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.
why apple laptops will stay behind PC's in pure speed...
- Thread starter Soc7777777
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MorganX said:
i know, didn't say otherwise. the dothan (and even banias
) is an incredible chip. still, it's performance can't really overcome the EE until the dothan is paired with faster ram and a better graphics card.has anyone found dothan 2.0 GHz vs. G4 1.5 GHz benchmarks
?edit...
you have no idea what you are talking about... for 2649 you can get a p4 EE 3.2ghz with 1gig (512x2) memory.. and 128mb of video memory for 2649 plus tax and shipping.... FROM HP... that is an overpriced company... so with alot of looking you could probibly find it cheeper.... if i would have chosen the cheeper graphics card you could have bought a 256mb ATI Radeon for about 400... and that would STILL be under 3 grand.... face it... you got ripped off by toshiba.. (btw this computer is around 9lbs)
wide said:
you have no idea what you are talking about... for 2649 you can get a p4 EE 3.2ghz with 1gig (512x2) memory.. and 128mb of video memory for 2649 plus tax and shipping.... FROM HP... that is an overpriced company... so with alot of looking you could probibly find it cheeper.... if i would have chosen the cheeper graphics card you could have bought a 256mb ATI Radeon for about 400... and that would STILL be under 3 grand.... face it... you got ripped off by toshiba.. (btw this computer is around 9lbs)
In just what version of reality are PCs faster???
I agree, this whole thread is really stupid, but this assertion is nolonger true. It's only true that Apple didn't have anything to do with the design of the chips *UNTIL the G5*.. Apple was heavily involved in the design of the G5. They worked hand in hand with IBM to the first customizable PPC chip series to fruition (thank you IBM!!) and I assure you they are working hand in hand on the first laptop version as well... They don't want to be in another Motorola style dry spell. The fact that IBM and Apple worked together to achieve this is a testiment to why the G5 is such a quantum improvement over the G4. With the Motorola situation, Apple was stuck with whatever Motorola had to offer, whenever they got around to offering it. The G5 is a role reversal. Apple gave IBM the realistic design specs they wanted and with considerable consultation, revisions, and much design genius, IBM delivered the chip within the timeframe given.
Now about the general topic here... and this is gonna be REALLY LONG WINDED!!! (Sorry, well, not really!)
As a whole I must say I find any "Apple laptops are slower" statement is about as true as saying consumers want to "rent" music from Microsoft. Only on the engineering plane of theoretical existance could someone really justify such a generalization. Let's talk about REAL-WORLD speed. As a part time computer tech and an installer of high speed data services for the local cable provider, I must say that in the field--and that's as real as it gets--speed is something which is perceivably affected by many factors which have nothing to do with Megahertz at all! Speed extends beyond the processor to a large extent.
Real-world, my PowerBook runs circles around even most of the PC desktops I've seen in the field. The speed of extremely redundant operations like doing spell check in MS Word may be one of the operations most greatly influenced by the clockspeed of the CPU, but I could care less about such a useless contest as it amounts to only seconds a day difference in me getting things done. Boot time is also inane since my PowerBook pretty much only gets rebooted following an OS or security update. Real "speed" must be measured in terms of the overall efficiency of the computing experience.. Mac world did an awesome job of making this point comparing Panther to Jaguar in terms of productivity a few months back where they measured the average times of roughly a dozen similar day to day tasks and then came to a fairly well-backed conclusion that the substantive time savings over the course of a year brought by new and revised features actually pay for the OS update and then some.
