StarDestroyer.Net BBS

someone_else wrote:Awesome , my attempts at humour suck even if I add smilies.
I apologize, I thought "apple fanboy" wasn't a so serious offence AND that the at the end would convery the "just-poking-at-you" tone of the message. Must have been wrong .

Parroting mindless idiots normally isn't very funny.

Tolya wrote:If there's some secret about Apple's stuff, I have not discovered it yet, even though I worked on Macs, on and off, since Leopard came about.

By and large, they have substantially greater attention to detail than any other consumer electronics company.

General Zod wrote:

Tolya wrote:
Jonathan Ive said something that I think sums up their entire venture pretty well. Apparently, "Apple's aim is not to make money, but just great equipment" - read it in polish news so the re-translation may be a little off. Apparently they should try harder, because they are excellent at making money, but try using magic mouse for 8 hours straight drawing in photoshop/illustrator. And you have to pay 70 bucks for that "pleasure".

If there's some secret about Apple's stuff, I have not discovered it yet, even though I worked on Macs, on and off, since Leopard came about.

So what you're saying is you let their marketing do all the thinking for you?

All Mac equipment that I ever used was at my workplace, haven't paid a single buck for any of the Apple products. And what I am saying is that many (if not most) Apple customers let Apple marketing do the thinking for them. Because paying double the amount of money for basically the same thing, without any obvious advantages, does make you a brandslave. I just bought a Dell laptop for around a thousand bucks. The closest equivalent on the Apple side costs double that, but you can't have a 17'' screen on a MacBook Pro.

I jut think that shows you don't understand the market they serve. Pixels are not value for consumers; user experience, utility, and lifestyle are much more important.

That people can't understand paying more for less pixels or megagigas because of other priorities is simply myopia.

Tolya wrote: All Mac equipment that I ever used was at my workplace, haven't paid a single buck for any of the Apple products. And what I am saying is that many (if not most) Apple customers let Apple marketing do the thinking for them. Because paying double the amount of money for basically the same thing, without any obvious advantages, does make you a brandslave. I just bought a Dell laptop for around a thousand bucks. The closest equivalent on the Apple side costs double that, but you can't have a 17'' screen on a MacBook Pro.

Did you ever use any Dells pre-2010? Because the build quality was pretty awful and they felt like cheap plastic garbage that would break apart if you sneezed on it wrong. The same for HPs. What's the point in spending less money on something if you have to replace it in 6 months because of terrible hardware?

General Zod wrote:

Tolya wrote: All Mac equipment that I ever used was at my workplace, haven't paid a single buck for any of the Apple products. And what I am saying is that many (if not most) Apple customers let Apple marketing do the thinking for them. Because paying double the amount of money for basically the same thing, without any obvious advantages, does make you a brandslave. I just bought a Dell laptop for around a thousand bucks. The closest equivalent on the Apple side costs double that, but you can't have a 17'' screen on a MacBook Pro.

Did you ever use any Dells pre-2010? Because the build quality was pretty awful and they felt like cheap plastic garbage that would break apart if you sneezed on it wrong. The same for HPs. What's the point in spending less money on something if you have to replace it in 6 months because of terrible hardware?

Because Dell had a great replacement plan?

Block wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Tolya wrote: All Mac equipment that I ever used was at my workplace, haven't paid a single buck for any of the Apple products. And what I am saying is that many (if not most) Apple customers let Apple marketing do the thinking for them. Because paying double the amount of money for basically the same thing, without any obvious advantages, does make you a brandslave. I just bought a Dell laptop for around a thousand bucks. The closest equivalent on the Apple side costs double that, but you can't have a 17'' screen on a MacBook Pro.

Did you ever use any Dells pre-2010? Because the build quality was pretty awful and they felt like cheap plastic garbage that would break apart if you sneezed on it wrong. The same for HPs. What's the point in spending less money on something if you have to replace it in 6 months because of terrible hardware?

Because Dell had a great replacement plan?

I don't see how that's an argument in favor of Dell. "LOL sure your battery might accidentally burn up, ruin your hard drive and cause a loss of all your valuable data but don't worry, we'll give you a new one with all the same flaws!"

General Zod wrote:

Tolya wrote: All Mac equipment that I ever used was at my workplace, haven't paid a single buck for any of the Apple products. And what I am saying is that many (if not most) Apple customers let Apple marketing do the thinking for them. Because paying double the amount of money for basically the same thing, without any obvious advantages, does make you a brandslave. I just bought a Dell laptop for around a thousand bucks. The closest equivalent on the Apple side costs double that, but you can't have a 17'' screen on a MacBook Pro.

Did you ever use any Dells pre-2010? Because the build quality was pretty awful and they felt like cheap plastic garbage that would break apart if you sneezed on it wrong. The same for HPs. What's the point in spending less money on something if you have to replace it in 6 months because of terrible hardware?

It's my first Dell laptop actually, but I've got some opinions on the l702x series and it was highly recommended to me by people I trust. We will see how it fares. But a dick measuring competition is pointless and that isn't really the point. Macs have flaws too: shortage of active cooling being one of the more serious. It will not hurt your mac when casually browsing the internet, but for a more system taxing activities will. Ask any of the graphic designers who have decided to get a MacBook Pro - the vents are camouflaged and without active cooling the whole thing heats like an oven. So a discussion over which is better is a pointless exchange of features.

