Is the lower back surgery included, or is that optional? 11.5 pounds. That'd be fun on an airplane tray.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Comments on Microsoft's Laptop Hunter Ads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is the lower back surgery included, or is that optional? 11.5 pounds. That'd be fun on an airplane tray.
I'm looking at an Antec P180 mini just for the size not the need to move it.
I could understand if it was a mobile workstation that was going to be used for the fact that it is a mobile workstation. The larger Latitudes and Precision laptops come to mind. It just seems extravagant for just gaming.
None of the above.
People are gonna laugh at him because he's infertile after roasting his nuts all day. And I'm not talking about chestnuts over an open fire.
no, the OP said you dont need usb ports or something (or FW or esata or anything and that the 2x usb ports on the macbook were fine)
im saying, it takes too damn long to copy files from SDHC through the camera to USB and its MUCH faster if you have an SDHC reader in your laptop (which almost every single PC laptop has even from 2 years ago)
even OSX can see the SDHC reader in the dell mini 9 without any tweaking or system drivers.
USB can handle 480mbps theoretical, whats slowing it down is the camera, and what slows down an SDHC reader is the controller, however the controller is still faster than any camera
sandisk is the worst garbage out there. along side bose, and monster cable
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2094715,00.asp
the "Sandisk Extreme III" is slower than a cheap value class 2 kingston card, THATS REDICULOUS as it costs what? 5x the price? you dont always get what you pay for, and look at the diff between Class 6 and Class 2 sandisk cards, its like the SAME FREAKING CARD!
on some laptops with express card you can just get an SDHC to express 34 reader and upgrade it that way.
with my laptop i have both an SDHC (as well as a 6in1 reader) AND an express34 slot.
the macbook has neither an SDHC, an express card, firewire, HDMI with audio (HDCP support) nor an eSATA slot. to me thats not that great of a deal especially for $1300. tons of $800 has all of the above and MORE.
let me guess, you game playing chess in bed with your trackpad right?
semi-serious to casual gamers game sitting at a desk or table with a mouse, they dont put their computers on their laps.
if you really want to roast your nuts go buy a macbookair and do some cpu intensive apps.
your not carrying it through a 20 day jungle marathon, you carry it to your car from your desk, then you carry it to inside the stadium where the lan party is (1 trip).
my gaming desktop weighs 42lbs + 24" LCd at 22lbs + KB/mouse/cables and acc ~8lbs = 72lbs
im sure 72lbs will do more damage than 11lbs when carrying the rig(s) 100m MAX
Funny thing is I already have a Macbook Air, see my sig
It's actually not that bad. Then again I use it as a secondary computer for rather mild tasks so I avoid the nuts in the oven dilemma altogether.I guess I'm still of the mindset that laptops should be portable machines you'd like to use on your lap, on a sofa, or whatnot. I'm still getting used to the idea of the laptop as a desktop replacement.
I've tried gaming on a laptop before and it just gets too hot. Whether it's a Macbook Pro, or a gaming PC laptop, I can't tolerate the heat. But I guess it would be useful if you want to lug the machine around to LAN parties. As you said 10 lbs versus 72 lbs for a desktop is a huge difference. But if you're not going to a lot of LAN parties, a desktop (or even a console) would be a better choice imho.
I agree. Around the turn of the century, a friend who was planning to buy a new computer asked me if my Mac could connect to the internet. WTF? The general perception was that only Windows PCs could be compatible with the general computing world (ergo including the internet, email etc). Simply put, if you didn't have a Windows PC you couldn't do anything.
For those proclaiming Apple started the Mac vs PC battle with their "I'm a Mac' campaign, it was simply a counter to the previous decade of the misleadingly false "only PC - no alternatives" insidious campaigns Microsoft and PC clone makers waged. An example is Windows 95 itself, when launched it was like NEW! NEVER BEFORE SEEN! CHANGES COMPUTING FOREVER! NOW YOU CAN DO THIS AND THIS! And most people who had never bought a computer before believed it. While Mac users looked on bemused at the false claims and the cheap-looking copy of the OS they'd already been using for years.
Personal Computer is the IBM trademark name for their range of mini computers = IBM PC. Apple's trademark name for their range is Macintosh. Ergo Macs were not and never will be PCs. Even if the term has become generic in most peoples' minds like 'Xerox', it's still like claiming an Epson photocopier is a Xerox.
Wasn't that before OSX? Somebody correct me if my time line is off.
If I remember, wasn't it OS9 back then? If so I'd argue that yeah, the world really hadn't seen that before because the cooperative multitasking from the OS9 days was complete and utter garbage. Windows 95 had real pre-emptive multitasking, which is really a huge difference.
I dismissed Apple back then because OS9 was junk. I know I've probably upset a whole slew of Apple fanboys by saying that, but really until OSX came along I didn't think Apple's OS could hold a candle to Windows. Sure, it looked better. Heaps better. But the architecture wasn't even in the same ballpark. With OSX it became competitive.
Ah, the old "if you don't like it, why don't you go away?" retort, the bane of message boards everywhere. The purpose of a forum is, you know, debate, and in order to have any sort of meaningful debate you need participants with different points of view. Surely you can't mean that a forum is supposed to be some sort of protected bubble of total conformism where everyone shares the same opinion.
I wonder what TV would be like if only one point of view was allowed. Welcome to Hannity and Colmes! Tonight, Hannity says "if you hate republicans so much, what are you doing on FOX?", Colmes walks off, and then you can watch Hannity twiddling his thumbs for 59 minutes.
I love the show Lost. If I go on a forum to talk about the show, I'll gladly listen to people who think the show sucks. They're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change theirs, but nevertheless it's interesting to read criticism, whether valid or not.
