Talk:Get a Mac

New ads, also should be a section about Microsoft's Laptop Hunter response

I know there's already a section on this article about Microsoft's ad in response, but there should be more, such as Laptop hunters, and Apple's response to Laptop hunters..Bentoman (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism, Differentiating between a Mac and a PC

Added this sub-heading. Even the article on wikkipedia regarding PC mentions Apples operating system--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I know. Macs are PCs. It bothers me that people refer to them differently, but that's just what has become common. When Apple says Mac vs PC, they're comparing their unique kind of PC with others. Althepal (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some vendors that ship Linux, Dell has computers with Linux Ubuntu installed. They don't make a not a PC pitch.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No they do not. But if Microsoft makes "I'm a PC" ads, obviously contrasting to Macs which do not come with Windows, and if Apple makes "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads with the same contrast between specifically Apple and all other manufacturers, who am I to try to change that? I agree that the statement "I use a Mac not a PC" is contradictory, but "PC" has taken on new meaning to mean "non-Apple PC". Dells with Linux are also personal computers, and nobody has made a distinction like that. And it's not like the operating system is the only thing that makes the difference. Can you take an Apple Mac and boot it to be greeted with a BIOS? And does the iMac look a thing like a typical Dell desktop? No, Apple Macs are a different breed. Althepal (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Should read the Hackintosh article in Maximum PC, your a little skewed towards Apple by the way. I agree to some extent Apple makes some good products, however some of there "superiority" to all other OSs, hardware, etc are a bit exaggerated, and in some cases, especially in terms of security, false.--0pen$0urce (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider myself to be a well-rounded geek. I have experience with Windows (95, 98, me, xp, vista, 7), Linux (Ubuntu, openSUSE, Linux Mint), and Mac OS X (10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6). And yes, after considerable thought in the matter, I am of the opinion that Mac OS X is the best OS overall (while others have their own pros and cons). That's my bias. But I am not stating that Mac OS X has "superiority" either, I'm simply replying to your comments. I feel that you are biased against Mac OS X, because, for example, you feel the need to state that Mac OS X is insecure, which is, very simply put, FUD. I'm talking real world, the world of the consumers who are targeted by the ad campaign in question, my secured Windows machine WILL become compromised security-wise before my Mac. Althepal (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to tout my credentials, but I think it is dangerous for Apple to assume and pitch that there Obscurity = security. --0pen$0urce (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but it works for most people. 01:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism, Viruses, Malware

It is a known fact there are viruses that target Macs and Apple operating systems. I want to include this in criticisms, but I don't want to upset anyone adding to many factual criticisms in one edit. These ads give the perception that MACs are immune to viruses.--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually there aren't any true viruses in the wild for Macs. There are some trojans, and a few people who do not know the difference spread misinformation. Althepal (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha ok Malware, covers the whole spectrum. I am getting the sense your implying I am spreading misinformation. Here is a article from 10 months ago, in a reputed source, Wired Magazine I am not going to get into the "In the Wild" virus debate, leave that to die-hard apple advocates. It's known the assumption at Apple, and these ads is that obscurity = security...I have to highly disagree. Yes Apple only has about a 10% Market share, in contrast to Windows +/-87%, and Linux <1%. Even Linux is not immune, nor is the opensource community making such absurd claims. So yes Windows is a prime target by sheer market share.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the Wired article. The title implies that the only previous time a Mac virus was announced is that it wasn't real. The article also clearly identifies this as a "trojan". I don't care if there's a trojan for Mac, I just won't install software from untrustworthy places. What I do care about is that Apple's ads are about "viruses" and not "malware." There are still zero Mac viruses, while there are many other operating systems that are far more obscure with viruses. Althepal (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Apples ads also claim security, and a "Trojan" can install a rootkit, thus make the computer vulnerable to join a botnet, etc etc etc. I am going to step away, your really putting fourth effort to uphold the security moniker, to be honestly critical I feel this discussion is not NPOV. Your set in your apple ways from my perspective and appear to rebuttal any tarnish on Apples OS obscurity = security. Clearly some Apple fans were upset about the criticisms section as it was. All editing needs to done from a NPOV.--0pen$0urce (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the argument that there are Trojans and other forms of malware but no "true viruses" is an argument of semantics, avoiding the issue at hand. While I do agree that, by practical sense, Mac OSX is safer from malware than Windows. However hazardous malware does not have to take the form of the dictionary definition of a computer virus. Also trojans do not have to take the form of an installable file. Productivity files and media files can also carry malware. Just because you would never install something you found on the internet, does that mean that you never open a media file you downloaded? Let me reiterate my position; Macs are safer, but not perfectly safe. To suggest anything else is a fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.4.83 (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Security

