Your example proves my point. Your only comparing this that you thing are matches but aren't comparing like items in quality, and by extension price. That 2.4GHz CPU in the Dell, how much does it cost in comparison to the 2.53GHz in the Mac? Did you look at the FSB, the L2 or even make sure the model numbers are even in the same class? Why didn't you adjust the $700 raping by Apple for the clearly cheaper CPU in the Dell? Why are you choosing Dell's cheap line and not the one they build to compete more directly with the Macs? Furthermore, you only mentioned the display size and horizontal resolution without mentioning the display type and backlight type. These are important factors for many.
Again, if that Dell with weaker components suits your needs then get it, If a $400 Dell suits your needs then get it, if a 7 year old PC still suits your needs then keep using it, but don't pretend that because a more expensive item doesn't suit your particular needs means you are getting raped by Apple because it simply isn't true.
for whatever reason Dell's cheaper line can be configured with better components than the expensive line. unless you are doing some specialized work you will never notice any difference from a 2.4GHZ to a 2.53GHZ.
i remember Intel used to pull these stunts in the 1990's with crazy CPU prices for tiny speed increases. Now with the GPU being more important, on the cheap Dell you can get an ATI 4570 graphics card as an option where with an MBP you have to choose the most expensive model to get the nice graphics. Dell offers the same CPU, but it's not worth the $175 upgrade.
unlike Apple, with Dell you can literally customize every single component of you computer and it's custom built just for you
for whatever reason Dell's cheaper line can be configured with better components than the expensive line. unless you are doing some specialized work you will never notice any difference from a 2.4GHZ to a 2.53GHZ.
i remember Intel used to pull these stunts in the 1990's with crazy CPU prices for tiny speed increases. Now with the GPU being more important, on the cheap Dell you can get an ATI 4570 graphics card as an option where with an MBP you have to choose the most expensive model to get the nice graphics. Dell offers the same CPU, but it's not worth the $175 upgrade.
unlike Apple, with Dell you can literally customize every single component of you computer and it's custom built just for you
There is no "whatever reason" here. We are talking about technology, about rudimentary physics. For the same reason desktop components are faster AND cheaper than notebook components, notebook conponents that are larger and/or have a higher TDP are cheaper than the more condensed and cooler running components. There is absolutely no mystery here.
And yet again, if those machines appeal to your needs then go for it but stop with the comments that Apple is ripping people off when the evidence shows other vendors selling machines at comparable prices for same type computer with the same basic components.
Again, if that Dell with weaker components suits your needs then get it, If a $400 Dell suits your needs then get it, if a 7 year old PC still suits your needs then keep using it, but don't pretend that because a more expensive item doesn't suit your particular needs means you are getting raped by Apple because it simply isn't true.
I already agreed that you should buy what suits your needs - that wasn't my point. And you're being dramatic - I never said Apple was "raping" me or anyone else. I said I buy their products and like them very much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron
Your example proves my point. Your only comparing this that you thing are matches but aren't comparing like items in quality, and by extension price. That 2.4GHz CPU in the Dell, how much does it cost in comparison to the 2.53GHz in the Mac? Did you look at the FSB, the L2 or even make sure the model numbers are even in the same class? Why didn't you adjust the $700 raping by Apple for the clearly cheaper CPU in the Dell? Why are you choosing Dell's cheap line and not the one they build to compete more directly with the Macs? Furthermore, you only mentioned the display size and horizontal resolution without mentioning the display type and backlight type. These are important factors for many.
The components are not weaker. Both processors are Core 2 Duo at very close clock speeds. I could have upgraded that to a 2.8 for a few extra bucks and still been 600 or so cheaper, but those were the closest match. The FSB on both is 1066 and the cache on both is 3MB. The Dell has a 15" LED, just like the Apple. They may even be from the same manufacturer, since there are only a few of them.
I picked the mid-level Dell to compare to the lowest entry for a 15" Macbook. I would have compared it to the regular macbook rather than the macbook pro, but Apple doesn't offer a regular macbook with a 15" screen.
You're really reaching here which is the point I am trying to make. You said Apple laptops are better and I happen to agree with you. Your point was that the argument that windows laptops are cheaper was disingenuous and that is where I disagree. Apple laptops ARE clearly more expensive than comparably equipped windows laptops.
There is no "whatever reason" here. We are talking about technology, about rudimentary physics. For the same reason desktop components are faster AND cheaper than notebook components, notebook conponents that are larger and/or have a higher TDP are cheaper than the more condensed and cooler running components. There is absolutely no mystery here.
