Though not a market per se, iWeb is a new addition that will help get the general user in to buy iLife and maybe the computer needed to run it.
A couple of reviews of the MP are popping up, all pretty favorable, especially saying that you get the best of both worlds: Mac OS and Windoze. So, this is a new market: a machine that can run MAc OS and Windows, natively. No other maker can do that.
Another misinterpretaion. I meant that Apple do not appear to currently be trying to forge new markets. The iPod was launched several years ago, and the portable mp3 market already existed when Apple launched the iPod.
Airport was also launched many years ago.
I would not describe the Mac Mini or the iMac as forging new markets. They are used as conventional PCs. Some Mac Minis are used as HTPCs, but that market already existed before the Mac Mini was launched.
Sorry, but you're nucking futs if you believe that.
They're all nascent, small ideas that Apple have grabbed by the bollocks and ran with in the way only Apple really do. And that's why we like them. Not that they do cheap-ass half hearted beige/black econo-boxes like Dell.
Sorry, but you're nucking futs if you believe that.
They're all nascent, small ideas that Apple have grabbed by the bollocks and ran with in the way only Apple really do. And that's why we like them. Not that they do cheap-ass half hearted beige/black econo-boxes like Dell.
I'd like to take this opportunity to say that, as an undereducated American, I love British English.
You are demonstrating an awesome lack of basic reading, comprehension and logical reasoning skills. Please, go back and re-read my posts.
Right, it is logical to assume that had you known that the macbook was #1, #2, and #3 on the laptop list that you would have choosen the Amazon list as your example rather than some other source. I re-read your post. You clearly call out that the Toshiba is #1 and the Acer #4, and the argument would have been less compelling if they were #4 and #8.
Quote:
You are suggesting that Amazon's best-seller list implies that Apple's laptops outsell PC laptops.
I am suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm suggesting that Amazon is a poor choice to support any argument that Apple is not addressing a large segment of the market given its prominence on that list.
#1 prior to the introduction of the macbooks the 15.4" MBPs outsold the Toshiba and VAIO. Therefore the $1999 price did not seem to deter folks seeking a 15.4" laptop to select Apple even with a $1000 price difference.
#2 with the macbook the folks that purchase $1000 computers out purchased the less expensive 15.4" models despite the same price. Therefore screen size does not seem to deter folks.
#3 In no way can you show using Amazon numbers, which you claim are skewed anyway, indicates that 15.4" widescreen Celeron-Ms represents any sort of PC sweet spot given as you point out Dell isn't on that list and I'm bleeding sure that the VAIO model currently sitting near the top isn't a market leader in terms of volume.
Therefore no matter how you cut it trying to use Amazon numbers to show that Apple is underserving the PC market by not offering a $999 15.4" WS Celeron-M MacBook is flawed...especially since there are $1K 15.4" WS Core Duo's on the market like the Acer Aspire.
Now the argument that they should offer a $1099 15.4" Core Duo MacBook has other issues. Like margins which you state you want to keep high and cannibalizing MBP sales that have aready seen an impact. An issue you steadfastly ignore.
Even a $1699 15.4 is problematic as you are now $700 above the $1K Acer and only $300 below the bottom end MBP which you might as well write off. Congrats you have now cannibalized your $1999 laptops sales for $1699 laptop sales and probably gained zero share against the Acer.
Ok in all seriousness here... Why are so many people arguing about specs between Dell and Apple. We all know that there is no reason to buy a Dell after Bootcamp. First of all I don't even need Windows anyway hehe. Lucky me. I think the new MacBooks are great!
Sure I wish we got a better graphics chipset, which would have been the best tasting icing ever on the already glorious cake. However, working at Staples in computer sales has shown me that the MacBook is very competitively priced. Dollar for dollar it is several hundred cheaper than anything that comes close in terms of what we sell. In terms of warranty it's 170 for two years and begins after the one year MFR warranty. Apples 3 year is only 218 in comparison and is so much better.
The only gripe I was going to have with the MacBook was for gaming which honestly the more I think about it, I don't care. Having a dedicated card would have been like having a Hemi in VW Golf. Hell I might even splurge on the black one. It looks phenomenal.
Hopefully, I will be able to get a deal or something on one in late August, right before going to Europe for a couple of weeks. Should be glorious.
Bottom line:
To all of you whiners out there, you sound like Mariah Carey caught in a bear trap. To the rest of you, good earplugs are in order, or in some cases an over-abundance of wax will do the trick.
