I've said this before to you: your MacBook's have the cracking case issue? Sorry you got the short end of the stick, but plenty of other people have flawless MacBook's of the same model. Therefore, they can't all have the issue, right? And even if they do, what in the hell makes you think you're correct, based on an experience of maybe 5 machines tops, out of a pool of thousands? Think about it for a while, see if that makes sense.
If you hadn't noticed, the MacBook cracking case is a very widespread issue. Very widespread. How many people at this forum have had that problem? I was never able to keep count it was so many. Google the problem and you'll see how widespread it was.
My problems might not represent the company's awful build quality as a whole. However, to deny that they have awful build quality and say that my problems are isolated when they are clearly not, as proven by posts on this very forum, is foolish.
Oh and seeing as how you have a G4 iBook, you might want to watch out. Those G4 iBooks had motherboard issues that certain European governments had to step in and force Apple to fix
I don't understand why you try and pick fights here and call people who buy Macs fools.
I didn't call anyone a fool.
You came here a few months back and said how horrible your Mac is and how you will never buy another. Then the aluminum books come out and you pick one up and say the same things. So what point are you trying to make?
Uh... If you want to bring up my posting history, you should actually read what I've posted before making comments

My UniBody MacBook ownership is the result of botched repairs thanks to Apple contracting Flextronics for repairs, and Apple replacing my system with the UniBody Mac in the end. I didn't buy it. I was given it a replacement because Flextronics FUBARed my other system.
Your opinion. The fact is that Vista has been a disaster and MS can't get out Window 7 fast enough.
Uh.. what? MS can't get Windows 7 out fast enough? You realize its already been over two years since Vista was released, right? By the time Windows 7 is in the publics hands, it will have been about 3 years since Vista RTM'ed. It's not that Vista is a "disaster" and MS is trying to quickly replace it, it's that it's been out a long time and run its course. You know, Apple upgrades their OS every 18-24 months or so. Prior to XP, MS upgraded every 2 years.
So going by your logic and the fact that even some hardened Apple fanboys think Leopard has problems, one could say that Leopard has been a disaster and that Apple can't get Snow Leopard out fast enough to replace it.
Still isn't as good as the Core 2 Duo. People need to compare apples to apples.
You know, this proves something that was mentioned earlier in the post. That Apple fans tend to bash things that Apple doesn't have while praising those things it does. Like blu-ray. But anyway, this is about processors. Back in the PPC days, Apple fans would continually talk about how processor speed didn't matter, it was all about software and "the experience". Now that Macs aren't using junk processors anything that doesn't have exactly the same is junk and not worth the money or good in anyway. Quite hilarious.
Like I said before, a Turion processor is about 10% slower than an equally clocked mobile Core 2 processor. But at the same time, overall system cost is about $300+ cheaper than that equally clocked Intel system. You make up for that very slight processor speed difference by having your wallet that much thicker.
Again, the 17" MBP has DDR3. The commercial is misleading because it tries to tell viewers that Apple is more expensive with similar components. Sorry, the 17" HP has DDR2, which is not as good.
Where in the commercial did they imply that the 17" HP was just as good as the 17" MacBook Pro? They never did. All the ENTIRE commercial implied was that Apple did not offer a system good enough for her within her budget. Nowhere did they directly compare specs between the two systems. It is all about HER budget and how you cannot get a reasonably priced system from Apple.
Let's not forget the fact that the MacBook Pro is 4x, yes FOUR TIMES, the cost of the HP she bought. For an extra $2,100 I would most certainly hope that MacBook Pro is a better computer. However, when you look at things realistically... you're getting the same amount of memory, same storage space, same optical drive capabilities. The MacBook Pro's GPU is about twice as fast as the one in the HP and the CPU (including memory speed) is probably a good 30-40% faster. The screen is better on the MacBook Pro. But at the same time you lose a lot by going with the MacBook Pro. You lose full size ExpressCard, you lose the card reader, you lose HDMI, you lose the ability to connect to any display that is not the single Apple display without costly adapters. You lose other things too, like a quality media center app, a remote control that doesn't cost $20 for less functionality than the packed in remote included with the HP, etc.
Let's not get started on Apple's Windows support either. The multi-touch trackpad is practically unusable thanks to Apple deliberately not releasing proper drivers for it.
So when you look at the MacBook Pro, you have to consider what you gain and what you lose. You certainly don't gain enough of a performance increase to justify spending FOUR TIMES the amount of money on a system. You also have to take into consideration the other things, like bad Windows support, all of the extra hardware accessories you have to buy, the missing hardware accessories that should be built-in like card readers and HDMI, etc.
So yes, while the MacBook Pro might have a better processor, RAM, and GPU, it costs FOUR TIMES as much, $2,100 (two thousand one hundred) more than the HP she bought.
