What doesn't MacBook come in 15 inch monitor?

[Eidorian]

EDIT

I'm done. This guy's got no proof, nothing but opinion delivered in an arrogant, pretentious tone, and clearly knows absolutely nothing about the computer industry. When presented with examples and links, not only does he dismiss them when they don't line up with his OPINION, but he offers no other proof except for his 4 computers and his "friends".

I'm glad you edited down your "I Win" post.

 

[ayeying]

My MacBook monitor moves if I move the desk or surface its sitting on.

Well, I'm comparing to the two systems I have on my desk right now. The Dell's monitor shakes due to weaker hinges while the MBP is stable with more stronger hinges.

Haven't had your MBP warp because of heat yet, have you?

The system gets hot, but its not to boiling the aluminum. Warping it requires rapid cooling from hot to cold which is nearly impossible to get unless you suddenly pour liquid nitrogen on it. (I'm not a physics major so correct me if I'm wrong)

To me, the MacBook and MacBook Pro are a step down from the HPs I've owned. But I'm done with notebooks. This MacBook and the HP I have now will be the last notebooks I own. My next computer will be a custom built PC.

I don't see how its a step down but thats your opinion.

 

[Digital Skunk]

People really are taking this whole thread WAY out of proportion.

Not that I am any different when it comes to which camera body/OS/HD ENG Camcorder to use, but after a while it's really not that necessary to beat each and every point/difference between two products down to see which is better.

I haven't found a notebook built tougher than the Panasonic ToughBooks, (yes I have touched one and yes you can drop them and they will still keep on ticking) and the book that is right under those is the MacBook Air (but you can't drop it).

The MacBook's and MacBook Pro's build quality are on par with the PCs I have used. I have never had warping on the MBP from heat or crooked keyboards, and I have never had anything other than slightly larger plastic PCs.

Build quality and longevity in notebooks actually stem from user handling. I don't baby my $h!t and I have NEVER had a computer just fall apart on me.

Once again, I reiterate my original point. To the OP, you CANNOT assume that something should be affordable only because YOU WANT one.

 

[ayeying]

Build quality and longevity in notebooks actually stem from user handling. I don't baby my $h!t and I have NEVER had a computer just fall apart on me.

I've had. My Compaq Tablet PC literally fell apart for no reason. Never dropped it or what not.

My Dell Laptop had screws falling off for no apparent reason. Had them replaced by dell but they kept falling off after a few months

My 2nd Dell laptop was the best in terms of build quality, didn't fall apart, worked great. The plastic did warp a little near the end of its life (the lid closed at a odd angle, one side would touch the base, the other had a 1mm gap)

All of these 3 systems were used for less than 2 years before I got rid of them

 

[Eidorian]

I've had. My Compaq Tablet PC literally fell apart for no reason. Never dropped it or what not.

My Dell Laptop had screws falling off for no apparent reason. Had them replaced by dell but they kept falling off after a few months

My 2nd Dell laptop was the best in terms of build quality, didn't fall apart, worked great. The plastic did warp a little near the end of its life (the lid closed at a odd angle, one side would touch the base, the other had a 1mm gap)

All of these 3 systems were used for less than 2 years before I got rid of them

The only hardware I've seen fall apart is when the user treats it badly. Keep in mind I have around 300 users here. The majority of the computers are Dells that I helped order.

 

[ayeying]

The only hardware I've seen fall apart is when the user treats it badly. Keep in mind I have around 300 users here. The majority of the computers are Dells that I helped order.

I guess I just had bad luck with them. Normally, I expect using a system for about 3 years before changing, like my Compaq Desktop I've used for 3 years before switching, worked great, besides some cosmetic issues, never fell apart, bsod, whatnot.

I don't baby my stuff but I don't abuse them. Don't drop electronics, always put them in a protective back pack or whatnot, almost never use them on bed, etc.

I'm not saying I'll never buy a dell ever again, I just think the build could be a bit better for a more happier (me) customer.

 

[Eidorian]

I guess I just had bad luck with them. Normally, I expect using a system for about 3 years before changing, like my Compaq Desktop I've used for 3 years before switching, worked great, besides some cosmetic issues, never fell apart, bsod, whatnot.

I don't baby my stuff but I don't abuse them. Don't drop electronics, always put them in a protective back pack or whatnot, almost never use them on bed, etc.

I'm not saying I'll never buy a dell ever again, I just think the build could be a bit better for a more happier (me) customer.

It seems that a lot of users have bad luck with hardware around. It's something that I've noticed.

The latest casualty around here was a circa 2000 Compaq Presario that had a dead hard drive. 7-8 years is good for a computer right? Otherwise I'm sending off Dell XPS systems from 1999 of to salvage.

