That's the whole problem; there is no comparable Dell, since Dell and all the others make only half of a computer, whereas Apple makes an integrated whole system. If you read for context, you'll see that the person asked us to configure a Dell with comparable hardware. The point was that Dell's hardware is cheaper than Apple's hardware. One of the ancestors posited that if Apple allowed OS X to be installed by other OEMs, that they'd be undercut with the prices.
Let me distill the time line.
Nursie: If big name manufacturers put OS X on their computers, Apple wouldn't sell nearly as many because they'd be undercut in price.
MightyYar: I think you'll change your opinion if you go configure a comparable Dell.
Me: Hey look, comparable Dell hardware costs $400 less. If Apple really did license OS X to Dell, they'd be undercut.
Everyone else: You don't get it! OS X is what makes Apple so awesome! You can't compare a Dell with Windows to a Mac with OS X.
a) The guy I replied to said that we should configure a comparable Dell. If he didn't think that it was reasonable to compare a Dell to a Mac, he shouldn't have done that.
b) The guy he responded to was talking about vendors putting OS X on non-Apple hardware, so any discussion about the value of OS X over Windows are immediately irrelevant. In this discussion, we're talking about OS X on that Dell.
The requirements to run OS X on Intel requires a processor which supports the SSE3 instruction set. My notebook (and indeed, many notebooks from 2004) don't support the SSE3 instruction set. Therefore, my laptop will not run OS X (even fixed to emulate EFI and report that it's running on Apple hardware).
There's a third-party patch to get it working without SSE3, and I suspect that if I used this, it would work fine. However I haven't tried that.
A lot of the nice things about OS X is specifically with design choices, not apparent quality. Windows has been fairly stable for a while now, but the interface is just awful.
Regardless, Apple could license OS X only for use with specific (tested) combinations of hardware. But they'll never do that, for the reasons listed in this thread.
Even if talking about software were relevant in general, it's not relevant in this case as we're discussing reasons why Apple will/not/ release OS X for non-Apple hardware. Please see one of the ancestor posts to mine: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=552648&cid=23402958
No, sir, you are missing the point. Go back up a few posts to get some context:
If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=552648&cid=23402958
The point is that we're talking about non-Apple PC manufacturers installing OS X in the event that Apple were to license OS X for non-Apple hardware. For heaven's sake, the point of it all is right there in the subject line! The subtext is that Apple will never do this because then they'd only be able to sell computers to people who want "something shiny." Everyone else would flock to Dell now available in OS X!
You missed the wedge shape. Oops, you're right, of course.
I also don't know what you want to use for size. Well, I thought that you were using flawed numbers. Sorry for the mistake.
I'd argue it's a problem comparing two dissimilar models of notebook. Please.
You asked why 20% cost was significant, but 25% volme wasn't. I answered that it was because we were talking about two different things.
I do think that comparing dissimilar models is difficult, but you were the one who suggested that someone compare a comparable Dell.
It went something like this:
Nursie: If someone else got in the game [of offering OS X], Apple would find themselves undercut. You: Try configuring a comparable Dell. I think you'll change your mind. Me: Here's a comparable Dell. You: You can't compare that, because it's got different dimensions.
I'm sorry, but you're the one who posited that it was even possible to configure a comparable Dell, and implied that it would be similar in price to Apple's hardware (by saying that they were competitive to the point of sometimes being cheaper.) I can't find any Dells with the same dimensions as a Macbook Pro (though I'm open to discussing it if you find one--Dell's website is a bear to navigate.)
Put in this context, either a) the suggestion to build a Dell was a trap in order to later point out the features of Apple hardware that Dell does not offer, or b) you're backpedaling by using those extra features now that it's been pointed out that Dell comes out at 20% ($400 in this case) cheaper.
You're absolutely right that once you start talking about trading off features, it's purely opinion-based. But you're the one who suggested that it was even possible to compare them directly.
I would also pay more to NOT have a finger print reader. More ugly, obtrusive, and useless features are not a perk. It was a free option when I priced the Dell. You can have it removed, and I don't think that not having it there leaves evidence of the removed feature (i.e. no panel that looks like it might have held a fingerprint reader at one time.)
By by the same token, Macbook Pros have features I'd rather not have. Who wants firewire these days? Ok, video editors, but I'm not one of those. Who wants iLife? Neither my wife nor I have used it in a little over 18 months of combined Mac use.
