Laptop Computer

[BobDylan]

Vista is s***. Total s***. The resource allocation alone makes it so, and I won't get into the other flakey crap.

 

Explain?

 

The two biggest gripes I hear are about UAC and Indexing. The next biggest one is crashes. UAC is a joke and was absolutely a terrible idea, but after a Google search, it is simple to turn off. Indexing, while a nice idea on the surface, it turned out to be garbage. So I turned that off too. As far as crashes, Firefox 3.0 is about the only program I run that consistently drops. The OS hasn't dropped a single time on me, nor has Word, Photoshop, MediaMonkey, Filezilla, etc, etc. I run the 64-bit version on a homebrew machine. Viruses? I just don't get them. I don't know how other people do, but I don't run any virus programs or firewalls, and I just don't get them. Perhaps this is odd to say, but in all, I had more problems with XP than I have had with Vista. Granted, I waited about a year after Vista's release until I installed it.

[BobDylan]

For the record, while at home I use a MAC/OSX now, but up until last year I've used/worked on various flavors of Windows since the early 90's. I still use Windows XP sp3 for my work laptop and workstation, but as a end user, I'll avoid using Windows if I can now, and that includes Win7, which I've had before technet even released the beta.

 

I can't stand the OSX interface. It's pretty and all that, but I don't know my way around. Therefore, I continue to stick with Windows.

[kapkomet]

Explain?

 

The two biggest gripes I hear are about UAC and Indexing. The next biggest one is crashes. UAC is a joke and was absolutely a terrible idea, but after a Google search, it is simple to turn off. Indexing, while a nice idea on the surface, it turned out to be garbage. So I turned that off too. As far as crashes, Firefox 3.0 is about the only program I run that consistently drops. The OS hasn't dropped a single time on me, nor has Word, Photoshop, MediaMonkey, Filezilla, etc, etc. I run the 64-bit version on a homebrew machine. Viruses? I just don't get them. I don't know how other people do, but I don't run any virus programs or firewalls, and I just don't get them. Perhaps this is odd to say, but in all, I had more problems with XP than I have had with Vista. Granted, I waited about a year after Vista's release until I installed it.

Look how much you have had to disable just to make it usable. If the resources were what they should be, you shouldn't have to do all that just to make the thing run.

 

If all you do is surf and listen/watch music/videos, then it's probably ok. If you do anything that forces hard work on your machine, it kills it.

[BobDylan]

Look how much you have had to disable just to make it usable. If the resources were what they should be, you shouldn't have to do all that just to make the thing run.

 

If all you do is surf and listen/watch music/videos, then it's probably ok. If you do anything that forces hard work on your machine, it kills it.

 

I agree with the first point, though it is just a minor inconvenience. It's not as if I didn't have to tweak XP to get it running the way I like.

 

The second point, not so much. I play video games on my computer (the latest releases), which put just about as much stress on a computer as any other program. It works fine, no stutters, the fans don't spin up any more than they should, no system freezes, no game freezes. Runs as smooth as melted butter. Now, I've read the argument that XP runs video games at a better clip, and it's probably true even with DirectX 10 aside, but a little bit beside the point here.

[scenario]

I bought a Toshiba laptop about 6 months ago.

Satellite L355

17" screen

Dual Pentium 1.86GHz

3G RAM

Running Vista Home Premium

32-Bit OS

 

I've owned alot of computers and I really like this one.

It's lightning fast.

And regarding Vista?

I don't have crash problems.

In fact, I haven't had any problems at all.

 

And with all the the crap I have loaded on my machine (video/audio editing software, videoconferencing apps, and approx. 100G of other resource heavy tools), I'm probably a good test case for stress-testing a computer.

 

[Y2HH]

I can't stand the OSX interface. It's pretty and all that, but I don't know my way around. Therefore, I continue to stick with Windows.

 

Honestly, I was the same way until I bought one, sat down and used it for a few weeks. Now I can do either OSX or Windows without skipping a beat, they're both literally that easy after you give them a chance.

