That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.. There are plenty of people who "switch" because of some perception of 'cool' or 'luxury' or whatever. They are not likely to be "Apple fans" before ever using any of the products..
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 Tweaks Online Store With 'Compare Macs' Feature, Collapsible Configuration Sections
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.. There are plenty of people who "switch" because of some perception of 'cool' or 'luxury' or whatever. They are not likely to be "Apple fans" before ever using any of the products..
And they are likely to be disappointed if the only reason they switch was "cool" or "luxury". Buying things doesn't make one cool and there's "luxury" (whatever that means for computers... seriously, there's no gold plated trims or diamonds anywhere to be found here...) elsewhere.
I'd call it trying to justify your purchase more than anything. At least try to come up with something useful, not just some vain excuse.
I know what HTML 5 is and what state it is in. I have to because I am one of the W3C group members; Rest assured. You all here use my work
Right. It's about using HTML5 when there's no need for it. About making a statement as W3C group member. Use it right, or stay away from it. Don't add to false assumptions [that you need HTML5 for this].
Now all you need is cross-site comparison so all the PC fans can pull up Dell and Sony systems to say how their Windows boxes are 'better'.
And people who are talking about comparable Dells and other PCsthey might be similarly featured, but people who want Macs aren't buying them because, well, they aren't Macs. They're standard Windows boxes, and people who don't want that won't buy that. I should have known someone on here would have mentioned Windows PCs. Every thread about new Mac features or Apple's store seems to have someone saying something about how much better value PCs are.
And people who are talking about comparable Dells and other PCsthey might be similarly featured, but people who want Macs aren't buying them because, well, they aren't Macs. They're standard Windows boxes, and people who don't want that won't buy that. I should have known someone on here would have mentioned Windows PCs. Every thread about new Mac features or Apple's store seems to have someone saying something about how much better value PCs are.
cool.
on a side note, I just did the comparison between a few macs and realized something. There is very very little change in specs from summer 2008 and summer 2010.
my mid-2008 white macbook: 13", 2.4GHz Intel core 2 duo, 2GB ram, 250 GB drive, superdrive 8x, 802.11n built-in airport, standard connectors, $1199
current macbook pro: 13", 2.4GHz Intel core 2 duo, 4GB ram, 250GB drive, superdrive 8x, 802.11n built-in airport, standard connectors, $1199
Apart from ram (which I can add on my own for very little overhead) and cosmetic changes like AL body and backlit keyboard (which doesnt necessarily warrant an upgrade), there are hardly any changes for the last two years.
Coming from Apple, which is know for its quick upgrades, I would say nothing really happened here for the last two years. Am I missing something or do you guys notice it too?
Its been 2 years since I bought my macbook and I want to get a new one, but looking at the specs, I dont see a point.
on a side note, I just did the comparison between a few macs and realized something. There is very very little change in specs from summer 2008 and summer 2010.
my mid-2008 white macbook: 13", 2.4GHz Intel core 2 duo, 2GB ram, 250 GB drive, superdrive 8x, 802.11n built-in airport, standard connectors, $1199
current macbook pro: 13", 2.4GHz Intel core 2 duo, 4GB ram, 250GB drive, superdrive 8x, 802.11n built-in airport, standard connectors, $1199
Apart from ram (which I can add on my own for very little overhead) and cosmetic changes like AL body and backlit keyboard (which doesnt necessarily warrant an upgrade), there are hardly any changes for the last two years.
Coming from Apple, which is know for its quick upgrades, I would say nothing really happened here for the last two years. Am I missing something or do you guys notice it too?
Its been 2 years since I bought my macbook and I want to get a new one, but looking at the specs, I dont see a point.
That's not necessary. And if I were them, I wouldn't, to not break IE compatibility. After all, if a Windows user is browsing Apple.com, that means a potential switcher. A good customer.
Edit: Oh, apparently they are using it after all. Hopefully they have fallback mechanisms for popular browsers that don't support HTML5 well yet.
That's the point of a luxury brand: you don't get your money's worth. You buy it because you want Lexus or Gucci or Armani on your product, not because there's anything objectively better about what you're getting.
I was hoping for AppleTV (iTV) news when I saw store down last night. I want one of those. Oh well.
Regarding the new Store Features.
Tried it. Like it.
Many've said Apple should've done this long ago. I think their plates been pretty full. $50B a year doesn't happen when there's nothing going on. I'm glad it's there, but I've made plenty of purchasing decisions without it.
Regarding the new Store Features.
Tried it. Like it.
