NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.
I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.
I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)
Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
ITS IN THE SOFTWARE!!!
SERIOUSLY!!! Do you even watch the apple keynotes??? The hardware in the longrun is NOT what drives industries, its software... in every keynote Apple spends about 80% of the time talking about what new programs and software advances it makes and in the end posts up a 5 minute grid of what hardware is in it... the hardware may be what be physically holding the computer up, but its the software thats pumping the blood through it... most people still don't get it... YOU STILL DON'T GET IT... post all the cool software that Microsoft has made for you and tell us all how its contributing to everyone's lives!!!... dont even bother... I dont think i can stand another one of your comparision charts...
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.
I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.
I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)
Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
Interesting post and comparison! The only point I miss is that this should be an ad made from HP which makes the hardware, not Microsoft which makes the OS.
MS is implicitly stating their OS doesn't play any role in the choice of a PC, whereas it all comes down to price and HW performance.
For a company that only makes software this is a dangerous path, in my opinion.
Moreover.. Isn't HP the company which is evaluating (according to some rumors) the adoption of Android for their netbooks??
I think the ad is interesting, but on the other hand I also think:
- this looks much more like an HP ad than Microsoft ad
- no mention about software whatsoever
- all the "interviewed" people WOULD LIKE TO BUY a Mac but, basically, cannot afford one (yet).
As much as I like it, there is actually not much value placed in software from the part of Microsoft.
Now, the late 2006 Macbook (Dual Core, 2.0 ghz) gets a 2566. The current low end Macbook gets 2691. The "low end" Macbook Pro gets 3059. For a CPU that's only about 11% faster in clock speed, you get an almost 17% increase in performance.
The MAJOR caveat, of course, is the cost - getting a Macbook pro is some 27% more expensive than a similarly equipped HP. Getting a low end Macbook is actually about 10% cheaper than a similarly equipped HP with about a 6% performance increase.
So looking at the CPU/Memory system alone, Macs more than hold their own, performance wise, against this HP. That includes Macs that are clocked at a lower Ghz. But the HP does come with several goodies that neither the Macbook nor MBP come with: blu ray, 16" monitor (with 1920x1080 option), HDMI out, etc. The Macbooks have size and weight on their side - maybe battery life as well. Possibly higher quality screens.
Really though, to say that this guy picked this laptop because macs don't perform is silly. Whatever other anecdotal evidence people come up with, at least with Geekbench, the macs hold their own.
This is not true. PCIe cards for [my] Mac Pro has to be made for the EFI, which limits the numbers of options. The newer ATI 4870 that Apple is selling as a upgrade, is being sold with a 100%+ premium.
Still, this does not make me want to go back til PCs. I can live with not having to choose from 100+ different models of graphics card, but I wouldnt mind having a couple of alternatives.
Apple and M$ both suck royally ..........if Giampaolo was really tech savy he would picked computer and installed linux on top of it ...........only thing windows is good for is playing games and apple is good for showing off that beautiful aluminium case .......just buy core 17 latpot from acer with no OS and install linux didtro like ubuntu on it ........... linux is for people who actually want things to works .......like 20,000 google staff uses linux distro called gobuntu ........besides linux powering thier servers .even apple insider runs on linux
\tSite\tSite Report\tFirst seen\tNetblock\tOS
1.\twww.appleinsider.com \tSite Report \tseptember 1998 \t260 king st \tlinux - centos
2.\tforums.appleinsider.com \tSite Report \tfebuary 2002 \t260 king st \tlinux - centos
3.\tappleinsider.com \tSite Report \tfebuary 1999 \t260 king st \tunknown
I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
whr is watt hours. So depending on the consumption (in Watts) of the computer, you get (whr divided by watt) hours.
If mac/pc uses 20 watts, you would get 65/20 = 3h 15m. or 85/20 = 4h 15 min.
iLife is free; so is Open Office-available for all. For that matter, it's widely known, at least outside of the Mac circle, that one can find open source apps for nearly all your needs on your PC. So I'd advise looking for another argument than the software niche.
