[smax013]

artzy65 said:

"I'm not too sure about that, if you buy RAM from Apple (which, I'm assuming someone buying the computer from Apple will do) they charge an arm and a leg, "

I can say as a longtime mac user that their ram prices were more like both arms, both legs... and a bend-over with out so much as the courtesy of a reach-around. Also external mac hard drives were highway robbery... it seems pc ram and hard drives were pennies as compared to macs, at least in the bad old days.

Actually, Apple's prices are not as bad as they once were. For a MacBook or MacBook Pro, you can go from 2 GB to 4 GB for $100...that is basically inline with purchasing it yourself (you can get a 4 GB kit from Crucial.com for $68 plus shipping...so a $30 "install" charge is reasonable but could still be considered a bit high). It used to be that you would have to pay like $500 for such an upgrade.

Now, they are a bit more greedy on the upgrade from 4 GB to 8 GB on the 17" MacBook Pro. Apple charges $1000...but you can get the 8 GB kit from Crucial.com for $800. So, about a 25% markup. The same is true of the iMac (which uses laptop memory...the same DDR3 memory that the MacBook/MacBook Pro uses I believe).

And in the case of the Mac Pro, it can be cheaper to have Apple upgrade...depending on what configuration you originally get and what memory kits/modules you can get your hands on...but generally Apple is competitive on the Mac Pro until you get to using a crapload of DDR3 4 GB modules.

Thus, Apple's RAM upgrade prices are not what they used to be. It is still usually cheaper to do it yourself (which is what I do), but not by that much.

[miniappleman]

I was speaking of a particular university in my area. Yes there is a lot of Windows use. They also have a need for a lot of Mac use. For their labs they purchased Intel Macs that will run both. One machine purchase - two operating systems (or more if they want to add the Unix/Linix variations). Even if you figure they may have gotten PC's for $400 each - how much did they save by not buying those 200 PC's in addition to Mac equipment? Plus it cleaned up the labs by getting rid of the monitors and cabling to boxes under the desks/tables. Others are looking to do the same. One hardware purchase, but multiple systems available on each one.



Memory - If you're a do-it-yourself'er it is a bargain. The MacBook in the commercial with "only 2gb" of memory can be upgraded to 4gb with a $28 2gb module. Couple of pinch points on the keyboard and it folds up out of the way to allow you access to slip in the module. For the large MacBook Pro that can take two 4gb modules to max it out at 8gb is just as easy. The 4gb modules are $295 each. What to do with the 2gb module it came with? If you buy from one RAM company, they will buy your 2gb module back from you. Or, there's a likely eBay market for 2gb MacBook owners to add 2gb. :-)



External Hard Drives - back in the SCSI only days it was a bit of an expense if the Mac didn't have an external SCSI connector. But for the last 10 years all you've needed is any plain vanilla USB or FireWire external drive off the local shelf or via online sources. Once you've got the external box and you need more space, buy a bare drive and upgrade the box. If you have two - always easier to use something like Carbon Copy Cloner and image the smaller drive, add the new bigger drive to the 2nd box and lay the old content down on the larger drive and continue on use the rest of the larger space.



Just for fun & giggles - I'd have to try and dig back a ways, but I seem to remember there was some group that was playing around trying to load OS/X on a store-bought PC box. Had some issues, but thought that they had created a few tweaks to get it going. Now you've got my interest perked.

[smax013]

miniappleman said:

Memory - If you're a do-it-yourself'er it is a bargain. The MacBook in the commercial with "only 2gb" of memory can be upgraded to 4gb with a $28 2gb module. Couple of pinch points on the keyboard and it folds up out of the way to allow you access to slip in the module. For the large MacBook Pro that can take two 4gb modules to max it out at 8gb is just as easy. The 4gb modules are $295 each. What to do with the 2gb module it came with? If you buy from one RAM company, they will buy your 2gb module back from you. Or, there's a likely eBay market for 2gb MacBook owners to add 2gb. :-)

Be a little care with where you by your RAM for Macs. Macs can be a little picky at times with memory. I believe this is a little less so with the Intel Macs, but it still could be. Personally, I buy RAM for my Macs from either Crucial.com (and my PCs for that matter) or Macsales.com (aka OWC).

