Does it matter if corporate America decides not to upgrade just yet? While I'm an independent contractor, there are still 20,000+ others I work with who are stuck with whatever corporate decides, and right now corporate has no plans to upgrade. They are tired of MS pulling their chains and not delivering a better experience, both for IT and the end user.
I was reading an article a few weeks ago saying how they surveyed a bunch of companies and like 85% of them won't upgrade to Windows 7 when it comes out. I can't remember the numbers but a lot of them will be waiting 1-2 years before upgrading. Vista's problems right out of the gate just left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Perhaps when those companies see customer's response to Windows 7, they'll change their mind and upgrade sooner.
Really, there was no reason to release Vista. It was obviously just a way for Microsoft to make some money, just like Windows Millennium. People can argue that DirectX10 games only run on Vista, but it's been proven this is an artificial limitation set by Microsoft to sell Vista. Even games like Crysis had artificial limitations when they came out, where the "Very High" setting was only available to Vista users in-game, but a simple edit to a config file let you run these settings on XP.
Some might argue that Vista is "highly threaded" and as such is better suited for multicore cpu's, but honestly, until we get beyond quad core, you won't see that much of a difference between a quad core machine running xp and a quad core machine running vista.
I know it sounds weird to say Vista was ahead of it's time, but that's not exactly a compliment. Hopefully they learned from it and Windows 7 is the next XP.
OSX and Windows both have their purpose, as does Linux. For someone who has no interest in learning anything about computers, Apple is probably always the better choice. The integration between Apple software is great, and the OS itself runs like a champ for daily use. However pricing will always be an issue with Apple... no matter how much this guy tries to justify Apple's pricing, he knows they are robbing their customers blind. I love how he brings up genius store support, but fails to mention that phone support is only for 90 days... and if you don't live near an apple store (which alot of people don't, since there are so few)... you're suckered into paying for it like every other company.
the apple enclosures are generally nicer, as are the displays they use. beyond that, the hardware inside... is the same shit you'll find in an ASUS or Lenovo or other quality brands. a $500 extra premium for an apple is not justified for a lot of consumers, only those who are willing to dish out that much or can. pricing is Apple's downfall, whether the company or it's fan boys choose to admit it or not. it's the main reason the OSx86 community exists.
continue paying Apple's prices and they will continue to jack it up.
OSX and Windows both have their purpose, as does Linux. For someone who has no interest in learning anything about computers, Apple is probably always the better choice. The integration between Apple software is great, and the OS itself runs like a champ for daily use. However pricing will always be an issue with Apple... no matter how much this guy tries to justify Apple's pricing, he knows they are robbing their customers blind. I love how he brings up genius store support, but fails to mention that phone support is only for 90 days... and if you don't live near an apple store (which alot of people don't, since there are so few)... you're suckered into paying for it like every other company.
the apple enclosures are generally nicer, as are the displays they use. beyond that, the hardware inside... is the same shit you'll find in an ASUS or Lenovo or other quality brands. a $500 extra premium for an apple is not justified for a lot of consumers, only those who are willing to dish out that much or can. pricing is Apple's downfall, whether the company or it's fan boys choose to admit it or not. it's the main reason the OSx86 community exists.
continue paying Apple's prices and they will continue to jack it up.
Let's say $500 IS the number. I'd pay that for Apple Store support, iLife, and an OS that doesn't drive me nuts. I value my time. Do I have the skill to manage Windows? I've been certified as an MCSE on two different generations of Windows - so you tell me.
I don't think it's robbing customers blind. I don't think Apple could make what they make for the prices you suggest and stay in business. They don't have the economy of scale that Dell, HP and MS have. I'd rather have them stay in business and pay 'extra'. You should prefer that too. What else is keeping MS awake? Linux? Not on the desktop.
People use the car analogy all the time as it applies on many levels. Here's my take on it: I don't begrudge anyone from buying a BMW. I don't choose to spend my money that way, but I sure don't want them to go out of business. I have no doubt that Apple is the BMW of desktop computing.
You make allusions that Apple computers are for people who don't want to understand computers. I think that's an old perception, and totally invalid. But I realized a long time ago I'm more interested in learning about UNIX and OS X than Microsoft products.
the apple enclosures are generally nicer, as are the displays they use. beyond that, the hardware inside... is the same shit you'll find in an ASUS or Lenovo or other quality brands. a $500 extra premium for an apple
1) This idea that because they switched to Intel CPUs that now all of the HW inside is the same as every other PC is ludicrous. The reason that Windows doesn't run on PPC is because MS chose not to port it, not because of some super-secret Apple patent. All PCs have the same basic components, but that doesn't mean they have the same quality, the same performance, the same power consumption, or the same combination of any of those. There are non-Mac PCs that are significantly more expensive than any Mac you'll find. Apple doesn't play in the cheap-end or the very high-end.
2) Find me a PC that is $500 cheaper than a Mac and I'll show you that just because it has the same GHz speed CPU doesn't mean they cost the same. The 1.8Ghz Atom in netbooks is about $25 while the 1.8Ghz ULV C2D in the MBA costs about $300. These are Intel's prices, not something that Apple magically made up to make you think it's better.
3) I implore you to research a some machines that have the same components as a Mac and see if they are indeed cheaper. The results are usually around the same price with the Mac often being slightly cheaper, despite having more in terms of included SW and no crapware installed. Of course, if you don't need all that, then buying a $400 does make sense over a $1200 notebook, but suggesting they are the same is not accurate.
4) Apple is the name of a company. There consumer PCs are called Macs. Calling them "an apple" is a common mistake for those new to computing but one that probably shouldn't be made if trying to make a valid argument against Macs.
Every Mac does optical out on the headphone port with the right connector, so you needn't worry about getting surround out to your system.
I guess by "serial connector" you mean VGA? Any Mac can connect to a VGA port with a cheap adapter. Although I'm not sure why I'd ever want to use it, since it's just there to accommodate all those legacy PCs with no other options, and anyone who has a machine with a more up to date video out (including every Mac) would use the HDMI or DVI for the improved image quality.
HDMI would be slightly tidier, but it's not as if Macs are hopelessly crippled in this respect.