And yet again, if those machines appeal to your needs then go for it but stop with the comments that Apple is ripping people off when the evidence shows other vendors selling machines at comparable prices for same type computer with the same basic components.
I forgot to mention that the Dell was configured with better graphics hardware.
And please stop with the dramatics - noone said Apple was ripping people off or raping them.
Well I'm basing it on what I've heard here, presumably from people who've used it. I think the GM is out already actually. Nevertheless, I don't think the general improvements I'd like to see (updating front row, improvements to the finder and fixing GIFs and proxies in Safari) can be regarded as "bells and whistles". I'd like to see more along the lines of what they've done with stacks. So in addition to my computer actually running faster, I'll actually be able to work faster.
Your mention of Front Row reminded me that we've seen little if any mention of any tweaks to things like Front Row, iCal, Address Book, and Mail. The stuff that's standard with the OS and is usually updated with each major OS update.
I know Snow Leopard is mostly about the behind the scenes stuff, but have there really been no updates to these other applications, even minor ones? Front Row and iCal updates would be very, very welcome. I'd hate to think that I need to wait another two years for them to fix some of the poor iCal UI design. And it would be nice for FrontRow to learn a few tricks from the AppleTV (while maintaing things like access to content outside of iTunes, video_TS files, etc).
Your example proves my point. Your only comparing this that you thing are matches but aren't comparing like items in quality, and by extension price. That 2.4GHz CPU in the Dell, how much does it cost in comparison to the 2.53GHz in the Mac? Did you look at the FSB, the L2 or even make sure the model numbers are even in the same class? Why didn't you adjust the $700 raping by Apple for the clearly cheaper CPU in the Dell? Why are you choosing Dell's cheap line and not the one they build to compete more directly with the Macs? Furthermore, you only mentioned the display size and horizontal resolution without mentioning the display type and backlight type. These are important factors for many.
Again, if that Dell with weaker components suits your needs then get it, If a $400 Dell suits your needs then get it, if a 7 year old PC still suits your needs then keep using it, but don't pretend that because a more expensive item doesn't suit your particular needs means you are getting raped by Apple because it simply isn't true.
Here's a better one for you:
Dell Studio XPS 16 (the highest end without going to Alienware or Adamo which only has 13" screen):
15.6" WLED 900p
Core 2 Duo P8700 (3MB cache/2.53GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
250GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive (macbook has 5400 RPM drive)
DVDRW
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 - 512MB (macbook has integrated graphics)
Wireless N
price: 1,159 - still 540 bucks cheaper
Again, I am not trying to beat a dead horse, but come on.
I already agreed that you should buy what suits your needs - that wasn't my point. And you're being dramatic - I never said Apple was "raping" me or anyone else. I said I buy their products and like them very much.
The components are not weaker. Both processors are Core 2 Duo at very close clock speeds. I could have upgraded that to a 2.8 for a few extra bucks and still been 600 or so cheaper, but those were the closest match. The FSB on both is 1066 and the cache on both is 3MB. The Dell has a 15" LED, just like the Apple. They may even be from the same manufacturer, since there are only a few of them.
I picked the mid-level Dell to compare to the lowest entry for a 15" Macbook. I would have compared it to the regular macbook rather than the macbook pro, but Apple doesn't offer a regular macbook with a 15" screen.
You're really reaching here which is the point I am trying to make. You said Apple laptops are better and I happen to agree with you. Your point was that the argument that windows laptops are cheaper was disingenuous and that is where I disagree. Apple laptops ARE clearly more expensive than comparably equipped windows laptops.
Oh, so close! You had a really good argument going right up until the point where you said "comparably equipped". You guys clearly have a different perspective what what "equipment" should be included on the list to be compared. And until you can agree on that list (which will never happen), the price/value discussion is pointless to continue. Please?
Oh, so close! You had a really good argument going right up until the point where you said "comparably equipped". You guys clearly have a different perspective what what "equipment" should be included on the list to be compared. And until you can agree on that list (which will never happen), the price/value discussion is pointless to continue. Please?
15.6" dell with same specs except .13 GHz less clock speed but better graphics: $700 bucks cheaper
15.6" dell with the slim anodized aluminum case and edge to edge display, better hard drive and discreet graphics: $540 bucks cheaper
15.4" Alienware with same specs but bigger l2 cache and faster hard drive: $400 bucks cheaper
How much more "comparably equipped" can you get - these could be argued to be "better equipped" as far as hardware performance.