Some expert computer security auditors have graded Mac less secure than Vista, lets discuss.--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well... let me know when Macs start getting hacked or infected more frequently than Vista. In real-world situations, it's safer to use a Mac than a PC with Vista, even if it has internet security. Althepal (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well let me know when Apple gains a larger market share than Windows 87%. I don't think your volume argument is strong here. Again the false belief that obscurity = security. Another article winner from of all sources, Macworld Great article by the way...Eye opening. This article from another reliable third party source is ever better and less than 2 weeks old, PC World--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Where was the security=obscurity argument when Mac OS 9 had true viruses and an almost nonexistant market share? Where is the security=obscurity argument for Linux, which actually does have some true viruses and a smaller market share than OS X. I thought about that and I am forced to come to the conclusion that Mac OS X is more secure than other operating systems, and its user base (what is it, about 100 million users?) is certainly nothing for the virus writers to ignore compared to the slice of Windows users that don't have security software. It is a known fact that there are things which make writing a virus for Mac more difficult. The issue about being more secure when you're directly connected to the other computer (as is the case with the person identified in the PC World article) is completely irrelevant to real-world computer use, and even though Miller stated that, in that way, Macs are less "secure" thanks to the loads of patches that Microsoft has made for their OSes (patches that not everyone installs), he also stated that Macs are safer for everyday use. Althepal (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your kinda grasping for a counter argument, lets stay in a NPOV. Sorry but there is no such thing as a impervious OS. What about the Macworld article? So there is no way to "remote" connect to a Mac, define directly connected? I am sure you will find something that makes MAC the winner there. I am not expressing favoritism towards any OS, but I Highly disagree the staunch pitch MAC tries of security. Okay, so You keep grasping for an argument, ok malware, how directly connected do you have to be... Apple OS's don't dictate if someone has changed the default password on there linksys router, or enabled WPA, MAC address filtering etcera. Return-to-libc attack. Read up on address space layout randomization (ASLR), nothing there says you have to have a "Direct" connection to exploit that flaw that Vista and 7 addressed and Snow Leopard ignored. I assume you mean an attacker has hands-on the hardware. --0pen$0urce (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages are for improvement of the article. I don't see how this conversation improves the article. --Candy (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the criticisms of Macs security touted in these ads should be included under criticisms. Lets discuss. Criticisms of Macs security do exist in reputed publication in relation to these ads.--0pen$0urce (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticism of Macs has been discussed on the Mac articles themselves, where they would belong (and, where appropriate, are already integrated into the text as per consensuses and wikipedia policy). Are we debating what Apple's ads should be? Are we debating if it's false advertising or something? Because Candy's right, this is for discussing improvements to the text of the article. Basically, we need to discuss two things. One, whether the PC/Mac naming stuff in the article is really significant enough. Two, whether there's a significant source saying that the ads are untrue. A separate discussion on opinions about whether there is false advertising (as opposed to just marketing) can't really spill into the article itself without significant sources. (That separate discussion, by the way, is pointless unless you can point to one statement in one of their ads that is impossible to interpret in any way other than something that is objectively untrue.) Althepal (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So anything that might be critical even if it was published by the editor in chief of PC magazine need to be discussed. WOW.. Okay fine. That article addressed these ads, not the Mac, can we do this in a NPOV. That article by Lance ulanoff was directed to these ads and I believe is pertinent. You continue to want to shed Macs in a positive light ONLY, and are attacking accurate information I have provided. Nothing wrong with my inclusion of the PC/MAC criticisms, I am quite shocked the criticism section is sooooooo short and appears to be scrutinized quite heavily by the not neutral Pro-Mac community. I don't think the PC/MAc thing requires further discussion. I provided a reliable third party source. Again as I have been stressing NPOV. There have been professional critics of the security claims that Apple makes in these ads.I still don't see how the PC/MAC thing is even in debate when these ads and this article is called get a MAc and the two characters are MAC and PC. Articles have to be edited from a NPOV. This article is very one-side as not the entire world, especially the IT community has 0 criticisms of these Ads--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're saying, what exactly about the ads you think needs to be criticized, and how there is a POV issue with the article. And you are aware that criticism sections are generally frowned upon, right? Just so that you're not going into this with the mindset that there needs to be a criticism section for its own sake.

