The guy who claimed that Mac hardware beats everything else at the same or lower price points. He /should/ care, but I suspect he would rather not have his bubble burst.
Fact is, Apple does not make any high-end performance laptops. Not even at the silly-high prices they charge. Instead, they make mainstream, mediocre hardware at higher-than-high-end prices.
Perhaps you should do some research after getting your myopia resolved. You've completely missed the point.
Here's the point I was responding to:
"Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
What point did I miss? Of course, Tenobell will likely repeat his claims despite them being refuted - his point is just so ridiculously wrong that only delusion can explain his making it in the first place.
Someone else asked for benchmarks, so I gave them, despite the fact that the specs alone make clear that the Macbook Pro has "measurable and quantifiable " deficiencies compared to machines costing MUCH less.
What's the point of trolling and lying at the same time?
iPod has been on the market for 8 years. Not 9.
Only 7.5 years... on the Windows side.
250 million sold. Not 210
The Mac's US market share is nearly 9%. Not 5%.
Around the launch of iPod for windows Apple had:
Around 20 million Mac users.
Annual Mac sales of just over 3 million.
Approx. 3% of the US computer market.
And 1.8% of the worldwide computer market.
Today:
Over 40 million Mac users.
Annual Mac sales of just nearly 11 million.
Nearly 9% of the US computer market.
And 3.6% of the worldwide computer market.
So in the iPod timeframe the relevant Mac stats have either doubled... or tripled.
That's not mythical. Just fact.
\\the halo effect still may be all a dream
could it be a simple that apple at the end of the day made a fantastic device
and people got tired of the dark lord gates ??
or maybe it all true
the halo the hulu >3 chip lap tops> glass screens etc etc and OSX !! a PERFECT STORM OF cool things driving ever increasing sales and ever more legacy sales on the second markets .
as a fanboy already owning 5 laptops and 2 imacs i still bought a 15" MBP fully loaded
what scares me is that apple in a down turn market sold very well . and every apple product is still at a new stage <> cept for 2 classics >
when the market comes back and 300 million school boy/girls returning to class needing electronics
or 60 fortune 500 companies tired of clone box crap seek a return to quality machines
The guy who claimed that Mac hardware beats everything else at the same or lower price points. He /should/care, but I suspect he would rather not have his bubble burst.
Fact is, Apple does not make any high-end performance laptops. Not even at the silly high prices they charge. Instead, they make mainstream, mediocre hardware at higher-than-high-end prices.
hey troll boy
MY
15" MBP 3.02GHz 500G 7200 rpm 3 chip setup proves you as a silly little man with no money to buy an apple machine.
my laptop out performs all of them except for the monster Allen ware $4500 lap top which is a suit case in reality . Your genius has walked around making agitating silly statements allover the place .
Come to my house your rudeness and play call of duty at full graphics and see no blur no lost frames full sync on every frame .
you had your giggle
we are all amused since you're the first jerk to come here and play these funny sarcasm games
ha ha
happy new year and i hope you get your first mac soon dude
years? fine ok, may only be a few months but just to correct your other 'facts' before we get into the witless ramblings.
According to the last reported figures (Sept 2009) Apple had sold 220million (yes I was out by 10m) iPods. Figures reported by BBC and Wiki. I'm sure it'll be x million more now but I was going (or trying) to go by last reported figures. ok?
marketshare (as reported in this thread) was 5.11%.There is no specific context to it though so how when and why is debatable.
Worldwide Apple will sell approx 12m machines out of a TOTAL market of 280m (approx)
the rest of the figures in your post mean nothing to the figures i quoted what they were/are when x was y or b = c is irrelevant.
so, in conclusion we can deduce that whilst Apple like to throw around words and phrases like record growth and xxx percent increase.
The truth is they have very little mindshare in computer hardware, even littler marketshare and their position of financial strength has come from profit per unit (or ripping off their loyal customers) and not from selling lots of high end machines.
There is no Halo affect that translates from PMP's to Computers. Arguably a bigger factor for Mac growth was Vista. A fact Apple readily acknowledges.
