[TechieXP]

Yeah but you're not going to be pulling that out at an airport and use it...or on the plane either...or on a bus...or in the car. And that iMac does have quadcore...only dual...and the iMac can't game either...at least not efficiently. I bought the w90 as a desktop replaceent so I don't plan to carry it often. However it is cool because it doesn't look like an Alienware gaming PC...the w90 looks like a normal business laptop only bigger...and 11lbs isn't that heavy...unless you've never carried a child...or you don't lift weights...

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

That is the one I just bought...and Asiafish says I can't compare it too a Macbook Pro. When it comes to the hardware you most certainly can...because for $2500 that is the kind of hardware you should have as far as speed and performance. Yes it has a huge drawback...its heavey...but at least the specs means speed into the future...Runs XP, runs Vista, will run Windows 7...Windows run the next Windows after that...and I am willing to bet if MSFT learn and they stsy lean like with Windows 7, it will run Windows 8...

Nobody buying a 5.5 lb MacBook Pro is comparing it to an 11 lb monster with 90 minute battery life.

Quote

I agree with Asis when saying the Macbook is meant to be more portable...so it is light...but ALL laptops are portable no matter how heavy they are. This one you may not want to carry everyday...but it is sure portable...and it will run circles around any MacBook Pro.

Only on your desk, and only in a very few high-resource applications. Yes, you get higher framerates, which is what that thing was designed for, but nobody buying a machine to use in a variety of locations, on the go, carrying it from place to place everyday will choose 11 lbs and 90 minutes over 5.5 lbs and 5 hours.

Quote

And even at 11lbs...it prett thin...very manageable..and teh warrnty covers accidental damage for 1 years FOR FREE! Try that with Apple Care and you pay for it. Being portable any laptop can be dropped...I thinner ones will break faster. Thinner isn't better...its just lighter...heavy is better...but in this case heavy is faster as it packs a waloop.

Definitely not thin and managable, and not stronger, just cheaper and faster, which it should be as a gaming machine with desktop guts.

Quote

I love the system it is certainly faster than the speed of light...:-)

Glad you like it, but that doesn't put it into the same class as the MacBook Pro, ThinkPad W500 or any of a multitude of other premium-grade thin-and-light laptops.

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

I chose the Quadcore model - http://www.newegg.co...X2%20-%20Retail

We know.

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

Yeah but you're not going to be pulling that out at an airport and use it...or on the plane either...or on a bus...or in the car. And that iMac does have quadcore...only dual...and the iMac can't game either...at least not efficiently. I bought the w90 as a desktop replaceent so I don't plan to carry it often. However it is cool because it doesn't look like an Alienware gaming PC...the w90 looks like a normal business laptop only bigger...and 11lbs isn't that heavy...unless you've never carried a child...or you don't lift weights...

Did you ever fly coach? Trust me, you aren't pulling out that Asus and getting anything done either. A thin-and-light, on the other hand, is wonderful in-flight.

And sorry, 11 lbs IS THAT HEAVY for a laptop.

[TechieXP]

There aren't any laptops with desktop cards...

However what they do have is what you found before. Alienware which is now part of Dell, havae laptops that have replaceble and upgradable video cards. However they are still smaller then the desktop version and you can't buy them on retail, You have to get them from Alienware...ore someone that specializes in making them. Asus uses the same concept.

In the Air...Apple simply has one card inside and everything is soldered to it. It is a cool idea...but not prcatical. Which means if soething stops working you ahve to replace the whole thing. At least with many laptops...the wifi, bluetooth...video and ram..is user replaceable..in y old Dell all you had to do was remove teh keybooad and you could replace it...the wifi and modem...open teh battery compartment and that is where the bluetooth module goes...simple quite and easy...and lower cost. Apple makes great hardware...but they aren't always practical. To be thin doesn't mean you can't have a user replacable battery...the AIr doesn't...not even Iphone/pod/touch. Rechargeable batteries last a long time...but not forever,...and surely Apple wants to ake sure you come to them for it...means more money. Pretty in design...at the cost of being practical.

