totally gone in the next release." Nah, ever ran Vista or Win7 ? I like the start menu much more in Vista, as it included the search part, at the bottom, where for instance type cmd, would bring up the command prompt, but it does much more stuff. Needless to say, it will not go away any time soon.

@lketchum It doesn't sting that Mr. Rashid was at Carnegie Mellon where the main Mach work was done before he left for MS Research. Your right though, I did confuse the name of the OS X kernel, shouldn't have said kernel, but was trying to show where all the bits below the GUI where. Anyway, I've been on Macs for 5 years, and most of my friends and family have converted over in the same time, and the amount of me supporting their computers has dropped from near daily to near zero. Mostly because of viruses, malware, or drive-by downloads. Sorry, but while you like the security features in newer Windows versions, OS X users have been and will most likely continue to be safer for a number of reasons. Snow Leopard will fully adopt ASLR and protected memory. We'll see how complete the implementation, or how well it works.

"OS X users have been and will most likely continue to be safer for a number of reasons" You can thank the lack of market penetration for that. "Apple: we're impotent in the computer industry"(TM) LOL!

@Waethorn Deprecated, but still there and still important.

@johnpapola: Send Apple some of that Enzyte that SpikeTV always advertises. LOL!

"Sorry, but while you like the security features in newer Windows versions, OS X users have been and will most likely continue to be safer for a number of reasons'" Unfortunately not because OSX is secure. Tiny marketshare is the one and only reason, end of story. And I wonder how many cases of fraud have occured among Mac users, since Apple didn't equip Safari with something as elementary as a Phishing filter, until what, 9 months ago. For a safe OS, you need to go Vista or Win7. The drive by download problems, are people that still ran that piece of junk called XP.

"For the record, I never said anything about anything being simple or simplistic." Not you. It was stated before though. I get what you said. "after it shipped for XP and W2K3 Server as Windows Desktop Search" Actually, it shipped as "MSN Desktop Search" long before that.

murd said: "@lketchum It doesn't sting that Mr. Rashid was at Carnegie Mellon where the main Mach work was done before he left for MS Research." You do know that Microsoft (yes that Microsoft) allowed Mr. Rashid to continue to contribute to the project - even though the company knew that the work was being done to provide the absolutely essential glue Apple needed binding one kernel to the other - Mach to 4.3 BSD? That with the full understanding that Microsoft would be enabling Apple to eventually run a more modern OS, they allowed the development of communications processors to continue - without which there would have never been an OS X as we know it? See, this whole thing and the reason I have started to post publicly again, is that really nice people - young people are being taken for a Missouri Boat ride. Somehow it has to be okay for people to simply learn and understand what really drives CS and not simply parrot what Apple shovels out the door as fact. As I have said, I just don't like how Apple presents itself in the market place. It's not humble, or accurate and nice people end up paying way too much for a computer that they really wouldn't want if they did understand just how flawed, incongruous and potentially dangerous the product is.

@lketchum The point of the Start Menu task-based discussion that began was specifically referencing the word "Start" as the entry point to the menu being so easy to use. It isn't in Vista, isn't in 7. That's a fact. My point by comparing to the Start Menu to the Finder is that the Finder contains most, possibly all, of the functionality the Start Menu has without being an about 300px wide non-resizable menu. Would you like to browse your Programs with larger icons, oh you can't. That is a fact. The point is that that kind of usability problem, if you wanted to leave navigation in Windows, is to simply make Win Explorer do all that stuff, just like the Finder. You could still have system Search easily available outside Win Explorer, like in OS X with the Spotlight icon on the menu bar. I don't even know what you are talking about "speaking about Windows out of context".

@lketchum What do I care if Microsoft allowed Mr. Rashid to continue contributing to the Mach project. Apple the company wasn't using Mach at the time, NEXT was. Apple didn't merge with NEXT until 1996. Your whole dramatic paragraph is ridiculous in face of a simple timeline.

A couple of thoughts.... 1) It was pretty silly for Apple to call on this. But it does sound like it is false advertising if they are still running the commercial with the $1999 price. While Apple's I'm a Mac/I'm a PC adds may stretch the truth, I challenge anyone to point out a factual misrepresentation in any of them. 2) The laptop hunter adds are interesting, but really only show one thing. Apple does not compete in the low end market. 3) Apple products are normally more expensive then a PC counterpart, but no where near the amounts stated. The $649 machine is not anywhere near the same as the $1199 Macbook pro. Size, weight, quality of manufacturing, etc. If you want a bug bulky machine that feels cheaply put together, that is fine. For many cost is the only important factor and I can understand that. But compare a high end 15" PC laptop and a 15" Macbook pro. The difference is normally about $200 when you match features as close as possible. The PC normally has better graphics card, but the size, weight, quality of the machine (unibody frame, magsafe, etc) tilt to the Mac. 4) Its kind of ironic that the cost of upgrading to Windows 7 is going to be WAY more expensive than the cost of upgrading to Mac OS X 10.6. Windows is MUCH more expensive than Mac OS X. Go compare the retail costs of 10.5 and Vista Ultimate. Maybe Apple should make a commercial showing someone walking into best buy and comparing that: $319.95 vs. $129.