General complaints about Vista are cleverly masked behind a series of "want" and "wish" scenarios, making Windows 7 less the specific solution to Vista and more the divine manifestation of an abstract ideal—something an IT dork would beg a genie for rather than begrudgingly buy and install after Vista let him down.

It's a clever, forward-looking campaign. And I hope you like it, because starting today, these spots are going to be all over TV. [NYT via ZDNet]

"Time Traveler" - During which the PC character goes to the year 2150 to see if PCs have become any less error-prone.

"Stacks" - PC is having trouble finding people's faces in his huge photo stacks, so Mac pimps the new facial recognition software contained in iPhoto. This is an obvious shot across the bow of that cute little girl who showed us how "easy" it was to do photo editing on a PC.

"Legal Copy" - PC wants us to believe he's easy to use, but the lawyers say otherwise.

"Biohazard Suit" - Can you say Conficker?

Apple has obviously decided to respond to Microsoft's "un-commercials" with the tried and true "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" formula, and why the heck not, really. It's ten times better than their catty initial response the other day, and the commercials are, at the very least, incredibly popular.

To be honest, I would have liked to have seen a Lauren cameo or parody of some kind, only because she's actually on my TV right now as I type this. Hi, Lauren. [Apple]

"A PC is no bargain when it doesn't do what you want," Apple spokesman Bill Evans says. "The one thing that both Apple and Microsoft can agree on is that everyone thinks the Mac is cool. With its great designs and advanced software, nothing matches it at any price."

Kitty no likey! Reeow! [Business Week via MacRumors]

Mitch Gewirtz of Michigan would like to give you his 17-inch PowerBook. For free. From Mitch:

Subject: I AM UP FOR THE CHALLENGE!

To whom it may concern,

I recently watched the new PC ad on television the other night about "Lauren" purchasing a laptop for under $1000.00. It was a great advertisement targeting everyday PC users. My only concern is that I feel the computer "Lauren" chose will not provide an overall positive experience. I am asking for your assistance to help me locate "Lauren". I am willing to give her my 17" Mac laptop "FOR FREE" so she can decide which laptop is superior without putting a price tag on it.

I do believe everyone on this planet is "cool enough to be a Mac person".

Sincerely,
Mitch Gewirtz

We of course wrote back to Mitch to gauge his level of seriousness in this matter. His response:

Absolutely! I am serious!

I believe my 17" G4 powerbook is still more advanced than any PC out there today. It is a very healthy laptop that has given me a wonderful experience the last couple of years. I truly believe if "Lauren" had a chance to use this laptop she would change her mind.

Can you help me locate her?

While Apple fanboys are a dime a dozen, we like Mitch's attitude, a guy willing to put his money where his mouth is (even if that money is invested in an older machine he may be planning to replace). So Mitch, Gizmodo would like to support you on your quest to gift Lauren your PowerBook. We've got your back, buddy.

Lauren, where are you? Drop us a line (you can find my email on the side of the page). Let's make this love connection happen.

In this, the most directly anti-Apple ad of Microsoft's 'I'm a PC' campaign, Microsoft sets up an experiment: a focus group of prospective computer shoppers is given a set amount of money—in this case $999—to buy a computer. Any remaining cash the members have they can keep.

Predictably, our perky protagonist, desiring a 17-inch screen, went with a $700 PC from Best Buy. And why not? The 'equivalent' (read: 17-inch) Apple product could have cost her twice as much, and $999 would have left her stuck with a last-gen product anyway. Likewise, if she had listed in her requirements 4GB of RAM, a Blu-ray drive, a built-in card reader, or anything at all that doesn't come stock in a 13-inch white MacBook, she would have had to buy a PC.

Microsoft told the WSJ that not a single focus group member chose a Mac, but even the most devout Apple fanboy could have predicted this outcome; the arbitrary terms of the ad had Apple competing in a market they don't even have a product for. The 'experiment', as it were, doesn't actually prove anything, nor does it need to; this, like any good ad campaign, is about crafting an image for you or your competitors—something it manages deftly in a time when money is on everyone's mind. [BoingBoing Gadgets]

These ads work.

After seeing the first one, Mark's wife said she wanted an Asian baby and a PC. This, after she JUST got a new MacBook. Wow, Microsoft. Nice job.

As for me, I'm convinced that that 4.5-year-old is what my kid will look like when she grows up. When I have a kid. Whenever that is.

Now, how will the unstoppable force that is Apple and Hodgman bury this tiny tot? We await Apple's next retaliatory-retaliatory ad spot.

Updated:

[LiveSide — Thanks, Lorenc!]

It's true. The Linux Foundation saw those successful I'm a Mac commercials, and Jerry Seinfeld playing with Bill Gates, and they wanted in. So they're having a video contest that will try and showcase "just what Linux means to those who use it, and hopefully inspires many to try it."

That means you, the Linux user at home, will get to submit a video that rivals what Apple and Microsoft's multi-million dollar ad agencies have had years to hone and perfect with focus groups and trained, funny actors. But that's the beauty of the penguin, right? Grassroots development, supported by a passionate community of users, all topped off by a network of cranky forum dwellers who'll attack anything negative written about their OS within milliseconds of its publication.

The winner of the I'm Linux contest will receive a free (as in beer) trip to Tokyo to participate in the Linux Foundation Japan Linux Symposium in October 2009. The winning video will be screened at the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit in San Francisco on April 8, 2009.

Novell actually did this already back at BrainShare in 2007, but we'll see if the community at large can do them one better:

[Linux Foundation via Slashdot]

Mac OS X, mythically immune to common computer plagues, has actually always welcomed antivirus software. Or, uh, maybe not. Confused? No worries—here's how OS X and Windows differ on resisting viruses and other nasties.

