And a computer is far more than the sum of its parts. Please explain the 20% difference in reliability ratings between Apple at #1 and the #2 brand then, if Macs are just cheap crappy PC components.
OSX, quality of life through less time futzing, brand-loyalty, image, because I can, why not, for whatever reason I want, because $1200 isn't a lot of money... I could go on and on, but unlike your post,
here really is no reason why most people would want to spend more than $500 for a regular laptop...there is a valid reason to spend more
I don't feel the need to tell everyone what they should spend their money on and what constitute valid reasons to spend their money.
I consider Vista designed by idiots & Mac OS designed for idiots, so whatever you buy you'll have to install a nice KDE based Linux (SuSE for me)
Gee, I shoulda known...you are an obviously superior geek than us idiots who choose OSX. And here I'm told the Linux community is helpful and inclusive.
Not to mention there is a long history of consumer reports-style evidence showing that Apple has been the most reliable computer brand on the market for the past 15 years, nearly every year. But no, as soon as Apple makes one poorly performing battery, or one cube gets too hot, a few loudmouths jump on slashdot to complain about the Mac Tax, totally disregarding 15 years of a very positive reliability ratings.
Why is it wrong to say that a company that doesn't sell a laptop with screen larger than 13 inches for under $1000 doesn't sell a laptop with a screen larger than 13 inches for under $1000?
It is wrong because it is factually incorrect. For $999 you can get a Macbook with a 13.3" display...just sayin'.
That's my gripe with the "Lauren" commercial. They picked an arbitrary spec (17" monitor) only because they know Apple only sells one model starting at $2800. Had "Lauren" not "needed" a 17" monitor, her options suddenly increase. I have two MacBooks (1st edition, and the latest edition). Even though I have the money, I couldn't justify the extra cost of a 15" MBP. Corporations (hint, target audience of MBP sales) are notorious for throwing huge amounts of money away by not vetting the expense. It's easy to slap a $3000 price tag on a $2000 computer when you know a bunch of pin head business types are going to be doing the purchasing.
The only thing at all correct in your post is your comment about upgrading the video card...
I disagree. Even video card technology has changed so much that when it's time to get a new card, the bus has changed. Here's my anecdote: I started with the original Voodoo I card in a PCI slot. Worked fine. Then PCI was supposedly "too slow" and they started making AGP cards. Then PCI-E. Then I gave up and stopped caring, because I realized I was a grown-up. Now I buy iMacs with the best video-card available, and by the time that video card is supposedly "outdated" it's usually about time for a new computer anyways.
I have one of those mid powered expandable desktops you speak of, a 1999 G4 tower. I upgraded some stuff (the cpu to 800mhz, added some ram, replaced the broken on board ethernet with a PCI card. The computer is still functional, but stopped being productive years ago, no matter how much upgrading I would have done. I'm also not convinced that just because it was expandable, that it had a longer life-span than had I bought a 1999 iMac. I'm now on a two year old Intel iMac. When it stops being productive, I'll buy another one. May not be the cheapest route, but it surely is the most convenient and reliable one.
Why oh why does a 17incher have to be more expensive than a 13"? That's just an arbitrary decision, with no real reason behind it. Ok, a 1920x1200 display may make it more expensive, but that's just it. In fact, the additional size actually should lower costs, not raise them.
This is a pretty sad argument. I'm taking my 42" tv back and demanding a 60" one for the same price! Oh yeah, and there's the whole part about cpu speeds, bus speeds, video cards, etc. being superior on the Macbook Pro than on the Macbook that adds a thousand bucks to the computer, regardless of the price difference in screens.
And then there's the real point that you miss: prices are set by what people will pay, not by what it costs to make. This is why large shoes don't cost more than small shoes of the same brand, but Nike ModelX shoes cost four times as much as Puma ModelY shoes.
And I find nothing wrong with this business model at all (nor does BMW, Audi, et. al.) Dell has no shortage of variety, but it's easy to argue their machines are pretty crappy, in comparison to the relatively few models Apple offers. "Variety" in the form of a $595 generic black tower and a $695 generic black tower with more widgets is not the type of variety I care about, nor does it improve your brand.
