Novell/Linux Parody on Apple's Mac vs PC Ads 324
xtaski writes "Wired's 'Cult of Mac' blog offers up video of Novell's spin on the Apple Mac vs. PC ads. The twist: a young lady portraying that winsome third party, Linux. There are two ads available for perusal, and the second is definitely the better of the two."
Re:How about a link to the downloadable videos? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I know someone's going to say "but Linux doesn't have $x, and $y is a crappy replacement that doesn't support $z", but take a look at the Mac vs. PC commercials that Apple made; they don't mention crap like that either. The point of the ads are to get "Joe Sixpack" to use it.
Wow (Score:1, Insightful)
Not Flash again. (Score:3, Insightful)
var fo = new FlashObj("/img/flash/media_player.swf", 320, 260);
God, I hate Macromedia, and the marketing departments that are addicted to it.
Does no one post MPGs anymore?
You tried to parod a humorous commercial? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at what each of the other commercials is about. Each has a point.
Macs are easy to setup - PC's are not.
Macs are secure - PC's keep asking you to confirm each action.
Your point is
Why not focus on something like
Right over their heads (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux: "Um... a long time."
As soon as I watched that part, it was obvious - the implication is that "nobody's been even noticing". I like Linux; but I think there was a big shot of unintentional self-parody right there.
Re:Nice! (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Novell's ads aren't as bad, but really, what do they say? "Hey, Linux exists too"? So? When I'm car shopping, I know that Fiat exists too. Doesn't mean I consider it a viable option.
Re:Steve The Super Villain (Score:4, Insightful)
On a more serious note, I kind of like the fact that Linux takes some technical know-how to run (shell scripts, configuring, compiling binaries as the vid states). I get geek cred when people come over and see this foreign OS called Linux on my machines. For that reason alone, who cares if it goes mainstream. Let the geeks have their own OS, the masses can use Winblowz.
So this is what happened to the money from MS (Score:4, Insightful)
All the directors of Novell sat around after the Microsoft deal. Twiddling their thumbs, wondering what to do with the cheque for $308 million they'd just recieved. 'I've got it! Let's make some satirical ads,' one of them probably suggested.
'Then we'll all give ourselves massive bonuses, go on holiday and think up of more ways to sell Free software to Microsoft.' Another may have mentioned.
'Ooook!' Ballmer might have remarked from a corner of the room: indicated he'd like another banana, please.
I'm not saying it's a good or bad use of the money, but we can all see where some of it is going. My only question is: does she run GNU/Linux?
Novell's Linux... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hi, I'm Microsoft's mouth piece (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay.... (Score:4, Insightful)
But those ads were just, um, well, stupid.
v.v
Re:I call Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know that this is funny, but their Linux representation is much more realistic than the stupid Novell parodies.
Re:How about a link to the downloadable videos? (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. The third one is the only one that actually attempts to convince you that you should actually use Linux. The first simply let's us know it exists (and anyone actually interested in watching these spoofs would know). The second let's us know that it keeps up to date. But its analogy is not well-thought out, I mean, mac looks way nicer than they show it to be. And Linux, well, I dunno how the analogy is supposed to fit into how linux looks. Reality is much closer to Linux having mismatched colored socks, pants from goodwill, and a knock-off designer purse made in China (really, made in China). Not because it doesn't look nice and not because it's knockoff (no matter how well imitated, where is Linux innovation in GUI?), but because of how its put together. And then there are always people competing, within Linux, for your time (Gnome vs. Kde, etc). Instead of a person out of nowhere handing you a nice nifty new jacket, it would probably be a few people handing you nice jackets, all for free of course, and letting you put what in the closet you wish and wear what when you want.
But the third commercial has no odd-fitting analogies. It's plain and simple: people use Linux, and although not everyone tries to hide it, many would want to use Linux if they only could.
Re:How about a link to the downloadable videos? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's understandable that anyone might prefer Linux to Windows. That said, many people are probably wondering, "If you have a Mac, why would you install Linux* on it?" This is a good question; pretty much any Linux program for which source is available can be recompiled for OS X. If it's command-line, no problem. If it's X11-based, just fire up Apple's free X11. The only snags are with binary-only software, but it's rare that you'd actually need to use a binary-only Linux app for which there's no Mac-native equivalent, and much more likely that you'd encounter the opposite situation.
I've actually installed Linux on a Mac on multiple occasions (starting with kernel 2.2.x on an original iMac, which was about the first time it was really possible), so I will try to enumerate the reasons:
0) Because you can.
1) For fun--you enjoy tinkering with things.
2) To learn about Linux.
3) To develop Linux-specific software, such as Linux kernel drivers.
4) Ideological reasons relating to Free Software--you refuse to run an OS where a portion of the code is non-Free (in which case you'd better be using Debian [debian.org]).