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

There aren't any laptops with desktop cards..

However what they do have is what you found before. Alienware which is now part of Dell, havae laptops that have replaceble and upgradable video cards. However they are still smaller then the desktop version and you can't buy them on retail, You have to get them from Alienware...ore someone that specializes in making them. Asus uses the same concept.

Smaller form-factor, desktop chipset.

Quote

In the Air...Apple simply has one card inside and everything is soldered to it. It is a cool idea...but not prcatical. Which means if soething stops working you ahve to replace the whole thing. At least with many laptops...the wifi, bluetooth...video and ram..is user replaceable..in y old Dell all you had to do was remove teh keybooad and you could replace it...the wifi and modem...open teh battery compartment and that is where the bluetooth module goes...simple quite and easy...and lower cost. Apple makes great hardware...but they aren't always practical. To be thin doesn't mean you can't have a user replacable battery...the AIr doesn't...not even Iphone/pod/touch. Rechargeable batteries last a long time...but not forever,...and surely Apple wants to ake sure you come to them for it...means more money. Pretty in design...at the cost of being practical.

And who ever said the MacBook Air's non-replaceable battery was a smart choice? Nobody on this forum to my knowledge.

[TechieXP]

That is because you both are confident that you bought the solution that works best for you. And you both aren't saying one is better than the other. Or at least you give a reasonable support fact that makes a hardware better at something. A Mac is just a PC with more eyecandy...but physically it is teh same hardware inside...your choice was what works for you. And you two don't feel that you have to push your choice on another. And I don't either. What I hate is when a person simply say their choice is better than anothers choice. When in fact its the same...its teh same in the you ade the choice that fit your need. And that is all that matters

BUt Mac fans don't do that. They come here to try to push Mac off as the better choice. It simply hasn't been the best choice since it was first born. The hardware was never the problem....the problem is software...pc's had more software that did what people wanted and it was easy to use and cost less than a Mac. That is what was better...the hardware is what it is...

And today teh hardware is what we have been using for 4 decades and counting...so how can Apple have better hardware, when it is the same. What is better in some respects if teh design and the OS. But they aren't better overall. As Windows PC's also have premiu based hardware...that still doesn't cost as much in some places..cost more in others and is equal yet with still others. Th efact that OSX is just as easy to use now as Windows is also another plus...which makes it more user friendly then Linux for example. And if someone says OSX is better to use than Windows...that should be a personal decsision...not a decision we should all follow.

X86 has been the proven platform for a while...its what goes on top that decides which brand you buy. And on top of that you buy teh one that has the OS that works for what you need. As long as both platforms offer this, then there is no better...its the same. It just looks different. For soe looks is what akes it better. And that is fine if that works for them. But looks aren't everything...it never has been and never will be...looks matter to those who want to make it a big deal. If looks mattered in the workplace...then Macs would have had solid ground for years...they have aways had better looking products...but how it looks doesn't get the work done.

You're confident you made teh best buy decision...so am I. They can bash my reasoning all they want. One thing that is a fact....x86 is on both...and even if the chocalte is candy coated...and mine isn't...it still doesn't change the fact that it is chocalate. :-)

[quackadilly]

"The difference between a
desktop and a laptop processor or GPU chipset is not the size and shape, it is the heat and power consumption. Often, laptop chipsets have the same instruction sets, but operate on lower voltage and are often less powerful."


Woah woah.....we were talking about video cards. Nice sidestep to recover your argument though.Video card is not the same thing as graphics processor. Yes, desktops and laptops can have the same CPU or GPU. No, you can not put a desktop video card in a laptop. (I know it's a technicality, but choose your words carefully)
-----
"11 lbs IS heavy. You can lie to yourself all you want, but the fact is, there is a huge difference between carrying a 5.5 lb laptop and an 11 lb laptop, as many here have said. Likewise, that is why the MacBook Air and its class exist at all is because just as 5.5 lbs is a lot nicer to carry than 11 lbs, 3 lbs is a lot nicer to carry than 5.5 lbs."