Apple has bet the farm on iPhone, might be a good bet, might not. Time will tell. Wonder if the discussion to stop selling computers has been started within Apple.?
Whatever Apple's good and bad points, as a viable truly mainstream OS they are as Ballmer stated... a rounding error.
you have said all this backwards and wrong
but your point is weirdly true
every vista /win7 ad increases apple sales
that dell boy running with a red DELL laptop thru the streets being chased by girls and boys increased apple sales
those msft laptop movie making chick ads increased APPLE SALES
every time someone want's to play a tune on the spot and can't pushes him for an ipod
my point
there is REAL unfilled computing needs not filled out there
.AND any google opr whatever ad will bring up thoughts of what best product fill that need . not only for the product in the ad !!!
happily a dell dude boy ad drives apple sales for that reason
years? fine ok, may only be a few months but just to correct your other 'facts' before we get into the witless ramblings.
According to the last reported figures (Sept 2009) Apple had sold 220million (yes I was out by 10m) iPods. Figures reported by BBC and Wiki. I'm sure it'll be x million more now but I was going (or trying) to go by last reported figures. ok?
marketshare (as reported in this thread) was 5.11%.There is no specific context to it though so how when and why is debatable.
Worldwide Apple will sell approx 12m machines out of a TOTAL market of 280m (approx)
the rest of the figures in your post mean nothing to the figures i quoted what they were/are when x was y or b = c is irrelevant.
so, in conclusion we can deduce that whilst Apple like to throw around words and phrases like record growth and xxx percent increase.
The truth is they have very little mindshare in computer hardware, even littler marketshare and their position of financial strength has come from profit per unit (or ripping off their loyal customers) and not from selling lots of high end machines.
There is no Halo affect that translates from PMP's to Computers. Arguably a bigger factor for Mac growth was Vista. A fact Apple readily acknowledges.
Apple has bet the farm on iPhone, might be a good bet, might not. Time will tell. Wonder if the discussion to stop selling computers has been started within Apple.?
Whatever Apple's good and bad points, as a viable truly mainstream OS they are as Ballmer stated... a rounding error.
you have said all this backwards and wrong
but your point is weirdly true
every vista /win7 ad increases apple sales
that dell boy running with a red DELL laptop thru the streets being chased by girls and boys increased apple sales
those msft laptop movie making chick ads increased APPLE SALES
every time someone want's to play a tune on the spot and can't pushes him for an ipod
my point
there is REAL unfilled computing needs not filled out there
.AND any google opr whatever ad will bring up thoughts of what best product fill that need . NOT ONLY FOR THE PRODUCT IN THE AD !!
happily a dell dude boy ad drives apple sales for that reason .
scary huh ??
i am in best buys all the time and see so many dells flying out the window
yet little by little people meander over to the apple table and marvel at the clean wonderful
uni bodiness of it all . once in a great while some one buys one .YET
the sales people tell me i am wrong
they wander around the dells alot marvelling at 600 dollar miracle machines but in the end an apple is
could it be a simple that apple at the end of the day made a fantastic device
and people got tired of the dark lord gates ??
or maybe it all true
the halo the hulu >3 chip lap tops> glass screens etc etc and OSX !! a PERFECT STORM OF cool things driving ever increasing sales and ever more legacy sales on the second markets .
Bruce, may I kindly suggest that you tone down your rhetoric?
These kind of posts simply attract troll moths to a fanboy flame.
15" MBP 3.02GHz 500G 7200 rpm 3 chip setup proves you as a silly little man with no money to buy an apple machine.
my laptop out performs all of them except for the monster Allen ware $4500 lap top
Your computer has an inferior, last-year's-tech CPU. No DMI, and with just a duo-core? DMI provides for a 10Gb/s bidirectional data rate. It simplifies the architecture and adds performance. Look it up.
And your digitally clueless beauty queen costs more than twice as much as a Dell Studio with a Quad-core mobile processor, a 1080p screen, a BluRay drive, Firewire, an eSata port, bigger battery and lots more.