I wonder why a lot of members here expect Windows machines to BSOD at random or with age.

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

Every Fear Factory concert I've been to has had real instruments.

So does Nine Inch Nails. My point wasn't that no other band does that, my point was that Trent plays 10+ instruments and plays them well, as well as existing as the sole person in charge of the creative future and past of the "band."'

Sigh. "You lose the argument because you bring up the truth! Shame on you!" Please.

I was a teenager in the 90s. I remember the ONLY people who liked Nine Inch Nails (and Marilyn Manson) were the goth kids who stuck to themselves. While everyone else had universal taste in music.

Oh, right, I forgot. You not liking NIN means they're a bad band.

Guess what? I have a universal taste in music. Guess what else? I use Logic. I play the electric bass, mainly in jazz with a combo and my school jazz band, and I have a very advanced grasp of music theory for my age group. I like rock, jazz, industrial, electronic, orchestral, and I do compositions for bands, string orchestras, as well as near-full orchestras. I'm not an expert in music and indeed, that's not my argument. My point is that I like NIN, I'm not a "Goth" kid (Again, I'd like you to define that for me, as even the supposed "Goths" can't define what it means in anything except a historical sense), I don't stick to myself, and I am working to be a college professor in music. What does this all have to do with Nine Inch Nails? Nothing. However, considering the fact that the majority of people who listen to Nine Inch Nails are not kids, but adults, and that most of them do not fit your description, you are wrong there, and no matter how much you claim it, your dislike of NIN doesn't make Trent Reznor an objectively bad musician.

Today emo is nothing more than whiney people or whiney teenagers who need a slap upside the head from common sense.

Emo today is a style. The Emo genre of music is not what you say it is, nor was it ever. What people call "emo" today is actually not Emo music, but instead is an arbitrary classification for obnoxious bands started by 19 year olds that make it to mainstream.



So thats why The Fragile and every album since The Downward Spiral has been a relative commercial flop?

Says the person whose argument before mainly consisted of claiming that someone's mainstream popularity has nothing to do with how good of a band they are?

Downloaded "The Slip". Twice in fact. Got the MP3s and the FLAC copy just because I could from their website. LIstened to the FLAC copy. Deleted both immediately afterwards.

All this says is that you didn't like The Slip. So what? I didn't like it as much as the Fragile, The Downward Spiral, Pretty Hate Machine, or Year Zero, but my or your opinion doesn't objectively define the strengths of a person's music. It wasn't a strong album, musically. Most popular bands don't write strong music. What is important is that it's music that Trent made simply to share (thus being free), and for the sake of artistic expression.

"Concept album"? Please, don't even try to bring Nine Inch Nails into the same genre as Pink Floyd.

Year Zero was indeed a concept album. In fact, it went beyond the music. Heat the CD of year zero and you found a URL to a website which was a piece of an alternate reality game that Trent created and spread through the internet, with fake forums, videos, audio files, and puzzles meant to immerse the fans in the world of Year Zero. You want concept albums? **** Pink Floyd, listen to David Bowie.

At least Nirvana was a real band with real instruments being played.

So is Nine Inch Nails? Where do you get this idea that Trent Reznor doesn't play real instruments? There is no strictly computer-generated instruments in his music. None. And who the hell cares? Legion of Rock Stars (look them up) are a real band that plays real gigs and plays real instruments, but no one's claiming they are musically superior to anybody, let alone Trent Reznor. I'd challenge you to say they are, keeping this in mind: Your argument here only works if every band that plays real instruments is better than Nine Inch Nails (also meaning that Nine Inch Nails is better than Nine Inch Nails). (Legion of Rock stars, by the way).

Also, comparing Nirvana, in all their four-power-chordy goodness to any band that is good, is an insult.

Who pays $70 for a concert ticket? I know I sure don't.

Around here in southern California, concert tickets cost less than a dinner at Sizzler.

Concert tickets where? No artist I've ever been to see live has cost less than a dinner, except maybe Dimmu Borgir at Harpos.

Well, the only bad I like that i know uses Macs would be Fear Factory. But they use Pro Tools so the platform of choice is irrelevant. They could do the same thing on Windows as on OS X. However, if I remember correctly, the one member of the band that does use a Mac has or at least had a 12" PowerBook. At that time that was a legitimate hardware choice.

The same computer Trent uses.

I honestly don't know much about Berklee. If they're using Pro Tools then the platform it runs on makes no difference. Just like how Brook's Institute of Photography uses Macs, but they all use Photoshop. The tools work the same on both platforms.

If they're using Apple specific tools then we're in for even worse music in the future than we've had in the last 8 years or so.