I think he is referring to the lack of support bitstreaming Dolby TrueHD and DTSHD Master Audio using HDMI. What's nice about HDMI is that it's surround sound capability is significantly better. Now to be fair very few video card manufacturs offer TrueHD or DTS HD. Most of them only output standard LPCM or standard DD or DTS. You actually have to buy a high end Creative or ASUS PCI-E sound card with HDMI capability, where the HDMI or DVI cable is run to an HDMI input on the sound card, then the sound card encodes TrueHD and DTS-HD and runs it threough an HDMI out from the sound card.
TOSLINK is limited to Dolby Digital or the better standard DTS, neither of which Apple supports from output. While Apple supports TOSLINK, only Linear PCM is output from the jack. This might be ok, but in my experience the Apple DVD Player software, front row and iTunes movie downloads don't output in 5.1 using the TOSLINK connector.
Still I agree with his original point. DisplayPort supports TrueHD and DTSHD. Apple CHOSE not to put sound output into their circuitry on the miniDP connector. This is stupid and was set up to save the company a couple dollars, same as when they don't put Express Card slots on the Macbooks or when they solder the CPU (which is why I don't buy Macs; I use EFI-X, which kicks the shit out of an iMac and is almost as fast as a Mac pro for $1500 less...). It's about saving a couple cents here and there.
What's nice about running just HDMI is that you don't have to make the setup harder on your receiver. It is slightly more difficult to get the settings correct on an Onkyo or other HDMI receiver if the audio is coming from another source. Running just HDMI in to the receiver and then from the receiver out to the TV is simpler,
I do like the iead of DisplayPort though. My next monitor will be a non-apple 24" displayPort monitor, hopefully with resolution higher than 1080P.
1) This idea that because they switched to Intel CPUs that now all of the HW inside is the same as every other PC is ludicrous. The reason that Windows doesn't run on PPC is because MS chose not to port it, not because of some super-secret Apple patent. All PCs have the same basic components, but that doesn't mean they have the same quality, the same performance, the same power consumption, or the same combination of any of those. There are non-Mac PCs that are significantly more expensive than any Mac you'll find. Apple doesn't play in the cheap-end or the very high-end.
2) Find me a PC that is $500 cheaper than a Mac and I'll show you that just because it has the same GHz speed CPU doesn't mean they cost the same. The 1.8Ghz Atom in netbooks is about $25 while the 1.8Ghz ULV C2D in the MBA costs about $300. These are Intel's prices, not something that Apple magically made up to make you think it's better.
3) I implore you to research a some machines that have the same components as a Mac and see if they are indeed cheaper. The results are usually around the same price with the Mac often being slightly cheaper, despite having more in terms of included SW and no crapware installed. Of course, if you don't need all that, then buying a $400 does make sense over a $1200 notebook, but suggesting they are the same is not accurate.
4) Apple is the name of a company. There consumer PCs are called Macs. Calling them "an apple" is a common mistake for those new to computing but one that probably shouldn't be made if trying to make a valid argument against Macs.
See my post on page 3. I found an ASUS M70 series 17" notebook with the a faster HD, a LED 1920x1080 display, eSATA standard, FW400, an ExpressCard/54 slot, a non-soldered CPU, a user replaceable battery, a 7200 RPM drive and a better/newer/more energy effecient 9650M vs. Apple's 9600GTM (9650m is a 45nm process, the 9600GT is a 65nm process). The ASUS is $1449 (newegg.com), the Apple is $2799.
For a little more, $1899, you can get a BD-ROM drive and two 320GB drives (which you can RAID if you wish). For $2100 you can step up to the G50 series with a 9800M and a cooler casing, battery etc.
This isn't slightly cheaper, it's a whole crapload cheaper. The ASUS also has a superior warranty, though maybe not superiror in-store service. It's a 2 year, including one year accidental damage. Apple doesn't even offer accidental damage protection on the standard AppleCare.
The Apple has an aluminum enclosure, it's uses nVidia's "Hybrid Power SLi" technology, which switches from integrated graphics to dedicated graphics and has FW800 vs FW400 (but no eSATA, which is superior to FW800 in benchmarks, check barefeats.com) and has the magsafe power connector. Both Machines run OSX, though the ASUS requires OSx86.
So for $1,300 more I get a pretty case, a slightly nicer power connector and claimed better battery life from the soldered/non easy replaceable battery. The Hybrid Power mode, according to Apple's own Macbook Pro spec sheet, will allow up to 8hrs when running on the 9400 Integrated card. The 9600GT card will only eliminiate 1hr of battery time. In practice we know this is BS though because the battery life is more like 2-4 hours according to reviews on Tomshardware.com, Macworld.com, Barefeats etc.
Not exactly worth $1300 more to me. The ASUS is more expandable, much easier to service and doesn't soldered the CPU or make the battery hard to replace.
BTW, if you're ever going to buy a PC, buy an ASUS or an MSI. HP makes crap, so does ACER. Piss poor quality control. Dell is eh, ok.
I can find numerous examples of why Apple's hardware is grosely overpriced and limited on purpose. A netbook vs. a Macbook Air is not a fair comparison, but a ASUS G50 series in a 15" vs the 15" Macbook Pro or my above example for the 17" model is.
Aluminum and a magnetic power adaptewr doesn't cost THAT MUCH more to manufacturer. If anything Apple's machines are cheaper to make because they purposely eliminate components, such as soldering the CPU, not putting expresscard slots on the macbooks, no Firewire on the Macbooks (which makes backup and external hard drive performance really suck; usb 2.0 is slow as crap compared to eSATA or even FW800).
See my post on page 3. I found an ASUS M70 series 17" notebook with the a faster HD, a LED 1920x1080 display, eSATA standard, FW400, an ExpressCard/54 slot, a non-soldered CPU, a user replaceable battery, a 7200 RPM drive and a better/newer/more energy effecient 9650M vs. Apple's 9600GTM (9650m is a 45nm process, the 9600GT is a 65nm process). The ASUS is $1449 (newegg.com), the Apple is $2799.
For a little more, $1699, you can get a BD-ROM drive and two 320GB drives (which you can RAID if you wish). For $2100 you can step up to the G50 series with a 9800M and a cooler casing, battery etc.
This isn't slightly cheaper, it's a whole crapload cheaper. The ASUS also has a superior warranty, though maybe not superiror in-store service. It's a 2 year, including one year accidental damage. Apple doesn't even offer accidental damage protection on the standard AppleCare.
