Sheila ultimately settles on a version of HP's 16-inch HP HDX 16t, which includes 4GB of slower DDR2 memory, a 2.13GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, a NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT with 512MB of video memory, and a display with a maximum resolution of 1366x768, compared to the MacBook Pro's 1440x900 max resolution.
settles is right.
for the price she could have had better resolution, a faster processor, TWO video cards etc. and preinstalled video editing software. with a DVD mapping program as well.
5 will get you ten that any comparable video/dvd software for the HP will put the total cost at the same thing she'd have paid if she walked into an Apple store and got the 15" with a fresh out of the box RAM upgrade to 4gb of ddr3 (which is like $150)
Actually, you'd have to buy the mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter and then the HDMI cable. So you'd still need 2 cables. Plus the mini DisplayPort on Macs isn't capable of passing audio, so you'd still need an audio cable. On top of that, if you're running blu-ray (not possible in OS X but is in Windows), since you're stuck with optical audio, you can't pass the higher quality higher resolution formats, like Dolby TrueHD, DTS Master HD, or 8 channel uncompressed LPCM.
And who uses HDMI? Everyone. Starting in 2006, HDMI started to become a standard. By the end of 2007, it was difficult to find a notebook without HDMI out. Now its near impossible unless you look at Netbooks.
Every respectable LCD display out there has had HDMI for several years now. GPU manufacturers have been dropping DVI to HDMI adapters in boxes for just as long, plus many GPUs ship with HDMI as standard, as well as the ability to pass the higher resolution audio formats and 8 channel uncompressed LPCM.
Because you know what I said is true. Show me a Mac with HDMI, card readers built-in, quad-core CPUs in notebooks, better than low mid-range GPUs, blu-ray, etc.
They don't? Hmm. My UniBody MacBook has an LG screen, LG optical drive, Intel processor, nvidia chipset and GPU, some "Apple" branded RAM that is usually Samsung RAM rebranded, and a Hitachi HDD. My friend's MacBook Pro has an Intel processor, LG screen, LG optical drive, Intel chipset, nvidia GPU, Samsung RAM, you get the idea. My HP has an LG optical drive, LG screen, Intel processor, Intel chipset, nvidia GPU, Hitachi HDD, you get the idea The Dell Studio XPS 13 ships with an Intel processor, nvidia chipset + GPU, RAM from Samsung or other manufacturers, LG screens (or those from the same manufacturers Apple chooses), Hitachi, Seagate, etc HDDs, etc. You get the idea.
Apple's components are EXACTLY the same as PCs. The only difference is the casing, which is aluminum or a very low quality plastic.
Are you serious? Do some googling. Despite the bad economy, Blu-ray's market share is DOUBLE what DVDs market share was at the same point in its life. When DVD was 2.5 years old, it had 4% market share. Blu-ray is currently at 8%. Blu-ray's market share doubled in 2008. The format IS taking off.
Blu-rays quality can't be seen on smaller screens? That too, is an outrageous statement that couldn't be any more wrong. To put it simply, even 720p screen is still pushing nearly 1,000,000 pixels. Standard definition DVD has a resolution 345,600. So even at 720p, blu-ray is pushing 2.6x the resolution of DVD. You also have to consider the fact that H.264 and VC-1 blu-ray discs are running at bitrate of anywhere from 20Mbps to 45Mbps. DVDs tend to run around 4.5Mbps encoded using MPEG-2. Even the old blu-ray MPEG-2 discs have a bitrate of around 20Mbps.
So, you're just flat out wrong in this case. Even on the small 720p screens, blu-ray will push that display to its full potential while DVD has to be upscaled over 2.5 times to reach native resolution.
And video on demand? Nah. Cable and satellite video services do reasonably well. But theres far too many problems with downloadable movies for them to ever challenge blu-ray.
One being is that the standard definition movies aren't even DVD quality. Sure they have the same resolution, but theres no hardware upscaling for the video codecs they use. So on high def displays, the video gets stretched and pixelized. Very few of them offer 5.1 surround sound as well. And those few that do have a lower bitrate Dolby Digital track than the DVD. Then theres the 720p "HD" version that Apple/iTunes and others try to pass off as HD. Those are all encoded at about 4.5Mbps. Excuse me? 4.5Mbps for 720p video? iTunes HD videos have so much compression artifacting that they don't even beat a good upscaled DVD. Sure they have more native pixels, but the compression artifacts are worse than cable. And, again, the issue of hardware upscaling. There is none. So on a 1080p display, you have to double the resolution in software which results in the image just being blown up and those compression artifacts being exaggerated. Not to mention the fact that iTunes HD movie purchases cost just as much as or sometimes more than the blu-ray disc.
And whats this about convenience? iTunes "HD" movies come in at around 4.5GB on average. I have a 10Mbps connection. Most people have less than half of that. If I want to download an iTunes HD movie, its going to take me more than an hour, assuming their servers feed me the movie at full speed. I can drive to the video store and get the blu-ray disc and be back before the movies even 10% downloaded. That leads me to the next problem with "On Demand" services like iTunes.
The DRM. If I buy an HD movie from iTunes, I can ONLY watch it on my computer or on an Apple TV. The SD version it comes with will play on my iPod and iPhone. If I want to play the HD movie on a display other than the built-in display on my MacBook, I need an entirely new cable set up to be HDCP compliant, since the MDP to HDMI cable didn't exist when I got my adapter and I didn't want to spend $50 on a MDP to DVI adapter plus DVI to HDMI setup.
WIth blu-ray and a PC, all it takes is one cable, no adapters and you're all set and compliant.
And what if I rent the SD version? It'll play on my Mac, PC, iPhone, or an Apple TV is I had one. Oh but guess what? It won't play on my 80GB 5.5G iPod that is newer than blu-ray and cost nearly twice as much as my Profile 2.0 blu-ray player did. Why won't it play movie rentals? Because that would be a "new feature" and Apple claims that SOX tells them they can't add "new features" without charging, which is complete and utter BS.
So again, the DRM. I have to have specific adapters and cables to play the HD movies, spend hours downloading, and spend MORE money renting or buying them than I would on blu-ray discs. On top of that, SD movies aren't guaranteed to play on all of my hardware, despite the fact that one of my pieces of hardware is not even 2 years old and cost more than my blu-ray player did.
Let's look at what else Apple did as far as DRM goes. Starting in 2007 with the iPhone, iPod classic, iPod nano 3G, and iPod touch, Apple locked out all 3rd party video accessories that don't include an Apple authentication chip. So on top of all of the other nonsense I mentioned, your movies aren't guaranteed to always be playable because Apple might decide to switch standards again and lock out everything you own forcing you to either give up everything or buy all new hardware again.
No, they don't. Apple uses the same nvidia chipset that Dell, HP, and others use. It's also the same chipset found in many desktop motherboards and upcoming "Ion" based netbooks. Theres absolutely NOTHING special about a Mac motherboard.
