[NYSkater]

Let's do something novel. Let's talk about facts.



Better than 40% of new Mac users within the past two years are former Windows users.



Interpret this anyway you want -- because you will anyway. How many new Windows users switched from the make in that same time frame?

[NYSkater]

I haven't read a single post here stating that Mac users think their Macs are "perfect."


Hence, that becomes your issue and not theirs'.
Message was edited by: AuroraDizon attacks removed

[VHMP01]

?Better than 40% of new Mac users within the past two years are former Windows users?? Proves nothing at all, obviously they were former Windows users, if Windows has 90% of Market Share and has been there over the past `Two? decades, basically everyone that has used a computer has a least used Windows once. Now that Macs are all made from PC parts, you and all rotten Apple users are more like PC Users; there goes down the drain your theory again. And would you care to explain why most of these Mac Users brag on about how they can run Windows on their Macs. Thank you.

It is getting really boring; rotten apple fans just do not give bases for any statements. I will quote myself from past posts:

1.- Macs are not safer, proven more than once (Google a bit if you don't believe).
2.- Macs are made with PC parts, feeding the PC industry (Intel Processors, ATI Graphics cards, Toshiba Hard Drives, Sony Blue Ray / DVD burners, etc.). Meaning Mac users ?Do pay dearly?, original post title proven.
3.- May not be legal, but OSX can be run on any PC, a silly Control Freak Contracts Clause does not mean it cannot be done. This is as illegal as `running Windows under Mac? without a Licence (Pirated or accepting pirating by Mac users here). If maid legal, not only do Mac users `pay dearly? for hardware, but they also pay MS for their Windows and Windows related programs (like a billion out there I guess).
4.- Updates to MS are all free (in the form of SPs), and frequently attended by MS, way much more attention to it than OSX?s, which is not safer remember?
5.- We don?t have to care for you falling for the pyramid business model from Apple in which once you are hooked up, have no option but to try and hook others too. There are like millions of PC companies to give us a bit more choices, which is what we like.

NYSkater interpret this anyway you want -- because you will anyway. How many new Mac users are using Windows under Mac in that same time frame? Please, I repeat myself, give us bases or you would be nailed in Court!

[NYSkater]

Many words wasted to say nothing at all.

[Evildave]

Well, I'm sure Apple appreciates how nice Microsoft is for shipping a Windoze OS that has so many tens of thousands of apps, 66% of which are malware.
Perhaps the Mac buyers pay a little extra for the peace of mind?

BTW, it's 87% Windoze, and still falling. 9.73% Mac, and still rising. In fact, it seems Mac grows at about the rate that Windoze shrinks, even with the size of the overall pie growing.

marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9#

After all, there are over a Billion PCs. Every 1% is 10,000,000 users. 30,000,000 fewer Windoze Luzers, about 20,000,000 new Mac users. iPhone & iPod Touch keep going up, too. Six million of them.

Ooh! And looky! Linux cracked 1%! That's OVER TEN MILLION USERS. :) We be da Mensa 1%, fer sure.

The public speaks: Anything but Windoze.

[NYSkater]

Nice post.



Most consumers use an average of four or five applications on a regular basis. So what relevance does the fact that Microsoft offers millions of applications versus a smaller percent offered for Mac users?



Most of the stuff out there is crap.



Just look at the Apple iPhone/iPod Touch app store to see where the interest lies and the money is to be made.



Why does anyone think that everyone and his brother is copying the Apple app store in order to attract customers?



I grow very tired of reading uninformed messages from people who have an obvious bias and an obvious agenda.

[TechieXP]

show me a version of Windows that cost a consumer $800 just for the software. And even if you ahve to buy new hardware to run Vista, you also need new hardware to run OSX. And OSX hardware cost MORE.I can build a desktop with better components for 1/2 the cost of ANY desktop Mac and even add the most expensive version of Vista..and it will still cost thousands less. And teh article was perfect. That entry level Macbook at 999 is excessive when teh hardware inside iis cheap. How cheap? Well he showed you...A dell with better hardware was $400 less. IT HAD BETTER HARDWARE. YET IT COST LESS. Macs are better they are siply more expensive for the same thing. And don't try to drop that...well by the time you buy anti-virus...blah blah...I don't use anti-virus eother and haven't done do since 1994. I have yet to get one. Computer viruses infect idiots...not smart people.

:-)

Anyway Ballmer is an crack-pot...but this tie he is smoking something good. Because he simply speaks teh truth...for the first time. And I can't stand Ballmer.