And the funny thing is, considering what she'll most likely use it for, that HP will last every bit as long as the MacBook Pro would. Let's say they both last 4 years. In an 8 year span (2 computers bought total) she would have been able to buy 8 computers for the cost of 2 Macs. All of which will do exactly what she needs.
Let that sink in for a minute. Buying one MacBook Pro 17" every 4 years is the same cost for her as buying that exact PC she wants that does exactly what she needs every year for 8 years.
Let's say she did want something comparable to the MacBook Pro 17" spec wise.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220492 Yeah it has DDR2 RAM. But look at that. About $1350 cheaper. What do you get? Same processor, same screen, 320GB 7200RPM drive, 1GB GeForce 9650M GT, full size ExpressCard, fingerprint reader, 30 day "zero bright dot" warranty on the display, HDMI, VGA, eSATA, 4 USB, firewire, digital audio out through HDMI and SPDIF, 1 year accidental damage warranty along with a 2 year standard warranty. What if she wanted more power than the MacBook Pro?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114558 slow processor, but dual GeForce 9800M GTS cards running in SLI. Same price as the entry MacBook Pro.
But whats that? She wants an even bigger display?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115541 $100 less than the cheaper UniBody MacBook. Same processor as the $2499 MacBook Pro. 18.4" display, 320GB 7200 RPM drive, 4GB of DDR3, 1GB GeForce 9600M GT, full size ExpressCard, HDMI, VGA, DisplayPort. 4 USB, 1 eSATA. full 105 key keyboard.
Both of those computers have card readers and all of that other neat stuff.
You see, the whole point of the ad was that she was looking for what SHE wanted. Not what Apple tells her she wants. Nowhere in the ad did they imply that the HP was equally spec'ed. The entire ad was about the fact that with a PC you can buy exactly what you want. Notice how at the end she said "I'm a PC and I got just what I wanted"? That is the whole message in the ad and the ad campaign. That you can buy JUST what you want. A PC will give you EXACTLY what you want. With Apple you are stuck with what Apple tells you you'll want.
Who cares. You keep saying until recently. The commercial deals with now.
They show the HP, which is a terrible display, just awful. That is the computer MS is trying to make a point with.
Another funny thing. Apple fans will attack Microsoft for things in the past. But god forbid you mention Apple's recent faults!
Anyway, how can you tell the display was awful? In the commercial you can't see much about the computer, plus they were in a building with many large overhead lights that are very bright. So, again, how could you tell the display was bad?
Oh and you ignored the fact that 15.4" systems in the $1,000 and up range have higher screen resolution than Apple's
Fact is that you can get 802.11N with the Apple they want to comare against.
Again, the ad NEVER ONCE compared the computers on a spec by spec basis. The entire ad is about HER getting what SHE wants. And the fact of the matter is that she wanted a 17" system with a good keyboard (I'm sorry, but the HP keyboard blows away the stupid chiclet keyboard on Macs) and "speed" for under $1,000. She got exactly what she wanted with a PC. That is what the ad is showing. That with a PC you get what YOU want. Let's say I want a 13.3" system with a dedicated GPU, LED backlight, 4GB of RAM, and an SSD. Well, Apple doesn't even offer a dedicated GPU in their 13.3" system. But guess what? PC manufacturers, in this case Dell, offer systems with the same 9400M integrated chipset AND a 9500M 256MB running in hybrid SLI. Plus they have LED backlit glass screens, 4GB of RAM standard (with the option to go to 8! unlike Apple's 13.3" offering), and SSDs as options.
This commercial is all about choice. The fact that with a PC you have the choice to get exactly what you want, not what somebody else tells you you want.
Who cares what you get? I'm glad it lives up to your specs. The commercial wants to compare the HP listed, so again, it gets 2.5 hrs supposedly. The Apple up to 8 hrs. No comparison.
And, again, show me where they compared the systems spec by spec and said "this $699 HP is the same as that $2799 Mac".
2.5 hours versus 8 hours. Thus the difference between a $700 system and a $2800 system. Once again, this commercial is proving the point that you can get EXACTLY what you want with a PC. That you are not stuck with either one or the other. If she wanted a 17" PC with better battery life, she could have bought one. But guess what? She didn't. She bought exactly what SHE WANTED.
Oh and I'll take that 2.5 hour battery over the 8 hour one. Why? Because at least I can swap it out on my own, or buy 3rd party higher capacity batteries.
Maybe you should think outside of Office. I am talking about all of the sh*tware that comes on PCs. You don't get that crap on Apple. PCs have all of the virus crap, trial offers, and any other BS that they decide to put on the system.