I'm sure that your Mac is a competent machine.
But compared to other alternatives (not just "monster Allen ware" (sic), it is both underpowered and overpriced. Likely Apple will "refresh" the MacBook line to use modern components...some day. In the meantime, Apple's lineup is, well, underpowered and overpriced.
Apple does not currently make high-end laptops. Not even at twice the price of a typical high-end machine.
After downloading Chrome, and playing with it, for just a few minutes, it does appear to be faster (but what in hell can one tell in a few minutes).
It also appears to be somewhat of a minimalist at style or design, both of which likely help to make it faster.
For me, it's a lot like the iPhone. Some complain it's slow, blah, blah, blah, but folks, it's not just a phone, hell it's a small laptop for gods sake.
So having Chrome give you just what you need to surf the web (I'm sure there's more to it once I dig into it more), should allow it to be faster then Safari and others, as WE, the users of Safari and others, have asked that they do so much more then surf the web. I think that if we asked Apple to make a simple, fast browser, they could in fact do it, but we'd better not ask them to make it do, this, that and the other thing, and expect it still to be fast.
I think that you are confused. This is NOT a Windows machine. None of this is ever necessary with a Mac.
Hahaha, funny.
Mac's are not immune to problems, but it's a lot less than Windows because there are no viruses or worms for Mac's, unlike the hundreds of thousands of viruses for Windows.
Sure there are a few trojans and quite a few rootkits for Mac's, but one has to be tricked to install it.
The so-called ad blockers for Chrome are misnomers as they don't block ads at all but just hide them after the ad has been downloaded. Chrome does not have a content policy API like Firefox which allows to filter requests before they are actually executed. The real Adblock Plus therefore saves HTTP requests, DNS resolving and unmarshaling and decoding of data. Plus, badly written sites will block the engine from loading the rest of the page when waiting for a slow ad server to respond. *No* optimization to JavaScript or other parts of the engine can make up for the time lost waiting for some ad/tracking servers to respond.
Plus, ABP has filter subscriptions with a much more in-depth syntax (type specification, exceptions, whitelists, etc.).
Nice to know that. Thanks, I'll stick with Firefox.
Interesting you did not link to where these quotes came from. Because they are likely taken from entirely different articles published at different times and taken out of proper context.
You are reaching pretty far in attempt to use two disjointed quotes that ultimately prove nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
"Thanks to a new quad-core 1.6-GHz Intel Core i7 processor, part of a high-performance series designed with gamers and power users in mind, as well as 4GB of RAM and a 7,200-rpm hard drive, the Studio 17 notched 5,207 on PCMark Vantage. That’s more than 1,100 points above the desktop replacement category average (4,074), although another new quad-core Intel Core i7 machine, the $1,349 Acer Aspire 8940G, scored 5,962." --Laptopmag.com
"Our configuration included a 2.66-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and a robust 4GB of DDR3 RAM (expandable to 8GB for $1,000 extra), which enabled the MacBook Pro to achieve a score of 3,525 on our PCMark Vantage benchmark" --Laptopmag.com
You did not refute anything. You took two random quotes from two random articles and put them together with no context and no explanation of how they are connected.
Quote:
What point did I miss? Of course, Tenobell will likely repeat his claims despite them being refuted - his point is just so ridiculously wrong that only delusion can explain his making it in the first place.
Someone else asked for benchmarks, so I gave them, despite the fact that the specs alone make clear that the Macbook Pro has "measurable and quantifiable " deficiencies compared to machines costing MUCH less.
"Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
What point did I miss? Of course, Tenobell will likely repeat his claims despite them being refuted - his point is just so ridiculously wrong that only delusion can explain his making it in the first place.
Someone else asked for benchmarks, so I gave them, despite the fact that the specs alone make clear that the Macbook Pro has "measurable and quantifiable " deficiencies compared to machines costing MUCH less.