In terms of overall use-efficiency as a guage of system speed, clockspeed and bus speed are certainly contributing factors, but also things such as overall application reliability, usefullness, efficiency, and those same factors again in terms of the OS are also significant contributors to the end view of speed. I am talking about the general overall speed of completing normal daily tasks on the machine without encumberance, error correction, and hassel. The OS and even overall realiability in general of the software you use counts for something, undeniably. A bad OS or a set of bad applications can completely sand-bag the fastest processors available into submission quite easily. I find most recent Mac laptops and desktops much faster than the fastest Wintels sold since the overall Mac user experience is not subjected to and sand-bagged by a. pop-ups (unless you run other than the standard IE browser which isn't likely as most PC users don't know Mozilla even exists). b. blue-screen of death, excessive application failures and other run-time errors (online surveys confirm what I've seen in the field installing cable modems--most PCs are still running win 98 regardless of all the XP hype.). c. bootup errors and other serious OS corruption bug show-stoppers. d. online spyware plagues and virus outbreaks (which will suck any "faster" pentium into less than competitive--"slug"--speed or even useless-land in no time.. Even if spyware free, add to that time wasted having to scan for and remove spyware every few days.. add to that time having to scan every email for viruses, every file download, bootup scan.. add to that time having to seek help for and remove viruses that couldn't be scanned for or stopped by any normal user) ...oh ya.. pc laptops are a lot faster.. yeah.. umm .cough gag. sure. right.. whatever.
Bigheadache said:
I agree, this whole thread is really stupid, but this assertion is nolonger true. It's only true that Apple didn't have anything to do with the design of the chips *UNTIL the G5*.. Apple was heavily involved in the design of the G5. They worked hand in hand with IBM to the first customizable PPC chip series to fruition (thank you IBM!!) and I assure you they are working hand in hand on the first laptop version as well... They don't want to be in another Motorola style dry spell. The fact that IBM and Apple worked together to achieve this is a testiment to why the G5 is such a quantum improvement over the G4. With the Motorola situation, Apple was stuck with whatever Motorola had to offer, whenever they got around to offering it. The G5 is a role reversal. Apple gave IBM the realistic design specs they wanted and with considerable consultation, revisions, and much design genius, IBM delivered the chip within the timeframe given.
Now about the general topic here... and this is gonna be REALLY LONG WINDED!!! (Sorry, well, not really!)
As a whole I must say I find any "Apple laptops are slower" statement is about as true as saying consumers want to "rent" music from Microsoft. Only on the engineering plane of theoretical existance could someone really justify such a generalization. Let's talk about REAL-WORLD speed. As a part time computer tech and an installer of high speed data services for the local cable provider, I must say that in the field--and that's as real as it gets--speed is something which is perceivably affected by many factors which have nothing to do with Megahertz at all! Speed extends beyond the processor to a large extent.
Real-world, my PowerBook runs circles around even most of the PC desktops I've seen in the field. The speed of extremely redundant operations like doing spell check in MS Word may be one of the operations most greatly influenced by the clockspeed of the CPU, but I could care less about such a useless contest as it amounts to only seconds a day difference in me getting things done. Boot time is also inane since my PowerBook pretty much only gets rebooted following an OS or security update. Real "speed" must be measured in terms of the overall efficiency of the computing experience.. Mac world did an awesome job of making this point comparing Panther to Jaguar in terms of productivity a few months back where they measured the average times of roughly a dozen similar day to day tasks and then came to a fairly well-backed conclusion that the substantive time savings over the course of a year brought by new and revised features actually pay for the OS update and then some.
