Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/24/08 08:45 PM, Patcoola wrote:

the macbookpro's cost is really in that $1000 intel processor, yes that's right.

I agree with a lot of what you posted, but not this. The low-wattage mobile variant of the Intel Core 2 Duo processor (2.5 gHz) offered in the Macbook Pros are about $300.

There is no excuse for the cost. You can almost solely attribute it to the fact that it's being sold by Apple.

At 4/24/08 08:59 PM, RageVI wrote:

At 4/24/08 08:45 PM, Patcoola wrote:

the macbookpro's cost is really in that $1000 intel processor, yes that's right.

I agree with a lot of what you posted, but not this. The low-wattage mobile variant of the Intel Core 2 Duo processor (2.5 gHz) offered in the Macbook Pros are about $300.

There is no excuse for the cost. You can almost solely attribute it to the fact that it's being sold by Apple.

My 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo was only $179.99

Proof

I don't care about low wattage stuff because my power supply is freaking efficient.

At 4/24/08 09:02 PM, Grubby wrote:

My 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo was only $179.99

Proof

I don't care about low wattage stuff because my power supply is freaking efficient.

I don't know what you're trying to prove here. There's an obvious difference in processors designed for desktops and processors designed for laptops. You're going to pay more for the higher quality, energy-efficient processor in a laptop so its battery lasts longer, even if it runs similar clock speeds.

You can purchase a quad core for the same clock speed for the same money as the processor I'm talking about. That's not even relevant, though.

At 4/24/08 08:39 PM, crayolabites wrote: When it comes to stock systems, I find the Macintosh superior because of its life span. I have upgraded my PC five times in the last three years. Video card swaps are common for better gaming performance,

Lol I havn't updated my PC since i got it back in 2002, and i can play every single game without a problem.

At 4/24/08 09:02 PM, Grubby wrote:

At 4/24/08 08:59 PM, RageVI wrote: I agree with a lot of what you posted, but not this. The low-wattage mobile variant of the Intel Core 2 Duo processor (2.5 gHz) offered in the Macbook Pros are about $300.

There is no excuse for the cost. You can almost solely attribute it to the fact that it's being sold by Apple.

My 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo was only $179.99

no you still don't know your hardware and i don't think intel sells there M-Processors to the public.

the macbookpro's uses the Penryn 45nm Intel Core 2 Duo technology with up to a 2.6 GHz processor with 6MB L2 cache 800 FSB 35W

At 4/24/08 09:28 PM, Patcoola wrote:

no you still don't know your hardware and i don't think intel sells there M-Processors to the public.

the macbookpro's uses the Penryn 45nm Intel Core 2 Duo technology with up to a 2.6 GHz processor with 6MB L2 cache 800 FSB 35W

I know you're probably talking to him, and not me, but the processor you're referring to (Intel C2D T9500, which you can most certainly purchase as a member of the "public") is the most expensive option you can choose. At least according to Apple's site. I'm sure you know how processors take a ridiculous price hike for a small increase in clock speed and a slightly bigger cache. Even then it costs roughly half the price you first said.

The "lower" chip I originally talked to still costs around $300 and is a much better buy -- Point being that Apple rips you off on that machine.

Macs are way less sufficient, useful, and overall worse than PCs. Anyone use a Mac then use a PC.
You will know exactly what I am talking about.

At 4/24/08 09:45 PM, RageVI wrote: The "lower" chip I originally talked to still costs around $300 and is a much better buy -- Point being that Apple rips you off on that machine.

i have to agree

but for some one to buy a macbookpro your basically buying a well rounded machine and peace of mind.
although we still don't know if the intel macs have the forever build that the ppc's did, it's still a good chose for most people.

i wouldn't pay that much for a laptop, Asus Eee 900 for me if i was looking to buy.

