Wow, its amazing to see so many MS shills here today - they really must be getting desperate; or rather their advertising company is. I can only imagine that they have been extremely careful to get Ballmer to sign-off on these campaigns because they really are astonishingly lame. However their multimillion cash-cow client relationship must surely be coming to an end. These lurches from one appalling idea to the next cannot continue. Perhaps they are Ballmer's ideas!
As to Macs verses PC, I don't think we need to get into that here do we? If you don't know you are in the wrong forum.
But you know people are just going to look at a spec sheet and see faster processor, more RAM, bigger hard drive, bigger screen, dedicated graphics, less money and agree that he made the right choice.
I think the ad does well in that sense as those at agree with his "tech savviness" aren't going to conceive any other aspect of the purchase. However, I also think it's "preaching to the choir", so to speak, but that may at least reinforce the feelings of their consumer base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenburg
Apple's hardware margin is 32%. You know they're making more than that on software sales - everyone does. Microsoft is a software company. HP is probably lucky to make 10% on their hardware.
That is a valid point, but it should be noted that HP has chosen to sell inexpensive machines in a market that requires razor thin margins in order to compete. Apple would have to do the same thing if they chose to compete with HP and Dell at that level. And it should be noted that their higher-end machines have similar margins (if not higher) to Apple at the higher tiers.
The equivalent of the MacBook is an HP DV3; they cost about $650-$1000, depending on configuration and weigh about 4.3 pounds.
Of course, the best way of running it is with Ubuntu: that way, you get inexpensive hardware, a great UI, and tons of free software. It beats both Apple and Microsoft hands down.
Unless you are a professional who uses Adobe products, Final Cut Pro, Aperture, or Logic Studio. Then, not so much.
that brings up a lot of interesting questions. would you touch it with an eleven foot pole? are there things that you would touch *only* with a ten foot pole? Like, I would touch that with a ten foot pole, but a nine foot pole would just be too close.
Apple's hardware margin is 32%. You know they're making more than that on software sales - everyone does. Microsoft is a software company. HP is probably lucky to make 10% on their hardware.
Know your facts. You are off by a lot.
Apple sells to resellers with 10% profit.
Most other companies have 20 to 22% profit. I know. I worked in many many stores and know the margins/profits.
it is insane how bent people are about these ads. then they try and make it out to be completely ridiculous that people would pick the PC in this current economy, only because they cant understand that people actually want a laptop for a reasonable price.
that laptop would cost $2500 in macbook pro flavor. a lot of people would sacrifice a little portability for over $1000 in savings.
the people that try to attack every small bit of this ad dont understand this ad at all. its supossed to look like the average consumer *right now* going into a store with a very real budget. Macs have a major flaw, that may not have been as apparent when we were living high with disposable incomes. but the tides turned a bit...
Apple isnt doomed or anything, its not like MS is going to win over every single person looking for a computer. wealthy people will still pick macs, because they look good (im talking wealthy computer illiterate people that dont know the difference between OSX/Win)
They do need changes though. Apple needs to go back to really refreshing their line, the new Mini/iMac were small refreshes when they needed to be major ones (or wait for a time a major one was possible) they also need to be able to make a computer that may cost more than a rival PC, but only by $200-$300, anything more needs to have better components, not just better build quality.
They need to fix the iMac line, they need to be able to compete with other All-in-ones again, they dont even come close right now...
they have bigger problems than some Ad a competitor does... im actually surprised that so many people here are upset about this here, making it sound like MS is so evil by making it... its an Ad, didnt see you bitching while Apple produced a few dozen of the "Im a Mac" ads, that were constantly a 100% attack on PCs.
oh, also, the article posted is bullshit. and no this is not at all like propaganda from WW2, that person needs to brush up on their history.
Do the owners of the 13" usually use them with a large external monitor and use the laptop's display while only on the road
I have a new 15" MacBook Pro that I use with a 24" 1920x1080 monitor. At home I use both screens, keeping email, iTunes and iChat on my MBP's display and other apps on the larger display.