Quote

External Hard Drives - back in the SCSI only days it was a bit of an expense if the Mac didn't have an external SCSI connector. But for the last 10 years all you've needed is any plain vanilla USB or FireWire external drive off the local shelf or via online sources. Once you've got the external box and you need more space, buy a bare drive and upgrade the box. If you have two - always easier to use something like Carbon Copy Cloner and image the smaller drive, add the new bigger drive to the 2nd box and lay the old content down on the larger drive and continue on use the rest of the larger space.

Be a little careful with just ANY Firewire enclosure. If you want to boot off the Firewire drive, then there are some Firewire chipsets that have proven incompatible with booting some Macs. Some WD external drives have been unable to boot some Macs.

[BGG001]

I was speaking of a particular university in my area. Yes there is a lot of Windows use. They also have a need for a lot of Mac use. For their labs they purchased Intel Macs that will run both. One machine purchase - two operating systems (or more if they want to add the Unix/Linix variations). Even if you figure they may have gotten PC's for $400 each - how much did they save by not buying those 200 PC's in addition to Mac equipment? Plus it cleaned up the labs by getting rid of the monitors and cabling to boxes under the desks/tables. Others are looking to do the same. One hardware purchase, but multiple systems available on each one.

What comes in an Apple machine is unfortunately much less powerful than that of a standard PC now; a dualcore simply can't beat a quadcore. So if a place needs performance, generally a PC will be used since it can be specifically tailored for the job and have a lot more power for less price; I'm sure that isn't a university's need though. I'll come back to this at the end of my post.

Memory - If you're a do-it-yourself'er it is a bargain. The MacBook in the commercial with "only 2gb" of memory can be upgraded to 4gb with a $28 2gb module. Couple of pinch points on the keyboard and it folds up out of the way to allow you access to slip in the module. For the large MacBook Pro that can take two 4gb modules to max it out at 8gb is just as easy. The 4gb modules are $295 each. What to do with the 2gb module it came with? If you buy from one RAM company, they will buy your 2gb module back from you. Or, there's a likely eBay market for 2gb MacBook owners to add 2gb.

Most people who buy Apple's aren't a do-it-yourself'er unfortunately and they end up paying hundreds up to a thousand to get it upgraded by Apple themselves. Also, $300 for a 4GB module for a laptop is ridiculously expensive, for a PC you can get a brand new one for $140. $590 vs $280, I'll take my chances with a Windows-based laptop in that case.

Just for fun & giggles - I'd have to try and dig back a ways, but I seem to remember there was some group that was playing around trying to load OS/X on a store-bought PC box. Had some issues, but thought that they had created a few tweaks to get it going. Now you've got my interest perked.

Returning from the first part of my post...this brings me to this question: why shouldn't PC users be able to run Mac OS X on their PC's? Despite the fact that it doesn't work well, it's illegal to do without having a "licensed Apple machine," which according to their definition can be bypassed by sticking an Apple logo on it, believe it or not. I, for one, would love to have OS X on my PC, but it's incompatible with my hardware, every flavor of hackintosh is. I've considered going out and getting parts specifically for this but decided it's simply not worth spending $400-$600 to build a hackintosh. But my main question: If Windows legally allows Apple users to run on their machines, why won't Apple make it legal and make it work for PCs? Eventually, when their market share opens up, they're going to have to do something similar to avoid monopoly charges.

[smax013]

BGG001 said:

Also, $300 for a 4GB module for a laptop is ridiculously expensive, for a PC you can get a brand new one for $140.

Not if the Windows laptop is using DDR3 laptop RAM you won't. The MacBook and MacBook Pro use DDR3 RAM, which is why the 4 GB modules are so expensive (whether from Apple or someone else...here are three 4 GB DDR3 SO-DIMMS available through NewEgg...all for more than $300: http://www.newegg.co...9889&name=4GB). I am not aware of too many Windows laptops that have gone to DDR3 memory yet. I did find an Alienware that uses DDR3...now, I did not look too hard...mainly did a brief look at Dell and HP.

[BGG001]

[quote name='smax013']
>

BGG001 said:

> Also, $300 for a 4GB module for a laptop is ridiculously expensive, for a PC you can get a brand new one for $140.

Not if the Windows laptop is using DDR3 laptop RAM you won't. The MacBook and MacBook Pro use DDR3 RAM, which is why the 4 GB modules are so expensive (whether from Apple or someone else...here are three 4 GB DDR3 SO-DIMMS available through NewEgg...all for more than $300: http://www.newegg.co...9889&name=4GB). I am not aware of too many Windows laptops that have gone to DDR3 memory yet. I did find an Alienware that uses DDR3...now, I did not look too hard...mainly did a brief look at Dell and HP.

