Apple Comments on Microsoft's Laptop Hunter Ads

[Anuba]

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".

IMO the 15" is more overpriced that the 17" one due to the fact that for, what, $300(?) more you get the 8-hour battery and a 17" screen with 1920x1200 resolution. If she's gonna be working on the road she needs all the screen real estate she can get, high resolution is probably more important in those situations than at the home office. The 15" only has 1440x900 which is a little weak, on high-end PCs you can usually get 1680x1050 and even 1920x1200 on 15" screens.

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.

Yeah, I wouldn't wanna see the carbon footprint for Vista... one reason why it sucks so much power would be all these background processes that keep the hard disk spinning like mad. Search indexer, SuperFetch, Defrag, Defender, virtual memory... plus loads of GPU usage due to the Aero engine, which sets the fan spinning, which consumes even more power... OSX runs cooler and pretty much leave the hard drive alone.

 

[mr.sellars]

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.

Ok so even the Apple fans have the same thoughts as me lol. The battery life is good, the non-removable battery was the only other thing that had me scratching my head hey gotta make due since there is no choice there. But 8 hours is pretty good, I think my laptop is something along the lines of 6 and if I toss in a Blu-Ray disc forget it I'll be lucky to hit an hour.

PS. use multiquote, I'd like to warn you before an actual admin does...

Thanks for the advice wiki, I'm new posting here and wouldn't want to fall on anyone's bad side this soon.

IMO the 15" is more overpriced that the 17" one due to the fact that for, what, $300(?) more you get the 8-hour battery and a 17" screen with 1920x1200 resolution. If she's gonna be working on the road she needs all the screen real estate she can get, high resolution is probably more important in those situations than at the home office. The 15" only has 1440x900 which is a little weak, on high-end PCs you can usually get 1680x1050 and even 1920x1200 on 15" screens.

The resolution is something to consider. Also you are right when she's home she has a 19 wide screen to hook up to and her Mac Pro to work on so it really is just for on the road.

 

[Anuba]

Ok so even the Apple fans have the same thoughts as me lol.

Ha! That's probably the first time I've been called an Apple fan. I use PCs about 75-80% of the time, Mac 20-25%. Currently 100% PC because my desktop Mac is broken.

It's been 3 years since I got this Dell laptop, it's scheduled to be replaced this summer and I'm gonna try a MacBook Pro this time. I'm not sure it will like running Windows more than OS X but that's how we do things in my house so the Mac will just have to eat it and like it.

 

[Wikinerd]

Ok so even the Apple fans have the same thoughts as me lol. The battery life is good, the non-removable battery was the only other thing that had me scratching my head hey gotta make due since there is no choice there. But 8 hours is pretty good, I think my laptop is something along the lines of 6 and if I toss in a Blu-Ray disc forget it I'll be lucky to hit an hour.

Well imho, the Apple's battery life is quite accurate, or at least better than other manufacturers... My Macbook is supposed to last 5 hours, and it can still easily last 4 right now, 2 years from purchase, on non-"power saving" settings...

Thanks for the advice wiki, I'm new posting here and wouldn't want to fall on anyone's bad side this soon.

You're welcome. I used not to multiquote but I do now...

The resolution is something to consider. Also you are right when she's home she has a 19 wide screen to hook up to and her Mac Pro to work on so it really is just for on the road.

I've just compared a HP dv7t series with similar specs to a MBP 17", on a PC with a little lower res and with recovery discs, it's $1,412.99—~$1,386 cheaper... So it's a bit on the expensive side (well it's double, after all...), and I'd have went with the 2.66GHz 15", worth it, and portable...


Now the hard part is explaining all that to a girl...

Ha! That's probably the first time I've been called an Apple fan. I use PCs about 75-80% of the time, Mac 20-25%. Currently 100% PC because my desktop Mac is broken.

It's been 3 years since I got this Dell laptop, it's scheduled to be replaced this summer and I'm gonna try a MacBook Pro this time. I'm not sure it will like running Windows more than OS X but that's how we do things in my house so the Mac will just have to eat it and like it.