The Apple has an aluminum enclosure, it's uses nVidia's "Hybrid Power SLi" technology, which switches from integrated graphics to dedicated graphics and has FW800 vs FW400 (but no eSATA, which is superior to FW800 in benchmarks, check barefeats.com) and has the magsafe power connector. Both Machines run OSX, though the ASUS requires OSx86.
So for $1,300 more I get a pretty case, a slightly nicer power connector and claimed better battery life from the soldered/non easy replaceable battery. The Hybrid Power mode, according to Apple's own Macbook Pro spec sheet, will allow up to 8hrs when running on the 9400 Integrated card. The 9600GT card will only eliminiate 1hr of battery time. In practice we know this is BS though because the battery life is more like 2-4 hours according to reviews on Tomshardware.com, Macworld.com, Barefeats etc.
Not exactly worth $1300 more to me. The ASUS is more expandable, much easier to service and doesn't soldered the CPU or make the battery hard to replace.
BTW, if you're ever going to buy a PC, buy an ASUS or an MSI. HP makes crap, so does ACER. Piss poor quality control. Dell is eh, ok.
Forgot a couple of items. The ASUS has 1GB of dedicated graphics memory. The Macbook Pro has 512MB. Here's links for youre reading pleasure:
I have a correction, the 9650M uses a 65nm process. The newer GT series uses the 45nm process. The 9650 has the same max power draw, but better average power draw.
1) This idea that because they switched to Intel CPUs that now all of the HW inside is the same as every other PC is ludicrous. The reason that Windows doesn't run on PPC is because MS chose not to port it, not because of some super-secret Apple patent. All PCs have the same basic components, but that doesn't mean they have the same quality, the same performance, the same power consumption, or the same combination of any of those. There are non-Mac PCs that are significantly more expensive than any Mac you'll find. Apple doesn't play in the cheap-end or the very high-end.
They don't play the very high end? Their prices sure do make it seem that way...
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
2) Find me a PC that is $500 cheaper than a Mac and I'll show you that just because it has the same GHz speed CPU doesn't mean they cost the same. The 1.8Ghz Atom in netbooks is about $25 while the 1.8Ghz ULV C2D in the MBA costs about $300. These are Intel's prices, not something that Apple magically made up to make you think it's better.
People have posted numerous times fair comparisons, i'll leave this one alone lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
3) I implore you to research a some machines that have the same components as a Mac and see if they are indeed cheaper. The results are usually around the same price with the Mac often being slightly cheaper, despite having more in terms of included SW and no crapware installed. Of course, if you don't need all that, then buying a $400 does make sense over a $1200 notebook, but suggesting they are the same is not accurate.
ok maybe i cant leave it alone lol. I found two lappies, price difference right away is over 500, lets see how they stack up.
Here's a good example of Apple over-pricing. The asus has a 2ghz c2q while the macbook pro has a 2.66ghz c2d. The asus can be overclocked, however. A quick search found that a reviewer easily put his above 3ghz (that's the great thing about intel's new core2duo/core2quad line; it's overclockability.)
Apple also wants to charge you another 1000 dollars, YES ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS, for 8gb of ram instead of 4. The asus comes with 6 and with ram prices being the way they are right now, who in their right mind would spend that? BTW both platforms use ddr2-1066.
Both have the same storage space, both screens are decent (both will handle 1080 just fine)
Macbook pro's got the backlit keyboard (damn you asus!)
Asus has fingerprint scanner, webcam, AN AMAZING VIDEO CARD: 4870x2, HDMI out, all based on the x38 chipset.
I mean I could go on. The point is this thing isn't built on cheap shit while the macbook isn't either. You can see how the macbook's price isn't very competitive to it though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
4) Apple is the name of a company. There consumer PCs are called Macs. Calling them "an apple" is a common mistake for those new to computing but one that probably shouldn't be made if trying to make a valid argument against Macs.
this isnt the worst thing I've heard. I've heard people at work call their computers "My windows" before. its not a big deal but still funny lol
this isnt the worst thing I've heard. I've heard people at work call their computers "My windows" before. its not a big deal but still funny lol
I think it's funny how some of my co-workers refer to their computers as CPUs--as if CPU is an abbreviation for "computer". Pretty common error, but I have to chuckle when I hear it. I'm such a geek.
I think it's funny how some of my co-workers refer to their computers as CPUs--as if CPU is an abbreviation for "computer". Pretty common error, but I have to chuckle when I hear it. I'm such a geek.
I agree, when I hear someone use 'CPU' in that way, I think "noob", but in a way they are not too far off in it's usage. A computer tower is the central processing unit in a way.
Is it so hard for you to realize that not everyone wants a PC with Windows? Why do you give a shit what 5% of computer users are paying? Because we sure don't care what you pay for your beloved Windows box.
uStink is either a troll or a forum plant. I think forum plant, because his expletive-laced post full of rude personal insults was left intact earlier in this thread. This is what's happening on another popular Mac rumors forum that has been over-run by Microsoft trolls who feel the need to lecture and curse at Mac users, claiming we are "elitist" and wasting our money on Apple hardware. They, too, allow these rule-breaking inflammatory posts by trolls and plants to remain because it increases page views. I was hoping this place would be different considering the stories published here are excellent and frequently regurgitated by other rumor sites.
Is it so hard for you to realize that not everyone wants a PC with Windows? Why do you give a shit what 5% of computer users are paying? Because we sure don't care what you pay for your beloved Windows box.
uStink is either a troll or a forum plant. I think forum plant, because his expletive-laced post full of rude personal insults was left intact earlier in this thread. This is what's happening on another popular Mac rumors forum that has been over-run by Microsoft trolls who feel the need to lecture and curse at Mac users, claiming we are "elitist" and wasting our money on Apple hardware. They, too, allow these rule-breaking inflammatory posts by trolls and plants to remain because it increases page views. I was hoping this place would be different considering the stories published here are excellent and frequently regurgitated by other rumor sites.
Words can hardly describe the abortion of thought that is your method of reason.
What awful trash your thoughts are. Your arguments lack all logic and structure. You are a painful merciless attack on the brain. So consistently have you proven your arrogance that I know your next response will be something I couldn't come up with if I tried. I want to copy your posts to save as proof that someone, somewhere thinks the way you do.
Don't be surprised if this is the last time I respond to you.
That's a pretty good description. I haven't plugged and unplugged my HDMI connections, so I really don't know about them breaking eventually, but I can say that if the technology has to be licensed (I haven't researched this, but i believe you) then yes, I can see why Apple would refuse to adopt it.