[TechieXP]

Wow they saw you coming. I to bought Vista when it first came out. I bought the OEM version for only 199.99. That is what happens when you don't shop around. With internet there is no reason to pay retail for any software.

[TechieXP]

I bet my last computer was more upgradable than yours. I built my first desktop in 1994...It used the Intel 440 chipset. It was a server board but I used it as a workstation. I started off with Dual Pentium II's..I upgraded here and there...it last all the way to Pentium III 1.3GHZ...It ran Windows 95,98,98SE,ME,2000,XP and it ran Vista as well...I built a new machine skipping over Pentium 4 and jumped into quadcore...I built it in 2006 though I didn't need too. My present system with little to no modification will still run any version of Linux, Unix, Solaris, DOS and Windows all on the same system. The older Macs won't run todays OSX because it is x86 only. Oh well out with the old in with the new. At Windows presnt rate...I will still be able to use any upcoming version before I need to upgrade. I expect I will get another 10 years ar leat. Unlike you I have major benfits...like my front side bus isn't locked which meas I can use faster processors....something you can't do on any BRANDED PC. My board supports 65 and 45 nanometer cpu's...and it supports CPU from 4 different families. I could fall all the way down to Pentium 4...and even use Core Duo, Core 2 Duo Core Quad...and even the Extreme Edition family all on the same board. And I can use DDR2/DDR3 ram at speeds as high as 2000mhz (overclocked) and I can take my lil 2.4 quadcore and run it as fast as 3.6Ghz...all for free...now you want to place that bet? That is what value is....getting more for your money...

And if it gets to a point my present hardware can't run a new OS...i'll simply stick to using what already works. I don't like upgrading software until I have too. Unlike some Windows users who simply upgrade for no reason...thats why they have troubles.

[TechieXP]

Stop drinking Apple's coffee...its ruining your common sense.

Are MAcs good computers...yes...
ITS TEH SAME HARDWARE. And no they don't use the better versions of it. Try looking at the specs of a comparable system and see.
Example I just bought a laptop...it cost $50 less the the Mac. However I got more:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16834100048

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16834220527

Now the biggest benefit to teh Mac is it weights 5lbs vs my laptop at 11lbs...but it is a desktop replacement and I plan to carry it not as often.
But compare hardware.

Mac has a faster CPU by clock speed only...even tho I have a slower clocck..i have 4 cores. Apple doesn't offer a quadcore laptop...
Ram...the Mac has 4GB..i have 6GB.
Video. Both cards in the Mac are outdated as they came out last year...around Oct...and they aren't even matching. They mated a good card with a crappy one...while I have match cards that is less than 6 months old...and these cards are almost 2x faster. my cards rGPU runs native @ 750mhz while those Nvidia's are around 600mhz---the ram on my cards are DDR3 as well however they run faster ..i also have teh ddr4 versions of teh same card in my desktop...they are 2x faster then those Nvidia...and I paid for 2 at teh cost of 1 in the Mac.

I have a bigger screen...but no big deal. What sucks about the Mac? That is a crappy resolution for a system that has to cards. There are systems that have one card that have better resolutions...1680 x 1050 is a much better resolution...look what mines pushing...THAT FULL HD BABY. Both cards in teh Asus sprt 512MB of ram...while in the Mac one has 512 and teh other has 256. tisk tisk tisk.

The mac is using a cheesy screen at only WXGA while I am using the best screen on a laptop at WUXGA...there is a HUGE difference...trust e. Look it up on wikipedia and find out why.

And look at my extras...fingerprint reader, flash memory reader. Macs are goos at photography..right? YET NONE OF TEH MACS have flash card readre. YET practically ALL CAMERAS use them. HDMI...not avail on Mac even though...PS3, Xbox, HDTV's, Digital Cable boxes ALL use HDMI...yet Apple being so great..doesn't.

My wireless supprts b/g/n...in one solution. And I even have eSATA which is faster than FW400. And for 1 year my warrnty even covers if I drop and break it at no extra cost and 2 years for everything else...both extendable and cost less than Apple Care which doesn't cover anything exacpt teh hardware...it doesn't cover if I get pissed at it and throw it own the window.

And if something goes wrong...Asus like Dell will ship e a new system the very next day. As Asus doesn't have a local option. But that is ok..I don't have to leave my house...Sucks for you all that money you have to spend. For all that oney I shouldn't have to leave my house...Apple should come to me...I don't care if I live right across from Apple Store..which I amosty use too. I use to live downtown here in Chicago. Apple Store was 4 blocks from my condo. It a nice polace to visit...but I don't want too own a Mac..now I do like iPhone...justy isn't worth the hassle of using ATT which I hate.