It does indeed make a difference. Berklee's FAQ's state that they require an Apple Macintosh computer because the platform is the most widely used in the music industry, and as their goal is to provide students with the resources necessary to prepare them for music in the real world, they wish to use that which will most likely be applicable. It's really nothing special, but your opinion that Macs suck at everything, and no one uses Macs for music if they're a real band or institution is blown seriously out of proportion.

-

 

[logicsuggests]

The justifications in this thread are so pathetic, it's no wonder apple gear is always overpriced. People should stop defending a company that sells outdated/weak technology in a price bracket where other laptops wipe the floor with them in terms of hardware performance.

The excuses are always oh no "cheap laptop x doesn't have that so the macbook doesn't either"

Integrated graphics "oh I don't play games so I don't need that"

Lame excuses.

 

[hogfaninga]

The justifications in this thread are so pathetic, it's no wonder apple gear is always overpriced. People should stop defending a company that sells outdated/weak technology in a price bracket that other laptops wipe the floor with them in hardware performance.

The excuses are always oh no "cheap laptop x doesn’t have that so the macbook doesn’t either"

Integrated graphics "oh I don't play games so I don't need that"

Lame excuses.

Thanks for the advice. Now go back and brag on whatever PC site you came from how you put us in our place.

 

[Digital Skunk]

....

I would have to say that you make the most sense I have heard in a long time.

I guess I am going to have to give up my Final Cut workflow and all my Macs and switch back to PCs based on your trolling statement.

Seriously, they aren't excuses, they are reasons. Just like many people's reason to grab a PC since they don't need the bells and whistles of a Mac.

What is your problem anyway?

 

[NT1440]

can we wait a few weeks and THEN bitch about what they dont have?

we all know what the macbooks have and dont have, but seeing as everyone knows a new model is coming out, its old tech. Wait for the new one then complain.


And when you prove something, use fact instead of opinion, and dont talk about the popularity of some band as it has nothing to do with wat software they use.

 

[logicsuggests]

I would have to say that you make the most sense I have heard in a long time.

I guess I am going to have to give up my Final Cut workflow and all my Macs and switch back to PCs based on your trolling statement.

Seriously, they aren't excuses, they are reasons. Just like many people's reason to grab a PC since they don't need the bells and whistles of a Mac.

What is your problem anyway?

I have no problem with the operating system as I've mentioned before, my problem is trying wrap my head on peoples complacency with mediocre hardware and the fact that they are willing to defend it based on what exactly? Just because the operating systems good? Yeah we've established that.

I'm not demanding people change their OS, I'm asking why people on these forums are making excuses for poor hardware under the guise of 'reasons' based on some mythical grand apple vision.

 

[ayeying]

I have no problem with the operating system as I've mentioned before, my problem is trying wrap my head on peoples complacency with mediocre hardware and the fact that they are willing to defend it based on what exactly? Just because the operating systems good? Yeah we've established that.

I'm not demanding people change their OS, I'm asking why people on these forums are making excuses for poor hardware under the guise of 'reasons' based on some mythical grand apple vision.

Mediocre hardware? Apple normally chooses the 2nd to 3rd highest hardware on the list. Dell is what provides Mediocre, still selling a Pentium Dual Core.

 

[Eidorian]

Mediocre hardware? Apple normally chooses the 2nd to 3rd highest hardware on the list. Dell is what provides Mediocre, still selling a Pentium Dual Core.

Is there a problem with selling a Pentium Dual Core on a budget laptop?

Would a consumer benefit more from a faster processor or discrete graphics solution?

 

[macbooker15]

I've been on these forums, looking at these wars between chappers and mosx. One, I'm sick of it, and two, im a little apple biased. I was reading mosx's posts and was kinda starting to believe him, at least until my mom got her new vista laptop. She got the Toshiba for a little under 800 bucks with a good warranty. I gotta admit, for the price it has great specs. 2.1ghz AMD processor, 4 gigs of RAM, ATI Radeon Graphics, and a 250gb HDD. From what mosx says, based on specs, this should be awesome right? Not precisely.

What I first noticed after setup was the pure amount of bloatware, around 20-25 programs. Most of them were giving me startup prompts. As my mom really wanted to use it, I just deleted their startup entries. LO AND BEHOLD, they come back next time, and some of them have a disabled x button. (Norton) I also dont really have the time to take them off either, between high school and homework. Also, vista is unexceptably laggy. Slow startup, slow shutdown, slow programs. Firefox takes ~7-10 seconds on this macbook C2D second rev. w/2gb of ram. On moms computer, 15~20 secs. Just tested. And dont try and tell me its hardware either mosx, you use that excuse way too much. And speaking of hardware, it came with a bad Audio out port on the motherboard.