Before the 9400M, Apple used Intel Santa Rosa and Napa chipsets, the same exact chipsets you'd find in every other Intel based notebook PC.
It's about 750MB used by the system but if you have a GPU, say 1024MB, then the memory addressing from that needs to be taken off as well. They might be using 64-bit now, but I know it wasn't too long ago that they were putting 4GB into systems with a 32-bit OS as default.
Power consumption seems to be a better reason for going DDR3 over DDR2. I'll take any savings I can get with my notebook.
I agree with you power is important on notebook - specially if you are using it a lot on the go. But:
If that HP is using DDR2-800, it has a bit better idle consumption and a bit worst load consumption. I'd say it doesn't make much difference at the end of the day.
RAM or not, Apple did sorted out their power savings features a bit better than MS. I'm wondering if 7 will be better than Vista; I can't see any other reason to upgrade my notebook's OS...
Graphs are taken from http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mem...play/ddr3.html, by the way. Conclusion of the whole article is not surprising, though it seems some people will refuse to accept it until the judgement day come: True, on the one hand DDR3 SDRAM cannot take the system performance to another level. The tests showed that the newest DDR2 SDRAM can provide the same level of performance as the currently available DDR3 SDRAM. In fact, the results of our benchmarks indicate an approximate parity between systems equipped with DDR2-1066 SDRAM and DDR3-1333 SDRAM etc etc.
RAM or not, Apple did sorted out their power savings features a bit better than MS. I'm wondering if 7 will be better than Vista; I can't see any other reason to upgrade my notebook's OS...
I hope so, I knew Mac OS X was better at power management, but AnandTech's tests of the MacBook Air running OS X and Vista show an excessive lead for Apple's OS. I wished they had tested XP to see how that compares with the others.
Obama has a federal broadband intiative. Blue ray looks awesome. The only reason apple doesn't have it is due to apple tv looking very subpar in comparison.
I really hope for you guys in USA that Obama will deliver on his promises.
Here in NZ, uber-speed uncapped unbundled you-name-it Internet is being promised before each elections for the last 8+ years, and nothing significant happened in the mean time. Oh, wait - it did! Local provider, Xtra, gave me last year 40 instead of 30GB a month, and opened my DL speed to full ADSL specs (theoretical 8Mbits/s). Upload is still bellow 1Mbit.
But I always put red mark on calendar for every day I have actually seen DL speeds close to 8Mbits.
What do you think, how many red markers do I have..?
That's why we are Mac Users you moron! We've seen how the other side of things works and don't like what we see. I switched 12 years ago and since then have never had to reinstall a system, deal with virus, sort out corrupt drivers or wait 5 minutes before my computer boots up and is ready to use. My wife on the other hand is still a PC user and in the 7 years we have been together we have had 3 PC's all of which have fallen over at least 3 times are year!
The funniest thing about your post is you choose to right an anti-mac comment on a Mac website? What were you doing here in the first place?
Now go back to Scandisking, Defragging and Virus Checking your beloved PC you retard!
Breed. Slowly. Take it in. Let it out.
(I can tell you are already feeling better)
So you switched from Windows 95 SE.
(You do know there were some other versions of Windows in the meantime, don't you? Just checking)
What you are saying, in the nutshell, is that you were not capable to learn how to use your system, and now whole world is guilty for your decision to waste money on imbecile-proof OS.
Pathetic...
(But keep breeding. Slowly...)
When you calm down and recover some manners, maybe we can talk as human beings. Up to you.
every year, switchers and hack builders come to mac, if you mean 100% brain washed, jobs can do no wrong, you are correct, otherwise the mac pro user who in the studio had pcs for prgrams like Higa studio in multi million dollar studios and aforementioned swithchers, you are wrong, they all know about FSB, bios, oveclock, gigabertz whichnmatters again as a2.2 is slower than a 2.8 duo core, psu, and much more. The mac users and I know mac genius ( who are nothing other than procedure dudes that run a cd program to see if there's abproblem and wouldn't know an oso scopenif it hit them in the eye, to the more common and slowly dying, "oh I don't know that, I just use it, followed by sweety and beings guy, well yeah, they are clueless. Andbyour a dying bread. Today new user is a mac pro MacBook air macbook pro user that loves the is and software, the eye candy, hates vista but loves windows 7, but thinks apple is over prices and gets some macs for free, one studio I know received 5 free mac pros and fcp suites, today new users are the ones complaining. The other .01.5 percent non pro, consumer, iPod must have everything jobs is ckuess. Yeah you're right. In fact, google how to overclock a mac and see all the returns you get, all of them will be since intel transition and not rromthe over hyper lied by jobs g4 is faster than athlon crowd.
Of course, there are people who know their stuff. There are people here who know their stuff. I'm here to read what those people have to say... but every now and then, it is so hard to resist an urge to answer one of those other "smart" posts
Because, at the end of a day, there is nothing to reply to reasonable people and their down to earth, balanced posts. I don't have problem with people prefering Mac experience. I don't have a problem with people choosing to pay premium price. I might have a problem, though, with people repeating nonsense in order to justify their personal decision, while thinking they have became smart and knowledgeable because they own one platform or another.
Heck, what can you say to a post that says "Macs are built of noble silicon (and everyone knows that)?
BULLSHIT, everybody uses comoddedy x86 and x64 chips, MS does just as muich tuning on their consumer OS kernal to the INTEL chips as apple does, hell, MS and intel work closly together to make sure that Windows can take advantage of new chip features (like ht back in the day and multithreading across Xeon/Pentium/Core chips starting with Windows XP and expanded with the codebase of Server 2003 whuich was the vista foundation.)
MS has been working with Intel on multithreading and maximising CPU usage since Apple was playing with those dinky G4 peices of shit (I speak as a former G4 owner, they sucked compared to the Intel boxes of the day, which is why Apple switched.)
Its all about the abstraction layers, Apple has Core* and windows has Direct X and Windows Foundation and .net, they tweak their code to work with the HAL, and the GPU drivers for both Mac and Windows are written by the people who designed the chips, at nvidia and AMD, so I would assume that they can tightly integrate the drivers to the hardware, hell they CREATED the hardware.
WHAT???
Linux / mac os x / other unices have a much longer trackrecord of multitreading even before the time of multiprocessor hardware (consumer hw). Im not shore about how much of the libraries have been rewriten for multitreading since XP but it takes a lot of work.... Go look since when have windows taken use of multiple prosessors in reality (real multitreading in applications) its not that many years... When did bsds (incl. os x) and linux? That will give you a hint!