Sure 11 lbs is heavy. But if you need the power, a Mac book air won't cut it.

[quackadilly]

"Nobody buying a 5.5 lb MacBook Pro is comparing it to an 11 lb monster with 90 minute battery life."



Nobody wanting a gaming (desktop replacement) laptop is going to compare a PC to an Apple......
-----
"Only on your desk, and
only in a very few high-resource applications. Yes, you get higher
framerates, which is what that thing was designed for, but nobody
buying a machine to use in a variety of locations, on the go, carrying
it from place to place everyday will choose 11 lbs and 90 minutes over
5.5 lbs and 5 hours."



Look at the hard drive....7200 rpm. You'll see performance improvements across the board with the Asus. I guess it depends on what kind of work load you have right? A Mac Book might be finefor checking email and doing a few word docs and minor picture stuff..... but if you do any gaming, video editing, large picture editing, CAD,animation, structural simulations, or pretty much anything in the engineering, math, and physics areas. Now I can't cover all of the things you can do with it because I don't know everything.....but I do know that many people could use something like this.



I'M NOT SAYING IT'S BETTER. SOME PEOPLE CAN BENEFIT FROM IT!

[artzy65]

"THe final outcome of your work is what will be impressive...not the hardware you do it on. as long as you can do that, then any hardware is fine...expensive or not."
Exactly

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

That is because you both are confident that you bought the solution that works best for you. And you both aren't saying one is better than the other. Or at least you give a reasonable support fact that makes a hardware better at something. A Mac is just a PC with more eyecandy...but physically it is teh same hardware inside...your choice was what works for you. And you two don't feel that you have to push your choice on another. And I don't either. What I hate is when a person simply say their choice is better than anothers choice. When in fact its the same...its teh same in the you ade the choice that fit your need. And that is all that matters

Repetition does not turn your opinion into fact.

I have never said my choice is better or worse. What I have repeatedly said and which is correct is that a laptop is not just compared on processor speed, RAM or hard drive capacity. Size, weight and battery life are every bit as important, and there is a huge difference even within the lineup of a single manufacturer, more so when you shop across brands.

What you don't seem to get is that there are product categories. People shopping for sports cars don't compare them against minivans anymore than gamers look at ultralights or frequent-travellers look at desktop replacements. You are the one who said you shopped an 18" 11 lb Asus against a 13" 3 lb MacBook Air.

Quote

BUt Mac fans don't do that. They come here to try to push Mac off as the better choice. It simply hasn't been the best choice since it was first born. The hardware was never the problem....the problem is software...pc's had more software that did what people wanted and it was easy to use and cost less than a Mac. That is what was better...the hardware is what it is...

Again stating your opinion as though it was fact. I am amazed at how much wisdom your ass can hold.

Quote

And today teh hardware is what we have been using for 4 decades and counting...so how can Apple have better hardware, when it is the same. What is better in some respects if teh design and the OS. But they aren't better overall. As Windows PC's also have premiu based hardware...that still doesn't cost as much in some places..cost more in others and is equal yet with still others. Th efact that OSX is just as easy to use now as Windows is also another plus...which makes it more user friendly then Linux for example. And if someone says OSX is better to use than Windows...that should be a personal decsision...not a decision we should all follow.

Yup, a premium Windows PC is comparable in price to a Premium OS X PC (known as a Mac). Each is better in some respects. Finally, you get it.

Quote

X86 has been the proven platform for a while...its what goes on top that decides which brand you buy. And on top of that you buy teh one that has the OS that works for what you need. As long as both platforms offer this, then there is no better...its the same. It just looks different. For soe looks is what akes it better. And that is fine if that works for them. But looks aren't everything...it never has been and never will be...looks matter to those who want to make it a big deal. If looks mattered in the workplace...then Macs would have had solid ground for years...they have aways had better looking products...but how it looks doesn't get the work done.