Not trying to sound like a Mac fanboy, but a lot of value is completely subjective, and not reducible to base system stats. Absolutely. But MightyYar thought that the base system stats were important enough, or else he wouldn't have posed the suggestion to configure the Dell in the first place.
25% is a big difference in notebook size. It depends on what you mean by "size". If it's volume (like you suggested), keep in mind that that's 25% difference spread out amongst all three dimensions.
But when I went to actually go look, the numbers don't bear you out.
The Dell XPS M1530 has the following dimensions (according to Dell:
14.06" Width 0.93" Height 10.34" Depth
The Macbook Pro has the following dimensions (according to Apple: 14.1" Width 1" Height 9.6" Depth
Frankly, I was astonished by this. The Dell beats out the Apple in 2 of the dimensions, and loses by less than an inch in the third. That's not a 25% difference in volume. I'd go so far as to say that it's an insignificant difference in each dimension, and so the Mac can't gain any points there.
Half a pound is also big, but is only 10% of the weight. If we're being pedantic, the stock weights differ by 3.8 pounds. The larger battery on the Dell will increase this a bit, though. Weight is really only going to be a factor for smaller people, too. Larger people will probably barely be able to notice the difference. I'd call that maybe half-a-point in my new and arbitrary point system.
If size wasn't that big of an issue, then why are you pricing out the high-end lightweights instead of MacBooks and Inspirons? I don't know. I think that I picked the Macbook Pro because I want one:) And I picked that Dell because it was the second one I came to in the list that matched the screen size of the MBP (the first being the Inspiron, which I also compared to the MBP, but which lacks discrete graphics.)
At the very least, I don't see why you would consider a 25% size difference inconsequential, yet you find a 20% cost difference to be important. Well, as I said, the 25% size difference would be spread across three dimensions. If it was 25% smaller in each dimension, then I'd consider it pretty substantial. But moreover, being 25% smaller isn't going to have a lot of use cases. It's not going to be significantly easier to tote around. It's not going to fit in a lot of places where the larger one wouldn't. It doesn't add significant usability. $400 is (to me, at least) significant usability. I could buy lots of accessories for my notebook for that much. That's more than 10 iTunes TV show downloads. That's a bunch of DVDs which I can rip to watch on my notebook. That's 25-30 CDs. That's an iPod Touch plus some music from ITMS.
That's the problem with comparing percentages of non-like measurements. If the cost of the MBP was $100, I wouldn't consider 20% to be significant because I couldn't buy much with it. If the volume were 10 sq. ft., 25% might be pretty significant.
Ah! I didn't see that he'd changed the subject line. Sorry to the original poster! Changing the subject and using that to lead in to your post always confuses me.
I addressed the software issue in another post. I think that what it boils down to is that it's too hard to compare the systems, but my post was merely a response to the request from another poster to "configure a Dell." Other people then started attacking my post as though it were flawed because I didn't include their idea of a fair comparison. Guess what? That wasn't what the person to whom I responded was asking for.
Where are you getting these numbers? Can you provide a link?
OS X (non-server) only costs $130. It's only considered an upgrade because you aren't allowed to install it on non-Apple hardware, according to the EULA, and if you've purchased Apple hardware, you have a copy of Mac OS (ergo, you're upgrading.) In fact, Apple's store's main page for Leopard doesn't even have the word "upgrade" on it. I don't know where you're getting this idea.
Yes, the M1530 is cheaper and it is also consumer laptop. And the justifications begin....
I own a Precision M70 now, and I've handled XPS notebooks. The build quality is pretty damned similar. Unless Dell's stepped up the quality in their more recent notebooks, I don't think that moving up to the M4300 is necessary to make a fair comparison.
The M4300, incidentally, includes a significantly different graphics card. Twice the video memory (which is more costly than system memory), but it renders for correctness instead of speed (making it more suitable for 3D design and less suitable for gaming than the card which comes in the XPS I quoted and the MBP.) You also can't configure the Dell with a 200GB hard drive unless you also bump up the speed to 7200 (and a free-fall sensor--does the Macs have this? Does it/really/ even do anything? It's a new one on me to see this on Dell's page.) The "sale price" is also pretty misleading. Although the actual numbers and percentages change, Dell notebooks are basically always "on sale." Apple notebooks never are, unless you're getting them from someone who's liquidating stock (you can get Dells this way too) or refurb (same with Dells.)