And if you can resist, dont use the experience arguement against me. I have been working on computers for serious things for 6 years. I own my own business fixing computers, and im currently building my own. Its a work in progress . My website is currently under construction, but its forums are up: HERE.

I would say more, but its really late, and I need to get some sleep.

 

[Chappers]

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition 64-bit operating system preinstalled; software package included with Microsoft Works 9.0, Adobe Reader 8.1 and Roxio Creator 10 Dell Edition

Can you tell me what other software it comes with. I am considering moving over to Vista with my XP machine. This would be an upgrade - so what does Vista home premium come with. I know someone here won't believe me but I inherited it from my brother-in-law.

I have looked around - even Amazon UK is vague about what you get. Although Amazon often is vague.

I did find one thing that more amused me than helped. It seems from the comparison that I can only have more fun with your PC on Home premium or Ultimate.

Regarding bigger screens - its a difficult one. Apple seems to make people happy with the small screen (I like mine). It seems they (Apple) want to cover a range of sizes.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I'm asking why people on these forums are making excuses for poor hardware under the guise of 'reasons' based on some mythical grand apple vision.

We can ask the same for those who do the same exact thing for a "poor" OS or other poor software or devices. There will always be something that drives users to use something inferior when they could have better.

Price, usability, availability, portability, etc.

My signature shows that I wan a fat 2" thick Apple 17" laptop with sick graphics and expandability... which Apple will never make. I could $4000 on a Dell XPS M1730 and cut in Avid or Media 100 but I have been spoiled by software integration on the Mac. My Aperture library is accessed from all the apps I use, and I can even export entire projects from it to Final Cut with transitions and edits for sound-slides.

I just can't get that anywhere else, so that is my reason. For others it may be Logic, or iLife, or a number of things.

I do understand where you are coming from though. The blind logic that many Mac users have is hard to escape around here. Especially the iPhone forums.

Mediocre hardware? Apple normally chooses the 2nd to 3rd highest hardware on the list. Dell is what provides Mediocre, still selling a Pentium Dual Core.

As Eidorian said, it would be GREAT if Apple did sell a budget machine on the laptop and iMac side of things. Surprisingly, most people buy the $1299 Mac Book or the $1499 iMac, so making cheaper machines won't cut into Apple's sales. Apple will probably cripple them so much that it would basically be a netbook/educational machine as well.

Giving users the ability to have limited (cheaper) processors and better specs somewhere else would be great. Some users just need a laptop to do very simple, and very basic stuff. Even pro shooters need something they can just dump photos and video to while out in the field, then make a copy to an external drive. The processor and features don't need to be heavy for those simple tasks.

 

[iMacmatician]

EDIT

I'm done. This guy's got no proof, nothing but opinion delivered in an arrogant, pretentious tone, and clearly knows absolutely nothing about the computer industry. When presented with examples and links, not only does he dismiss them when they don't line up with his OPINION, but he offers no other proof except for his 4 computers and his "friends".

So if his arguments are so weak then why can't people here refute them? And don't say they have, since if so, mosx wouldn't be able to argue further.

Would a consumer benefit more from a faster processor or discrete graphics solution?

Depends on the consumer.

Mediocre hardware? Apple normally chooses the 2nd to 3rd highest hardware on the list. Dell is what provides Mediocre, still selling a Pentium Dual Core.

Apple used to use the 1st and 2nd best regular 35 W CPUs for the MacBook Pro and 2nd and 3rd best for the MacBook, but in late 2007 they moved one down to 2nd and 3rd, and 3rd and 4th (in other words, 2nd and 1st lowest) respectively.

 

[hogfaninga]

Why argue with people who obviously hate Macs? They aren't worth the time or effort. Best to ignore them. They must have sad lives if they get their jollies by telling us how bad our systems are.

 

[heatmiser]

Why argue with people who obviously hate Macs?

I don't think anyone here hates Macs. It's more than possible to use a system while acknowledging its shortcomings. I do think it's silly for Apple to require the purchase of a $2000 computer to use a 15" screen or something better than 1280x800 on a laptop.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I don't think anyone here hates Macs. It's more than possible to use a system while acknowledging its shortcomings. I do think it's silly for Apple to require the purchase of a $2000 computer to use a 15" screen or something better than 1280x800 on a laptop.

Amen to that.

Not to mention feel that the lineup is a bit lacking in options when it comes to certain tasks... like gaming or internal storage.

However, it's not okay to want something that a certain brand or company doesn't offer, then think that it's one of the company's/brand's fault/shortcomings for not offering it.

 

[hogfaninga]

I don't think anyone here hates Macs. It's more than possible to use a system while acknowledging its shortcomings. I do think it's silly for Apple to require the purchase of a $2000 computer to use a 15" screen or something better than 1280x800 on a laptop.