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

Stop drinking Apple's coffee...its ruining your common sense.

Are MAcs good computers...yes...
ITS TEH SAME HARDWARE. And no they don't use the better versions of it. Try looking at the specs of a comparable system and see.
Example I just bought a laptop...it cost $50 less the the Mac. However I got more:

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16834100048

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16834220527

Now the biggest benefit to teh Mac is it weights 5lbs vs my laptop at 11lbs...but it is a desktop replacement and I plan to carry it not as often.
But compare hardware.

Here you go again, comparing a 11 lb behemoths to 5 lb travel machines. They do not compete, they are not cross-shopped, and they are completely non-competitive with each other. Its like me saying that the Mazda Miata is not as good as the Ford F-150 because it doesn't carry as much. There is no a single shopper out there interested in full-size pickups who compares the Miata, just as no sports car shoppers compare the F-150.

Your 11 lb machine competes with other 11 lb machines, maybe even some 8 or 9 lb machines, perhaps a few 12 or 13 lb machines. Trust me, nobody who is shopping thin-and-lights (MacBook Pro, ThinkPad T series, Dell Latitude, HP Elitebook) is also shopping 11 lb monstrosities, and no hard-core gamer will look at thin-and-light for their primary gaming machine.

Quote

Mac has a faster CPU by clock speed only...even tho I have a slower clocck..i have 4 cores. Apple doesn't offer a quadcore laptop...
Ram...the Mac has 4GB..i have 6GB.

Again, you have a luggable desktop, and you are comparing it to a thin-and-light. Yours has a desktop processor, the MacBook Pro a mobile processor.

Quote

Video. Both cards in the Mac are outdated as they came out last year...around Oct...and they aren't even matching. They mated a good card with a crappy one...while I have match cards that is less than 6 months old...and these cards are almost 2x faster. my cards rGPU runs native @ 750mhz while those Nvidia's are around 600mhz---the ram on my cards are DDR3 as well however they run faster ..i also have teh ddr4 versions of teh same card in my desktop...they are 2x faster then those Nvidia...and I paid for 2 at teh cost of 1 in the Mac.

The video cards in Macs are selected as much for low operating temperature as for performance. Thin and small casings are the enemy of heat, so cooler-running components are selected in thin computers, not only in Macs.

Quote

I have a bigger screen...but no big deal. What sucks about the Mac? That is a crappy resolution for a system that has to cards. There are systems that have one card that have better resolutions...1680 x 1050 is a much better resolution...look what mines pushing...THAT FULL HD BABY. Both cards in teh Asus sprt 512MB of ram...while in the Mac one has 512 and teh other has 256. tisk tisk tisk.

The MacBook Pro you are dissing is the 15" model that is not a desktop replacement. The 17" MacBook Pro has the same resolution as your monstrosity.

Who cares about more VRAM on the integrated card? The integrated card is there to save battery life, not for ultimate performance, which is what the dedicated card is for.

Quote

The mac is using a cheesy screen at only WXGA while I am using the best screen on a laptop at WUXGA...there is a HUGE difference...trust e. Look it up on wikipedia and find out why.

How is the Mac screen cheesy? Read all of the computer magazines and you will find in every review of a MacBook Pro that the screen is universally praised. Apple designs its pro machines for graphic designers, and selects extraordinary panels for the MacBook Pro. The 13" MacBook screens (unibody) are about average for their class (LED backlit), but the Pros have extremely good monitors. The 17" MacBook Pro, the one that is closest to a desktop replacement though still only weighs 6 lbs and is under an inch thick, has true 24 bit color instead of the interlaced color of just about every other non-pro laptop sold by anyone. Lenovo has a true 24 bit display (same panel Apple uses, incidentally) in their 17" W700 workstation, which is a direct competitor to the 17" MacBook Pro in spec, size and price, and also does not compete with oversize, overweigh consumer gaming machines built for low price.
And look at my extras...fingerprint reader, flash memory reader. Macs are goos at photography..right? YET NONE OF TEH MACS have flash card readre. YET practically ALL CAMERAS use them. HDMI...not avail on Mac even though...PS3, Xbox, HDTV's, Digital Cable boxes ALL use HDMI...yet Apple being so great..doesn't.