In fact, I have chose MBP for my job over Thinkpad and Precision notebook simply because of the reliability of OSX. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's not reasonable to discuss software in this debate. The post to which I replied asked that someone configure a Dell with similar specs and look at the price. Because OS X is artificially restricted from running on non-Apple computers, its inclusion in debates over whether Apple hardware is overpriced is really not reasonable. If it weren't artificially restricted, I would absolutely consider the fact that you get OS X "free" with the MBP to be a point in its favor.
-- You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one Incidentally, I now have to wonder if you're capable of objectively discussing this issue.
1. Vista Home != Leopard. I think you need to add the $130 or $150 to upgrade Vista to Business or Ultimate to make that a fair comparison. Upgrading to Business isn't a fair comparison, because Business doesn't include a lot of the features in Home Premium. Then again, the differences between Home Premium and Ultimate are fairly small, too.
But it doesn't make sense to compare software in this case. If you compare software, you can set an arbitrary price for "pre-installed OS X" to make up any difference in the cost of the notebooks.
I really just think that it's hilarious what people will come up with to try to justify the extra costs. Half a pound and a tiny reduction in size (the volume difference doesn't change the dimensions that much.) justifies $400?
Feel free to read through some of my other posts. I'm not an Apple hater. I like their products, and I'm typing this on an iMac 20" right now. I just don't think that the statement, "Apples don't cost THAT much more than comparable Dells," is a reasonable one.
Since those are included by default, and you can't remove that cost from the Macs, they should be added to the Dell you are comparing them to. Can you explain what you mean? I didn't subtract anything from the cost of the Mac. I took the stock MBP at $1999 and configured a Dell to match those specs as closely as I could. The Dell had ever so slightly more drive space and battery capacity at a lower price. Even if you discount those additions, the cost difference is nearly $400.
If you're going to make this an OS X machine, the hardware I provided may not be suitable--I don't know what the compatibility is like for the various components. But you'd have to add in OS X, of course, which comes for "free" on the Apple. So you could reasonably add $130 to the cost of each Dell, and subtract $50 from the cost of the first Dell that I mentioned (which I upgraded to Vista Home Premium.) Of course, if you ever want to install Windows on your MBP, you have to adjust the costs accordingly.
The first comparison doesn't count because discrete graphics is a huge upgrade (no graphics intensive gaming without it). It depends upon the game. I haven't seen too many graphics-intensive games for OS X. If gaming is really part of your end goal, then you realistically want to add in about $200 to the cost of the Mac in order to purchase Windows. If you want to game in a virtual machine (which is becoming more and more feasible with the new releases of VMWare Fusion) then you add in $70 or so for the cost of that.
But below, I discuss why it's silly to discuss software for this exercise. If you want to discuss software, please pay attention to what I said above. If you don't want to discuss software, the I'll ignore OS X and its features as a benefit. You aren't allowed to have it both ways.
You fail to mention that:
1. OSX has better battery management than Windows, so "battery capacity" is subjective. Battary capacity is not subjective. Battery life might be considered subjective, but even then, it's not based upon opinion or individual bias (as the term subjective implies)--rather, battery life on identical hardware is quite objectively different depending upon the software in use.
And once we start talking about differences in software, we're throwing the entire argument out of the window, because it's like comparing apples to oranges. I'm a huge fan of OS X. It's great software. I can't use Windows Vista without cursing like a sailor, because it's not just user-unfriendly, it's user-hostile. So if you want to talk about software, we're talking about an argument that can't be resolved with, "Go configure a similarly spec'd Dell." It doesn't even make sense to suggest that one do that if you're including software in the discussion.
The point is not that Apple computers cost more, the point is that Apple hardware costs more. In some cases, it's not a lot more, and in some cases it is.
2. The quality of the hardware components are not identical Again, you're stepping outside of the bounds of the task presented. The quality is NEVER going to be identical, so when asking someone to "go configure a Dell with the same specs", you have to assume that this will be the case.
3. You don't mention which OS the Dell is configured with... I would put OSX somewhere between Vista Ultimate or the XP "Upgrade"... which probably adds some $$ to your dell comparisons. You got me there. I put Home Premium on both machines. Upgrading from Home Premium to Ultimate is (iirc) around $150 which, incidentally, is close to the retail price for OS X (at $130.)
