Why do people always bring this up? Does anybody seriously believe that the IE team gives two shits about what Opera does?
The features that they added were a direct response to the features in Firefox. Opera may have had it first, but it was never even part of the equation as far as Microsoft was concerned. Deal with it.
And there was a time, long ago, when idiots didn't give you shit for making money doing what you love to do.
Do you really think Jerry Seinfeld still even needs a paycheck to live comfortably? Do you have any idea what he was being paid during the last season of Seinfeld?
Have you looked at ANY software in the last, say, 10 years? Beta means "incomplete". The specifics of what about it is incomplete is different from company to company, programmer to programmer.
I did not miss your point. You, however, missed mine: I am not poor, I am merely pragmatic, and will only pay a premium for tangible features of actual value to my productivity.
They are monopolistic, not a monopoly. If we suddenly found Apple to have a 90% market share tomorrow, they would be just as much of a monopoly as Microsoft (perhaps moreso, in some respects).
Or perhaps Apple will simply continue supporting the hardware it does, while other companies support the hardware that they sell OS X on, and Apple will be forced to lower its over-the-top hardware prices in order to compete with other OS X machines.
"Weight is a non-issue when the vast majority of laptops (including the Macbook I looked at) are around 5 lbs in weight, with very little variation except for in extreme cases."
Even a "small" difference in weight is a huge difference in the long run.
In the long run, I have found that things under 10 lbs in weight produce the same amount of weariness on me no matter how long I carry them for (except for the cases of the obscenely small, such as a pencil. YMMV.)
If we were discussing the Macbook Air, I think I could concede this point, but I have been talking about the standard Macbook.
- HP felt cheaper and flimsy, MBP felt sturdy and solid
How things "feel" is subjective. This opinion is likely true to you. Personally, every Macbook I've touched feels like I could snap it in half with my bare hands.
- MBP had a backlit keyboard which made typing in low-light conditions easy and great. HP had nothing like that. Also the keyboard on the MBP was better than on the HP.
I will concede the backlight, but whether or not the keyboard itself was "better" is subjective. I personally can't stand the keyboards on a Macbook. Likely it's a matter of personal preference.
- MBP is made of aluminum, HP was made from plastic. The metal simply feels better during use.
Unless your laptop's primary function is to rub it against yourself, I don't see how it "feels" as a major feature.
Also, I don't recall, are standard Macbooks made of aluminum as well?
- MBP was considerably thinner, and therefore easier to carry. It was also lighter than the HP.
Discussed above.
- MBP had FW800-port, which was (and is) very useful when using it with my external HD's.
This depends on your peripherals. I don't tend to use firewire.
- The Magsafe. My co-worker actually managed to damage his HP because someone tripped on the powercord when the laptop was on his desk.
I would concede this.
- Then there's the overall design. MBP had smooth and clean lines, HP was jagged, full of stickers, unclean surfaces etc. HP was full of LEDs that kept on telling me "useful" information ("I'm accessing the HD right now! Thought you might want to know!") but in reality they only accomplished to distract me Some people might not care. But then again, some people prefer Ladas....
So, for you, prettiness is a major feature. For me it is not.
Those are all qualities that do not appear in the comparisons where people proclaim "But you can get X MHz more on the PC than on the Mac for the same amount of money!".
If I may be blunt: perhaps the reason they do not appear is because nearly all of them are completely irrelevant to the actual functionality of the laptop.
They might be features you like, but they hardly justify the harsh premium I would have to pay. To me it isn't worth it.
And I only listed qualities that I used, there are others that I had no need for, but are still present. Like the optical audiojacks in the MBP.
I'm puzzled by the presence of such features in any laptop. I would gladly give them up for a more reasonable price.
First: I apologize for both not making enough money to be able to "Pay an extra $500 just to get OS X instead of Vista."
Second: I could have also gotten a 3-year accident-inclusive warranty and gotten a totally new laptop in the event of my current one being run over by a truck, and STILL have paid less money than I would have for a Macbook.
Third: I said the HP laptop I compared had better specs. (Faster processer, more RAM, more HDD space, better video, longer-lasting battery, etc, etc...) not that its parts were better in general. If I had gone out of my way to bring the parts "in line" with the specs of the Macbook, I would have saved an additional $200 easily. Is a difference of $400 or more enough to make you sweat yet? It is for me.
I don't doubt that what you say is true, but even in that situation, the difference between 5 and 6 lbs is negligible; it starts to weigh on you in more or less the same amount of time.
So, weight is a non-issue on a device that is meant to be carried with you? O.... K....
Weight is a non-issue when the vast majority of laptops (including the Macbook I looked at) are around 5 lbs in weight, with very little variation except for in extreme cases.
The problem with the Mac vs. PC-comparison is that 98% of them rely on paper-specs. People stare at the specs and the price and then determine the "winner". What they utterly fail to understand is that there are more to computers than mere specs.
Such as the pretty case? I'm sure you have good examples, so please share them so that I might consider them.
I went back to the models I compared, and the Macbook is 5 lbs, whereas the HP is 6. In my mind the difference is hardly enough to justify a difference of over $200 in cost alone, and who knows what the difference is in value of components (as I indicated previously, the HP has superior specs).
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people always bring this up? Does anybody seriously believe that the IE team gives two shits about what Opera does?
The features that they added were a direct response to the features in Firefox. Opera may have had it first, but it was never even part of the equation as far as Microsoft was concerned. Deal with it.
Kids are by definition less intelligent then adults
Kids are only as stupid as their parents. If you don't believe this, you're part of that problem.
You support QT as the best cross-platform toolkit because it's the toolkit used by KDE? And you don't see the problem with this logic?