That being said, I still believe Apple should have made it sound compatible, specifically surround sound compatible, from the outset. I will still stand by that.
When I buy my mother a Mac mini and a Samsung Flat Panel TV as a monitor (she's not doing anything graphics intensive so an LCD TV and a Mini should be fine....) I would rather her only need to plug in one port instead of two.
The point I have been attempting to make is universal adoption and simplicity.
People are inherently simple. Not everyone is an IT geek. They want to plug in one thing and have it do everything.
But, as you said, the need to license HDMI is prohibitive and I can understand wanting a varied (read "open source and free") format to utilize instead.
I agree with the sound issue, IE no support currently. However being weird (aka a bit of an audio nut) I would never use HDMI as personally and from a few friends like me and our testing HDMI's audio quality is not on a par with seperate audio cables, however much you insulate a cable you will still get some cross talk between them. 99% of people this wont matter and the tidiier cables is a plus, but to me this is an issue. Also the fun and games a friend experienced with the early verisons on HDMI (not communicating with newer versions etc) really put him off them LOL. Luckily im still on SDTV, until the bank increases my overdraft! LOL
I think MS should continue this series of ads,they're doing a great job-for Apple
After all who wants to think of themselves as not 'cool' or not owning things which are 'sexy'? Do people want an image of themselves as boring or drab?
I'm also puzzled as to why MS chose a 17" lap top for their shopping comparison,apart from the obvious reason that Apple's only offering at that screen size is their top of the line MBP. Who,apart from those who need to do serious paid work on it and really need to carry it around an a regular basis,would want put up with the extra weight and cost such a large screen entails?
Perhaps MS's fictional buyers will just leave their monster laptop on the desk or table all the time,or only move it when the kitchen or dining room table is needed for cooking or eating.In that case[BTW does anyone have any guess how often this happens?] wouldn't they be better off with a nice all-in-one with an even bigger screen perhaps?
In the country I'm in at the moment they have a rather nice saying I think is quite fitting for these mythical buyers which translates as " I'm too poor to buy cheap things"
Words can hardly describe the abortion of thought that is your method of reason.
What awful trash your thoughts are. Your arguments lack all logic and structure. You are a painful merciless attack on the brain. So consistently have you proven your arrogance that I know your next response will be something I couldn't come up with if I tried. I want to copy your posts to save as proof that someone, somewhere thinks the way you do.
LOL! That's rich coming from a troll. Perhaps you don't understand plain English, then? Or logic or reason? Sorry, I don't speak your offensive troll language, uStink.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStink
Don't be surprised if this is the last time I respond to you.
Um... no. Only one of those is a portable computer you could honestly call a "laptop".
Why don't you compare another slim, light 17" notebook with the MacBook Pro instead of a "desktop replacement" that weighs in at nearly 12 pounds and is 2.5" thick. That would be a fairer comparison. And then you have (hack-free, legal) OS X vs. Windows.
Yeah. Those machines are comparable. Riiiight. As if you don't understand the concept that you can fit more, and cheaper, components into a 2.5" thick enclosure than you can fit in an inch-thick enclosure. And that's not an issue about appearance. The Apple enclosure is FUNCTIONALLY BETTER in the regard that it's immensely more portable. The MacBook Pro is the machine you can take outside of the house on an everyday basis. Would you really want someone to see you in Starbucks with a 2.5" thick notebook?
Um... no. Only one of those is a portable computer you could honestly call a "laptop".
Why don't you compare another slim, light 17" notebook with the MacBook Pro instead of a "desktop replacement" that weighs in at nearly 12 pounds and is 2.5" thick. That would be a fairer comparison. And then you have (hack-free, legal) OS X vs. Windows.
Yeah. Those machines are comparable. Riiiight. As if you don't understand the concept that you can fit more, and cheaper, components into a 2.5" thick enclosure than you can fit in an inch-thick enclosure. And that's not an issue about appearance. The Apple enclosure is FUNCTIONALLY BETTER in the regard that it's immensely more portable. The MacBook Pro is the machine you can take outside of the house on an everyday basis. Would you really want someone to see you in Starbucks with a 2.5" thick notebook?
lmfao! You're right man. I didn't even acknowledge that.
It's only 1.5 inches thick instead of 2.5 LOL. I never said macs were ugly, just over priced. They want 1000 bucks to upgrade from 4gb to 8gb of ram. Please explain that to me because I don't understand it. Ram is supposed to be cheaper these days. 8gb of pc laptop ram doesn't come close to 1000 bucks. (And keep in mind thats 1000 bucks extra going from 4gb already. What would they charge if they sold the ram alone?)
I'm in no way trying to push these laptops on anyone, just responding to what you said about them all being made of cheap hardware.
Apple definitely has the laptop and notebook market in check. When you look around at a press conference for things like sports and stuff, all the reporters are using a mac. I in no way am saying that the laptops are junk or that PC's are better.
This response is pathetic. His arguement could have been simple and just stated the capababilities of a Macbook. All of this on and on about BS and fees just isn't true. There is great protection on a pc for free if you are not an idiot. Let's face it, macs are for people in design, people who like cutting edge high end toys, and idiots.
Cheap
Portable
Multi OS
Stable
Free Features that support expression
Free Features that prevent disaster and mitigate recovery
They do need to own up that it sucks for business. And should just state or even package xp and virtualization to a business class. So many people do OO or iWork and then hate their mac.
I love my mac. I runs Bootcamp XP great. I can hook it up with DVI to my home ent system and use it as a media center.
But the company is getting too proprietary and that will be the downfall. No one knows about media center PC's but they kick ass compared to iTunes.
SELL APPL if Jobs doesn't return. He is a genius but his mgmt team is a group of visionless San Fran snobs.
If you think Windows Media Center is good you have obviously not tried anything else. iTunes is not a media center, the apple TV is. If you want a really good Media Center option on OS X for connecting to your TV at home, try Plex or Boxee. Both F%^$ing rule compared to thatWindows Media Center crap.
Comments
Not after you play Bruce Willis sidekick in Die Hard 4
Anyway, so many people agreed that PC guy was stealing the show... Apple can probably find more likeable dude for Mac guy...
I KNEW I should have had a side bet with both you and Mr. Tuna. Looks like Justin's back with a few new ones. Oops.