Apple buys components from the same companies everyone else does. Screens, hard drives, RAM, chipsets, processors, graphics, and audio chips. What other equipment are you talking about? The case?
Seriously, at only $29 you can't go wrong. I'm assuming if you wish to do a clean install you'll need to install Leopard FIRST, and then run the SL upgrade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
So for $29 you're getting a full copy of SL.
The $29 is ONLY applicable if you have an Intel Mac AND already have Leopard installed. If you are using Tiger OS and/or don't have an Intel Mac, you must pay $169 for Snow Leopard, it will NOT install on non-Intel Macs - they are trying to get old PPC users to upgrade to Intel systems. The $169 purchase includes Leopard, so it automatically upgrades your system to Leopard then upgrades to SL. I've read this on several sites, but here it is on Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/5335039/the-real-...x-snow-leopard.
And it is a FULL copy of SL, they're basically rewarding Leopard owners with a cheap upgrade, but lazy (cheap) Tiger users must pay more.
The $29 is ONLY applicable if you have an Intel Mac AND already have Leopard installed. If you are using Tiger OS and/or don't have an Intel Mac, you must pay $169 for Snow Leopard, it will NOT install on non-Intel Macs - they are trying to get old PPC users to upgrade to Intel systems. The $169 purchase includes Leopard, so it automatically upgrades your system to Leopard then upgrades to SL. I've read this on several sites, but here it is on Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/5335039/the-real-...x-snow-leopard.
And it is a FULL copy of SL, they're basically rewarding Leopard owners with a cheap upgrade, but lazy (cheap) Tigers users must pay more.
15.6" dell with same specs except .13 GHz less clock speed but better graphics: $700 bucks cheaper
15.6" dell with the slim anodized aluminum case and edge to edge display, better hard drive and discreet graphics: $540 bucks cheaper
15.4" Alienware with same specs but bigger l2 cache and faster hard drive: $400 bucks cheaper
How much more "comparably equipped" can you get - these could be argued to be "better equipped" as far as hardware performance.
Apple buys components from the same companies everyone else does. Screens, hard drives, RAM, chipsets, processors, graphics, and audio chips. What other equipment are you talking about? The case?
Yet again to make Wiggin and my argument for it, yet still to see that the machines you UAE for examples aren't using the same priced and quality components. How many times does it need to pointed out that comparing base specs does not mean they are the same component in price and quality?
Yet again to make Wiggin and my argument for it, yet still to see that the machines you UAE for examples aren't using the same priced and quality components. How many times does it need to pointed out that comparing base specs does not mean they are the same component in price and quality?
Geez this is getting old...
There are only a few components in a computer.
- Processor - in all cases they are Gen-U-Wine Intel core 2 duo - in the XPS one they are EXACTLY the same chip. The Alienware is a BETTER chip. The lower end dell is simply .13 GHz lower clock speed. Are you telling me that the ones in the dells are the fake, low quality Intel chips i haven't been hearing about?
- Memory - there are only a few manufacturers out there and Dell and Apple both use them. we'd have to know which brand each has in it, but they are probably pretty much the same. You might be able to make a small argument about quality here, but I'm betting they are very comparable.
- Hard Drive - again there are only a few manufacturers - my iMac has a Western Digital in it. I'm not sure which one is in any specific macbook, but its gonna be a WD, Seagate, IBM, Hitachi, or Samsung, cause those are the only choices. Dell uses those brands too, and all are top brands and of comparable quality.
- Graphics Chip - all of the dell examples had BETTER graphics hardware. Both use either ATI or Nvidia. Both are good quality.
- Chipset - Both are likely the same Intel chipsets.
- Screen (since we're talking about laptops) - Only a few Manufacturers again, Samsung, LG, Hitachi, Sony a couple others. Apple and Dell both use bright, high-quality screens. The XPS dell has newer WLED screen.
- Audio Chip - probably both use the same realtek audio chip.
- trackpad - there are only a few manufacturers and they probably use the same ones
- Optical Drive - only a few manufacturers - both likely use panasonic or pioneer(matsushita i think?). the macbooks have a lot of failure here with the slot load drives. i think the dell xps one has a slot load too which is probaly the exact same one that's in the macbook.
That pretty much leaves us with the case, and the XPS dell (the closest comparison) also sports an anodized aluminum case. Even has some leather trim on it
Those are the essential components - I may have missed something, but those are the essential ones. Apple doesn't make this stuff. They get it from the same manufacturers as everyone else. Which components specifically are you claiming are inferior? If you have a specific example, lets hear it. Otherwise the only differences are subjective ones - but those aren't the argument.