It's not a matter of opinion: OS X is less susceptible to catching a cold than Windows. So is Linux, for that matter. There are two major reasons (and Steve Jobs' pee actually isn't one of them). First, Windows is on 89.6 percent of the world's personal computers, while OS X is on just 8.9 percent of them. Second, the Unix architecture that OS X and Linux are based on is inherently more secure than Windows, particularly pre-Vista versions. (If these reasons are familiar to you, you may not know the subtler side-effects of each reason that strengthen the case even more, so read on.)

There are a few different ways that Microsoft's mammoth market share actually hurts Windows and helps OS X. For one, writing nastiness that the vast majority of the world's personal computers are susceptible to is a more efficient use of resources than writing the same evil for a sliver of the population. In biology, a more homogeneous population is more susceptible to a genocidal plague. Same principle applies to the vast, Windows-powered ecosystem. I don't mean someone could write a virus that wipes everybody out. Just that if everybody's running Windows, the population is a much easier target.

The flipside of this—which you might not have considered—is that most malware writers obviously use Windows. They're going to whip up code for the OS they're familiar with and know best. And more to that point, most of the tools and scripts used to wreak havoc on computers are written for Windows. The same ecosystem that provides the biggest, most susceptible audience also provides the most fertile breeding ground for the nasty executables.

But suppose this was some bizarro world where OS X was king. Would Microsoft run ads about how virus-plagued OS X was? Well, it would still be more prudent to run anti-virus software, since there'd be a lot more crap thrown at the Mac OS, but if malware acted mostly like it does today, it likely wouldn't have the same impact as it did on Windows pre-Vista.

A lot of that is because of the way permissions work in OS X vs. Windows. Basically, Unix-based systems are architected so that they require administrator privileges to modify the OS and are traditionally more strict in enforcing them. Critical areas are walled off from normal users—you see this when OS X asks for a password to install updates or change a system setting. A standard non-admin user account is restricted; bad software can't wreak much havoc at all without that password.

This is precisely what Vista's somewhat-maligned User Account Control attempts to replicate, limiting points of intrusion and requiring explicit user permission to get anywhere deep. On Windows, historically, the enforcement of these restrictions has been lax in the name of convenience.

This is not to say that OS X is invulnerable, by any means. The main applications folder is relatively unprotected, and any running app can write to it and most of what's inside. Coupled with OS X's app-bundling architecture, this makes it easier to replace program executables or sneak in a piggybacking one. Even then, however, the malware would need to elicit elevated permissions to do any hardcore damage to the core OS; it could, unfortunately, nuke your relatively unprotected Home folder though. Another point of vulnerability, or at least a pain point, according to Mac Forensics Lab, is OS X's centralized address book, which also has weak defenses. If the Home folder book did require the same level of permissions, it would be kinda unusable, because you'd have to elevate permissions to make any and every change.

This brings us to OS X's biggest security hole, the one that it actually shares with every operating system: you. It doesn't matter how good baked-in security is if a user throws out the welcome mat for whatever crap comes their way. On the flip side, you're also the first, and best, line of protection. Don't do anything stupid, and you'll be fine, anti-virus software or not—whatever OS you're running.

Something you still wanna know? Send any questions about viruses, VD or the 1995 Dustin Hoffman film Outbreak to tips@gizmodo.com, with "Giz Explains" in the subject line.

I'm a huge, unabashed, and unembarrassed Girl Talk fan, yet even I'm not sure that, like he says, "Software and computers are the most punk rock thing that's happened, ever." I think punk rock might actually hold that crown. But hey, Night Ripper was the unofficial dance party soundtrack for my entire fourth year at college, so whatever you say, dude. [YouTube]

The guy who opens the spot—and "likes the slimming effect of a purple striped shirt"—has the definite whiff of "serial killer," or at least "dresses up John Hodgman dolls in doilies for nightly tea parties." Justin Long comes off as a dbag in the Apple spots, but I'd rather hang (and compute) with him, since he at least won't cut me up into little pieces and feed me to his pet guinea pig Mr. Snuggles (probably not, anyway). And zebra chasing? Bling? Really? You had a good thing going, Microsoft. This all ends when Windows 7 comes out, right? [Alley Insider, Ad Age via Gawker]

There's also the minor matter of Apple accusing Microsoft of spending money on advertising that would be better allocated to fixing Vista. The message, of course, is delivered in an expensive advertising campaign, the week after Apple released brand new, prohibitively expensive laptops. Justin Long's Mac moves on to criticize Microsoft's 'reluctance' to call Vista by its real name, which is either a misguided dig at the Mojave campaign or some kind of odd jab at the logical dropping of the 'Vista' name for Windows 7.
Everyone expects misinformation and questionable techniques in advertising, but that's not the issue here. These ads seem directed at Microsoft's corporate management, not their customers. Redmond and Cupertino are having a useless, protracted argument with each other, unaware of the fact that their shouting is going completely over everyone else's heads. [MacRumors]

The offending evidence was metadata found in the images of the PC user featured on the “I’m a PC” web site. The data exposed the fact that the images were produced using Macs running Adobe Creative Suite 3.

Microsoft has since responded to the controversy, saying in a statement that "as is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."

They then scrubbed the metadata from the imagery.

We recently asked you guys and gals if advertising could make Microsoft "hip." The answer, it appears, is yes—so long as Redmond is creating said advertising on a Mac. [Digital Daily]

Ad work and post processing are more often than not done on Macs, so this is nothing special. Just a footnote in the campaign that could have been one more notch on Microsoft's side had they been able to claim that these ads were made on Windows. – JC