On the flip side, if every pseudo-intellectual would quit throwing "correlation is not causation" at every finding ever, it might actually hold weight with people in the middle-ground. Not saying YOU are a pseudo-intellectual--it's just a phrase that every college sophomore (after they took the class as a freshman) likes to use to sound smarter than they are. You could say there's no such thing as causation ever--only high correlations, or you could say that everything is causation (just with a low correlations). It's pedantic, dumb, and a waste of time.
Inbreeding, which causes birth-defects. Since inbreeding is popular with poor people, who live in trailers, and trailers have vinyl flooring, it's a vicious, unbreakable cycle.
I didn't say that. I said people should turn their damned phones off the FIRST time the flight attendant tells them too, instead of holding up the entire flight because you feel too damned important to hang up your stupid phone. Flight attendants shouldn't even have to come to your seat to tell you in the first place since they announce it over the intercom...oh but yeah, you were too busy talking about that important spreadsheet you've been working on to hear, but that's ok, now everyone 10 row ahead and behind now know all your company/personal business AND are inconvenienced, because you are a very important person and the rules don't apply to you. Multiply "you" by about 10-15 idiots per flight and you can see why I wish they'd throw cell phone users out the hatch mid-flight.
The UK is indeed in Europe (I can't believe I even have to write this). There are plenty European countries that don't use the Euro, so that's a dumb-rationale: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Denmark, and Sweden, to name a few.
Europe is a one of the seven continents and the UK belongs to that particular one.
Cars are, first and foremost, for getting from point A to point B. The ideal is to do so comfortably.
Says you. Others say the ideal is to do so quickly, while others say with utility, while others still say with style. Comfort is not the primary feature for all people. That's the only real problem with Tesla right now--you have the option of a really fast, yet impractical roadster, and now a pretty sweet, yet expensive, coupe. Maybe I want/need a hatchback or a pickup truck. (Please Tesla people, build me a 5-door hatchback).
Well you don't want just anyone jumping in and driving away do you? I mean, you can do that with a golf cart, but I would want to be required to "start" my electric car, just so that nobody can break in and drive away.
What's to keep it from closing the door handle and and locking it when you move away? My Mazda (gas powered) does that (although its timer based and not RFID proximity based).
Doesn't it seem like replacing that gaudy touch screen with analog gauges would extend the battery life exponentially? Otherwise, this is the first electric car that passes my "I'd-drive-that" test.
It is time for politicians and parents to stand up and take responsibility for protecting their children from the dangers of history. History contains many scenes of violence, aggression, debauchery and foul language. It is a social issue, and one that effects not just our children but our children's children, and our great grandparents.
It seems to me that such posting of a limited amount copyrighted material for discussion purposes on a public-interest, non-profit Web site falls within the scope of the fair use exemption of US copyright law.
Unless you are an attorney, judge or lawmaker, it really doesn't matter what the law "seems" to you. It seems to me that you are wrong on this one, even if it does suck.
Also, why replace a $20 item (or even less) with a $200 item (or even more) if all you're going to do is watch TV and DVDs with it?
Convenience. Who are you to tell me what the price of convenience should be? $200 is well worth my convenience. The other reason is because watching TV and DVDs is not the only thing that I do with my remote. The most important feature of my remote is the ability to control the DVR and to program recordings (something my universal remote can't do) AND to be able to cycle through all the different surround vs. 2-channel stereo modes on my Yamaha receiver (something my DVR remote can't do).
Perhaps even more important (read, convenient) than that is to turn on or off all the pertinent devices needed for a specific mode with ONE button. Plug in my iPod dock and play 2-channel stereo music, while turning the DVR and TV off, and vice-versa--not an option with traditional "universal remotes".
Slashdot Mirror
a) no, Macs are not significantly more expensive than PCs and
I don't know about that.
Then you obviously didn't read the article, or this thread.
And a computer is far more than the sum of its parts. Please explain the 20% difference in reliability ratings between Apple at #1 and the #2 brand then, if Macs are just cheap crappy PC components.