That PC World article you linked to isn't about the ads, it's about the notion that Macs are more secure than Windows machines in every way. It does mention ads at the end, but really I have no idea why since Apple's ads don't say "we're completely secure in every way." Except for implying that Macs don't have "thousands of viruses (which is technically true) and tons of headaches (which is obviously a subjective statement and clearly just marketing)," they don't talk much about security, except for when poking fun at Microsoft (which is already covered in the ad's criticisms here). And you still haven't pointed to an unture statement in one of Apple's ads. Is there just something you have against marketing? Seriously, I don't understand what you think the article needs to say or why.

And the PC/Mac naming stuff should be discussed. I believe it is completely unnecessary. Having notable citation doesn't automatically lend sufficient relevance/important since everyone knows the difference between, and refers to the two themselves, as Macs or PCs. Unless you think that Microsoft's encouragement to buy a PC might be a good reason to buy a Mac (oh wait, no, thankfully the respected PC shoppers informed us all that Macs are nothing but a logo on lousy hardware. that's good that they put out that NPOV statement.).

Other editors should note, 0pen$0urce, that your recent activity on Wikipedia includes stating that earlier criticisms should be removed from reference to Windows Vista, suggesting that they were simply "generated" by the Apple crowd, and infact removing a well-cited paragraph that discussed the highly aggravating UAC that plagued Vista users. In another of your recent edits, you speak of Microsoft's minor and late-coming price drops of Windows Vista with glowing (clearly POV, although grammatically horrible) terms. This should largely discredit your push for criticizing Apple as it represents your one-sidedness and POV. I honestly cannot take anything you say about "NPOV" seriously when you use both sides of your mouth like that, and I have half a mind to just revert all of your edits (although I have no intention of getting into an edit war, and I know that disruptive edits made by rogue users always get ironed out eventually anyway). Althepal (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I highly appreciate you taking the time to focus on me and undo my and other contributors edits. Of course it has nothing to do with your admitted preference of Mac. That vista information was dated by the way, over 3 years old, needs more than 1 source, and there is already a section complaining about UAC. Anyway again I appreciate your criticisms of my grammar, I will work on that. Now how about you discontinue to focus on me, read the Focus on content policy, then read the NPOV policy, lastly read the edit war policy other editors/contributors should note these polices as well. Thank you, good day!--0pen$0urce (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know why I bother to reply. I'm out. Althepal (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Condense article dates

Can't we make this article shorter by writing the release dates along with their summaries, rather than having two separate sections? Althepal (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The only problem then would be that the dates wouldn't be chronological anymore. Airplaneman ^talk 00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada is still making the Get a Mac Ads.-Admin12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.162.74 (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

List cruft

Does it really make sense to list every ad? Binarybits (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation.

No one on wikipedia knows how to properly punctuate quotations. People keep doing, "example", when the proper way to punctuate a quotation is "example." Very few contributors understand this for some reason.

A Mac Is A PC

There is no excuse for publishing false marketing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT an Apple marketing site.

A Mac is a PC. There should be no confusion about this and this whole article needs re-writing to reflect this truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.185.87.66 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverse copyvio noticed that could have caused a false speedy deletion

Some anonymous user tagged this article as a copyright violation and other nonsensical speedy deletion candidates. While https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Get_a_Mac&url=&oldid=737942264 shows a copyright violation from http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/apples-get-mac-complete-campaign-130552, it appears that based on the timestamps on earlier versions of this article and the date of the article that the article is the one violating Wikipedia's copyright. I have therefore declined all of the speedy deletion requests. Jesse Viviano (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Get a Mac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616234426/http://www.effie.org/winners/showcase/2007/1826 to http://www.effie.org/winners/showcase/2007/1826
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911231651/http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/networking_848x496.mov to http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/networking_848x496.mov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911231714/http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/ilife_848x496.mov to http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/ilife_848x496.mov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911231657/http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/restarting_848x496.mov to http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/restarting_848x496.mov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140820115619/https://www.apple.com/jp/getamac/ads/ to https://www.apple.com/jp/getamac/ads/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911231706/http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/wsj_848x496.mov to http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/wsj_848x496.mov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

New Intel ads

Should the page mention the current Intel ads featuring Justin Long? I think they're clearly referencing the Get a Mac campaign.
-2804:431:C7C6:C7F8:EC14:4CE9:7F43:D404 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)