[WinTard]

Yeah, while travelling, I'd rather have a cool PDA, BlackBerry, or iPhone. I could deal with a thing 33% larger though? (than a BlackBerry 9000 that is). Once they perfect voice recognition, we won't even need a keyboard.

[Evildave]

Two hours on idle, perhaps. Call it 30 minutes tops if you actually try to do something with it.

I'm sure the flight will be all the more interesting for having large second degree burns on your thighs.

Once again, a PDA/phone or any netbook or even the Kindle could do your ebay sniping for you. For that matter, there's software for ebay to sit at home and auto-snipe. Say running from a Mac Mini or EEE Box that are so miserly you don't mind leaving them run 24/7 while you're gone. Even on-line services that will squat your ebay account for you and manage your snipes.

http://www.google.co...ch?q=ebay+snipe

[Evildave]

And as everyone else here is pointing out, don't forget, the PDA-sized things are easy to pocket/stow.

When you're carrying a honkin' big notebook bag, people notice it. You notice it, too. You're always worrying about where it is, relative to you. You can't leave a $2,000+ computer in a bag and turn your back on it for so much as a second expecting it to still be there when you look again. The bigger the bag, the bigger the bother minding its security becomes.

One thing NICE about a simple, shapeless carry-on is having all your clothes and toiletries ready to go, and standard clothing carry-ons have tons of space to stuff things. Things that actually DO come in handy while traveling. Even electronic things.

You grab an armored, padded bag for a super-sized notebook, and you won't have that. You'll have the jumbotronic PC, its power brick, some accessories, etc. in a big bag with little room left for so much as emergency socks and underpants. So you'll check your clothing and HAVE TO deal with the baggage carousel.

Want a PC to travel with? Get a $200 white netbook and doodle all over it with a sharpie marker. You can leave it anywhere and nobody will steal it, and it fits snugly in any small bag between your emergency pants and emergency shirts.

[quackadilly]

"But you can have 90% of the power in half the weight with 13 hours of juice in a size that is actually handy. Its called picking the right tool for the job, and the desktop replacement is not the right tool for the job of travel."


Ha.....right.... Ar you sure about that fictional number you just popped out there? How do you know what job it is needed for? I almost never use my laptop without the power cord plugged in. In fact, everyone I know that uses a laptop brings the cord with them and plugs it in during use. Just because you do something 1 way does not make it the same for everyone.



And, NO, you don't have TechieXP figured out. You think you know everything, but you don't. Just because you are a lawyer does not mean that you know all about computers. All you have is your opinion. You state your opinions as fact and argue when someone else's opinion is different.



Get a grip man. The world does not revolve around you. You've got nothing on sliced bread.

[quackadilly]

Is that 90 minutes idle or full load? I couldn't find anything that said either way, but everywhere said about 90 minutes. I would assumeit was idle, but I'm not for sure.



The other issue: heat. Many of the reviews said that the machine wasn't scalding hot. It got warm to the touch. The main factor is having room for the air to get out of the computer.



Also, aside from weight. I read that people felt that it was rock solid. No flexing or bending. Solid construction.



So the drawbacks are size and power consumption. As a desktop replacement, those aren't an issue. As a portable computing device, it's a roadblock. But all roadblocks are manageable. It just depends on how much you are willing to sacrifice for that kind of portable power.





Asia:

I know you hate it. It's too big and the battery lasts a fraction of what your Mac Book gets. You need a separate keyboard and a mouse for it. It doesn't have OSX. Don't buy it. It's not for you. But it might be a viable option for someone else.



Techie:

I'm happy you like it. If I wanted to blow 2K on a laptop, I'd get that. For your needs, I'd say you made a good choice.

[quackadilly]

"...in a big bag with little room left for so much as emergency socks and underpants."



Might need those underpants if you use on your lap for too long. Bad air flow make for a hot seat.

[Evildave]

Quote

Is that 90 minutes idle or full load? I couldn't find anything that said either way, but everywhere said about 90 minutes. I would assume it was idle, but I'm not for sure.

Quote

If I want a laptop computer, I want it to run longer than 90 minutes without being plugged in, and won't cook my crotch.[http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4917]

Quote

Battery
Extended battery life and ultimate mobile gaming performance don’t work well together on the same system. While gaming with the W90 connected through AC power routed through a Kill-A-Watt, it measured 220W of power consumed while playing Crysis Warhead. While not gaming and running our battery tests the system consumed a humble 60W of power. At idle the W90 draws more power than most notebooks under peak GPU and CPU load. With the 93Wh battery the system was only able to pull off 1 hour and 30 minutes before it shutdown.