Two and a half times more for what?
OSX, quality of life through less time futzing, brand-loyalty, image, because I can, why not, for whatever reason I want, because $1200 isn't a lot of money... I could go on and on, but unlike your post,
here really is no reason why most people would want to spend more than $500 for a regular laptop...there is a valid reason to spend more
I don't feel the need to tell everyone what they should spend their money on and what constitute valid reasons to spend their money.
I consider Vista designed by idiots & Mac OS designed for idiots, so whatever you buy you'll have to install a nice KDE based Linux (SuSE for me)
Gee, I shoulda known...you are an obviously superior geek than us idiots who choose OSX. And here I'm told the Linux community is helpful and inclusive.
Not to mention there is a long history of consumer reports-style evidence showing that Apple has been the most reliable computer brand on the market for the past 15 years, nearly every year. But no, as soon as Apple makes one poorly performing battery, or one cube gets too hot, a few loudmouths jump on slashdot to complain about the Mac Tax, totally disregarding 15 years of a very positive reliability ratings.
Why is it wrong to say that a company that doesn't sell a laptop with screen larger than 13 inches for under $1000 doesn't sell a laptop with a screen larger than 13 inches for under $1000?
It is wrong because it is factually incorrect. For $999 you can get a Macbook with a 13.3" display...just sayin'.
That's my gripe with the "Lauren" commercial. They picked an arbitrary spec (17" monitor) only because they know Apple only sells one model starting at $2800. Had "Lauren" not "needed" a 17" monitor, her options suddenly increase. I have two MacBooks (1st edition, and the latest edition). Even though I have the money, I couldn't justify the extra cost of a 15" MBP. Corporations (hint, target audience of MBP sales) are notorious for throwing huge amounts of money away by not vetting the expense. It's easy to slap a $3000 price tag on a $2000 computer when you know a bunch of pin head business types are going to be doing the purchasing.
The only thing at all correct in your post is your comment about upgrading the video card...
I disagree. Even video card technology has changed so much that when it's time to get a new card, the bus has changed. Here's my anecdote: I started with the original Voodoo I card in a PCI slot. Worked fine. Then PCI was supposedly "too slow" and they started making AGP cards. Then PCI-E. Then I gave up and stopped caring, because I realized I was a grown-up. Now I buy iMacs with the best video-card available, and by the time that video card is supposedly "outdated" it's usually about time for a new computer anyways.
I have one of those mid powered expandable desktops you speak of, a 1999 G4 tower. I upgraded some stuff (the cpu to 800mhz, added some ram, replaced the broken on board ethernet with a PCI card. The computer is still functional, but stopped being productive years ago, no matter how much upgrading I would have done. I'm also not convinced that just because it was expandable, that it had a longer life-span than had I bought a 1999 iMac. I'm now on a two year old Intel iMac. When it stops being productive, I'll buy another one. May not be the cheapest route, but it surely is the most convenient and reliable one.
Why oh why does a 17incher have to be more expensive than a 13"? That's just an arbitrary decision, with no real reason behind it. Ok, a 1920x1200 display may make it more expensive, but that's just it. In fact, the additional size actually should lower costs, not raise them.
This is a pretty sad argument. I'm taking my 42" tv back and demanding a 60" one for the same price! Oh yeah, and there's the whole part about cpu speeds, bus speeds, video cards, etc. being superior on the Macbook Pro than on the Macbook that adds a thousand bucks to the computer, regardless of the price difference in screens.
And then there's the real point that you miss: prices are set by what people will pay, not by what it costs to make. This is why large shoes don't cost more than small shoes of the same brand, but Nike ModelX shoes cost four times as much as Puma ModelY shoes.
And I find nothing wrong with this business model at all (nor does BMW, Audi, et. al.) Dell has no shortage of variety, but it's easy to argue their machines are pretty crappy, in comparison to the relatively few models Apple offers. "Variety" in the form of a $595 generic black tower and a $695 generic black tower with more widgets is not the type of variety I care about, nor does it improve your brand.