If you want a Dell, go get one. Just don't complain, it makes you look inadequate, in (ahem) all areas.
You clearly call out that the Toshiba is #1 and the Acer #4
I am suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm suggesting that Amazon is a poor choice to support any argument that Apple is not addressing a large segment of the market given its prominence on that list.
Good post.
I wish I'd left the numbers out. Pointing people at the list was more so that they could see that almost half (9 out of 20) of the best-selling laptops have Celeron-M class processors and 15.4" screens.
Perhaps using Amazon was a dumb idea. The only thing is, I don't know of anywhere else that sells a lot of laptops from different manufacturers and provides a list of best sellers. Do you?
Having thought about it, the 15.4" screen thing is less important, because they all have the same resolution as the 13" screen anyway, and just serve to make the laptop bulkier and heavier. There may be some people who think the pixel density on the 13" is too high, so there may be some point in offering it as a BTO option.
More significantly, is the Celeron-M, which indicates people are happy to sacrifice some power in order to save money. OS X would run quite happily on a Celeron-M 4xx. It is exactly the same as the Core Solo processor, but with 1 MB cache instead of 2 MB, 533 MHz bus instead of 667, and marginally less sophisticated power management. It is pin-for-pin compatible with the Core Duo (which can be observed from the Core Duo spec. sheet and Celeron 4xx spec. sheet), and therefore does not require a motherboard re-design from Apple.
I wish I'd left the numbers out. Pointing people at the list was more so that they could see that almost half (9 out of 20) of the best-selling laptops have Celeron-M class processors and 15.4" screens.
I think an important aspect is that even is we accept that as a given the problem is that you still need to show that you can grow share and not just cannibalize sales from more expensive Macs.
You have to show that a $899 (or whatever) Celeron-M laptop from Apple without iSight, remote, reliable 1080p playback is compelling enough for switchers in large enough numbers to offset the cannibalization of sales within the current Mac buyers. You'd also want to show that the $899 laptop maintains not just magins but total revenue because if you don't grow unit sales the margins may remain fine but you've still reduced total profit.
I don't think you can show that given the lack of data. It would require internal numbers that don't appear to the public and require relatively accruate prediction in what makes switchers switch.
Personally, with equally zero data, I feel the style, branding and high-end features of the Apple line makes it more compelling than price and variety. There are many many PC manufacturers that compete on price and variety.
The current Apple line is big enough to fit either mid range price ($1K) or various screen sizes (except ultra-portables) even if you can't get the exact mix you might desire (lower price, bigger screen, smaller processor).
I think an important aspect is that even is we accept that as a given the problem is that you still need to show that you can grow share and not just cannibalize sales from more expensive Macs.
Indeed. I don't think there is any reliable way to accurately predict this. It is just my strongly held opinion that it would not significantly cannibalise sales of more capable machines.
I think an important aspect is that even is we accept that as a given the problem is that you still need to show that you can grow share and not just cannibalize sales from more expensive Macs.
You have to show that a $899 (or whatever) Celeron-M laptop from Apple without iSight, remote, reliable 1080p playback is compelling enough for switchers in large enough numbers to offset the cannibalization of sales within the current Mac buyers. You'd also want to show that the $899 laptop maintains not just magins but total revenue because if you don't grow unit sales the margins may remain fine but you've still reduced total profit.
That's the thing though, if a cheaper, lower-featured notebook would cannibalize faster, more featured product, it might be because of price, but also because those features aren't all that necessary. Front Row + remote, Photo Booth + iSight, Bluetooth and dual core aren't necessarily things I really care about. Making them standard makes the feature available inexpensively for people that need it, but at the expense of people that wouldn't necessarily use them, other than maybe for a few minutes worth of novelty.
The iSight is even undesirable for those that work with draconian types of organizations.
Anyone who wants to even occasionally play 3D games cares. Most students will want to play games occasionally. I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU. Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot. Apple should offer a BTO with a decent, dedicated GPU, say a Mobility Radeon 9700. Even the Sims requires a decent GPU.
Don't believe everything you see.
I've had Intel Extreme2 and GMA 900/950 graphics equipped PCs for a while now and most 3D games play on them. You may not be able to run at the highest resolution or detail level, but if you're an occasional gamer, you don't have to. I've played GTA 3/4, Far Cry, UT4, BF, and a few others I don't remember.