This problem would be even worse if intel had not brought multicore prosessors to us. The problem was minimised down to that one applications/libraries can only use one core but if you use several applications then they use different cores. This is a bit simplified for forum purposes but you get the picture... A lot of applications use windows libraries and it would be intresting to know how much of this is really multitreaded and since when.. Even if the impact isnt that big nowdays with multicore prosessors if you use several applications... Anyways not many applications could really use two prosessors on a windows rig in the biginning of the millenium... but this was only a windows problem...
mac has problems also . i never said they did not.
dude
nothing lasts
but my freind there is a world of difference between alot of the junk made out there .
apple has a very high level of production
higher end dells and others also keep a keen eye .
having stated this .
i will say that many >not all< BUT many p/c compaines work on razor thin margins . there is zippo unique amoung the herd so price becomes almost everything .
the worklers they use are treated like farm field pickers .
the internal parts they use are off the shelf and never ever current parts . re furb parts are also widely used accross the board.
its the lowest common denominator
just like vista windows world panders to the lowest common denominator .
many many mac are still in use today .. they tend to last longer
the apple owners also take better care of there machines . i own 5 mac right now down from 9 .
do you own a mac ??
No I don't.
I was considering white Macbook 6 months ago for my notebook, but choose not to since at the time I didn't know much about Mac and OSX to feel comfortable with purchase. That being said, white Macbook had approximately same price as 13" HP and Toshibas, albeit with a bit smaller HDD and less RAM on average... but still very tempting.
So... I started checking on AI at the time, and continued after I gave up on purchasing Mac. A bit out of habit, a bit out of curiosity. There is always next notebook around the corner, anyway. I'll probably virtualize OSX in the meantime and give it a go; unfortunately I know no one with Mac, and playing with them in a shop simply isn't enough.
I have no problem believing Macs can last, because my experience with PCs is the same (which works well with my beliefs they are built with same parts). Out of 8 functional computers in my house, oldest one is almost 9 years old P3 Toshiba notebook. With 15GB HDD. My wife managed to crack plastic corner of the screen cover by dropping notebook from bed to hard floor, some 5 years ago. It still works with no problems. In all that time, it was re-imaged once - when my wife moved from that machine to her new notebook, 2 and a half years ago. I didn't really have to reinstall it, but wanted to remove all her files and info and re-imaging was easier than search & destroy.
Some other computers are also 4+ years old - Celeron desktop, first-gen AMD 64 desktop, one P4 system.
Would you believe that, in last 9 years of personal computing, I had to replace 1 motherboard (old Transcend Athlon board with VIA chipset) and one no-name power supply. All other bits and pieces (and whole systems) were used much as I wanted to use them, later given to friends with lower computing needs. To my knowledge, I don't know if anything died before new users decided to retire that equipment (or give it someone else and I lost trace). Some really old stuff is thrown away - SD RAM modules, GF 2 MX card... some other stuff that no one would use nowadays.
So you see - it pisses me of a bit (and amuses me a lot) when some greenhorn rushes in and starts delivering all-mighty wisdom about PCs being pile of junk that doesn't work at all, and is only capable of freezing, crashing, dying and loosing their respective owners' important data.
Utter bullshit.
I'm sure everyone can find more PC than Mac users having hardware-related problems, but not many people seem to consider there are at least 10 PC users on every single Mac user. Even with exactly same built quality, simple statistic will give 10x more problems in PC world in general. But per user? I don't think so.
Apple deals in a little hyperbole, Microsoft is all bullshit here
Ah, yes. I always remember ad about digital cameras.
Might be hyperbole for you, but for average Joe who believes everything he sees on TV), it is clear message that his new digital camera will not work with PC.
Which is as nonsense-full as nonsenses go
Apple was trying to hide it's bullshit behind (occasionaly successful) humour.
MS has selected their approach as "We're not trying to be smart - we are just telling you the way it is". But they are not always telling everything, now, are they?
Apple was lying unconditionally on many occasions. MS is carefully selecting to present part of truth they consider as their advantage, while being very quiet about parts that don't work for them. But at least, they are not negating those parts - just skipping them.
Additionally, MS is not trying to make fun of Apple - like Apple did with their PC stereotype (and with very little success - PC guy is way more likeable than Mac guy). Believe me, there are stereotypes Mac users could be easily fitted in.
While both approaches are under the belt, I feel Apple's one goes a bit lower.
Core 2 Duo is a 64-bit processor. The emphasis is on needing the 64-bit version of Windows over the 32-bit and unlike the beliefs of some on these forums, it is in fact quite common for a machine with 4GB of RAM to be shipped using only a 32-bit version of Windows. (Thus .5GB is not used; leaving the user with 3.5GB that is used by a RAM hungry/inefficient Vista - this is of course assuming the address space isn't used up and the user isn't left with 3GB, or even less)
It isn't just the RAM either, while the HDX 16t does use a 1066FSB, a lot of the others out there don't - in fact, the vast majority don't. They're on slower 800FSBs or less.
*ALL* new MacBooks use 1066FSB or higher, even the white MacBook. Although there is one weakness, the white MacBook still uses DDR2-667 RAM, but *ALL* others use DDR3-1066.
Since we're talking about the "average user", where's mention of iWork and Office? Let's face it - I'm a fan of Office over iWork (blasphemy, I know), but...
The average user doesn't need all of those extras, iWork can use and create Word, Excel and Powerpoint files quite effectively and do all the average user ever needs to do. iWork is an extra $40 with purchase of a new Mac ($79 retail), Office 2007 Home and Student (Word/Excel/Powerpoint) is $149 retail, $119 last I saw added with an HP. No one includes it free. Where's that in these comparisons?
* Side note: Microsoft's "Home and Student" edition of Office 2008 (Mac) has Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Entourage. Microsoft's "Home and Student" edition of Office 2007 (Windows) has Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Anyone find it funny that you get "more" with the Mac version?
Check graphs (and link) I've posted in another post - I think it is somewhere at page 11.
In short, for non i7 platforms, DDR2-800 performs almost exactly the same as DDR3-1066. Which, I believe, is common DDR3 in Macs. It has a bit lower idle power consumption and a bit higher load consumption, but differences are marginal.
Regarding Office for students... I'd lucky guess MS wants Mac people to use their email client over Apple's mail (or whatever the name is), thus Entourage is included. People who get used to Entourage will resist less to work with Outlook - or, even if they have Mac at work, will still go for Entourage out of developed habit/experience/what-ever.
On the other hand, PC users without Outlook will use, well, likely Outlook Express. Nothing to gain there by giving Outlook for the same money - from MS's point of view.
That is a MBP, but from MS' standpoint they get a lot more money from a retail purchase of Windows for a MBP than an OEM copy pre-installed on other vendor's machines.
Infiltrate.
Resistance is futile.
Yeah, that is one dorky ad...
But MS is software company, and money from Apple users is green as.