Yup, you're right, MBPs are DDR3, my fault. I personally don't like DDR3 for the price reason, which is one of the reasons I don't like Apple, you don't get a choice on that part; why can't I go with DDR2? The average user has no need for DDR3...The small performance boost between DDR2 modules and DDR3s is very unnoticible to someone who is going to use a computer for IMing, "surfing," general use of pictures, general use of videos, the list goes on. Now I'm not arguing they shouldn't have DDR3 because that's great that they actually stayed with the technology curve, but they should still sell new DDR2 systems for those who need a cheaper computer and don't need extreme performance; common sense for business if you ask me.

Although DDR3 is coming down in price, I will acknowledge this; but for laptops its still extremely expensive.

I honestly wasn't aware that laptops had made the switch to DDR3 yet at all; I have little interest in laptops right now, desktop PCs are good for me (although I'll be off to college next year so I'll be looking soon enough).
Message was edited by: BGG001

[smax013]

BGG001 said:

What comes in an Apple machine is unfortunately much less powerful than that of a standard PC now; a dualcore simply can't beat a quadcore.

Sure it can...if the application you are using cannot take advantage of multicores and the dual core is at a faster clock speed. The point is that programs have to be designed to fully take advantage of the four cores compared to the two cores (or a single core if you can find one). If the programs you use cannot really take advantage of 4 cores but can take advantage of 2 cores, then a dual core computer could beat a quad core.

Now, as more and more programs are being updated to really take advantage of multiple cores, especially quad cores, your statement will become more and more true.

FWIW, this was precisely why I went with a faster clock speed dual core processor over a quad core processor when I built my latest desktop about a year or so ago. At the time, it would gain me nothing to buy a comparable priced quad core when I could get a faster clock speed dual core for the same price...most programs back then could not really take full advantage of a dual core, let alone a quad core. Considering a quadcore now might be worth it and if I ever decided to upgrade processors, then I would consider a quadcore now.

[smax013]

BGG001 said:

Yup, you're right, MBPs are DDR3, my fault. I personally don't like DDR3 for the price reason, which is one of the reasons I don't like Apple, you don't get a choice on that part; why can't I go with DDR2? The average user has no need for DDR3...The small performance boost between DDR2 modules and DDR3s is very unnoticible to someone who is going to use a computer for IMing, "surfing," general use of pictures, general use of videos, the list goes on. Now I'm not arguing they shouldn't have DDR3 because that's great that they actually stayed with the technology curve, but they should still sell new DDR2 systems for those who need a cheaper computer and don't need extreme performance; common sense for business if you ask me.

Because DDR3 is the future. And if you really do not want DDR3, then don't get a Mac laptop.

And FWIW, the average user (as you defined it) has no need for quadcore processors and high end graphics cards and more than 2 to 3 GB of RAM and most likely no need for 500 GB hard drives. The point is that a LOT of computer companies sell "more computer" then most people need.

In the end, Apple caters to some specific market segments...and if you compare comparable computers in those market segments to Macs, then Macs will generally compare rather well both spec-wise and price-wise. And if you do not want a computer that is part of one of those market segments, then you won't want to consider a Mac. And that is a big reason why Apple only has about 10% of the computer market and likely will never get beyond 15%.

Quote

Although DDR3 is coming down in price, I will acknowledge this; but for laptops its still extremely expensive.

I honestly wasn't aware that laptops had made the switch to DDR3 yet at all; I have little interest in laptops right now, desktop PCs are good for me (although I'll be off to college next year so I'll be looking soon enough).

It is only a matter of time before all laptops (other than maybe netbooks) will be DDR3. Apple does tend to "push the technology curve" with newer tech...and then Windows PCs catch up and generally go past Apple's models fairly quickly. But, Apple does tend to adopt "non-standard" technology before most others.

[waldojim]

"Sure it can...if the application you are using cannot take advantage of multicores and the dual core is at a faster clock speed. The point is that programs have to be designed to fully take advantage of the four cores compared to the two cores (or a single core if you can find one). If the programs you use cannot really take advantage of 4 cores but can take advantage of 2 cores, then a dual core computer could beat a quad core."

My quad is clocked in at 3.66Ghz, show me a mac C2D clocking in at 3.6. That would mean that not only do I have more cores, but they are clocked faster. None of the macs even got to 3.2...

"Because DDR3 is the future. And if you really do not want DDR3, then don't get a Mac laptop.