Well have fun. Just on a side note, make sure that if you plug in a display when running XP it can recognize the ext. display cuz there's no key like the other laptops (on other laptops it's fn+F5) to make the computer "look for displays"... Other than that the EFI might have a bit of trouble getting XP to hibernate rather than standby when you just flip the screen down... Apart from that I haven't had any problems with a notebook running XP..

 

[Wikinerd]

--post deleted by author.

 

[mr.sellars]

I've just compared a HP dv7t series with similar specs to a MBP 17", on a PC with a little lower res and with recovery discs, it's $1,412.99—~$1,386 cheaper... So it's a bit on the expensive side (well it's double, after all...), and I'd have went with the 2.66GHz 15", worth it, and portable...


Now the hard part is explaining all that to a girl...

I was trying to find the specs on mine to compare but apparently they don't make it anymore with the same hardware (no more blu ray etc.). But yeah full retail was roughly 1,300 on mine (I did get it new for 900 though, but I forgot it was on sale) so I am thinking you built close to the same machine. I'm lucky she gets all of this stuff from being with me for 6 years. It was when she asked me why hers would be so much more expensive then mine that I was at a loss.

You know Anuba the ability to use Windows on it is a selling point because I do some pc games, Warhammer Online mostly and some older games. So the ability for her to play those with me if she wants, if there aren't Apple versions available, is nice. I just told her not to surf the web while on the Windows side.

I am going to logout for the night but thanks for the conversation guys. You two were a big help, I learned some things and am going to just come to terms with the prices.

 

[Wikinerd]

IMO the 15" is more overpriced that the 17" one due to the fact that for, what, $300(?) more you get the 8-hour battery and a 17" screen with 1920x1200 resolution. If she's gonna be working on the road she needs all the screen real estate she can get, high resolution is probably more important in those situations than at the home office. The 15" only has 1440x900 which is a little weak, on high-end PCs you can usually get 1680x1050 and even 1920x1200 on 15" screens.

With all due respect, if she's going "on the road" a 17" will be a pain in the *** because of the weight and size of that thing... Anything higher than 14" is already considered as bulky. 17"? Gargantuan..

Yeah, I wouldn't wanna see the carbon footprint for Vista... one reason why it sucks so much power would be all these background processes that keep the hard disk spinning like mad. Search indexer, SuperFetch, Defrag, Defender, virtual memory... plus loads of GPU usage due to the Aero engine, which sets the fan spinning, which consumes even more power... OSX runs cooler and pretty much leave the hard drive alone.

Partly because these technologies are new to Microsoft while Apple had around 9 years now to streamline them (Such as Quartz—XP's GDI graphics engine was modeled after OS9's QuickDraw, while OS X's Quartz debuted in 1999, Vista's Avalon had just been introduced.)... As well as incorporate other new stuff to go along with them.. (As for the Search Indexer, Defrag, etc, can be solved by just implementing a better disk formatting such as Sun's XFS..)

 

[Anuba]

Well have fun. Just on a side note, make sure that if you plug in a display when running XP it can recognize the ext. display cuz there's no key like the other laptops (on other laptops it's fn+F5) to make the computer "look for displays"... Other than that the EFI might have a bit of trouble getting XP to hibernate rather than standby when you just flip the screen down... Apart from that I haven't had any problems with a notebook running XP..

I never use an external screen (and it's kind of redundant when you have a 1920x1200 right on the laptop) so I could live with that, although I won't be using XP or Vista, I'm gonna install the Windows 7 release candidate and use it until Se7en is out. They've revamped the multi-display setup for Win7, that stuff works much better now. In Vista you have to use NVidia's control panel for some things like rotating the image, but you can do all that stuff in Se7en's display settings.

I have a feeling there will be problems with sleep/hibernation, though. I use the 'hybrid sleep' mode in Vista.

Partly because these technologies are new to Microsoft while Apple had around 9 years now to streamline them (Such as Quartz—XP's GDI graphics engine was modeled after OS9's QuickDraw, while OS X's Quartz debuted in 1999, Vista's Avalon had just been introduced.)...

