What's so fantastic about Apple?

[John Albert]

We don't watch movies on our laptops. We do data processing/visualization and programming with Visual Studio. The extra pixels make a significant difference for us.

This resolution used to be available on 15" laptops, now it's not even available on the 17"+ models. It is very disappointing to see laptops limited to the same resolution as my TV.

You might not watch movies on your laptops, but a most people who buy widescreen laptops actually do use them for that purpose, at least sometimes. There's also the factor that 1920x1080 is a standard resolution for portables, whereas 1920x1200 is only a standard on larger desktop monitors. Smaller displays with that res are super-premium features. It's a cost-saving thing, I'm sure.

I do programming in Eclipse or Aptana, and I can understand how a few more lines of code visibility can make a difference, but on the other hand a simple scrollwheel mouse and judicious use of expand boxes kind of render it a non-issue. 120 pixels of vertical resolution certainly wouldn't be a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned, especially when we're talking $1,000 or more.

 

[John Albert]

Playing around with the config it said 'ships in 4 weeks'

All of them say that?

Did you bother to investigate the shipping options? For a mere fraction of the $1000+ in savings, one could easily afford to splurge on overnight shipping if one so desired.

Nope, I didn't bother looking at all of them.

So you're basically just talking out of your ass again, as you've been doing throughout this entire discussion.

I'm repeating myself ... but you think it's all about checking boxes on a technical spec sheet. I disagree.

No, I think it's about critical thinking rather than being a brainwashed shill who believes everything he sees in advertisements because he's too lazy to do the research and learn about the products himself.

I'm sorry, but there's just nothing objective that's so special about the Macs that warrant a 200% price increase.

No need to apologize for your opinion.

It's not an opinion. I have provided numerous, empirically factual examples to support that statement. You've just dismissed them out of hand without even bothering to read through them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So you're basically just talking out of your ass again, as you've been doing throughout this entire discussion.

Nice ad hom ... again. Way to be a critical thinker.

 

[John Albert]

So you're basically just talking out of your ass again, as you've been doing throughout this entire discussion.

Nice ad hom ... again. Way to be a critical thinker.

Wrong again.

It's not an ad hominem to criticize your opponent's arguments.

 

[Chris L]

Any programming that is poorly coded and improperly optimized will create a drain on resources, period. If you're arguing otherwise, then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

This is particularly true if you are forced to work with API's that do unexpected things. You can write clean and efficient code and still get bogged down by an OS who's latest version changed the way those API's behave.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Wrong again.

It's not an ad hominem to criticize your opponent's arguments.

Accusing me of talking out of my ass is hardly a criticism of my arguments.

 

[JohnnyG]

You might not watch movies on your laptops, but a most people who buy widescreen laptops actually do use them for that purpose, at least sometimes.

And nothing is lost if I do watch a movie, but it is when I do anything else.

There's also the factor that 1920x1080 is a standard resolution for portables, whereas 1920x1200 is only a standard on larger desktop monitors. Smaller displays with that res are super-premium features. It's a cost-saving thing, I'm sure.

1920x1200 WAS the standard for high-resolution laptops. I think they lowered the bar and abandoned the power users so they could pass cheaper TV panels off as computer screens.

I do programming in Eclipse or Aptana, and I can understand how a few more lines of code visibility can make a difference, but on the other hand a simple scrollwheel mouse and judicious use of expand boxes kind of render it a non-issue. 120 pixels of vertical resolution certainly wouldn't be a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned, especially when we're talking $1,000 or more.

$1,000 savings on a laptop is peanuts for us and frankly not worth the aggravation. Our standard engineering workstations have 30" monitors with 2560x1600 resolution, we find that a 1920x1200 laptop is the minimum required when we have to go on the road. We'd love to have one step higher resolution if we could find it.

 

[John Albert]

You can still get laptops with 1920x1200 displays. If you go with a major manufacturer besides Apple, you just might have to settle for an older model with a Core2Duo or something (which ought to be more than adequate for offsite coding purposes).

Otherwise, if paying $100 per extra line of resolution is no object, then go ahead and buy the Mac.

If indeed your budget is essentially a bottomless well, you could even choose to pay $600 more and get this outrageous machine that positively smokes the MacBook in every measurable category.

But I still think that the 120-pixel difference is really splitting hairs for a $1000+ difference in price.

 

[John Albert]

Accusing me of talking out of my ass is hardly a criticism of my arguments.

Saying you're "talking out of your ass" is precisely a criticism of your arguments. Specifically, it's criticizing them as being a load of poop.

It's your choice whether or not to get all butthurt and take it personally.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

All of them say that?

Did you bother to investigate the shipping options? For a mere fraction of the $1000+ in savings, one could easily afford to splurge on overnight shipping if one so desired.

Am I to take it you thought the "ships in 4 weeks" meant that they normally use a shipper that takes 4 weeks to deliver??? And you could expedite by choosing overnight shipping???

Really???

 

[OCaptain]

Why are you so hung up on the 1920x1200 resolution? Why isn't the standard 16:9 1920x1080 HD format good enough?

Are you insisting on that particular screen res because you know that all other manufacturers but Apple dropped that display size last year because sales were far too low to justify adding $500-1000 to the purchase price just for a measly ¾" of vertical screen size?

Why would you need that extra ¾" of vertical screen size on a laptop anyway? Just to have ⅜" of black letterboxing on the top and bottom of the screen when watching a movie in full 1080p HD? Talk about your pointless pissing contest.

Anyway, you can get a Lenovo T520 or a Dell XPS 15 with the same or better specs—except a 1920x1080 display—for $1000 less than the MacBook Pro. That's a 40% savings, for ¾" less vertical screen size.