And FWIW, the average user (as you defined it) has no need for quadcore processors and high end graphics cards and more than 2 to 3 GB of RAM and most likely no need for 500 GB hard drives. The point is that a LOT of computer companies sell "more computer" then most people need.

In the end, Apple caters to some specific market segments...and if you compare comparable computers in those market segments to Macs, then Macs will generally compare rather well both spec-wise and price-wise. And if you do not want a computer that is part of one of those market segments, then you won't want to consider a Mac. And that is a big reason why Apple only has about 10% of the computer market and likely will never get beyond 15%."

Yes DDR3 is the future, and when the latencies lower, and clock speeds higher, it will be worth the transition. If you will recall, when DDR2 launched, the performance 'advantages' were offset by low clock speeds and high latency. I was pushing 1-2-2-3 latency on my DDR 400s and outperforming the DDR2 667's that were the hot thing of the time, just because of the low latency. Same could be said for DDR3 excepting that the raw clock speeds are so high, and the amount of data transferred per clock is high enough that the high latency is somewhat offset. Though this means you gain about 5% performance for %300 cost.

There are some things that are possible, but not feasible in the business sense. Do you really think a business cares if Word loaded .01 seconds faster on a mac? Or do you think they are going to notice the thousand dollar hit they take for each one? Same goes for home. I CHOSE to stick with DDR2 because I can get 95% of the performance of the ultra high end (and with a touch of OC'ing I can match or exceed that performance) while saving me $500 bucks at the time. (300 in ram, 200 in the mobo to support said ram)

"It is only a matter of time before all laptops (other than maybe netbooks) will be DDR3. Apple does tend to "push the technology curve" with newer tech...and then Windows PCs catch up and generally go past Apple's models fairly quickly. But, Apple does tend to adopt "non-standard" technology before most others. "
Then where are the C2Quads? the i7's? the GTX series graphics cards? I do not see them pushing tech curves, with the exception of those with the largest profit margins. And the ones that make direct comparisons harder.

[BGG001]

*And FWIW, the average user (as you defined it) has no need for quadcore processors and high end graphics cards and more than 2 to 3 GB of RAM and most likely no need for 500 GB hard drives. The point is that a LOT of computer companies sell "more computer" then most people need.

In the end, Apple caters to some specific market segments...and if you compare comparable computers in those market segments to Macs, then Macs will generally compare rather well both spec-wise and price-wise. And if you do not want a computer that is part of one of those market segments, then you won't want to consider a Mac. And that is a big reason why Apple only has about 10% of the computer market and likely will never get beyond 15%.*

I agree, the average user doesn't need high end graphics and 500GB HDDs; in complete agreement (except for the RAM, I think most computers today should at least have 2 with the way people run computers). Now as for it being specifically targeted, if that specific group needs DDR3 RAM, would they not require higher-end graphics and processors? And even with programs based on dualcores, quadcores may not run them better, but to the average user they won't notice the difference, plus it will be able to run more regardless, such as running 2 dual core specific programs; it offers much more multitasking abilities than dualcore, plus it's "future proof" (please note that there really is no such thing as future proof technology and that I'm talking a 2-4 year span if even).

I also acknowledge that DDR3 is the future, but during the conversion to make the price lower, wouldn't it be beneficial for the company and the customers to have a DDR2 varient available for a lesser price? More people will buy something if it's cheaper, the average consumer won't know the difference between 4GB of DDR2 and 4GB of DDR3, they'll look at the larger number, look at the price in comparison, and buy the one that makes more sense. That's just my point though, I understand where you come from, but it doesn't explain negligence toward another end of the market, perhaps the largest part of the market.

It is only a matter of time before all laptops (other than maybe netbooks) will be DDR3. Apple does tend to "push the technology curve" with newer tech...and then Windows PCs catch up and generally go past Apple's models fairly quickly. But, Apple does tend to adopt "non-standard" technology before most others.

Indefinately you're right, I just wasn't aware that the conversion had started yet. And contrary to what you think, I see netbooks picking it up rather quickly; DDR3 takes less energy and you get more speed and performance out of it, resulting in a more reliable experience and a longer battery life; perhaps these netbooks will be expensive compared to DDR2 varients, but that's just how the market works. 5 hours of battery power vs 7 hours for $150 more...eventually that price barrier would disappear and reform for some other component in a netbook.

[MarioJP]

smax013 said:

It is only a matter of time before all laptops (other than maybe netbooks) will be DDR3. Apple does tend to "push the technology curve" with newer tech...and then Windows PCs catch up and generally go past Apple's models fairly quickly. But, Apple does tend to adopt "non-standard" technology before most others.