On the flip side, if every pseudo-intellectual would quit throwing "correlation is not causation" at every finding ever, it might actually hold weight with people in the middle-ground. Not saying YOU are a pseudo-intellectual--it's just a phrase that every college sophomore (after they took the class as a freshman) likes to use to sound smarter than they are. You could say there's no such thing as causation ever--only high correlations, or you could say that everything is causation (just with a low correlations). It's pedantic, dumb, and a waste of time.
Inbreeding, which causes birth-defects. Since inbreeding is popular with poor people, who live in trailers, and trailers have vinyl flooring, it's a vicious, unbreakable cycle.
I didn't say that. I said people should turn their damned phones off the FIRST time the flight attendant tells them too, instead of holding up the entire flight because you feel too damned important to hang up your stupid phone. Flight attendants shouldn't even have to come to your seat to tell you in the first place since they announce it over the intercom...oh but yeah, you were too busy talking about that important spreadsheet you've been working on to hear, but that's ok, now everyone 10 row ahead and behind now know all your company/personal business AND are inconvenienced, because you are a very important person and the rules don't apply to you. Multiply "you" by about 10-15 idiots per flight and you can see why I wish they'd throw cell phone users out the hatch mid-flight.
The UK is indeed in Europe (I can't believe I even have to write this). There are plenty European countries that don't use the Euro, so that's a dumb-rationale: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Denmark, and Sweden, to name a few.
Europe is a one of the seven continents and the UK belongs to that particular one.
Did I miss the sarcasm somewhere?
I miss your point. How is paying $16.67 a month for 36 months better than paying $600 once?
...if it gets all those self-important jerks to put their stupid phones away and quit sharing their conversations with everyone on the plane.
After six hours of often mind-numbing debate...
The fact there is even a debate is the only mind-numbing thing about this.
Cars are, first and foremost, for getting from point A to point B. The ideal is to do so comfortably.
Says you. Others say the ideal is to do so quickly, while others say with utility, while others still say with style. Comfort is not the primary feature for all people. That's the only real problem with Tesla right now--you have the option of a really fast, yet impractical roadster, and now a pretty sweet, yet expensive, coupe. Maybe I want/need a hatchback or a pickup truck. (Please Tesla people, build me a 5-door hatchback).
Well you don't want just anyone jumping in and driving away do you? I mean, you can do that with a golf cart, but I would want to be required to "start" my electric car, just so that nobody can break in and drive away.
What's to keep it from closing the door handle and and locking it when you move away? My Mazda (gas powered) does that (although its timer based and not RFID proximity based).
Doesn't it seem like replacing that gaudy touch screen with analog gauges would extend the battery life exponentially? Otherwise, this is the first electric car that passes my "I'd-drive-that" test.
...eliminate the rather ominous-sounding position of "Minister of Social Affairs".
It is time for politicians and parents to stand up and take responsibility for protecting their children from the dangers of history. History contains many scenes of violence, aggression, debauchery and foul language. It is a social issue, and one that effects not just our children but our children's children, and our great grandparents.
Where's the sarcasm tag?
It seems to me that such posting of a limited amount copyrighted material for discussion purposes on a public-interest, non-profit Web site falls within the scope of the fair use exemption of US copyright law.
Unless you are an attorney, judge or lawmaker, it really doesn't matter what the law "seems" to you. It seems to me that you are wrong on this one, even if it does suck.
Also, why replace a $20 item (or even less) with a $200 item (or even more) if all you're going to do is watch TV and DVDs with it?
Convenience. Who are you to tell me what the price of convenience should be? $200 is well worth my convenience. The other reason is because watching TV and DVDs is not the only thing that I do with my remote. The most important feature of my remote is the ability to control the DVR and to program recordings (something my universal remote can't do) AND to be able to cycle through all the different surround vs. 2-channel stereo modes on my Yamaha receiver (something my DVR remote can't do).
Perhaps even more important (read, convenient) than that is to turn on or off all the pertinent devices needed for a specific mode with ONE button. Plug in my iPod dock and play 2-channel stereo music, while turning the DVR and TV off, and vice-versa--not an option with traditional "universal remotes".