As far as speed goes, Intel GMA chips are significantly faster than Radeon 7500, 8500, and 9200 series if paired with a fast CPU (there is no T&L on the chip, so CPU has to take care of that).
If you're an occasional gamer, as you say, Intel Integrated graphics are ok.
That's the thing though, if a cheaper, lower-featured notebook would cannibalize faster, more featured product, it might be because of price, but also because those features aren't all that necessary. Front Row + remote, Photo Booth + iSight, Bluetooth and dual core aren't necessarily things I really care about. Making them standard makes the feature available inexpensively for people that need it, but at the expense of people that wouldn't necessarily use them, other than maybe for a few minutes worth of novelty.
The iSight is even undesirable for those that work with draconian types of organizations.
You could have said the same thing about firewire, etc. The remote, iSight, and BT are not overly expensive items. Dual core is useful to produce the level of performance desired.
If you eliminate all of these features is there a point in picking an intel notebook over a G4? Why not just whine about Apple's margins and be done with it?
You'd also have to show what that's to Apple's benefit to cannibalize sales of higher priced machines.
I saw the new MacBooks today at the Chicago Apple Store. Really cool. Very fast. I don't like the glossy screens much, but I installed XBench on one of the BlackBooks there to see just how fast these babies are. It is over twice as fast as my PB 15" 1.67 AlBook, even with two GB Ram. Admittedly the Apple Store BlackBook had 1GB of ram in it, which I asked about and the assistant didn't agree with (policy wise - it was clear in the Apple menu).
Still, this absolutely crushes the old Powerbooks. I'm getting one of either the next Rev MacBookPro's, or maybe even the one after that...those are going to really kick ass. By then my PB will be wheezing away anyway...right now it's fine for what I need it for (email, surfing etc.)
Yay my Macbook just came today. My first impression, HEAVY! The Macbook is for my wife so I don't mind to much but I really believe Apple is behind technologically in the weight area. I tied to find a 13.3 inch notebook that was heavier but couldn't, the Macbook was the heaviest by at least a pound in every instance. I really hope Apple comes out with a smaller, lighter model. Well thank god OSX works on my Thinkpad X60.
Yay my Macbook just came today. My first impression, HEAVY! The Macbook is for my wife so I don't mind to much but I really believe Apple is behind technologically in the weight area. I tied to find a 13.3 inch notebook that was heavier but couldn't, the Macbook was the heaviest by at least a pound in every instance. I really hope Apple comes out with a smaller, lighter model. Well thank god OSX works on my Thinkpad X60.
Let's see these lighter PC laptops, please. Do they have Intel Core Duo and at least 55 WHr battery?
Yay my Macbook just came today. My first impression, HEAVY! The Macbook is for my wife so I don't mind to much but I really believe Apple is behind technologically in the weight area. I tied to find a 13.3 inch notebook that was heavier but couldn't, the Macbook was the heaviest by at least a pound in every instance. I really hope Apple comes out with a smaller, lighter model. Well thank god OSX works on my Thinkpad X60.
I hope you're not trying to imply that your ThinkPad X60 with your pirated OS X in any way compares to a MacBook. If we leave the ridiculously bad design aside, we still have to take into account that it doesn't have widescreen, has 23.2% less screen estate, has no optical drive (which, btw, significantly adds to the weight, of course) nor Bluetooth, comes with a slightly slower CPU and still costs $400 more.
Yay my Macbook just came today. My first impression, HEAVY! The Macbook is for my wife so I don't mind to much but I really believe Apple is behind technologically in the weight area. I tied to find a 13.3 inch notebook that was heavier but couldn't, the Macbook was the heaviest by at least a pound in every instance. I really hope Apple comes out with a smaller, lighter model. Well thank god OSX works on my Thinkpad X60.
You are the negative type, are you not?
You don't think along the line "oh what a wonderful machine,
what a beauty beast, competitive priced too." No, you rather
propose "weigh' an' heavy crap". Come on, man, apologize
Comments
A couple of reviews of the MP are popping up, all pretty favorable, especially saying that you get the best of both worlds: Mac OS and Windoze. So, this is a new market: a machine that can run MAc OS and Windows, natively. No other maker can do that.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Another misinterpretaion. I meant that Apple do not appear to currently be trying to forge new markets. The iPod was launched several years ago, and the portable mp3 market already existed when Apple launched the iPod.