Quote:
or is there some feature of OS X I'm missing that makes the small display a non-issue
What a great post (welcome yourself, newbie... )! I thought it was worthy of repeating, so I included the whole post in my reply.
Yeah, the level of trolling does seem to have gone up in proportion to AI's visibility. Too bad. I had found this forum to be such a sanctuary of largely like-minded Apple types who were not raging computing-bigots. I truly hope it doesn't end up like an engadget.com or cnet.com.
But what can you do.....
PS: Oops.... sorry for calling you a newbie! Although you had only 7 posts as of this one (hence my assumption), I noticed that you've been around since December 2007!
It means Microsoft has a fan base lol
Apple ain't so lucky now.
I like both companies... Both for different reasons. You can thank Microsoft for the good Mac OS X. Apple had to make it that much better to keep alive. So because of this, we got a good system. Microsoft rocks in everything they do. I love them.
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.
I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.
I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)
Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
5GB on two dimms? how so?
Mac OS is more reliable. you can get all the bells and whistles in hardware, but the bottleneck remains.... windows.
I like both companies... Both for different reasons. You can thank Microsoft for the good Mac OS X. Apple had to make it that much better to keep alive. So because of this, we got a good system. Microsoft rocks in everything they do. I love them.
You can thank Apple for the fact that Windows ever existed at all. Gates sent himself into a tizzy and was convinced MS was dead the day he saw the first Mac.
I see nothing wrong with legitimate gripes about some of Apple's mistakes, every company makes them. But with a statement like, "Microsoft rocks in everything they do" it's obvious you've never used either companies products (which I doubt), you are delusional, or you are a troll, either way, it's just plain sad. I hope MS is paying you well.
OK. If someone gave you , say, 18 grand and told you to buy a car that could go from A to B at the speed limit all day, and you could keep the change, you'd end up with... a Kia? That Beemer's just too fancy, man. You don't need it. The Honda is all frills. Both have engines, right? and 4 tires. and a gas cap.... Hell, why spend more for what you don't "need" (we'll tell you what you need, buddy.)
that BMW is going to AT LEAST cost you 35 large. that Honda has no frills (like a toyota, chevy, ford, or anything else mid range) and that Kia is going to bread down on you in 2 years and be worth less than half its original price.
this doesnt even make any sense, sorry for picking you out while there are 100 examples of ill informed posts on this site...
this is more like if someone was given $25k, went to a buick dealership because they wanted a reliable car (tied with lexus for the most reliable company in the world) they look at the SUV, and it looks GOOD, nice wood trim interior, leather seats, a little gleam on the outside, they love it. then they find out that it costs $35k and decide to go across the street to the chevy dealership, and low and behold they find the new Chevy Traverse. They look inside and it has a different interior, not as nice, but still does everything they need, and feels good. they look on the outside to find that there is no gleam that the buick offers, but its got solid construction, and its overall still attractive in a lower budget kind of way.
the best part is they find out that its selling for $25k. they get it.
just so you know, the reason mine works and yours does not is because the Buick and the Chevy are the same car underneath, they use the same engine, platform, everything, they are just different on material, and design, all the same mechanical components are the same.
that BMW is going to AT LEAST cost you 35 large. that Honda has no frills (like a toyota, chevy, ford, or anything else mid range) and that Kia is going to bread down on you in 2 years and be worth less than half its original price.
this doesnt even make any sense, sorry for picking you out while there are 100 examples of ill informed posts on this site...
this is more like if someone was given $25k, went to a buick dealership because they wanted a reliable car (tied with lexus for the most reliable company in the world) they look at the SUV, and it looks GOOD, nice wood trim interior, leather seats, a little gleam on the outside, they love it. then they find out that it costs $35k and decide to go across the street to the chevy dealership, and low and behold they find the new Chevy Traverse. They look inside and it has a different interior, not as nice, but still does everything they need, and feels good. they look on the outside to find that there is no gleam that the buick offers, but its got solid construction, and its overall still attractive in a lower budget kind of way.
the best part is they find out that its selling for $25k. they get it.
just so you know, the reason mine works and yours does not is because the Buick and the Chevy are the same car underneath, they use the same engine, platform, everything, they are just different on material, and design, all the same mechanical components are the same.
in this economy, which would you pick?