In terms of overall use-efficiency as a guage of system speed, clockspeed and bus speed are certainly contributing factors, but also things such as overall application reliability, usefullness, efficiency, and those same factors again in terms of the OS are also significant contributors to the end view of speed. I am talking about the general overall speed of completing normal daily tasks on the machine without encumberance, error correction, and hassel. The OS and even overall realiability in general of the software you use counts for something, undeniably. A bad OS or a set of bad applications can completely sand-bag the fastest processors available into submission quite easily. I find most recent Mac laptops and desktops much faster than the fastest Wintels sold since the overall Mac user experience is not subjected to and sand-bagged by a. pop-ups (unless you run other than the standard IE browser which isn't likely as most PC users don't know Mozilla even exists). b. blue-screen of death, excessive application failures and other run-time errors (online surveys confirm what I've seen in the field installing cable modems--most PCs are still running win 98 regardless of all the XP hype.). c. bootup errors and other serious OS corruption bug show-stoppers. d. online spyware plagues and virus outbreaks (which will suck any "faster" pentium into less than competitive--"slug"--speed or even useless-land in no time.. Even if spyware free, add to that time wasted having to scan for and remove spyware every few days.. add to that time having to scan every email for viruses, every file download, bootup scan.. add to that time having to seek help for and remove viruses that couldn't be scanned for or stopped by any normal user) ...oh ya.. pc laptops are a lot faster.. yeah.. umm .cough gag. sure. right.. whatever.
Xapplimatic said:
ok heres the problem with your argument... my computer is set to scan for virus' spyware... clear internet cache and ALL maintinence tasks ON ITS OWN... i do not manually waste any of my time doint that... and my computer flies...
Your arguements only apply to those who do not know how to use and keep track of a pc. Just like you can waste alot of time in mac os x if you dont know what your doing.
secondly, not everyone leaves their computer on all the time so startup time IS a factor...
word is one of the most commonly used applications in the world... so that IS a factor...
also.. when you said that apple picked tasks and timed them... there is a huge problem with comparing to pcs using that method... APPLE CHOSE THE APPS AND TASKS... clearly there was never a chance they could lose because they wouldnt pick one where apple would lose... give me the chance to pick a bunch of apps that pcs would be better at and i could make the G5 look slower than a P3... (which is sooooo far from the truth)...
also... you cant use the 'most pc users are running 98' arguement... because we are comparring current computers... thats like comparing XP pro to mac os 8
also the clockspeed of a computer does contribute to the speed... but you have to find a balance between clockspeed and pipeline stages... idealy we would have a 3 ghz computer running through only 4 pipline stages... (which would DISTROY ALL computers speeds now considering all other factors equal)
Well I just did a comparison of my new 1.5 GHZ Powerbook with a colleagues new HP running also at 1.5 GHZ. The verdict, Powerbook all the way. When I look at the chip specs, it's no wonder. The HP has a 3600 rpm drive compared to my 5400 rpm drive. The HP has a 32 K video card, compared to my Powerbook's 128 K card. The HP uses the old wi fi "B" technology, while my Mac uses the "G" spectrum. Plus the HP is thick, heavy, clunky and runs hot as hell. Not to mention not as fast as the new Powerbook. My advice is you need to stay off crack because you are living in the real world.
stockscalper said:
haha and that hp computer also sells for less than half the price of your computer... haha and ifyour friend tells you he payed anymore than 1000 for that computer.. he got ripped off
unless...
that ocmputer he is running is old and has a pentium 4-m processor... which would mean that the powerbook would clearly be faster...
that ocmputer he is running is old and has a pentium 4-m processor... which would mean that the powerbook would clearly be faster...
Soc7777777 said:
if you're so pro pc and want a pc laptop so bad then go buy one and leave us mac users and our macs the hell alone!
G4 and G5 performance will be gaining on Intel very soon
The G4 was not designed to be used solely as a desktop chip, it was targeted for the embedded market. Two different markets, but due to the embedded market performance demands becoming much more similar to what is needed for notebooks, the G4 is going to gain ground compared to the Pentium-M in the next few months.
The Pentium-M topped out at 1.7GHz on a 130-nm process size and the G4 has essentially reached the end on the same process size at 1.5GHz. That's about a 13% frequency advantage for the Pentium-M compared to the G4.
Now, the Pentium-M moved to a smaller 90-nm process size and it's current top frequency is 2GHz. Compare that to the upcoming 2GHz G4 on the same process size and the G4 will have gained 13% on the Pentium-M. In defense of the Pentium-M it is expected to reach 2.1GHz in the first quarter of 2005, which will be as much as a 5% frequency increase compared to the G4.