Again, you?re only looking at a few specs that wannabe geeks think are the only things that matter to everyone. By your example it?s like saying a Big Mac performs better than a nice steak because the Big Mac has more calories and cost a lot less, but I prefer the steak every time. BTW, you?re only using the word ?perform? in a very limited way to mean computing performance.
That's the whole point. No I see no articles where anyone has said that PC's out perform Mac's at a lower price. When it comes to notebooks performance can include size, weight, battery life.
Apple does not sell a notebook that will compromise size, weight, and battery life for diminishing returns on hardware performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
Do your own research. Can you find better information? It took me about 2 minutes to find the above.
And take off your blinders. Apple sells mainstream, middle-of-the-road hardware in pretty looking boxes at silly-expensive prices. That's nothing new.
Apple does not even sell a laptop with high-end hardware or performance. They sure are pretty tho. That is, unless one wants to wacth a BluRay disk at full resolution.
Q: Why even choose a notebook over a desktop, especially one that is made by a PC vendor, not one you built yourself. You can get a lot more “performance” out of a desktop you build yourself at much lower price than any PC vendor’s notebook.
A: Computing performance isn’t the only metric that conscientious buyers should consider.
Q: Why even choose a notebook over a desktop, especially one that is made by a PC vendor, not one you built yourself. You can get a lot more ?performance? out of a desktop you build yourself at much lower price than any PC vendor?s notebook.
A: Computing performance isn?t the only metric that conscientious buyers should consider.
Never, ever, ever, will I own another desktop. Aside from the AIO iMac paradigm, desktops are going the way of the dinosaurs.
Never, ever, ever, will I own another desktop. Aside from the AIO iMac paradigm, desktops are going the way of the dinosaurs.
Except for building several Hackintoshs over the last few years using some old desktops, I haven?t used a desktop as my personal machine since about 1998-99. My first one was from work; it was a $5000 Compaq with no optical drive and a keyboard that would come up and out (sideways) when the lid was opened.
I will admit that the new iMacs were nice enough to make me reconsider that position, even if for a second but having a 7 hour battery in a 1?, 5lb machine pretty much seals it for me.
Comments
Who cares? It doesn't run OS X. No OS X, no sale.
The guy who claimed that Mac hardware beats everything else at the same or lower price points. He /should/ care, but I suspect he would rather not have his bubble burst.
Fact is, Apple does not make any high-end performance laptops. Not even at the silly-high prices they charge. Instead, they make mainstream, mediocre hardware at higher-than-high-end prices.
Perhaps you should do some research after getting your myopia resolved. You've completely missed the point.
Here's the point I was responding to:
"Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
What point did I miss? Of course, Tenobell will likely repeat his claims despite them being refuted - his point is just so ridiculously wrong that only delusion can explain his making it in the first place.
Someone else asked for benchmarks, so I gave them, despite the fact that the specs alone make clear that the Macbook Pro has "measurable and quantifiable " deficiencies compared to machines costing MUCH less.
What's the point of trolling and lying at the same time?
iPod has been on the market for 8 years. Not 9.
Only 7.5 years... on the Windows side.
250 million sold. Not 210
The Mac's US market share is nearly 9%. Not 5%.
Around the launch of iPod for windows Apple had:
Around 20 million Mac users.
Annual Mac sales of just over 3 million.
Approx. 3% of the US computer market.
And 1.8% of the worldwide computer market.
Today:
Over 40 million Mac users.
Annual Mac sales of just nearly 11 million.
Nearly 9% of the US computer market.
And 3.6% of the worldwide computer market.
So in the iPod timeframe the relevant Mac stats have either doubled... or tripled.
That's not mythical. Just fact.
\\the halo effect still may be all a dream
could it be a simple that apple at the end of the day made a fantastic device
and people got tired of the dark lord gates ??
or maybe it all true
the halo the hulu >3 chip lap tops> glass screens etc etc and OSX !! a PERFECT STORM OF cool things driving ever increasing sales and ever more legacy sales on the second markets .
as a fanboy already owning 5 laptops and 2 imacs i still bought a 15" MBP fully loaded
what scares me is that apple in a down turn market sold very well . and every apple product is still at a new stage <> cept for 2 classics >
when the market comes back and 300 million school boy/girls returning to class needing electronics
or 60 fortune 500 companies tired of clone box crap seek a return to quality machines
halo or need for speed ??