5) Because you care about performance in a particular niche where Linux has substantial real-world performance benefits over OS X.
6) You're so used to Linux's user interface that it would be too difficult for you to switch.
7) You actually think Linux's user interface is nicer than OS X (since they both offer the same choice of shells, this comes down to GUI preference).
I really can't think of any other reasons that make any sense--if you can, please reply and elaborate. Now, to the analysis.
It's pretty clear that the reasons given above are valid only for computer geeks. Normal people don't care about (0 - 5), (6) is obviously not applicable, and I have yet to meet a reasonable person who claims (7) holds true for "average" users. There's nothing wrong with this--being better than Windows for a lower price is a big accomplishment--but why imply that Linux is something it's not?
Linux is a great OS for many people whose alternative is Windows, and for geeks. It's not a good replacement for Mac OS X.
As an alternative ad that plays on the same themes, have PC as a guy, and have him break up with his girlfriend Vista because she's too demanding. PC sees Mac OS X (woman), and tries to hit on her, but is shot down because he's "not her type" and she "doesn't think they'd be compatible". Linux walks in, and she and PC hit it off. This would communicate that you can use your existing PC hardware to run Linux but not Mac OS X.
* I use Linux in the sense that everybody except Richard M Stallman uses--I mean the entire OS, in a generic sense that does not specify a particular distribution, rather than just the kernel.
Re:How about a link to the downloadable videos? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, before I go further--do you consider yourself an average user, or a nerd/geek/power user? If the latter, you're not contradicting my argument, and may in fact be demonstrating point (6) to some degree. If the former--you consider yourself an "average" user--then you are probably the first reasonable person I've ever heard favor GNOME for average users. In that case, I'm wrong.
Assuming I'm not wrong on (7):
That's fine if you prefer GNOME--more power to you--but for what it's worth I'll try to explain why the Mac OS is the way it is.
If I'm working inside a window near the bottom of my screen, it is a waste to move the mouse all the way to the top. Why can't I have my menus be near where I'm working?
Early on, Apple put a lot of research into their human interface guidelines. They found that, in general, the amount of time it takes a user to click a button, menu, or other control was inversely proportional to the size of the control. The exception was items at the edge of the screen, which were effectively "infinitely large" in one direction (since it was impossible to overshoot). Thus, in many cases, putting menus at a screen edge can make them faster to access. I find that, if my trackpad sensitivity is set properly, I can hit menus at the top of the screen very quickly, even if my cursor is initially at the bottom. If you're always working in small windows on a very large screen, menu-in-screen may work better for you.
And why does that window that pops up have 3 panes when you're just trying to open an app?
I'm not totally sure what you mean. Are you referring to column view in Finder windows? That's just one of three different views in Finder, the OS X file browser.
Shouldn't the app be in the menu instead of in some folder hidden somewhere?I don't get it. GNOME puts the programs in categories by you use it for and its in the menu, not opening up extra windows to get to a launcher. It's much easier to me.
Finder is only one of several means of launching applications. Commonly-used apps are usually added to the Dock, located by default at the bottom of the screen (thus benefitting from the same point I raised earlier about controls at the edge of the screen). You can replicate the category structure using a few folders of aliases in your Dock. For "power users", I highly recommend QuickSilver.
My very-non-geeky sister is confused by Macs too, but she asked for Linux after using my laptop.
The best way to help a non-timid neophyte get started on a Mac is to spend a few minutes talking to them about what they think they'll want to use the computer for, then stick the relevant programs in the Dock. Point out a few key apps, then tell them to go ahead and play. Reassure them they won't break it.
And Macs need to get right-click.
Am I being trolled? Macs have had right-click for many, many years. Plug a standard three-button mouse into a Mac and you'll see typical right-click functionality just work. Apple sells a mouse with right-click. Their laptops, although nominally one-button, let you do a "right-click" by placing two fingers on the trackpad while clicking, and on any Mac you can also just control-click to simulate a right click.
It sounds to me like you haven't given Macs a chance, or at least not recently. Buy, borrow, or otherwise use a Mac for a few days and you'll quickly get used to most of the differences you're complaining about. The few genuine preference issues you have can probably be resolved by tweaking the OS X interface with third-party utilities, although I'd strongly recommend giving the "Mac way" a fair try first. For your pains, you'll get all sorts of great stuff, ranging from launchd to Cocoa to the iLife apps to Photoshop. You may even find a Mac-only killer app for your interests, such as BibDesk [sourceforge.net] for academics.
Re:How about a link to the downloadable videos? (Score:2, Insightful)
Do us all a favor, and take a deep breath so you can join the rest of us in the year 2007. That, or you were just looking to find excuses to not want to say something could *gasp* be better/better looking than what you currently use. If a Mac honestly confuses you, you probably can't learn new things very well. Hell, I personally think the menu bar being at the very top is the best way to do a menu. You effectively have an infinite space vertically going up to not have to worry about. Kinda makes initial menu access one dimensional, instead of having to make sure you don't overshoot a menu because you went too high or low, but thats just me. There are very good reasons Apple has stuck with that menu system all these years.
