macbook question

[tlarkin]

1)mac, 1440 x 900 pixels , Asus 1680 x 1050 same aspect ratio.
2)scince when did 1/2 and inch and 1.3 pounds affect performance?and only 2 USB ports i find that lacking. no an S video for ppl with old tv's no a seriail port th. th. th.
3)okay i'll give u the keyboard but its not 400$ good, maby 40??
4)the Asus has HDMI where the mac dose not ug otta get a DCI to HDMI convter, so i dont know y u are fighting agients urself
5) multi touch is frekaing useless anyhow never used it. still not a 400$ value. maby 20.

6)ohhh now hes gone to arguing software over hardware performance if u wanan get into that i can state ur obvious gaming deficincy, not to mention all the programs out there u cant run, or the fact that for the most part your going to have to pay for ur software where most PC users can ask there friend or pirate what they need.

u havent educated me.

Edit: i saw ur edit lol

as for the sound we cant get into that without more information from each machine, note this is just a machine i grabbed that had simular specs, i'm sure for 1,999 i could blow that macbook pro outta the water.

*sigh*

That display is not an LED LCD display, which is higher quality and consumes less power. They are also on average around $300 more expensive than a standard laptop screen.

A laptop is suppose to be portable, not large, heavy and chunky, size and weight matter. Why do you think Apple engineers them that way? Why don't you see quad core laptops? It is because a quad core consumes too much power and emits too much heat.

You forgot the sudden motion sensor, the ambient light sensor and firewire 800, all of those hardware features are easily worth $200 total.

LOl, multi touch is useless but you've never used it. That is extremely valid. i find myself trying to use multi touch on PC laptops now and I can't and it is discouraging.

You aren't grasping anything I am saying. You are just being completely ignorant. Hardware specs are not the end all be all bottom line of performance. The operating system is probably the largest factor. Since OS X requires way less hardware to run it is already running faster.

Like I said before show me a 7 year old machine you can run Vista on.

I easily just justified a $500 difference. The screen alone is $300 more. Go read up on hardware specs since you seems to be an expert on the subject.

Oh and since you are so all about specs, out of the box Leopard can do more than Vista Home, so the only way to fairly compare them feature to feature is to add Vista Ultimate.

 

[Kill Bill]

*sigh*

That display is not an LED LCD display, which is higher quality and consumes less power. They are also on average around $300 more expensive than a standard laptop screen.

A laptop is suppose to be portable, not large, heavy and chunky, size and weight matter. Why do you think Apple engineers them that way? Why don't you see quad core laptops? It is because a quad core consumes too much power and emits too much heat.

You forgot the sudden motion sensor, the ambient light sensor and firewire 800, all of those hardware features are easily worth $200 total.

LOl, multi touch is useless but you've never used it. That is extremely valid. i find myself trying to use multi touch on PC laptops now and I can't and it is discouraging.

You aren't grasping anything I am saying. You are just being completely ignorant. Hardware specs are not the end all be all bottom line of performance. The operating system is probably the largest factor. Since OS X requires way less hardware to run it is already running faster.

Like I said before show me a 7 year old machine you can run Vista on.

I easily just justified a $500 difference. The screen alone is $300 more. Go read up on hardware specs since you seems to be an expert on the subject.

Oh and since you are so all about specs, out of the box Leopard can do more than Vista Home, so the only way to fairly compare them feature to feature is to add Vista Ultimate.

I have an old PowerBook G4 12'' Up and going and I donated my school and iBook G3 Clamshell with 384mb squeezed in ram running Mac OS X Tiger. (which is good considering it was made in 1999 and tiger was realsed in 2005)

 

[thereckerdbraikr]

so i guess u pay the extra 500 for a smaller, sleeker case with a very nice screen

it sounds like the mac is the lexus, it comes at a price, but with great standard features

but for a starving college student. . . hmmmm

but the 2k mac book pro is somewhat futureproof right?