You keep trying to spin some yarn but you never make a point. Are you saying that Macs were completely different internals when they were PPC? Well, they weren't. The reason Windows didn't install on PPC was because MS choose not to support it. It was a different architecture but all computers use the same basic components: ROM, RAM, CPU, I/O and a mainboard to tie them together. Saying that these are somehow vastly different in what they accomplish is foolish. Linux can run on PPC, x86, ARM and others just fine so by your logic every computer is the same.
Grabbing a few components that are the same or similar to claim that every other part must then be the same is equally as false. You also find the cheapest comparison you can find while ignoring more expensive comparisons as they easily shatter your already weak argument. Why you think that Apple can't make a computer in a way that satisfies certain users' needs and wants is beyond me. Perhaps you need to figure out what is wrong with you for not wanting one company within a free market to be free.
What does PPC has to do with whole topic? I never ever mentioned PPC Macs.
All I'm trying to do is fight myth that nVidia, Intel... HDD manufacturers... have special production lines for components used in Macs. Which is the way I see common opinion here that "Macs are built from higher quality bits and pieces".
My belief is simple. If Mac parts are of higher quality - say, being exposed to burn-in tests, hanpicked from production lines, whatever - I'm sure we will all hear about that from a source. Not because Apple think their buyers require that kind of info, but because that kind of info is great way to justify price tag. "Hey, we use solid capacitors on our notebook motherboards, and we are the only notebook manufacturer who does that. It costs, but benefits are...". Or, say, "Hey, our motherboard had 10 layers for improved data transfer and better heat distribution. Ground layer has 3 ounces of solid copper, which helps distribute heat from hot spots. That cost, but benefits are...". And so on.
I've never seen that. All Apple is saying is about outside. Aluminium case. LED displays. Backlit keyboard.
That is all cool, but they never-ever mention anything about internals. It is even hard to find official info on basic things, like chipsets and so on. Yet I learn here that Macbook motherboard is made of uber-quality noble silicon, because, well - everyone knows that.
I don't think that I have anything to prove because I didn't start anything. I'm just responding to something others have started, and my response is simple - please provide me any details on Mac internals that will prove build superiority theory. I don't have problem accepting that - with some factual details.
And all I keep getting boils down to "everyone knows". Well I don't know. As well as any other non Apple user.
What is your personal opinion on that matter, anyway? I see you like one of more reasonable people around here. Do you think that, say, Mac motherboard build by Foxcon, is really any different from HP motherboard build by Foxcon, with same chipset, same GPU, for same CPU..? And if you do - what do you base your belief on?
What does PPC has to do with whole topic? I never ever mentioned PPC Macs.
All I'm trying to do is fight myth that nVidia, Intel... HDD manufacturers... have special production lines for components used in Macs. Which is the way I see common opinion here that "Macs are built from higher quality bits and pieces".
My belief is simple. If Mac parts are of higher quality - say, being exposed to burn-in tests, hanpicked from production lines, whatever - I'm sure we will all hear about that from a source. Not because Apple think their buyers require that kind of info, but because that kind of info is great way to justify price tag. "Hey, we use solid capacitors on our notebook motherboards, and we are the only notebook manufacturer who does that. It costs, but benefits are...". Or, say, "Hey, our motherboard had 10 layers for improved data transfer and better heat distribution. Ground layer has 3 ounces of solid copper, which helps distribute heat from hot spots. That cost, but benefits are...". And so on.
I've never seen that. All Apple is saying is about outside. Aluminium case. LED displays. Backlit keyboard.
That is all cool, but they never-ever mention anything about internals. It is even hard to find official info on basic things, like chipsets and so on. Yet I learn here that Macbook motherboard is made of uber-quality noble silicon, because, well - everyone knows that.
I don't think that I have anything to prove because I didn't start anything. I'm just responding to something others have started, and my response is simple - please provide me any details on Mac internals that will prove build superiority theory. I don't have problem accepting that - with some factual details.
And all I keep getting boils down to "everyone knows". Well I don't know. As well as any other non Apple user.
What is your personal opinion on that matter, anyway? I see you like one of more reasonable people around here. Do you think that, say, Mac motherboard build by Foxcon, is really any different from HP motherboard build by Foxcon, with same chipset, same GPU, for same CPU..? And if you do - what do you base your belief on?
and spin the last sentence around, Dark Night is being outsold two to one by regular, plain-ole DVD.
That's something to be proud of for such an obviously superior technology?
I like the promise of BR, and own a BR player. But I despise the implementation and the very real Bag of Hurt that SJ commented on.
Mate.
How many DVD players are out there already, considering technology is out, what? - 10 years? - and how many BR players..? New standard doesn't take over in a blink of an eye.
I am surprised DVDs didn't sell 5-1, or even 10-1.
There was a nice post in this tread - look for it - with info on adoption rate of BR and DVD at the same age. According to that, BR is being adopted twice as fast as DVD was when introduced.
When DVD standard was released, number of VHS tapes - rented and sold - was much bigger than DVDs... until DVD caught up. What does it prove..?
More like 97% worldwide, though HP only has about 25% of that despite their low cost systems.
Well, it is still more than Apples share, right?
Ah, that wasn't even serious post of mine, sol - don't bother. Sometimes I just indulge in answering funny posts. Kind of stress relieve. Or maybe boredom; can't decide
I hope so, I knew Mac OS X was better at power management, but AnandTech's tests of the MacBook Air running OS X and Vista show an excessive lead for Apple's OS. I wished they had tested XP to see how that compares with the others.
If I recall correctly, Vista actually does better than XP. You can only expect that much from 8 years old OS.
But true, Vista could have - should have got - much more polish than it has. Sometimes, I wonder if MS is not doing things like that on purpose. Give people something to dislike, then come out with "saviour". In the process, people get used to idea of inevitable change.
MS did that with 2000 and XP. First to spearhead NT technology into mainstream, second to make it mainstream. And now, Vista to shift attention from XP (even in a bad way). Then W7 to save people from dreaded Vista.
Still, it is unfair to address Vista as failure - outside of commercial terms. It is better OS than XP. It does require more resources, but not much more - and not considering that XP was written for Pentium 3 generations of hardware. It is fast as on any recent hardware, and much more stable and secure. Drivers have matured nicely. Interface is improved.
But not enough, not after 8 years. It is not that Vista is bad - because it isn't. It is that Vista is not as good as it could have been.
Was MS lazy, or did they expect problems with Vista acceptance and simply didn't bother - or even did that on purpose?
MS has selected their approach as "We're not trying to be smart - we are just telling you the way it is".
But they are not always telling everything, now, are they?
No they are not. And in their latest ad campaign the part that they are not telling you about is, ironically, the only part of a computer that they make... the OS.
Even "the Wow Starts Now" was at least about a Microsoft product.
Comments
Sheila ultimately settles on a version of HP's 16-inch HP HDX 16t, which includes 4GB of slower DDR2 memory, a 2.13GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, a NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT with 512MB of video memory, and a display with a maximum resolution of 1366x768, compared to the MacBook Pro's 1440x900 max resolution.
settles is right.
for the price she could have had better resolution, a faster processor, TWO video cards etc. and preinstalled video editing software. with a DVD mapping program as well.