If one needed Windows and the other OS X to function, I'd pick the one that ran OS X (it has the better OS AND runs Windows).
Welcome to a bunch of trolls that have turned this place into CNET? I don't post much, because I usually enjoy the exchanges between the more experienced and knowledgeable members.
However, you knew this was going to turn into flamebait. Just look at all the people who just signed up to give us their "wisdom"... a total infestation of people decrying "fanboys" and defending the honor of Microsoft and Linux and Ubuntu. (in fairness, some people who joined did so to defend Apple, but really -- this is the sort of thing that makes you want to contribute to a forum?)
I guess this site needed the traffic.
aqnguyen87
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tx
Posts: 2
ssampier
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
kim chi <-------- the first real troll poster
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
HiFivinFisto
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
delpt
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
qwerty
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
EndoFallTime
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
mj93284
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
randomdude
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
archangel3700
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
codedude
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
overdue
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
2kunlimited
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
joindup
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
jegs
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
Icarusmk2
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
how old are you??? its either twelve because you're too young to have a job and have no friends to hang around with, or you're forty and lost your job and are just blowing time between interviews... either way, you have a pretty sad life determining newbies on an online post MEANT for replies on the topic, not the people that actually respond to them... go home to your parents basement...
With a 10% market share arguing that a Mac is better than a PC is a pretty lame argument.
If I understand the point you are trying to make, you might want to pick up a copy of, "Economics for Dummies." Market share is not tied to quality or performance due to a multitude of variables. Generally, market share is higher for the low to mid range quality and price tier, while the high end tier has the lower market share.
You don't have to have the higher volume sales to have the better product or to be profitable and successful.
I hope Apple wakes up and realizes they don't need to extort such high prices for their hardware. Any company that has $18 billion in the bank has way too much profit margin!
How much money does Microsoft have in the bank, why aren't you complaining, why don't you complain about the margins Microsoft is making on Office and Windows.
If one needed Windows and the other OS X to function, I'd pick the one that ran OS X (it has the better OS AND runs Windows).
you can run windows on a mac, yes. did you not know that you can also run OSX on a PC?
like the last guy you attacked, i like both companies, both have their high points, i own products from both companies, and recently was looking into getting a new iMac... however the problem is i wont be able to, the price is just too high for what you get, im willing to spend the $2200 needed for a top of the line model, but when i compare that to the OLD Dell AiO XPS one, you get more ram, more power, and blu-ray, for less money. thats not to mention that th new one is out soon, and offers even more, and doesnt look shitty space age like the last one.
i just cant spend my money on an apple product when it means losing out on so much, just to have the apple name on it.
now, i will be getting an update on my contract for the iPhone, because that isnt crazy over priced compared to other things in the cell phone market, now they need to turn around and do that with their computers.
How much money does Microsoft have in the bank, why aren't you complaining, why don't you complain about the margins Microsoft is making on Office and Windows.
now i agree to a point with MS software (which is why i only every buy it when i know a student that will purchase it for me at a small fraction of the cost)
however when it comes to hardware? MS charges less than its competition most of the time. look at the Xbox and Zune. (both great products if you dont already have an iPhone, the 360 is the best gaming system this gen, and costs half as much as the PS3, and $50 less than the Wii)
Comments
As to Macs verses PC, I don't think we need to get into that here do we? If you don't know you are in the wrong forum.