OS X and Windows are very different, and it is those differences that make somebody choose one, the other, both or neither. Saying it is the same is once again TechieXP pulling opinion from his ass and calling it fact. Guess what dude, its not fact, its opinion, and opinions are like as$holes, everybody's got one.

The only person here who says Apple looks better is you. Surely it wasn't me, he who likes ThinkPad hardware better than Apple's and who thinks that the UI from Windows 2000 was the cleanest of recent memory and who still makes Vista look and feel as much like Win2K as possible.

Quote

You're confident you made teh best buy decision...so am I. They can bash my reasoning all they want. One thing that is a fact....x86 is on both...and even if the chocalte is candy coated...and mine isn't...it still doesn't change the fact that it is chocalate. :-)

Never said you bought a bad machine. I DID say that it isn't in the same class as the MacBook Pro to which you insist on comparing it. Do you compare your Hyundai Tiburon to the Dodge Caravan? Both are cars that carry 1 or more people and some stuff from point A to point B, but they do not compete for the same buyer any more than an 11 lb Asus competes for the same buyer as a 5.5 lb MacBook Pro or in your case a 3 lb MacBook Air. Perhaps we should next compare the Honda CR250R motocross bike to Harley Davidson Road King touring bike. Both are motorcycles, after all, so they must be in the same class and competing for the same buyer.

[asiafish]

quackadilly said:

"Nobody buying a 5.5 lb MacBook Pro is comparing it to an 11 lb monster with 90 minute battery life."





Nobody wanting a gaming (desktop replacement) laptop is going to compare a PC to an Apple......

EXACTLY!!!

Quote

-----

"Only on your desk, and
only in a very few high-resource applications. Yes, you get higher
framerates, which is what that thing was designed for, but nobody
buying a machine to use in a variety of locations, on the go, carrying
it from place to place everyday will choose 11 lbs and 90 minutes over
5.5 lbs and 5 hours."





Look at the hard drive....7200 rpm. You'll see performance improvements across the board with the Asus. I guess it depends on what kind of work load you have right? A Mac Book might be finefor checking email and doing a few word docs and minor picture stuff..... but if you do any gaming, video editing, large picture editing, CAD,animation, structural simulations, or pretty much anything in the engineering, math, and physics areas. Now I can't cover all of the things you can do with it because I don't know everything.....but I do know that many people could use something like this.

MacBook Pro is quite powerful, just not as powerful. It is far more than adequate for email and the like, and does quite well in art, music, and just about any high-end applications. A gaming machine will get slightly higher framerates. An engineering machine might render something a minute or three faster. The MacBook Pro is still one of the fastest thin-and-light laptops on the market, its just not as fast as a large high-end desktop replacement, and is quite a bit faster than a low-end desktop replacement.

Absolutely many people want or need machines like the Asus, if they didn't then Asus and others wouldn't sell them. Apple happens to not have a machine in that class, so they have nothing to offer to that particular buyer. Apple is one company and they don't have an offering in every class, only in the few classes where they feel they can make money. Don't want a machine in one of those classes, then you can scratch Apple from your shopping list.

Quote

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S BETTER. SOME PEOPLE CAN BENEFIT FROM IT!

Of course they can, the point is that TechieXP is comparing totally different classes of laptops and saying his is better because it is faster, while ignoring the many areas where it is inferior, such as weight (DOUBLE), battery life (less than 1/3) and bulk. They are not competing products.

[asiafish]

Quote

"11 lbs IS heavy. You can lie to yourself all you want, but the fact is, there is a huge difference between carrying a 5.5 lb laptop and an 11 lb laptop, as many here have said. Likewise, that is why the MacBook Air and its class exist at all is because just as 5.5 lbs is a lot nicer to carry than 11 lbs, 3 lbs is a lot nicer to carry than 5.5 lbs."





Sure 11 lbs is heavy. But if you need the power, a Mac book air won't cut it.

Never said it would. It was TechieXP who started this whole mess by talking about how he was shopping for the MacBook Air and bought the Asus because it was more powerful. Well DUH its more powerful, it weighs 366% more.