That would be AT IDLE. In other words, the battery is just a UPS, not a means of enabling 'unplugged' use.

As for the heat...
techgage.com/article/asus[uw90[/u]184notebook-atruedesktopreplacement/3]

Quote

Main Exhaust (after 30 minutes): 67.3 °C (153.14 °F)
Center of keyboard (after 30 minutes): 42.2 °C (108.0 °F)> One common issue with gaming notebooks is that after a few hours of playing, the unit can become so hot, that performance slows down. On this notebook, it does get warm (especially in the back), but I spent hours on this thing and didn't have a real problem.

So, unlike most 'gaming capable' desktop replacements, at least this doesn't melt down.

So my statement (and decision) stands. I'd rather get an iMac and set it up on a desk, than get a 'power notebook' and set it up on a desk.

The real issue for me is not that the PowerBook is 'bad' by any metric. It's actually certain to be usable, even as a development platform. I already have a 17" Dell Vostro notebook. It's... OK. The weaknesses between the 17" notebooks, even one with a good battery runtime are constant. Too damned big to take out on an airplane. Too damned expensive to travel with. Not particularly useful anywhere in between waypoints or destinations. Even elevated less with a thinner form factor, the keyboard is still higher than comfortable on a desk. It's not the keyboard layout my touch-typing fingers know by default with a big keyboard. With the notebook open on the desk, it takes up a lot of precious space. Ports all around mean WIRES EVERYWHERE.

Most damning of all, the keyboard and mouse pad need 'defense' against my evil cats.

[WinTard]

Hey you are allright Evildave! I too love Evil cats! (I've got so many mice at home, the LED optical type).

[Evildave]

I had posted an article here about how to make the cat-proof barrier, but it vanished. I guess I'll just have to stick to the other one.

http://www.wikihow.c...tebook-Keyboard

Not that the concept needs much explanation. Sheet of plexiglass + sticky rubber feet = notebook molly guard (or in this case, Teapot guard).

[TechieXP]

Thanks for that. I don't disagree with Asia about what he says about the Mac. The problem is he is only considering his own preferences. SUV's aren't practical for city driving, yet you see more of them in the city then in the country. Racs cars aren't practical for city driving, but it hasn't stop Lamborghini and Porshe from opening dealers right here in downtown Chicago. A screw driver isn't practical for hammering a nail...but it has been done. A knife isn't practical as a screwdriver but it works and it has been done.Now that Apple sells hardware right next to the rest in stores, it gives people a better chance to see them side by side and see what actually offers the better deal...Dell sales slipped 22% yet they still sold over 15 million units...Apple sells drop 16% and they still sold 2.5 million units..Dell sold 7x's as many dispite the econonomy...they must be doing something right. You will make more money off volume sells then just selling at a higher price. I would love to see the sells figures for Mac sales only and compare them to other outfits.

Asis has expensive taste. After growing up in a poor family all my life, maybe I don't know how to be interested in luxury items and they don't appeal to me. The best thing about Windows computers, if teh mfr has teken into consideration teh possible needs people have for a PC. And that is also why MSFT makes a diffeent version of Windows. I think the everything in one box with OSX is ok...I also feel that MSFT could just sell one version of Windows that has everything and people just pick what they want to use. The problem is Enterprises users meed something that most people don't need...to add the features they need to a standard copy of Windows makes it unafforadbale for the general public...that is why they have their own version.

A famili of 5 has members that have different needs. Dad needs the all powerful computer, while mom needs something lighter and maybe have color. And kids unless they are gaming they don't need anything powerful either. A Mac is over qualified for a typical computer users. Its like McDonald's hiring a lawyer to be a cashier. Certainly he can do the job, doesn't mean he should.

Macs can do any standard computing just as good as any Windows PC...but the cost isn't worth it. The only way to jusitfy that cost is to actually have a new for said PC. Macs use the same hardware designed by the same mfr's who make hardware for anyone else. Apple buys millions of components just like everyone else. They get a huge discount like everyone else. They may not get as big of a discount as Dell does...buy Dell sells 3x as many computers per quarter than Apple does. More sells from Dell means more orders from components mfr's and thus a cheaper price for Dell and Dell passes that off to consumers. The parts are cheaper in cost, not quality. Which Means Dell uses the same stuff Apple does.