It's usually pretty hard to configure a machine with identical specs to the Apple, but I did my best.
Apple MBP $1999 Dell Inspiron 1525 $1428. The Dell is missing dedicated graphics, includes 50GB more hard drive space, and has a higher capacity battery.
Apple MBP $1999 Dell XPS M1530 $1602 Dell has 50GB more hard drive space, higher capacity battery, and a fingerprint reader. Otherwise, as far as I can see, the specs are identical.
When this line of MBPs came out, they were competitive. But Apple won't drop their prices as components decrease in price (it's where they make the bulk of their money!) while Dell does. So right now, you can get an equivalent Dell for almost $400 less than the MBP, and it's got better specs in a couple of areas.
Of course, whether or not this is competitive is pretty subjective.
When Apple does an update, they tend to be using top-of-the-line, bleeding edge hardware. When you compare a freshly-updated MBP to other notebooks, the price/performance ratio is usually in Apple's favor, or very, very close to it. Apple makes their profits when parts prices fall, because they keep their prices the same. Near the end of a product's refresh cycle, Apple products look like horrible deals. Near the beginning, they're quite competitive. Unfortunately, people tend to remember the bad and spout off their vitriol even when the Apple machine is a perfectly good deal.
And then, as you alluded, there's the issue of options. With Apple, you just don't get very many. Even though OS X would probably run fine on a budget notebook, Apple doesn't offer budget products. It probably works in their favor--companies usually have fairly slim margins on their budget lines, and there are plenty of people who buy Apple computers simply to get OS X.
My primary machine is a 4 year old Dell notebook. It plays Youtube just fine, handles Java, scans, prints, and edits photos (using Gimp) like a champ. (It doesn't run OS X, due to a lack of CPU instructions (no SSE3, though I hear that there's a patch to get that working.)
Looking over the laptops at bestbuy.com, the ones that cost $500 are generally superior or equal to my notebook in every dimension[0]. Bump it up to $600, and you can find plenty of notebooks that are better in every way[0].
Heading over to Dell, $500 gets you roughly the same specs as the notebooks at bestbuy.com. Don't like the Celeron? Bump up the cost $50 and you don't have to have one.
If I could find any actual $400 notebooks, I would compare those specs, but such beasts don't seem to exist outside of sales, and I can't find any sales right now for them. I'm not the person to whom you were replying, anyway, so it's not like $400 was my claim. But it doesn't look hard to find notebooks with prices approaching that that are more than suitable for the tasks you're talking about.
[0] Except for screen resolution, but then, Macs have pretty crappy options for this, too.
Good or bad, the point is that there are legitimate concerns with packaging up binaries from a modified source tree. A lot of people blasted Mozilla for their actions--I wonder what these people think now that there's an example of this sort of thing.
The only way it could be better (for Mozilla) is if people blamed OpenSSL for the problem--which someone did a little lower in the comments, but I don't think that it's the general consensus.
Imagine if Microsoft reserved the right to modify any software for Windows in any way it saw fit! Yet that's exactly what Debian (and Fedora and Mandrake and Ubuntu) said to me - they reserve the right to make any modifications they like to the software they ship, and if upstream don't like it, tough luck. Well, the GPL basically allows this.
Though there are concerns with naming conventions. Mozilla seemingly foresaw this problem and demanded that non-official releases be named differently to avoid confusion in the event that the package maintainers introduce bugs. This is why we have Iceweasel on Debian instead of Firefox.
USENET's killer feature is that the data is separated from the program. I can read USENET with multiple clients, as long as they adhere to the same protocol.
With forums, I have to use a web browser. In some cases, I have to use a web browser with certain features (Javascript, for example.) I can't download all of the posts for offline perusal, and I'm limited to whatever crappy search function is implemented in that forum software.
Java has been succesful at this (as well as other languages that can run on top of the JavaVM), Flash has been succesful These work in the web browser. There's little obvious difference between these technologies and "the Internet" as far as the common person is concerned.
Let's not talk about enabling things in different ways, let's talk instead about how, after all these years with ever-increasing hardware performance, we're building layers upon layers of inefficient software so we can have crappy application performance all over again. Trying to run applications with Javascript in a browser on a mobile phone, can it get more wasteful than that? There are really two problems here.
