You must not read very well. I did say I had a nice Dell with that resolution that I bought earlier didn't I?
Also, that there was a period of time when you couldn't get any 15" laptop with resolution higher than 1280 x (sub-1000) after the mid-2000s. Your claims are without proof. I have shown you three slashdot articles bitching about the lack of high resolution laptops. Who do I believe? One random person claiming "yes yes yes" or multiple random people all saying no? Or my own experience trying to spec out a damned high resolution screen laptop and not finding any?
And I like how you keep trying to revert the argument back to your 1080p resolution laptops. Your lack of reading comprehension really doesn't help - I have been talking about 1600x1280 resolution or better, not the shitty 1080p resolution. The slashdot links I pointed you to were all talking about resolution *HIGHER THAN 1080p* - do try to keep up with the discussion.
No. That used to sell by the truckload because laptop manufacturers were in a race to the bottom. Somewhere along 2006 or so you stopped being able to get laptops with high resolutions beyond that shitty 1366x768 or so. Until Apple came out with MacBook Retina, that was all that was available. Now, everyone is making a laptop with higher resolution again.
Did I say higher resolution laptops are unavailable today? No, I did not. I did say that at one point, it was unavailable. This was even something that was brought up multiple times on slashdot. See for example:
Interesting how you have to stoop to personal attacks.
My coworkers hated looking at my screens because it's always running at max resolution and tiny fonts. Back when I had a Dell Latitude, it was running at 1680 x 1200 with a Terminal font size of 6, so it isn't owning an Apple product.
But I like how you managed to stoop to both personal attacks and sprinkle some Apple Hate on top of that.
I run my MacBook Retina display at 2880 x 1800 and small fonts. Drives my coworkers nuts whenever they try to look at my screen.
On the plus side, I have more screen real estate on it than when I'm using 27" monitor.
As a result, 1366x768 is good enough. Because outside the hipster talk, people choose functionality over pricey hipster cred. That's why these cheap laptops sell truckloads while expensive stuff can't match its volume.
No. That used to sell by the truckload because laptop manufacturers were in a race to the bottom. Somewhere along 2006 or so you stopped being able to get laptops with high resolutions beyond that shitty 1366x768 or so. Until Apple came out with MacBook Retina, that was all that was available. Now, everyone is making a laptop with higher resolution again.
Why? Not everyone has standard issue eyes. Some have better eyes. A 20/10 eye needs about 440ppi before it's considered "retina" display at standard viewing distances.
Who is talking about perfect security? I'm talking about not deploying systems with *KNOWN* security problems.
Like how WEP was known flawed and yet deployed, because of people like you. No one is talking about perfect security. But at least put some effort into making it secure, damnit. And by that, I don't mean letting your damned intern throw some shit together, but getting some seasoned professionals in the security field to work on it.
There is this thing called a "reasonable man" standard. If you run a business website, you're expected to run it behind a firewall, and have other security standards in place.
Otherwise, you end up like any one of those companies that get hacked. I had stated it incorrectly earlier - I do not mean to say criminals who hacked the system are not in the wrong. However, implementing shitting security is also wrong.
Just like a bank should have a reasonable security system, and the bank's vault should have something better than a $5 padlock. Bank robbers are wrong, but if a bank had only a $5 padlock on it, *THEY ARE WRONG TOO!*
WHY ARE YOU SO FORGIVING OF COMPANIES THAT IMPLEMENT SHITTY SECURITY OR PUTTING IN FAKE SECURITY?
It wasn't about comparable performance (what is being measured? Heat dissipation? Operating level noise? cpu integer performance? polygon count?) but equivalent parts.
Apple's PCIe SSD has been clocked at 1 gigabyte writes per second. Show me a SATA SSD that even comes within 50% of that. Once you start playing in the realm of PCIe SSDs, you're talking server level stuff like Fusion-IO and so on, and those are way more expensive.
Uh, the point is - comparable specs on PC side is *MORE* expensive. And the article didn't even use comparable specs "oh, I don't have a 1TB PCIe SSD, so I'll use 2 SATA SSDs in RAID-0 instead" which just increases your failure rate.
"Oh, I can't find a motherboard that fits and will handle 64GB ECC Ram, so I'll just use pre-tested ram".
Seriously?! What an effing waste of time. Comparable my ass.
You are not understanding what is written. I was showing one component cost on the market. All the components together costs $14,300.