You can also get an HP Envy with far better specs, in an all-aluminum case, for $1200 less than the MacBook Pro. That's almost a 50% savings for the same ¾" smaller vertical screen size.

I'm sure other manufacturers have some even better deals (haven't checked ASUS or Alienware).

So, what you're saying is that when they're specs you think are meaningful, they matter, but when you don't think they're meaningful, they are "a pointless pissing contest".

That's so objective I'm blown away by your flawless logic!

 

[John Albert]

So, what you're saying is that when they're specs you think are meaningful, they matter, but when you don't think they're meaningful, they are "a pointless pissing contest".

That's so objective I'm blown away by your flawless logic!

As I said before, I took all the specs as a whole, not just one single spec.

When comparing two products, one of them marginally better in a single spec, but the other excelling in every other spec at half the price, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one is a better value for the money.

But of course, such an exercise does require general knowledge of the technology, along with the ability to perform quantitative analyses and make objective decisions.

 

[John Albert]

Am I to take it you thought the "ships in 4 weeks" meant that they normally use a shipper that takes 4 weeks to deliver??? And you could expedite by choosing overnight shipping???

Really???

Imagine that. One might actually have the luxury of choice, at a fraction of the price!

The whole wide world is your oyster!

 

[Brian-M]

So, what you're saying is that when they're specs you think are meaningful, they matter, but when you don't think they're meaningful, they are "a pointless pissing contest".

That's so objective I'm blown away by your flawless logic!

I don't understand what you're objecting to. He's shown that these other laptops have equal or superior specs in every regard except screen size... Apple having a nonstandard screen size providing 11% more vertical resolution.

But as far as most people are concerned, the extra vertical resolution isn't as important as features with which other laptops surpass the Macbook, like more memory or processing power.

The intent (as I understand it) wasn't to find a laptop that's better than the Macbook in every measurable way, but to find an equivalent laptop significantly cheaper.

You have been repeatedly presented with details of different laptops which are equivalent to a Macbook at a significantly lower price. Mission accomplished.

But you're insistence on matching screen-size is bizarre.

It's like arguing that your model of family car is better than a whole range of significantly cheaper cars that get equal or better power, fuel efficiency and comfort as your car, simply because your car is the only one in it's class that comes with leather upholstery.

Just because you are one of the very few people with a particular need for the lager sized screen does not make this true for computer users in general.

 

[OCaptain]

As I said before, I took all the specs as a whole, not just one single spec.

When comparing two products, one of them marginally better in a single spec, but the other excelling in every other spec at half the price, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one is a better value for the money.

But of course, such an exercise does require general knowledge of the technology, along with the ability to perform quantitative analyses and make objective decisions.

So you're suggesting that you can predict what the experience will be while using a laptop by preferring hardware specs?

 

[OCaptain]

Imagine that. One might actually have the luxury of choice, at a fraction of the price!

The whole wide world is your oyster!

But you would be wrong on that one, too.

 

[OCaptain]

I don't understand what you're objecting to. He's shown that these other laptops have equal or superior specs in every regard except screen size... Apple having a nonstandard screen size providing 11% more vertical resolution.

But as far as most people are concerned, the extra vertical resolution isn't as important as features with which other laptops surpass the Macbook, like more memory or processing power.

The intent (as I understand it) wasn't to find a laptop that's better than the Macbook in every measurable way, but to find an equivalent laptop significantly cheaper.

You have been repeatedly presented with details of different laptops which are equivalent to a Macbook at a significantly lower price. Mission accomplished.

But you're insistence on matching screen-size is bizarre.

It's like arguing that your model of family car is better than a whole range of significantly cheaper cars that get equal or better power, fuel efficiency and comfort as your car, simply because your car is the only one in it's class that comes with leather upholstery.

Just because you are one of the very few people with a particular need for the lager sized screen does not make this true for computer users in general.

You're confusing me with someone else. I haven't insisted on him producing ANY specs.

 

[kajata]

Why are you so hung up on the 1920x1200 resolution? Why isn't the standard 16:9 1920x1080 HD format good enough?

Are you insisting on that particular screen res because you know that all other manufacturers but Apple dropped that display size last year because sales were far too low to justify adding $500-1000 to the purchase price just for a measly ¾" of vertical screen size?

Why would you need that extra ¾" of vertical screen size on a laptop anyway? Just to have ⅜" of black letterboxing on the top and bottom of the screen when watching a movie in full 1080p HD? Talk about your pointless pissing contest.

Anyway, you can get a Lenovo T520 or a Dell XPS 15 with the same or better specs—except a 1920x1080 display—for $1000 less than the MacBook Pro. That's a 40% savings, for ¾" less vertical screen size.

You can also get an HP Envy with far better specs, in an all-aluminum case, for $1200 less than the MacBook Pro. That's almost a 50% savings for the same ¾" smaller vertical screen size.

I'm sure other manufacturers have some even better deals (haven't checked ASUS or Alienware).

The Dell you mentioned with the better specs is slower in every single category in this review from PC Mag.

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=287468,00.asp

 

[John Albert]

The Dell you mentioned with the better specs is slower in every single category in this review from PC Mag.

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=287468,00.asp

That's because that article compares the wrong one, not the one with the equal or better specs that I was talking about. It compares the Dell with an Intel i5 processor to the MacBook with the Intel i7. The Dell they benchmarked probably has less RAM as well.

If you look at the actual Web page I linked to, you can choose the specs on any of those machines. Choose equal or better specs than the MacBook Pros have, and you'll find that the Dell machines are still $1000 cheaper.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Saying you're "talking out of your ass" is precisely a criticism of your arguments. Specifically, it's criticizing them as being a load of poop.

It's your choice whether or not to get all butthurt and take it personally.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought a "critical thinker" had a better rebuttal than 'your argument is poop'. My bad. Carry on.