Dell and HP's and other computers come with cnsumer grade components..I am willing to bet it will never cost you $1000 for ram in any other computer sold to typical comsumers. To a business sure. As they need better ram for speed and have a need for ECC which is more expensive. But how is it ok for me to by ram that has been designed to give better performance and yet even though it is more expensive than consumer garde ram, it is still cheaper than Apple? How is it I can go and buy a mobile CPU for less than Apple...

Yes Macs are light...yes Macs are pretty..yes Macs are as good as any other PC...yes they are very well designed as far as looks...but they leave off what people actually need. Most people have cameras that use flash cards...amazing Apple whose PC's have been good for manipulating photos, don't even have card readers.

For $1500 you can get a Windows based laptop that can be hooked up to almost anything all in one box and have an OS that supports all of it...and they cost less...yet Macs don't do everything that a Windows PC does, and the hardware dosn't even have most of what a Windows PC has...yet they cost more. If you're getting equal or less perfromance, if you getting less choices in hardware usesage, less in software usage and choice...how can the cost of it be justfied. A Sony Vaio certainly has expensive models, so does Toshiba, so does HP and Dell...but look at what you can do with them. If I can 5 things really well and you can only do 3 things and you paid more the assuption is you're not getting your monies worth unless you only need those 3 things. But suppose your needs change instantly...then that means you ahve to go and spend more money to get what you need when you could have had it all in the first place for less. That is how I see it and that is how many shop.

@Asiafish - (I said)The Mac does not offer such. The fact that the general public doesn;t need an expemsive pc...disqualifies all the Macs Apple makes exacpt 3...the Mac Mini, the Imac and the 13in Macbook. The rest are simply to expensive for simple computing. That isn't bashing Apple. Apple doesn't

Quote

t taylor to the average consumer...so thus they are a niche...nothing is wrong with that...unless you are competeing against hardware that isn't a niche. Since Windows PC's are not a niche market, why compare Macs to them at all. We compare them because they are similar...in fact they are both Personal Computers...but Apple's definition as Personal is certainly far from such. It is simply personally your machine. With Windows you can personalize everything...even down to the hardware configuration. Apple offer you minimal configurations...that a world with walls. Dells boggest suucess if being able to call and cofigure a system exactly the way you want it. IBM did so as well and so does others..Apple does...as long as you chose what they have. The other OEM's offer 100's of configurations. And they don't charge you through the nost for it.

(your answer) Who the hell are you to say what the public does and doesn't need?

My answer...the proof is in what is being sold and how. Dell sold 15 million units Q1 of 2009...while Apple sold teh usual 2.5 million which is the number they hit after the release of OSX...but not sure which version of which year. Before OSX Apple was selling about 1 millions computers per quarter. Better software, better and familiar hardware I am sure contributed to that in additon to iPod/Phone/Touch.
The fact that HP and Dell are the leaders in computer sales here in in other markets and they mainly sell consumer based PC's proves it. And Sony and Toshiba and Apple and the premium computers that Dell and HP sell are a niche and count for a small number when it comes to general consumers. Those more expensive systems are sold to businesses...however Dell's Vostro line is a business/consumer model that is a lower cost then their Latitude lineup...its basically a all black Inspiron and they are selling aling with the Studio versions like crazy. So I am not the one saying what people need or buy...they are telling it with what they buy. If luxury laptops were selling like the other ones...they'd all be selling luxury machines. Dell's XPS lineup competes against Macs very well and are priced similar if you drop in more expensive options...but I bet 8GB of ram doesn't cost $1000. I can buy 8GB of any laptop ram from any MFR and it won't cost $1000...and laptops don't use ECC ram...so thus what is Apple charging the extra money for. It simply doesn't add up. How can Apple legally charge $1000 for $200 worth of hardware? And you're okay with that?

[TechieXP]

Very cute I love cats.

You're making it sound like I will be lugging an 11lb laptop often...I won't be.
However you keep saying having the ports means more wires. Why? Bluetooth...equals wireless mouse...wireless keyboard if you don't like the laptop one. My phone has bluetooth...I dropped in a 32GB flash meemroy card and with an adapter I can plug in right into the memory card reader or just use the bluetooth to transfer. They even have bluetooth hard drives if you want to spend that kind of money. They have cameras with bluetooth so you can wirelessly transfer pictures...and with the standard moving to 3.0...the speed will be increased making it a very viable option...it still won't be superfast...but it is a private connection that is safe to use.

