The man behind the PC/Mac/Linux

[Warrior]

The UAC one is inaccurate on so many levels. But it was clever and I laughed.

Oh well, they'll still have 5% marketshare and they'll still claim they're "winning" something.

[disco]

[CrAz3D]

good point...

[Chavo]

thats the whole point of the ad, they aren't trying to sell the product to businesses... they want to entice home and casual users

[Sidoh]

I'd have to interview them.

[Newby]

x86] link=topic=8568.msg108817#msg108817 date=1171430267]
The thing that pisses me off is that these commercials are sort of taking advantage of people who simply don't have a clue of what's going on. Sure, it's their fault, but I wouldn't want it happening to me, and it's definately not moral to do so

As opposed to all other commercials, that don't do this.

People don't expose flaws in advertising? WHY THE FUCK NOT?!?!?!?

[Joe]

I'm not quite sure who you're promoting with that. It sort of pains me to say this, but I'd hire the teenager though. Men who show up in business suits make shitty lifeguards.

[iago]

I'd have to interview them.

Agreed. Though typically, in the computer industry younger people are generally better. The old guy looks to stuffy/old fashioned, which is generally a bad thing. Younger, more energetic, and dynamic people are the way to go.

Also, if the old guy needs an operation every time he upgrades, he'd cost the healthplan a lot, too.

[Super_X]

I'd have to interview them.

Agreed. Though typically, in the computer industry younger people are generally better. The old guy looks to stuffy/old fashioned, which is generally a bad thing. Younger, more energetic, and dynamic people are the way to go.

Also, if the old guy needs an operation every time he upgrades, he'd cost the healthplan a lot, too.

Right, so the best way to solve that is kill them and get a new employee each time.

[iago]

Right, so the best way to solve that is kill them and get a new employee each time.

Well, that depends what's cheaper: training a new employee or paying for an operation for the old one.

If you're starting with nobody, you obviously need to train, but once you already have an employee, you have to balance training with operation.

[Super_X]

Right, so the best way to solve that is kill them and get a new employee each time.

Well, that depends what's cheaper: training a new employee or paying for an operation for the old one.

If you're starting with nobody, you obviously need to train, but once you already have an employee, you have to balance training with operation.

Alright, now that we have that down, lets go back to the fiscal area of computers. Is it more expencive to have an upgrade every couple of years, or a new computer every four, or five years? (I am not actually sure which would cost more, I have a feeling it'd be more expencive to be a new computer, but that's my uneducated guess.)

[Sidoh]

That obviously depends on a lot of things.  What kind of upgrades would you plan on adding?  How much does a desirable (in your opinion) new computer cost?

[Super_X]

That obviously depends on a lot of things.  What kind of upgrades would you plan on adding?  How much does a desirable (in your opinion) new computer cost?

I know it's quite dependant, but I was thinking: "I would already have most of the stuff, I'd just need to buy a few new things like RAM, video card, and (according to that lame commercial) a new proccessor. Assuming that all fits on your motherboard, that's less than an equivilant new computer, yeah?"
So, that's just what I was basing my oppinion on.

[iago]

I don't know about you guys, but I was talking about a person!

Of course, if you want to run Vista, all you really need, according to Dell, is 512mb:


The only problem is, all you can do is boot your computer, maybe change the wallpaper, and wait for it to catch on fire. Since when was " Booting the Operating System, without running applications or games" a big feature? 

(screenshot is real, I took it: http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/solutions/en/winvista?c=us&l=en&s=gen&redirect=1)