Macgasm: Give me a break. Microsoft isn’t cheaper than Apple. Dell might be, but Microsoft isn’t!
Heather
· 8 months ago
The whole marketing campaign has been already proven to be complete bunk. Let's never mind the fact that she was a hired actress and not a "real person." There have already been a hundred articles showing that the price difference is moot when you compare equal machine specs. For what you would get with a basic Mac you would have to pay nearly twice to get a PC to match in speed and storage. I agree completely that this "war" they are fighting doesn't even make sense....Microsoft doesn't make PCs! And anyway, all Microsoft is doing is insulting its own demographic by suggesting that people are too stupid to know all of this.
macgasm
· 7 months ago
I'm not sure that hiring an "actor" is really a "bad" thing. In today's day and age I almost expect anyone in an infomercial to have been paid for their services. But, I'm with you on Microsoft fighting the wrong War.
Joshua M
· 8 months ago
For the main specs (spec for spec) the general Dell, Acer, Cpq, and other laptops are going to be cheaper than MacBooks, but it really isn't an apples for apples comparison (my apologies for the pun). You definitely get superior performance out of the Apple computers as well as the style factor. As an engineer that works in the industry, I see the "other specs" and you can make most of the specs say what you want them to. Look at all the specifications on a MacBook and then look at all the specifications on a high end laptop ... it's the attention to detail (specs like height/pressure -- not needed for the average person, but I like that they ensure robustness). All I know is that my Compaq laptop that I bought appeared to be missing the "F" and "S" keys (after about 1 year), so I couldn't even properly curse at it's performance when writing reviews. My MacBook hasn't ever had a problem -- it also doesn't get up to 45C (that's roughly 120F!) The fan was on so often my housemates called it "The Chopper" -- The Chopper rests now though. Also, with MacBook, I can now easily express how the performance of my "other" laptop was ... It F&#@'in Sucked!
macgasm
· 7 months ago
Frankly I'm surprised that you'd buy a Compaq laptop considering your experiences with your original Presario back in 94-95. ;)
Online Printing Sample
· 8 months ago
Macbooks are really generally more expensive than Dell, Acer, etc. But for the price differences, I think its worth it to get the Mac. Their customer service is excellent. Plus performance wise, the Mac really outshines the competition. So it's all about what you're willing to invest.
ryan
· 8 months ago
Good point. I belive i actually paid 400 bucks for a copy of vista ultimate. Which I have downgraded back to xp.
macgasm
· 7 months ago
Vista pricing schemes were terrible. It's interesting to note that Win7 is currently being given away for free. I believe the word on the street is that users will be able to use the operating system for free... for up to a whole year. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's a great move on Microsoft's part.
Matthew
· 7 months ago
I came across your site from another one and I just wanted to get my 2 cents worth. Apple OS is more buggy than the MS windows XP. I can say this as when I came cross from XP to OSX I had 2 file structure crashes within 4 months. I had to reformat and reinstall everything. I did not have this problem with my XP. I still don't as I went back to my XP after that debacle.
In regards to OS cost I think OSX is actually more expensive given we have had major updates and upgrades for free and if you got the OS since its launch 2001 then compared to the many upgrades that you had to pay Apple for its actually cheaper. That and you don't have to upgrade all your software since MS allows backwards compatibility while OSX does not.
What you are talking about is the initial sticker shock that occurs as opposed to the life time cost.
P.s. I have a macbook pro and its nowhere nearly as well made as my old thinkpad T41p.
Joshua Schnell
· 7 months ago
I think you're mistaken on a number of your key points. Apple security and software updates are free. Upgrading from XP to Vista is a lot more expensive than updating from Tiger to Leopard. Both are milestone releases that cost money.
I've never had a file structure crash. The BSD based OS is a lot more stable then Microsoft's.
Backwards compatibility isn't all it's cracked up to be. Most OS X applications are compatible with newer versions of Apple's OS. Microsoft has taken a similar approach recently with Vista and even more immediately with Win7.
stewbacca
· 7 months ago
LOL, you want Microsoft to enter an OS fight with Apple OSX? Are you sure about that?
All Comments
All I know is that my Compaq laptop that I bought appeared to be missing the "F" and "S" keys (after about 1 year), so I couldn't even properly curse at it's performance when writing reviews. My MacBook hasn't ever had a problem -- it also doesn't get up to 45C (that's roughly 120F!) The fan was on so often my housemates called it "The Chopper" -- The Chopper rests now though.
Also, with MacBook, I can now easily express how the performance of my "other" laptop was ... It F&#@'in Sucked!
In regards to OS cost I think OSX is actually more expensive given we have had major updates and upgrades for free and if you got the OS since its launch 2001 then compared to the many upgrades that you had to pay Apple for its actually cheaper. That and you don't have to upgrade all your software since MS allows backwards compatibility while OSX does not.
What you are talking about is the initial sticker shock that occurs as opposed to the life time cost.
P.s. I have a macbook pro and its nowhere nearly as well made as my old thinkpad T41p.
I've never had a file structure crash. The BSD based OS is a lot more stable then Microsoft's.
Backwards compatibility isn't all it's cracked up to be. Most OS X applications are compatible with newer versions of Apple's OS. Microsoft has taken a similar approach recently with Vista and even more immediately with Win7.