As I think you stated or soeone did...any full sized laptop could be a pain on a plane. Luckily for me the places I travel too teh plane isn't always full. Most times I only fly to Sarasota Int'l or Atlanta Int'l and the plan is seldo full...it is certainly better in 1st class...at least there are plugs and teh table is a bit bigger. But it is still manageable and useful. With the Asus...the BIOS allows you to turn off so many things...I can turn off one of eh video cards...I can turn off used ports...the cpu's use speedsteep so they run at 1/2 speed until ore is needed...the fans inside are much larger then in very thin laptops...which moves more heat out...and yes it gets war...but to me ot was no warner than my Dell which is very thin...on a plane with so much light, I don't need the screen at full brightness so I usually turn it down...and I loder the resolution..it looks bad...but it works...I managed to get 3:26 mins on a full charge..that will certainly survive one flight...even to California...but I have a spare battery if it ever gets to that.

But no matter what laptop you have, as you said you'd be dumb not to take the powercord. And it would suck if you forget it because you can't simply buy a replacement. But at least you can order one and have it deleivered next day from any mfr. But why copare battery life of a laptop that has components that have double teh perfromance of a standard laptop? It is obvious it will consume more power. That is why it is a desktop replacement.

Anyway I love the cats...I surely miss mine...

[quackadilly]

Ugh.....evil cats. Thats why I don't have one.

[TechieXP]

Why is it that windoze luzers always bring up 'games', anyway? I have an almost four year old XBOX 360 (only got the 'ring of death' once, so far) and a GameBoy DS. They play games just fine. They didn't cost two thousand dollars, and the DS doesn't burn my hands. They have served their purpose for longer than any single PC I've had could reliably keep playing any new games.

Because gaming is a use of a computer. You don't have to spend $1000 or more to game. Just depends on what type of gaming. For you a console is sufficient. I had them too. The last console I bought was the Sega Saturn. I had an Atari 2600/5200/7800, All the Nintendo mchines up to the N64 the first PlayStation. I wanted an Xbox but I couldn't jutify the expense. The games I like to play come on PCand they are better. The only reason to buy a console is cost...its cheaper than a pC and most games you will want to play will only be on the console. I a not a gamer I play a few here and there if I have time. I most only play the NFS series and I have all of them. Consoles downside is they increase power slowly to keep you interested. PC's are way more powerful than consoles and thanks to teh power of GPU's consoles no longer have a graphical advanttage...PC's do. Any game no matter how indelpth teh graphics are would be better on a PC. Problem is not everyone has one. In Japan video games are such a huge deal because consoles are more affordable then the pc you would need to buy or build to play them. To play todays video games on a pc you would need ones that cost about $750 as a minimum..and you can suely built a powerful enough desktop for it.

I don't see what you have against gaming on a PC. Even if someone builds a pc just to game..so what. There is nothing that states a PC has to be for work. Do you only drive your car to work? If youi pay a lot of money for something there should be no limits to what you can do within reason and ability. Computer is a tool...you can do with tht tool what you want. If gaing is all you need it for..then so what. I wish I could program a nice game...its a $900 billion dollar per year industry...

And yes the W90 won't be good on the bus...but on a plane and airport? The battery will last long enough to do something while I wait on a plane...and I have a spare battery...Btween 2 batteries I could last a flight. As I stated at home with power setting turned down and doing simple tasks I manages over 3 hours of usage on a single charge. But again it required changing a lot to get the...that is why I don't believe everything I read. I know how laptops work..ad some offer you more than others..they is why I bought this. I didn't buyit on a whelm...my sister-in-law to be husband has it as well. And I checked out teh BIOS. I can shut down every port and even shutdown one of the other GPU..I can turn off the card reader and etc...I can simply have the video card I need and I can even slow down the perfromace of the hdd so it doesn't draw so much power.

For this cost I have lots of advantages over otjher laptops. Dell also offers similar control through their BIOS. Same for my desktop. I prefer Asus because I can control everything.

I can't seehow a 17" laptop was unusable on the road for you. Its not that much bigger than a 15.4 inch one. And as far as setting on my lap? I would never set any laptop on my lap...i have a laptop cool..its a lik pa with fans I lay on my legs and I never feel the heat from the bottom of the laptop...EVER!