 

I'm not a typical Mac guy that hates Windows, I can honestly use either or...and most of the problems you run into with either OS are user created more so than operational problems.

[kjshoe04]

I've got a Sony Vaio that has basically all that you were asking for. I like it alot so far. It was in the 700 range, I believe.

[danman31]

I don't think I'm ready for an Apple yet!

I would vote against an Apple. I've had a Macbook Pro for a couple years and have had nothing but problems with it. It sickens me that it cost more money.

 

Honestly, I was the same way until I bought one, sat down and used it for a few weeks. Now I can do either OSX or Windows without skipping a beat, they're both literally that easy after you give them a chance.

 

I'm not a typical Mac guy that hates Windows, I can honestly use either or...and most of the problems you run into with either OS are user created more so than operational problems.

I think that's pretty accurate. I don't even see them as that different anymore.

[Y2HH]

I would vote against an Apple. I've had a Macbook Pro for a couple years and have had nothing but problems with it. It sickens me that it cost more money.

 

 

I think that's pretty accurate. I don't even see them as that different anymore.

 

The nicest thing about OSX is it's UNIX, so if you're like me, you'll find the shell much more powerful than anything Windows can replicate. But, all in all, I don't really think it matters which OS you use, as long as it works and does everything you need.

 

I've had no problems with my MAC, and for the most part I've had good luck with PCs, but my previous laptop had a load of problems over the years running on XP, but that was hardware problems, no fault of the OS.

[Be Good]

Get a Sony Vaio - Refurb....

[southsideirish71]

The nicest thing about OSX is it's UNIX, so if you're like me, you'll find the shell much more powerful than anything Windows can replicate. But, all in all, I don't really think it matters which OS you use, as long as it works and does everything you need.

 

I've had no problems with my MAC, and for the most part I've had good luck with PCs, but my previous laptop had a load of problems over the years running on XP, but that was hardware problems, no fault of the OS.

 

Ever since my first dabbling with Unix professionally over 15 years ago, I have been trying to find the holy grail of a UNIX based laptop. I have run one SPARC based laptop, ran BSD and Linux and Opensolaris on different hardware over the years. While they all had their nuances, and worked pretty well for me , the Mac still is my favorite UNIX portable out there. Their scripting language Applescript gives you some automation capabilities, and you can turn to traditional shell scripting as well as many of the programming languages that are available to all UNIX based systems. The interface is clean, works well and is stable. While people complain about the price of the hardware, for me the small hit in price is worth it. No worries over hardware interop with the OS. No having to jack the system to get it to run on the laptop. It all works, and works seamlessly and has the power of UNIX under the hood. The best pickup for Apple, was when they bought NEXT and brought the Unix expertise and brought Steve Jobs back in house.

Edited April 14, 2009 by southsideirish71

[Y2HH]

Ever since my first dabbling with Unix professionally over 15 years ago, I have been trying to find the holy grail of a UNIX based laptop. I have run one SPARC based laptop, ran BSD and Linux and Opensolaris on different hardware over the years. While they all had their nuances, and worked pretty well for me , the Mac still is my favorite UNIX portable out there. Their scripting language Applescript gives you some automation capabilities, and you can turn to traditional shell scripting as well as many of the programming languages that are available to all UNIX based systems. The interface is clean, works well and is stable. While people complain about the price of the hardware, for me the small hit in price is worth it. No worries over hardware interop with the OS. No having to jack the system to get it to run on the laptop. It all works, and works seamlessly and has the power of UNIX under the hood. The best pickup for Apple, was when they bought NEXT and brought the Unix expertise and brought Steve Jobs back in house.

 

There is a definate price increase on Apple hardware, BUT it's not totally without reason. It's not like they're selling you an equal size/shape laptop/desktop for 800$ (or whatever) more than the competition. Their laptops are smaller, thinner, weigh less, and look better, without even mentioning the much improved battery life, which is really good in Mac laptops. I originally felt the same way about paying more for Apple products, but they're engineered better, and for me lighter/smaller while not compromising performance is a big plus.