5 will get you ten that any comparable video/dvd software for the HP will put the total cost at the same thing she'd have paid if she walked into an Apple store and got the 15" with a fresh out of the box RAM upgrade to 4gb of ddr3 (which is like $150)
Actually, you'd have to buy the mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter and then the HDMI cable. So you'd still need 2 cables. Plus the mini DisplayPort on Macs isn't capable of passing audio, so you'd still need an audio cable. On top of that, if you're running blu-ray (not possible in OS X but is in Windows), since you're stuck with optical audio, you can't pass the higher quality higher resolution formats, like Dolby TrueHD, DTS Master HD, or 8 channel uncompressed LPCM.
And who uses HDMI? Everyone. Starting in 2006, HDMI started to become a standard. By the end of 2007, it was difficult to find a notebook without HDMI out. Now its near impossible unless you look at Netbooks.
Every respectable LCD display out there has had HDMI for several years now. GPU manufacturers have been dropping DVI to HDMI adapters in boxes for just as long, plus many GPUs ship with HDMI as standard, as well as the ability to pass the higher resolution audio formats and 8 channel uncompressed LPCM.
Because you know what I said is true. Show me a Mac with HDMI, card readers built-in, quad-core CPUs in notebooks, better than low mid-range GPUs, blu-ray, etc.
They don't? Hmm. My UniBody MacBook has an LG screen, LG optical drive, Intel processor, nvidia chipset and GPU, some "Apple" branded RAM that is usually Samsung RAM rebranded, and a Hitachi HDD. My friend's MacBook Pro has an Intel processor, LG screen, LG optical drive, Intel chipset, nvidia GPU, Samsung RAM, you get the idea. My HP has an LG optical drive, LG screen, Intel processor, Intel chipset, nvidia GPU, Hitachi HDD, you get the idea
Apple's components are EXACTLY the same as PCs. The only difference is the casing, which is aluminum or a very low quality plastic.
Are you serious? Do some googling. Despite the bad economy, Blu-ray's market share is DOUBLE what DVDs market share was at the same point in its life. When DVD was 2.5 years old, it had 4% market share. Blu-ray is currently at 8%. Blu-ray's market share doubled in 2008. The format IS taking off.
Blu-rays quality can't be seen on smaller screens? That too, is an outrageous statement that couldn't be any more wrong. To put it simply, even 720p screen is still pushing nearly 1,000,000 pixels. Standard definition DVD has a resolution 345,600. So even at 720p, blu-ray is pushing 2.6x the resolution of DVD. You also have to consider the fact that H.264 and VC-1 blu-ray discs are running at bitrate of anywhere from 20Mbps to 45Mbps. DVDs tend to run around 4.5Mbps encoded using MPEG-2. Even the old blu-ray MPEG-2 discs have a bitrate of around 20Mbps.
So, you're just flat out wrong in this case. Even on the small 720p screens, blu-ray will push that display to its full potential while DVD has to be upscaled over 2.5 times to reach native resolution.
And video on demand? Nah. Cable and satellite video services do reasonably well. But theres far too many problems with downloadable movies for them to ever challenge blu-ray.
One being is that the standard definition movies aren't even DVD quality. Sure they have the same resolution, but theres no hardware upscaling for the video codecs they use. So on high def displays, the video gets stretched and pixelized. Very few of them offer 5.1 surround sound as well. And those few that do have a lower bitrate Dolby Digital track than the DVD. Then theres the 720p "HD" version that Apple/iTunes and others try to pass off as HD. Those are all encoded at about 4.5Mbps. Excuse me? 4.5Mbps for 720p video? iTunes HD videos have so much compression artifacting that they don't even beat a good upscaled DVD. Sure they have more native pixels, but the compression artifacts are worse than cable. And, again, the issue of hardware upscaling. There is none. So on a 1080p display, you have to double the resolution in software which results in the image just being blown up and those compression artifacts being exaggerated. Not to mention the fact that iTunes HD movie purchases cost just as much as or sometimes more than the blu-ray disc.
And whats this about convenience? iTunes "HD" movies come in at around 4.5GB on average. I have a 10Mbps connection. Most people have less than half of that. If I want to download an iTunes HD movie, its going to take me more than an hour, assuming their servers feed me the movie at full speed. I can drive to the video store and get the blu-ray disc and be back before the movies even 10% downloaded. That leads me to the next problem with "On Demand" services like iTunes.
The DRM. If I buy an HD movie from iTunes, I can ONLY watch it on my computer or on an Apple TV. The SD version it comes with will play on my iPod and iPhone. If I want to play the HD movie on a display other than the built-in display on my MacBook, I need an entirely new cable set up to be HDCP compliant, since the MDP to HDMI cable didn't exist when I got my adapter and I didn't want to spend $50 on a MDP to DVI adapter plus DVI to HDMI setup.
WIth blu-ray and a PC, all it takes is one cable, no adapters and you're all set and compliant.
And what if I rent the SD version? It'll play on my Mac, PC, iPhone, or an Apple TV is I had one. Oh but guess what? It won't play on my 80GB 5.5G iPod that is newer than blu-ray and cost nearly twice as much as my Profile 2.0 blu-ray player did. Why won't it play movie rentals? Because that would be a "new feature" and Apple claims that SOX tells them they can't add "new features" without charging, which is complete and utter BS.
So again, the DRM. I have to have specific adapters and cables to play the HD movies, spend hours downloading, and spend MORE money renting or buying them than I would on blu-ray discs. On top of that, SD movies aren't guaranteed to play on all of my hardware, despite the fact that one of my pieces of hardware is not even 2 years old and cost more than my blu-ray player did.
Let's look at what else Apple did as far as DRM goes. Starting in 2007 with the iPhone, iPod classic, iPod nano 3G, and iPod touch, Apple locked out all 3rd party video accessories that don't include an Apple authentication chip. So on top of all of the other nonsense I mentioned, your movies aren't guaranteed to always be playable because Apple might decide to switch standards again and lock out everything you own forcing you to either give up everything or buy all new hardware again.
No, they don't. Apple uses the same nvidia chipset that Dell, HP, and others use. It's also the same chipset found in many desktop motherboards and upcoming "Ion" based netbooks. Theres absolutely NOTHING special about a Mac motherboard.
Before the 9400M, Apple used Intel Santa Rosa and Napa chipsets, the same exact chipsets you'd find in every other Intel based notebook PC.
One. Of. The. BEST. Posts. Ever.
Who cares.
It's still a Dell . . . that runs Windows.
Everyone who choose to use Windows.
Which is, like... 90% of computer users..?