I will admit this though; it has a really, really awesome screen. It's really clear and bright because it's backlit. I'm watching some High-def DiVx files and the picture quality is pretty amazing.

well i can see your argument clear as day OP. though Mac OS X isn't bad and whatever, i'm not gonna touch it with a 10' pole (unless i have to use one for work) until Steve Jobs pulls his head out of his rich, trouser-stained ass and ports the operating system to regular PCs. that means no hacks or whatever; maybe simple download updates (like windows update) but nothing else. so attention all macfags with your so-called sleek, simple design whereas when your monitor breaks you have to send the whole thing back; I'M CALLING YOU OUT!

I don't buy my computers. I am provided with macs.

I've used PCs too.

Doesn't really make a difference to me.

At all.

As you stated..opinion is a huge factor.

Personally, I just enjoyed my old MacBook. My experience with them has been somewhat lengthy, since I went to a school who issued them for extended periods at a price.

The only problem with them though, is if they fuck up..it's one major pain in the ass, and quite costly to replace anything since Rage mentioned (closed hardware avaiablity.) Yeah, some crap you can mesh with Windows, BootCamp for example and other crap Mac has out there..but back on topic.

When I had mine, I just generally enjoyed it. I liked the skins it offered. They were just nicely done. The operating system didn't have too many crashes etc etc. The only real problem is multi-tasking is kind of a bitch, when I had my computer brief lock-ups were not uncommon. They weren't long, maybe a 30 second lock-up every once and a while, nothing that I couldn't cope with. On the basis of one program like Safari. At the time, I loved that fucker to death. It was just generally a nice Browser, and it running on a Mac was nice.

It's all in the person who enjoys it though. I've been a windows user for years. But, still..I'd like to have a MacBook back.

At 4/25/08 12:20 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: I don't buy my computers. I am provided with macs.

I've used PCs too.

Doesn't really make a difference to me.

At all.

I own both...a mac laptop and a PC homecomputer. I'm happy, coz laptops can't run games anyway.

At 4/25/08 12:22 AM, crayolabites wrote:

At 4/25/08 12:20 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: I don't buy my computers. I am provided with macs.

I've used PCs too.

Doesn't really make a difference to me.

At all.

I own both...a mac laptop and a PC homecomputer. I'm happy, coz laptops can't run games anyway.

Um, loads of laptops run games, including my HP you see in the pictures. I can run COD4 at the highest settings at a playable 22-25fps (eek though). If I reduce the graphics settings I can get up to about 45-50 fps. I have Oblivion, Counter-strike: Source, Doom 3 etc... all of which run perfectly.

I could not agree more. Here is a typical mac vs pc arguement.

The Drag and Drop function. You can drag and drop virtually anything on a Mac without copying or anything. But this function is only to accomidate lazyness. I can do the same fucking thing with Ctrl-A, Ctrl-X, Ctrl-V. Simple, it might take a few seconds but it works just as well, and you can get alot more bang for your buck. Also, Macs can also Drag and Drop images from the internet.... again sheer lazyness. Learn to save your files, and properly sort them into a folder. It's not hard.

Thank you.

At 4/25/08 01:16 AM, MattTheParanoidKat wrote: I could not agree more. Here is a typical mac vs pc arguement.

The Drag and Drop function. You can drag and drop virtually anything on a Mac without copying or anything.

I can do that with my XP :S

At 4/24/08 11:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I will admit this though; it has a really, really awesome screen. It's really clear and bright because it's backlit. I'm watching some High-def DiVx files and the picture quality is pretty amazing.

I'd like to mention that I support this. How expensive is a good screen for a laptop though, haha? I've never run into any problems with mine, but then again I've never had a problem with any other screen for that matter. Did you get the glossy or the matte screen?

I've used both, and I prefer the glossy screen. Many of the previous notebooks put out by Apple all had matte screens in an attempt to reduce glair, but I found them dull.