[smax013]

TechieXP said:

Doesn't even have a user replacable battery...just like all of Apple products...yet everyone else must be stupid to gave user replaceable batteries in laptops, and phones and misoc players.

Nope...not all Apple products have non-user replaceable batteries. The MacBook (try flipping over on of the ones you said you recommended your company buy) and the 15" MacBook Pro both have user replaceable batteries and have had so since day one of their release (both old and new versions...I have had a spare battery for my MacBook Pro for about 2 years). The 17" MacBook Pro used to have one as well until the newest version. And, yes, the MacBook Air does not have a user replaceable battery.

And this is where I face another dilema...at some point I will be ready to replace my first gen MacBook Pro. I would like to replace it with another 15" MacBook Pro, but I hate the "glossy" screen and don't particularly like the keyboard design...but do like the user replaceable battery. The 17" MacBook Pro, OTOH, does have a matte finish screen option, but it does not have a user replaceable battery. Thus, I am hoping that by the time I am ready to upgrade, Apple will get smart and listen to user feedback and bring back the matte finish screen to the 15" MacBook Pro.

Oh, and yes, all iPods and the iPhone do NOT have user replaceable/swappable batteries...but then neither does the Zune or many other MP3 players. Personally, I have never been too bothered about the iPod's lack of a user replaceable/swappable battery (except maybe when the iPod first came out...but it has never really been an issue for me)...but I thought Apple was INCREDIBLY stupid to make the iPhone's battery non-user replaceable/swappable. After all, a phone is a much more "mission critical" device than a MP3 player. If you run out of charge on your iPod, big deal...you just do not listen to music for a while. If you run out of charge on your iPhone, you cannot make or receive calls, which could be a REALLY big deal. And this is one of the reasons why I have not gotten an iPhone and have stuck with my Treo 755p (which has a user replaceable/swappable battery).

[asiafish]

[quote name='smax013']
>

TechieXP said:

> Doesn't even have a user replacable battery...just like all of Apple products...yet everyone else must be stupid to gave user replaceable batteries in laptops, and phones and misoc players.

Nope...not all Apple products have non-user replaceable batteries. The MacBook (try flipping over on of the ones you said you recommended your company buy) and the 15" MacBook Pro both have user replaceable batteries and have had so since day one of their release (both old and new versions...I have had a spare battery for my MacBook Pro for about 2 years). The 17" MacBook Pro used to have one as well until the newest version. And, yes, the MacBook Air does not have a user replaceable battery.

And this is where I face another dilema...at some point I will be ready to replace my first gen MacBook Pro. I would like to replace it with another 15" MacBook Pro, but I hate the "glossy" screen and don't particularly like the keyboard design...but do like the user replaceable battery. The 17" MacBook Pro, OTOH, does have a matte finish screen option, but it does not have a user replaceable battery. Thus, I am hoping that by the time I am ready to upgrade, Apple will get smart and listen to user feedback and bring back the matte finish screen to the 15" MacBook Pro.

I'm with you on the glossy. The glossy screen on my MacBook Pro is amazing in its colors and really is impressive, but a strong backlight will make it into a giant mirror. People seem to fall into two groups, those who's eyes "shift" to see the image instead of the reflections, and those who's eyes see both and cannot separate. Doesn't seem to be caused by anything identifiable, just the way a particular person focuses their vision.

I always see the reflection at first, but with a conscious shift am able to block it out and see only the image. It shouldn't be this way, and given the choice I'd buy a matte screen every single time. I think thats one reason why I use my ThinkPad more when seated at my desk.
[quote]
Oh, and yes, all iPods and the iPhone do NOT have user replaceable/swappable batteries...but then neither does the Zune or many other MP3 players. Personally, I have never been too bothered about the iPod's lack of a user replaceable/swappable battery (except maybe when the iPod first came out...but it has never really been an issue for me)...but I thought Apple was INCREDIBLY stupid to make the iPhone's battery non-user replaceable/swappable. After all, a phone is a much more "mission critical" device than a MP3 player. If you run out of charge on your iPod, big deal...you just do not listen to music for a while. If you run out of charge on your iPhone, you cannot make or receive calls, which could be a REALLY big deal. And this is one of the reasons why I have not gotten an iPhone and have stuck with my Treo 755p (which has a user replaceable/swappable battery).