 

I currently use a Lenovo T60 Laptop, a Dell Laptop and yes, while both are cheaper -- both are far bulkier/heavier than the nearest competing Apple laptop, so the price premium isn't just in component costs, and while I recognize that exists, it's also in the engineering/design.

 

Also, OSX (as of 10.5.x) is no longer considered a "UNIX like alternative", but has been fully 100% UNIX certified. I just like OSX better than Windows these days, and I've spent a long time using both -- but for what *I* do, OSX works wonderfully and wouldn't consider going back unless I see a function/feature I need. For others, such as gamers, I completely understand Windows is where you'd want to be.

[BobDylan]

There is a definate price increase on Apple hardware, BUT it's not totally without reason. It's not like they're selling you an equal size/shape laptop/desktop for 800$ (or whatever) more than the competition. Their laptops are smaller, thinner, weigh less, and look better, without even mentioning the much improved battery life, which is really good in Mac laptops. I originally felt the same way about paying more for Apple products, but they're engineered better, and for me lighter/smaller while not compromising performance is a big plus.

 

I currently use a Lenovo T60 Laptop, a Dell Laptop and yes, while both are cheaper -- both are far bulkier/heavier than the nearest competing Apple laptop, so the price premium isn't just in component costs, and while I recognize that exists, it's also in the engineering/design.

 

Also, OSX (as of 10.5.x) is no longer considered a "UNIX like alternative", but has been fully 100% UNIX certified. I just like OSX better than Windows these days, and I've spent a long time using both -- but for what *I* do, OSX works wonderfully and wouldn't consider going back unless I see a function/feature I need. For others, such as gamers, I completely understand Windows is where you'd want to be.

 

Compared to the open market of PC's? That's not true at all. Look at the "netbook" surge for example. Or the Dell Adamo.

[Y2HH]

Compared to the open market of PC's? That's not true at all. Look at the "netbook" surge for example. Or the Dell Adamo.

 

Apples/Oranges.

 

Again, what i said IS true. I didn't even mention netbooks, since Apple doesn't make them yet, I said laptops. Compare equally powered, systems/laptops to each other and you will see what I said holds true. The Macbook Pro would need to be compared to a XPS laptop gaming rig, for example. The MacBook Pro has a full powered high end mobile graphics card, amongst many other things.

 

The nearest thing to an Adamo is the regular Macbook, the Air could possibly be argued, however the Macbook/Air both use faster processors, front side buses, caches, etc, so even then, it's not a straight up feature to feature comparison.

 

The point I was making was in comparing almost identical hardware specs to each other -- then looking at the size, shape, etc.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Y2HH

[Wise Master Buehrle]

Apples/Oranges.

 

Again, what i said IS true. I didn't even mention netbooks, since Apple doesn't make them yet, I said laptops. Compare equally powered, systems/laptops to each other and you will see what I said holds true. The Macbook Pro would need to be compared to a XPS laptop gaming rig, for example. The MacBook Pro has a full powered high end mobile graphics card, amongst many other things.

 

The nearest thing to an Adamo is the regular Macbook, the Air could possibly be argued, however the Macbook/Air both use faster processors, front side buses, caches, etc, so even then, it's not a straight up feature to feature comparison.

 

The point I was making was in comparing almost identical hardware specs to each other -- then looking at the size, shape, etc.

 

I don't know, I'm just not sure I buy what you're selling here. I compared a MacBook Pro MB766LL/A to an ASUS M70 Series M70Vn-C2... difference in price about +$300 in favor of the Mac.

