The added cost of an Apple

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
"Retina" is just a fancy term for a high end display that you can get in most laptops.

Core i7 and SSD are not a rarity for laptops.

My next laptop is going to run Linux as the primary OS and have a windows VM for netflix. That should do 100% of what I need and still at a fraction of a cost.


Seriously? Retina Display is just a fancy marketing term? It has nothing to do with the 2,880 x 1,880 display with 220 ppi? That type of display is available on "most" laptops?

Just did a quick check at Newegg. Less than 50 of their nearly 800 available laptops/Ultrabooks/Chromebooks feature an SSD.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Retina display is not marketing, it's the real deal at the top end of the market.

 

[JHZR2]

Agree. Lots of use of generic terms that dupe the PC folks. Again, some parts may be from the same bin, but there are different grades of various items such as the display...

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Agree. Lots of use of generic terms that dupe the PC folks. Again, some parts may be from the same bin, but there are different grades of various items such as the display...


I would say many if not most are from the same bin. Manually add drivers during a bootcamp installation of Windows 7 on the same Mac, I was amazed at how undifferent the innards were compared to any PC laptop I've used.

But, i7's aren't all that common. If it is offered, the price isn't on the low-end of the spectrum.

SSD's can be ordered from HP, Dell, Asus but most likely won't be readily available on bottom-to mid tier of the market space at places like NewEgg just yet.

However, with a Mac Pro desktop, those are server-level/CAD workstation-level components in there, you can't compare some off the shelf generic PC with this unit. You must use the Dell Workstation class spec to have an apples-to-apples comparison with CPU, RAM, video, etc.

 

[rjundi]

In the end does it just end up being folks use computers to browser the internet the majority of time. Besides work I am finding a PC and Mac to be simply another web browser and occasional video watcher.

It seems a $200-$500 tablet covers most folks computer usage off.

 

[JHZR2]

Tablets restrict you quite a bit if doing things like photos and resting documents. Not rocket science computing but not something I'd want to do on a web book or tablet.

There is a lot of scientific and artistic software that is mac based.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
It seems a $200-$500 tablet covers most folks computer usage off.


Nope, it covers every folks' most computer usage.

There are a lot of websites and work that every folks occasionally need to do but is unable to do or miserable on a tablet. Tablet and smart phone reduce probably 80% of the work used to be done on a laptop and desktop, but when you are trying to print a form, fill in some online form, open certain attachments, etc, you will run into problems if the only device you have is a tablet or smart phone.

I don't see this go away in the next 5 years, unless tablet becomes so cheap that every person in the family has one or two, and no one want to even steal one.

 

[Mystic]

Maybe I am just old but I just can't see myself carrying a tablet or laptop computer around everywhere I go. I certainly would not walk through a Wal-Mart while trying to run a laptop computer. If 95% of the time you are away from home you really can't use that tablet or laptop computer exactly how useful is it? I am not the sort of person who would walk down a street staring continuously at the tiny screen of a tablet computer. It would be different if I was a travelling salesman.

When I go on trips I usually take my camera gear and I like taking photos. I am not going to try to obtain good enough photos using the camera in an iPhone. Unless a person is going to be downloading the photos right to the computer as you are shooting, the computer will probably wind up being left in the hotel room. At best it seems to me the computer will just be used for storing the photos. Memory cards can do that. If I lost a memory card (especially if it had lots of photos) I would feel bad but I would feel a lot worse if I damaged or lost an expensive MacBook Pro. The computer for me on a trip would be dead weight.

I use a computer for a lot more than just email, the internet, and typing up an occasional letter. I work on photographs after I come home from a trip. A large monitor, a good quality mouse, and a nice keyboard make a difference. I am not the sort of person who would be happy with photos taken with an iPhone camera.

To each his own. Maybe all the know-it-all "experts" say the desktop computer is dead but I am happy with desktop computers left at home. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the laptop computers are more expensive than a desktop like an iMac, and harder to use because of a smaller screen, tiny keyboard, and no mouse unless you buy a mouse that will work with a laptop computer. I have lived a long time and in my lifetime experience the experts seem to be wrong a lot.

It is difficult to forsee advances in computer technology. But what sort of technology is required to make large monitors unnecessary, or large keyboards not useful, or comfortable mouses unnecessary?

 

[Volvohead]

Originally Posted By: rg200amp

Core i7s and SSDs are a rarity in laptops.


I would only clarify that statement in this sense:

Core i7s and SSDs are not a rarity in high-end laptops.

The MacBook is a high-end laptop, but so are some upper tier Thinkpad models.