If I am going to place a jet engine in my lap, I a going to make sure the afterburners won't burn me.

[TechieXP]

nah..not really. You only need to upgrade if teh game you want to play will not run on the hardware you have...just like consoles...however upgrading a pc is way cheaper than spending $400 for a new cosole every 2 years. My present desktop will run games from now and until the machine dies. For one I don't always have to have the next new games...only people with no control always have to have the next new thing. I was like that before and I learn valuable lessons. Back in the 80's I had to own every video game machine...for what? To basically stay out the arcade wasting money...but I was spending more on gaming. Games for me are boring and I don't have the patients. I use to love RPG's like Zelda...So when I was introduced to WOW I was excited at first...but I got bored to quick..and teh game really never ends..and I just don't have time to learn it. I play Madden, I play NBA Live and I race on NFS and I like Simcity 4...thats it...I have Tom Clancey Hawks...but I haven't played it yet...I don't like arena type games that are at LAN parties.

I use my computer for y at home business and It is also my entertainment center. Why buy a DVD player and buy all that expensive audio equipment when I can simply add ALL of it to my PC for less cost.

And since a PC is so powerful I can have a nice setup...for cheap and yet it sounds like I spent way more.

[asiafish]

TechieXP said:

Why is it that windoze luzers always bring up 'games', anyway? I have an almost four year old XBOX 360 (only got the 'ring of death' once, so far) and a GameBoy DS. They play games just fine. They didn't cost two thousand dollars, and the DS doesn't burn my hands. They have served their purpose for longer than any single PC I've had could reliably keep playing any new games.

Because gaming is a use of a computer. You don't have to spend $1000 or more to game. Just depends on what type of gaming. For you a console is sufficient. I had them too. The last console I bought was the Sega Saturn. I had an Atari 2600/5200/7800, All the Nintendo mchines up to the N64 the first PlayStation. I wanted an Xbox but I couldn't jutify the expense. The games I like to play come on PCand they are better. The only reason to buy a console is cost...its cheaper than a pC and most games you will want to play will only be on the console. I a not a gamer I play a few here and there if I have time. I most only play the NFS series and I have all of them. Consoles downside is they increase power slowly to keep you interested. PC's are way more powerful than consoles and thanks to teh power of GPU's consoles no longer have a graphical advanttage...PC's do. Any game no matter how indelpth teh graphics are would be better on a PC. Problem is not everyone has one. In Japan video games are such a huge deal because consoles are more affordable then the pc you would need to buy or build to play them. To play todays video games on a pc you would need ones that cost about $750 as a minimum..and you can suely built a powerful enough desktop for it.

Gaming is a use only for those interested in gaming, and means nothing whatsoever to those not interested in gaming.

Quote

I don't see what you have against gaming on a PC. Even if someone builds a pc just to game..so what. There is nothing that states a PC has to be for work. Do you only drive your car to work? If youi pay a lot of money for something there should be no limits to what you can do within reason and ability. Computer is a tool...you can do with tht tool what you want. If gaing is all you need it for..then so what. I wish I could program a nice game...its a $900 billion dollar per year industry...

I don't recall anyone ever claiming to have anything against gaming. You just keep bringing gaming up to support your blanket non-fact that PCs are better than Macs.

Quote

And yes the W90 won't be good on the bus...but on a plane and airport? The battery will last long enough to do something while I wait on a plane...and I have a spare battery...Btween 2 batteries I could last a flight. As I stated at home with power setting turned down and doing simple tasks I manages over 3 hours of usage on a single charge. But again it required changing a lot to get the...that is why I don't believe everything I read. I know how laptops work..ad some offer you more than others..they is why I bought this. I didn't buyit on a whelm...my sister-in-law to be husband has it as well. And I checked out teh BIOS. I can shut down every port and even shutdown one of the other GPU..I can turn off the card reader and etc...I can simply have the video card I need and I can even slow down the perfromace of the hdd so it doesn't draw so much power.

The W90 isn't suited for use anywhere except on a table or desk. Even there, only if those tables are either close together or its a short walk to your car.

Quote

For this cost I have lots of advantages over otjher laptops. Dell also offers similar control through their BIOS. Same for my desktop. I prefer Asus because I can control everything.

