... same old argument

Maybe the next Mac can come with one of those USB rubber ducks. That'd help distinguish them, and be just as useful.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/

Yeah, I've lost all interest in carrying on this debate as well.

-----
It may be that one day a young man will adore a Pinata.

The Homer included shag carpeting and muzzles for child passengers.

One could consider these "pros" to buying the car, or one could consider them useless features that drove the price way higher than it needed to be.
If you're forced to pay more for something you'll never use I'd consider it a "con" personally.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/

Jesus Christ you are thick.

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID! REREAD WHAT I QUOTED! ALL YOU SAID WAS THAT SINCE THERE WAS ONLY ONE VERSION IT SHOULD BE COMPARED TO THE FULLY FEATURED WINDOWS VERSION!

It wasn't until I asked that you pointed out which version it is actually closest to! Your original point was that there was only one version, and I called that moronic logic.

AND I NEVER ONCE DISAGREED WITH YOU OVER WHICH ONE IT WAS CLOSEST TO, I JUST SAID YOUR LOGIC WAS MORONIC!

So I gather this is just your roundabout way of saying "yes, MeatForce, I am indeed just chapping your nuts"?

As far as I can tell, this all started because I used the imprecise phrase "XP Pro=mandatory because Apple doesn't make an 'OSX Home Edition'", and since you didn't really know what I meant by that, you assumed my only rationale for doing so was "jacking up the price of the dell." Right?

Well just because you didn't understand what I was saying the first time I said it, doesn't mean the logic is moronic, and saying so only presents you as a jerk. There is nothing wrong with the logic behind my assertion that a comparison between OSX and XP Pro is much more fair than a comparison between OSX and XP Home. It seems as though even you can see the sense in that once it's been more adequately explained.

What's moronic is saying shit like

Incidentally, there's no "OSX Pro Edition," so your logic would make XP Home = mandatory.

Because not only does that have nothing whatsoever to do with my logic, but you're simply ignoring the fact that feature-wise OSX is "OSX Pro Edition". It's a very advanced feature-rich OS that's at least the equal of the best Microsoft has to offer at the moment, which is something I thought was plain common knowledge. Since that offering is quite clearly NOT XP Home, I trusted folks would just be able to put 2+2 together and figure out that's what I was talking about..

My mistake. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

As for webcams, you're flat-out wrong about many people using them daily.

OK, so I'm wrong then. The fact that Google returns 156,000,000 hits for the word "webcam", but only 146,000,000 hits for the word "porn" clearly bears this out.

Do I give a rat's ass? Not a bit. It's irrelevant.

The presence of a webcam is still a bonus feature for the Mac, so why the hell wouldn't I have included it on a list of pros/cons?


-----
It may be that one day a young man will adore a Pinata.
This comment was edited on Apr 7, 12:46.

Where is the disconnect that is preventing you from understanding that since there is only one version of OSX on the market - and that version is fully capable of doing everything and anything Apple has ever said OSX can do (like XP Pro; you're not going to get it home and discover it won't run on a multiprocessor machine, for example) - I feel it would be unfair to compare it feature-wise to a version of XP that is missing features??????????

Jesus Christ you are thick.

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID! REREAD WHAT I QUOTED! ALL YOU SAID WAS THAT SINCE THERE WAS ONLY ONE VERSION IT SHOULD BE COMPARED TO THE FULLY FEATURED WINDOWS VERSION!

It wasn't until I asked that you pointed out which version it is actually closest to! Your original point was that there was only one version, and I called that moronic logic.

AND I NEVER ONCE DISAGREED WITH YOU OVER WHICH ONE IT WAS CLOSEST TO, I JUST SAID YOUR LOGIC WAS MORONIC!



As for webcams, you're flat-out wrong about many people using them daily. A handful, tops. Why do you think webcam technology hasn't improved in 7 or 8 years? Why do you think they're so low-res? Why do you think so few digital cameras have webcam capabilities?
Because no one uses webcams! There's no market for them therefore no one invests money into their development

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/

would be more interesting Come on VMWare give us EFI support

No. I didn't take a side. I just pointed out that your logic sucked. You said, read the quote, that there is no OSX Home therefore OSX must be compared to XP Pro. Which doesn't make sense.