That pretty much leaves us with the case, and the XPS dell (the closest comparison) also sports an anodized aluminum case. Even has some leather trim on it
Those are the essential components - I may have missed something, but those are the essential ones. Apple doesn't make this stuff. They get it from the same manufacturers as everyone else. Which components specifically are you claiming are inferior? If you have a specific example, lets hear it. Otherwise the only differences are subjective ones - but those aren't the argument.
Yes, it?s quite old. Your inabilty to realize that the same manufacturer makes varying classes of components that do the same thing but cost wildly differently prices depending on quality and technologies utilized.
I?ve explained it several times and you keep posting your rudimentary knowledge of basic spec sheet stats so there is nothing more to discuss until you can realize and/or admit that having the same resolution and size display doesn?t mean that the display technologies, quality and costs are the same.
Yes, it’s quite old. Your inabilty to realize that the same manufacturer makes varying classes of components that do the same thing but cost wildly differently prices depending on quality and technologies utilized.
I’ve explained it several times and you keep posting your rudimentary knowledge of basic spec sheet stats so there is nothing more to discuss until you can realize and/or admit that having the same resolution and size display doesn’t mean that the display technologies, quality and costs are the same.
--------------------
Yep the dell I listed uses a newer, better technology for its display. Dell is known to use very good displays with good black levels and color accuracy.
the main components i listed - processor, chipset, graphics chip, audio chip, hdd, optical drive are the exact same components. How can they be inferior if they are exactly the same models of each component?
Yes, it’s quite old. Your inabilty to realize that the same manufacturer makes varying classes of components that do the same thing but cost wildly differently prices depending on quality and technologies utilized.
I’ve explained it several times and you keep posting your rudimentary knowledge of basic spec sheet stats so there is nothing more to discuss until you can realize and/or admit that having the same resolution and size display doesn’t mean that the display technologies, quality and costs are the same.
Nvidia has a Performance chart on their website and the mbp graphics chips are at the bottom
the Ati graphics chips that Dell uses are a lot faster and newer
Nvidia has a Performance chart on their website and the mbp graphics chips are at the bottom
Yep because they are integrated and probably underclocked to meet heat specs in the confined space of the laptop case.
This idea that Apple uses superior components is just a myth. They use the same commodity components as Dell and HP. It used to be that they used better screens, but even that is no longer true. You can get comparable screens in Dell and HP laptops. Apple has superior Industrial design, they have to pay for the development of their great software (which the others don't have to do), and they probably have higher profit margins. That's why they cost more - not because they use a couple inferior sticks of RAM.
An Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 (3MB cache/2.53GHz/1066Mhz FSB) in a Macbook is exactly the same as an Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 (3MB cache/2.53GHz/1066Mhz FSB) in a Dell.
This isn't entirely true. Apple's motherboards are custom designed, Apple has gotten custom CPU's from Intel, and the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M was originally a custom design for Apple.
Eventually these parts move on to be sold as commodity parts for the rest of the PC industry. But they were originally designed for Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdyates
This idea that Apple uses superior components is just a myth. They use the same commodity components as Dell and HP.
You don't understand how to read the chart. You have to understand when you pick a mobile graphics card you are balancing performance with energy consumption and heat generation.
The faster the graphics card the more energy it consumes, the more heat it generates, which makes for a larger heavier notebook with loud fans and crappy battery life.
The Nividia 9400 balances this equation to offer decent performance with efficient energy consumption and minimal heat generation, so that the MacBook Pro can be relatively light and thin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
Nvidia has a Performance chart on their website and the mbp graphics chips are at the bottom
the Ati graphics chips that Dell uses are a lot faster and newer
I don't believe it's AUG 28, why hide the release date less than a week away? Don't you want to hype up customers to go and purchase it?
Also if the iPhone 3GS and upcoming iPod Touch can even play 720p externally, let alone 1080p, then the upcoming Zune HD got served before it's even released! The microsoft fanboys on engadget would once again have no ammunition.
Comments
Your example proves my point. Your only comparing this that you thing are matches but aren't comparing like items in quality, and by extension price. That 2.4GHz CPU in the Dell, how much does it cost in comparison to the 2.53GHz in the Mac? Did you look at the FSB, the L2 or even make sure the model numbers are even in the same class? Why didn't you adjust the $700 raping by Apple for the clearly cheaper CPU in the Dell? Why are you choosing Dell's cheap line and not the one they build to compete more directly with the Macs? Furthermore, you only mentioned the display size and horizontal resolution without mentioning the display type and backlight type. These are important factors for many.