The G4 fastest bus speed is now 167MHz, but Motorola will move that to at least 333GHz when the 2GHz G4 arrives in the next few months. Motorola (or to be more accurate FreeScale) mentions that the next G4 will have DDR and DDR2 capabilities. Which means the G4 should be capable of more than a 333MHz bus speed.
Main memory latency will be improved for this upcoming G4 by moving the memory controller onto the processor. In other words, the delay time communicating with main memory will be reduced.
So whatever speed advantage the Pentium-M has compared to the G4 now will be greatly reduced when the next G4 arrives. A Motorola executive stated in 2003 that the G4 will double in frequency about every 18 months, so that would be about July or August of 2004 when this update should arrive. Seeing how IBM and Intel have transitioned to the 90-nm process and Motorola is working with two chip making partners, this G4 made on a 90-nm process should be showing up very shortly.
The G5s main target is not the notebook computer market. If Apple comes out with a G5 PowerBook it will be mainly to satisfy the demands for one by their customers.
It's in the desktop and small server markets that the G5 will make major performance gains compared to what Intel will offer. The top frequency of the 970 is 60% less than the Pentium 4 on the same process size. Since the 970 is expected to reach 3GHz in about August, that would place it about 15-20% behind the frequency of the Pentium 4. In other words the 970 will have gained considerably in performance compared to the Pentium 4. By January the 970 will get another boost in speed when the Power5 derived version comes out. That could give another 40-50% speed increase with the addition of a bigger cache and multi-threading capabilities.
Intel has stated the currenlty produced 90-nm Prescott Pentium 4 will top out at 5GHz and there was a updated Tejas version in the wings that was to be produced late in 2004 or early 2005. But, Intel found out that the maximum power usage of Tejas was going to approach 150 watts and that was unacceptable evidently because Tejas has been cancelled. Now that leaves Intel with extending the Prescott platform a few months while they work on a Pentium-M derived replacement for it. The Pentium-M is no match for the Pentium 4 in performance for the desktop, so Intel is probably going to be speeding the transitioning to a dual-cpu Pentium-M on a 65-nm process. To counter that IBM could easily fit two 970FX processors on one chip at the 65-nm process size.
All-in-all the Mac should be gaining considerable ground in performance comparisons with the Intel chips in the next few months.
Soc7777777 said:
The G4 was not designed to be used solely as a desktop chip, it was targeted for the embedded market. Two different markets, but due to the embedded market performance demands becoming much more similar to what is needed for notebooks, the G4 is going to gain ground compared to the Pentium-M in the next few months.
The Pentium-M topped out at 1.7GHz on a 130-nm process size and the G4 has essentially reached the end on the same process size at 1.5GHz. That's about a 13% frequency advantage for the Pentium-M compared to the G4.
Now, the Pentium-M moved to a smaller 90-nm process size and it's current top frequency is 2GHz. Compare that to the upcoming 2GHz G4 on the same process size and the G4 will have gained 13% on the Pentium-M. In defense of the Pentium-M it is expected to reach 2.1GHz in the first quarter of 2005, which will be as much as a 5% frequency increase compared to the G4.
The G4 fastest bus speed is now 167MHz, but Motorola will move that to at least 333GHz when the 2GHz G4 arrives in the next few months. Motorola (or to be more accurate FreeScale) mentions that the next G4 will have DDR and DDR2 capabilities. Which means the G4 should be capable of more than a 333MHz bus speed.
Main memory latency will be improved for this upcoming G4 by moving the memory controller onto the processor. In other words, the delay time communicating with main memory will be reduced.
So whatever speed advantage the Pentium-M has compared to the G4 now will be greatly reduced when the next G4 arrives. A Motorola executive stated in 2003 that the G4 will double in frequency about every 18 months, so that would be about July or August of 2004 when this update should arrive. Seeing how IBM and Intel have transitioned to the 90-nm process and Motorola is working with two chip making partners, this G4 made on a 90-nm process should be showing up very shortly.