One of the problems is data. I want access to my data. I want access to it anywhere. When I'm at a restaurant, I want to be able to pull out my phone and check my calendar, my mail, even open a file on my desktop. When I'm on a business trip, I want the same access on my laptop.
There are lots of solutions to the data problem--some of them are fairly old. IMAP is a really handy protocol for keeping your mail accessible from just about anywhere, for example.
The other problem is user-friendlyness. Consistency is part of this. There are lots and lots of Internet users who, when confronted with a new and unfamiliar interface, will simply freeze up. I'm sure that it's largely psychological, but ultimately, the underlying cause is irrelevant. People want consistency in how they access their data.
The solution to this problem lies in Google Gears and similar technologies. It lies in allowing the web browser to be a portal into your data (though allowing access in other ways is important, too, so that people who don't mind other, more efficient interfaces can use them.)
Google handles both problems simultaneously, and quite well. If I want to use the Google Mail interface while I'm offline, I can. If I want to access my data without using javascript in a browser, I can do that with either IMAP or POP.
And play with your modem inits. This one lets me get 115200... Uh, no, it really doesn't.
The data rate reported to the OS depends upon the AT command string. One of the options (I don't remember which) tells the modem to report back the connection speed to the local computer, while a different option tells the modem to report back the connection speed to the remote modem. In this case, your connection string is doing the former.
If that's really your command string, then your modem must be reporting the local connection speed by default (possibly a trick by the manufacturer to make you think that your modem is faster than it really is.) This is because &F tells the modem to just use factory defaults, unless specified in the command string. &C1 only deals with detecting connection status--on or off, not speed, and &D2 tells the modem how to handle the transition between sending and receiving data.
While there are command strings that may get you better performance, generally speaking, modems are made to be incapable of transmitting higher than 53k due to FCC restrictions. The modems themselves have hardware capable of transmitting 56k (and are marketed as such). Going higher would require different hardware than analog modems manufacturers were making in 1999, and would be a violation of FCC requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
....we should configure a comparable Dell....That's the whole problem; there is no comparable Dell, since Dell and all the others make only half of a computer, whereas Apple makes an integrated whole system. If you read for context, you'll see that the person asked us to configure a Dell with comparable hardware. The point was that Dell's hardware is cheaper than Apple's hardware. One of the ancestors posited that if Apple allowed OS X to be installed by other OEMs, that they'd be undercut with the prices.
Let me distill the time line.
Nursie: If big name manufacturers put OS X on their computers, Apple wouldn't sell nearly as many because they'd be undercut in price.
MightyYar: I think you'll change your opinion if you go configure a comparable Dell.
Me: Hey look, comparable Dell hardware costs $400 less. If Apple really did license OS X to Dell, they'd be undercut.
Everyone else: You don't get it! OS X is what makes Apple so awesome! You can't compare a Dell with Windows to a Mac with OS X.
Me: You missed the point. Go reread the thread.
Everyone else: You still don't get it!!
Me: Why do I even bother?
Reread the ancestor posts.
a) The guy I replied to said that we should configure a comparable Dell. If he didn't think that it was reasonable to compare a Dell to a Mac, he shouldn't have done that.
b) The guy he responded to was talking about vendors putting OS X on non-Apple hardware, so any discussion about the value of OS X over Windows are immediately irrelevant. In this discussion, we're talking about OS X on that Dell.
The requirements to run OS X on Intel requires a processor which supports the SSE3 instruction set. My notebook (and indeed, many notebooks from 2004) don't support the SSE3 instruction set. Therefore, my laptop will not run OS X (even fixed to emulate EFI and report that it's running on Apple hardware).
There's a third-party patch to get it working without SSE3, and I suspect that if I used this, it would work fine. However I haven't tried that.
A lot of the nice things about OS X is specifically with design choices, not apparent quality. Windows has been fairly stable for a while now, but the interface is just awful.
Regardless, Apple could license OS X only for use with specific (tested) combinations of hardware. But they'll never do that, for the reasons listed in this thread.