Again, if that Dell with weaker components suits your needs then get it, If a $400 Dell suits your needs then get it, if a 7 year old PC still suits your needs then keep using it, but don't pretend that because a more expensive item doesn't suit your particular needs means you are getting raped by Apple because it simply isn't true.
for whatever reason Dell's cheaper line can be configured with better components than the expensive line. unless you are doing some specialized work you will never notice any difference from a 2.4GHZ to a 2.53GHZ.
i remember Intel used to pull these stunts in the 1990's with crazy CPU prices for tiny speed increases. Now with the GPU being more important, on the cheap Dell you can get an ATI 4570 graphics card as an option where with an MBP you have to choose the most expensive model to get the nice graphics. Dell offers the same CPU, but it's not worth the $175 upgrade.
unlike Apple, with Dell you can literally customize every single component of you computer and it's custom built just for you
for whatever reason Dell's cheaper line can be configured with better components than the expensive line. unless you are doing some specialized work you will never notice any difference from a 2.4GHZ to a 2.53GHZ.
i remember Intel used to pull these stunts in the 1990's with crazy CPU prices for tiny speed increases. Now with the GPU being more important, on the cheap Dell you can get an ATI 4570 graphics card as an option where with an MBP you have to choose the most expensive model to get the nice graphics. Dell offers the same CPU, but it's not worth the $175 upgrade.
unlike Apple, with Dell you can literally customize every single component of you computer and it's custom built just for you
There is no "whatever reason" here. We are talking about technology, about rudimentary physics. For the same reason desktop components are faster AND cheaper than notebook components, notebook conponents that are larger and/or have a higher TDP are cheaper than the more condensed and cooler running components. There is absolutely no mystery here.
And yet again, if those machines appeal to your needs then go for it but stop with the comments that Apple is ripping people off when the evidence shows other vendors selling machines at comparable prices for same type computer with the same basic components.
Again, if that Dell with weaker components suits your needs then get it, If a $400 Dell suits your needs then get it, if a 7 year old PC still suits your needs then keep using it, but don't pretend that because a more expensive item doesn't suit your particular needs means you are getting raped by Apple because it simply isn't true.
I already agreed that you should buy what suits your needs - that wasn't my point. And you're being dramatic - I never said Apple was "raping" me or anyone else. I said I buy their products and like them very much.
Your example proves my point. Your only comparing this that you thing are matches but aren't comparing like items in quality, and by extension price. That 2.4GHz CPU in the Dell, how much does it cost in comparison to the 2.53GHz in the Mac? Did you look at the FSB, the L2 or even make sure the model numbers are even in the same class? Why didn't you adjust the $700 raping by Apple for the clearly cheaper CPU in the Dell? Why are you choosing Dell's cheap line and not the one they build to compete more directly with the Macs? Furthermore, you only mentioned the display size and horizontal resolution without mentioning the display type and backlight type. These are important factors for many.
The components are not weaker. Both processors are Core 2 Duo at very close clock speeds. I could have upgraded that to a 2.8 for a few extra bucks and still been 600 or so cheaper, but those were the closest match. The FSB on both is 1066 and the cache on both is 3MB. The Dell has a 15" LED, just like the Apple. They may even be from the same manufacturer, since there are only a few of them.
I picked the mid-level Dell to compare to the lowest entry for a 15" Macbook. I would have compared it to the regular macbook rather than the macbook pro, but Apple doesn't offer a regular macbook with a 15" screen.
You're really reaching here which is the point I am trying to make. You said Apple laptops are better and I happen to agree with you. Your point was that the argument that windows laptops are cheaper was disingenuous and that is where I disagree. Apple laptops ARE clearly more expensive than comparably equipped windows laptops.
There is no "whatever reason" here. We are talking about technology, about rudimentary physics. For the same reason desktop components are faster AND cheaper than notebook components, notebook conponents that are larger and/or have a higher TDP are cheaper than the more condensed and cooler running components. There is absolutely no mystery here.
And yet again, if those machines appeal to your needs then go for it but stop with the comments that Apple is ripping people off when the evidence shows other vendors selling machines at comparable prices for same type computer with the same basic components.
I forgot to mention that the Dell was configured with better graphics hardware.
And please stop with the dramatics - noone said Apple was ripping people off or raping them.