I can't seehow a 17" laptop was unusable on the road for you. Its not that much bigger than a 15.4 inch one. And as far as setting on my lap? I would never set any laptop on my lap...i have a laptop cool..its a lik pa with fans I lay on my legs and I never feel the heat from the bottom of the laptop...EVER!

So because you think a 17" isn't less portable than a 15" makes it so? 17" laptops are huge. 15" laptops are still big and bulky, but less so. 12" laptops travel wonderfully, but are often underpowered. 14 or 15" is the sweet spot for most laptops and that is why the industry has standardized on them for general use. Non-general use demands bigger or smaller.

As for heat, wow, carrying a pad with fans, that sure makes your 11 lb behemoth lighter, more portable and more battery-efficient.

Quote

If I am going to place a jet engine in my lap, I a going to make sure the afterburners won't burn me.

They won't, it will run out of juice too quickly, or will be left at home because it is just too damned heavy.

[MarioJP]

man these debates are getting pointless now. To clear things up the real difference between windows and a mac is flexibility. on the pc you can customize the living crap out of it and call it yours even on some laptops with the exception of the gpu. A mac is geared towards looks and "cool factor" that everything works but i am not dropping a ton of money just for that it definitely does not suits my needs.



This debate is really about how much they know compared to the average joe. Its really is average joe vs tech savy really, winodws users tend to be more tech savy than the mac counterparts as it is a computer design for simplicity and making sure it works before its out the factory. Windows is not a pc because windows is not tied to a particular special pc (like mac os is which is why i call it a mac instead of osx) and because of this there is almost no control so there is no gurantee that you get a out of the box experience.



Just got tired of whiners wanting too much convienience. While you at it lets complain why are recliners cant feed us and lift our eyebrows so we can get most out of our tv viewing exprience because i am too lazy to lift my eyebrow.



I have no problems using windows so i have no idea what this debate really is about. Not a single crash not a single blue screen of death no freezes and most of all NO VIRUSES. Everything that i do in windows just works and it is stable and that is all i have to say.

[artzy65]

"Just got tired of whiners wanting too much convienience. While you at it lets complain why are recliners cant feed us and lift our eyebrows so we can get most out of our tv viewing exprience because i am too lazy to lift my eyebrow."

I'm a longtime, apple kool-aid drinking, die-hard mac user but I just wonder how many pc switchers to mac ? and noobs who choose mac as their first computer ? aren't in fact disappointed eventually... when they find that unless they get reasonably tech-savvy, it ain't going to be a picnic on a mac either. You know the drill... as others here have said; the major disconnect happens between the chair and the keyboard.
Message was edited by: artzy65

[smax013]

quackadilly said:

But the Mac Book Pro can't run the software by itself. You need Windows through the use of Parallels.. The hardware's no different than in a PC. It's the OS.

But we were talking hardware not software. Let me quote your post that I responded to again:

"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."

You say MacBook...you do NOT say Mac OS. Whether you intended to or not, your intend clearly seemed to be that you said that a MacBook (as in the COMPUTER) could not handle such tasks...and I disagreed...a MacBook Pro certainly can, as can a MacBook.

And last time I checked, my MacBook Pro's model name does not change to WinBook Pro when I run Windows on it. It is still a MacBook Pro...just happens to run Windows as well as the Mac OS.

Quote

You can't seriously base all PC laptops' hardware off of 1 bad experience. My 1 experience with Compaq has been great so far. So who's testimony is right? neither. Statistically speaking you need 30 data points..... between you and me, we don't have that.

I can base it on whatever I want. It might not be fair, but nothing in the world says I have to be fair when I choose what computer I choose to buy.

I never said you or anyone else had to choose the same as me. I clearly said it is what works for ME.

I am curious...why do you care so much what I use? Did Steve Ballmer threaten to kill your dog if I did not switch to a Windows laptop? If so, you can tell Steve that he already got my money when I bought Win XP Pro to put on my MacBook Pro...and he likely got more money that if I had bought a Dell or HP or some other Windows laptop as licenses to consumers tend to result in more revenue for Microsoft than volume OEM licenses to manufacturers. It would make more sense if Michael Dell threaten to kill your dog if I did not buy a Dell laptop. Of course, if that happens, you should just tell Michael to go ahead as I will never, ever buy another Dell after the way I was treated by customer service when I had problem with my last Dell.

[smax013]

rgreen4 said:

No one disputes that a Mac will cost more that a similar PC, but is it dearly? It depends on the consumer and their situation.