The whole problem I have with Macs is their pricing and laughable marketing strategies. I do admit that the prices for iPads are alright, and when someone asks me for a tablet I do recommend them, but a thousand bucks for an 11 inch netbook without a real graphics card (Intel HD4000 is not a good gpu) is a little bit too much

I would consider Macs to be an alternative, if their pricing range was similar to that of PC/Android systems. However, they choose to charge outrageous money for basically nothing. Oh yeah, as Stark noted, you can buy a lifestyle. If that's what you want to spend your money on, then that's fine, but at least be honest about the fact that you want to have a Mac to brag about it in a Starbucks coffee shop.

Tolya wrote:It's my first Dell laptop actually, but I've got some opinions on the l702x series and it was highly recommended to me by people I trust. We will see how it fares. But a dick measuring competition is pointless and that isn't really the point. Macs have flaws too: shortage of active cooling being one of the more serious. It will not hurt your mac when casually browsing the internet, but for a more system taxing activities will. Ask any of the graphic designers who have decided to get a MacBook Pro - the vents are camouflaged and without active cooling the whole thing heats like an oven. So a discussion over which is better is a pointless exchange of features.

I have a MBP and while it does get pretty hot (current-generation machines are apparently a lot better) the thing does have active cooling. There's a pair of cooling fans. The new rMBP also adds in heatpipes to distribute the cooling load.

The whole problem I have with Macs is their pricing and laughable marketing strategies. I do admit that the prices for iPads are alright, and when someone asks me for a tablet I do recommend them, but a thousand bucks for an 11 inch netbook without a real graphics card (Intel HD4000 is not a good gpu) is a little bit too much

It's because a decent laptop will cost about $1K. Anything less will end up compromised one way or another, particularly if you want something small. Also, it's not a netbook: those machines have constrained CPUs like the Atom, not a full-powered i3 or i5 (and as happens, my sister just replaced her desktop+netbook with a MBA!)

I would consider Macs to be an alternative, if their pricing range was similar to that of PC/Android systems. However, they choose to charge outrageous money for basically nothing. Oh yeah, as Stark noted, you can buy a lifestyle. If that's what you want to spend your money on, then that's fine, but at least be honest about the fact that you want to have a Mac to brag about it in a Starbucks coffee shop.

No, because they provide a generally superior user experience and have fewer compromises than most non-business-class laptops.

phongn wrote:

Tolya wrote:The whole problem I have with Macs is their pricing and laughable marketing strategies. I do admit that the prices for iPads are alright, and when someone asks me for a tablet I do recommend them, but a thousand bucks for an 11 inch netbook without a real graphics card (Intel HD4000 is not a good gpu) is a little bit too much

It's because a decent laptop will cost about $1K. Anything less will end up compromised one way or another, particularly if you want something small. Also, it's not a netbook: those machines have constrained CPUs like the Atom, not a full-powered i3 or i5 (and as happens, my sister just replaced her desktop+netbook with a MBA!)

How exactly is this one compromised? Ever so slightly bigger screen, same processor, more RAM, 500 GB HD instead of 64 GB SSD, $300 cheaper. You could buy that and a 64 GB SSD and have plenty left over.

Or, if you consider an HDD instead of an SSD compromised, there's always this one for $849, still $150 cheaper (compared to the 11" MacBook Air; more like $350 cheaper than the comparable 13" MBA).

Terralthra wrote:How exactly is this one compromised? Ever so slightly bigger screen, same processor, more RAM, 500 GB HD instead of 64 GB SSD, $300 cheaper. You could buy that and a 64 GB SSD and have plenty left over.

It's almost certainly structurally suspect (as most consumer-grade laptops are). There's no real frame or structure to such machines; the motherboard can end up taking much of the strain from daily motion, directly impacting longevity and reliability. It's also larger than a MBA (and will be slower by virtue of its HD). And of course it's bigger and heavier (no money for major reduction in volume or weight at that price point).

The MBA itself, of course, has its own compromises (non-user-serviceable battery to increase overall life, custom SSD layout to reduce size, etc.) It's not a perfect machine by any means.

Or, if you consider an HDD instead of an SSD compromised, there's always this one for $849, still $150 cheaper (compared to the 11" MacBook Air; more like $350 cheaper than the comparable 13" MBA).

That's a better comparison though I have no idea how well-engineered the innards or the case are in comparison. CNC-machined casing on Macs ain't cheap! I'd also have to check the screen quality, keyboard, trackpad (why is it only Apple seems to make decent ones?) and whatnot.

EDIT: And yes, of course there is usually a price premium for Apple products beyond all the tangibles; that I do not discount.

