Well yeah, how would they afford gas for a Ferrari? Not even smart art students make any money.

*this post was written on a mac, which makes it better than a post written on a PC*

 

PC's increase the porn experience by an additional 15%. I think that seals it.

 

Another uneducated PCer. Funny that the current crop of Macs runs windows faster than their wintel counterparts. Next your gonna tell me that Microshaft invented GUI/windows.

 

It doesnt matter if mac can run windows faster , its overall which computer is better, the PC or the mac... Intel is already in production on the 65 nano which is way ahead of its time, it will take years for Mac to even try to compete with the industry standards that the PC dishes out year for year... and i havnt even gone into the VGU category which i dont even need to talk about. If were looking at a cheap PC vs the MAC then of course the mac will win but the PC wins in all categories when it comes down to modifications, upgrades, and new technology. PC's have the ability to become state-of-the-art whereas you have the MAC that relys on reverse technology ( which you can see is not working for them in this department) and is trying to compete with everyone else. Macs are seriously junk when its up against a PC, if you cant realize how different these 2 machines are then you have no idea whats going on in the computer industry.

 

That's easy it can't. They pick a few test and lean in their favor and that's it. How do I know? Because MACs have the same internal parts as PCs. Same hardware. Saying a portal of windows on a Mac is faster than windows on a dedicated machine is nonsense. It's all sales hype. They say one thing now to sell and they'll counteract their own statement a year from now as they have in the past. As far as windows goes that's just one part of a PC. PCs can run many unix based operating systems including OS X. What you mean to say is OS X on a mac runs faster than Windows on a PC. Might be true but then again I'd rather have twice the functionality and more important, function with performance. I've owned both.

The whole big "Mac's are so good for media" etc. junk was when they used the IBM based G4/5 processors which ran at lower clocked cycle speeds but were able to accomplish more operations per cycle. IBM yanked those chips from Apple and uses their fab plants to make the chips for motorola phones and Playstation IIIs. Now a Mac is nothing but a GUI and a sales hype that's designed for people who want less control over your system, so less errors occur because just like with planes most of the errors are user related.

Mac uses intel parts. So it will be no wonder if their "slim" laptop is a reconfigured one of these. http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/notebook-...azr-263359.php
And it looks like my assumptions might be dead on.
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/05/24/...ok-from-intel/

 

Very well put lol. That about sums it up. I love to tinker and love the PC for it. I like the integration a MAC has. You can't have that level of integration with individual user input on all aspects so they take that away. On my mothers computer I've limited her access to just about everything vital so she can't randomly click "ok" when she doesn't know why. Her PC has been running for 3yrs now with no errors Also stay off the porn and you won't have errors.

 

To be honest I would have purchased a macbook if I could have afforded it. However the price and performance of the one I just purchased was too good to pass up. My current one died and that's the only reason I had to get one now. First year FO pay is a pain.

 

I wonder how many people out there have decided to buy a MAC just because of the lumbering Vista. I recently bought a new sony laptop that came infected with it and sent it back. VISTA SUCKS!. XP is better. The sony took like 2 mins to boot with it and then when it ran it was slow as hell. It had good stuff in it too like the dual core 7200 and 2 Gb. but now everything PC is going Vista and I hate it. I went to best buy last week and played on the Macbook and im impressed.

 

Vista does suck overall. It has great advantages but not to the naked eye much Much more integrated and in reality it's a little ahead of it's time. When you first get a notebook with it you need to leave it on for a day or so. It will run all through the night indexing everything on your harddrive. It also defragments continually. Downside is that the size of the install went from 6gb(xp) to over 30gb(vista). The amount of processes running is over 50 from the start. Vista is generic and tries to please everyone. Go to the run menu and type services.msc and look at everything that pops up. you'll find many things you never use like messenger(not msn), remote access, etc. Disable these processes and your computer will jump. Also the biggest downfall is most computers being purchased now are 64bit processors yet the factory installed operating systems are 32bit. The processors are backwards compatible so it's cheaper for the companies this way, however, it does murder the speed. Upgrade the vista to 64bit, send me a pm if you're wanting to know how, and you'll see the real horsepower come alive. Problem is that joe public, ie my mother, doesn't know this so when they pay for the machine they just assume it sucks. I guess in reality it does since you're the one having to tweak it. There has been widespread hate about Vista's performance and Microsoft currently has a patch out that's in beta mode currently being tested by a few thousand+ users. It should be released any day now. It will be relatively large download and might take 10-20min to install but it's reported that it fixes the speed issues. Also when you first purchase a machine make sure to uninstall all the software from the proper menu. They put this "crapware" on your pc, full of trials etc., as advertisements for those products. Its the reason they are able to lower the cost of the units so much. Once removed you'll also notice a significant speed boost.

 

I had a friend who is much more computer savy do alot of that for me and sped it up quite a bit and reduced the boot time, but it was still a little bit too slow. it was slower then XP on my 4 yr old desktop and that is why i sent it back because it is not essential for me to have one right now and maybe in a few months somthing newer will run it faster. When XP came out it was clearly better then win2000 or whatever i had, at least to me, but vista isnt so obvious. So for me not being a computer quiz im thinking mac might be for me.

The macbooks at bestbuy were about the same price as the sony and they are nice looking units, even a bit sexy.