Apple’s New Anti-Windows 7 Ads Hurt My Brain

Oh, there is far more wrong with this add than just the history of Apple. I mean, this is essentially the same thing that happens every time Apple updates its OS as well. I mean, isn't the presupposition of an updated system that it fixes those problems in the old system and adds new features?

Also, I'd like to point out that Vista did in fact fix most of the problems of previous versions of Windows. Previous versions of Windows, were hit hard by security holes and Microsoft spent much of the early 2000s working on fixing this. XP Service Pack 2 is a notable example. Now, that is not to say that Vista did not add its own slew of problems, but at least in relation to the most egregious problems in XP and 2000, Vista was pretty much a success.

Also, in relation to the charge that Win7 is just Vista +.1, I mean, isn't every iteration of OSX just OS 10.x+.1?

Well, mind you that every iteration of OSX has been numbered 10.x, and priced accordingly. Win7 is, well, Windows 7, a full version number, and priced like a full version (well, priced like a box of platinum, but that's another story). When you're looking at comments like Mark Shuttleworth's "nice service pack" line, it's based on the expectation that a new version number = significant change. Not sure if Win7 is quite up to that.

You make a good point Aristos, and I wonder how long Apple is going to stick
with the OSX branding. I mean, what happens after 10.9? 11? I think
Microsoft realized in Win7 that iterations of 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP and Vista
were simply confusing. Why not just a simple number?

I will agree that it is quite obnoxious how much Microsoft prices its
products. While I do not deny that MS Office is superior to OpenOffice or
KOffice, it seems insane that Microsoft can charge several hundred dollars
for an office platform or an operating system when the competition offers
its most recent update for $30 (or free if you favor Linux). Dollar for
dollar its clear that Apple creates a far better deal on your OS. However,
Apple's true profit comes in the whole package seen as a whole. This is why
they are so vehemently against companies like PsyStar
<http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/23/psystar-rele...
seek to create alternative platforms to run their software. Apple's real
profit is in the hardware they sell. Keeping the OS upgrades cheap is just a
way to keep people in the Apple sphere. Meanwhile, Microsoft does most of
its business with manufacturers and IT departments and already has market
dominance so it can afford to price its updates high.

I tested Vista for a year before it was released and then used it as my main
windows OS for about a year before upgrading to the Win7 release candidate.
I must say that it *feels* like much more of a step forward than Vista did.
Honestly, to me, Vista felt like XP with a new skin and an annoying UAC
prompt every 5 minutes. Win7 *feels* like a real honest to goodness
upgrade. Microsoft has focused not on big updates, but smart updates, which
IMHO is far more important.

Your logic has no place here! You are correct, but of course the truth would mess with Apple's marketing mojo. I do find it funny how Apple can release ads like these, but the minute Verizon or MS tries to compete people get on their case--

Most of the Verizon thing I saw was a backlash from the Linux community. MS has a history of offputting attack tactics (think the Halloween documents or "Get the Facts", which was just blatant propoganda), and Verizon is attacking over something that doesn't really belong to them, on behalf of people who don't really want them to attack anybody.