 

Just comparing the spec sheets of those two laptops makes me feel that the MacBook is a giant ripoff. Here are a few I can point out offhand:

Apple: 320 GB

ASUS: 1 TB

 

Apple: Core 2 Duo 800 Mhz FSB 2.5 GHz

ASUS: Core 2 Duo 1066 Mhz FSB 2.5 GHz

 

Apple: Regular old DVD-R/RW and CD-R/RW

ASUS: All of above PLUS it can play Blu-Ray movies

 

Apple: GeForce 8-Series with only 512 MB dedicated video memory

ASUS: GeForce 9-series with 1024 MB dedicated video memory

 

Apple: 1 year limited parts warranty, 90 day labor warranty

ASUS: 2 year labor and parts warranty, PLUS 1 year ASUS Accidental Damage Warranty - Drops, Fire, Spill, Surge

 

 

Apple: DVI output

ASUS: HDMI output

 

 

After the comparison, and realizing you could get a laptop from ASUS with those same specs as the MacBook for probably a little over a grand, I came to the conclusion that Apple just straight up charges a premium for their product.

 

It seems to me that the Mac OSX is marked up, as well as the sleek, sexy case that it comes in.

 

It also seems to me that the better value buy is not the Apple. For $300 LESS than the Mac, you get a computer with a 9-series GeForce instead of an 8 (double the RAM), HDMI inclusion (I really can't believe it's almost 3 grand for a computer with no HDMI), Blu-Ray and a Terabyte hard drive. The icing on the cake is the warranty. Apple products are not perfect and the warranty is pathetic for something that costs $2700. I wouldn't trust their products at all, personally I've had nothing but problems with Apple products especially after their warranties expire... but that's another topic for another day.

 

What I'm really trying to get at here is that I think it is stupid that Apple would make such expensive laptops just because of 3 things... 1) their name is Apple, 2) They are sleek, sexy and most importantly trendy and 3) the Mac OS.

 

None of those 3 things, no matter how good the Mac OS may be to some, warrants such price hikes as seen here to me. Thus, I can come to the conclusion that Apple is overrated, not only by us the people but by themselves too. They think their s*** is so hot that they can get away with charging insane prices for subpar laptops. It really gets to me, and it is reasons like this that I never recommend a Apple computer to anyone. It'd be like me telling people that they have to go buy Microsoft Office when all they really need is Open Office... they just aren't practical.

Edited April 15, 2009 by DanksFan

[BobDylan]

Apples/Oranges.

 

Again, what i said IS true. I didn't even mention netbooks, since Apple doesn't make them yet, I said laptops. Compare equally powered, systems/laptops to each other and you will see what I said holds true. The Macbook Pro would need to be compared to a XPS laptop gaming rig, for example. The MacBook Pro has a full powered high end mobile graphics card, amongst many other things.

 

The nearest thing to an Adamo is the regular Macbook, the Air could possibly be argued, however the Macbook/Air both use faster processors, front side buses, caches, etc, so even then, it's not a straight up feature to feature comparison.

 

The point I was making was in comparing almost identical hardware specs to each other -- then looking at the size, shape, etc.

 

You're serious, aren't you?

 

And "netbook" is just a niche term for a tiny laptop. Apple also doesn't make Tablet computers either. Suppose we should toss that out the window too, since it would be unfair to add that as a positive to buy PC because Apple doesn't do it?

 

Look, if you want to argue that OSX is better than Windows XP/Vista, fine. But if you're going to argue Apple's under the hood power versus the open market and imply that it is just as good, if not better then the rest, you're just flat out blind. Hey, I'll admit Apple has some pretty powerful computers, and they generally work great. But there are things out there that Apple isn't doing and that Apple doesn't have. It just irks me that some Apple users think they are on top of the computing world in just about every sense of the game.

 

And finally, take a closer look at the Dell XPS gaming laptop. Your Macbook pro, as far as power, is a joke to that thing.

Edited April 16, 2009 by BobDylan

[Y2HH]

You're serious, aren't you?

 

And "netbook" is just a niche term for a tiny laptop. Apple also doesn't make Tablet computers either. Suppose we should toss that out the window too, since it would be unfair to add that as a positive to buy PC because Apple doesn't do it?