I went into an apple store on the Central Coast in California, looked at a macbook air, and asked the salesguy, "why does one macbook air have flash memory for storage, and the other have a hard drive?" He paused, looked at the spec sheets, said, "hmmm...that's a good queistion....I don't know."
We had actually gone into the apple store looking for a replacement battery for my wife's three year old G4 iBook; battery life is down to less than 10 minutes unplugged.
This is not true. PCIe cards for [my] Mac Pro has to be made for the EFI, which limits the numbers of options. The newer ATI 4870 that Apple is selling as a upgrade, is being sold with a 100%+ premium.
Still, this does not make me want to go back til PCs. I can live with not having to choose from 100+ different models of graphics card, but I wouldnt mind having a couple of alternatives.
:-Dennis
Dude, go to osx86, become a member, boot to windows with a gpu of you choice, get the dvuce code, then ask someone fir the drivers, edit the .plist and .kext files and you'll be set. No need to pay 500% increase from apple. Ha ha
Also, I think people are unserestimatun microsoft. When vista came out, they were still dealing with several os's, now they have one, win7 and I.T. Likes it plusnew mibe looks good. While I like mac, we need good if not great windows machines, netbooks, mobile phones to keep jobs away for good and have apple release products at true price point. Pay $359 fir apple care? That covers the cost if the parts, most if the time. Apple asks for a 1000 price premium on evrything, heck, even phone cases are retail, same item at best buy or frye is 20% lower not to mention what apple charges for gpu, ram, and no mid range or crippled low end. Just be glad bread and butter iPhones might take a huge hit when 59 million have 2 year contracts expire.
iLife is free; so is Open Office-available for all. For that matter, it's widely known, at least outside of the Mac circle, that one can find open source apps for nearly all your needs on your PC. So I'd advise looking for another argument than the software niche.
I went into an apple store on the Central Coast in California, looked at a macbook air, and asked the salesguy, "why does one macbook air have flash memory for storage, and the other have a hard drive?" He paused, looked at the spec sheets, said, "hmmm...that's a good queistion....I don't know."
We had actually gone into the apple store looking for a replacement battery for my wife's three year old G4 iBook; battery life is down to less than 10 minutes unplugged.
LOL!!!
you asked the sales guy why does one MacbookAir have flash and another a regular HD? I'm not sure who the dummy is? you can't be serious with that question.
3 year old battery - get a grip, batteries don't last forever, they lose power over time.
All this bickering about if the PC is better than the Mac is pointless for one simple reason.
In general when someone goes out to buy a new computer they will have already decided if they want a Mac or a PC. It is not like they are the same thing, they may be similar BUT they are NOT the same.
If someone has decided to buy a Mac then they will have looked at the prices and made up their mind that is what they WANT, not NEED.
People do not shop like MS are trying to show in these ads and for that reason they will have no effect on sales of Macs or PCs.
If the concept of 'total cost of ownership' was more widely understood, then ads such as these would not gain traction. Does the valuation include the free-with-purchase iLife application suite? The whole premise is as pointless as an ad about trying to find a car for under $15k.
I hope Apple wakes up and realizes they don't need to extort such high prices for their hardware. Any company that has $18 billion in the bank has way too much profit margin!
You would make a great business man, just give the money away, IDIOT!
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.
I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.
I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)
Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
How convenient of you to ignore the backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc. They are NOT personal preferences they are VERY important and valuable features, but to include them would blow your point. What a fucking idiot.
Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.
Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this?
The Mac runs Mac OS X. The Dell cannot. That's reason enough.
For many, aesthetics and the user experience DO count.
Yes, we can quibble about this or that spec, but ultimately, it's about running Mac OS X and the software designed to run on it, NOT about saving a few pennies up front. BTW, running Mac OS X DOES save me money in the long run.