It's about 750MB used by the system but if you have a GPU, say 1024MB, then the memory addressing from that needs to be taken off as well. They might be using 64-bit now, but I know it wasn't too long ago that they were putting 4GB into systems with a 32-bit OS as default.
Power consumption seems to be a better reason for going DDR3 over DDR2. I'll take any savings I can get with my notebook.
I agree with you power is important on notebook - specially if you are using it a lot on the go. But:
If that HP is using DDR2-800, it has a bit better idle consumption and a bit worst load consumption. I'd say it doesn't make much difference at the end of the day.
RAM or not, Apple did sorted out their power savings features a bit better than MS. I'm wondering if 7 will be better than Vista; I can't see any other reason to upgrade my notebook's OS...
Graphs are taken from http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mem...play/ddr3.html, by the way. Conclusion of the whole article is not surprising, though it seems some people will refuse to accept it until the judgement day come: True, on the one hand DDR3 SDRAM cannot take the system performance to another level. The tests showed that the newest DDR2 SDRAM can provide the same level of performance as the currently available DDR3 SDRAM. In fact, the results of our benchmarks indicate an approximate parity between systems equipped with DDR2-1066 SDRAM and DDR3-1333 SDRAM etc etc.
RAM or not, Apple did sorted out their power savings features a bit better than MS. I'm wondering if 7 will be better than Vista; I can't see any other reason to upgrade my notebook's OS...
I hope so, I knew Mac OS X was better at power management, but AnandTech's tests of the MacBook Air running OS X and Vista show an excessive lead for Apple's OS. I wished they had tested XP to see how that compares with the others.
Obama has a federal broadband intiative. Blue ray looks awesome. The only reason apple doesn't have it is due to apple tv looking very subpar in comparison.
I really hope for you guys in USA that Obama will deliver on his promises.
Here in NZ, uber-speed uncapped unbundled you-name-it Internet is being promised before each elections for the last 8+ years, and nothing significant happened in the mean time. Oh, wait - it did! Local provider, Xtra, gave me last year 40 instead of 30GB a month, and opened my DL speed to full ADSL specs (theoretical 8Mbits/s). Upload is still bellow 1Mbit.
But I always put red mark on calendar for every day I have actually seen DL speeds close to 8Mbits.
What do you think, how many red markers do I have..?
At the end of the commercial she has a Laptop in the box and a carrier bag. What's in the carrier bag? My guess would be:
And you came up with that all by yourself? Amazing!
(But I'm sure iMovie helped a bit
That's why we are Mac Users you moron! We've seen how the other side of things works and don't like what we see. I switched 12 years ago and since then have never had to reinstall a system, deal with virus, sort out corrupt drivers or wait 5 minutes before my computer boots up and is ready to use. My wife on the other hand is still a PC user and in the 7 years we have been together we have had 3 PC's all of which have fallen over at least 3 times are year!
The funniest thing about your post is you choose to right an anti-mac comment on a Mac website? What were you doing here in the first place?
Now go back to Scandisking, Defragging and Virus Checking your beloved PC you retard!
Breed. Slowly. Take it in. Let it out.
(I can tell you are already feeling better)
So you switched from Windows 95 SE.
(You do know there were some other versions of Windows in the meantime, don't you? Just checking)
What you are saying, in the nutshell, is that you were not capable to learn how to use your system, and now whole world is guilty for your decision to waste money on imbecile-proof OS.
Pathetic...
(But keep breeding. Slowly...)
When you calm down and recover some manners, maybe we can talk as human beings. Up to you.
every year, switchers and hack builders come to mac, if you mean 100% brain washed, jobs can do no wrong, you are correct, otherwise the mac pro user who in the studio had pcs for prgrams like Higa studio in multi million dollar studios and aforementioned swithchers, you are wrong, they all know about FSB, bios, oveclock, gigabertz whichnmatters again as a2.2 is slower than a 2.8 duo core, psu, and much more. The mac users and I know mac genius ( who are nothing other than procedure dudes that run a cd program to see if there's abproblem and wouldn't know an oso scopenif it hit them in the eye, to the more common and slowly dying, "oh I don't know that, I just use it, followed by sweety and beings guy, well yeah, they are clueless. Andbyour a dying bread. Today new user is a mac pro MacBook air macbook pro user that loves the is and software, the eye candy, hates vista but loves windows 7, but thinks apple is over prices and gets some macs for free, one studio I know received 5 free mac pros and fcp suites, today new users are the ones complaining. The other .01.5 percent non pro, consumer, iPod must have everything jobs is ckuess. Yeah you're right. In fact, google how to overclock a mac and see all the returns you get, all of them will be since intel transition and not rromthe over hyper lied by jobs g4 is faster than athlon crowd.
Of course, there are people who know their stuff. There are people here who know their stuff. I'm here to read what those people have to say... but every now and then, it is so hard to resist an urge to answer one of those other "smart" posts
Because, at the end of a day, there is nothing to reply to reasonable people and their down to earth, balanced posts. I don't have problem with people prefering Mac experience. I don't have a problem with people choosing to pay premium price. I might have a problem, though, with people repeating nonsense in order to justify their personal decision, while thinking they have became smart and knowledgeable because they own one platform or another.
Heck, what can you say to a post that says "Macs are built of noble silicon (and everyone knows that)?
BULLSHIT, everybody uses comoddedy x86 and x64 chips, MS does just as muich tuning on their consumer OS kernal to the INTEL chips as apple does, hell, MS and intel work closly together to make sure that Windows can take advantage of new chip features (like ht back in the day and multithreading across Xeon/Pentium/Core chips starting with Windows XP and expanded with the codebase of Server 2003 whuich was the vista foundation.)
MS has been working with Intel on multithreading and maximising CPU usage since Apple was playing with those dinky G4 peices of shit (I speak as a former G4 owner, they sucked compared to the Intel boxes of the day, which is why Apple switched.)
Its all about the abstraction layers, Apple has Core* and windows has Direct X and Windows Foundation and .net, they tweak their code to work with the HAL, and the GPU drivers for both Mac and Windows are written by the people who designed the chips, at nvidia and AMD, so I would assume that they can tightly integrate the drivers to the hardware, hell they CREATED the hardware.
WHAT???
Linux / mac os x / other unices have a much longer trackrecord of multitreading even before the time of multiprocessor hardware (consumer hw). Im not shore about how much of the libraries have been rewriten for multitreading since XP but it takes a lot of work.... Go look since when have windows taken use of multiple prosessors in reality (real multitreading in applications) its not that many years... When did bsds (incl. os x) and linux? That will give you a hint!