Does it matter if corporate America decides not to upgrade just yet? While I'm an independent contractor, there are still 20,000+ others I work with who are stuck with whatever corporate decides, and right now corporate has no plans to upgrade. They are tired of MS pulling their chains and not delivering a better experience, both for IT and the end user.
I was reading an article a few weeks ago saying how they surveyed a bunch of companies and like 85% of them won't upgrade to Windows 7 when it comes out. I can't remember the numbers but a lot of them will be waiting 1-2 years before upgrading. Vista's problems right out of the gate just left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Perhaps when those companies see customer's response to Windows 7, they'll change their mind and upgrade sooner.
Really, there was no reason to release Vista. It was obviously just a way for Microsoft to make some money, just like Windows Millennium. People can argue that DirectX10 games only run on Vista, but it's been proven this is an artificial limitation set by Microsoft to sell Vista. Even games like Crysis had artificial limitations when they came out, where the "Very High" setting was only available to Vista users in-game, but a simple edit to a config file let you run these settings on XP.
Some might argue that Vista is "highly threaded" and as such is better suited for multicore cpu's, but honestly, until we get beyond quad core, you won't see that much of a difference between a quad core machine running xp and a quad core machine running vista.
I know it sounds weird to say Vista was ahead of it's time, but that's not exactly a compliment. Hopefully they learned from it and Windows 7 is the next XP.
the apple enclosures are generally nicer, as are the displays they use. beyond that, the hardware inside... is the same shit you'll find in an ASUS or Lenovo or other quality brands. a $500 extra premium for an apple is not justified for a lot of consumers, only those who are willing to dish out that much or can. pricing is Apple's downfall, whether the company or it's fan boys choose to admit it or not. it's the main reason the OSx86 community exists.
continue paying Apple's prices and they will continue to jack it up.
OSX and Windows both have their purpose, as does Linux. For someone who has no interest in learning anything about computers, Apple is probably always the better choice. The integration between Apple software is great, and the OS itself runs like a champ for daily use. However pricing will always be an issue with Apple... no matter how much this guy tries to justify Apple's pricing, he knows they are robbing their customers blind. I love how he brings up genius store support, but fails to mention that phone support is only for 90 days... and if you don't live near an apple store (which alot of people don't, since there are so few)... you're suckered into paying for it like every other company.
the apple enclosures are generally nicer, as are the displays they use. beyond that, the hardware inside... is the same shit you'll find in an ASUS or Lenovo or other quality brands. a $500 extra premium for an apple is not justified for a lot of consumers, only those who are willing to dish out that much or can. pricing is Apple's downfall, whether the company or it's fan boys choose to admit it or not. it's the main reason the OSx86 community exists.
continue paying Apple's prices and they will continue to jack it up.
Let's say $500 IS the number. I'd pay that for Apple Store support, iLife, and an OS that doesn't drive me nuts. I value my time. Do I have the skill to manage Windows? I've been certified as an MCSE on two different generations of Windows - so you tell me.
I don't think it's robbing customers blind. I don't think Apple could make what they make for the prices you suggest and stay in business. They don't have the economy of scale that Dell, HP and MS have. I'd rather have them stay in business and pay 'extra'. You should prefer that too. What else is keeping MS awake? Linux? Not on the desktop.
People use the car analogy all the time as it applies on many levels. Here's my take on it: I don't begrudge anyone from buying a BMW. I don't choose to spend my money that way, but I sure don't want them to go out of business. I have no doubt that Apple is the BMW of desktop computing.
You make allusions that Apple computers are for people who don't want to understand computers. I think that's an old perception, and totally invalid. But I realized a long time ago I'm more interested in learning about UNIX and OS X than Microsoft products.
the apple enclosures are generally nicer, as are the displays they use. beyond that, the hardware inside... is the same shit you'll find in an ASUS or Lenovo or other quality brands. a $500 extra premium for an apple
1) This idea that because they switched to Intel CPUs that now all of the HW inside is the same as every other PC is ludicrous. The reason that Windows doesn't run on PPC is because MS chose not to port it, not because of some super-secret Apple patent. All PCs have the same basic components, but that doesn't mean they have the same quality, the same performance, the same power consumption, or the same combination of any of those. There are non-Mac PCs that are significantly more expensive than any Mac you'll find. Apple doesn't play in the cheap-end or the very high-end.
2) Find me a PC that is $500 cheaper than a Mac and I'll show you that just because it has the same GHz speed CPU doesn't mean they cost the same. The 1.8Ghz Atom in netbooks is about $25 while the 1.8Ghz ULV C2D in the MBA costs about $300. These are Intel's prices, not something that Apple magically made up to make you think it's better.
3) I implore you to research a some machines that have the same components as a Mac and see if they are indeed cheaper. The results are usually around the same price with the Mac often being slightly cheaper, despite having more in terms of included SW and no crapware installed. Of course, if you don't need all that, then buying a $400 does make sense over a $1200 notebook, but suggesting they are the same is not accurate.
4) Apple is the name of a company. There consumer PCs are called Macs. Calling them "an apple" is a common mistake for those new to computing but one that probably shouldn't be made if trying to make a valid argument against Macs.
Every Mac does optical out on the headphone port with the right connector, so you needn't worry about getting surround out to your system.
I guess by "serial connector" you mean VGA? Any Mac can connect to a VGA port with a cheap adapter. Although I'm not sure why I'd ever want to use it, since it's just there to accommodate all those legacy PCs with no other options, and anyone who has a machine with a more up to date video out (including every Mac) would use the HDMI or DVI for the improved image quality.
HDMI would be slightly tidier, but it's not as if Macs are hopelessly crippled in this respect.
I think he is referring to the lack of support bitstreaming Dolby TrueHD and DTSHD Master Audio using HDMI. What's nice about HDMI is that it's surround sound capability is significantly better. Now to be fair very few video card manufacturs offer TrueHD or DTS HD. Most of them only output standard LPCM or standard DD or DTS. You actually have to buy a high end Creative or ASUS PCI-E sound card with HDMI capability, where the HDMI or DVI cable is run to an HDMI input on the sound card, then the sound card encodes TrueHD and DTS-HD and runs it threough an HDMI out from the sound card.
TOSLINK is limited to Dolby Digital or the better standard DTS, neither of which Apple supports from output. While Apple supports TOSLINK, only Linear PCM is output from the jack. This might be ok, but in my experience the Apple DVD Player software, front row and iTunes movie downloads don't output in 5.1 using the TOSLINK connector.