The guy who claimed that Mac hardware beats everything else at the same or lower price points. He /should/care, but I suspect he would rather not have his bubble burst.
Fact is, Apple does not make any high-end performance laptops. Not even at the silly high prices they charge. Instead, they make mainstream, mediocre hardware at higher-than-high-end prices.
hey troll boy
MY
15" MBP 3.02GHz 500G 7200 rpm 3 chip setup proves you as a silly little man with no money to buy an apple machine.
my laptop out performs all of them except for the monster Allen ware $4500 lap top which is a suit case in reality . Your genius has walked around making agitating silly statements allover the place .
Come to my house your rudeness and play call of duty at full graphics and see no blur no lost frames full sync on every frame .
you had your giggle
we are all amused since you're the first jerk to come here and play these funny sarcasm games
ha ha
happy new year and i hope you get your first mac soon dude
But, IE has only 37%, FireFox has 57% and chrome has 8%. Take a look: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
i wonder how many people have all 3 browers ??
AOLis still alive by the way
years? fine ok, may only be a few months but just to correct your other 'facts' before we get into the witless ramblings.
According to the last reported figures (Sept 2009) Apple had sold 220million (yes I was out by 10m) iPods. Figures reported by BBC and Wiki. I'm sure it'll be x million more now but I was going (or trying) to go by last reported figures. ok?
marketshare (as reported in this thread) was 5.11%.There is no specific context to it though so how when and why is debatable.
Worldwide Apple will sell approx 12m machines out of a TOTAL market of 280m (approx)
you do the math...
http://www.purchasing.com/article/27...ck_in_2010.php
the rest of the figures in your post mean nothing to the figures i quoted what they were/are when x was y or b = c is irrelevant.
so, in conclusion we can deduce that whilst Apple like to throw around words and phrases like record growth and xxx percent increase.
The truth is they have very little mindshare in computer hardware, even littler marketshare and their position of financial strength has come from profit per unit (or ripping off their loyal customers) and not from selling lots of high end machines.
There is no Halo affect that translates from PMP's to Computers. Arguably a bigger factor for Mac growth was Vista. A fact Apple readily acknowledges.
Apple has bet the farm on iPhone, might be a good bet, might not. Time will tell. Wonder if the discussion to stop selling computers has been started within Apple.?
Whatever Apple's good and bad points, as a viable truly mainstream OS they are as Ballmer stated... a rounding error.
you have said all this backwards and wrong
but your point is weirdly true
every vista /win7 ad increases apple sales
that dell boy running with a red DELL laptop thru the streets being chased by girls and boys increased apple sales
those msft laptop movie making chick ads increased APPLE SALES
every time someone want's to play a tune on the spot and can't pushes him for an ipod
my point
there is REAL unfilled computing needs not filled out there
.AND any google opr whatever ad will bring up thoughts of what best product fill that need . not only for the product in the ad !!!
happily a dell dude boy ad drives apple sales for that reason
years? fine ok, may only be a few months but just to correct your other 'facts' before we get into the witless ramblings.
According to the last reported figures (Sept 2009) Apple had sold 220million (yes I was out by 10m) iPods. Figures reported by BBC and Wiki. I'm sure it'll be x million more now but I was going (or trying) to go by last reported figures. ok?
marketshare (as reported in this thread) was 5.11%.There is no specific context to it though so how when and why is debatable.
Worldwide Apple will sell approx 12m machines out of a TOTAL market of 280m (approx)
you do the math...
http://www.purchasing.com/article/27...ck_in_2010.php
the rest of the figures in your post mean nothing to the figures i quoted what they were/are when x was y or b = c is irrelevant.
so, in conclusion we can deduce that whilst Apple like to throw around words and phrases like record growth and xxx percent increase.