Airport was also launched many years ago.
I would not describe the Mac Mini or the iMac as forging new markets. They are used as conventional PCs. Some Mac Minis are used as HTPCs, but that market already existed before the Mac Mini was launched.
Sorry, but you're nucking futs if you believe that.
They're all nascent, small ideas that Apple have grabbed by the bollocks and ran with in the way only Apple really do. And that's why we like them. Not that they do cheap-ass half hearted beige/black econo-boxes like Dell.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sorry, but you're nucking futs if you believe that.
They're all nascent, small ideas that Apple have grabbed by the bollocks and ran with in the way only Apple really do. And that's why we like them. Not that they do cheap-ass half hearted beige/black econo-boxes like Dell.
I'd like to take this opportunity to say that, as an undereducated American, I love British English.
Apparently the service manual for the MacBook shows that a tech is supposed to slobber on thermal paste as if it were a condiment:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=295925
Originally posted by Mr. H
You are demonstrating an awesome lack of basic reading, comprehension and logical reasoning skills. Please, go back and re-read my posts.
Right, it is logical to assume that had you known that the macbook was #1, #2, and #3 on the laptop list that you would have choosen the Amazon list as your example rather than some other source. I re-read your post. You clearly call out that the Toshiba is #1 and the Acer #4, and the argument would have been less compelling if they were #4 and #8.
You are suggesting that Amazon's best-seller list implies that Apple's laptops outsell PC laptops.
I am suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm suggesting that Amazon is a poor choice to support any argument that Apple is not addressing a large segment of the market given its prominence on that list.
#1 prior to the introduction of the macbooks the 15.4" MBPs outsold the Toshiba and VAIO. Therefore the $1999 price did not seem to deter folks seeking a 15.4" laptop to select Apple even with a $1000 price difference.
#2 with the macbook the folks that purchase $1000 computers out purchased the less expensive 15.4" models despite the same price. Therefore screen size does not seem to deter folks.
#3 In no way can you show using Amazon numbers, which you claim are skewed anyway, indicates that 15.4" widescreen Celeron-Ms represents any sort of PC sweet spot given as you point out Dell isn't on that list and I'm bleeding sure that the VAIO model currently sitting near the top isn't a market leader in terms of volume.
Therefore no matter how you cut it trying to use Amazon numbers to show that Apple is underserving the PC market by not offering a $999 15.4" WS Celeron-M MacBook is flawed...especially since there are $1K 15.4" WS Core Duo's on the market like the Acer Aspire.
Now the argument that they should offer a $1099 15.4" Core Duo MacBook has other issues. Like margins which you state you want to keep high and cannibalizing MBP sales that have aready seen an impact. An issue you steadfastly ignore.
Even a $1699 15.4 is problematic as you are now $700 above the $1K Acer and only $300 below the bottom end MBP which you might as well write off. Congrats you have now cannibalized your $1999 laptops sales for $1699 laptop sales and probably gained zero share against the Acer.
Vinea
Originally posted by macaddict74
Ok in all seriousness here... Why are so many people arguing about specs between Dell and Apple. We all know that there is no reason to buy a Dell after Bootcamp. First of all I don't even need Windows anyway hehe. Lucky me. I think the new MacBooks are great!
Sure I wish we got a better graphics chipset, which would have been the best tasting icing ever on the already glorious cake. However, working at Staples in computer sales has shown me that the MacBook is very competitively priced. Dollar for dollar it is several hundred cheaper than anything that comes close in terms of what we sell. In terms of warranty it's 170 for two years and begins after the one year MFR warranty. Apples 3 year is only 218 in comparison and is so much better.
The only gripe I was going to have with the MacBook was for gaming which honestly the more I think about it, I don't care. Having a dedicated card would have been like having a Hemi in VW Golf. Hell I might even splurge on the black one. It looks phenomenal.
Hopefully, I will be able to get a deal or something on one in late August, right before going to Europe for a couple of weeks. Should be glorious.
Bottom line:
To all of you whiners out there, you sound like Mariah Carey caught in a bear trap. To the rest of you, good earplugs are in order, or in some cases an over-abundance of wax will do the trick.
If you want a Dell, go get one. Just don't complain, it makes you look inadequate, in (ahem) all areas.
Hear hear.
You got it right
Soeren
Originally posted by vinea
You clearly call out that the Toshiba is #1 and the Acer #4
I am suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm suggesting that Amazon is a poor choice to support any argument that Apple is not addressing a large segment of the market given its prominence on that list.