But you know people are just going to look at a spec sheet and see faster processor, more RAM, bigger hard drive, bigger screen, dedicated graphics, less money and agree that he made the right choice.
I think the ad does well in that sense as those at agree with his "tech savviness" aren't going to conceive any other aspect of the purchase. However, I also think it's "preaching to the choir", so to speak, but that may at least reinforce the feelings of their consumer base.
Apple's hardware margin is 32%. You know they're making more than that on software sales - everyone does. Microsoft is a software company. HP is probably lucky to make 10% on their hardware.
That is a valid point, but it should be noted that HP has chosen to sell inexpensive machines in a market that requires razor thin margins in order to compete. Apple would have to do the same thing if they chose to compete with HP and Dell at that level. And it should be noted that their higher-end machines have similar margins (if not higher) to Apple at the higher tiers.
The equivalent of the MacBook is an HP DV3; they cost about $650-$1000, depending on configuration and weigh about 4.3 pounds.
Of course, the best way of running it is with Ubuntu: that way, you get inexpensive hardware, a great UI, and tons of free software. It beats both Apple and Microsoft hands down.
Unless you are a professional who uses Adobe products, Final Cut Pro, Aperture, or Logic Studio. Then, not so much.
that brings up a lot of interesting questions. would you touch it with an eleven foot pole? are there things that you would touch *only* with a ten foot pole? Like, I would touch that with a ten foot pole, but a nine foot pole would just be too close.
come back, demetri martin
Would you touch it if Microsoft paid you $1500?
If you can't tell then Mac's aren't for you - it's that simple.
the Windows machine is better spec'd as ALWAYS!
Apple's hardware margin is 32%. You know they're making more than that on software sales - everyone does. Microsoft is a software company. HP is probably lucky to make 10% on their hardware.
Know your facts. You are off by a lot.
Apple sells to resellers with 10% profit.
Most other companies have 20 to 22% profit. I know. I worked in many many stores and know the margins/profits.
Don't kid yourself. No pun intended.
that laptop would cost $2500 in macbook pro flavor. a lot of people would sacrifice a little portability for over $1000 in savings.
the people that try to attack every small bit of this ad dont understand this ad at all. its supossed to look like the average consumer *right now* going into a store with a very real budget. Macs have a major flaw, that may not have been as apparent when we were living high with disposable incomes. but the tides turned a bit...
Apple isnt doomed or anything, its not like MS is going to win over every single person looking for a computer. wealthy people will still pick macs, because they look good (im talking wealthy computer illiterate people that dont know the difference between OSX/Win)
They do need changes though. Apple needs to go back to really refreshing their line, the new Mini/iMac were small refreshes when they needed to be major ones (or wait for a time a major one was possible) they also need to be able to make a computer that may cost more than a rival PC, but only by $200-$300, anything more needs to have better components, not just better build quality.
They need to fix the iMac line, they need to be able to compete with other All-in-ones again, they dont even come close right now...
they have bigger problems than some Ad a competitor does... im actually surprised that so many people here are upset about this here, making it sound like MS is so evil by making it... its an Ad, didnt see you bitching while Apple produced a few dozen of the "Im a Mac" ads, that were constantly a 100% attack on PCs.
oh, also, the article posted is bullshit. and no this is not at all like propaganda from WW2, that person needs to brush up on their history.
Hello all,
Do the owners of the 13" usually use them with a large external monitor and use the laptop's display while only on the road
I have a new 15" MacBook Pro that I use with a 24" 1920x1080 monitor. At home I use both screens, keeping email, iTunes and iChat on my MBP's display and other apps on the larger display.
or is there some feature of OS X I'm missing that makes the small display a non-issue
Are you aware of Spaces?
What a great post (welcome yourself, newbie...
Yeah, the level of trolling does seem to have gone up in proportion to AI's visibility. Too bad. I had found this forum to be such a sanctuary of largely like-minded Apple types who were not raging computing-bigots. I truly hope it doesn't end up like an engadget.com or cnet.com.