FWIW, between a MacBook and an X series Thinkpad, I'll take the latter, Mac OS v. Win 7 notwithstanding. The high-end Lenovo is just more physically usable and more ruggedly built IMO.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: rg200amp

Core i7s and SSDs are a rarity in laptops.


I would only clarify that statement in this sense:

Core i7s and SSDs are not a rarity in high-end laptops.

The MacBook is a high-end laptop, but so are some upper tier Thinkpad models.

FWIW, between a MacBook and an X series Thinkpad, I'll take the latter, Mac OS v. Win 7 notwithstanding. The high-end Lenovo is just more physically usable and more ruggedly built IMO.


This is how Apple is so darn good at ensnaring the drones. They will "religiously" maintain to the bitter end that only Apple products can be the best. LOL

That said the bottom line is a fool and his money will soon be parted.

 

[Mystic]

Anybody should know that Apple is not somehow magically better than anybody else. But Apple does tend to use good components in their computers and Apple Computers tend to last a long time. That being said if you take an Apple Computer apart there are typical computer components in there.

But the main difference between an Apple Computer and other computers is the operating system. No other company can legally sell computers running Mac OS X. I would have to say that Mac OS X is probably superior in most respects to any Windows operating system. I would say the single greatest thing about Windows computers is that they have great software and hardware compatibility. And I would rate Windows 7 much better than previous Windows operating systems. But danged if Microsoft is not busy seeming to try to remove stuff from Windows-like DVD play.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I use a computer for a lot more than just email, the internet, and typing up an occasional letter. I work on photographs after I come home from a trip. A large monitor, a good quality mouse, and a nice keyboard make a difference. I am not the sort of person who would be happy with photos taken with an iPhone camera.


For years, a larger monitor was the big selling point. Now, all of a sudden, everyone wants a tiny little monitor, and that's a selling point? If it doesn't have a real keyboard and a real screen, I'm not interested.

It's the same with watching TV on phones and similar nonsense. Years ago, people threw out those tiny portable TVs by the dumpster full. Now, it's in fashion again?

Sorry, but if I want to watch TV, I'll do it on my wide screen at home. If I want to play or work on the computer, I'll do it on a desk top, if at all possible.

 

[PandaBear]

If you just look at the chips, Apple use the same components as PC. It is the layout and packaging that they make different trade off, and in the end they cost more to make due to the lost of some efficiency (awkward PCB that waste a lot of space, CNC block of aluminum that waste a lot of metal scrap, etc) and end up selling for a higher price. A percentage of buyers will pay more for it, but not the majority. That, is the reason they will always cost more, and will never be the majority (where the lowest cost and good enough is the key).

Tiny screen tablet is an extra device they want to sell you in addition to a large screen computer. The size is intentional to be not a replacement for a real computer, but convenient for quick use (and a bunch of quick games a few minutes here and there).

 

[rg200amp]

Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: rg200amp

Core i7s and SSDs are a rarity in laptops.


I would only clarify that statement in this sense:

Core i7s and SSDs are not a rarity in high-end laptops.

The MacBook is a high-end laptop, but so are some upper tier Thinkpad models.

FWIW, between a MacBook and an X series Thinkpad, I'll take the latter, Mac OS v. Win 7 notwithstanding. The high-end Lenovo is just more physically usable and more ruggedly built IMO.


If your going to quote me, please read everything I type and do not pick and choose what your going to quote from me.

If you had quoted my full thought on the subject you would have quoted this:

Originally Posted By: rg200amp

And:
Core i7s and SSDs are a rarity in laptops.

There not a rarity in high end laptops like the MacBook pro or other pro laptops, but in general terms, the majority of laptops sold today are not equipped with that kind of hardware.






Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: rg200amp

Core i7s and SSDs are a rarity in laptops.


I would only clarify that statement in this sense:

Core i7s and SSDs are not a rarity in high-end laptops.

The MacBook is a high-end laptop, but so are some upper tier Thinkpad models.

FWIW, between a MacBook and an X series Thinkpad, I'll take the latter, Mac OS v. Win 7 notwithstanding. The high-end Lenovo is just more physically usable and more ruggedly built IMO.


This is how Apple is so darn good at ensnaring the drones. They will "religiously" maintain to the bitter end that only Apple products can be the best. LOL

That said the bottom line is a fool and his money will soon be parted.


This is exactly what Apple users have to put up with. Name calling. Like were in grade school. "Your thoughts don't match up with mine. You must be a fool!"

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: Garak

It's the same with watching TV on phones and similar nonsense. Years ago, people threw out those tiny portable TVs by the dumpster full. Now, it's in fashion again?