[smax013]

quackadilly said:

A Mac Book might be finefor checking email and doing a few word docs and minor picture stuff..... but if you do any gaming, video editing, large picture editing, CAD,animation, structural simulations, or pretty much anything in the engineering, math, and physics areas.

Actually, I use my MacBook Pro for "structural simulations" all the time. As a structural engineer, I run my structural analysis software on my MacBook Pro and it runs just fine. Granted I have to run it in Windows using Parallels as there are no longer any companies that currently produce Mac versions of structural analysis software. But, even with the slight performance hit of running it in Windows in a virtual machine, it still runs just fine...and this includes some rather complex 3D models.

And I have done both gaming, video editting and large picture editting as well, although that is much more rare as those are not my "primary" things that I do. I have yet to run CAD on it (I don't really need to use CAD myself to date), but I know it will run CAD programs just fine...certainly not as fast as a dedicated CAD desktop workstation.

[asiafish]

[quote name='smax013']
>

quackadilly said:

> A Mac Book might be finefor checking email and doing a few word docs and minor picture stuff..... but if you do any gaming, video editing, large picture editing, CAD,animation, structural simulations, or pretty much anything in the engineering, math, and physics areas.

Actually, I use my MacBook Pro for "structural simulations" all the time. As a structural engineer, I run my structural analysis software on my MacBook Pro and it runs just fine. Granted I have to run it in Windows using Parallels as there are no longer any companies that currently produce Mac versions of structural analysis software. But, even with the slight performance hit of running it in Windows in a virtual machine, it still runs just fine...and this includes some rather complex 3D models.

And I have done both gaming, video editting and large picture editting as well, although that is much more rare as those are not my "primary" things that I do. I have yet to run CAD on it (I don't really need to use CAD myself to date), but I know it will run CAD programs just fine...certainly not as fast as a dedicated CAD desktop workstation.

They are fast. I use my MacBook Pro for to rip and re-encode DVDs to play off my hard drive when I travel. For curiosity sake I compared my MacBook Pro ripping a DVD movie to MP4 using Handbrake for OS X to my ThinkPad ripping the same movie to MP4 using Handbrake for Windows. The PC was all of 94 seconds faster, which makes perfect sense given its 2.53 GHz processor compared to the 2.4 GHz processor in the Mac. Point is, both are VERY fast even on a processor intensive function.

Most of those processor intensive functions, by the way, use only one core, so there is little advantage to multiple cores on single applications. Where multiple cores are a benefit is on applications written to take advantage. OS X and Windows Vista both have only rudimentary multi-core support at best, though multi-core aware applications like Photoshop do just fine, as do many antivirus programs that are designed to work off of a second core when one is present.

[smax013]

asiafish said:

I'm with you on the glossy. The glossy screen on my MacBook Pro is amazing in its colors and really is impressive, but a strong backlight will make it into a giant mirror. People seem to fall into two groups, those who's eyes "shift" to see the image instead of the reflections, and those who's eyes see both and cannot separate. Doesn't seem to be caused by anything identifiable, just the way a particular person focuses their vision.

I always see the reflection at first, but with a conscious shift am able to block it out and see only the image. It shouldn't be this way, and given the choice I'd buy a matte screen every single time. I think thats one reason why I use my ThinkPad more when seated at my desk.

I can use my mom's MacBook (old style) with its glossy screen, but I have never really used it in high backlight situations...only in rooms with no real light behind me. I did use a buddy's HP laptop with a glossy screen and had a window behind me and it was virtually impossible to use.