 

Look, if you want to argue that OSX is better than Windows XP/Vista, fine. But if you're going to argue Apple's under the hood power versus the open market and imply that it is just as good, if not better then the rest, you're just flat out blind. Hey, I'll admit Apple has some pretty powerful computers, and they generally work great. But there are things out there that Apple isn't doing and that Apple doesn't have. It just irks me that some Apple users think they are on top of the computing world in just about every sense of the game.

 

And finally, take a closer look at the Dell XPS gaming laptop. Your Macbook pro, as far as power, is a joke to that thing.

 

I never really said their under the hood power is greater in every way, I simply said in case by case comparison, the cheaper alternatives are usually less powerful, bigger, and have terribad battery life...if you took more of it than that, I didn't mean to put that forward.

 

The XPS is stronger, no doubt, but again, it's not even an equal comparison -- there is no Dell notebook that has the same specs as a Macbook Pro without way over blowing it, and without adding a lot of weight and a lot of size.

 

In an equally powered system, the Apple will undoubtedly be smaller, sleeker and have better battery life. Like the person above who compared the Apple to a Asus (of all competitors), the Asus will no doubt weigh way more, it will be bigger and it will have absolutely terrible battery life...in short, Asus is trash, and I don't know anyone in the industry that would even buy an Asus.

 

I'm not saying the Apple is the top of the heap when it comes to hardware, everyone knows that's not the case, I'm simply saying that Apple puts a lot more effort and engineering into their designs than anyone else, thus some of the price increase has to be attributed to that.

[BobDylan]

The XPS is stronger, no doubt, but again, it's not even an equal comparison -- there is no Dell notebook that has the same specs as a Macbook Pro without way over blowing it, and without adding a lot of weight and a lot of size.

 

You brought up the comparison, not me. And why do you only name Dell? There are several other computer makers out there. That's the beauty of the open market. Choices.

 

In an equally powered system, the Apple will undoubtedly be smaller, sleeker and have better battery life. Like the person above who compared the Apple to a Asus (of all competitors), the Asus will no doubt weigh way more, it will be bigger and it will have absolutely terrible battery life...in short, Asus is trash, and I don't know anyone in the industry that would even buy an Asus.

 

Prove it. On both accounts--Asus, and that the Apple is "undoudbtedly" smaller, sleeker and has longer battery life. (The Macbook is smaller than said Asus, but you're talking as if the Apple will be "smaller..." than any equally powered computer on the market. That is your point, I think, which I mistook earlier.)

 

I've known Asus to be a pretty damn good computer company. Especially as of late.

 

What is the "industry," exactly?

 

EDIT:I just found out this little tid-bit. Asus builds components for the iPod, the iPod shuffle, and your very own Macbook. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

I'm not saying the Apple is the top of the heap when it comes to hardware, everyone knows that's not the case, I'm simply saying that Apple puts a lot more effort and engineering into their designs than anyone else, thus some of the price increase has to be attributed to that.

 

Hey, if you want to pay a few hundred extra bucks for a 'better looking computer,' fantastic. That's your choice. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford that. Myself, I build the machine on my own. I make my own design choices, spec choices (all to a limited extent) and what not. You ask me, that's better than anything.

 

And seriously, I hope you attempt to back up that second quote.

Edited April 16, 2009 by BobDylan

[Y2HH]

You brought up the comparison, not me. And why do you only name Dell? There are several other computer makers out there. That's the beauty of the open market. Choices.

 

 

 

Prove it. On both accounts--Asus, and that the Apple is "undoudbtedly" smaller, sleeker and has longer battery life. (The Macbook is smaller than said Asus, but you're talking as if the Apple will be "smaller..." than any equally powered computer on the market. That is your point, I think, which I mistook earlier.)

 

I've known Asus to be a pretty damn good computer company. Especially as of late.

 

What is the "industry," exactly?

 

EDIT:I just found out this little tid-bit. Asus builds components for the iPod, the iPod shuffle, and your very own Macbook. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

 

 

Hey, if you want to pay a few hundred extra bucks for a 'better looking computer,' fantastic. That's your choice. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford that. Myself, I build the machine on my own. I make my own design choices, spec choices (all to a limited extent) and what not. You ask me, that's better than anything.