Sorry, but if I want to watch TV, I'll do it on my wide screen at home. If I want to play or work on the computer, I'll do it on a desk top, if at all possible.


The difference of portable then and now is quality is superior now and its on-demand. This was never the case with those portable TV's with their few channels they picked up.

I find myself watching more shows on iPhone, my extra monitor, or wife's tablet than our 50" HDTV. I am getting ready to kill cable.

 

[Mystic]

I agree with what you said Garak. I would rather watch TV on my television set at home. I wonder about people watching TV on some tiny tablet computer screen while they are walking down the street. When I am walking down the street I prefer to see what is around me.

If I am somewhere that is really beautiful like areas around Colorado Springs before all of the terrible forest fire damage, I prefer looking at a forest than some silly video on a tiny screen or some television show.

Great looking areas in nature are always much better to look at than any TV show or video game.

 

[bigmike]

Mystic, some people do not want to see or experience reality, but rather focus on a virtual world. Everyone that delves into a virtual world has their reasons, that much we all probably can agree on. I'm much like yourself. There should be a healthy balance (everything in moderation).

Most of the time, I suspect that marketing and outside influence has contributed to the bulk of the modernistic ideology. Are any of these devices truly necessary?

Technology must be looked at as simply a tool, sometimes it might be the only tool available, but that's fairly rare (assistive technologies, for instance). I find it unfortunate that we are literally watching the remnant of a societal view disappear and the ushering in of a new era. Many times it has been hard to accept, and this is coming from a person who in many intents really enjoys and teaches technology. Perhaps it has to do with how quickly things have changed?

In many cases, people have become believers in their gadgets. Convincing someone that is of this mindset of any differing opinion is not something I'd be willing to try. Hence, why some people call it a religion, and in a sense it truly is. I think that most people want to be able to do more than their own limitations or abilities and technology allows just that with very little training. It is an instant gratification field, typically, at least amongst the everyday user.

We that hold the line of thinking that reality is much more pleasant without so much technology may be a minority, possibly extinct at some point in time, but my hunch is people are going to realize that their lives are more fulfilling when technology is removed, rather than put in place. When will that happen? That's hard to say.

 

[Volvohead]

Originally Posted By: rg200amp


This is exactly what Apple users have to put up with. Name calling. Like were in grade school. "Your thoughts don't match up with mine. You must be a fool!"

I like Apple products. In fact, we're slowly migrating our home over to Apple. They have a lot to recommend them.

But not everything is better just because it has an Apple logo on it. When it comes time to let go of my Thinkpad for an Apple product, my reservations escalate. A lot.

I won't call names. The PC camp makes some winners, too. They CAN co-exist.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
I find myself watching more shows on iPhone, my extra monitor, or wife's tablet than our 50" HDTV. I am getting ready to kill cable.


I agree that the quality of portable televisions (along with content availability) back then wasn't great. Back then, though, cable was an extreme luxury, too, and certainly didn't have the content it does now. Much of the on-demand stuff that's available at a computer or a modern portable device can also be streamed to a modern television, and cable/satellite isn't the issue.

Originally Posted By: Mystic
I would rather watch TV on my television set at home. I wonder about people watching TV on some tiny tablet computer screen while they are walking down the street. When I am walking down the street I prefer to see what is around me.


And we can be darn sure that in the future, someone is going to once again try to market such a display for wearing on one's wrist, possibly with cell capabilities. And, this time, they'll be able to do it at a sensible price. However, it still won't be a sensible activity.

I laugh at people these days who don't carry a watch because they have a cell phone. They'll be the first ones to wear a phone/TV on their wrists if they come out, too.

As an aside, I am so sick of cell phones and wireless devices (particularly abuse by my staff), that you can be sure the next building I erect will have a Faraday cage.

 

[Mystic]

Well bigmike I pretty much consider a lot of these tablet and laptop computers just adult toys. For a few people like a business man or woman a laptop computer would be a necessity.

Yes I am old and I would rather look at a forest (a real forest) any day rather than try to live in some escapist virtual world. If somebody finds the real world so bad where they live they need to move someplace where they can see some real nature and real beauty. Human beings could not replace the beauty of the natural world with some virtual reality in a billion years if they tried.

In some 300 years nature (if allowed to do so) will replace all of that burned forest around Colorado Springs.

I have been to the Cliff Dwellings in Colorado several times, both before the terrible fires and after. I was pretty sad when I saw the burned forest. But the park rangers said that it would take 300 years for the forest to be regrown and that was just a moment in time for the forest. Human beings are just a moment in time for the forest also. Maybe I should say human beings and their silly gadgets are just a moment in time for the forest.