Good post.
I wish I'd left the numbers out. Pointing people at the list was more so that they could see that almost half (9 out of 20) of the best-selling laptops have Celeron-M class processors and 15.4" screens.
Perhaps using Amazon was a dumb idea. The only thing is, I don't know of anywhere else that sells a lot of laptops from different manufacturers and provides a list of best sellers. Do you?
Having thought about it, the 15.4" screen thing is less important, because they all have the same resolution as the 13" screen anyway, and just serve to make the laptop bulkier and heavier. There may be some people who think the pixel density on the 13" is too high, so there may be some point in offering it as a BTO option.
More significantly, is the Celeron-M, which indicates people are happy to sacrifice some power in order to save money. OS X would run quite happily on a Celeron-M 4xx. It is exactly the same as the Core Solo processor, but with 1 MB cache instead of 2 MB, 533 MHz bus instead of 667, and marginally less sophisticated power management. It is pin-for-pin compatible with the Core Duo (which can be observed from the Core Duo spec. sheet and Celeron 4xx spec. sheet), and therefore does not require a motherboard re-design from Apple.
Originally posted by gloss
I'd like to take this opportunity to say that, as an undereducated American, I love British English.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I wish I'd left the numbers out. Pointing people at the list was more so that they could see that almost half (9 out of 20) of the best-selling laptops have Celeron-M class processors and 15.4" screens.
I think an important aspect is that even is we accept that as a given the problem is that you still need to show that you can grow share and not just cannibalize sales from more expensive Macs.
You have to show that a $899 (or whatever) Celeron-M laptop from Apple without iSight, remote, reliable 1080p playback is compelling enough for switchers in large enough numbers to offset the cannibalization of sales within the current Mac buyers. You'd also want to show that the $899 laptop maintains not just magins but total revenue because if you don't grow unit sales the margins may remain fine but you've still reduced total profit.
I don't think you can show that given the lack of data. It would require internal numbers that don't appear to the public and require relatively accruate prediction in what makes switchers switch.
Personally, with equally zero data, I feel the style, branding and high-end features of the Apple line makes it more compelling than price and variety. There are many many PC manufacturers that compete on price and variety.
The current Apple line is big enough to fit either mid range price ($1K) or various screen sizes (except ultra-portables) even if you can't get the exact mix you might desire (lower price, bigger screen, smaller processor).
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
I think an important aspect is that even is we accept that as a given the problem is that you still need to show that you can grow share and not just cannibalize sales from more expensive Macs.
Indeed. I don't think there is any reliable way to accurately predict this. It is just my strongly held opinion that it would not significantly cannibalise sales of more capable machines.
Originally posted by vinea
I think an important aspect is that even is we accept that as a given the problem is that you still need to show that you can grow share and not just cannibalize sales from more expensive Macs.
You have to show that a $899 (or whatever) Celeron-M laptop from Apple without iSight, remote, reliable 1080p playback is compelling enough for switchers in large enough numbers to offset the cannibalization of sales within the current Mac buyers. You'd also want to show that the $899 laptop maintains not just magins but total revenue because if you don't grow unit sales the margins may remain fine but you've still reduced total profit.
That's the thing though, if a cheaper, lower-featured notebook would cannibalize faster, more featured product, it might be because of price, but also because those features aren't all that necessary. Front Row + remote, Photo Booth + iSight, Bluetooth and dual core aren't necessarily things I really care about. Making them standard makes the feature available inexpensively for people that need it, but at the expense of people that wouldn't necessarily use them, other than maybe for a few minutes worth of novelty.
The iSight is even undesirable for those that work with draconian types of organizations.
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
I never looked it at that way you've proposed. Nice catch.
And, heck, it is absolutely true. Perhaps it is just me, but if you
want to get good long lasting design, you almost always have
to pay the difference. And that is okay for me. At least.
If i am gonna asked, why the hell do you pay a premium price
for a certain luster, i reply: This piece is a beauty of its
own class, i want to pay the extra, to get the extra.
Bad design just makes me sick. It harms me physically.
Another example: If you are in the market for a new, say, refrigerator
or a washing machine you can get a very cheapo poorly designed
machine. The machine likely will perform all tasks as advertised. Sure.