 

And seriously, I hope you attempt to back up that second quote.

 

I don't have an iPOD nor a Macbook -- and I know Asus is a component maker -- but they wouldn't be my first, or even second choice for my computer "builder". As for the "industry", I mean the IT industry, and those of us working in it, my entire group of friends, not to mention everyone I know that's in the business -- not a single one of them has an Asus computer or ever even thought of buying an Asus computer. And we've all been in this industry for over 10 years. Asus makes excellent motherboards, but when it comes to computers, meh, they're just another OEM builder that has little practical experience. I'd rather build my own if that was the case. Also, while my friends are huge into this racket, I'm not a big fan of piece by piece builds, simply because of how complicated the warranties can get, having to ship individual components off, etc is not fun. I'm one of two Mac users out of the bunch, and there are 12 of us, not counting work associates.

 

I give the size/form factor example because I have yet to see/find a notebook or desktop machine with the same internal components (or close) that's as small as an equally powered Mac. If you need me to prove that to you, take the blinders off...because I know you haven't either. The smaller, tighter design is what makes them better looking, btw...not the fact that they use metal casings, since Dell (among others) does that, too.

 

Also, my opinion of Asus as a computer company are just that. You love to talk about choice, so I choose to not like Asus. I'd buy/use their components in a minute, but I just don't view them as an OEM builder worthy of my consideration.

 

And for the record:

 

My home desktop is an iMAC 24"

My work laptop is a Lenovo T60

My work desktop is Lenovo/IBM desktop

My second home laptop is a Dell Inspiron 17"

My third home laptop is a Dell XPS

 

Out of all of the computers I use, I have but 1 Mac, so I'm not some crazed biased Mac fanboi.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Y2HH

[Wise Master Buehrle]

I never really said their under the hood power is greater in every way, I simply said in case by case comparison, the cheaper alternatives are usually less powerful, bigger, and have terribad battery life...if you took more of it than that, I didn't mean to put that forward.

 

The XPS is stronger, no doubt, but again, it's not even an equal comparison -- there is no Dell notebook that has the same specs as a Macbook Pro without way over blowing it, and without adding a lot of weight and a lot of size.

 

In an equally powered system, the Apple will undoubtedly be smaller, sleeker and have better battery life. Like the person above who compared the Apple to a Asus (of all competitors), the Asus will no doubt weigh way more, it will be bigger and it will have absolutely terrible battery life...in short, Asus is trash, and I don't know anyone in the industry that would even buy an Asus.

 

I'm not saying the Apple is the top of the heap when it comes to hardware, everyone knows that's not the case, I'm simply saying that Apple puts a lot more effort and engineering into their designs than anyone else, thus some of the price increase has to be attributed to that.

 

Forget the comparison then. You could compare any laptop to that MacBook and realize that it is a ripoff. It is $2700 for a laptop with a core 2 duo, 4 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD, nVidia 8-series 512 MB GPU, and a 17" screen.

 

Toshiba gets $1400 for a laptop with a 320 GB HDD, 4 GB RAM, Core 2 Duo, and 9-series nVidia with 512 MB of RAM, 17" Screen.

 

HP gets $1050 for a laptop with Core 2 Duo, 320 GB HDD, 4 GB RAM and 512 MB Video Memory, 17" Screen.

 

MSI gets $1000 for a laptop with those specs.

 

The Toshiba clocks in at 7.99 lbs, the HP cat 7.64 lbs, the MSI at 7.05 lbs. The Apple? 6.6 lbs.

 

All this info is telling me is that Apple charges at least $1,000 more then competing laptops for ~1 lb. difference in weight, "sleek sexy trendy design", the Mac OS, and a slightly longer battery life?

 

It's a ripoff, none of those differences warrant such price increase... they just are not practical. They are for people who collect Apple's turds from their sewers. The fanboys. I'm not saying you are, or anyone here is, but it's these retards that help Apple feel empowered enough to jack up prices like that. They will slurp up anything Apple makes, regardless of competition, research or logic. Of course, a person such as yourself who uses logic when making computer decisions understands this, I'm just preaching to the choir.