Thus, I face a real dilema when I am ready for a new one. I am hoping that Apple with their head out of their rear and offer matte screens again as an option, but I am probably dreaming. Personally, I see a trend of "form over function" at Apple that worries me. The MacBook Air is a rather nice machine, but it is clear that they made some choices that put form over function. The same is true of the iPod Touch. I really like my iPod Touch, but I could definitely live with it being thicker and heavier if it had a hard drive with LOTS of capacity rather than flash memory (I never understood why they put flash memory with a lower possible maximum capacity in a device that is CLEARLY the one that is best aimed at watching video, which are all large files, of the entire iPod line. That is kind of like putting a 10 gallon tank in a gas guzzling SUV in the hope that the lessor weight will improve the fuel economy...but then you have to fill the stupid thing after every trip around the block.

[smax013]

asiafish said:

They are fast. I use my MacBook Pro for to rip and re-encode DVDs to play off my hard drive when I travel. For curiosity sake I compared my MacBook Pro ripping a DVD movie to MP4 using Handbrake for OS X to my ThinkPad ripping the same movie to MP4 using Handbrake for Windows. The PC was all of 94 seconds faster, which makes perfect sense given its 2.53 GHz processor compared to the 2.4 GHz processor in the Mac. Point is, both are VERY fast even on a processor intensive function.

I see the same thing doing the same task (to put movies on my Apple TV and my iPods). I also do fine encoding/burning DVDs when I take video footage from cameras and put them on DVDs for friends/family.

Quote

Most of those processor intensive functions, by the way, use only one core, so there is little advantage to multiple cores on single applications. Where multiple cores are a benefit is on applications written to take advantage. OS X and Windows Vista both have only rudimentary multi-core support at best, though multi-core aware applications like Photoshop do just fine, as do many antivirus programs that are designed to work off of a second core when one is present.

Exactly...and that is why that getting a quadcore on a Windows computer while there are no quadcores for the iMac line just yet does not mean squat. It is kind of like buying a Ferrari to drive around town where all the speed limits are 25 mph to 40 mph. Sure it could be a big help if the infrastructure is there to use it, but as the infractures is generally not there, it is kind of a waste. And that is exactly why when I built my last Windows desktop I choose the faster clock speed dualcore of over the slower clock speed quadcore...both of which were nominally the same price. If I were to upgrade the processor on it or maybe build a new one, then I might have to think about it some as there is more quadcore support then there was the last time I build a computer.

[TechieXP]

11lbs is heavy to YOU. Don't speak for me...if 11lbs was to heavy for e...I wouldn't have bought it. Weighting 11lbs makes it not portable for YOU. I'm not you and so far I have biked fro mu house to the office with it in its back for a distance of 9 miles which takes me no more than 35 mins. And it still wasn't to heavy for me. Maybe like I said...I am not a wuss...maybe I am in better shape since I am a cyclist and I am use to carrying heavy object on a bike...the heaviest thing I every carried was a 90 lbs slab of granite...But I ended up walking with it...becuase it was to heavy on the tires. Weoght doesn't bother me and I a smaller than you...but probably more muscular. Weight matters to you so you don't consider the Asus portable. Its a ;aptop by definition that makes itportable no matter what you say and that is a fact you can't change. What is a fact is that it may not be a practical portable...but it is still a laptop. And reember Apple's first portable was 15lbs...and compared too todays technology is just a paper weight...like you must be to cry over 11lbs. If its too heavy for your taste than say that...but I don't have your taste...bec If I did I'd be wasting money lavishly on things I don't need. I didn't say it was wrong...to each it own. But it is wrong for you too say its too heavy for someone else.

The fact is...when it comes to speed and performance I surely got my monies worth compare to the MacBook that you bought because it is pretty. The MacBook is more of a business look...or LUXURY. I don't want luxury at the expense of power. So you can brag and be happy with your Macbook that does less than mine can natively for that $2500 we both spent...in order for your Mac to do what I can do natively...you need to install Windows...while I already have it...and I have way more power and a fair cost. The comparison isn't weight...the comparision is under the hood. I got raw power for my money...and you got pretty looks for yours. We both win because we have what we like. So like it and be happy with it.