But the overall aesthetic of said machine just doesn't make you
happy. You feel sick whenever you see this bulk, whenever you
touch this piece of electronic. The very moment you unwrap the
new machine, you wanna get rid of this ugly thing. Because it
disturbs you so much. Perhaps it is just me...
cheers
i feel the same way. bad design makes baby jesus cry.
to some people, a pleasing design, a preferred color make a big difference.
you know that song... "if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad."
Originally posted by Scooterboy
Anyone who wants to even occasionally play 3D games cares. Most students will want to play games occasionally. I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU. Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot. Apple should offer a BTO with a decent, dedicated GPU, say a Mobility Radeon 9700. Even the Sims requires a decent GPU.
Don't believe everything you see.
I've had Intel Extreme2 and GMA 900/950 graphics equipped PCs for a while now and most 3D games play on them. You may not be able to run at the highest resolution or detail level, but if you're an occasional gamer, you don't have to. I've played GTA 3/4, Far Cry, UT4, BF, and a few others I don't remember.
As far as speed goes, Intel GMA chips are significantly faster than Radeon 7500, 8500, and 9200 series if paired with a fast CPU (there is no T&L on the chip, so CPU has to take care of that).
If you're an occasional gamer, as you say, Intel Integrated graphics are ok.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
i feel the same way. bad design makes baby jesus cry.
to some people, a pleasing design, a preferred color make a big difference.
you know that song... "if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad."
I've got no clue, give me a hint if you don't mind.
Originally posted by JeffDM
That's the thing though, if a cheaper, lower-featured notebook would cannibalize faster, more featured product, it might be because of price, but also because those features aren't all that necessary. Front Row + remote, Photo Booth + iSight, Bluetooth and dual core aren't necessarily things I really care about. Making them standard makes the feature available inexpensively for people that need it, but at the expense of people that wouldn't necessarily use them, other than maybe for a few minutes worth of novelty.
The iSight is even undesirable for those that work with draconian types of organizations.
You could have said the same thing about firewire, etc. The remote, iSight, and BT are not overly expensive items. Dual core is useful to produce the level of performance desired.
If you eliminate all of these features is there a point in picking an intel notebook over a G4? Why not just whine about Apple's margins and be done with it?
You'd also have to show what that's to Apple's benefit to cannibalize sales of higher priced machines.
Vinea
Still, this absolutely crushes the old Powerbooks. I'm getting one of either the next Rev MacBookPro's, or maybe even the one after that...those are going to really kick ass. By then my PB will be wheezing away anyway...right now it's fine for what I need it for (email, surfing etc.)
Originally posted by Relic
Yay my Macbook just came today. My first impression, HEAVY! The Macbook is for my wife so I don't mind to much but I really believe Apple is behind technologically in the weight area. I tied to find a 13.3 inch notebook that was heavier but couldn't, the Macbook was the heaviest by at least a pound in every instance. I really hope Apple comes out with a smaller, lighter model. Well thank god OSX works on my Thinkpad X60.
Let's see these lighter PC laptops, please. Do they have Intel Core Duo and at least 55 WHr battery?
Originally posted by Relic
Yay my Macbook just came today. My first impression, HEAVY! The Macbook is for my wife so I don't mind to much but I really believe Apple is behind technologically in the weight area. I tied to find a 13.3 inch notebook that was heavier but couldn't, the Macbook was the heaviest by at least a pound in every instance. I really hope Apple comes out with a smaller, lighter model. Well thank god OSX works on my Thinkpad X60.
I hope you're not trying to imply that your ThinkPad X60 with your pirated OS X in any way compares to a MacBook. If we leave the ridiculously bad design aside, we still have to take into account that it doesn't have widescreen, has 23.2% less screen estate, has no optical drive (which, btw, significantly adds to the weight, of course) nor Bluetooth, comes with a slightly slower CPU and still costs $400 more.
Originally posted by Relic
Yay my Macbook just came today. My first impression, HEAVY! The Macbook is for my wife so I don't mind to much but I really believe Apple is behind technologically in the weight area. I tied to find a 13.3 inch notebook that was heavier but couldn't, the Macbook was the heaviest by at least a pound in every instance. I really hope Apple comes out with a smaller, lighter model. Well thank god OSX works on my Thinkpad X60.
You are the negative type, are you not?
You don't think along the line "oh what a wonderful machine,
what a beauty beast, competitive priced too." No, you rather
propose "weigh' an' heavy crap". Come on, man, apologize