But what can you do.....
PS: Oops.... sorry for calling you a newbie! Although you had only 7 posts as of this one (hence my assumption), I noticed that you've been around since December 2007!
It means Microsoft has a fan base lol
Apple ain't so lucky now.
I like both companies... Both for different reasons. You can thank Microsoft for the good Mac OS X. Apple had to make it that much better to keep alive. So because of this, we got a good system. Microsoft rocks in everything they do. I love them.
*sound of me repeatedly hitting my head on desk*
Okay, whoever made that ad needs to be fired. Now. What the hell is MS thinking? God.
Anyways, I saw a lot of people talking about benchmark comparisons between macs and PCs, so I decided to see for myself.
I looked at a computer on Apple.com and customized it a bit.
A 15-inch Macbook Pro with
- 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2 Dimms)
- 250GB Serial ATA HDD @ 5400rpm
- 8x optical disc drive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
- NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
- Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
- Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
- 5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
- 320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
- 8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
- ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
- A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
- An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
- HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
- Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
5GB on two dimms? how so?
Mac OS is more reliable. you can get all the bells and whistles in hardware, but the bottleneck remains.... windows.
It means Microsoft has a fan base lol
Apple ain't so lucky now.
I like both companies... Both for different reasons. You can thank Microsoft for the good Mac OS X. Apple had to make it that much better to keep alive. So because of this, we got a good system. Microsoft rocks in everything they do. I love them.
You can thank Apple for the fact that Windows ever existed at all. Gates sent himself into a tizzy and was convinced MS was dead the day he saw the first Mac.
I see nothing wrong with legitimate gripes about some of Apple's mistakes, every company makes them. But with a statement like, "Microsoft rocks in everything they do" it's obvious you've never used either companies products (which I doubt), you are delusional, or you are a troll, either way, it's just plain sad. I hope MS is paying you well.
OK. If someone gave you , say, 18 grand and told you to buy a car that could go from A to B at the speed limit all day, and you could keep the change, you'd end up with... a Kia? That Beemer's just too fancy, man. You don't need it. The Honda is all frills. Both have engines, right? and 4 tires. and a gas cap.... Hell, why spend more for what you don't "need" (we'll tell you what you need, buddy.)
that BMW is going to AT LEAST cost you 35 large. that Honda has no frills (like a toyota, chevy, ford, or anything else mid range) and that Kia is going to bread down on you in 2 years and be worth less than half its original price.
this doesnt even make any sense, sorry for picking you out while there are 100 examples of ill informed posts on this site...
this is more like if someone was given $25k, went to a buick dealership because they wanted a reliable car (tied with lexus for the most reliable company in the world) they look at the SUV, and it looks GOOD, nice wood trim interior, leather seats, a little gleam on the outside, they love it. then they find out that it costs $35k and decide to go across the street to the chevy dealership, and low and behold they find the new Chevy Traverse. They look inside and it has a different interior, not as nice, but still does everything they need, and feels good. they look on the outside to find that there is no gleam that the buick offers, but its got solid construction, and its overall still attractive in a lower budget kind of way.
the best part is they find out that its selling for $25k. they get it.
just so you know, the reason mine works and yours does not is because the Buick and the Chevy are the same car underneath, they use the same engine, platform, everything, they are just different on material, and design, all the same mechanical components are the same.
in this economy, which would you pick?
that BMW is going to AT LEAST cost you 35 large. that Honda has no frills (like a toyota, chevy, ford, or anything else mid range) and that Kia is going to bread down on you in 2 years and be worth less than half its original price.
this doesnt even make any sense, sorry for picking you out while there are 100 examples of ill informed posts on this site...