At 4/25/08 01:46 AM, Warrickneff wrote:

At 4/24/08 11:23 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I will admit this though; it has a really, really awesome screen. It's really clear and bright because it's backlit. I'm watching some High-def DiVx files and the picture quality is pretty amazing.

I'd like to mention that I support this. How expensive is a good screen for a laptop though, haha? I've never run into any problems with mine, but then again I've never had a problem with any other screen for that matter. Did you get the glossy or the matte screen?

I'm pretty sure its matte. My HP screen is glossy, and it reflects glare like a freaking mirror.

I've used both, and I prefer the glossy screen. Many of the previous notebooks put out by Apple all had matte screens in an attempt to reduce glair, but I found them dull.

Doesn't seem dull to me.

Also, earlier today I was using the Macbook on my balcony with the sun glaring and compared to the HP, it's really visible.

Basically so far, the only thing I'm impressed with is the screen.

No idea.

Like them, but I wish for the love of god they weren't so fucking expensive.

Hell, my father didn't like that, so he spent about *looks at calendar* 5 months trying to get Leopard to work on a PC.

Right now, it's a Moderate Success. Only problem is restarting troubles and video card driver searching.

OSes currently running: Ubuntu and Windows Vista. Mac OSX pending for usage.

My life hasn't been computer-involved enough for me to have formed a solid, fully educated opinion. I grew up on the PC but grew to like the Macs as well. Sometimes I like the PCs for power, sometimes the Macs for aesthetics and ease of use.

*shrug*

If money were no object I'd have both: PCs would run my house in the background, and mac interfaces would be what people saw.

At 4/25/08 02:02 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
I'm pretty sure its matte. My HP screen is glossy, and it reflects glare like a freaking mirror.

Yeah, I got glossy for my MBP and it reflects lights like a mirror too. It can get a little annoying outside or under side-lit rooms.

Doesn't seem dull to me.

Also, earlier today I was using the Macbook on my balcony with the sun glaring and compared to the HP, it's really visible.

Yeah, the matte works great outside! I suppose the backlight might not have been in use when I tried out the other MacBooks I've seen.

Basically so far, the only thing I'm impressed with is the screen.

Yeah, a laptop is a laptop to me, I don't think I'd be "impressed" with too many features found on either competitors. Albeit the irony of using the most expensive one to type this.

Stable Mac 64 bit processor or shit windows attempting 64 bit.

It means I don't have to use Windows.

Windows is alright in general, but the sheer amount of crap I had to do to keep it working properly due to all the crap that gets made for it and what not was sheer hell. Had to run so many programs daily to ensure it worked properly and that it didn't get fucked up. Quite frankly it was a pain in the ass and I couldn't be fucked with it when my laptop decided to give up the ghost on me. I have better things to do than spend a half hour to an hour everyday sorting out spyware, trojans, viruses and god only knows what else.

I find the Mac easier to use, it looks better in my eyes, and, what actually really clinched it for me in terms of buying the damned thing was that I can get so much more customer support should I require it. I can literally walk into my local apple store and say ' Can you teach me how to use this program?' and they will. Plus, they gave me a 20% ( or soemthing like that) discount on the Macbook itself, and various discounts on the extended guarantee and iworks, which, when I did the maths, worked out that I got the guarentee and I works effectively for free due to their reduced price.

Nowhere anywhere near me does that, and whilst there's probably places online where I could maybe get the same thing for a PC laptop, then if something goes wrong, as it probably would with windows as no matter how much I tried to keep on top of it something always went wrong, I'd have to deal with fucking about with call centres and sending the laptop off to them to get fixed or whatever ( which is what I had to do with my last laptop and they didn't fix it). Too much hassle for not enough reward when if something goes wrong with my mac I can just drop it off at the Apple store and they'll then fix it for me and I can have it back in a few days.

I could care less about the ins and outs of power, memory and whatnot, I just need a laptop that is stable, works with what I need it for and should something go wrong, relatively easy to get fixed in terms of the hassle involved.