Man you sound like a broken record. Macs don't have card readers because its easier to just plug the camera directly to the Mac - no drivers required. HDMI? We have display port, which carries more information than HDMI, supports higher resolution and also carries audio on the same cable.
My wireless supprts b/g/n...in one solution. And I even have eSATA which is faster than FW400. And for 1 year my warrnty even covers if I drop and break it at no extra cost and 2 years for everything else...both extendable and cost less than Apple Care which doesn't cover anything exacpt teh hardware...it doesn't cover if I get pissed at it and throw it own the window.

MacBook Pro doesn't have FW 400, it has 800. Why is b/g/n wifi an advantage of the MacBook's a/b/g/n? And you need that throw-it-out-the-window coverage because the first time you try and lug that beast through an airport you probably will smash it to smitherines. Oh, if you want accidental damage coverage on a Mac, you can get it, just not from Apple. My daughter's 3-year-old MacBook (no AppleCare) was just replaced by USAA after she spilled water on it. I pay an extra $100 per year on my homeowner policy that covers all four laptops in the family, whether they are damaged at home or anywhere else, my fault or yours, or even if stolen.
And if something goes wrong...Asus like Dell will ship e a new system the very next day. As Asus doesn't have a local option. But that is ok..I don't have to leave my house...Sucks for you all that money you have to spend. For all that oney I shouldn't have to leave my house...Apple should come to me...I don't care if I live right across from Apple Store..which I amosty use too. I use to live downtown here in Chicago. Apple Store was 4 blocks from my condo. It a nice polace to visit...but I don't want too own a Mac..now I do like iPhone...justy isn't worth the hassle of using ATT which I hate.

Sounds like a personal problem. Oh, Dell and Asus won't overnight you a new system unless you buy it. They will overnight you a box, which you put your old one in, send back, then you get to wait however many days or weeks (Dell kept my friend's Inspiron for 5 weeks before sending it back "repaired", with the same problem still there.

Apple isn't perfect and I would never say they are better than everyone else, but your arguments lack any and all logic and are nothing more than your anti-Apple bias and a total lack of facts.

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

I bet my last computer was more upgradable than yours. I built my first desktop in 1994...It used the Intel 440 chipset. It was a server board but I used it as a workstation. I started off with Dual Pentium II's..I upgraded here and there...it last all the way to Pentium III 1.3GHZ...It ran Windows 95,98,98SE,ME,2000,XP and it ran Vista as well...I built a new machine skipping over Pentium 4 and jumped into quadcore...I built it in 2006 though I didn't need too. My present system with little to no modification will still run any version of Linux, Unix, Solaris, DOS and Windows all on the same system. The older Macs won't run todays OSX because it is x86 only. Oh well out with the old in with the new. At Windows presnt rate...I will still be able to use any upcoming version before I need to upgrade. I expect I will get another 10 years ar leat. Unlike you I have major benfits...like my front side bus isn't locked which meas I can use faster processors....something you can't do on any BRANDED PC. My board supports 65 and 45 nanometer cpu's...and it supports CPU from 4 different families. I could fall all the way down to Pentium 4...and even use Core Duo, Core 2 Duo Core Quad...and even the Extreme Edition family all on the same board. And I can use DDR2/DDR3 ram at speeds as high as 2000mhz (overclocked) and I can take my lil 2.4 quadcore and run it as fast as 3.6Ghz...all for free...now you want to place that bet? That is what value is....getting more for your money...

"Today's OS X", which is version 10.5.7, runs on any Mac with at least a Power PC G4 processor at 867 MHz. That equates to desktops sold in 2001 and laptops sold in 2002, 5 years before the Intel transition and most definitely NOT an x86 machine. I have a 6-year-old PowerBook running the latest 10.5.7 just fine, thank you.

Quote

And if it gets to a point my present hardware can't run a new OS...i'll simply stick to using what already works. I don't like upgrading software until I have too. Unlike some Windows users who simply upgrade for no reason...thats why they have troubles.And why is that any different for a Mac user? If next year's 10.6 no longer supports my then 7-year-old laptop, why not just keep using it on 10.5.7? I have a friend who still uses a PowerBook from the year 2000 with 10.4, it won't run the latest, but then, it is 9-years-old and still going strong. Kind of like someone running XP today because their machine just isn't fast enough for Vista (what 9-year-old laptop is?).

What did Apple do to you? Did they burn down your house and kill your kids or something? They are a company, selling hardware to make money just like all of the companies selling hardware to make money. Just because they won't let you use their OS without buying their hardware doesn't make them the scourge of humanity, it just means that they made a business decision that makes them money.