Sure there are people here who hate Macs. That is obvious. Well obvious to many people I guess.

 

[polaris20]

You post articles with outdated and inaccurate information, some guy rambling on about how ugly he thinks a UI is an inaccurately describing it as a CPU resource hog when it has nothing to do with the CPU, another article that compares unbalanced hardware using a synthetic benchmark without any real details of hardware and software configurations (not specs) and their own synthetic benchmark was not only unbalanced as well, but it showed different results on the same hardware!
You post BS articles that are just that, filled with BS. Yet somehow I don't know anything?

While I find it a bit "bold" and more than a little amusing for you to think you know more than the folks at InfoWorld, ZDNet, CNet, and Popular Mechanics, I guess that's your prerogative. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, right?

The links you posted and your reaction to finding out the articles were wrong is THE example of why average people don't like Apple users or Apple itself. People don't like liars and people who act like children when they were exposed as such.

Actually, I didn’t have a reaction to them being “wrong”, because I don’t feel that they are wrong, nor do I feel the information is old, because all of them were written with Vista SP1 being a factor.

I've been building computers longer than most people at this forum have even owned one.

I’ve been building computers for awhile too. In fact, somewhere in the realm of 50-60 in the last 8 years, anywhere from a standard desktop to an 8-core server, all of which are still running quite nicely today. I’ve used boards all the way back to the AMD760 and Via KT133a chipsets for AMD, and D815 for Intel.

I’ve been in IT for the last 7 years, and currently work in the Chicago Loop area doing a mixture of Windows administration (2000, 2003, and now 2008), Linux administration (Ubuntu, SuSe, RedHat) as well as using open source or free applications such as Untangle (network security/routing/ firewall/intrusion detection/VPN appliance distro based on Debian) and FreeNAS (network attached storage based on FreeBSD), and even VMWare ESXi, which recently has become a free download.

I’ve tested Vista on no less than 6 different laptop models (Intel Graphics, ATI, nVidia Quadro, GeForce), 4 different desktops up to an XW8600 8-core, and even a little Asus netbook. All up to date with SP1. These were dual booted with XP Pro SP3. At no time did Vista ever perform better than XP Pro in frames per second for video, 3D rendering, video encoding, audio recording, file transfer time, boot up time,program start up time, etc.
This is the basis for my opinion. I feel that while XP Pro (and 2000 Pro before it) is a great OS, I think Vista is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Sadly I don’t think Windows 7 will be much better if at all in terms of performance, because it certainly is not a re-write, but rather building upon Vista.

When MS bought the company that makes Virtual PC, I and many others were hoping for a stripped down complete re-write of Windows, to remove all the bloat that comes with backwards compatibility, and use the virtualization technology to maintain that backwards compatibility. Sadly, it didn’t turn out that way.

Let’s address some of the other points you have brought up, namely the iLife suite. By the very existence of the many forums dedicated to GarageBand, it is not “useless”. By definition “useless” is having or being of no use. If that were the case with GarageBand, all of the bands Chappers listed would not be using it. They indeed find it “useful”.

As far as quality is concerned, while some of it has to do with the internal summing of the application as well as its ability to dither down from higher bitrates and sample rates, quality is largely determined by the interface you’re using for recording. Being a musician myself, I use a Presonus Firebox and an L6 Toneport (for quick and dirty demos). Both are 24-bit 96Khz, so basically DVD quality sound.

Both do quite fine whether you’re talking a free application like Audacity to a higher cost app like Sonar, Cubase, or Samplitude. Of course something from Apogee or RME would be even nicer, you’re talking more money. When it comes to audio interfaces, you generally get what you pay for. I’m not quite sure what you find so terrible about GarageBand while taking into account interface quality. I can understand it if you don’t like its interface and the resulting workflow.

DAW apps are very personal, and everyone has their preferences. I’ve been using Tracktion from Mackie for quite awhile now, and its UI is considered very different from the more mainstream apps.
iWeb is also useful for many people. While it would never be used by a professional web developer, it does indeed suit its intended purpose, that of a simplified way of families designing a website for personal usage. The sites posted by Chappers show that people are using it, therefore it’s not “useless” by definition.

iMovie and iDVD. Currently I use Vegas and DVD Architect for video editing off of a hard drive-based HD camcorder. While I will most likely get FCE eventually for more serious editing, iMovie definitely accomplishes a lot of my needs for video, especially as it applies to my personal life. With camcorders as cheap as $200 these days, many people are using computers to edit their video for DVD, and iMovie and iDVD are a very easy way to do that.

