Greg Laden's Blog

When watching TV shows (usually on DVR or on-demand, not live), I try to fast forward commercials EXCEPT for this one. I love it.

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | October 28, 2009 10:24 PM

Aren't there laws against making commercials like this? I know that in most European countries you're not allowed to advertise with "Product X sucks, buy product Y." That's probably why they don't show these adds over here...

Also, I recall Apple doing something pretty similar, together with just about every other manufacturer or provider of any product or service ever.

Posted by: Alcari | October 29, 2009 10:48 AM

Greg: I don't think MS has ever initiated a complaint in court about these.

IANAL (or a Microsoft employee...), but I've always made one of two assumptions: either MS doesn't want to dignify the commercials with such an over-the-top response or MS realizes it would be more bother than it's worth.

The PC v. Mac commercials are bald-faced assertions built overexaggeration of perceived flaws in the Windows system but in most cases they stop short of outright lies. As such, it would be incredibly difficult to prove slander or libel in court. And "truth in advertising" claims are generally directed at positive claims for the product, which the PC v. Mac commercials rarely ever possess. The structure is just, "Wow, look at how much PCs suck, I'll buy a Mac instead!" If the commercials were, "Buy a Mac, it'll cure your cancer," then there'd be truth in advertising claims. If the commercials were, "Don't buy a PC, Bill Gates eats babies," then there'd be a slander/libel claim.

As such, these commercials are basically a more jackassed version of, "Buy Pepsi, since it tastes better than Coke."

Meanwhile, most people who feel the need to choose sides on the matter have chosen sides. People who like Macs will keep buyin Macs. People who like PCs will keep buying PCs. All my computers are PCs and will be for the forseeable future (although when I rebuild my desktop there will be a working Linux kernel this time around. The fact that I don't have one now is entirely the fault of the bad decision making I did on my video card purchase, but that's a story for another day). When I got my new laptop it was with some trepidation, since it came with Vista. But you know what? I really like Vista. My buddy who told me not to worry about Vista tells me that I'll really like Windows 7 if I ever move to it.

Windows gets a lot of automatic bad press every time something new comes out. But it's always seemed to me like a lot of that comes from people getting pre-release versions and screwing around or people who think, "Oh, I did things this way in XP, I can do them the same exact way in Vista. Wait, no I can't, this sucks!"

And, of course, people don't realize what Windows has to be able to do: be adaptable to pretty much any need. I liken the three main OSes to forms of government. Macs are like a theocracy. You have to do things the way they want to, but if you're happy in the system you'll be fine. And possibly a little brainwashed. Or a lot brainwashed in some cases. Linux is whatever the Libertarian ideal is. You're free to do anything you want, but if you don't have the skills or know the right people you might as well just not own a computer. Windows is a representative democracy. There's a little something for everybody, but that means there are enough problems to give people reasons to get pissed off.

So I don't see why there's a fight. I'm a PC user and I like my PCs. I see no reason to switch to Macs (and I usually laugh at those commercials. Not with. At, as in, "I think they're stupid." Not that I care for the "I'm a PC" commercials, either, except for the one with the really cute blonde. Really, I have no idea why either side feels the need to advertise. Pretty much everyone needs a computer, after all. Also, I've never seen a Linux commercial, but Linux use is on the rise) and I know that when I do get that Linux kernel up and running I won't be able to replace Windows, since there's a lot of stuff I do that's simply not available on Linux (games, mostly). I guess my point is, "Why can't we all just get along?" It's strange to me that computer use is turning in to a religion analog.

Posted by: Geds | October 29, 2009 11:59 AM

@Geds
I agree with you totally!

and I know that when I do get that Linux kernel up and running I won't be able to replace Windows

As for OSX, I have a unit on my desktop at work (I have many computers on my desk), though I use it mostly for testing cross-platform compatability of software/intranet/websites for my work. Others include thin clients with Linux and Blazer/WNOS proprietary thin terminal OS.

Posted by: jj | October 29, 2009 12:32 PM

Not too sure what the point is throwing XP, 98 and 95. Those were the OS's that were solid.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 29, 2009 1:00 PM

@aratina cage

Hm well I remember my transition from 3.1 to 95 and 95 to 98 to be fairly smooth (they were purchased on release) and I did the install myself at the age of 11 (win 95) as my dad though I'd have less trouble with it. I found XP to be perfect out of the box (thanks to win 2000 pro having gone through the patches, much like Vista to 7). But, I could have been lucky with the hardware I had in my unit(s) at time of upgrade. Windows Me, on the other hand, was a nightmare. Not to say I never ran into a BSoD or anything like that (normally my own fault though for screwing with things)

Posted by: jj | October 29, 2009 2:19 PM

Ever since this happened to me, no more MS OS!!!

Posted by: Bill G. | October 29, 2009 2:53 PM