Well I'm basing it on what I've heard here, presumably from people who've used it. I think the GM is out already actually. Nevertheless, I don't think the general improvements I'd like to see (updating front row, improvements to the finder and fixing GIFs and proxies in Safari) can be regarded as "bells and whistles". I'd like to see more along the lines of what they've done with stacks. So in addition to my computer actually running faster, I'll actually be able to work faster.
Your mention of Front Row reminded me that we've seen little if any mention of any tweaks to things like Front Row, iCal, Address Book, and Mail. The stuff that's standard with the OS and is usually updated with each major OS update.
I know Snow Leopard is mostly about the behind the scenes stuff, but have there really been no updates to these other applications, even minor ones? Front Row and iCal updates would be very, very welcome. I'd hate to think that I need to wait another two years for them to fix some of the poor iCal UI design. And it would be nice for FrontRow to learn a few tricks from the AppleTV (while maintaing things like access to content outside of iTunes, video_TS files, etc).
Your example proves my point. Your only comparing this that you thing are matches but aren't comparing like items in quality, and by extension price. That 2.4GHz CPU in the Dell, how much does it cost in comparison to the 2.53GHz in the Mac? Did you look at the FSB, the L2 or even make sure the model numbers are even in the same class? Why didn't you adjust the $700 raping by Apple for the clearly cheaper CPU in the Dell? Why are you choosing Dell's cheap line and not the one they build to compete more directly with the Macs? Furthermore, you only mentioned the display size and horizontal resolution without mentioning the display type and backlight type. These are important factors for many.
Again, if that Dell with weaker components suits your needs then get it, If a $400 Dell suits your needs then get it, if a 7 year old PC still suits your needs then keep using it, but don't pretend that because a more expensive item doesn't suit your particular needs means you are getting raped by Apple because it simply isn't true.
Here's a better one for you:
Dell Studio XPS 16 (the highest end without going to Alienware or Adamo which only has 13" screen):
15.6" WLED 900p
Core 2 Duo P8700 (3MB cache/2.53GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
4GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
250GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive (macbook has 5400 RPM drive)
DVDRW
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 - 512MB (macbook has integrated graphics)
Wireless N
price: 1,159 - still 540 bucks cheaper
Again, I am not trying to beat a dead horse, but come on.
I already agreed that you should buy what suits your needs - that wasn't my point. And you're being dramatic - I never said Apple was "raping" me or anyone else. I said I buy their products and like them very much.
The components are not weaker. Both processors are Core 2 Duo at very close clock speeds. I could have upgraded that to a 2.8 for a few extra bucks and still been 600 or so cheaper, but those were the closest match. The FSB on both is 1066 and the cache on both is 3MB. The Dell has a 15" LED, just like the Apple. They may even be from the same manufacturer, since there are only a few of them.
I picked the mid-level Dell to compare to the lowest entry for a 15" Macbook. I would have compared it to the regular macbook rather than the macbook pro, but Apple doesn't offer a regular macbook with a 15" screen.
You're really reaching here which is the point I am trying to make. You said Apple laptops are better and I happen to agree with you. Your point was that the argument that windows laptops are cheaper was disingenuous and that is where I disagree. Apple laptops ARE clearly more expensive than comparably equipped windows laptops.
Oh, so close! You had a really good argument going right up until the point where you said "comparably equipped". You guys clearly have a different perspective what what "equipment" should be included on the list to be compared. And until you can agree on that list (which will never happen), the price/value discussion is pointless to continue. Please?
Oh, so close! You had a really good argument going right up until the point where you said "comparably equipped". You guys clearly have a different perspective what what "equipment" should be included on the list to be compared. And until you can agree on that list (which will never happen), the price/value discussion is pointless to continue. Please?
15.6" dell with same specs except .13 GHz less clock speed but better graphics: $700 bucks cheaper
15.6" dell with the slim anodized aluminum case and edge to edge display, better hard drive and discreet graphics: $540 bucks cheaper
15.4" Alienware with same specs but bigger l2 cache and faster hard drive: $400 bucks cheaper
How much more "comparably equipped" can you get - these could be argued to be "better equipped" as far as hardware performance.
Apple buys components from the same companies everyone else does. Screens, hard drives, RAM, chipsets, processors, graphics, and audio chips. What other equipment are you talking about? The case?
Seriously, at only $29 you can't go wrong. I'm assuming if you wish to do a clean install you'll need to install Leopard FIRST, and then run the SL upgrade?
So for $29 you're getting a full copy of SL.