Let’s address the bands we were all talking about. NIN and Radiohead are very interesting bands, and very relevant to this day, I think. Both have a long history of maintaining their artistic credibility while still being commercially viable. Both have done some very interesting things in terms of marketing their music on the web, and being successful while doing it. I can understand if you don’t like their music, and that’s fine, that’s your opinion. I myself don’t like all of NIN’s work, and pretty much like one song from Radiohead.

But to say that those bands are irrelevant is a tad short-sighted.
Let’s talk about system specs. While it is of course true that you can get a PC (laptop or desktop) far cheaper with higher hardware specs than an Apple, I don’t think that’s really the sole factor for buying a computer. Having dealt with Dell, HP, IBM (and now Lenovo), and Gateway, I think build quality and service are enormously important. While Dell Gold Support has always been quick to respond, in my experience they have to respond to often, i.e. their equipment fails too often. Bad drives, bad RAID cards, motherboards, all happening on servers. Bad drives, LCDs, motherboards etc. on laptops.

While HP’s servers, desktops, and workstations have been pretty good, their laptops, in my experience, have been atrocious in terms of reliability. Like I said before, I’ve had to send out a ridiculous amount of them over the past two years. Service has always been very difficult with HP, especially compared to Dell.

Again, this is all in my individual experience as an IT guy for the past few years. Everyone has their preferences.

Apple has always lagged behind in raw speed, for the most part. It is no different now than it was in 2000, and frankly I’m surprised people are still arguing about it. But the fact of the matter is, if someone wants OS X, they have to find a computer in Apple’s product line and buy it. Even now I think Apple has some gaping holes in their product line, namely a lower priced “headless” desktop that can be expanded a bit more than the iMac is capable. But Apple calls the shots, and if you want OS X, that’s the way it is.

I look forward to your response, Mosx. I truly hope you can provide more insight into your background with computers, as well as some links or something to back up your opinions. While it’s fantastic everyone has an opinion, it’s always nice to know what they’re based on in the real world.

 

[mosx]

Finally, something worth replying too. Its funny how polaris decides to reply here after several days of me not being around. Hoping I won't see it and trying to get the last word perhaps?

While I find it a bit "bold" and more than a little amusing for you to think you know more than the folks at InfoWorld, ZDNet, CNet, and Popular Mechanics, I guess that's your prerogative. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, right?

As I said, the articles posted were outdated or based on nothing. One article had the guy rambling on and on and on about how much better XP was because you could use 3rd party products to tack on extra features that Vista has built-in. Or how he hated Vista for being "bloated" by using "CPU cycles" to draw the "bloated UI" when the CPU has nothing to do with the UI, its all done by the GPU. He went on and on about not being able to find a "feature complete" driver for his XPS GPU, showing his inability to browse to support.dell.com or www.nvidia.com or www.laptopvideo2go.com.

Other articles compared imbalanced hardware with vastly different versions of software, without giving any configuration or driver information.

Another article used a Pentium D as a test platform, ignoring the fact that the Pentium D was just a dual-core Pentium 4 and was just Intel's band-aid on the problem of getting their butt kicked by AMD at that time. The Pentium D was never modern and should not have been used. Not only that, but no driver or configuration information was given regarding the tests!

IT was that way with all of the articles. And not a single one used the full final version of SP1 with updated drivers for SP1.

So its not a matter of me "knowing more" than other people, its a matter that those who wrote the articles were ignorant or flat out stupid.

Actually, I didn’t have a reaction to them being “wrong”, because I don’t feel that they are wrong, nor do I feel the information is old, because all of them were written with Vista SP1 being a factor.

Not SP1 final. And, again, no driver, configuration, or other type of in detailed information was given. Greatly differing hardware was used in more than one occasion, as well as greatly different versions of software. And you had one guy who complained about not being able to find drivers for his XPS that have been available on support.dell.com ever since Vista was made available.

I’ve been building computers for awhile too. In fact, somewhere in the realm of 50-60 in the last 8 years, anywhere from a standard desktop to an 8-core server, all of which are still running quite nicely today. I’ve used boards all the way back to the AMD760 and Via KT133a chipsets for AMD, and D815 for Intel.

How convenient that you bring that up NOW.

I’ve tested Vista on no less than 6 different laptop models (Intel Graphics, ATI, nVidia Quadro, GeForce), 4 different desktops up to an XW8600 8-core, and even a little Asus netbook. All up to date with SP1. These were dual booted with XP Pro SP3. At no time did Vista ever perform better than XP Pro in frames per second for video, 3D rendering, video encoding, audio recording, file transfer time, boot up time,program start up time, etc.

System configurations? Driver information? How long had Vista been installed? Don't give me that "fresh install" crap either, Vista is made around the idea that you install it and use it for long periods of time. Therefore a fresh install actually performs worse than one that has been used regularly for even two weeks.