Sure. On the other hand, Microsoft had six years to develop and optimize their equivalent of Quartz. They could've done a better job. It was quite the leap, going from a graphics engine that hadn't been changed since 1995, to one that required the resources of a computer from 2015 to run smoothly.

 

[Chappers]

I think my laptop is something along the lines of 6 and if I toss in a Blu-Ray disc forget it I'll be lucky to hit an hour.

Is that true - it seems a bit of a waste of time trying to watch a BR film on the road if your battery runs out.

Just curious. Which laptop do you have?

 

[mr.sellars]

Is that true - it seems a bit of a waste of time trying to watch a BR film on the road if your battery runs out.

Just curious. Which laptop do you have?

Well it is under 2 hours so you can make it through a movie but not much else. It's an HP DV7-1175nr. Also I think the battery lasts longer with a regular dvd by about 15 or 20 minutes. The BR playback wasn't my reason for buying so that hasn't affected me much.

 

[Wikinerd]

You don't think a college student knows what a torrent is? Really? Have you not read the news lately?

Just because someone is educated does not mean they know what a torrent is. I personally know some people in University who asked me what a torrent file is on numerous occasions

Did you read what I quoted? I said "can" and "has" happened. Did I say it's on the same level of magnitude? No.

Of course it's not, because the market share is massively different, and therefore OS X isn't targeted anywhere near as much. It doesn't mean it's not possible.

If you're saying that Market Share is directly correlated with number of malware, then Apple's computers should be getting at least 7% of all malware... Which would be around 70 thousand pieces of malware out there. How many do we have right now? One. And that one's not serious either...

You know Anuba the ability to use Windows on it is a selling point because I do some pc games, Warhammer Online mostly and some older games. So the ability for her to play those with me if she wants, if there aren't Apple versions available, is nice. I just told her not to surf the web while on the Windows side.

That argument only remains plausible because of Microsoft's business practices—using propriety systems like Direct X instead of OpenGL... Now if only we can get enough developers to switch..

Oh, and, by the way, remember to wait for the next revision... Only buy right after the revision that way it won't be outdated as quickly. You can check in the buyer's guide tab at the top.(Top right, beneath the search bar, there's "Mac Rumors, Page 2, iPhone, Buyer's Guide, Guides, Forums")

 

[Chappers]

Can't ever expect someone on an Apple fansite to admit the truth no matter what.

When you were proved wrong over iLife you never admitted it.

You twisted and turned creating new parameters to your original argument that iWeb was useless - I proved to you that you didn't need MobileMe (after you spread so much FUD on that matter), that there were forums dedicated to it and that the sites could look quite different with a little imagination. So desperate to win an argument - you said the iWebsite had to be "respectable" - now that is desperate and you lost.

iWebsite that looks quite different http://www.skittlers.co.uk/skittlers-Liquor-and-Poker/Home.html

Garageband - similar problem - you said no one uses it - again - I showed you user groups. You changed the parameters - and demanded professionals that are using it. I showed you that too. But surprise surprise you introduced that "respectable" clause again in a vain attempt to win the argument.
I won't bother to list them all again (except Radiohead). You lost that too.

You were also wrong with your FUD spreading over Apple customer service and quality. You were proved wrong but continue to spread FUD.

Any truth you do mention such as cost and BR is lost in those rants that seem to be deleted more frequently these days.

As for jobs - what is yours? I tell you mine first because you seem a little shy. I'm a Biochemist. I currently teach at in International school.

 

[Wikinerd]

You twisted and turned creating new parameters to your original argument that iWeb was useless - I proved to you that you didn't need MobileMe (after you spread so much FUD on that matter), that there were forums dedicated to it and that the sites could look quite different with a little imagination. So desperate to win an argument - you said the iWebsite had to be "respectable" - now that is desperate and you lost.

iWebsite that looks quite different http://www.skittlers.co.uk/skittlers-Liquor-and-Poker/Home.html

Speaking of iWeb, I would be really happy if Apple made a CMS that's so modular and stylish that you get a website that looks nice like iWeb's but can be dynamically updated.