Even if talking about software were relevant in general, it's not relevant in this case as we're discussing reasons why Apple will /not/ release OS X for non-Apple hardware. Please see one of the ancestor posts to mine:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=552648&cid=23402958
The point is that we're talking about non-Apple PC manufacturers installing OS X in the event that Apple were to license OS X for non-Apple hardware. For heaven's sake, the point of it all is right there in the subject line! The subtext is that Apple will never do this because then they'd only be able to sell computers to people who want "something shiny." Everyone else would flock to Dell now available in OS X!
You asked why 20% cost was significant, but 25% volme wasn't. I answered that it was because we were talking about two different things.
I do think that comparing dissimilar models is difficult, but you were the one who suggested that someone compare a comparable Dell.
It went something like this:
Nursie: If someone else got in the game [of offering OS X], Apple would find themselves undercut.
You: Try configuring a comparable Dell. I think you'll change your mind.
Me: Here's a comparable Dell.
You: You can't compare that, because it's got different dimensions.
I'm sorry, but you're the one who posited that it was even possible to configure a comparable Dell, and implied that it would be similar in price to Apple's hardware (by saying that they were competitive to the point of sometimes being cheaper.) I can't find any Dells with the same dimensions as a Macbook Pro (though I'm open to discussing it if you find one--Dell's website is a bear to navigate.)
Put in this context, either a) the suggestion to build a Dell was a trap in order to later point out the features of Apple hardware that Dell does not offer, or b) you're backpedaling by using those extra features now that it's been pointed out that Dell comes out at 20% ($400 in this case) cheaper.
You're absolutely right that once you start talking about trading off features, it's purely opinion-based. But you're the one who suggested that it was even possible to compare them directly.
By by the same token, Macbook Pros have features I'd rather not have. Who wants firewire these days? Ok, video editors, but I'm not one of those. Who wants iLife? Neither my wife nor I have used it in a little over 18 months of combined Mac use. Not trying to sound like a Mac fanboy, but a lot of value is completely subjective, and not reducible to base system stats. Absolutely. But MightyYar thought that the base system stats were important enough, or else he wouldn't have posed the suggestion to configure the Dell in the first place.
But when I went to actually go look, the numbers don't bear you out.
The Dell XPS M1530 has the following dimensions (according to Dell:
14.06" Width
0.93" Height
10.34" Depth
The Macbook Pro has the following dimensions (according to Apple:
14.1" Width
1" Height
9.6" Depth
Frankly, I was astonished by this. The Dell beats out the Apple in 2 of the dimensions, and loses by less than an inch in the third. That's not a 25% difference in volume. I'd go so far as to say that it's an insignificant difference in each dimension, and so the Mac can't gain any points there. Half a pound is also big, but is only 10% of the weight. If we're being pedantic, the stock weights differ by 3.8 pounds. The larger battery on the Dell will increase this a bit, though. Weight is really only going to be a factor for smaller people, too. Larger people will probably barely be able to notice the difference. I'd call that maybe half-a-point in my new and arbitrary point system. If size wasn't that big of an issue, then why are you pricing out the high-end lightweights instead of MacBooks and Inspirons? I don't know. I think that I picked the Macbook Pro because I want one
That's the problem with comparing percentages of non-like measurements. If the cost of the MBP was $100, I wouldn't consider 20% to be significant because I couldn't buy much with it. If the volume were 10 sq. ft., 25% might be pretty significant.
Ah! I didn't see that he'd changed the subject line. Sorry to the original poster! Changing the subject and using that to lead in to your post always confuses me.
I addressed the software issue in another post. I think that what it boils down to is that it's too hard to compare the systems, but my post was merely a response to the request from another poster to "configure a Dell." Other people then started attacking my post as though it were flawed because I didn't include their idea of a fair comparison. Guess what? That wasn't what the person to whom I responded was asking for.
Where are you getting these numbers? Can you provide a link?
OS X (non-server) only costs $130. It's only considered an upgrade because you aren't allowed to install it on non-Apple hardware, according to the EULA, and if you've purchased Apple hardware, you have a copy of Mac OS (ergo, you're upgrading.) In fact, Apple's store's main page for Leopard doesn't even have the word "upgrade" on it. I don't know where you're getting this idea.
I own a Precision M70 now, and I've handled XPS notebooks. The build quality is pretty damned similar. Unless Dell's stepped up the quality in their more recent notebooks, I don't think that moving up to the M4300 is necessary to make a fair comparison.