If you didn't get better frame-rates in your games, then you did something wrong. Plain and simple. My frame-rates have double in Vista versus XP (pre-Vista SP1) on the same hardware using SP1 and the "Forceware" 177.74 drivers. Compared to XP SP3, my frame-rates are all a good 10-15% higher than XP. Which goes in-line with every single benchmark out there.

What software did you use for 3D rendering? What driver configuration? What processor? Same goes for video encoding. What software, drivers, processor, etc.

File transfer time can't really improve, considering thats generally limited by chip controllers and the speed of the device itself, so tis stupid to mention that.

Boot time on my HP with Vista SP1 and all of my drivers and such installed is about 45 seconds. XP always averaged about 80 seconds on any system I ever had it installed on. My MacBook boots up in 33 seconds. You saw no improvement with application launching? Now i know you either didn't run any tests or you simply threw Vista on there, installed the apps, launched them, and thats it.

As I said, Vista is built around the fact that you're going to use it and use it often. An install of Vista that is a month old will perform significantly faster than one that is a day old. Why? Because it knows your usage habits and it knows what to cache for you.

This is the basis for my opinion. I feel that while XP Pro (and 2000 Pro before it) is a great OS, I think Vista is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Sadly I don’t think Windows 7 will be much better if at all in terms of performance, because it certainly is not a re-write, but rather building upon Vista.

Because of your flaw testing? Its obvious you either didn't perform the testing or you did it completely wrong (as I said, fresh install of Vista will NOT perform as well as a used install).

When MS bought the company that makes Virtual PC, I and many others were hoping for a stripped down complete re-write of Windows, to remove all the bloat that comes with backwards compatibility, and use the virtualization technology to maintain that backwards compatibility. Sadly, it didn’t turn out that way.

What bloat? You want to talk about bloat, let's look at Mac OS X. How many gigabytes of printer drivers and language translations are installed by default? Core processes take up more memory and resources in OS X. Apple's answer for speeding up applications is to throw more CPU cycles at them rather than actually optimizing code. I'm not the only one who complains about this. I was listening to the September 7th podcast of TWiT and Patrick Norton was complaining about how Safari eats up CPU cycles for no real reason. You don't see IE or Firefox doing that.

Let’s address some of the other points you have brought up, namely the iLife suite. By the very existence of the many forums dedicated to GarageBand, it is not “useless”. By definition “useless” is having or being of no use. If that were the case with GarageBand, all of the bands Chappers listed would not be using it. They indeed find it “useful”.

I'm still waiting for those respectable bands. Also, having googled what those particular bands used it for, all they did was use it to record some quick vocals. Why not use Audacity? It's smaller, faster, freeware, and uses significantly fewer system resources while having more advanced options.

As far as quality is concerned, while some of it has to do with the internal summing of the application as well as its ability to dither down from higher bitrates and sample rates, quality is largely determined by the interface you’re using for recording. Being a musician myself, I use a Presonus Firebox and an L6 Toneport (for quick and dirty demos). Both are 24-bit 96Khz, so basically DVD quality sound.

Anyone who is into audio knows theres no such thing as "DVD quality sound". DVDs carry a variety of formats. "DVD quality" could be the uncompressed PCM running at 16-bit 48KHz you find on concert/music DVD Video discs. Or the 16-bit 48KHz 448Kbps AC-3 you find on DVD-A along with the 24-bit 96KHz 5.1 MLP audio track, or 24-bit 192KHz stereo MLP track. Or how about the 1-bit 2.2MHz SACD track? SACDs were actually DVDs after all.

Both do quite fine whether you’re talking a free application like Audacity to a higher cost app like Sonar, Cubase, or Samplitude. Of course something from Apogee or RME would be even nicer, you’re talking more money. When it comes to audio interfaces, you generally get what you pay for. I’m not quite sure what you find so terrible about GarageBand while taking into account interface quality. I can understand it if you don’t like its interface and the resulting workflow.

The main problem I have with Garageband is that people act as if its a "Godsend" and buy into Jobs proclaiming that its "professional quality" when its not. It's fine for hobbyists who just want to play around. But its certainly not a "Godsend" and it certainly isn't professional quality. And its certainly not any better than the $50 app you can get from M-Audio for any Windows PC.

Realistically, considering how over-priced Macs are and how low-end the hardware is for the price, anyone who is even remotely interested in making or recording music is better off buying a significantly cheaper PC (or significantly more powerful for the same price) and buying that $50 M-Audio package.