The G5s main target is not the notebook computer market. If Apple comes out with a G5 PowerBook it will be mainly to satisfy the demands for one by their customers.
It's in the desktop and small server markets that the G5 will make major performance gains compared to what Intel will offer. The top frequency of the 970 is 60% less than the Pentium 4 on the same process size. Since the 970 is expected to reach 3GHz in about August, that would place it about 15-20% behind the frequency of the Pentium 4. In other words the 970 will have gained considerably in performance compared to the Pentium 4. By January the 970 will get another boost in speed when the Power5 derived version comes out. That could give another 40-50% speed increase with the addition of a bigger cache and multi-threading capabilities.
Intel has stated the currenlty produced 90-nm Prescott Pentium 4 will top out at 5GHz and there was a updated Tejas version in the wings that was to be produced late in 2004 or early 2005. But, Intel found out that the maximum power usage of Tejas was going to approach 150 watts and that was unacceptable evidently because Tejas has been cancelled. Now that leaves Intel with extending the Prescott platform a few months while they work on a Pentium-M derived replacement for it. The Pentium-M is no match for the Pentium 4 in performance for the desktop, so Intel is probably going to be speeding the transitioning to a dual-cpu Pentium-M on a 65-nm process. To counter that IBM could easily fit two 970FX processors on one chip at the 65-nm process size.
All-in-all the Mac should be gaining considerable ground in performance comparisons with the Intel chips in the next few months.
Absurd supposition. Every laptop will always lag behind the performance of a desktop machine. Every manufacturer must wait several development cycles on a new processor, until the technology is mature enough to support the processors use in a laptop. A desktop can support a more vigorous cooling system than a laptop.
JFreak said:i was comparing pentiums to pentiums. read and think before you talk
Actually I was comparing a Pentium 4 to another Pentium 4, I thought I kind of implied that by specifying Pentium 4 and only pentium 4
This thread makes me want to rant on the whole mac scene, I am sick of mac zealots (Not anyone here specifically but I see alot of them on this board and other mac places). I have came to the conclusion that I need both a mac and a $300 custom build PC that contrary to popular belief, DOESN'T Crash, DOESN'T have virus, and XP looks good enough for me. Quotes like this prove to me that people think they are better than other people just because they use a mac
I think my rant is just about as useful as my old rants on why macs are superior to PC (which I will never type/say again unless I am talking with a very intelligent person that is open minded), so I will just shut up.
Sorry for this post being off topics, if someone wants to move it they can, but I won't be adding to the thread anymore
I think my rant is just about as useful as my old rants on why macs are superior to PC (which I will never type/say again unless I am talking with a very intelligent person that is open minded), so I will just shut up.
Sorry for this post being off topics, if someone wants to move it they can, but I won't be adding to the thread anymore
what can you expect when a pro pc person comes on here bitching about apple laptops..
its not like mac users never get abuse from pc people. infact.. I would say mac users get far more abuse over their computer of choice over anything pc users get from mac users.
if you want to talk pc go to a pc forum... if you wanted to talk about vacuums would you go to a bicycle forum?
its not like mac users never get abuse from pc people. infact.. I would say mac users get far more abuse over their computer of choice over anything pc users get from mac users.
if you want to talk pc go to a pc forum... if you wanted to talk about vacuums would you go to a bicycle forum?
Soc7777777 said:
ok, i might be wrong. but apparently you have no clue what you are talking about either.
1) hp is not an overpriced company. their computers are like dells and gateways: cheap and ugly. that computer was a 10 pound piece of crap.