I really don't know why M$ is comparing hardware in their ads. They don't make the hardware, so why are they advertising it? Surely they should be touting the software features that Windoze has and the Mac OS supposedly lacks. You don't see Apple comparing, say, speakers that will play sound from a Mac, because they're nothing to do with Apple. It's upto the PC manufacturer what they include or don't include with their PC, not M$.
It's not all about hardware as M$ should know. If the software that runs on the hardware is poor, then no matter what hardware you have the computer will suck. Why can't they compare the software on the PCs and Macs, can M$ not find anything better on Windoze? It sure seems that way.
Giampaolo says at the end, "I'm a PC, because I'm really picky". Seems a bit ironic that it's Windows PCs that are picky, install something it doesn't like and you're presented with a nice friendly BSOD.
Comments
*sound of me repeatedly hitting my head on desk*
Okay, whoever made that ad needs to be fired. Now. What the hell is MS thinking? God.
Anyways, I saw a lot of people talking about benchmark comparisons between macs and PCs, so I decided to see for myself.
I looked at a computer on Apple.com and customized it a bit.
A 15-inch Macbook Pro with
- 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2 Dimms)
- 250GB Serial ATA HDD @ 5400rpm
- 8x optical disc drive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
- NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
- Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
- Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
- 5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
- 320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
- 8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
- ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
- A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
- An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
- HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
- Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
ITS IN THE SOFTWARE!!!
SERIOUSLY!!! Do you even watch the apple keynotes??? The hardware in the longrun is NOT what drives industries, its software... in every keynote Apple spends about 80% of the time talking about what new programs and software advances it makes and in the end posts up a 5 minute grid of what hardware is in it... the hardware may be what be physically holding the computer up, but its the software thats pumping the blood through it... most people still don't get it... YOU STILL DON'T GET IT... post all the cool software that Microsoft has made for you and tell us all how its contributing to everyone's lives!!!... dont even bother... I dont think i can stand another one of your comparision charts...
*sound of me repeatedly hitting my head on desk*
Okay, whoever made that ad needs to be fired. Now. What the hell is MS thinking? God.
Anyways, I saw a lot of people talking about benchmark comparisons between macs and PCs, so I decided to see for myself.
I looked at a computer on Apple.com and customized it a bit.
A 15-inch Macbook Pro with
- 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2 Dimms)
- 250GB Serial ATA HDD @ 5400rpm
- 8x optical disc drive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
- NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
- Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
- Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
- 5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
- 320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
- 8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
- ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
- A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
- An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
- HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
- Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
Interesting post and comparison! The only point I miss is that this should be an ad made from HP which makes the hardware, not Microsoft which makes the OS.
MS is implicitly stating their OS doesn't play any role in the choice of a PC, whereas it all comes down to price and HW performance.
For a company that only makes software this is a dangerous path, in my opinion.
Moreover.. Isn't HP the company which is evaluating (according to some rumors) the adoption of Android for their netbooks??
I think the ad is interesting, but on the other hand I also think:
- this looks much more like an HP ad than Microsoft ad
- no mention about software whatsoever
- all the "interviewed" people WOULD LIKE TO BUY a Mac but, basically, cannot afford one (yet).
As much as I like it, there is actually not much value placed in software from the part of Microsoft.
I imagine if someone did benchmarks between these two machines, would totally kill the premise of this ad.
Well, for what it's worth, we can look at Geekbench.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/120016 - HP, Dual Core, 2.13 ghz - gets a 2542.
Now, the late 2006 Macbook (Dual Core, 2.0 ghz) gets a 2566. The current low end Macbook gets 2691. The "low end" Macbook Pro gets 3059. For a CPU that's only about 11% faster in clock speed, you get an almost 17% increase in performance.
The MAJOR caveat, of course, is the cost - getting a Macbook pro is some 27% more expensive than a similarly equipped HP. Getting a low end Macbook is actually about 10% cheaper than a similarly equipped HP with about a 6% performance increase.