This problem would be even worse if intel had not brought multicore prosessors to us. The problem was minimised down to that one applications/libraries can only use one core but if you use several applications then they use different cores. This is a bit simplified for forum purposes but you get the picture... A lot of applications use windows libraries and it would be intresting to know how much of this is really multitreaded and since when.. Even if the impact isnt that big nowdays with multicore prosessors if you use several applications... Anyways not many applications could really use two prosessors on a windows rig in the biginning of the millenium... but this was only a windows problem...
mac has problems also . i never said they did not.
dude
nothing lasts
but my freind there is a world of difference between alot of the junk made out there .
apple has a very high level of production
higher end dells and others also keep a keen eye .
having stated this .
i will say that many >not all< BUT many p/c compaines work on razor thin margins . there is zippo unique amoung the herd so price becomes almost everything .
the worklers they use are treated like farm field pickers .
the internal parts they use are off the shelf and never ever current parts . re furb parts are also widely used accross the board.
its the lowest common denominator
just like vista windows world panders to the lowest common denominator .
many many mac are still in use today .. they tend to last longer
the apple owners also take better care of there machines . i own 5 mac right now down from 9 .
do you own a mac ??
No I don't.
I was considering white Macbook 6 months ago for my notebook, but choose not to since at the time I didn't know much about Mac and OSX to feel comfortable with purchase. That being said, white Macbook had approximately same price as 13" HP and Toshibas, albeit with a bit smaller HDD and less RAM on average... but still very tempting.
So... I started checking on AI at the time, and continued after I gave up on purchasing Mac. A bit out of habit, a bit out of curiosity. There is always next notebook around the corner, anyway. I'll probably virtualize OSX in the meantime and give it a go; unfortunately I know no one with Mac, and playing with them in a shop simply isn't enough.
I have no problem believing Macs can last, because my experience with PCs is the same (which works well with my beliefs they are built with same parts). Out of 8 functional computers in my house, oldest one is almost 9 years old P3 Toshiba notebook. With 15GB HDD. My wife managed to crack plastic corner of the screen cover by dropping notebook from bed to hard floor, some 5 years ago. It still works with no problems. In all that time, it was re-imaged once - when my wife moved from that machine to her new notebook, 2 and a half years ago. I didn't really have to reinstall it, but wanted to remove all her files and info and re-imaging was easier than search & destroy.
Some other computers are also 4+ years old - Celeron desktop, first-gen AMD 64 desktop, one P4 system.
Would you believe that, in last 9 years of personal computing, I had to replace 1 motherboard (old Transcend Athlon board with VIA chipset) and one no-name power supply. All other bits and pieces (and whole systems) were used much as I wanted to use them, later given to friends with lower computing needs. To my knowledge, I don't know if anything died before new users decided to retire that equipment (or give it someone else and I lost trace). Some really old stuff is thrown away - SD RAM modules, GF 2 MX card... some other stuff that no one would use nowadays.
So you see - it pisses me of a bit (and amuses me a lot) when some greenhorn rushes in and starts delivering all-mighty wisdom about PCs being pile of junk that doesn't work at all, and is only capable of freezing, crashing, dying and loosing their respective owners' important data.
Utter bullshit.
I'm sure everyone can find more PC than Mac users having hardware-related problems, but not many people seem to consider there are at least 10 PC users on every single Mac user. Even with exactly same built quality, simple statistic will give 10x more problems in PC world in general. But per user? I don't think so.
Nothing like this.
Apple deals in a little hyperbole, Microsoft is all bullshit here
Ah, yes. I always remember ad about digital cameras.
Might be hyperbole for you, but for average Joe who believes everything he sees on TV), it is clear message that his new digital camera will not work with PC.
Which is as nonsense-full as nonsenses go
Apple was trying to hide it's bullshit behind (occasionaly successful) humour.
MS has selected their approach as "We're not trying to be smart - we are just telling you the way it is". But they are not always telling everything, now, are they?
Apple was lying unconditionally on many occasions. MS is carefully selecting to present part of truth they consider as their advantage, while being very quiet about parts that don't work for them. But at least, they are not negating those parts - just skipping them.
Additionally, MS is not trying to make fun of Apple - like Apple did with their PC stereotype (and with very little success - PC guy is way more likeable than Mac guy). Believe me, there are stereotypes Mac users could be easily fitted in.
While both approaches are under the belt, I feel Apple's one goes a bit lower.
Just my personal opinion.
Core 2 Duo is a 64-bit processor. The emphasis is on needing the 64-bit version of Windows over the 32-bit and unlike the beliefs of some on these forums, it is in fact quite common for a machine with 4GB of RAM to be shipped using only a 32-bit version of Windows. (Thus .5GB is not used; leaving the user with 3.5GB that is used by a RAM hungry/inefficient Vista - this is of course assuming the address space isn't used up and the user isn't left with 3GB, or even less)
It isn't just the RAM either, while the HDX 16t does use a 1066FSB, a lot of the others out there don't - in fact, the vast majority don't. They're on slower 800FSBs or less.
*ALL* new MacBooks use 1066FSB or higher, even the white MacBook. Although there is one weakness, the white MacBook still uses DDR2-667 RAM, but *ALL* others use DDR3-1066.
Since we're talking about the "average user", where's mention of iWork and Office? Let's face it - I'm a fan of Office over iWork (blasphemy, I know), but...
The average user doesn't need all of those extras, iWork can use and create Word, Excel and Powerpoint files quite effectively and do all the average user ever needs to do. iWork is an extra $40 with purchase of a new Mac ($79 retail), Office 2007 Home and Student (Word/Excel/Powerpoint) is $149 retail, $119 last I saw added with an HP. No one includes it free. Where's that in these comparisons?
* Side note: Microsoft's "Home and Student" edition of Office 2008 (Mac) has Word, Excel, Powerpoint and Entourage. Microsoft's "Home and Student" edition of Office 2007 (Windows) has Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Anyone find it funny that you get "more" with the Mac version?
Check graphs (and link) I've posted in another post - I think it is somewhere at page 11.
In short, for non i7 platforms, DDR2-800 performs almost exactly the same as DDR3-1066. Which, I believe, is common DDR3 in Macs. It has a bit lower idle power consumption and a bit higher load consumption, but differences are marginal.
Regarding Office for students... I'd lucky guess MS wants Mac people to use their email client over Apple's mail (or whatever the name is), thus Entourage is included. People who get used to Entourage will resist less to work with Outlook - or, even if they have Mac at work, will still go for Entourage out of developed habit/experience/what-ever.
On the other hand, PC users without Outlook will use, well, likely Outlook Express. Nothing to gain there by giving Outlook for the same money - from MS's point of view.
Does that make any sense..?
That ruined my Sunday. I really hate you now!
That is a MBP, but from MS' standpoint they get a lot more money from a retail purchase of Windows for a MBP than an OEM copy pre-installed on other vendor's machines.
Infiltrate.
Resistance is futile.
Yeah, that is one dorky ad...
But MS is software company, and money from Apple users is green as.
