Ok...just to clear things up because I see audiopollution is flexing his moderator muscles at me and I want to get this out in case he temps ban me.
I wrote this to audiopollution but I probably should have wrote it here:
(ad hominem argument deleted - JL) It seems like for some reason it was implied that the processor was a Core Duo but not implied that the clockspeed mattered? When I was talking about finding a computer that was thinner than Apple's MacBook Pro, I didn't mean "go find a computer that's thinner no matter which processor is inside the computer"...that's way too broad. There are tons of subnotebook with low-voltage Pentium-M chips that are thinner than Apple's MacBook Pro. But use your fucking logic people, the example had to clearly had to be inline with what was being offered.
(ad hominem argument deleted - JL)
It was clear from the discussion that people were amazed that Apple managed to cram a 2GHz and 2.16GHz Core Duo into a 1" thick enclosure. And that they were being conservative in case the case wouldn't be able to handle > 1.83GHz chips. Why the fuck else would Apple not include these chips?
We could sit around and compare 33mm thick 1.5GHz Pentium M laptops or 0.8 inch thick 1.83GHz Core Duo laptops with the 2.16GHz MacBook Pro all day but that would be a pretty shitty comparison with no point.
You do want to have a point, do you audiopollution and aegisdesign? I hope so.
(ad hominem argument deleted - JL) You won the 'thinnest' laptop argument. Or even better, the 1.83GHz 1" MacBook Pro is a shitty deal because, you can get an even thinner one at that speed. There you go. Happy? Did you guys have a point?
(ad hominem argument deleted - JL) I ask for a thinner laptop and make no mention of what processor must be in the laptop thinking it's implied and someone shows me a Core Duo notebook that is thinner (implied: Core Duo) but at 1.83GHz (not implied: clock rate)...if you're gonna play the semantic game, be consistent and pretend like nothing was implied and show me a super-thin laptop running at 1.2GHz or something.
Perhaps you'd avoid all of this confusion in the future by not being so vague when issuing a challenge. All of the 'implied' spec targets make your argument hard to follow and impossible for anyone else to win.
Perhaps you'd avoid all of this confusion in the future by not being so vague when issuing a challenge. All of the 'implied' spec targets make your argument hard to follow and impossible for anyone else to win.
Semantics, indeed.
Perhaps. I had more of a point than you ever did, my friend...the point being the ability to offer a 2.16GHz chip inside a 1" thick enclosure.
What was your point again? Enlighten us. Or are you scared to acknowledge that you didn't have one except argue for the sake of arguing?
I issued a challenge and assumed some people in this forum were smart enough to keep it in line with the conversation. If some of them wanted to twist it into a challenge with zero point whatsoever...I don't care. I reissued a clearer challenge for those that actually care.
If *you* don't care, stay out of the conversation since you're increasing the noise to signal ratio, audiopollution.
Ok...just to clear things up because I see audiopollution is flexing his moderator muscles at me and I want to get this out in case he temps ban me.
Actually, if he doesn't temp-ban you, I will.
I do not going to spend my time deleting any more of your personal attacks in this thread. If you do not understand what the definition of a personal attack is, please look up argumentum ad hominem.
I have a PB 15" and have played with an X41T and Z60M. I really thought the Z60M was going to be a nice machine, but I was disappointed when I opened the box and saw how big/bulky/thick it was. I put it next to my PB and was shocked. I use PC's and MAC's, but I am amazed how ahead Apple was in the design of the PB's. The Ultrasmall Sony Vaio's that are out there have to cramped a keyboard for my liking. I can't find a laptop that beats the 15" PB no matter what OS.
Comments
Originally posted by minderbinder
TWO. You've quoted two which are thinner, the first you listed was thicker.
Or do you still have the blinders on?
see "and/or" in the sentence you quoted and read again.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
see "and/or" in the sentence you quoted and read again.
This discussion has been about THINNER since the beginning. So now YOU're trying to move the goalposts?
Originally posted by minderbinder
This discussion has been about THINNER since the beginning. So now YOU're trying to move the goalposts?
Zzzzzzzz
Enough already. I don't really care.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Zzzzzzzz
Enough already. I don't really care.
If that means you're done making inaccurate statements about the respective sizes of machines, good to hear.
I wrote this to audiopollution but I probably should have wrote it here:
(ad hominem argument deleted - JL) It seems like for some reason it was implied that the processor was a Core Duo but not implied that the clockspeed mattered? When I was talking about finding a computer that was thinner than Apple's MacBook Pro, I didn't mean "go find a computer that's thinner no matter which processor is inside the computer"...that's way too broad. There are tons of subnotebook with low-voltage Pentium-M chips that are thinner than Apple's MacBook Pro. But use your fucking logic people, the example had to clearly had to be inline with what was being offered.
(ad hominem argument deleted - JL)
It was clear from the discussion that people were amazed that Apple managed to cram a 2GHz and 2.16GHz Core Duo into a 1" thick enclosure. And that they were being conservative in case the case wouldn't be able to handle > 1.83GHz chips. Why the fuck else would Apple not include these chips?
We could sit around and compare 33mm thick 1.5GHz Pentium M laptops or 0.8 inch thick 1.83GHz Core Duo laptops with the 2.16GHz MacBook Pro all day but that would be a pretty shitty comparison with no point.
You do want to have a point, do you audiopollution and aegisdesign? I hope so.
(ad hominem argument deleted - JL) You won the 'thinnest' laptop argument. Or even better, the 1.83GHz 1" MacBook Pro is a shitty deal because, you can get an even thinner one at that speed. There you go. Happy? Did you guys have a point?
(ad hominem argument deleted - JL) I ask for a thinner laptop and make no mention of what processor must be in the laptop thinking it's implied and someone shows me a Core Duo notebook that is thinner (implied: Core Duo) but at 1.83GHz (not implied: clock rate)...if you're gonna play the semantic game, be consistent and pretend like nothing was implied and show me a super-thin laptop running at 1.2GHz or something.
edit: removed a double negation. :P
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Did you guys have a point?
Did you?
Perhaps you'd avoid all of this confusion in the future by not being so vague when issuing a challenge. All of the 'implied' spec targets make your argument hard to follow and impossible for anyone else to win.
Semantics, indeed.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Did you?
Perhaps you'd avoid all of this confusion in the future by not being so vague when issuing a challenge. All of the 'implied' spec targets make your argument hard to follow and impossible for anyone else to win.
Semantics, indeed.
Perhaps. I had more of a point than you ever did, my friend...the point being the ability to offer a 2.16GHz chip inside a 1" thick enclosure.
What was your point again? Enlighten us. Or are you scared to acknowledge that you didn't have one except argue for the sake of arguing?
I issued a challenge and assumed some people in this forum were smart enough to keep it in line with the conversation. If some of them wanted to twist it into a challenge with zero point whatsoever...I don't care. I reissued a clearer challenge for those that actually care.
If *you* don't care, stay out of the conversation since you're increasing the noise to signal ratio, audiopollution.
Ok...just to clear things up because I see audiopollution is flexing his moderator muscles at me and I want to get this out in case he temps ban me.
Actually, if he doesn't temp-ban you, I will.
I do not going to spend my time deleting any more of your personal attacks in this thread. If you do not understand what the definition of a personal attack is, please look up argumentum ad hominem.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Posts about forum moderation are against the posting guidelines.
Don't tempt me.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
(desperately tries to throw together a joke about the Olympics and thin ice)
How thin?
Originally posted by aegisdesign
How thin?
Thin enough to talk to the fishies.