Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Jul 2009 12:51 UTC
Microsoft I'm sure most of you are aware of the advertisements going back and forth between Apple and Microsoft. Apple started out with the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" campiagn, and Microsoft responded - after a long wait - with the "Laptop Hunters" ads. Recently, Apple made some price cuts, and according to Microsoft, the Cupertino company's lawyers contacted Microsoft, demanding they take down the ads.
Thread beginning with comment 373746
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: And in other news...
by Drumhellar on Thu 16th Jul 2009 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And in other news..."
Member since:

You guys are both wrong. TNG and DS9 were both really good shows: TNG because it is Star Trek, DS9 because it's just a damn good show by itself.

It's Voyager that was terrible. Enterprise was better, but not by much.

TNG had awesome characters, and especially later on in the series when they had time to mature, there were frequently great episodes, although my favorite Star Trek episode ever was in season 2 (The Measure of a Man).
It was also much closer to Roddenberry's optimistic vision of the future.

It's not fair to say TNG "Isn't" Star Trek because it differs from the original series. It was a Roddenberry creation, after all, and it was on the air for 7 years, vs Kirk an company's 3 years. (I'm using that as a metric of quality, only the extra time gives it more weight when defining what Star Trek is) It also had a similar track record on dealing with the social issues of the day.

DS9 was frickin' awesome, not in the same way though. While the darkness of the series drove away some viewers, it's broad story arc made it an excellent, well-planned series. The characters were all really good, and it actually ended, unlike TNG which just kinda stopped.

Voyager was more than just terrible Star Trek: It was terrible television. It was way to reliant on the particle-of-the-week to save the day. While TNG's Borg episodes were tense and kept you on the edge of your seat, Voyager's Borg episodes boiled down to "What new weapon mod is going to shoot out of Tuvok's butt this time?" Voyager quickly removed all sense of danger from the Borg.

Enterprise was better, but Archer was inconsistent. He couldn't be relied on to make moral decisions. None of the other Captains would have tortured anybody. He frequently succumbed to desperation, especially during season 3. Picard could always be relied on to do the moral thing.
The other characters were all good, though.

I won't say anything about the original series, though. I'm way to young. Television, as a whole, was completely different when that show was on, and there is no way I can view the show in the correct context. All I have to say is, just being the original isn't enough to be make it the best. Ideas do evolve and grow over time.

But, I could talk all frickin' day though...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: And in other news...
by BluenoseJake on Thu 16th Jul 2009 19:14 in reply to "RE[3]: And in other news..."
BluenoseJake Member since:

I liked voyager, but I HATED Enterprise. I actually have watched all of DS9 and it isn't a bad show, but it is bad trek.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: And in other news...
by Drumhellar on Thu 16th Jul 2009 19:36 in reply to "RE[4]: And in other news..."
Drumhellar Member since:

DS9 is bad Trek, but a great show.

Part of what made Star Trek different from other Science Fiction, both in the original series, and in TNG, was that Roddenberry was optimistic for the future, while most SciFi was rather pessimistic.
Roddenberry truly believed that Humanity would eventually end war and poverty, and he thought technology would play a part in that. Picard frequently mentions how he does what he does not for the acquisition of wealth, but to better himself as a Human being.

I don't recall that sentiment ever being mentioned in DS9 or later. Rick Berman and Ira Bher didn't know what made Star Trek special. It was Bher that was responsible for the Dominion War and for the Kai Winn character.
Those story arcs did make it a good show though.

I feel I should add, generally, I'm not a big fan of SciFi. I couldn't get into Babylon 5 because I would watch the show and think, "This isn't like Star Trek."
That is the same feeling I get when I watch other sci-fi shows, too.

The only othe SciFi series I got in to are the Dune novels. I think my like of DS9 and it's themes helped me to dive in to Dune (which I'm currently in the middle of the series yet again). Of course, Brian's books aren't nearly as good as Frank's books...

I also got in to Stargate SG-1, but I think that's because I was secretly hoping Gen. Jack O'Neil would be forced to fix the Stargate with a piece of bubblegum (unchewed), a tin can, a bit of string, and some left-over cheese (Cheddar, not American).

Edited 2009-07-16 19:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:

It's Voyager that was terrible. Enterprise was better, but not by much.

Agreed there. Interesting premise - but they they ruined by basically just recycling every TNG cliche, and with weaker cast and characters. The best thing about Voyager is that it kept Brannon Braga occupied, so he couldn't screw up DS9.

TNG, the middle seasons were the best - say, 3 to 6. The early seasons are badly-rehashed TOS plots, and the last season seemed like the cast was having a contest to see who could get the most screen time.

DS9 was decent, as long as you skip the first 3 seasons. The multi-episode story arc(s) were a nice change - though it did have an annoying habit of throwing in a Ferengi/holodeck filler episode whenever things started to get interesting.

Edited 2009-07-16 21:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2