Again.. I am stricken by the need to ask: HUH??

Where is the disconnect that is preventing you from understanding that since there is only one version of OSX on the market - and that version is fully capable of doing everything and anything Apple has ever said OSX can do (like XP Pro; you're not going to get it home and discover it won't run on a multiprocessor machine, for example) - I feel it would be unfair to compare it feature-wise to a version of XP that is missing features??????????

How does that not make sense to you? How is it somehow illogical that I think when one is comparing the capabilities of the two OSs, it is important to begin with them on as even a footing as possible?

Because as Zath pointed out earlier, MS is playing catch-up to OSX with the Vista feature-set for crying out loud! Will you please explain to me why the fuck I'm supposed to compare a feature-incomplete version of MS's current OS to one that's competitive with a product they haven't even released yet??

Understand: Home DOES NOT have all the features of XP Pro, so I just saw no friggin' point whatsoever in discussing it when we were having a pissing match over which company ships a better product dollar-for-dollar.

If you really don't want me to talk about XP Pro in my comparisons, then go ahead and substitute XP MCE instead because I think that would make sense now that Z has explained to me how it relates to Pro.. Certainly more sense than Home. I think you save $40 going with MCE over Pro, so adjust the figures accordingly if you still care.

But just get off it already about Home edition. Home edition can kiss my ass.

Furthermore, your added bonuses of the Mac are mostly useless. Illuminated keyboard? Built in webcam? Meh. There are reasons that these technologies haven't taken off. They're not new technology, they're just very niche technology that the vast majority of the world has no use for.

Says you.

Amongst the portion of the world who can actually afford computers, I count LOTS of people who make use of webcams every day, and I'd put money on the fact that the ones who use them with their laptops would WAY rather not have to carry the extra lump around with them.

And illuminated keyboards are great. I've yet to see someone use my laptop in a darkened room and wish it didn't have an illuminated keyboard.

But that's as maybe. The fact that the one machine has them and the other doesn't makes them bonuses whether or not I like them and you don't.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all Dells come with gigabyte ethernet these days?

Not those ones. Just "Integrated 10/100 Ethernet" and a wireless-G card according to Dell.

And again.. maybe you don't see the use in having a gigabit LAN, but trust me when I say that having a gigabit LAN is useful for some people. But like the keyboard and webcam -- one machine has it and the other doesn't so I added it to the list.


Still.. I don't want to get on anyone's nerves simply because I'm skilled at it, so let's revise the list to exclude those features you've deemed useless:

- the Dell with XP Pro will be $520 cheaper than the Mac ($2,559 vs. $2,779)
OR
- the Dell will be $560 cheaper than the Mac with XP Media Centre Edition
- the Dell has a DL burner

- the Mac has faster RAM
- the Mac has faster graphics hardware
- the Mac has an integrated web-cam
- the Mac has an illuminated keyboard
- the Mac has 10/100/1000 Ethernet
- the Mac has 5.1 Dolby Digital optical audio in/out
- the Mac runs OSX, but can also boot Windows XP
- the Mac comes with A FULL VERSION of OSX which does not have any features missing, and will run on 64-bit hardware should you so desire it (and Apple's EULA allows for a single copy of OSX to be installed on a laptop as well as a desktop as long as it's only one user, so that would even be legit. Not that they even check, mind you )


-----
It may be that one day a young man will adore a Pinata.
This comment was edited on Apr 6, 17:28.

Wow, gigabyte routers? And here I thought we were stuck just with old, useless gigabits...

Dan =0)

You can help me save the Earth from a terrible experience... yes, the whole Earth.
Self-plug: http://www.dankupka.com
Self-plug #2: http://blog.myspace.com/dankupkamusic

Instead, how about YOU go point by point down a list of features and tell me all the stuff XP PRO does that OSX doesn't (because just fucking believe me already that OSX does EVERYTHING XP Home does and then some). It'll be a much shorter list..

