Originally Posted by NoahJ
This line says it all:When asked to compare existing and future products against the popular MacBook Air, the pair noted that the device is powered by an Intel Core processor, shares some of the same attributes as an Ultrabook and represents a "great choice for someone who wants to invest in the Mac operating system."
"But really, with the Ultrabook, it's about offering all those things in the same device--the great responsiveness, the great battery life--and with an operating system that people have come to love over the years, as well as all the legacy applications that they would like to run," they said.
For them it is all about getting this running Windows.
Intel doesn't make money on Windows. They make money on chips. The big problem is they should have been more careful. It does look like they were taken out of context, but they should be careful to not make comparisons to one of their customer's products.
Originally Posted by focher
Ah, yes. I've been to an Apple Store too.
Seriously, ultrabooks are just blatant copies of the MBA. That's fine. I have no problem with copying a good design. But they bring nothing new, except the likelihood of poor quality knockoffs.
I do have a bit of a problem with copying designs, whether or not they add something to it. There's a difference between inspiration and copying, and sadly, it's mostly a cloner market now.
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Cheap and plentiful is what the PC business is all about.
Wealth transfer from customers to shareholders is what Apple is all about.
Open your local Best Buy flyer and you're likely to see some variation on this:
An entry level MacBook Pro pictured next to a totally tricked out PC notebook with the latest quad core i7, a fancy discrete video chip with tons of VRAM, double the RAM, double the storage, etc.
The kicker? In almost every case the high end PC carries a lower price tag than the entry level Mac.
I like OS X and the aluminum unibody case is very practical, but there's no denying that Mac buyers pay a huge premium for them.
In a way, that's true, but sometimes the OS alone is worth the difference. I regret the Windows notebook I bought last year. The screen was lower resolution and had a poor viewing angle, the chassis and case is flimsy, the unit is heavy, the ergonomics are bad, I had to uninstall a lot of software cruft, and the default settings for something the track pad were out of whack. One can buy something based on price, but sometimes you get what you pay for. And this was a $900 laptop.
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Well they could always start to use AMD, which have much slower procesors. Or maybe use ARM designs for their desktops which again cant compete with Intel desktop processors AND will require a rewrite of more or less all desktop programs.
face it, its intel or you are screwed.
Its just a comment. Is that what it takes to get this army going?
Fine, go to AMD and enjoy your second rate performance. Or go to ARM and enjoy lagging WAYYYY behind in the power stakes.
This comment looks like you forgot what you were talking about and wrote it a second time.