Still I agree with his original point. DisplayPort supports TrueHD and DTSHD. Apple CHOSE not to put sound output into their circuitry on the miniDP connector. This is stupid and was set up to save the company a couple dollars, same as when they don't put Express Card slots on the Macbooks or when they solder the CPU (which is why I don't buy Macs; I use EFI-X, which kicks the shit out of an iMac and is almost as fast as a Mac pro for $1500 less...). It's about saving a couple cents here and there.
What's nice about running just HDMI is that you don't have to make the setup harder on your receiver. It is slightly more difficult to get the settings correct on an Onkyo or other HDMI receiver if the audio is coming from another source. Running just HDMI in to the receiver and then from the receiver out to the TV is simpler,
I do like the iead of DisplayPort though. My next monitor will be a non-apple 24" displayPort monitor, hopefully with resolution higher than 1080P.
1) This idea that because they switched to Intel CPUs that now all of the HW inside is the same as every other PC is ludicrous. The reason that Windows doesn't run on PPC is because MS chose not to port it, not because of some super-secret Apple patent. All PCs have the same basic components, but that doesn't mean they have the same quality, the same performance, the same power consumption, or the same combination of any of those. There are non-Mac PCs that are significantly more expensive than any Mac you'll find. Apple doesn't play in the cheap-end or the very high-end.
2) Find me a PC that is $500 cheaper than a Mac and I'll show you that just because it has the same GHz speed CPU doesn't mean they cost the same. The 1.8Ghz Atom in netbooks is about $25 while the 1.8Ghz ULV C2D in the MBA costs about $300. These are Intel's prices, not something that Apple magically made up to make you think it's better.
3) I implore you to research a some machines that have the same components as a Mac and see if they are indeed cheaper. The results are usually around the same price with the Mac often being slightly cheaper, despite having more in terms of included SW and no crapware installed. Of course, if you don't need all that, then buying a $400 does make sense over a $1200 notebook, but suggesting they are the same is not accurate.
4) Apple is the name of a company. There consumer PCs are called Macs. Calling them "an apple" is a common mistake for those new to computing but one that probably shouldn't be made if trying to make a valid argument against Macs.
See my post on page 3. I found an ASUS M70 series 17" notebook with the a faster HD, a LED 1920x1080 display, eSATA standard, FW400, an ExpressCard/54 slot, a non-soldered CPU, a user replaceable battery, a 7200 RPM drive and a better/newer/more energy effecient 9650M vs. Apple's 9600GTM (9650m is a 45nm process, the 9600GT is a 65nm process). The ASUS is $1449 (newegg.com), the Apple is $2799.
For a little more, $1899, you can get a BD-ROM drive and two 320GB drives (which you can RAID if you wish). For $2100 you can step up to the G50 series with a 9800M and a cooler casing, battery etc.
This isn't slightly cheaper, it's a whole crapload cheaper. The ASUS also has a superior warranty, though maybe not superiror in-store service. It's a 2 year, including one year accidental damage. Apple doesn't even offer accidental damage protection on the standard AppleCare.
The Apple has an aluminum enclosure, it's uses nVidia's "Hybrid Power SLi" technology, which switches from integrated graphics to dedicated graphics and has FW800 vs FW400 (but no eSATA, which is superior to FW800 in benchmarks, check barefeats.com) and has the magsafe power connector. Both Machines run OSX, though the ASUS requires OSx86.
So for $1,300 more I get a pretty case, a slightly nicer power connector and claimed better battery life from the soldered/non easy replaceable battery. The Hybrid Power mode, according to Apple's own Macbook Pro spec sheet, will allow up to 8hrs when running on the 9400 Integrated card. The 9600GT card will only eliminiate 1hr of battery time. In practice we know this is BS though because the battery life is more like 2-4 hours according to reviews on Tomshardware.com, Macworld.com, Barefeats etc.
Not exactly worth $1300 more to me. The ASUS is more expandable, much easier to service and doesn't soldered the CPU or make the battery hard to replace.
BTW, if you're ever going to buy a PC, buy an ASUS or an MSI. HP makes crap, so does ACER. Piss poor quality control. Dell is eh, ok.
I can find numerous examples of why Apple's hardware is grosely overpriced and limited on purpose. A netbook vs. a Macbook Air is not a fair comparison, but a ASUS G50 series in a 15" vs the 15" Macbook Pro or my above example for the 17" model is.
Aluminum and a magnetic power adaptewr doesn't cost THAT MUCH more to manufacturer. If anything Apple's machines are cheaper to make because they purposely eliminate components, such as soldering the CPU, not putting expresscard slots on the macbooks, no Firewire on the Macbooks (which makes backup and external hard drive performance really suck; usb 2.0 is slow as crap compared to eSATA or even FW800).
See my post on page 3. I found an ASUS M70 series 17" notebook with the a faster HD, a LED 1920x1080 display, eSATA standard, FW400, an ExpressCard/54 slot, a non-soldered CPU, a user replaceable battery, a 7200 RPM drive and a better/newer/more energy effecient 9650M vs. Apple's 9600GTM (9650m is a 45nm process, the 9600GT is a 65nm process). The ASUS is $1449 (newegg.com), the Apple is $2799.
For a little more, $1699, you can get a BD-ROM drive and two 320GB drives (which you can RAID if you wish). For $2100 you can step up to the G50 series with a 9800M and a cooler casing, battery etc.
This isn't slightly cheaper, it's a whole crapload cheaper. The ASUS also has a superior warranty, though maybe not superiror in-store service. It's a 2 year, including one year accidental damage. Apple doesn't even offer accidental damage protection on the standard AppleCare.
The Apple has an aluminum enclosure, it's uses nVidia's "Hybrid Power SLi" technology, which switches from integrated graphics to dedicated graphics and has FW800 vs FW400 (but no eSATA, which is superior to FW800 in benchmarks, check barefeats.com) and has the magsafe power connector. Both Machines run OSX, though the ASUS requires OSx86.
So for $1,300 more I get a pretty case, a slightly nicer power connector and claimed better battery life from the soldered/non easy replaceable battery. The Hybrid Power mode, according to Apple's own Macbook Pro spec sheet, will allow up to 8hrs when running on the 9400 Integrated card. The 9600GT card will only eliminiate 1hr of battery time. In practice we know this is BS though because the battery life is more like 2-4 hours according to reviews on Tomshardware.com, Macworld.com, Barefeats etc.