 

[djellison]

Apple is one of the few who maintains quality

Is that the quality of my partners Macbook palm rest which has shed plastic chunks twice ( it now needs its third palmrest ), or the quality of my MB's screen which is worse than a £300 netbook?

Don't kid yourself. They might be pretty - but in terms of components and build quality - they're no better than anyone else.

 

[vipergts2207]

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.

I guess it's just surprising that grown people have such sad lives that they spend free time coming on a forum just to bash something. I remember doing that when I was in middle school. I made an account on the Brass Eagle forums so I could tell people how much their paintball guns sucked. I just feel sorry for mosx not having anything better to do lol. Seriously lol. It's one thing to debate something and give your opinion, but another to just come here saying "Ahh Mac and OSX suck! Rarr! I'm the end all be all of knowledge and you're wrong! Fear me and obey!" He is stating tons of opinions as if they're fact.

If you're saying that Market Share is directly correlated with number of malware, then Apple's computers should be getting at least 7% of all malware... Which would be around 70 thousand pieces of malware out there. How many do we have right now? One. And that one's not serious either...

Market share obviously somehow relates to the amount of malware, however did the poster say it was a linear relationship? Perhaps it's exponential. If there's only 10 devices running a certain piece of software then a person creating malware won't waste their time. However, if there are 10 million devices running a certain piece of software you're going to have a lot of malware creators very interested. That's just common sense. Now another obvious factor is how easy it is to create the malware and get it to work.

 

[Chappers]

Is that the quality of my partners Macbook palm rest which has shed plastic chunks twice ( it now needs its third palmrest ), or the quality of my MB's screen which is worse than a £300 netbook?

Don't kid yourself. They might be pretty - but in terms of components and build quality - they're no better than anyone else.

Of course these problems shouldn't happen, but that still doesn't alter the fact that Apple leads all other computer makes by some distance on build quality and customer support.
Dell scores 10% lower than Apple. And that's independent research for you.

If you think Apple is bad - how bad is HP - world leading supplier but 25% of its customers are not impressed with build quality or customer service.

http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=26

 

[awmazz]

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.

Yes, before OS X. System 7.5 when Windows 95 was released. But you are correct that OS 9 didn't have pre-emptive multitasking either.

I dare say that your use of words like pre-emptive multitasking puts you in a whole different ballpark to the friend I mentioned who asked "can you connect to the internet with a Mac?" and used that as a reason to buy a PC clone, and who I believe represented the majority of consumer computer buyers at the time. The gazillion dollar Windows 95 advertising campaign using the Stones' Start Me Up jingle was aimed directly at these people who had never bought any computer before, based on how easy MS' new! and unique! and innovative! GUI has made computers usable for everyone now - just click the Start button and you too can use a computer now without having to learn complicated computer language!

 

[djellison]

If you think Apple is bad - how bad is HP

I have had three Apple laptops. ALL have had some build quality issues of one sort or another.

We have dozens of IBM's and HP's at work. NONE have had issues like my Apple laptops.

And NONE of them have a screen with a viewing angle as crap as a new Macbook.

 

[elppa]

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.

You've certainly picked out the only big advantage 95 and later had over the Mac. But as Windows 95, 98, ME etc. were DOS based general stability was certainly no better than Mac OS 8, Mac OS 9 etc. Whilst the Mac could run into to extension issues, DOS based Windows machines weren't immune to the occasional BSOD or registry issue either. USB plug and play was generally better in OS 9 than 98 and ME.

Apple were certainly slow to the party in offering pre-emptive multi-tasking and protected memory but they weren't giving much away in other areas. This despite the fact Apple was losing money and market share, crippled by bad management and lacked any real strategic direction. Both Windows and the Mac were far from great in the 90s.

The UNIX underpinnings of OS X compare with the NT underpinnings of Windows. But the first time Microsoft made NT available to consumers was... October 2001. Seven earlier after Apple had begun there multi year transition to Mac OS X and a month earlier they'd shipped a major update (10.1) which had dramatically improved performance.