The $29 is ONLY applicable if you have an Intel Mac AND already have Leopard installed. If you are using Tiger OS and/or don't have an Intel Mac, you must pay $169 for Snow Leopard, it will NOT install on non-Intel Macs - they are trying to get old PPC users to upgrade to Intel systems. The $169 purchase includes Leopard, so it automatically upgrades your system to Leopard then upgrades to SL. I've read this on several sites, but here it is on Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/5335039/the-real-...x-snow-leopard.
And it is a FULL copy of SL, they're basically rewarding Leopard owners with a cheap upgrade, but lazy (cheap) Tiger users must pay more.
There you go.
The $29 is ONLY applicable if you have an Intel Mac AND already have Leopard installed. If you are using Tiger OS and/or don't have an Intel Mac, you must pay $169 for Snow Leopard, it will NOT install on non-Intel Macs - they are trying to get old PPC users to upgrade to Intel systems. The $169 purchase includes Leopard, so it automatically upgrades your system to Leopard then upgrades to SL. I've read this on several sites, but here it is on Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/5335039/the-real-...x-snow-leopard.
And it is a FULL copy of SL, they're basically rewarding Leopard owners with a cheap upgrade, but lazy (cheap) Tigers users must pay more.
There you go.
Thank you.
15.6" dell with same specs except .13 GHz less clock speed but better graphics: $700 bucks cheaper
15.6" dell with the slim anodized aluminum case and edge to edge display, better hard drive and discreet graphics: $540 bucks cheaper
15.4" Alienware with same specs but bigger l2 cache and faster hard drive: $400 bucks cheaper
How much more "comparably equipped" can you get - these could be argued to be "better equipped" as far as hardware performance.
Apple buys components from the same companies everyone else does. Screens, hard drives, RAM, chipsets, processors, graphics, and audio chips. What other equipment are you talking about? The case?
Yet again to make Wiggin and my argument for it, yet still to see that the machines you UAE for examples aren't using the same priced and quality components. How many times does it need to pointed out that comparing base specs does not mean they are the same component in price and quality?
Yet again to make Wiggin and my argument for it, yet still to see that the machines you UAE for examples aren't using the same priced and quality components. How many times does it need to pointed out that comparing base specs does not mean they are the same component in price and quality?
Geez this is getting old...
There are only a few components in a computer.
- Processor - in all cases they are Gen-U-Wine Intel core 2 duo - in the XPS one they are EXACTLY the same chip. The Alienware is a BETTER chip. The lower end dell is simply .13 GHz lower clock speed. Are you telling me that the ones in the dells are the fake, low quality Intel chips i haven't been hearing about?
- Memory - there are only a few manufacturers out there and Dell and Apple both use them. we'd have to know which brand each has in it, but they are probably pretty much the same. You might be able to make a small argument about quality here, but I'm betting they are very comparable.
- Hard Drive - again there are only a few manufacturers - my iMac has a Western Digital in it. I'm not sure which one is in any specific macbook, but its gonna be a WD, Seagate, IBM, Hitachi, or Samsung, cause those are the only choices. Dell uses those brands too, and all are top brands and of comparable quality.
- Graphics Chip - all of the dell examples had BETTER graphics hardware. Both use either ATI or Nvidia. Both are good quality.
- Chipset - Both are likely the same Intel chipsets.
- Screen (since we're talking about laptops) - Only a few Manufacturers again, Samsung, LG, Hitachi, Sony a couple others. Apple and Dell both use bright, high-quality screens. The XPS dell has newer WLED screen.
- Audio Chip - probably both use the same realtek audio chip.
- trackpad - there are only a few manufacturers and they probably use the same ones
- Optical Drive - only a few manufacturers - both likely use panasonic or pioneer(matsushita i think?). the macbooks have a lot of failure here with the slot load drives. i think the dell xps one has a slot load too which is probaly the exact same one that's in the macbook.
That pretty much leaves us with the case, and the XPS dell (the closest comparison) also sports an anodized aluminum case. Even has some leather trim on it
Those are the essential components - I may have missed something, but those are the essential ones. Apple doesn't make this stuff. They get it from the same manufacturers as everyone else. Which components specifically are you claiming are inferior? If you have a specific example, lets hear it. Otherwise the only differences are subjective ones - but those aren't the argument.
Geez this is getting old...
There are only a few components in a computer.
[?]
That pretty much leaves us with the case, and the XPS dell (the closest comparison) also sports an anodized aluminum case. Even has some leather trim on it
Those are the essential components - I may have missed something, but those are the essential ones. Apple doesn't make this stuff. They get it from the same manufacturers as everyone else. Which components specifically are you claiming are inferior? If you have a specific example, lets hear it. Otherwise the only differences are subjective ones - but those aren't the argument.