And maybe you should do your research. You'll find out it came with 2 pieces of trialware. Norton and MS Office. Again, they remove completely and clean and leave no traces behind. The rest of the pack-in software would be Vista's pack-in software, as well as a video editing suite and DVD creation suite, as well as HP's Quickplay. Both Quickplay and Windows Media Center kick Frontrow while it's down and don't stop until its dead. Thats how much better they are. Oh and MS Works.
No it is subjective and therein lies no truth, only perception. No argument to back it up? Weak. I'm sorry if you OR other people cannot afford the 17" MBP. I cannot either, but I don't resort to calling people elitist as a result. People will get what they can afford, but when those who cannot mock those who can, that is just weak.
Who said anything about not being able to afford anything? Oh thats right, nobody did. You're just making a failed attempt at making me look bad. Well, you fail.
This is conveniently vague statement. How long is years? Perhaps you confuse non-intuitive with non-Windows. Sorry, but OS X just works and is by far (in my opinion) a superior OS when it comes to the user experience.
Been using OS X since 10.4.8

Was previously a Mac user during the mid System 7 days.
And OS X is counter-intuitive. Why can't I cut and paste in Finder? Why is it that when I'm browsing through folders and I click to go back one folder it takes me to the TOP of that folder's content and not back where I left off? Why is it I can't command tab to specific windows and, instead, have to command tab to the app and then command ~ to the specific window? People try to point to Expose, but you know what? It takes longer to get to your specific window that way than it does alt-tabbing through every window in Windows.
If OS were never invented until Vista and Leopard, Apple would have more users because Vista was a disaster.
Please explain how Vista "was" a "disaster". I'd love to hear it. I've been using Vista for over 2 years now and I've yet to encounter a single problem. I've used it on multiple systems with multiple setups, including 3 different Macs with varying versions of Boot Camp and Apple supported drivers. I've never had a single problem. Yet if Apple's FUD in their ads are to be believed, I should have turned grey and lost all my hair by now because of Vista. But, again, not a single problem. Go to other forums too, like notebookreview, futuremark, and other hardware related forums and you'll see that Vista has been a problem free experience for all but about the same percentage of users comparable to those who had problems with Leopard.
Oh and Apple would not have more users based on price alone. Despite Apple's marketshare going up, you have to keep in mind that HP and Dell combine to sell half of all computers sold every year. Apple's sales are a drop in the bucket in comparison.
You again give no examples, just a vague blanket statement. I told you what was misleading with the MS commercials. Tell me what is misleading about the Apple ads?
You want me to go on about what's misleading about the "Get a Mac" ads? Alright. They've run.. what? About a dozen or so ads now proclaiming that Vista has "problems" and still hasn't been "fixed", right? What problems? Vista only had issues with about as many people, percentage wise, as Leopard did.
Apple's ads are also misleading in how they claim that Windows is all work and OS X is all play. How is OS X meant for fun when OpenGL and game support is practically non-existent? Microsoft's DirectX has made modern gaming what it is. And not all of us consider writing blogs or organizing pictures "fun", two things that PCs do equally as well as Macs.
In fact, MS resorted to insulting those who use Apple products. Apple makes fun of the actual software. Real classy MS.
It's not an insult when its the truth.
I don't know what people were lieing about. Again, please give examples.
Look through this thread and other posts here. People say things like "driver compatibility issues". Microsoft came up with driver models back in the Win9x days, so those days have been gone for over a decade now. People spout things about viruses, making it seem as if you can get a virus simply by being online. Again, not true. These days users have to actually execute the malicious code. Then theres other stupid things, like people saying Windows takes 10 minutes to fully boot. I mean the list goes on and on.
As far as price goes in this thread, the thread is about the MS commercial. MS made a commercial saying that PCs were much more affordable. But they compared apples to oranges. The specs of the PC are lower in comparison to the Apple product. So the basic message comes across as, "Hey buy our product, it goes on cheap machines."
For the final time, never once did they compare based on specs and specs alone. They compared based on price and getting what you want. The entire ad was focused on the fact that you can get EXACTLY what you want. Again, exactly what YOU want. Not what Apple wants you to buy. What YOU want to buy for YOURSELF.
Now we use my computer for all of our assignments because it's the only one that can function without overheating.
Theres no way thats even remotely true. Those plastlic MacBooks run a good 20-30c hotter than an HP under load. I know this from experience. PCs, like Macs, also have thermal sensors which keep the systems from truly overheating. If their system truly is overheating then it shuts down.
One of the other guy's computers crashed from a virus and had to be sent into repairs - he went an entire week without it
A computer doesn't "crash" from getting a virus and it certainly doesn't need to be sent in for repair. Stop lying please.
You want to talk about going without a computer, lets about my 2+ months without my MacBook thanks to Apple's botched repairs and shoddy build quality on the plastic MacBooks.