2) i don't have a toshiba, that was someone else in this thread. look at sig ..
wide said:
Actually, Gateway makes a laptop that's thinner and lighter than any current PowerBook or iBook while still having a DVD burner:
http://products.gateway.com/products/GConfig/prodDetails.asp?system_id=200xl&seg=hm
wide said:i know, didn't say otherwise. the dothan (and even banias
has anyone found dothan 2.0 GHz vs. G4 1.5 GHz benchmarks
The 2.0 overclocked to 2.4 overcame in many areas a 3.4EE AND Athlon FX 64. When it get's a faster bus, oh boy. I think that's why it's Intel's core moving forward. But they're not going to ramp it up that fast. Too much money to be made on the Prescott 90nm at the moment.
delete the thread...
yeah this thread needs to be deleted... many people have changed my topic... and turned it into a mac defense when it was never attacked... all i said was in pure speed macs are behind.. and will stay for the foreseeablefuture... but anyway im buying one because i like the OVERALL PACKAGE better than a pc... but clearly there are alot of people here who refuse to respond to logic...
PC vs Mac basic comparison
PCs advantages over a MAC
Faster hardware
Varity of software
Status Quo (many people are familier and know windows)
cheeper (yes they are!)
better choice for gamers
you can customize your computer for your needs
you can build one (easily and cheeply)
Mac advantages over PCs
Software is optimized more for macs
less companies involved in the producing of the computer
look nicer
Much much harder to get virus's
Spyware (or lack of)
MAC OS X (big one) until longhorn comes in 2050 or whatever...
Overall if you dont know how to use windows WELL then you should get a mac... windows xp is a great program if you know how to maintain it... if not then you should def. own os x.... so all of the mac lovers here quit crying because your computers do not dominate in every aspect... they are just another company with a different approach... they are good for some people and not for others (good for much more than 2 percent of buys though... should be more like 25 percent)...
apples worst enimy is mac fanatics who think everything about apples is better... because thats a tuff pill to swolllow...
but.. im actuall off to buy some apple stock... i have faith in the longterm performance of the company.. although i think itunes will slowly decline...
yeah this thread needs to be deleted... many people have changed my topic... and turned it into a mac defense when it was never attacked... all i said was in pure speed macs are behind.. and will stay for the foreseeablefuture... but anyway im buying one because i like the OVERALL PACKAGE better than a pc... but clearly there are alot of people here who refuse to respond to logic...
PC vs Mac basic comparison
PCs advantages over a MAC
Faster hardware
Varity of software
Status Quo (many people are familier and know windows)
cheeper (yes they are!)
better choice for gamers
you can customize your computer for your needs
you can build one (easily and cheeply)
Mac advantages over PCs
Software is optimized more for macs
less companies involved in the producing of the computer
look nicer
Much much harder to get virus's
Spyware (or lack of)
MAC OS X (big one) until longhorn comes in 2050 or whatever...
Overall if you dont know how to use windows WELL then you should get a mac... windows xp is a great program if you know how to maintain it... if not then you should def. own os x.... so all of the mac lovers here quit crying because your computers do not dominate in every aspect... they are just another company with a different approach... they are good for some people and not for others (good for much more than 2 percent of buys though... should be more like 25 percent)...
apples worst enimy is mac fanatics who think everything about apples is better... because thats a tuff pill to swolllow...
but.. im actuall off to buy some apple stock... i have faith in the longterm performance of the company.. although i think itunes will slowly decline...
Wow, I've never seen such a sad and wretched display of Mac zealots reacting so negatively to something before they can even give it some reasonable thought.
UNIX users of the world unite!!!
I think this statement is code for .... Windows XP is full of bugs and the only people who can use it are:
1. Those willing to pay monopoly prices for a buggy OS, a fundamentally flawed operating system.
2. Those who lack the knowledge that there are better operating systems out there (UNIX for example).
3. Those willing to reboot every 10 minutes because XP sucks royally!!!!
You just don't know what you are missing dude. I feel sorry for you. You are in the grip of the MATRIX. (Even a MS clone can appreciate the twisted humor of using that movie as a reference).