Apple does not break out the costs of individual components. So there is no overcharging or undercharging the way you are stating it. If anything, Apple is undercharging for the most part.
Every year, Apple sells more and more iPhones. Everyone else is counting Android activation, which includes those TV sticks, tablets that don't do anything, and so on. Smartphones include high end smartphones, mid end smart phones, and low ends, which are just used as feature phones.
Feature phones are not worth crap to the user (in terms of smartphone features - obviously they function OK as a *CELL PHONE*), or the manufacturer. Only cell phone companies like them.
You could make a case for the mid tier cell phones as part of the smartphone market.
So, until you break it down that way, lumping everything together presents a distorted picture.
Why? I had submitted this earlier, but basically, the high end video cards are equivalent to the AMD FirePro 9000s, which has a street price of $3,400 each. They tried to do a build-your-own and see how much it would cost. If you are in the market for a 12 core Xeon with 2 AMD FirePro 9000s, and 64GB ECC Ram, and 1TB of PCIe Flash, it will cost you $14k and change.
Come on, don't you know, Apple doesn't innovate, and if Apple ever makes a claim, it's just because it's standard industry stuff they use, and everyone else's stuff is just as good.
Go on, just get your generic white box, it'll be just as good as a Mac Pro, he promised it!
Slashdot Mirror
You must not read very well. I did say I had a nice Dell with that resolution that I bought earlier didn't I?
Also, that there was a period of time when you couldn't get any 15" laptop with resolution higher than 1280 x (sub-1000) after the mid-2000s. Your claims are without proof. I have shown you three slashdot articles bitching about the lack of high resolution laptops. Who do I believe? One random person claiming "yes yes yes" or multiple random people all saying no? Or my own experience trying to spec out a damned high resolution screen laptop and not finding any?
And I like how you keep trying to revert the argument back to your 1080p resolution laptops. Your lack of reading comprehension really doesn't help - I have been talking about 1600x1280 resolution or better, not the shitty 1080p resolution. The slashdot links I pointed you to were all talking about resolution *HIGHER THAN 1080p* - do try to keep up with the discussion.
You must have missed this part:
No. That used to sell by the truckload because laptop manufacturers were in a race to the bottom. Somewhere along 2006 or so you stopped being able to get laptops with high resolutions beyond that shitty 1366x768 or so. Until Apple came out with MacBook Retina, that was all that was available. Now, everyone is making a laptop with higher resolution again.
Did I say higher resolution laptops are unavailable today? No, I did not. I did say that at one point, it was unavailable. This was even something that was brought up multiple times on slashdot. See for example:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/03/24/1744241/windows-8-and-screen-resolution-wxga-still-most-popular
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4587913&cid=45766645
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/10/31/2032237/linus-torvalds-advocates-for-2560x1600-standard-laptop-displays
Interesting how you have to stoop to personal attacks.
My coworkers hated looking at my screens because it's always running at max resolution and tiny fonts. Back when I had a Dell Latitude, it was running at 1680 x 1200 with a Terminal font size of 6, so it isn't owning an Apple product.
But I like how you managed to stoop to both personal attacks and sprinkle some Apple Hate on top of that.
Show me a crack for AES-128.
Thanks.
Uh, did you look this up before making that claim?
http://hackaday.com/2013/01/09/unsigned-code-running-on-windows-rt/ indicates that no jailbreaking is necessary.
See also https://surfsec.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/circumventing-windows-rts-code-integrity-mechanism/
You want updates? On an Android...?
BWAHAHAHAHA OK OK, you *were* being serious? Unless Google comes out with a Nexus or has Motorola do it, good luck with that pipe dream.
I run my MacBook Retina display at 2880 x 1800 and small fonts. Drives my coworkers nuts whenever they try to look at my screen.
On the plus side, I have more screen real estate on it than when I'm using 27" monitor.
As a result, 1366x768 is good enough. Because outside the hipster talk, people choose functionality over pricey hipster cred. That's why these cheap laptops sell truckloads while expensive stuff can't match its volume.
No. That used to sell by the truckload because laptop manufacturers were in a race to the bottom. Somewhere along 2006 or so you stopped being able to get laptops with high resolutions beyond that shitty 1366x768 or so. Until Apple came out with MacBook Retina, that was all that was available. Now, everyone is making a laptop with higher resolution again.