You keep trying to spin some yarn but you never make a point. Are you saying that Macs were completely different internals when they were PPC? Well, they weren't. The reason Windows didn't install on PPC was because MS choose not to support it. It was a different architecture but all computers use the same basic components: ROM, RAM, CPU, I/O and a mainboard to tie them together. Saying that these are somehow vastly different in what they accomplish is foolish. Linux can run on PPC, x86, ARM and others just fine so by your logic every computer is the same.
Grabbing a few components that are the same or similar to claim that every other part must then be the same is equally as false. You also find the cheapest comparison you can find while ignoring more expensive comparisons as they easily shatter your already weak argument. Why you think that Apple can't make a computer in a way that satisfies certain users' needs and wants is beyond me. Perhaps you need to figure out what is wrong with you for not wanting one company within a free market to be free.
What does PPC has to do with whole topic? I never ever mentioned PPC Macs.
All I'm trying to do is fight myth that nVidia, Intel... HDD manufacturers... have special production lines for components used in Macs. Which is the way I see common opinion here that "Macs are built from higher quality bits and pieces".
My belief is simple. If Mac parts are of higher quality - say, being exposed to burn-in tests, hanpicked from production lines, whatever - I'm sure we will all hear about that from a source. Not because Apple think their buyers require that kind of info, but because that kind of info is great way to justify price tag. "Hey, we use solid capacitors on our notebook motherboards, and we are the only notebook manufacturer who does that. It costs, but benefits are...". Or, say, "Hey, our motherboard had 10 layers for improved data transfer and better heat distribution. Ground layer has 3 ounces of solid copper, which helps distribute heat from hot spots. That cost, but benefits are...". And so on.
I've never seen that. All Apple is saying is about outside. Aluminium case. LED displays. Backlit keyboard.
That is all cool, but they never-ever mention anything about internals. It is even hard to find official info on basic things, like chipsets and so on. Yet I learn here that Macbook motherboard is made of uber-quality noble silicon, because, well - everyone knows that.
I don't think that I have anything to prove because I didn't start anything. I'm just responding to something others have started, and my response is simple - please provide me any details on Mac internals that will prove build superiority theory. I don't have problem accepting that - with some factual details.
And all I keep getting boils down to "everyone knows". Well I don't know. As well as any other non Apple user.
What is your personal opinion on that matter, anyway? I see you like one of more reasonable people around here. Do you think that, say, Mac motherboard build by Foxcon, is really any different from HP motherboard build by Foxcon, with same chipset, same GPU, for same CPU..? And if you do - what do you base your belief on?
What does PPC has to do with whole topic? I never ever mentioned PPC Macs.
All I'm trying to do is fight myth that nVidia, Intel... HDD manufacturers... have special production lines for components used in Macs. Which is the way I see common opinion here that "Macs are built from higher quality bits and pieces".
My belief is simple. If Mac parts are of higher quality - say, being exposed to burn-in tests, hanpicked from production lines, whatever - I'm sure we will all hear about that from a source. Not because Apple think their buyers require that kind of info, but because that kind of info is great way to justify price tag. "Hey, we use solid capacitors on our notebook motherboards, and we are the only notebook manufacturer who does that. It costs, but benefits are...". Or, say, "Hey, our motherboard had 10 layers for improved data transfer and better heat distribution. Ground layer has 3 ounces of solid copper, which helps distribute heat from hot spots. That cost, but benefits are...". And so on.
I've never seen that. All Apple is saying is about outside. Aluminium case. LED displays. Backlit keyboard.
That is all cool, but they never-ever mention anything about internals. It is even hard to find official info on basic things, like chipsets and so on. Yet I learn here that Macbook motherboard is made of uber-quality noble silicon, because, well - everyone knows that.
I don't think that I have anything to prove because I didn't start anything. I'm just responding to something others have started, and my response is simple - please provide me any details on Mac internals that will prove build superiority theory. I don't have problem accepting that - with some factual details.
And all I keep getting boils down to "everyone knows". Well I don't know. As well as any other non Apple user.
What is your personal opinion on that matter, anyway? I see you like one of more reasonable people around here. Do you think that, say, Mac motherboard build by Foxcon, is really any different from HP motherboard build by Foxcon, with same chipset, same GPU, for same CPU..? And if you do - what do you base your belief on?
Really? "Much Better" is in the eye of the beholder, and so far consumers are voting with their wallets - and BR isn't exactly on fire.
If you read this biased article:
http://bluray-depot.com/blueray/blu-...occhio-release
and spin the last sentence around, Dark Night is being outsold two to one by regular, plain-ole DVD.
That's something to be proud of for such an obviously superior technology?
I like the promise of BR, and own a BR player. But I despise the implementation and the very real Bag of Hurt that SJ commented on.
Mate.
How many DVD players are out there already, considering technology is out, what? - 10 years? - and how many BR players..? New standard doesn't take over in a blink of an eye.
I am surprised DVDs didn't sell 5-1, or even 10-1.
There was a nice post in this tread - look for it - with info on adoption rate of BR and DVD at the same age. According to that, BR is being adopted twice as fast as DVD was when introduced.
When DVD standard was released, number of VHS tapes - rented and sold - was much bigger than DVDs... until DVD caught up. What does it prove..?
More like 97% worldwide, though HP only has about 25% of that despite their low cost systems.
Well, it is still more than Apples share, right?
Ah, that wasn't even serious post of mine, sol - don't bother. Sometimes I just indulge in answering funny posts. Kind of stress relieve. Or maybe boredom; can't decide
I hope so, I knew Mac OS X was better at power management, but AnandTech's tests of the MacBook Air running OS X and Vista show an excessive lead for Apple's OS. I wished they had tested XP to see how that compares with the others.
If I recall correctly, Vista actually does better than XP. You can only expect that much from 8 years old OS.
But true, Vista could have - should have got - much more polish than it has. Sometimes, I wonder if MS is not doing things like that on purpose. Give people something to dislike, then come out with "saviour". In the process, people get used to idea of inevitable change.
MS did that with 2000 and XP. First to spearhead NT technology into mainstream, second to make it mainstream. And now, Vista to shift attention from XP (even in a bad way). Then W7 to save people from dreaded Vista.
Still, it is unfair to address Vista as failure - outside of commercial terms. It is better OS than XP. It does require more resources, but not much more - and not considering that XP was written for Pentium 3 generations of hardware. It is fast as on any recent hardware, and much more stable and secure. Drivers have matured nicely. Interface is improved.
But not enough, not after 8 years. It is not that Vista is bad - because it isn't. It is that Vista is not as good as it could have been.
Was MS lazy, or did they expect problems with Vista acceptance and simply didn't bother - or even did that on purpose?
(And are aliens involved..?)
MS has selected their approach as "We're not trying to be smart - we are just telling you the way it is".
But they are not always telling everything, now, are they?
No they are not. And in their latest ad campaign the part that they are not telling you about is, ironically, the only part of a computer that they make... the OS.
Even "the Wow Starts Now" was at least about a Microsoft product.