Actually...
And there was a time, long ago, when idiots didn't give you shit for making money doing what you love to do. Do you really think Jerry Seinfeld still even needs a paycheck to live comfortably? Do you have any idea what he was being paid during the last season of Seinfeld?
Have you looked at ANY software in the last, say, 10 years? Beta means "incomplete". The specifics of what about it is incomplete is different from company to company, programmer to programmer.
2008 is calling... we and ours LANs miss you. Please come back.
There's also another saying: RTFA.
har har, oh wait, maybe its interface really does suck?
It's first person.
Did you even play Hellgate?
Hellgate: London sucked and therefore they didn't make any money.
Seconded.
*Applause all around*
Ah, Twitter. I was starting to miss you and the phrase 'M$'. Slashdot has seemed too rational without you.
This is by far the loudest "whoosh!" I have ever seen.
I did not miss your point. You, however, missed mine: I am not poor, I am merely pragmatic, and will only pay a premium for tangible features of actual value to my productivity.
They are monopolistic, not a monopoly. If we suddenly found Apple to have a 90% market share tomorrow, they would be just as much of a monopoly as Microsoft (perhaps moreso, in some respects).
Or perhaps Apple will simply continue supporting the hardware it does, while other companies support the hardware that they sell OS X on, and Apple will be forced to lower its over-the-top hardware prices in order to compete with other OS X machines.
"Weight is a non-issue when the vast majority of laptops (including the Macbook I looked at) are around 5 lbs in weight, with very little variation except for in extreme cases."
Even a "small" difference in weight is a huge difference in the long run.
In the long run, I have found that things under 10 lbs in weight produce the same amount of weariness on me no matter how long I carry them for (except for the cases of the obscenely small, such as a pencil. YMMV.)
If we were discussing the Macbook Air, I think I could concede this point, but I have been talking about the standard Macbook.
- HP felt cheaper and flimsy, MBP felt sturdy and solid
How things "feel" is subjective. This opinion is likely true to you. Personally, every Macbook I've touched feels like I could snap it in half with my bare hands.
- MBP had a backlit keyboard which made typing in low-light conditions easy and great. HP had nothing like that. Also the keyboard on the MBP was better than on the HP.
I will concede the backlight, but whether or not the keyboard itself was "better" is subjective. I personally can't stand the keyboards on a Macbook. Likely it's a matter of personal preference.
- MBP is made of aluminum, HP was made from plastic. The metal simply feels better during use.
Unless your laptop's primary function is to rub it against yourself, I don't see how it "feels" as a major feature.
Also, I don't recall, are standard Macbooks made of aluminum as well?
- MBP was considerably thinner, and therefore easier to carry. It was also lighter than the HP.
Discussed above.
- MBP had FW800-port, which was (and is) very useful when using it with my external HD's.
This depends on your peripherals. I don't tend to use firewire.
- The Magsafe. My co-worker actually managed to damage his HP because someone tripped on the powercord when the laptop was on his desk.
I would concede this.
- Then there's the overall design. MBP had smooth and clean lines, HP was jagged, full of stickers, unclean surfaces etc. HP was full of LEDs that kept on telling me "useful" information ("I'm accessing the HD right now! Thought you might want to know!") but in reality they only accomplished to distract me Some people might not care. But then again, some people prefer Ladas....
So, for you, prettiness is a major feature. For me it is not.
Those are all qualities that do not appear in the comparisons where people proclaim "But you can get X MHz more on the PC than on the Mac for the same amount of money!".
If I may be blunt: perhaps the reason they do not appear is because nearly all of them are completely irrelevant to the actual functionality of the laptop.
They might be features you like, but they hardly justify the harsh premium I would have to pay. To me it isn't worth it.
And I only listed qualities that I used, there are others that I had no need for, but are still present. Like the optical audiojacks in the MBP.
I'm puzzled by the presence of such features in any laptop. I would gladly give them up for a more reasonable price.
Three things.
First: I apologize for both not making enough money to be able to "Pay an extra $500 just to get OS X instead of Vista."
Second: I could have also gotten a 3-year accident-inclusive warranty and gotten a totally new laptop in the event of my current one being run over by a truck, and STILL have paid less money than I would have for a Macbook.
Third: I said the HP laptop I compared had better specs. (Faster processer, more RAM, more HDD space, better video, longer-lasting battery, etc, etc...) not that its parts were better in general. If I had gone out of my way to bring the parts "in line" with the specs of the Macbook, I would have saved an additional $200 easily. Is a difference of $400 or more enough to make you sweat yet? It is for me.
Also, just to clarify, I carry my laptop around with me every day. I don't even own a docking station.
I don't doubt that what you say is true, but even in that situation, the difference between 5 and 6 lbs is negligible; it starts to weigh on you in more or less the same amount of time.
Because I live in reality, where 5 and 6 lbs are both obscenely light, but $200 can go a long way?
"Weight is a non-issue in most laptops, sorry."
So, weight is a non-issue on a device that is meant to be carried with you? O.... K....
Weight is a non-issue when the vast majority of laptops (including the Macbook I looked at) are around 5 lbs in weight, with very little variation except for in extreme cases.
The problem with the Mac vs. PC-comparison is that 98% of them rely on paper-specs. People stare at the specs and the price and then determine the "winner". What they utterly fail to understand is that there are more to computers than mere specs.
Such as the pretty case? I'm sure you have good examples, so please share them so that I might consider them.
I went back to the models I compared, and the Macbook is 5 lbs, whereas the HP is 6. In my mind the difference is hardly enough to justify a difference of over $200 in cost alone, and who knows what the difference is in value of components (as I indicated previously, the HP has superior specs).