Many've said Apple should've done this long ago. I think their plates been pretty full. $50B a year doesn't happen when there's nothing going on. I'm glad it's there, but I've made plenty of purchasing decisions without it.
You can't compare a VAIO Z to a 13" macbook. The Z kills the macbook in every conceivable category, from casing to components to engineering. It's the best in its class by a longshot, so it deserves to be expensive.
My take on apple products is that they're very much like a luxury brand, and like most luxury brands the material used to make the product isnt anything special. You're paying a premium for the name.
wrt luxury, +1.
wrt apple vs. others, well, this is thread n+1 that is turning into a mac vs. PC discussion. I have always wondered how the whole discussion would have gone if apple sold OS X separately without the hardware...
how many would buy a cheap-a** PC and install OS X on it?
Except Apple gives you your money's worth. That they don't catter to the low-end and don't offer barebones configuration doesn't mean equivalents aren't similarly priced elsewhere.
Seriously guys, Apple is run of the mill. There's no luxury or coolness in their products.
Sure you can, since you can configure both to be about the same. And guess what, when configured the same, they cost the same. Neither is more "luxurious" than the other. Again, computers and luxury... not really guys. There's no luxury in computers.
A friendgirl of mine said a beautiful thing the other day. "I want a Mac, I don't like my Sony anymore. It's slow and I don't want to deal with OneCare"
I'm going to link her that comparison page.
I'm going to link her that comparison page.
I want Apple computers because I like the operating system, build quality, and design. PC laptops really can't compare where the OS and design are considered. Yes, there are cheaper PCs, and higher-end machines that would perform some tasks faster, but the presence of Windows is a deal-breaker. I loathe that operating system enough to give up some specs in favour of a better overall experience.
If Mac OS X were freely available to install on any machine you wanted, would you still buy a Mac? Or would you buy a Sony/Dell/Packard Bell etc and install SL?
Currently, I own this machine, http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/packard-bell-ipower-i9723-06323861-pdt.html
Which runs Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Edition like a dream, with those specs, I imagine running Snow Leopard would be; dare I say 'Magic'.
If Mac OS X were freely available to install on any machine you wanted, would you still buy a Mac? Or would you buy a Sony/Dell/Packard Bell etc and install SL?
Currently, I own this machine,http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/packard-bell-ipower-i9723-06323861-pdt.html
Which runs Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Edition like a dream, with those specs, I imagine running Snow Leopard would be dreamlike.
No, I wouldn't. I would probably still buy a Mac, because I like the construction of Macs as much as I do the OS itself. I would consider buying a netbook for light use and installing Mac OS X on it, but that's not the same thing as putting OS X on a Dell, Sony or PB.
Your link doesn't work.
The comparison function makes it plain to see that only the 15" and 17" MBP have matte, antiglare screens.
How come there's no matte, anti-glare screen for the others? The 1,000+ petitions at the petition site http://macmatte.wordpress.com/comment-page-1/#comments shows there are a substantial percentage - around 20-40% depending on which survey you look at - that need matte screens.
Generally, these are:
- the percentage of the population that is susceptible to eye-strain and migraine headaches from the glossy screen;
- graphic artists
- photographers
- people who use their Macs in bright sun-lit areas
We're not saying matte screens are for everyone -- but there should be a choice.
If you're in desperate need of a matte screen on your iMac, you might add your petition to the growing list at http://macmatte.wordpress.com/comment-page-1/#comments
How come there's no matte, anti-glare screen for the others? The 1,000+ petitions at the petition site http://macmatte.wordpress.com/comment-page-1/#comments shows there are a substantial percentage - around 20-40% depending on which survey you look at - that need matte screens.
Generally, these are:
- the percentage of the population that is susceptible to eye-strain and migraine headaches from the glossy screen;
- graphic artists
- photographers
- people who use their Macs in bright sun-lit areas
We're not saying matte screens are for everyone -- but there should be a choice.
If you're in desperate need of a matte screen on your iMac, you might add your petition to the growing list at http://macmatte.wordpress.com/comment-page-1/#comments
Very, very disappointed!
I'm also a an Apple fan, not fanatic.
What's good is good and what's bad is bad.
This tweak may be easier for some to deal with.
I expected more.
Not just on graphics and none of the usual tricks like relative comparison "as x times faster than previsous verison", whatever.
The comparison I was expecting was an aboslute comparison of benchmarks provided by Geekbench.
Other than that, like some here said, it's a nice or annoyng tweek. Doesn't tell you anything that isn't already on the site.
I'm also a an Apple fan, not fanatic.
