JHern wrote:and keep in mind that with a Mac, you get the very best components and quality
Sorry, you're wrong. Apples specs are below
those of high end PC laptops, and they're using the same
CPU, RAM, hard drives, I/O controllers, network adapters, video chips, motherboard chispets, you name it...IT'S THE SAME HARDWARE
, Apple just uses slower bits than the high end PC laptops use. They don't use the higher speeds of the Core 2 CPU line (they're not even using the new i series CPUs yet, and their roadmap shows they'll be using Core 2 chips through at least mid 2010), they're using DDR2-1066 ram when faster RAM is available at nominal additional cost (less than $10 per 2 gigs at RETAIL, no less wholesale), they use smaller hard drives (all respectable higher end PC laptops have 500GB or more hard drives if they're not using SSDs, the MacBook Pro maxes out at what, 250GB?), they're using the mid-range video chipset in the GeForce lineup, which in some of their models is actually 2 or 3 generations behind the current models...and so on.
JHern wrote:The display itself is worth about $600-700 alone (super high quality, high contrast, brilliant color, etc.).
Here you show your ignorance of the computer industry. Did you know there are only TWO
manufacturers of LCD panels for computers, and that Apple uses the same panel as Sony, several Dells, various midrange LCD monitors for desktops and even a few budget brands?
What differs is the backlighting, color control and accelleration bits - and Apple actually doesn't rate the highest on those, Viewsonic usually tops the market in speed and several Gateway monitors have ranked higher than Apple displays on color control.
So what you're saying is that if Apple's screen is "worth" about $600-700 (which it's not, the panel is about $150 and the backlighting and other hardware is about $150-200), then Apple lacks the purchasing power to even come close to competing with their competitors that sell the same monitor.
JHern wrote: The keyboard is the coolest, most responsive and accurate thing I've ever touched (probably worth $200 by itself).
A keyboad worth $200? See, this is where Mac zealotry really starts to lose it's shine with me...a keyboard is a $50 item, tops (less on a laptop). If you're willing to pay 4 times that for the same keyboard everyone's copied these days, you really should just give me the money instead. You'll get just as much out of it.
JHern wrote:The disc drive does everything, even wipes my ass.
It's just a slot-loading DVD-RW. It's made by Pioneer, not Apple.
JHern wrote:Powerful and high quality/low maintenance wifi, bluetooth, audio, video, and other capabilities abound.
The wifi chipset is a Broadcomm BCM4322 on most models, which is common throughout the industry (many $300 netbooks use the same wifi chipset as my sister's Macbook Pro).
The bluetooth is also a generic chipset, though I'll admit I don't know whose because I could give shit zero about bluetooth.
The audio is also generic, using one of the chipsets recommended by Intel for any motherboard using the 965/ICHx series chipsets - most commonly a Yamaha, Realtek or Via audio chip but I see that Apple has also used chipsets by Texas Instruments and SigmaTel.
The video chip in the current Macbook Pro is a GeForce 9400 - NOT EVEN MIDRANGE
in the 9000 series GeForce lineup, it's actually one of the budget GPUs, and isn't considered "game-worthy". It's more commonly seen on the PC side in the low-end to mid-range office laptops.
JHern wrote:The processor slightly slower, memory smaller, and hard drive space diminished. But that gets it down to $1000-ish (plus or minus a couple hundred depending on options). And it will still be a far better machine than any PC laptop. Period.
Seriously, do you hear youself? You're saying that your PC based laptop is better than any PC based laptop, and the only concrete
claims you have that carry any weight are that the case is nice and the touchpad is good.
JHern wrote:Every time I see somebody with a PC laptop any more I feel kind of embarrassed for them.
Every time I see some Mac zealot going off like they're using some God-box, when they're just using a PC with a chip that lets the OS/X install CD recognize it as "Apple branded hardware", I'm more than kind of embarassed for them.
JHern wrote:These are such shabby, clunky, noisy pieces of garbage.
The only thing that could possibly be considered "shabby" when comparing a PC laptop to an Apple is the housing, and several PC laptop manufacturers are using aluminum and magnesium housings now, so that's rapidly becoming a non-issue. Most PC laptops are smaller and lighter than MacBooks, so unless you're drooling all over your MacBook Fitsinamanillaenvelope, that point is utterly moot. PCs and Macs use the same fans for cooling - because they're cooling the same hardware
, they use the same hard drives and the same optical drives...where exactly do you perceive the extra noise to be coming from?
While we're on the subject of comparing the two, what about those apple Batteries? Y'know, the ones that swelled up and started popping? Sure, Dell got bad press for them too, but Dell at least replaced them rather than screwing their customers over for the better part of a year denying there was anything wrong.
JHern wrote:People who think PCs and Macs are at all comparable have absolutely no ground to stand on.
and all the other Mac Zealots have absolutely no ground to stand on, and you're just running your mouth so you can feel smugly superior about having blown several thousand dollars on the same hardware that comes in a $800 PC laptop.
Does Windows suck? Sure, but there are actually games released for it, so it's what goes on my gaming PC (my netbook runs linux). Is Mac OS/X superior to Linux? Vaguely in terms of usability and simplicity, if you lack the technical compotence to be able to understand Linux.
Don't even pretend for an instant OS/X doesn't have problems, either.
For all your nattering about how great the Airport wifi and bluetooth stuff works, why did so many people have Leopard utterly break their functionality?
Why did so many OS/X users have trouble even getting Leopard to install?
Why did so many OS/X users have Leopard utterly hose their data when they did something so simple as copy a file from one partition to another?
Why did so many OS/X users start getting Blue Screens and crashes after installing Leopard (or even on their new Leopard based Apple systems)?
Why did Leopard cause so many graphics glitches and locks when using more of the capabilities of the video chipsets to to hardware rendering of the UI?
If OS/X is so secure, why did Leopard have such a severe bug at release that the firewall would be turned completely off
by default? Why did it prevent so many legitimate third-party apps from accessing the internet (including Firefox and World of Warcraft) when it was
enabled? Hardly the "trouble free" firewall Apple touts.
JHern wrote:Anyways, enough on this topic for me. It is pointless to argue, since it is a rather obvious thing.
It's rather obvious that you have only a cursory understanding of the inner workings of a computer, so it may seem obvious to you that your Ford Pinto is better than my Ford Pinto, but when it all comes down to dust you're doing nothing but spewing mindless, uninformed zealotry and in the end, we're both just driving Ford Pintos with different colors of paint.
(sorry to continue the derailment of this thread, OP, but mac zealots really need to be informed sometimes)
I threw Wizards before they were cool.