Not exactly worth $1300 more to me. The ASUS is more expandable, much easier to service and doesn't soldered the CPU or make the battery hard to replace.
BTW, if you're ever going to buy a PC, buy an ASUS or an MSI. HP makes crap, so does ACER. Piss poor quality control. Dell is eh, ok.
Forgot a couple of items. The ASUS has 1GB of dedicated graphics memory. The Macbook Pro has 512MB. Here's links for youre reading pleasure:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220492 (ASUS M70V)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220516 (ASUS M70Vn)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220511 (ASUS G50 series)
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html (Macbook Pro specs)
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards....=596&card2=594 (comparing 9650M, VS 9600M)
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards....=591&card2=596 (Comparing the 9600M GT vs the 9800M GS, the 9800M GS is WAYY faster than the 9600M GT)
I have a correction, the 9650M uses a 65nm process. The newer GT series uses the 45nm process. The 9650 has the same max power draw, but better average power draw.
1) This idea that because they switched to Intel CPUs that now all of the HW inside is the same as every other PC is ludicrous. The reason that Windows doesn't run on PPC is because MS chose not to port it, not because of some super-secret Apple patent. All PCs have the same basic components, but that doesn't mean they have the same quality, the same performance, the same power consumption, or the same combination of any of those. There are non-Mac PCs that are significantly more expensive than any Mac you'll find. Apple doesn't play in the cheap-end or the very high-end.
They don't play the very high end? Their prices sure do make it seem that way...
2) Find me a PC that is $500 cheaper than a Mac and I'll show you that just because it has the same GHz speed CPU doesn't mean they cost the same. The 1.8Ghz Atom in netbooks is about $25 while the 1.8Ghz ULV C2D in the MBA costs about $300. These are Intel's prices, not something that Apple magically made up to make you think it's better.
People have posted numerous times fair comparisons, i'll leave this one alone lol
3) I implore you to research a some machines that have the same components as a Mac and see if they are indeed cheaper. The results are usually around the same price with the Mac often being slightly cheaper, despite having more in terms of included SW and no crapware installed. Of course, if you don't need all that, then buying a $400 does make sense over a $1200 notebook, but suggesting they are the same is not accurate.
ok maybe i cant leave it alone lol. I found two lappies, price difference right away is over 500, lets see how they stack up.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220527
vs
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/...mco=MzA3MTE3NA
Here's a good example of Apple over-pricing. The asus has a 2ghz c2q while the macbook pro has a 2.66ghz c2d. The asus can be overclocked, however. A quick search found that a reviewer easily put his above 3ghz (that's the great thing about intel's new core2duo/core2quad line; it's overclockability.)
Apple also wants to charge you another 1000 dollars, YES ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS, for 8gb of ram instead of 4. The asus comes with 6 and with ram prices being the way they are right now, who in their right mind would spend that? BTW both platforms use ddr2-1066.
Both have the same storage space, both screens are decent (both will handle 1080 just fine)
Macbook pro's got the backlit keyboard (damn you asus!)
Asus has fingerprint scanner, webcam, AN AMAZING VIDEO CARD: 4870x2, HDMI out, all based on the x38 chipset.
I mean I could go on. The point is this thing isn't built on cheap shit while the macbook isn't either. You can see how the macbook's price isn't very competitive to it though.
4) Apple is the name of a company. There consumer PCs are called Macs. Calling them "an apple" is a common mistake for those new to computing but one that probably shouldn't be made if trying to make a valid argument against Macs.
this isnt the worst thing I've heard. I've heard people at work call their computers "My windows" before. its not a big deal but still funny lol
this isnt the worst thing I've heard. I've heard people at work call their computers "My windows" before. its not a big deal but still funny lol
I think it's funny how some of my co-workers refer to their computers as CPUs--as if CPU is an abbreviation for "computer". Pretty common error, but I have to chuckle when I hear it. I'm such a geek.
I think it's funny how some of my co-workers refer to their computers as CPUs--as if CPU is an abbreviation for "computer". Pretty common error, but I have to chuckle when I hear it. I'm such a geek.
I agree, when I hear someone use 'CPU' in that way, I think "noob", but in a way they are not too far off in it's usage. A computer tower is the central processing unit in a way.
I mean I could go on.
Unfortunately, you do.
Is it so hard for you to realize that not everyone wants a PC with Windows? Why do you give a shit what 5% of computer users are paying? Because we sure don't care what you pay for your beloved Windows box.
uStink is either a troll or a forum plant. I think forum plant, because his expletive-laced post full of rude personal insults was left intact earlier in this thread. This is what's happening on another popular Mac rumors forum that has been over-run by Microsoft trolls who feel the need to lecture and curse at Mac users, claiming we are "elitist" and wasting our money on Apple hardware. They, too, allow these rule-breaking inflammatory posts by trolls and plants to remain because it increases page views. I was hoping this place would be different considering the stories published here are excellent and frequently regurgitated by other rumor sites.
Unfortunately, you do.
Is it so hard for you to realize that not everyone wants a PC with Windows? Why do you give a shit what 5% of computer users are paying? Because we sure don't care what you pay for your beloved Windows box.
uStink is either a troll or a forum plant. I think forum plant, because his expletive-laced post full of rude personal insults was left intact earlier in this thread. This is what's happening on another popular Mac rumors forum that has been over-run by Microsoft trolls who feel the need to lecture and curse at Mac users, claiming we are "elitist" and wasting our money on Apple hardware. They, too, allow these rule-breaking inflammatory posts by trolls and plants to remain because it increases page views. I was hoping this place would be different considering the stories published here are excellent and frequently regurgitated by other rumor sites.
Words can hardly describe the abortion of thought that is your method of reason.
What awful trash your thoughts are. Your arguments lack all logic and structure. You are a painful merciless attack on the brain. So consistently have you proven your arrogance that I know your next response will be something I couldn't come up with if I tried. I want to copy your posts to save as proof that someone, somewhere thinks the way you do.
Don't be surprised if this is the last time I respond to you.
Thanks.
That's a pretty good description. I haven't plugged and unplugged my HDMI connections, so I really don't know about them breaking eventually, but I can say that if the technology has to be licensed (I haven't researched this, but i believe you) then yes, I can see why Apple would refuse to adopt it.
That being said, I still believe Apple should have made it sound compatible, specifically surround sound compatible, from the outset. I will still stand by that.