Yes, it?s quite old. Your inabilty to realize that the same manufacturer makes varying classes of components that do the same thing but cost wildly differently prices depending on quality and technologies utilized.
I?ve explained it several times and you keep posting your rudimentary knowledge of basic spec sheet stats so there is nothing more to discuss until you can realize and/or admit that having the same resolution and size display doesn?t mean that the display technologies, quality and costs are the same.
Yes, it’s quite old. Your inabilty to realize that the same manufacturer makes varying classes of components that do the same thing but cost wildly differently prices depending on quality and technologies utilized.
I’ve explained it several times and you keep posting your rudimentary knowledge of basic spec sheet stats so there is nothing more to discuss until you can realize and/or admit that having the same resolution and size display doesn’t mean that the display technologies, quality and costs are the same.
--------------------
Yep the dell I listed uses a newer, better technology for its display. Dell is known to use very good displays with good black levels and color accuracy.
the main components i listed - processor, chipset, graphics chip, audio chip, hdd, optical drive are the exact same components. How can they be inferior if they are exactly the same models of each component?
Cite a specific component.
Yes, it’s quite old. Your inabilty to realize that the same manufacturer makes varying classes of components that do the same thing but cost wildly differently prices depending on quality and technologies utilized.
I’ve explained it several times and you keep posting your rudimentary knowledge of basic spec sheet stats so there is nothing more to discuss until you can realize and/or admit that having the same resolution and size display doesn’t mean that the display technologies, quality and costs are the same.
Nvidia has a Performance chart on their website and the mbp graphics chips are at the bottom
the Ati graphics chips that Dell uses are a lot faster and newer
Nvidia has a Performance chart on their website and the mbp graphics chips are at the bottom
Yep because they are integrated and probably underclocked to meet heat specs in the confined space of the laptop case.
This idea that Apple uses superior components is just a myth. They use the same commodity components as Dell and HP. It used to be that they used better screens, but even that is no longer true. You can get comparable screens in Dell and HP laptops. Apple has superior Industrial design, they have to pay for the development of their great software (which the others don't have to do), and they probably have higher profit margins. That's why they cost more - not because they use a couple inferior sticks of RAM.
An Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 (3MB cache/2.53GHz/1066Mhz FSB) in a Macbook is exactly the same as an Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 (3MB cache/2.53GHz/1066Mhz FSB) in a Dell.
MBP 15 - screen resolution 1440x900
Dell Studio 15 - screen resolution 1366 x 768
MBP 15 - .95" thick
Dell Studio 15 - 1.5" thick
MBP 15 - weight 5.5 lbs
Dell Studio 15 - weight 6.11 lbs (w/ 9-cell battery)
MBP 15 - 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM
Dell Studio 15 - 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM
MBP 15 - 7 hours battery life
Dell Studio 15 - 6 hours battery life (w/ 9-cell battery)
MBP 15 - unibody aluminum
Dell Studio 15 - plastic parts
MBP 15 - multi-touch glass trackpad
Dell Studio 15 - two button single touch trackpad
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but it's not disingenuous:
Apple Macbook Pro:
15" 900p widescreen, 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo, 250gig 5400rpm hard drive, DVDRW, 4 gig RAM, backlit keyboard, wireless n
the price is 1699.00
Dell Studio 15:
15" 900p widescreen, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (closest match), 250gig 5400rpm hard drive, DVDRW, 4 gig RAM, backlit keyboard, wireless n
the price is 999.00, for a difference of 700.00
Eventually these parts move on to be sold as commodity parts for the rest of the PC industry. But they were originally designed for Apple
This idea that Apple uses superior components is just a myth. They use the same commodity components as Dell and HP.
The faster the graphics card the more energy it consumes, the more heat it generates, which makes for a larger heavier notebook with loud fans and crappy battery life.
The Nividia 9400 balances this equation to offer decent performance with efficient energy consumption and minimal heat generation, so that the MacBook Pro can be relatively light and thin.
Nvidia has a Performance chart on their website and the mbp graphics chips are at the bottom
the Ati graphics chips that Dell uses are a lot faster and newer
Also if the iPhone 3GS and upcoming iPod Touch can even play 720p externally, let alone 1080p, then the upcoming Zune HD got served before it's even released! The microsoft fanboys on engadget would once again have no ammunition.