The other problem I have with Garageband is why do I have to pay for it? Apple fans think its just fantastic that Macs ship with all of this stuff. But I, like most people, don't use any of the iLife apps aside from iPhoto and iTunes. Why do I have to pay for Garageband, iMovie, iWeb, and iDVD? They're all useless to me. Why can't I buy a Mac without them? At least the "bloatware" on PCs (which most don't ship with any more, other than a Norton trial) helps keep the cost of the system low. I'm not paying for that software, it's helping me pay for the system. Plus I can use a free Windows Anytime Upgrade DVD to do a fresh install of Vista without any of it and still benefit from the fact that it was on the system (lower price). But the iLife suite? I have to pay for all of this stuff that I don't need. Why can't I buy a Mac without it? I'd rather have dedicated graphics and a unit thats $200 cheaper than one that comes with an entire software suite that I won't use. Sure I can delete the apps or reinstall without them, but I still paid for them.

iWeb is also useful for many people. While it would never be used by a professional web developer, it does indeed suit its intended purpose, that of a simplified way of families designing a website for personal usage. The sites posted by Chappers show that people are using it, therefore it’s not “useless” by definition.

I asked for him to post sites that were not personal blogs or any kind of personal site. He failed to do so, proving my point that iWeb is useless for anything "real". And he never was able to counter the point that you have to jump through hoops to get it posted to a site that is not Mobile Me.

With camcorders as cheap as $200 these days, many people are using computers to edit their video for DVD, and iMovie and iDVD are a very easy way to do that.

That doesn't change the fact that nearly all camcorders ship with full version software that is higher quality than iMovie and iDVD.

Both have a long history of maintaining their artistic credibility while still being commercially viable. Both have done some very interesting things in terms of marketing their music on the web, and being successful while doing it. I can understand if you don’t like their music, and that’s fine, that’s your opinion. I myself don’t like all of NIN’s work, and pretty much like one song from Radiohead.

But to say that those bands are irrelevant is a tad short-sighted.

The only good thing either band has ever truly done is put music up on the web and made it available the way it should be in this modern age. They haven't done anything else relevant.

Having dealt with Dell, HP, IBM (and now Lenovo), and Gateway, I think build quality and service are enormously important. While Dell Gold Support has always been quick to respond, in my experience they have to respond to often, i.e. their equipment fails too often. Bad drives, bad RAID cards, motherboards, all happening on servers. Bad drives, LCDs, motherboards etc. on laptops.[/quote[

Drives, such as HDDs and optical drives, happen. Thats not a fault of Dell or HP. Thats comes back to Western Digital, Seagate, etc.

Apple, Dell, HP, etc. all buy their LCD screens from the same manufacturers.

Apparently you haven't been around this forum or Apple's own forum long enough to realize that Apple's motherboard.. oh sorry, "Logicboard" failure rate is extremely high as well. If you don't have AppleCare, like me, then you need to cross your fingers and hope that it lasts.

While HP’s servers, desktops, and workstations have been pretty good, their laptops, in my experience, have been atrocious in terms of reliability. Like I said before, I’ve had to send out a ridiculous amount of them over the past two years. Service has always been very difficult with HP, especially compared to Dell.

HP has been great to me. Each time I had a problem with a notebook they simply replaced it with an upgraded system. No questions asked, no hassle.

Apple, on the other hand, was a complete nightmare to deal with. Heres my story again: MacBook had standard build quality issues. It was discoloring from heat and use, as well as case separation due to heat around the vent, and the optical drive couldn't write DVDs. Send it out for repair. Get it back a week later. Optical drive is untouched, case is new but scratched to all hell. Send it back. A week later I get it back. Optical drive is rendered useless and the case has, again, been replaced and scratched to all hell. Apple agrees to replace it. A total of 3 weeks without a Mac. Replacement MacBook starts to have build quality issues. Battery starts to warp and the case on the palmrest/topcase is separating. Send it out. A week later it comes back all scratched. Send it back out, repeat. Third times a charm. Took 3 weeks. Thats a total of 6 weeks without a Mac in 9 months of owning one. Its too bad all of those trips couldn't change the fact that OS X randomly locks up while Windows does not (on the same hardware of course).

But Apple calls the shots, and if you want OS X, that’s the way it is.

And, quite frankly, OS X isn't worth it. OS X isn't nearly as good as its made out to be. In fact, Apple should be sued for calling it "The World's Most Advanced Operating System" because it certainly is not. Like most people, I'd rather have GOOD hardware ($750 15.4" notebook, 1680x1050 screen, integrated graphics as good as the last generation of dedicated, blu-ray, HDMI) and my own choice of software. I don't want to be forced to pay for low-end hardware (at high end prices) and pay for a bunch of software I will never use. I made that mistake once in buying a Mac and I will not make that mistake again.

All of this was typed on my MacBook.