Now we could pick apart the dates. You could argue that Mac OS X wasn't quite ready for prime time in 2001 and you'd be right. But Windows XP, despite introducing a very good kernel, also introduced compatibility issues with legacy DOS applications. More crucially it had a lax approach to security, which would come back to haunt Microsoft as more and more of its customers moved online.

If we are going to talk about architecture, it is worth pointing out in 2001 Apple introduced a sophisticated 2D graphical compositing engine capable of alpha-transparency, anti-aliasing, drop shadows etc. which allowed them to build Aqua. Windows wasn't even in the same ballpark until Vista shipped (2007) with Aero. And even then performance was an issue with Aero, even though Microsoft had far more powerful hardware to code for in 2007 than the hardware Apple had Aqua running smoothly on in the early part of the decade.

OS X wasn't just competitive, it surpassed Windows in a number of areas. Despite overwhelming market share, huge profits, huge cash reserves and a huge R&D budget, Microsoft have only ever had a 6 year window where there OS has had better foundations than Apple's (1995-2001). By the time OS X was mature with Panther in 2003, their technical lead had been whittled away.

I don't have to prove or validate anything to a couple of posters on a forum that can't seem to accept the fact that Macs are low end machines sold at high end prices.

I'll won't accept that on current evidence. Its simple not true.

 

[tubbymac]

If we are going to talk about architecture, it is worth pointing out in 2001 Apple introduced a sophisticated 2D graphical compositing engine capable of alpha-transparency, anti-aliasing, drop shadows etc. which allowed them to build Aqua. Windows wasn't even in the same ballpark until Vista shipped (2007) with Aero.

OS X wasn't just competitive, it surpassed Windows in a number of areas. Despite overwhelming market share, huge profits, huge cash reserves and a huge R&D budget, Microsoft have only ever had a 6 year window where there OS has had better foundations than Apple's (1995-2001). By the time OS X was mature with Panther in 2003, their technical lead had been whittled away.

I agree with all your points. I was talking about the Windows 95 time frame though, so when I was referring to architecture, it was in relation to OS7.5 as awmazz pointed out. By 2001 the computing landscape had changed considerably. The Apple 2D compositing architecture was awesome, no doubt, and the integration with the desktop was stellar.

Microsoft blew the advantage they had in the dark days of Apple right before Steve Jobs returned. Windows 95 leapfrogged OS7.5 in technical merit, even given it's horrid and often blue screens of death, total lack of security, and all it's other flaws. It sold like hotcakes and rightly so. At the time, even with it's considerable flaws, it trounced the competition. But OSX leapfrogged Vista. Panther was getting quite clean and building off it's strong unix core. Vista on the other hand was incredibly immature, rushed, and drab. It's come a long way since then, but as the netbook space has proven, no amount of dressing up Vista can hide the fact it was so bloated that people to this very day still prefer XP or OSX on netbooks over Vista.

 

[mosx]

I'll won't accept that on current evidence. Its simple not true.

How is it not true?

A $1,299 notebook PC will have a higher resolution screen than any of the 15.4" MacBook Pros. It will come with features that are considered standard in the PC world. Features like blu-ray, HDMI, eSATA, built-in card readers, fingerprint readers, more than 2 USB ports, full size ExpressCard, real-time Dolby Digital encoding, and at least 1GB of video memory with a GPU well above the 9600M GT in the Macs, among many other things. None of those things are currently available on any Apple notebook.

Look at desktops. For around $800 you can easily build a PC thats more powerful than the Mac Pro in every day use and just about everything else other than encoding/rendering video or applying affects in Photoshop (though thats debatable since Photoshop 64 is only available on Windows). Plus that PC will have features that are not available on a Mac, like HDMI, built-in card readers, blu-ray, etc.