 

[tlarkin]

Leopard, OS X 10.5, that just came out about 8 months ago can run on a G4 867Mhz w/ 512 of RAM and any DX8 or greater video card (but apples don't use DX, just as a reference).

So, yes, it is more "future proof" because your systems last a lot longer. I need to add that into the Macintosh section of my thread, will do that later on.

See, since Macs are closed systems, and since Apple builds them from the ground up, ie, they design the hardware, engineer it, code the OS and everything else from scratch you get a way higher quality machine, simply because they have more control over it. Microsoft can't possibly code their OS for every type or combination of PC hardware configurations. That would just be impossible. So, when switching to the Mac you do sacrifice quantity, but you gain more quality. Since they have complete control over the design of everything it allows for their OS to take less resources and run a lot faster and run on older machines. If that makes sense to you, otherwise I could go into a bit more detail.

 

[Kill Bill]

Leopard, OS X 10.5, that just came out about 8 months ago can run on a G4 867Mhz w/ 512 of RAM and any DX8 or greater video card (but apples don't use DX, just as a reference).

So, yes, it is more "future proof" because your systems last a lot longer. I need to add that into the Macintosh section of my thread, will do that later on.

See, since Macs are closed systems, and since Apple builds them from the ground up, ie, they design the hardware, engineer it, code the OS and everything else from scratch you get a way higher quality machine, simply because they have more control over it. Microsoft can't possibly code their OS for every type or combination of PC hardware configurations. That would just be impossible. So, when switching to the Mac you do sacrifice quantity, but you gain more quality. Since they have complete control over the design of everything it allows for their OS to take less resources and run a lot faster and run on older machines. If that makes sense to you, otherwise I could go into a bit more detail.

Thats what I'm saying but I put leopard on my cousins titanum powerbook g4 with 500Megahertz G4 and a 512MB Ram and it ran fine but its not as fast as the powerbook G4 1GHz with 1GB Ram that I use as a road machine.

Basicly heres the machines leopard they can run on:

PowerMac G4
PowerMac G4 Cube
Powerbook G4 Titanium
iBook G3 - Silver one not the clamshell
iMac G4
PowerBook G4 Aliminum 12,15,17''
iBook G4 - 12,14''
iMac G5
PowerMac G5

Then all of the intel series:

Macbook,MacBook Pro,Mac Mini,iMac,Mac Pro

So all in all the leoard OS Can run on a 8 year old machine (The G4 cube and the PowerMac G4 Cube) And can run on a 7 year old machine (iBook G3,PowerBook G4 Titanium)

 

[tlarkin]

Thats what I'm saying but I put leopard on my cousins titanum powerbook g4 with 500Megahertz G4 and a 512MB Ram and it ran fine but its not as fast as the powerbook G4 1GHz with 1GB Ram that I use as a road machine

Yeah but Apple listed minimum requirements as G4 867Mhz + 512MB of RAM so I am going by their standards of which to run Leopard on.

 

[Kill Bill]

Yeah but Apple listed minimum requirements as G4 867Mhz + 512MB of RAM so I am going by their standards of which to run Leopard on.

Oh anyway I edited my post

Basicly heres the machines leopard they can run on:

PowerMac G4
PowerMac G4 Cube
Powerbook G4 Titanium
iBook G3 - Silver one not the clamshell
iMac G4
PowerBook G4 Aliminum 12,15,17''
iBook G4 - 12,14''
iMac G5
PowerMac G5

Then all of the intel series:

Macbook,MacBook Pro,Mac Mini,iMac,Mac Pro

So all in all the leoard OS Can run on a 8 year old machine (The G4 cube and the PowerMac G4 Cube) And can run on a 7 year old machine (iBook G3,PowerBook G4 Titanium)

Anyone try running Vista on a windows 8 year old machine or on a 7 year old laptop

But people report that it runs slow on the G3 iBook