What's good is good and what's bad is bad.
This tweak may be easier for some to deal with.
I expected more.
Not just on graphics and none of the usual tricks like relative comparison "as x times faster than previsous verison", whatever.
The comparison I was expecting was an aboslute comparison of benchmarks provided by Geekbench.
Other than that, like some here said, it's a nice or annoyng tweek. Doesn't tell you anything that isn't already on the site.
Your Call!
It depends on wether it is or not legal in your contry and on how that inspection is done.
I certain countries every single user is subject to periodical inspection.
On others, that audit is mostly, if not only, made to organizations, freeing the single individuals to do as they please.
Some countries do have special Informatic Associations to make those audits.
Besides, Apple makes it's own hardware and software with the respective pros and cons.
The obvious pro is that they are the only ones who can take advantage of the full capabilities of the hardware because obviously they made it.
The obvious con is the cost. But nobody is bind to this.
Everyone is intitled to make the best option, based on his own context.
Just because a machine has certain specs doesn't mean by itself that it behaves equally to another with the same specs, otherwise we would have basically a "brand".
If so, why Dell, HP, Apple, Sony, ASUS, Acer, Terra Systems, and so forth?
There's more than one reason for this.
Whatever is yours, it will decide which brand and that are many more reasons to guarantee enough market to go around for everyone.
The same applies to any Hardware or Software solution.
Which is the best? Avid, Autodesk Smoke, Final Cut Studio, Adobe Premiere, GrassValley Edius? Disks and AV Servers - LaCie, Western Digital, G-Tech Servers - Avid ISIS, IBM, Promise?
Final answer: I wouldn't by non-Apple product to ingest MacOS X in it, the way I don't trust Apple's to run Windows.
When Apple made the commercial - not technological decision to move in to Intel processors, Windows users shyly started to appear at Apple Stores, Resselers... asking if tehy could still use Windows on Apple's Macs, and they did. One month after Windows was gone.
It depends on wether it is or not legal in your contry and on how that inspection is done.
I certain countries every single user is subject to periodical inspection.
On others, that audit is mostly, if not only, made to organizations, freeing the single individuals to do as they please.
Some countries do have special Informatic Associations to make those audits.
Besides, Apple makes it's own hardware and software with the respective pros and cons.
The obvious pro is that they are the only ones who can take advantage of the full capabilities of the hardware because obviously they made it.
The obvious con is the cost. But nobody is bind to this.
Everyone is intitled to make the best option, based on his own context.
Just because a machine has certain specs doesn't mean by itself that it behaves equally to another with the same specs, otherwise we would have basically a "brand".
If so, why Dell, HP, Apple, Sony, ASUS, Acer, Terra Systems, and so forth?
There's more than one reason for this.
Whatever is yours, it will decide which brand and that are many more reasons to guarantee enough market to go around for everyone.
The same applies to any Hardware or Software solution.
Which is the best? Avid, Autodesk Smoke, Final Cut Studio, Adobe Premiere, GrassValley Edius? Disks and AV Servers - LaCie, Western Digital, G-Tech Servers - Avid ISIS, IBM, Promise?
Final answer: I wouldn't by non-Apple product to ingest MacOS X in it, the way I don't trust Apple's to run Windows.
When Apple made the commercial - not technological decision to move in to Intel processors, Windows users shyly started to appear at Apple Stores, Resselers... asking if tehy could still use Windows on Apple's Macs, and they did. One month after Windows was gone.
Im sorry I think you missunderstood me, I was saying that if OS X wasn't tied down to Macs, that it could be installed on any machine like Windows or Linux. Would that person still use a Mac. I also said, I would probably use Snow Leopard on my Packard Bell Desktop.
Rip off
Apples are the biggest rip off. The macbook is 999. You can get the exact same laptop from Dell or HP for 399. You can get the equivalent to a mac book pro for 699-799.
OS X isnt worth $600 difference. Especially when you can run hackintosh and dual boot a 399 Dell and be just as well off.
This year's mac book pro is last year's middle of the road Dell/HP. What a joke.
Guess what PT Barnum said is really true "There's a sucker born every minute"
Apples are the biggest rip off. The macbook is 999. You can get the exact same laptop from Dell or HP for 399. You can get the equivalent to a mac book pro for 699-799.
OS X isnt worth $600 difference. Especially when you can run hackintosh and dual boot a 399 Dell and be just as well off.
This year's mac book pro is last year's middle of the road Dell/HP. What a joke.
Guess what PT Barnum said is really true "There's a sucker born every minute"