Why? Not everyone has standard issue eyes. Some have better eyes. A 20/10 eye needs about 440ppi before it's considered "retina" display at standard viewing distances.
You realize that RT can run unsigned code right? People already managed to make it run unsigned code for quite a while now.
Who is talking about perfect security? I'm talking about not deploying systems with *KNOWN* security problems.
Like how WEP was known flawed and yet deployed, because of people like you. No one is talking about perfect security. But at least put some effort into making it secure, damnit. And by that, I don't mean letting your damned intern throw some shit together, but getting some seasoned professionals in the security field to work on it.
There is this thing called a "reasonable man" standard. If you run a business website, you're expected to run it behind a firewall, and have other security standards in place.
Otherwise, you end up like any one of those companies that get hacked. I had stated it incorrectly earlier - I do not mean to say criminals who hacked the system are not in the wrong. However, implementing shitting security is also wrong.
Just like a bank should have a reasonable security system, and the bank's vault should have something better than a $5 padlock. Bank robbers are wrong, but if a bank had only a $5 padlock on it, *THEY ARE WRONG TOO!*
WHY ARE YOU SO FORGIVING OF COMPANIES THAT IMPLEMENT SHITTY SECURITY OR PUTTING IN FAKE SECURITY?
Why do you blame OP? Shouldn't you blame the company for using really stupid and known to be flawed encryption?
It wasn't about comparable performance (what is being measured? Heat dissipation? Operating level noise? cpu integer performance? polygon count?) but equivalent parts.
Apple's PCIe SSD has been clocked at 1 gigabyte writes per second. Show me a SATA SSD that even comes within 50% of that. Once you start playing in the realm of PCIe SSDs, you're talking server level stuff like Fusion-IO and so on, and those are way more expensive.
We do 3 years with a residual of zero. On about a thousand servers.
This guy chose crappy shit. "Can't find a 1TB PCIe SSD, so, raid-0 two SATA SSD" and other cheap tricks.
Please stop that bullshit.
The point is that typically, for the last several years, you could buy or build a PC for around 1/2 the cost of a Mac.
has been proven false for the last several years by numerous people, for systems of equivalent specs.
You sound like those people who claimed that a dual core cpu is worthless because all their apps can only use one core...
Uh, the point is - comparable specs on PC side is *MORE* expensive. And the article didn't even use comparable specs "oh, I don't have a 1TB PCIe SSD, so I'll use 2 SATA SSDs in RAID-0 instead" which just increases your failure rate.
"Oh, I can't find a motherboard that fits and will handle 64GB ECC Ram, so I'll just use pre-tested ram".
Seriously?! What an effing waste of time. Comparable my ass.
You are not understanding what is written. I was showing one component cost on the market. All the components together costs $14,300.
Apple does not break out the costs of individual components. So there is no overcharging or undercharging the way you are stating it. If anything, Apple is undercharging for the most part.
Curious why do you think GPUs are error prone?
There are a few things to consider.
Every year, Apple sells more and more iPhones.
Everyone else is counting Android activation, which includes those TV sticks, tablets that don't do anything, and so on.
Smartphones include high end smartphones, mid end smart phones, and low ends, which are just used as feature phones.
Feature phones are not worth crap to the user (in terms of smartphone features - obviously they function OK as a *CELL PHONE*), or the manufacturer. Only cell phone companies like them.
You could make a case for the mid tier cell phones as part of the smartphone market.
So, until you break it down that way, lumping everything together presents a distorted picture.
Why? I had submitted this earlier, but basically, the high end video cards are equivalent to the AMD FirePro 9000s, which has a street price of $3,400 each. They tried to do a build-your-own and see how much it would cost. If you are in the market for a 12 core Xeon with 2 AMD FirePro 9000s, and 64GB ECC Ram, and 1TB of PCIe Flash, it will cost you $14k and change.
http://slashdot.org/submission/3217733/high-end-mac-pro-is-40-cheaper-than-what-you-can-build-it-for
I call bullshit. You find me a FirePro W9000 for less than $3k each.
How heavy is your Alienware again? Or is extra weight not a spec?
Come on, don't you know, Apple doesn't innovate, and if Apple ever makes a claim, it's just because it's standard industry stuff they use, and everyone else's stuff is just as good.
Go on, just get your generic white box, it'll be just as good as a Mac Pro, he promised it!