So looking at the CPU/Memory system alone, Macs more than hold their own, performance wise, against this HP. That includes Macs that are clocked at a lower Ghz. But the HP does come with several goodies that neither the Macbook nor MBP come with: blu ray, 16" monitor (with 1920x1080 option), HDMI out, etc. The Macbooks have size and weight on their side - maybe battery life as well. Possibly higher quality screens.
Really though, to say that this guy picked this laptop because macs don't perform is silly. Whatever other anecdotal evidence people come up with, at least with Geekbench, the macs hold their own.
hardware that works on a PC, works on a Mac.
This is not true. PCIe cards for [my] Mac Pro has to be made for the EFI, which limits the numbers of options. The newer ATI 4870 that Apple is selling as a upgrade, is being sold with a 100%+ premium.
Still, this does not make me want to go back til PCs. I can live with not having to choose from 100+ different models of graphics card, but I wouldnt mind having a couple of alternatives.
:-Dennis
\tSite\tSite Report\tFirst seen\tNetblock\tOS
1.\twww.appleinsider.com \tSite Report \tseptember 1998 \t260 king st \tlinux - centos
2.\tforums.appleinsider.com \tSite Report \tfebuary 2002 \t260 king st \tlinux - centos
3.\tappleinsider.com \tSite Report \tfebuary 1999 \t260 king st \tunknown
4.\timages.appleinsider.com \tSite Report \tfebuary 2004 \taffinity internet, inc \tlinux
http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?posit...pleinsider.com
Dont be losers choose linux today
I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
whr is watt hours. So depending on the consumption (in Watts) of the computer, you get (whr divided by watt) hours.
If mac/pc uses 20 watts, you would get 65/20 = 3h 15m. or 85/20 = 4h 15 min.
I went into an apple store on the Central Coast in California, looked at a macbook air, and asked the salesguy, "why does one macbook air have flash memory for storage, and the other have a hard drive?" He paused, looked at the spec sheets, said, "hmmm...that's a good queistion....I don't know."
We had actually gone into the apple store looking for a replacement battery for my wife's three year old G4 iBook; battery life is down to less than 10 minutes unplugged.
I find it humorous that he says he has "huge hands" LOL.
do you think is that some of Ballmers penis env.. MAC envy coming through in the ad?
I am also a Mac user and fan of Apple products.
This is not true. PCIe cards for [my] Mac Pro has to be made for the EFI, which limits the numbers of options. The newer ATI 4870 that Apple is selling as a upgrade, is being sold with a 100%+ premium.
Still, this does not make me want to go back til PCs. I can live with not having to choose from 100+ different models of graphics card, but I wouldnt mind having a couple of alternatives.
:-Dennis
Dude, go to osx86, become a member, boot to windows with a gpu of you choice, get the dvuce code, then ask someone fir the drivers, edit the .plist and .kext files and you'll be set. No need to pay 500% increase from apple. Ha ha
Also, I think people are unserestimatun microsoft. When vista came out, they were still dealing with several os's, now they have one, win7 and I.T. Likes it plusnew mibe looks good. While I like mac, we need good if not great windows machines, netbooks, mobile phones to keep jobs away for good and have apple release products at true price point. Pay $359 fir apple care? That covers the cost if the parts, most if the time. Apple asks for a 1000 price premium on evrything, heck, even phone cases are retail, same item at best buy or frye is 20% lower not to mention what apple charges for gpu, ram, and no mid range or crippled low end. Just be glad bread and butter iPhones might take a huge hit when 59 million have 2 year contracts expire.
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo P8700 (3MB cache/2.53GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
\t
LCD Panel:
Edge-to-Edge FullHD Widescreen 16.0 inch RGBLED LCD (1920x1080) W/2.0 MP
MEMORY:
4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
Hard Drive:
500GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
Video Card:
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 - 512MB
Sound Card:
ExpressCard Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio Sound Card
LCD and Camera:
Edge-to-Edge FullHD Widescreen 16.0 inch RGBLED LCD (1920x1080) W/2.0 MP
PRICE: $1599
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...-studio-xps-16
Seems to me that configuration is almost as good as the 15in macbook pro that cost 2500 bucks.
iLife is free; so is Open Office-available for all. For that matter, it's widely known, at least outside of the Mac circle, that one can find open source apps for nearly all your needs on your PC. So I'd advise looking for another argument than the software niche.