The M4300, incidentally, includes a significantly different graphics card. Twice the video memory (which is more costly than system memory), but it renders for correctness instead of speed (making it more suitable for 3D design and less suitable for gaming than the card which comes in the XPS I quoted and the MBP.) You also can't configure the Dell with a 200GB hard drive unless you also bump up the speed to 7200 (and a free-fall sensor--does the Macs have this? Does it
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one Incidentally, I now have to wonder if you're capable of objectively discussing this issue.
But it doesn't make sense to compare software in this case. If you compare software, you can set an arbitrary price for "pre-installed OS X" to make up any difference in the cost of the notebooks.
I really just think that it's hilarious what people will come up with to try to justify the extra costs. Half a pound and a tiny reduction in size (the volume difference doesn't change the dimensions that much.) justifies $400?
Feel free to read through some of my other posts. I'm not an Apple hater. I like their products, and I'm typing this on an iMac 20" right now. I just don't think that the statement, "Apples don't cost THAT much more than comparable Dells," is a reasonable one.
If you're going to make this an OS X machine, the hardware I provided may not be suitable--I don't know what the compatibility is like for the various components. But you'd have to add in OS X, of course, which comes for "free" on the Apple. So you could reasonably add $130 to the cost of each Dell, and subtract $50 from the cost of the first Dell that I mentioned (which I upgraded to Vista Home Premium.) Of course, if you ever want to install Windows on your MBP, you have to adjust the costs accordingly.
But below, I discuss why it's silly to discuss software for this exercise. If you want to discuss software, please pay attention to what I said above. If you don't want to discuss software, the I'll ignore OS X and its features as a benefit. You aren't allowed to have it both ways. You fail to mention that:
1. OSX has better battery management than Windows, so "battery capacity" is subjective. Battary capacity is not subjective. Battery life might be considered subjective, but even then, it's not based upon opinion or individual bias (as the term subjective implies)--rather, battery life on identical hardware is quite objectively different depending upon the software in use.
And once we start talking about differences in software, we're throwing the entire argument out of the window, because it's like comparing apples to oranges. I'm a huge fan of OS X. It's great software. I can't use Windows Vista without cursing like a sailor, because it's not just user-unfriendly, it's user-hostile. So if you want to talk about software, we're talking about an argument that can't be resolved with, "Go configure a similarly spec'd Dell." It doesn't even make sense to suggest that one do that if you're including software in the discussion.
The point is not that Apple computers cost more, the point is that Apple hardware costs more. In some cases, it's not a lot more, and in some cases it is. 2. The quality of the hardware components are not identical Again, you're stepping outside of the bounds of the task presented. The quality is NEVER going to be identical, so when asking someone to "go configure a Dell with the same specs", you have to assume that this will be the case. 3. You don't mention which OS the Dell is configured with... I would put OSX somewhere between Vista Ultimate or the XP "Upgrade"... which probably adds some $$ to your dell comparisons. You got me there.
I put Home Premium on both machines. Upgrading from Home Premium to Ultimate is (iirc) around $150 which, incidentally, is close to the retail price for OS X (at $130.)
It's usually pretty hard to configure a machine with identical specs to the Apple, but I did my best.
Apple MBP $1999
Dell Inspiron 1525 $1428.
The Dell is missing dedicated graphics, includes 50GB more hard drive space, and has a higher capacity battery.
Apple MBP $1999
Dell XPS M1530 $1602
Dell has 50GB more hard drive space, higher capacity battery, and a fingerprint reader. Otherwise, as far as I can see, the specs are identical.
When this line of MBPs came out, they were competitive. But Apple won't drop their prices as components decrease in price (it's where they make the bulk of their money!) while Dell does. So right now, you can get an equivalent Dell for almost $400 less than the MBP, and it's got better specs in a couple of areas.
Of course, whether or not this is competitive is pretty subjective.
You really hit the nail on the head.
When Apple does an update, they tend to be using top-of-the-line, bleeding edge hardware. When you compare a freshly-updated MBP to other notebooks, the price/performance ratio is usually in Apple's favor, or very, very close to it. Apple makes their profits when parts prices fall, because they keep their prices the same. Near the end of a product's refresh cycle, Apple products look like horrible deals. Near the beginning, they're quite competitive. Unfortunately, people tend to remember the bad and spout off their vitriol even when the Apple machine is a perfectly good deal.