Unplug for a few minutes and try to discover why you are giving money to a company like Microsoft.
Most companies in the US would KILL for a loyal following like that of Apple Computer, Inc.
What is really sad are people who even make an attempt at defending Microsoft and its terrible, illegal business taticts.
I do not do business with companies that violate federal law without remorse, perjure themselves in court, and crush innovation.
Soc7777777 said:
I think this statement is code for .... Windows XP is full of bugs and the only people who can use it are:
1. Those willing to pay monopoly prices for a buggy OS, a fundamentally flawed operating system.
2. Those who lack the knowledge that there are better operating systems out there (UNIX for example).
3. Those willing to reboot every 10 minutes because XP sucks royally!!!!
You just don't know what you are missing dude. I feel sorry for you. You are in the grip of the MATRIX. (Even a MS clone can appreciate the twisted humor of using that movie as a reference).
Unplug for a few minutes and try to discover why you are giving money to a company like Microsoft.
Soc7777777 said:
Most companies in the US would KILL for a loyal following like that of Apple Computer, Inc.
What is really sad are people who even make an attempt at defending Microsoft and its terrible, illegal business taticts.
I do not do business with companies that violate federal law without remorse, perjure themselves in court, and crush innovation.
Jonathan Amend said:
Gateway 200XL
Windows XP
Penitum-M 1.6ghz
512MB PC2700 (2x256)
80GB 5400RPM drive
DVD-RW
2x USB2.0, 1x FireWire 400 (4-pin, unpowered), 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
14.1" XGA TFT (1024x768 max resolution)
Intel Extreme Integrated Graphics
10/100 Ethernet
802.11g
Works 7.0
Norton AntiVirus 2004
XP Plus Digital Media Edition
Norton Internet Security 2004
MusicMatch Jukebox Plus (powers the iPod on PCs, prior to iTunes)
0.95" H x 12.42" W x 10.2" D and 4.35 lbs (120.34 in^3)
Cost: $2,544.97
Apple PowerBook 15"
OS X 10.3.4
MPC7447A 1.5ghz
512MB PC2700 (2x256)
80GB 5400RPM drive
4x SuperDrive
2x USB 2.0, 1x FireWire 400 (6-pin, powered), 1x FireWire 800, 1x DVI, 1x S-Video (adapters for DVI to VGA and S-Video to Component included)
15.2" widescreen TFT (1280x854 max resolution)
ATI Radeon 9700 128MB
Gibabit Ethernet
802.11g
BlueTooth
Back-lit, light-sensing keyboard
1.1" H x 13.7" W x 9.5" D and 5.7lbs (143.16 in^3)
Cost: $2,599.00
Soc7777777 said:
This is the second time you've launched one of these "not an attack" threads, and yet you keep screaming that it isn't the assault that we can see it is.
Yes, there apparently are.
The hardware is arguably "faster," depending on what processor you use and what task you are seeking to accomplish. There is no clear winner in all facets of performance at this point. Also, if you want to use the argument that things shouldn't change for the better because of the status quo, then we should never have freed slaves or allowed women to vote, because those were both what people were used to at one point. As a final point, computer assembly isn't easy enough that my grandmother could do it, and she's not a stupid woman, so that really denies that building your own is so simple that it ought to be a consideration for anyone who isn't already a power user.
The possessive form of Apple is "Apple's," enemy is spelled with an "E," and the correct word to have chosen in before the ellipses is "are," as in "Apples are better." Also, I would find anything "tuff" to be tought to swallow.
thatwendigo said:
The computers are very comparable, and you forgot to bold the dimension and weight advantage of the M200. I did not post the link to the laptop to state that it was superior to iBooks or PowerBooks, but instead to counter "1) hp is not an overpriced company. their computers are like dells and gateways: cheap and ugly. that computer was a 10 pound piece of crap.". I think your defense mechanism is a a bit too sensitive.