False. Go over to newegg. Roughly half of their 200 notebooks ship with non-Intel GPUs. With the exception of the high end VIAO systems, every single one is less than a Mac. I'm looking at an Asus with a Core i7 (quad core!) 1.6GHz, 15.6 16x9 display, GeForce GTX 260 for $1549. In the sub-$1000 range you have systems with Radeon HD 5650s going for $750 and Core i5.
Theres even a couple of 14" systems with dedicated GPUs faster than the 320M.
Theres even a Lenovo sporting a quad core Core i7 with a GeForce GT 240M, 500GB HDD, and 4GB of RAM. For $899.
Theres even this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114803 More power than the $2,200 MBP.
Theres an Asus 13.3" system with a Core i3 and GeForce 310M, so dual GPUs like Apple would have to run. Reviews put it at 7-8 hours of real world battery life. $100 less than the MacBook.
Yeah and those ultraportables tend to be smaller than anything Apple offers. In those cases, the CULV Core 2s are required.
A Core i5 isn't "vastly" superior to a Core 2 Duo? Have you seen the benchmarks? Theres enough of a performance difference to justify an upgrade. And with the prices Apple charges, you could buy multiple quad core Core i7 PCs for the same price as one dual core Core i5 Mac.
Yes. And, after two decades of using Windows, I can tell you that its a myth. And the reality is that OS X requires just as much user maintenance as Windows does.
Sorry, you're wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_board It's an Apple term, and it makes Apple sound stupid and elitist when they try to use that term instead of motherboard.
Give me a system that actually performs like a modern system should, not like something that was mid-range 4 years ago when the Core 2 Duos first came out.
All you have to do is look
It's also hard to justify the $999 MacBook when you can get this for $200 less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115732 Core i5, dedicated GPU.
The 310m is nowhere near the 320m, it gets 3500 points in 3D mark06, while the 320m gets 4700. Yes, it's just a synthetic benchmark, but when the score is almost 25% more, you can't deny that it is most likely considerably better.
You don't have to hate other laptops to like Macbooks, you just have to be able to understand that many people want the extra features that other laptops don't offer in one package, and that is how they justify the price premium.
If there were several examples of laptops which had everything that a Macbook did for less (OS X withstanding) then i would quite happily call Macbooks redundant, but that simply isn't the case.
BTW, i've been a life long Wintel user, incase anybody feels like calling me a fanboy for defending apple![]()
iMac! iMac! iMac!
Yes, I need Apple to update the iMac line.
(my wife is actually demanding we get a new computer)
https://buyersguide.macrumors.com//#iMacWeren't the iMacs updated at the end of last year? Or was that just the screen size (i.e. 27 inch)?
Nice find! But it sucks that the Mac Pro still isn't updated yet![]()
-and backlit keyboard (actually, a really nice feature)
-and SD car slot
...still ridiculous.
As has been already mentioned, I can't imagine that nearly as many people will be buying the whitebook when you can spend a tad more for a nicer machine.
I'm in a pickle now. Do i get a Macbook and put the saving over a MBP (£150) towards a new Digital Camera, or are the extra list of features on the MBP worth that extra cash ?
- SD slot doesn't really bother me, i find it just as easy to plug my cameras in by cable.
- Battery level indicator, a neat feature but nothing worth making a decision over.
-Alluminium body, more resistant to scratches than the Macbook, but less durable overall. Looks nicer, and this will only continue over time as your Macbook gets dirtier. (If only the Macbook was matte, the decision would be much easier)
-4GB vs 2GB. Heard conflicting reports about the necessity for 4GB of RAM under 10.6
-Backlit keyboard, i've managed fine without one with my current laptop, but again, would be a nice bonus.
-Firewire. I haven't used it in years.
![]()
save for a camera, my 0.02
All you have to do is look
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115726 $599
If you want to pay Apple-like prices http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114804 True quad core, 16:9, 6GB of RAM.
It's also hard to justify the $999 MacBook when you can get this for $200 less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115732 Core i5, dedicated GPU.
So the difference between a MacBook and the base MacBook Pro is.....
I wish Apple would bring back the black Macbook. That would look sweet with the new unibody design.
So the difference between a MacBook and the base MacBook Pro is.....
So, I keep seeing all the anti-Mac folks asserting in here about how much cheaper generic PC laptops are than Macs, so, I took a few minutes to look around the web. I mostly wasted my time, not finding machines that match up with Macs in important attributes, including weight and battery life, as well as performance. About the only interesting machines that I found were Sony Vaio's, although their battery life ratio still doesn't match Apple, they do have some other very nice attributes.Apple is absolutely no longer the company that delivers top quality and top performance computers. a 2.4 dual core with 2gb RAM for 1000Euro's lol you could easily buy a system with twice the power for "easily" half the money. Only thing good about the machine is the OS and a nice looking design...
Apple is fooling everybody giving them outdated hardware in so called updated machines. but hey atleast you have a machine that looks good
Apple has become one big joke as far as computers and pricing...they should just stick to ipads, ipods and iphones.