Mac does all of that for me. Hence why I now use a Mac despite being brought up on Windows.

At 4/24/08 07:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Also, I hear people say the MacBook is sexy, but I don't think so. I think my HP is way, way more aesthetically pleasing than the bland gray MacBook.

Nah, I like the mac better, the black part on the PC just looks ugly and doesn't flow.

At 4/24/08 08:02 PM, Grubby wrote: Macs suck.

The end.

Stfu mothefuxor Macs rule!!

At 4/25/08 03:59 AM, The-G0un7137 wrote:

At 4/24/08 08:02 PM, Grubby wrote: Macs suck.

The end.

Stfu mothefuxor Macs rule!!

Lol, would you like to tell us why?

At 4/24/08 08:21 PM, LTmatt wrote: You were curious, so you bought a 21-hundred dollar machine?

But yeah, I also hate macs. They're expensive pieces of worthless shit. What's the point of having an 8800 GT and a terabyte of HD space when all I can do is fuck around with GarageBand and paint pretty pictures in MacPaint? It's like buying a Ferrari for a six-year-old.

Yeah, because your six year old retarded self doesn't know how the fuck to do anything on this amazing piece of technology.

I swear, there was an audible *snap* then. You may want to think before making shitty analogies next time

You all argue against Macs purely because you're not used to them. Price arguments are valid, but I still stand by my purchases. Then again, I also argue against PCs because I find them somewhat more difficult to use, which is because I'm used to Macs. Some of you are using about the 'Windows machines don't crash' bullshit - what's the bet their only source is that one video which everyone has seen - which, through much personal experience since the first iMac, is complete and utter bullshit.

I never seem to do very well in these arguments, but I firmly stand by using Macs. They kick ass, and I have never, EVER had reason to switch to PC, or seen any evidence against them that I have seen as valid.

Its metrosexual hardware.

At 4/24/08 08:41 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

seeing how as you don't even know the correct name of apples video editing software, it's a fair assumption that you dont really know shit about mac os x and didnt give it that much of a chance.

Um iVideo?

ummm ok, why would you even mention a shitty 3rd party add-on app. in your reasoning why you don't like mac os x? bringing up any 3rd part apps is really a horrible idea when telling why you don't like an OS.

garageband and imovie are both low-end apps meant to be used for simple "everyday" video/music creation. which is why they get shipped with them. most average people would be able to utilize and figure out how to work them. so why would you expect high-end performance from them?

of course, apple has it's own pro products, final cut and logic. which do get used by most musicians and a few movie studios. they do cost a pretty penny, but it's not like you or I would actually pay for them if we actually had to use them.

i took a look at you videos on youtube to see how good you're video editing was. and it seems to me that its on the level in which iMovie could be used.

also, you dont even have any songs uploaded to the audio portal either. so why would garageband/iMovie sucking even be a concern to you? are you even a recording artist? whats the deal?

and thus your opinion on mac os x is biased and unfair.

And you're probably just a disgruntled Mac user.

haha, what? nah, not really. I use XP quite frequently on my MacBook. and i actually liked using windows movies maker a lot more than iMovie. so you have no idea what the hell youre talking about man.

Yet apparently you cared enough to post a retarded response.

oh god ok you caught me caring. you're just taking this shit far too seriously. which i do i find hilarious. cuz i mean like, you are a l33t nger with over 10000 posts so, i guess you do know what kind of computers are best for everyone.

honestly, it just seems to me that you're just a narrow-minded individual, who hates "trendy" shit just because it's "trendy". or at least thats whats you're coming off as.

I agree.. the only thing mac has on PC's are the quad core mac pro desktops, and the firewire data transfer ability.. but srsly, who upgrades their computer that much?

I definitely feel PC wins the battle..

Also, cellardoor6, I think this is your shortest post ever? Your posts are always long and interesting and you're one of my favorite users to read from. :)