Correction you mean pc users don't adopt faster than whats already out there. I dont think apple is ahead of the technology curve, sure the looks and elegant might be but not technology front. I just read intel just announced they will soon be releasing the second generation of Xeon processors known as the Xeon-EX. It will be a single 8 core that does 16 threads with 24mb of shared cache.


http://techreport.co...ussions.x/16981

[WinTard]

smax013 said:

It is only a matter of time before all laptops (other than maybe netbooks) will be DDR3. Apple does tend to "push the technology curve" with newer tech...and then Windows PCs catch up and generally go past Apple's models fairly quickly. But, Apple does tend to adopt "non-standard" technology before most others.

In case of laptops perhaps. But the comparison I made between the 15" MacBook Pro $2000 and Dell XPS Studio 16" $1249, Dell clearly has superiority and value. On all aspects. DDR3, 4GB vs 2GB, HDD 500GB HDD Sata3 7200rpm vs 250GB 5400rpm, Display 1920x1080p RGB Led backlit vs 1440x900 Led backlit.. Same FSB, Same CPU speed, etc... 1Year in house full complete care coverage, including accidental damage, vs, 90 days free phone support and 1 year return to factory...

As for the enthusiast gaming PC built from motherboards and parts, Apple can't even touch that, as their systems are not overclockable... (Such as 2000Mhz FSB).

So I would say for the PC knowledgeable Enthusiast, Apple's are sub-standard by far, and high-performance parts first show up on the PC part market.

Early adoption and performance wise, PC wins hands down!

The problem with PCs is there are so many of them, and all the high-performance ones, never come from brand-names. Apple included.

[MarioJP]

it all comes down to apple's marketing schemes. in comparison between ddr2-ddr3 is very minute at best. The beauty of a pc is that not many people currently are favoring ddr3 over ddr2 because the performance difference is very small for the price you pay. The only true benefits of getting dd3 is if you are a serious overclocker. DDR3 can be pushed so fast to almost 2ghz that is way beyond what a mbp can handle. But for everyday task it is not worth it. Well not until the price drops even more. But at least ddr3 is already available for pc's just the users are not ready. Nice thing to have as an option for those considering their next upgrade of a laptop or desktop.
again paying more fore less. Do you guys fall for marketing schemes like ddr3 vs ddr2. in some cases some ddr 3 modules are only by 50 to 150 mhz faster than ddr2. again they are ddr2 modules (overclocked modules) that already has touched ddr3 speeds.


again it comes down to how far can you oc ddr3 module which all depends on brand and type. And by type i mean was this memory designed for overclocking in mind. If it isn't don't even try oc because it will become very unstable very fast and possibly frying the modules very quickly.

In fact games don't even benefit from ddr 3 that much. They did some extensive benchmarks and only what 2% gain. Just isn't worth it. I be more concerned about the amount of ram you have and gpu more than memory speeds yet alone the cpu if you have a slow duo core laptop.

[waldojim]

I personally don't like to OC ram, as ram troubles can be hard to diagnose... and they can cause some of the biggest problems, So I buy Ram at the clock speed I want them to run at, and I buy premium ram. So far, neither Corsair, nor Mushkin have let me down.

[MarioJP]

And speaking of gpu ram?? forget it DDR3 is no match. Video ram speeds is up to GDDR5! and thats stock not oc and so far it has been reported to be at 1ghz for video memory. But then again the video card plays a special role where it needs to crunch those textures. Where as system ram just holds temporarily the programs which does not require much of a crunching power but more of capacity. Sure the speed helps but not by a large margin either. and also don't forget about the latency. Ram tend to have very poor latency. GPU memory not so much which is why i am impressed how you can have GDDR5 without melting. Rambus ram has very poor latency.

[smax013]

BGG001 said:

I also acknowledge that DDR3 is the future, but during the conversion to make the price lower, wouldn't it be beneficial for the company and the customers to have a DDR2 varient available for a lesser price? More people will buy something if it's cheaper, the average consumer won't know the difference between 4GB of DDR2 and 4GB of DDR3, they'll look at the larger number, look at the price in comparison, and buy the one that makes more sense. That's just my point though, I understand where you come from, but it doesn't explain negligence toward another end of the market, perhaps the largest part of the market.