When I buy my mother a Mac mini and a Samsung Flat Panel TV as a monitor (she's not doing anything graphics intensive so an LCD TV and a Mini should be fine....) I would rather her only need to plug in one port instead of two.
The point I have been attempting to make is universal adoption and simplicity.
People are inherently simple. Not everyone is an IT geek. They want to plug in one thing and have it do everything.
But, as you said, the need to license HDMI is prohibitive and I can understand wanting a varied (read "open source and free") format to utilize instead.
I agree with the sound issue, IE no support currently. However being weird (aka a bit of an audio nut) I would never use HDMI as personally and from a few friends like me and our testing HDMI's audio quality is not on a par with seperate audio cables, however much you insulate a cable you will still get some cross talk between them. 99% of people this wont matter and the tidiier cables is a plus, but to me this is an issue. Also the fun and games a friend experienced with the early verisons on HDMI (not communicating with newer versions etc) really put him off them LOL. Luckily im still on SDTV, until the bank increases my overdraft! LOL
After all who wants to think of themselves as not 'cool' or not owning things which are 'sexy'? Do people want an image of themselves as boring or drab?
I'm also puzzled as to why MS chose a 17" lap top for their shopping comparison,apart from the obvious reason that Apple's only offering at that screen size is their top of the line MBP. Who,apart from those who need to do serious paid work on it and really need to carry it around an a regular basis,would want put up with the extra weight and cost such a large screen entails?
Perhaps MS's fictional buyers will just leave their monster laptop on the desk or table all the time,or only move it when the kitchen or dining room table is needed for cooking or eating.In that case[BTW does anyone have any guess how often this happens?] wouldn't they be better off with a nice all-in-one with an even bigger screen perhaps?
In the country I'm in at the moment they have a rather nice saying I think is quite fitting for these mythical buyers which translates as " I'm too poor to buy cheap things"
Words can hardly describe the abortion of thought that is your method of reason.
What awful trash your thoughts are. Your arguments lack all logic and structure. You are a painful merciless attack on the brain. So consistently have you proven your arrogance that I know your next response will be something I couldn't come up with if I tried. I want to copy your posts to save as proof that someone, somewhere thinks the way you do.
LOL! That's rich coming from a troll. Perhaps you don't understand plain English, then? Or logic or reason? Sorry, I don't speak your offensive troll language, uStink.
Don't be surprised if this is the last time I respond to you.
Promise??
ok maybe i cant leave it alone lol. I found two lappies, price difference right away is over 500, lets see how they stack up.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220527
vs
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/...mco=MzA3MTE3NA
Um... no. Only one of those is a portable computer you could honestly call a "laptop".
Why don't you compare another slim, light 17" notebook with the MacBook Pro instead of a "desktop replacement" that weighs in at nearly 12 pounds and is 2.5" thick. That would be a fairer comparison. And then you have (hack-free, legal) OS X vs. Windows.
Yeah. Those machines are comparable. Riiiight. As if you don't understand the concept that you can fit more, and cheaper, components into a 2.5" thick enclosure than you can fit in an inch-thick enclosure. And that's not an issue about appearance. The Apple enclosure is FUNCTIONALLY BETTER in the regard that it's immensely more portable. The MacBook Pro is the machine you can take outside of the house on an everyday basis. Would you really want someone to see you in Starbucks with a 2.5" thick notebook?
It's really actually pathetic- to think an Apple spokesman actually needs to respond and say these things. SJ's leadership is sorely missed.
It's as if Mercedes or BMW responding to a Toyota add or something else as absurd.
More like Mercedes or BMW responding to the new Kia Rio ads.
Um... no. Only one of those is a portable computer you could honestly call a "laptop".
Why don't you compare another slim, light 17" notebook with the MacBook Pro instead of a "desktop replacement" that weighs in at nearly 12 pounds and is 2.5" thick. That would be a fairer comparison. And then you have (hack-free, legal) OS X vs. Windows.
Yeah. Those machines are comparable. Riiiight. As if you don't understand the concept that you can fit more, and cheaper, components into a 2.5" thick enclosure than you can fit in an inch-thick enclosure. And that's not an issue about appearance. The Apple enclosure is FUNCTIONALLY BETTER in the regard that it's immensely more portable. The MacBook Pro is the machine you can take outside of the house on an everyday basis. Would you really want someone to see you in Starbucks with a 2.5" thick notebook?
lmfao! You're right man. I didn't even acknowledge that.
here try this one.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220516
It's only 1.5 inches thick instead of 2.5 LOL. I never said macs were ugly, just over priced. They want 1000 bucks to upgrade from 4gb to 8gb of ram. Please explain that to me because I don't understand it. Ram is supposed to be cheaper these days. 8gb of pc laptop ram doesn't come close to 1000 bucks. (And keep in mind thats 1000 bucks extra going from 4gb already. What would they charge if they sold the ram alone?)
I'm in no way trying to push these laptops on anyone, just responding to what you said about them all being made of cheap hardware.
Apple definitely has the laptop and notebook market in check. When you look around at a press conference for things like sports and stuff, all the reporters are using a mac. I in no way am saying that the laptops are junk or that PC's are better.
This response is pathetic. His arguement could have been simple and just stated the capababilities of a Macbook. All of this on and on about BS and fees just isn't true. There is great protection on a pc for free if you are not an idiot. Let's face it, macs are for people in design, people who like cutting edge high end toys, and idiots.
Cheap
Portable
Multi OS
Stable
Free Features that support expression
Free Features that prevent disaster and mitigate recovery
They do need to own up that it sucks for business. And should just state or even package xp and virtualization to a business class. So many people do OO or iWork and then hate their mac.
I love my mac. I runs Bootcamp XP great. I can hook it up with DVI to my home ent system and use it as a media center.
But the company is getting too proprietary and that will be the downfall. No one knows about media center PC's but they kick ass compared to iTunes.
SELL APPL if Jobs doesn't return. He is a genius but his mgmt team is a group of visionless San Fran snobs.
If you think Windows Media Center is good you have obviously not tried anything else. iTunes is not a media center, the apple TV is. If you want a really good Media Center option on OS X for connecting to your TV at home, try Plex or Boxee. Both F%^$ing rule compared to thatWindows Media Center crap.
Windows Media Center FAIL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gtYo...elated&search=
Plex
http://elan.plexapp.com/
Boxee (Alpha)
http://boxee.tv/
Boxee