Not to mention if you don't want to use the Dock, or dig through the Apps folder theres Quicksilver which is one of my fav things I have ever come across by accident. CTRL+Space, "couple letters of the app name", enter, and off you go. It's fairly adaptive too so it's able to fairly program specific related commands as well.
Different systems have the things they do best, and I'll be the first at least to admit that, or I wouldn't be typing this from my TB XP file server while watching video my Tivo recorded.
Re:How about a link to the downloadable videos? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, the problem is that all that research was done assuming small screen sizes and a single-tasking operating system. Today, with a nice wide-screen display, I can have two separate applications up, side by side. I find it highly counter-intuitive that the application on the right will have its menus at the top of the screen, above the other app! Not to mention, it is easy to become confused about which application's menu that is up there, at this particular second.
Re:How about a link to the downloadable videos? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about a link to the downloadable videos? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think that's bad - try multiple monitor setups, where the app's window is on one screen, and the menu bar is on the other.
Re:How about a link to the downloadable videos? (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who has been trying out the Mac the past few months, I feel the above on the above topics:
Menu at the top issue: Half the time when I get to the top with the mouse its not set to be the program that I'm expecting it to be. I then have to go click on the application that I want to activate. The UI research Apple did may not make sense anymore with the ability to have more apps and more screen estate in use. In addition, the 'more-intuitive and consistent app design' that I was expecting on the Mac is missing in flagship programs - eg EyeTV has four different windows available for viewing from 3 different menubar items. The Accelerator Keys are also made more obvious in Windows.
Installing Opening Applications:It took me a while to figure this out when I tried with Firefox. After clicking the installer package you get this thing saying 'drag this onto that' to install it. So i tried it in the window in front of me, but no, it was actually referring to going off and Opening the Applications folder, dragging whats on the desktop into it, rather than using the stuff that was there in front of you. If Windows wasn't polite enough to ask you about where you wanted stuff installed, that wouldn't be so bad. Linux may or may not be there yet depending on your distro.
Shouldn't the app be in the menu instead of in some folder hidden somewhere? I definitely find the GNOME menu for launching better than having a folder full of icons for application launching.
From a non-geeky friend viewpoint: my other half hates having to use the Mac but was completely at home using the Linux box straightaway. In fact she was really suprised when I told her she had been using Linux for the past two weeks!
Am I being trolled? Macs have had right-click for many, many years.: Well, maybe more applications need to actually start using it. GarageBand in particular is exceedingly annoying for not having a Context menu setup.
I like the fact with the Mac it has the Unix-backend, and that they've invented a lot of what other people have used. Its a sleek front end as well. The hardware is a nice quiet package. It has some nice bundled apps, though half of those only seem useful if you are going to give more money to Apple. On the minus side it has some real boneheaded things going on with it - eg I'd hope to get a Movie DVD playing by double clicking on it on the desktop, or at least the option of playing it when right clicking on it, but no. Its a Mac Mini plugged into TV with an Apple keyboard (with the problems that throws up) and mouse. Most suprising thing: it crashes regularly (i've had to pull the power cord on it more times in the past three months than with any Windows machine in the past five years) but on the plus side its quick to boot up.
Bottom line - my Mac experience has been one of annoyance, and so has my other halfs. Given the price differential I'm in favour of Ubuntu or XP (though I would go and set XP up better) over OSX as an OS. I'd also get the option of a box that looks how I want it to look (though I suspect to go with the iPhone they might bring out a line of tempting black models soon).
Re:Not Flash again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, don't you just hate the way streamed Flash videos "just work" across PC and Mac, with IE, Firefox, Safari or Opera - for anybody with the ubiquitous Flash plug-in installed?
Of course, they discriminate against Linux users... Oh, wait, no, I just clicked "Install Plugin" in Firefox under Ubuntu and the video was running within 15 seconds... OK, so its not so easy if you're running PPC or 64 bit, and I had to click-through my Immortal Soul to Adobe, but they'd have to fight Microsoft, the Inland Revenue and T-Mobile if they wanted to collect that!
Yes, Flash is propietary, and yes, it has been abused for unnecessary eye candy, but it is also a bloody good product for small-scale, web-deliverable, cross-platform multimedia/forms apps that don't need the full might (and bewildering technology thicket) of Java. Show me (say) a combination of SVG and ECMAScript that actually works reliably.
PS "works reliably" in this context precludes telling your users/clients/potential customers "What? You're using Firefox|IE|Safari under Windows|MacOS? Just install Gentoo and do 'sudo apt-get-install mypersonalideaofadecentbrowserV1.0E-12PreAlpha' you moron! "