No. I didn't take a side. I just pointed out that your logic sucked. You said, read the quote, that there is no OSX Home therefore OSX must be compared to XP Pro. Which doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, your added bonuses of the Mac are mostly useless. Illuminated keyboard? Built in webcam? Meh. There are reasons that these technologies haven't taken off. They're not new technology, they're just very niche technology that the vast majority of the world has no use for.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all Dells come with gigabyte ethernet these days? I'm 99% certain they do. Not that it's useful, most laptops are wireless and very few people actually have a gigabyte router, but whatever makes you happy.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/

Sure, but its features are largely in the "average" category of laptops. This is partially due to using the brand new chips from Intel -- there just wasn't enough room for differentiation.

One thing that struck me yesterday during my adventures in customizing is that there are some strange differences between the MBP and the old PowerBook that I'm fairly certain are merely a last-ditch attempt to drive remaining PowerBook stocks out of the warehouses..

For example if you need a dual-layer DVD burner or FireWire 800, there's no way to get either on the MBP.

The FW omission is less mysterious than the DL DVD one, mind you, but it's still odd that they wouldn't offer such an attractive feature on their newer machines (not that they aren't flying off the shelves without it, mind you)..

-----
It may be that one day a young man will adore a Pinata.

It's due for shipping on the 10th... Woot -- it shipped today! Replacing the piece-o-shit laptop I bought from Fry's and forced them to refund me money for (after 6 months!).

But it'll have a slower CPU than the MacBook (I didn't feel the need to upgrade it), and I suspect the video card will make the MacBook slaughter it (the 1400 is better than the Intel video, but still doesn't hold a candle to the 1600). I'm not familiar w/ Cinebench though, so I dunno

Man.. you've got new babies arriving daily!!


Cinebench is really only good for knowing how well a machine will run Cinema4D, which is a high-end rendering/animation package AFAIK.. I guess it gives the machine a pretty good workout in some ways, but mostly people run it because it's available on a whole bunch of platforms and the scores are all derived from some reference system, so one can pretend to extrapolate meaning from them

That MacBook at 1.83GHz, for example, turns in pretty impressive results compared to my Dual 2.5 G5/9600XT -- it's only just a little bit slower in all tests except for hardware OGL, where it quite predictably wins by a hair. I don't think the engine uses any special G5 optimizations, but even still, the results posted on XLR8 are very impressive indeed for a laptop..

Give it a run on your new machine just for kicks if you get a chance.. I'm curious to know how Apple's machine stacks-up to Dell's in XP.

-----
It may be that one day a young man will adore a Pinata.

One thing everyone needs to bear in mind is that the MacBook Pro is a "pro" level machine.

Sure, but its features are largely in the "average" category of laptops. This is partially due to using the brand new chips from Intel -- there just wasn't enough room for differentiation.

I think an Intel-based 13.3" widescreen iBook replacement

Give up 2" of screen and who-knows-how-much resolution? Ewww. Of course, it'll be awfully small and light -- Apple excels at that. But still... that's a lot of lost screen real estate.

I suppose it'll be a Core Solo, and maybe the "high end" iBook will be the low end Core Duo (which was originally going to be in the $2k PowerMac, but they got upgraded prior to release). Again, not a whole lot of differentiation available in the new Intel line right now, and I can't imagine they'd stick a PentiumM or CeleronM in there -- they're not bad chips, but they're weak (and power hungry) in comparison to the new Core series.

I absolutely agree that most people aren't in the market to spend more than $2500 for a laptop though.

I think the market for a laptop >$1500 is fairly sparse -- except for gamers spending silly amounts of money and corporations. Neither of which is really interested in Apple...

The group that is interested in Apple is Apple devotees (duh) and Unix heads (another reason I'd like to try OS X).

Anyone forsee any price drops on the Intel Apple Machines?

Nope.

One thing everyone needs to bear in mind is that the MacBook Pro is a "pro" level machine. It has lots of features the average user won't want or care about, and an inflated price tag to match. If you were going to compare model-to-model (as opposed to feature-to-feature or performance-to-performance), I'd say the MacBook Pro comes closer to being a Dell Precision Portable Workstation (or whatever they call them). I'm not saying that the MacBook Pro is as powerful or well-equipped as a Precision - just that it's aimed at a similar market.