Seriously, "if you don't like it, go away" belongs in the sandbox along with "is not! / is too!". Let people from all walks say whatever the hell they want to say, as long as they're not breaking the forum rules. PC fans will come here... and Supersite for Windows is chock full of Mac fans... that's how it works.
Ok this is something I have been pondering. I get the reason for higher price with a MacPro desktop (better cpu etc.). But when it comes to the laptops I just bought a few months ago an HP DV7 17" display, 4gb ram, blu-ray with dvd burner, hdmi with audio, eSata, 250gb hd, intel dual core, and Nvidia graphics card (don't remember the number) for 900. Now I am shopping for a laptop for my gf to use for work when she's out of the office (Retouching, corrections not full scale dedicated work) so she would really prefer the 17" because it's easier on here eyes when doing the photo retouching and showing work to clients. Now I am a Network tech (just to say I am computer literate) and I can't figure out why the cheapest 17" mac is 2,800. I mean if it were say 1,000 more then my laptop was I could easily say the same thing as the desktop better graphics card, faster cpu, the os, ddr3 ram etc.. But I don't get how all of those things could justify an almost 2,000 increase over my HP. As you can tell I don't hate macs or love pc's they're just tools to me that serve different purposes so I am not biased in my questioning here. Can any of you explain it?
Out of the office? Less power? Not graphic designer?
Go for the "15... For the price, portability, and [more than enough] power. She will get tired of the "15 quick because it may feel clumsy, and heavy—seriously. Esp. for "out of the office"....
(the "15 suggestion applies even when you buy a PC... the "17 doesn't really help if you're using it in more than one place..)
Compaq [and all clones] vs IBM?
She's an Art Director and freelances on the side. So she wants something for when she is freelancing and has to make changes to something on the fly for a client (so away from the home office, on site etc..)
I'd still go for the "15... That's just me... (Well I'm running CS4 apps—as in quite a few at a time, Dw, Ps, Fl are the ones I have open right now...—On a MacBook 2 generations ago.. So I'm guessing power won't be a problem... PS. I also have iTunes, Transmission, Camino, Safari, and Candybar open, little visible lag...)
Most of the people using the "17's have them chained to their offices... As "desktop replacement"... They sometimes need the "17 for displaying the graphics, but I doubt that's always necessary... and you can always use an ext. monitor if you want.
(I have a 20" iMac, 24" Hackint0sh, and a 13" MacBook, and the 13" is already fine....)
No, but Commodore did go after Apple, directly. I remember when I was much younger, when I had a 64, that I also managed to get an apple trinket on a string that was mostly "eaten". I believe it was part of the "I Adore My 64" campaign.
A Mac would probably serve her well since it runs both Windows and OS X. You never know if the client uses PC or Mac and even though graphic design software like Photoshop or Illustrator is cross-platform, sometimes there are little annoyances like fonts not being rendered the same way, etc. It's good to have both systems on one box when you're a freelancer.
As to explaining the price difference, well... about 1/3 of the difference is the aluminium case, backlit keys, the glass trackpad, more costs for R&D, development of OSX and bundled software like iLife... the remaining 2/3 of the difference simply boils down to this: They want more of your money. No particular reason, they just want it.
It's not the power it really is just easier on her eyes to do the work on the 17 but the 15 seems to be a better deal, and what we will probably end up with.
But regardless I was hoping the more Mac hardcore could tell me if they knew the reason for that high of a price over a comparable windows based laptop. Or hey even why it's 800 more for a larger hd, 2 more gigs of ram and 2 inches. That's the price of my laptop on top of a base 15 lol.
Upgrades from the vendor tend to be ridiculously overpriced compared to what you can install yourself with just a Phillips screwdriver and enough confidence to read a manual.
Anuba did touch on that the majority of the mark up on Apple's computers are for, who would have guessed it, profit.
If you're looking at a 15/17" screen you'd more than likely be better served by a non-Apple laptop. There are many more budget conscious options.
Oh yeah I have no mac problems and that IS what we will be getting I was just suffering from sticker shock. I totally love the honesty in the second part of what you said. At least I know I'm not misunderstanding any specs hahaha
Trust me if I could get the 17 with less ram and whatnot to make it cheaper I would be all for it. I have no issues with reading and doing it's how I make a living. That's why the 15 ends up being the better deal because I can get the base for 2K and install the ram upgrade from Kingston for 120 and have everything from the 17 except those 2 inches of screen.
And of course they are out for profit, they aren't in business to make computers they are doing it to make money just like all companies. But this is a thread discussing Microsoft attacking the price of an Apple Laptop and Apple's response. I suppose if Apple responded with "We just want as much of your money as possible and you're still paying so tough" I probably wouldn't be posting lol.
Yeah I know... I'm getting the same machine later this year and I scratched my head for a long time, looking at the sticker. There's no use in scrutinizing the specs to see if you've missed something... it's a PC with NVidia and Intel parts, and probably a Samsung or LG screen. Pretty high-end but not spectacular. Great battery life though... very hard to find on 17" PCs notebooks.
Go with the 15" and get a nice cinema display to connect it to in the office. That way she has dual screens and hence more screen real estate for about the same price as the 17".
I wouldn't go as far as to say that Anuba is a person arguing the other side, but he's right this time. It's pure profit; Apple is one of the few who maintains quality instead of the who-can-make-this-for-the-lowest-priceand they can sustainably do so by making a profit.
PS. use multiquote, I'd like to warn you before an actual admin does...
Apple's laptops do have he highest usage time per watt ratings that I have seen. In addition I've talked to a few hackbook owners that have reported an increase in usage time over Windows by running OS X on their hardware.
I've found Vista quite usable even in its Power Saving mode. I don't have much experience on how much of an improvement over the Balanced profile or XP is on a laptop though.