The truth is they have very little mindshare in computer hardware, even littler marketshare and their position of financial strength has come from profit per unit (or ripping off their loyal customers) and not from selling lots of high end machines.
There is no Halo affect that translates from PMP's to Computers. Arguably a bigger factor for Mac growth was Vista. A fact Apple readily acknowledges.
Apple has bet the farm on iPhone, might be a good bet, might not. Time will tell. Wonder if the discussion to stop selling computers has been started within Apple.?
Whatever Apple's good and bad points, as a viable truly mainstream OS they are as Ballmer stated... a rounding error.
you have said all this backwards and wrong
but your point is weirdly true
every vista /win7 ad increases apple sales
that dell boy running with a red DELL laptop thru the streets being chased by girls and boys increased apple sales
those msft laptop movie making chick ads increased APPLE SALES
every time someone want's to play a tune on the spot and can't pushes him for an ipod
my point
there is REAL unfilled computing needs not filled out there
.AND any google opr whatever ad will bring up thoughts of what best product fill that need . NOT ONLY FOR THE PRODUCT IN THE AD !!
happily a dell dude boy ad drives apple sales for that reason .
scary huh ??
i am in best buys all the time and see so many dells flying out the window
yet little by little people meander over to the apple table and marvel at the clean wonderful
uni bodiness of it all . once in a great while some one buys one .YET
the sales people tell me i am wrong
they wander around the dells alot marvelling at 600 dollar miracle machines but in the end an apple is
sold anyway .
3 yrs ago this was not the case
peace and sorry for my 09 rants
10 i will hold it down to 2 lines max
9
\\the halo effect still may be all a dream
could it be a simple that apple at the end of the day made a fantastic device
and people got tired of the dark lord gates ??
or maybe it all true
the halo the hulu >3 chip lap tops> glass screens etc etc and OSX !! a PERFECT STORM OF cool things driving ever increasing sales and ever more legacy sales on the second markets .
Bruce, may I kindly suggest that you tone down your rhetoric?
These kind of posts simply attract troll moths to a fanboy flame.
MY
15" MBP 3.02GHz 500G 7200 rpm 3 chip setup proves you as a silly little man with no money to buy an apple machine.
my laptop out performs all of them except for the monster Allen ware $4500 lap top
Your computer has an inferior, last-year's-tech CPU. No DMI, and with just a duo-core? DMI provides for a 10Gb/s bidirectional data rate. It simplifies the architecture and adds performance. Look it up.
And your digitally clueless beauty queen costs more than twice as much as a Dell Studio with a Quad-core mobile processor, a 1080p screen, a BluRay drive, Firewire, an eSata port, bigger battery and lots more.
I'm sure that your Mac is a competent machine.
But compared to other alternatives (not just "monster Allen ware" (sic), it is both underpowered and overpriced. Likely Apple will "refresh" the MacBook line to use modern components...some day. In the meantime, Apple's lineup is, well, underpowered and overpriced.
Apple does not currently make high-end laptops. Not even at twice the price of a typical high-end machine.
It also appears to be somewhat of a minimalist at style or design, both of which likely help to make it faster.
For me, it's a lot like the iPhone. Some complain it's slow, blah, blah, blah, but folks, it's not just a phone, hell it's a small laptop for gods sake.
So having Chrome give you just what you need to surf the web (I'm sure there's more to it once I dig into it more), should allow it to be faster then Safari and others, as WE, the users of Safari and others, have asked that they do so much more then surf the web. I think that if we asked Apple to make a simple, fast browser, they could in fact do it, but we'd better not ask them to make it do, this, that and the other thing, and expect it still to be fast.
IMHO
Skip
happy new year and i hope you get your first mac soon dude
Just to set the record straight, the first Apple product I bought was in 1984. Were you born then?
I think that you are confused. This is NOT a Windows machine. None of this is ever necessary with a Mac.
Hahaha, funny.
Mac's are not immune to problems, but it's a lot less than Windows because there are no viruses or worms for Mac's, unlike the hundreds of thousands of viruses for Windows.