And then, as you alluded, there's the issue of options. With Apple, you just don't get very many. Even though OS X would probably run fine on a budget notebook, Apple doesn't offer budget products. It probably works in their favor--companies usually have fairly slim margins on their budget lines, and there are plenty of people who buy Apple computers simply to get OS X.
I'm a little confused by your post.
My primary machine is a 4 year old Dell notebook. It plays Youtube just fine, handles Java, scans, prints, and edits photos (using Gimp) like a champ.
(It doesn't run OS X, due to a lack of CPU instructions (no SSE3, though I hear that there's a patch to get that working.)
Looking over the laptops at bestbuy.com, the ones that cost $500 are generally superior or equal to my notebook in every dimension[0]. Bump it up to $600, and you can find plenty of notebooks that are better in every way[0].
Heading over to Dell, $500 gets you roughly the same specs as the notebooks at bestbuy.com. Don't like the Celeron? Bump up the cost $50 and you don't have to have one.
If I could find any actual $400 notebooks, I would compare those specs, but such beasts don't seem to exist outside of sales, and I can't find any sales right now for them. I'm not the person to whom you were replying, anyway, so it's not like $400 was my claim. But it doesn't look hard to find notebooks with prices approaching that that are more than suitable for the tasks you're talking about.
[0] Except for screen resolution, but then, Macs have pretty crappy options for this, too.
A huge number of major vendor's machines were screwed up during the SP2 update. It was a pretty big change, though.
Good or bad, the point is that there are legitimate concerns with packaging up binaries from a modified source tree. A lot of people blasted Mozilla for their actions--I wonder what these people think now that there's an example of this sort of thing.
The only way it could be better (for Mozilla) is if people blamed OpenSSL for the problem--which someone did a little lower in the comments, but I don't think that it's the general consensus.
Though there are concerns with naming conventions. Mozilla seemingly foresaw this problem and demanded that non-official releases be named differently to avoid confusion in the event that the package maintainers introduce bugs. This is why we have Iceweasel on Debian instead of Firefox.
USENET's killer feature is that the data is separated from the program. I can read USENET with multiple clients, as long as they adhere to the same protocol.
With forums, I have to use a web browser. In some cases, I have to use a web browser with certain features (Javascript, for example.) I can't download all of the posts for offline perusal, and I'm limited to whatever crappy search function is implemented in that forum software.
One of the problems is data. I want access to my data. I want access to it anywhere. When I'm at a restaurant, I want to be able to pull out my phone and check my calendar, my mail, even open a file on my desktop. When I'm on a business trip, I want the same access on my laptop.
There are lots of solutions to the data problem--some of them are fairly old. IMAP is a really handy protocol for keeping your mail accessible from just about anywhere, for example.
The other problem is user-friendlyness. Consistency is part of this. There are lots and lots of Internet users who, when confronted with a new and unfamiliar interface, will simply freeze up. I'm sure that it's largely psychological, but ultimately, the underlying cause is irrelevant. People want consistency in how they access their data.
The solution to this problem lies in Google Gears and similar technologies. It lies in allowing the web browser to be a portal into your data (though allowing access in other ways is important, too, so that people who don't mind other, more efficient interfaces can use them.)
Google handles both problems simultaneously, and quite well. If I want to use the Google Mail interface while I'm offline, I can. If I want to access my data without using javascript in a browser, I can do that with either IMAP or POP.
The data rate reported to the OS depends upon the AT command string. One of the options (I don't remember which) tells the modem to report back the connection speed to the local computer, while a different option tells the modem to report back the connection speed to the remote modem. In this case, your connection string is doing the former.
If that's really your command string, then your modem must be reporting the local connection speed by default (possibly a trick by the manufacturer to make you think that your modem is faster than it really is.) This is because &F tells the modem to just use factory defaults, unless specified in the command string. &C1 only deals with detecting connection status--on or off, not speed, and &D2 tells the modem how to handle the transition between sending and receiving data.
While there are command strings that may get you better performance, generally speaking, modems are made to be incapable of transmitting higher than 53k due to FCC restrictions. The modems themselves have hardware capable of transmitting 56k (and are marketed as such). Going higher would require different hardware than analog modems manufacturers were making in 1999, and would be a violation of FCC requirements.
Analogies aren't perfect. That's why they're analogies. I wasn't commenting on the necessity of access.