For the "average consumer", it won't matter as they can get a Mac with 4 GB of RAM by way of two 2 GB modules and not get hit with super outragious prices. It is generally the 4 GB modules that really have the ridiculous prices. And your "average consumer" does not likely need more than 4 GB.

As to why Apple does not do it, it would mean having a second version of a motherboard made that would support DDR2 and then having to support that second version of the motherboard. I could ask a similar question...why does Dell not offer their higher end consumer laptops (such as the XPS line) with DDR3 for those that want it? The answer is likely the same...Dell does not want to have to have two versions of their motherboards manufactured and then maintain them. Of all the laptops with DDR3 memory, both Mac and Windows (the Alienware that I found), NONE offered a DDR2 version...likely for this reason. And none of the DDR2 Windows based laptops (that I found) offered another version with DDR3.

[BGG001]

*"For the "average consumer", it won't matter as they can get a Mac with 4 GB of RAM by way of two 2 GB modules and not get hit with super outragious prices. It is generally the 4 GB modules that really have the ridiculous prices. And your "average consumer" does not likely need more than 4 GB.

As to why Apple does not do it, it would mean having a second version of a motherboard made that would support DDR2 and then having to support that second version of the motherboard. I could ask a similar question...why does Dell not offer their higher end consumer laptops (such as the XPS line) with DDR3 for those that want it? The answer is likely the same...Dell does not want to have to have two versions of their motherboards manufactured and then maintain them. Of all the laptops with DDR3 memory, both Mac and Windows (the Alienware that I found), NONE offered a DDR2 version...likely for this reason. And none of the DDR2 Windows based laptops (that I found) offered another version with DDR3."*

I never said the average consumer needs more than 4GB so please, don't put words in my mouth. I said that people tend to look for higher numbers when it comes to technology, which is true, if the price is right. Sound anything close to saying "the average consumer needs more than 4GB" no? I thought not.

Actually, I believe Alienware and such do offer DDR2 models, as you stated, which is what I was saying. They still have DDR2 computers available for purchase; Apple does not. That was my point and you proved it. Thank you.

[MarioJP]

BGG001 said:

*"For the "average consumer", it won't matter as they can get a Mac with 4 GB of RAM by way of two 2 GB modules and not get hit with super outragious prices. It is generally the 4 GB modules that really have the ridiculous prices. And your "average consumer" does not likely need more than 4 GB.

As to why Apple does not do it, it would mean having a second version of a motherboard made that would support DDR2 and then having to support that second version of the motherboard. I could ask a similar question...why does Dell not offer their higher end consumer laptops (such as the XPS line) with DDR3 for those that want it? The answer is likely the same...Dell does not want to have to have two versions of their motherboards manufactured and then maintain them. Of all the laptops with DDR3 memory, both Mac and Windows (the Alienware that I found), NONE offered a DDR2 version...likely for this reason. And none of the DDR2 Windows based laptops (that I found) offered another version with DDR3."*

I never said the average consumer needs more than 4GB so please, don't put words in my mouth. I said that people tend to look for higher numbers when it comes to technology, which is true, if the price is right. Sound anything close to saying "the average consumer needs more than 4GB" no? I thought not.

Actually, I believe Alienware and such do offer DDR2 models, as you stated, which is what I was saying. They still have DDR2 computers available for purchase; Apple does not. That was my point and you proved it. Thank you.

if people go for higher numbers that is sad. DDR2 is not obsolete nor am in a rush of upgrading to ddr3. I am only going to upgrade when i have maxed out my ram and mb maxed out. Now as for laptops DDR3 is not even necessary because they are limited in cpu and gpu anyways. Its not like u going to be doing some serious crunching calculation. Plus the hard drives on these laptops are slow. But at the end you most likely see more ddr3 laptops than ddr2 because the price is going down for ddr3 so this wont be a debate anymore.

[smax013]

BGG001 said:

Actually, I believe Alienware and such do offer DDR2 models, as you stated, which is what I was saying. They still have DDR2 computers available for purchase; Apple does not. That was my point and you proved it. Thank you.

Yes...they offer a model with DDR2...but it is NOT the same computer that has the DDR3. In otherwords, they do NOT make two versions of the same computer, but one with DDR2 and one with DDR3...they are two completely different models.

In order for Apple to have a DDR2 system, they would have to make another version of their current models or add additional models. And either way, this adds another motherboard/set of hardware that they must provide support for. Thus, they made a BUSINESS decision that they did not want to offer such additional models...and you can make a CONSUMER decision that their computers are not for you.