What Apple will do is announce a replacement for the (aging, knackered, dead) iBook, which will hopefully be competitive with the "mid-range" Dell offerings (Latitudes and Inspirons). Of course, it'll miss out on a lot of the funky Apple-only features like the shiny backlit keyboard etc, but it'll run OSX. Personally, I think an Intel-based 13.3" widescreen iBook replacement (as is currently rumoured) for a reasonable price (say, £750 UK or thereabouts) would do most people I know very nicely. Yes, it'll be more expensive than an equivalent Dell, but I wouldn't mind paying a bit of a premium.

I absolutely agree that most people aren't in the market to spend more than $2500 for a laptop though.

Oh, and the BT option for the Dell is BT 2.0 as well, not 1.1 as someone else mentioned.

That's my bad. When I compared a month or two ago, this wasn't the case. It seems that the Core Duo-based Dells are significantly cheaper than when I last looked, which is unsurprising given Intel's initial supply problems.

I bought a used 12" Ibook G4 1,2 Ghz from ebay a couple of months ago since I needed a small laptop for university anyway (I have two windows PCs, one of them my killer gaming rig). After 3 months using the ibook I am pleasantly surprised. Communication with my windows PCs works flawless and it's an all around nice place to work
I don't see macs replacing windows PCs anytime soon, though. Come back if Oblivion runs 100% the same on a mac...

well if you're running Windows OS on Intel hardware WHAT PART OF IT IS "APPLE"?

It's a WINTEL machine with an Apple sticker on it.

How does that somehow change what people want? If a majority of Apple users want to dual boot Windows, well it's in Apple's best interest to do so!

Throwing fuel to the fire quickly, one roommate of mine says to me that people (the average Joe Blows) don't buy into Apple because they're not as well known (aside from iPod, of course) - even if they are subjectively superior with respect to user interface design, or what have you. On top of this, Microsoft more than likely has a whole lot more cash to blow on advertising/marketing - or at least, they set more aside for that sort of thing.

I'd tried (without any luck) to suggest to him to at least go down to the local CompUSA and give a Mac a test drive. He said he probably wouldn't like it due to the difference in interface, terminology and whatnot. Fair enough, I suppose.

I use both - Win for games and some internet stuff (and on my work computer at FHS - Framingham Heart Study), Mac for Music and e-mail/some internet. My thoughts? I prefer Mac OS X by far for its interface elegance. Windows just seems cumbersome and kludgy to me, somehow.

EDIT: Systems -

Dual 1.25GHz G4 Power Mac Mirrored Drive Doors with Combo Drive (CD-RW/DVD-ROM), 512MB RAM (would like to expand to at least 1GB), 80GB HDD, OS X 10.2.8 (Jaguar)

iBook 14" (dual USB model with Firewire, 1.33GHz G4 proc, 768MB RAM, 4200RPM 60GB HDD, Airport Extreme Wireless), OS X 10.3.9 (Panther)

AMD Athlon64 XP 3000+-based system (running @ 1.8GHz reported)
512MB PNY DDR266 RAM (yes, I know.. PNY)
160GB Seagate HDD
Memorex DL DVD+/-R/RW
Chaintech NForce4 Socket 939 mobo
Visiontek XTASY x700 PCI-Express 16x card
Windows XP Home w/ SP2

15" ViewSonic LCD, shared between the two towers. One screen (and Apple keyboard, Logitech Marble mouse and pair of Klipsch speakers) to rule them both.

EDIT2: Listed OSes for each system for comparison...

Dan =0)


You can help me save the Earth from a terrible experience... yes, the whole Earth.
Self-plug: http://www.dankupka.com
Self-plug #2: http://blog.myspace.com/dankupkamusic

This comment was edited on Apr 6, 00:24.

Apple has no desire or plan to sell or support Windows, but many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple's superior hardware now that we use Intel processors.

well if you're running Windows OS on Intel hardware WHAT PART OF IT IS "APPLE"?

It's a WINTEL machine with an Apple sticker on it.

...Apple drops that base MacBook down to around $1500 by the end of the summer (college time), then they've got themselves a deal!

Anyone forsee any price drops on the Intel Apple Machines?]

EDIT: Hell, depending on how much money I get from summer work, I might buy one anyway.


This comment was edited on Apr 5, 22:37.