[BobDylan]

I don't have an iPOD nor a Macbook -- and I know Asus is a component maker -- but they wouldn't be my first, or even second choice for my computer "builder". As for the "industry", I mean the IT industry, and those of us working in it, my entire group of friends, not to mention everyone I know that's in the business -- not a single one of them has an Asus computer or ever even thought of buying an Asus computer. And we've all been in this industry for over 10 years. Asus makes excellent motherboards, but when it comes to computers, meh, they're just another OEM builder that has little practical experience. I'd rather build my own if that was the case. Also, while my friends are huge into this racket, I'm not a big fan of piece by piece builds, simply because of how complicated the warranties can get, having to ship individual components off, etc is not fun. I'm one of two Mac users out of the bunch, and there are 12 of us, not counting work associates.

 

Isn't Asus one of the largest notebook producers in the world? OEM or not, a Google search on them results in 90% rave reviews of their products. The only Asus I've owned is the EEE, which I absolutely love. But like you said, it's a personal choice not to buy Asus.

 

I give the size/form factor example because I have yet to see/find a notebook or desktop machine with the same internal components (or close) that's as small as an equally powered Mac. If you need me to prove that to you, take the blinders off...because I know you haven't either. The smaller, tighter design is what makes them better looking, btw...not the fact that they use metal casings, since Dell (among others) does that, too.

 

I never thought size was an issue for desktops. I know they are making them smaller and smaller, but really, I still consider it a non-issue. As far as notebooks, the power that comes in Mac's line-ups is typically useless, as with many PC's. Anyone who wants sheer power and truly wants to use it, they'll go desktop. That said, the specs in a laptop are nearly a moot point. If anyone is seriously concerned about size, the choice is obvious; the open market has considerably smaller computers available. But I guess if you want both power and size, well, if we take your claims, then the choice is between somewhere around $500-1500 in price for less than an inch in size. That's not worth it to me.

 

Design? That's more of a personal preference. However, if Apple's design beats the competition with ventilation issues and upgrade ability, then they win there. While it's probably the case versus some computers, I don't think it is the case versus all.

 

 

And for the record:

 

My home desktop is an iMAC 24"

My work laptop is a Lenovo T60

My work desktop is Lenovo/IBM desktop

My second home laptop is a Dell Inspiron 17"

My third home laptop is a Dell XPS

 

Out of all of the computers I use, I have but 1 Mac, so I'm not some crazed biased Mac fanboi.

 

I apologize for treating you like a fanboy and misunderstanding points of your argument. It's become somewhat a force of habit to treat Mac users this way as more and more fanboys crop up each day without knowing s*** about any computer they've ever owned. Apples are great computers, it is impossible to deny this. But some talk like they aren't flawed, they're perfect and the price is justified--all of which I strongly disagree with.

 

You have a pretty nice computer line-up and I'm a lover of Lenovo. Are you running SLI in that XPS?

[ozzfest]

apples are sick

[Y2HH]

I apologize for treating you like a fanboy and misunderstanding points of your argument. It's become somewhat a force of habit to treat Mac users this way as more and more fanboys crop up each day without knowing s*** about any computer they've ever owned. Apples are great computers, it is impossible to deny this. But some talk like they aren't flawed, they're perfect and the price is justified--all of which I strongly disagree with.

 

You have a pretty nice computer line-up and I'm a lover of Lenovo. Are you running SLI in that XPS?

 

I know what you mean, I don't like dealing with any sort of fanboi, no matter what camp they're in.

 

No, the XPS is pre-laptop SLI, it's my oldest machine, but it still works. I run XP on the XPS, Vista Business on the Inspiron, and XP on both Lenovo's. I'm not a big fan of Vista. I run a 2 way firewall on all of my Windows machines so I have no need for UAC, besides that, I think it's implementation is just braindead.