Theres a lot of things Windows can do that OS X cannot. Such as proper hardware video acceleration. OS X has minor support for it in the form of HWMC and iDCT support for MPEG-2 and similar features for H.264. But in Windows you have the GPU doing all of the work. Windows also has proper multi-display support, better audio overall audio support, and quite a few others that OS X just simply does not support. Thanks to 3rd party software, Windows can literally do everything you would ever need it to do at this point in time. You just can't say that about OS X because of the lack of 3rd party software, and Apple not opening up their video APIs to others as well as Apple's lackluster OpenGL and USB support.

 

[AidenShaw]

I've always thought gaming "laptops" were funny anyway, even before I got more into Macs. A 9 pound 2" plastic brick is more a folding desktop than a laptop. If I'm going to game I'll either do it on a console or build a cheap tower. I'm not going to try to use a laptop for it.

But to each their own, I guess.

Yes, to each his own is key in the Windows world.

In the Apple world, it's here are the three models that Steve likes.

...all these background processes that keep the hard disk spinning like mad. ... Defrag, Defender, virtual memory... plus loads of GPU usage due to the Aero engine, which sets the fan spinning, which consumes even more power... OSX runs cooler and pretty much leave the hard drive alone.

Defrag is scheduled for 01:00 in the morning once a week - not a constant background task.

What do you mean by "virtual memory"? Both NT and OSX run with virtual memory at all times... And both do GPU compositing of screen elements.

For what it's worth, Anandtech did a comparison of battery life with the two systems (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p=13), and didn't come up with any conclusive explanation of the difference in life. They also saw an odd result that Vista on the X300 got better battery life than Vista on the MBA, despite the battery on the X300 being 30% smaller than the MBA.

If I belonged to the tin foil hat club, I'd assume that Apple has sabotaged hasn't optimized the power management drivers in Boot Camp, so that "identical" comparisions favor OSX. I'd also question the use of Itunes and QuickTime on the Vista tests - since those a well known to be pigs on Windows.

And if people still prefer XP over Vista, why does Vista have well over 10x as many users now than there are Mac users in total?

Simple, Microsoft has 10x the market share of Apple.

 

[-hh]

-hh And this is OS-specific ... how?

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...

But it is equally "much faster" if you use a USB card reader, too.

Thus, as soon as you eliminate the non-OS related bottleneck, problem solved.

... (which almost every single PC laptop has even from 2 years ago)

And yet my Thinkpad is apparently one of those exceptions? Even so, it leaves us in the quandary where due to technology change, laptop owners are going to have to be carrying both a built-in adaptor as well as an external.

For example, digital cameras haven't standardized on SDHC...its pretty much just the consumer Point-n-Shoot. If you have a higher end dSLR (or your dSLR is 2+ years old), they still use Compact Flash.

So where's the CF slot on my Thinkpad?
Missing.

So I have to carry an adaptor anyway.

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

Correct...which is why I asked why this problem is being blamed on the OS.

Apparently, the answer is that SD is the only card slot anyone ever needs, so all computers should have one built in...?

The fallacy here is that it might be the only one that you need, but all of those "16 in 1" adaptors show us that there's lots of other formats.

sandisk is the worst garbage out there.

I agree. However, when someone goes to Rob Golbraith's website to spot-check my comment of 40MB/sec, its easy to find.

on some laptops with express card you can just get an SDHC to express 34 reader and upgrade it that way.

And some laptops ... including Windows ones ... don't have EC slots, yet we then complain that the macbook isn't any different.

the macbook has neither...

There's been plenty of complaints for what the Macbook has lacking. We can debate the MacBook Pro "upsell" until the cows come home.

In the meantime, a USB port and $6 for a card reader promptly solves the "slow camera I/O" that was being blamed as an OS problem.

Plus that external reader is easily/cheaply replaced when the flash card standards change yet again...and you know that they will.


-hh

 

[polaris20]

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

my point is that Sager is no use to me whatsoever, and would be more a hindrance than useful. Apple doesn't make laptops like that because that's not the market they want to be in.

That's why choice is great. You buy your Sager, I'll keep my Mac. It's like getting mad at the guy who bought a 4-door GTI hatchback when he could have gotten a V8 Camero for the same price.

 

[OllyW]

Simple, Microsoft has 10x the market share of Apple.

It's actually a lot higher than that.