If you want a Mac, buy one. If you don't, then don't.
Message was edited by: bcappel

[artzy65]

"I have yet to get one. Computer viruses infect idiots...not smart people."

Many consumers are lame when it comes to computing... that doesn't make then idiots.

[waldojim]

You know, I have taken part in these comparisons before and found there is no way to win, as a mac user will always say that x is better or y is.... But for the sake of wasting time....

MSI GT627-218US VS MBP 15"
Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 2.4G
4GB DDR2
320GB 7200rpm
BD Combo
NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS
5.9 lbs.
1680 x 1050 15" LCD
$1,299.99
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16834152099

Apple:
15-inch: 2.4GHz
2GB Memory
250GB hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT with 256MB
5.5 pounds
1440 by 900 15" LCD
$1,999.00

Even funnier HP Pavilion dv2-1030us VS MBA
HP
AMD Athlon Neo MV-40 1.6G
12.1" WXGA
4GB DDR2
320GB
DVD Super Multi
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3410 with 512MB dedicated ram
3.95 lbs. (1.29" thick)
1280 x 800
$799.99

MBA
1.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB Memory
120GB SATA hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics with 256MB dedicated
3.0 Lbs
1280-by-800 13" LCD
.76" thick
$1,799.00

Now the MSI VS MBP is fairly Close and easy to see why I would want the MSI over The MBP
More ram, more hard drive space, Blu-ray, Faster video, Higher resolution display though just a touch thicker and heavier... not enough that I am likely to notice though at half a pound difference... and with the extra $700 I save, I could get a gym membership to offset that .5 pound a bit further, and even buy a few blu-ray movies.

The HP VS MBA though is a bit tougher... the MBA is most certainly lighter, and smaller, though again not by much.... still almost a full pound... And they pack in a Very powerful processor in there comparatively. The 2Gig less ram, and the tiny hard drive though make for one heck of a deal breaker for me though... Also, I think (need to check some reviews) the ATI card is a bit more powerful. They both run the same resolution screen, though the MBA is nearly one inch larger. My thinking here though, is there are a few concessions one way or the other, MBA Gave up a battery and optical drive for the sake of being 'ultra portable' Though this does mean that it is a sort of pointless portability. I am buying a portable for the sake of portability... not all airports have readily accessible outlets, and I also like to watch movies, play games etc. This means lugging an external drive with me, adding to the weight and complexity of what I am carrying... So you can spend $1800 for the lightest toy on the market, or spend $800 for a useful, ultra portable that may lack processing power, but makes up for it in every other aspect... and For what it is worth, I have not seen a review on that chip yet, So I cannot say for certain that it is underpowered.... it pay perform quite well.

So there we have it... now 30 seconds for the first Mac Nay-Sayer post about how they cannot be compared?

[artzy65]

Asiafish, the thing that irks me about some of these pc users here is that they conveniently avoid responding when I accurately call them out on misconceptions about mac capabilities. And I purposely keep my posts simple and to the point (unless I'm including a lengthy quote from another source).

Another thing... I've pointed out that the graphic design industry (including ad agencies, publishing houses, newspapers, magazines etc) is populated by macs to the tune of 85-90%. If macs were so slow, underpowered and expensive, why would that industry still be 'owned' by macs?

[waldojim]

"Another thing... I've pointed out that the graphic design industry (including ad agencies, publishing houses, newspapers, magazines etc) is populated by macs to the tune of 85-90%. If macs were so slow, underpowered and expensive, why would that industry still be 'owned' by macs?"

Because at one point in time (pre X86) buying a Mac meant getting something truly different.... sorta like buying an Alpha.

in this case however, there were issues with color representation that Mac excelled in. WYSIWYG anyone? That was one of the best selling features of Macs for years... When you saw something on your screen, the output would look JUST like that.

Then PC's got better, but even today I have difficulty getting a print out to look like it did on screen. Not that I have a crappy printer.... Oh no, try printing on a cannon Pro 9000 and see how those pictures look! Now I use Linux ( and some proprietary print drivers) and my Photos look perfect, just as they do on screen. So I have no need for that.... but others will not want to go to that extreme.

[TechieXP]

First of all just because you say they can't be compared doesn't mean they can't. You're entitle to your opinion...and I am to mine. The point was teh same thing i totl you. For the same amount of money I got more. I don't care what really is important to you. I'm not you. It a better system period. No matter how you look at it.