I will. There are documented cases of Macs costing less than truly comparable Windows systems.

Is it that always the case (i.e. the Mac being cheaper)? Nope. And it is not always the case that the Windows system is cheaper.

I will agree than more times than not the Windows system will be cheaper, but not usually as much cheaper as some people claim as long as you compare truly comparable systems.

The thing that baffles me is why people who argue that Mac are more expensive find the need to use overly exaggerated comparisons or compare two computers that are dramatically different in what seems to be an effort to make the price difference look so huge. They could prove their point, by and large, without shooting their credibility in the foot. This was the central point of the recent "Apple Tax" article ( thread). If you look at the analysis that was done to support that "Apple Tax" claim, it always assumes that a "maybe needed" is in fact actually done on the Mac side of the analysis but not so on the Windows side. The point is that the analysis pointed assumes EVERY possible cost for the Mac side but just the bare minimum "needs" on the Windows side. And the article pointed this out. And the article's point as well as mine was that the analysis did not need to be "exaggerated" to still come up with an "Apple Tax" conclusion...the "exaggeration" just makes it look like the analysis tailored to fit a desired conclusion and thus loses some credibility to someone who is not biased against Apple. The article is not saying that there is not necessarily an "Apple Tax" but pointing out that this particular analysis is a "stacked on" (FWIW, I am sure that I could create a nice stacked analysis that shows a Mac is WAY less to own than a Windows computer by selectively choosing which criteria I choose to give weight and value to). And my point is that this analysis did not need to "stack" (especially in such an obvious way)...they could have made their point with an analysis that was WAY more credible.

Of course, all the anti-Apple folks took that analysis report as gospel.

But then, it is all just marketing...and there are a LOT of people who by all kinds of marketing crap. I find the Apple commercials to be extremely amusing...but I also can clearly see that they tend to take some small nugget of truth and exaggerate the hell out of it...much like the above analysis did. That is what marketing is all about...take that small nugget of truth and then exaggerate like there is no tomorrow and see how many people will buy your bull.

[Evildave]

Quote

Yes Macs are light...yes Macs are pretty..yes Macs are as good as any other PC...yes they are very well designed as far as looks...but they leave off what people actually need. Most people have cameras that use flash cards...amazing Apple whose PC's have been good for manipulating photos, don't even have card readers.

One thing the Mac portable design has is simplicity. Even if they put a 25-in-one set of slots on the mac (and left a huge bunch of holes in the sides for dust, debris, liquids and insects to enter), they couldn't cover every kind of media, and even if they did, a new one would be announced the day after they shipped the first run of notebooks. Every kind of media DOES come with a USB reader. Rather than have a dozen extra openings for cards, they have USB2 ports.

They make a well balanced computer that runs well, doesn't cook your crotch, and goes for hours away from a plug. All of the 'options' in the world can be a bad thing, especially in most users' hands.

Many PC manufacturers will happily let users configure a PC with a power supply that is inadequate for the load they place on it. Pick the quad core CPU, 8 gigs of RAM, 4 hard drives... and put a 250 watt power supply in it. They ALWAYS sell them boxes with inadequate cooling if the customer doesn't pay for the extra fans up front, too. They just make the assumption that you live near the north pole.

Just like car companies will tell you how much your SUV could conceivably haul and tow like a truck, and then put 'car tires' on it for a smooth ride, and then don't make a point of telling you how unsafe loading the car tires up like the commercials would be.

Quote

My answer...the proof is in what is being sold and how. Dell sold 15 million units Q1 of 2009...while Apple sold teh usual 2.5 million which is the number they hit after the release of OSX...but not sure which version of which year. Before OSX Apple was selling about 1 millions computers per quarter. Better software, better and familiar hardware I am sure contributed to that in additon to iPod/Phone/Touch.

http://www.apple.com.../21results.html
"Apple sold 2,524,000 Macintosh? computers during the quarter, representing nine percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter."

And obviously people are buying Macs that aren't buying PCs. Or the Macs are outlasting PCs. Or something. They just keep growing in number while the Windoze share of the pie keeps melting... melting... oh, what a world! OS X will pass 10% market share this year easily, while Microsoft might fall under 85%. The iPhone and iPod touch are also slicing into the pie.

http://marketshare.h...psp=101&qpnp=25

So Apple is turning lotsa Macs, lotsa iPhones, lotsa (TBA), etc. into customers and money. And they're apparently recession-proof, too.