I went into an apple store on the Central Coast in California, looked at a macbook air, and asked the salesguy, "why does one macbook air have flash memory for storage, and the other have a hard drive?" He paused, looked at the spec sheets, said, "hmmm...that's a good queistion....I don't know."
We had actually gone into the apple store looking for a replacement battery for my wife's three year old G4 iBook; battery life is down to less than 10 minutes unplugged.
LOL!!!
you asked the sales guy why does one MacbookAir have flash and another a regular HD? I'm not sure who the dummy is? you can't be serious with that question.
3 year old battery - get a grip, batteries don't last forever, they lose power over time.
yeeeesh!
In general when someone goes out to buy a new computer they will have already decided if they want a Mac or a PC. It is not like they are the same thing, they may be similar BUT they are NOT the same.
If someone has decided to buy a Mac then they will have looked at the prices and made up their mind that is what they WANT, not NEED.
People do not shop like MS are trying to show in these ads and for that reason they will have no effect on sales of Macs or PCs.
They are wasting their time and money.
I hope Apple wakes up and realizes they don't need to extort such high prices for their hardware. Any company that has $18 billion in the bank has way too much profit margin!
You would make a great business man, just give the money away, IDIOT!
*sound of me repeatedly hitting my head on desk*
Okay, whoever made that ad needs to be fired. Now. What the hell is MS thinking? God.
Anyways, I saw a lot of people talking about benchmark comparisons between macs and PCs, so I decided to see for myself.
I looked at a computer on Apple.com and customized it a bit.
A 15-inch Macbook Pro with
- 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2 Dimms)
- 250GB Serial ATA HDD @ 5400rpm
- 8x optical disc drive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
- NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
- Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
- Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
- 5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
- 320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
- 8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
- ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
- A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
- An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
- HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
- Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
How convenient of you to ignore the backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc. They are NOT personal preferences they are VERY important and valuable features, but to include them would blow your point. What a fucking idiot.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
- Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
- Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
- 5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
- 320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
- 8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
- ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this?
The Mac runs Mac OS X. The Dell cannot. That's reason enough.
For many, aesthetics and the user experience DO count.
Yes, we can quibble about this or that spec, but ultimately, it's about running Mac OS X and the software designed to run on it, NOT about saving a few pennies up front. BTW, running Mac OS X DOES save me money in the long run.
Also, NEVER buy RAM from Apple.
Studio XPS 16:
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo P8700 (3MB cache/2.53GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
\t
LCD Panel:
Edge-to-Edge FullHD Widescreen 16.0 inch RGBLED LCD (1920x1080) W/2.0 MP
MEMORY:
4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
Hard Drive:
500GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive
Video Card:
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 - 512MB
Sound Card:
ExpressCard Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio Sound Card
LCD and Camera:
Edge-to-Edge FullHD Widescreen 16.0 inch RGBLED LCD (1920x1080) W/2.0 MP
PRICE: $1599
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...-studio-xps-16
Seems to me that configuration is almost as good as the 15in macbook pro that cost 2500 bucks.
And your point is?
Many cars have the same specs too, why buy a premium car over a cheap model?
Why BECAUSE IT IS THE ONE THAT YOU WANT.
You can always find something cheaper, does not mean you have to buy it.
Do you buy the cheapest of everything, do you own any brands? Look at yourself.
It's not all about hardware as M$ should know. If the software that runs on the hardware is poor, then no matter what hardware you have the computer will suck. Why can't they compare the software on the PCs and Macs, can M$ not find anything better on Windoze? It sure seems that way.
Giampaolo says at the end, "I'm a PC, because I'm really picky". Seems a bit ironic that it's Windows PCs that are picky, install something it doesn't like and you're presented with a nice friendly BSOD.