Sure there are a few trojans and quite a few rootkits for Mac's, but one has to be tricked to install it.
The so-called ad blockers for Chrome are misnomers as they don't block ads at all but just hide them after the ad has been downloaded. Chrome does not have a content policy API like Firefox which allows to filter requests before they are actually executed. The real Adblock Plus therefore saves HTTP requests, DNS resolving and unmarshaling and decoding of data. Plus, badly written sites will block the engine from loading the rest of the page when waiting for a slow ad server to respond. *No* optimization to JavaScript or other parts of the engine can make up for the time lost waiting for some ad/tracking servers to respond.
Plus, ABP has filter subscriptions with a much more in-depth syntax (type specification, exceptions, whitelists, etc.).
Nice to know that. Thanks, I'll stick with Firefox.
You are reaching pretty far in attempt to use two disjointed quotes that ultimately prove nothing.
"Thanks to a new quad-core 1.6-GHz Intel Core i7 processor, part of a high-performance series designed with gamers and power users in mind, as well as 4GB of RAM and a 7,200-rpm hard drive, the Studio 17 notched 5,207 on PCMark Vantage. That’s more than 1,100 points above the desktop replacement category average (4,074), although another new quad-core Intel Core i7 machine, the $1,349 Acer Aspire 8940G, scored 5,962." --Laptopmag.com
"Our configuration included a 2.66-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and a robust 4GB of DDR3 RAM (expandable to 8GB for $1,000 extra), which enabled the MacBook Pro to achieve a score of 3,525 on our PCMark Vantage benchmark" --Laptopmag.com
You did not refute anything. You took two random quotes from two random articles and put them together with no context and no explanation of how they are connected.
What point did I miss? Of course, Tenobell will likely repeat his claims despite them being refuted - his point is just so ridiculously wrong that only delusion can explain his making it in the first place.
Someone else asked for benchmarks, so I gave them, despite the fact that the specs alone make clear that the Macbook Pro has "measurable and quantifiable " deficiencies compared to machines costing MUCH less.
Here's the point I was responding to:
"Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
What point did I miss? Of course, Tenobell will likely repeat his claims despite them being refuted - his point is just so ridiculously wrong that only delusion can explain his making it in the first place.
Someone else asked for benchmarks, so I gave them, despite the fact that the specs alone make clear that the Macbook Pro has "measurable and quantifiable " deficiencies compared to machines costing MUCH less.
Again, you?re only looking at a few specs that wannabe geeks think are the only things that matter to everyone. By your example it?s like saying a Big Mac performs better than a nice steak because the Big Mac has more calories and cost a lot less, but I prefer the steak every time. BTW, you?re only using the word ?perform? in a very limited way to mean computing performance.
Apple does not sell a notebook that will compromise size, weight, and battery life for diminishing returns on hardware performance.
Do your own research. Can you find better information? It took me about 2 minutes to find the above.
And take off your blinders. Apple sells mainstream, middle-of-the-road hardware in pretty looking boxes at silly-expensive prices. That's nothing new.
Apple does not even sell a laptop with high-end hardware or performance. They sure are pretty tho. That is, unless one wants to wacth a BluRay disk at full resolution.
@ iGenius,
Never, ever, ever, will I own another desktop. Aside from the AIO iMac paradigm, desktops are going the way of the dinosaurs.
Never, ever, ever, will I own another desktop. Aside from the AIO iMac paradigm, desktops are going the way of the dinosaurs.
Except for building several Hackintoshs over the last few years using some old desktops, I haven?t used a desktop as my personal machine since about 1998-99. My first one was from work; it was a $5000 Compaq with no optical drive and a keyboard that would come up and out (sideways) when the lid was opened.
I will admit that the new iMacs were nice enough to make me reconsider that position, even if for a second but having a 7 hour battery in a 1?, 5lb machine pretty much seals it for me.
One of your new year's resolutions should be looking up the word 'fact'.
Geez, why are you responding to teckstud?