As far as you rant on Dell? I had an Inspiron...and when the screen had issues they could fix, under warranty they shipped me a laptop the very next day and I had 10 days to return the other before I get charged for it. Asus does similar...I don't have to pay for it first. I gues it just depend on how YOU purchase your hardware. Dell probably would have made me wait...but the laptop I bought was a newly refurbished...they didn't make me wait. And for what I paid...I wasn't going to wait.

And teh facts are in black and white You don't work for Apple so I would say you may not know what Apple was thinking. Assuming you are remotely correct...it does matter. For what Apple charges and claims to be better hardware...it should actually have better hardware. Period. I even mentioned the screen wasn't important as far as size. My my cheesy Dell which also had WUXGA screen...only costed me just under $900...unrefurbished it cost $1300. Still cheaper...you see it your way I see it my way. They are both laptops they are both portable...and I actually bike to work, and usin gthe nice backpack that came with it...its no heavier than what I usually carry to work. Weight doesn't bother me..and my bike ride is about 7 miles...no big deal.

When it comes to computers..whats outside matters to you, whats inside matters to me.

[TechieXP]

then just for you let me be more specific...people who like to view porn online and download software iillegally...is that better. And some of them don't have huge computer experience either so whats your point :-). Stealing doesn't require you to be smart...>:-)

[TechieXP]

One more thing...didn't you ever hear size doesn't matter. The bigger the better. I mentioned the Mac had an advantage with weight. However desktop replacement or not they are in the same class...they are BOTH laptops...aren't they? They both can be carried. I am a strong man...lawyers don't need to be strong physically...(sarcasm) just mentally. Thank God my taste aren't like your in some ways..because even if I made what you do...i'd never be happy because I'd always be broke buying crap I don't need.

I think as I have said Macs are great systems...they have some pluses...but none of those matter to me. 11lbs isn't heavy unless you plan to carry it every day as you do. It is replacing my present desktop as my own employee will be using my desktop. And teh laptop does come in handy when I do need ot take it somewhere which may be once or twice per month..if that much. You are a lawyer...you probably take yours when seeing clients..or to other law furms...so in your case you want to make an impression your way...and I have mine. Except I am not trying to make an impression.

If I was rich no one would ever know because expensive cars don't matter to me...nor do clothes or anything else. What happens if you aren't a lawyer anymore and cash become a bit more strap? If you start simple and stay simply...you'll never be broke. But I am sure you don't have to worry..and nor do I.

For 2499 that Macs lacks power for its price. Its cost should be no more than $1500 because most laptops with similar hardware cost about that much. Sony is an exception...buy they to overcharge for their hardware...that is why you don't see many Vaio's accept those below $1500. When it comes to brand names 2500 won't get you what you should get. I am aware laptops cost more because of being portable and parts have to be made smaller. But with Apple you are simply paying ofr teh case...its under-powered no matter how you look at it. I rather get a heavy laptop that has todays hardware vs thin, sleek and skinnhy with yesterdays hardware that cost as much.

Fact is what I bought is better...no matter what you say.

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

First of all just because you say they can't be compared doesn't mean they can't. You're entitle to your opinion...and I am to mine. The point was teh same thing i totl you. For the same amount of money I got more. I don't care what really is important to you. I'm not you. It a better system period. No matter how you look at it.

I should heed my own advice and just ignore you.

Quote

As far as you rant on Dell? I had an Inspiron...and when the screen had issues they could fix, under warranty they shipped me a laptop the very next day and I had 10 days to return the other before I get charged for it. Asus does similar...I don't have to pay for it first. I gues it just depend on how YOU purchase your hardware. Dell probably would have made me wait...but the laptop I bought was a newly refurbished...they didn't make me wait. And for what I paid...I wasn't going to wait.

That is called a return, not a warranty repair.

Quote

And teh facts are in black and white You don't work for Apple so I would say you may not know what Apple was thinking. Assuming you are remotely correct...it does matter. For what Apple charges and claims to be better hardware...it should actually have better hardware. Period. I even mentioned the screen wasn't important as far as size. My my cheesy Dell which also had WUXGA screen...only costed me just under $900...unrefurbished it cost $1300. Still cheaper...you see it your way I see it my way. They are both laptops they are both portable...and I actually bike to work, and usin gthe nice backpack that came with it...its no heavier than what I usually carry to work. Weight doesn't bother me..and my bike ride is about 7 miles...no big deal.

Cheaper only means cheaper.

Quote

When it comes to computers..whats outside matters to you, whats inside matters to me.

Outside does matter, as in smaller, lighter, thinner.
Message was edited by: smax013