this is more like if someone was given $25k, went to a buick dealership because they wanted a reliable car (tied with lexus for the most reliable company in the world) they look at the SUV, and it looks GOOD, nice wood trim interior, leather seats, a little gleam on the outside, they love it. then they find out that it costs $35k and decide to go across the street to the chevy dealership, and low and behold they find the new Chevy Traverse. They look inside and it has a different interior, not as nice, but still does everything they need, and feels good. they look on the outside to find that there is no gleam that the buick offers, but its got solid construction, and its overall still attractive in a lower budget kind of way.
the best part is they find out that its selling for $25k. they get it.
just so you know, the reason mine works and yours does not is because the Buick and the Chevy are the same car underneath, they use the same engine, platform, everything, they are just different on material, and design, all the same mechanical components are the same.
in this economy, which would you pick?
If one needed Windows and the other OS X to function, I'd pick the one that ran OS X (it has the better OS AND runs Windows).
Welcome to a bunch of trolls that have turned this place into CNET? I don't post much, because I usually enjoy the exchanges between the more experienced and knowledgeable members.
However, you knew this was going to turn into flamebait. Just look at all the people who just signed up to give us their "wisdom"... a total infestation of people decrying "fanboys" and defending the honor of Microsoft and Linux and Ubuntu. (in fairness, some people who joined did so to defend Apple, but really -- this is the sort of thing that makes you want to contribute to a forum?)
I guess this site needed the traffic.
aqnguyen87
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tx
Posts: 2
ssampier
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
kim chi <-------- the first real troll poster
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
HiFivinFisto
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
delpt
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
qwerty
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
EndoFallTime
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
mj93284
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
randomdude
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
archangel3700
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
codedude
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
overdue
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
2kunlimited
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
joindup
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
jegs
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
Icarusmk2
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
how old are you??? its either twelve because you're too young to have a job and have no friends to hang around with, or you're forty and lost your job and are just blowing time between interviews... either way, you have a pretty sad life determining newbies on an online post MEANT for replies on the topic, not the people that actually respond to them... go home to your parents basement...
With a 10% market share arguing that a Mac is better than a PC is a pretty lame argument.
If I understand the point you are trying to make, you might want to pick up a copy of, "Economics for Dummies." Market share is not tied to quality or performance due to a multitude of variables. Generally, market share is higher for the low to mid range quality and price tier, while the high end tier has the lower market share.
You don't have to have the higher volume sales to have the better product or to be profitable and successful.
I hope Apple wakes up and realizes they don't need to extort such high prices for their hardware. Any company that has $18 billion in the bank has way too much profit margin!
How much money does Microsoft have in the bank, why aren't you complaining, why don't you complain about the margins Microsoft is making on Office and Windows.
If one needed Windows and the other OS X to function, I'd pick the one that ran OS X (it has the better OS AND runs Windows).
you can run windows on a mac, yes. did you not know that you can also run OSX on a PC?
like the last guy you attacked, i like both companies, both have their high points, i own products from both companies, and recently was looking into getting a new iMac... however the problem is i wont be able to, the price is just too high for what you get, im willing to spend the $2200 needed for a top of the line model, but when i compare that to the OLD Dell AiO XPS one, you get more ram, more power, and blu-ray, for less money. thats not to mention that th new one is out soon, and offers even more, and doesnt look shitty space age like the last one.
i just cant spend my money on an apple product when it means losing out on so much, just to have the apple name on it.
now, i will be getting an update on my contract for the iPhone, because that isnt crazy over priced compared to other things in the cell phone market, now they need to turn around and do that with their computers.
How much money does Microsoft have in the bank, why aren't you complaining, why don't you complain about the margins Microsoft is making on Office and Windows.
now i agree to a point with MS software (which is why i only every buy it when i know a student that will purchase it for me at a small fraction of the cost)
however when it comes to hardware? MS charges less than its competition most of the time. look at the Xbox and Zune. (both great products if you dont already have an iPhone, the 360 is the best gaming system this gen, and costs half as much as the PS3, and $50 less than the Wii)