Terralthra wrote:

phongn wrote:

Tolya wrote:The whole problem I have with Macs is their pricing and laughable marketing strategies. I do admit that the prices for iPads are alright, and when someone asks me for a tablet I do recommend them, but a thousand bucks for an 11 inch netbook without a real graphics card (Intel HD4000 is not a good gpu) is a little bit too much

It's because a decent laptop will cost about $1K. Anything less will end up compromised one way or another, particularly if you want something small. Also, it's not a netbook: those machines have constrained CPUs like the Atom, not a full-powered i3 or i5 (and as happens, my sister just replaced her desktop+netbook with a MBA!)

How exactly is this one compromised? Ever so slightly bigger screen, same processor, more RAM, 500 GB HD instead of 64 GB SSD, $300 cheaper. You could buy that and a 64 GB SSD and have plenty left over.

Or, if you consider an HDD instead of an SSD compromised, there's always this one for $849, still $150 cheaper (compared to the 11" MacBook Air; more like $350 cheaper than the comparable 13" MBA).

How much flex does the case have? If a notebook's well built it should be incredibly rigid. A lot of cheaper notebooks tend to have a nasty cheap plasticky feel to the case and seem like they'll break if you grab it wrong.

I've used offerings from both companies, though I will admit that most of my experience with Macs came years ago on G3 and G4 machines at my middle school as well as on an out of date Power Mac that I got from a comouter store that couldn't sell it because it was a few years out of date. Honestly even though they were far from top of the line they still worked well and ran reliably. On the other hand, when it came time to buy my most recent laptop I skipped past Apple's offerings because I simply couldn't afford to buy the level of machine I wanted for the price point being offered.

The HP Pavillion laptop I got has had a few fluke problems that have had it in for repairs, but since then it's worked like a charm. I could see myself buying another laptop from them again in the future.

General Zod wrote:I don't see how that's an argument in favor of Dell. "LOL sure your battery might accidentally burn up, ruin your hard drive and cause a loss of all your valuable data but don't worry, we'll give you a new one with all the same flaws!"

This is actually an issue of lithium batteries as a whole, even the good ones can burn due to damage/moisture/virus. Even Apple ones (especially due to virus). Unless Apple is using LiFePo4 batteries (and they aren't, none is afaik), they are all in the same boat.

So having a great replacement plan is a + for Dell.

phongn wrote:It's because a decent laptop will cost about $1K.

You have higher standards than the average consumer. I do as well but I don't usually to invest so much cash on something that can die for so much reasons. The majority of the people I see around wants a box for Internet (read FACEBOOK), movies (read PORN), Word+Excel, the odd crappy indie-grade game they download from internet. You can get pretty good laptops for 500-ish $ if you just want that. All Apple laptops are either ridicolously overkill AND fucking expensive or just too fucking expensive for that.

Most netbooks with dual-core atom processors can handle that acceptably for much less (well, not full HD stuff unless they have a ION, but they don't have the screen for that either).

Heck, most modern tablets with power comparable to Ipad can do it too for much less as well (this time with HD and in the case of Ipad with retina displays, why are they selling more than netbooks again?).

We are disregarding the average company grunt's workstation which is a good share of MS market, which from what I see is 99% still on XP because it's cheaper and since the softwares they need only work on Windows. If they have to change hardware they buy mainly nettops, and not Apple stuff. Not that Apple cares anyway.

And of course serious gaming on a Mac is an issue unless you install Windows on it with Bootcamp. Which adds a hundred bucks or so on top of its price for a Windows licence.

It's almost certainly structurally suspect (as most consumer-grade laptops are). There's no real frame or structure to such machines; the motherboard can end up taking much of the strain from daily motion, directly impacting longevity and reliability.

Well, it's a computer, it's not meant to be used as a weapon . Most plastic casings I saw were relatively crappy, but as long as the thing is kept in a bag made to carry laptops and handled with some respect it won't die before it's time for it to be replaced.

In most cases a fall from a table (or an idiot ramming your bag with something) trashes a laptop's screen, while split liquids, rain, whatever kills it regardless of brand. So I don't know how much is worth spending more for a tougher frame.

If it is military-grade toss-into-a-pond or otherwise heavy-duty shit we can start talking, otherwise it's not that relevant.

I'd also have to check the screen quality, keyboard, trackpad (why is it only Apple seems to make decent ones?) and whatnot.

Sadly, while screen quality is usually acceptable (while of course not retina), keyboard and trackpads on ultrabooks aren't anywhere near what you'd expect from those devices.
That is, they are better on my non-Apple netbook.

As for why only Apple has good trackpads (and screens and keyboards), it's because they actually care about user experience as much as they care about performance. Most others think performance is everything.
It isn't. But if "crappier" is also far far cheaper, then we can make a deal.

someone_else wrote:You have higher standards than the average consumer. I do as well but I don't usually to invest so much cash on something that can die for so much reasons. The majority of the people I see around wants a box for Internet (read FACEBOOK), movies (read PORN), Word+Excel, the odd crappy indie-grade game they download from internet. You can get pretty good laptops for 500-ish $ if you just want that. All Apple laptops are either ridicolously overkill AND fucking expensive or just too fucking expensive for that.

A Thinkpad T- or X2x0-series is reasonably well-built and not horribly expensive (though the T-series has had corners cut as Lenovo has to fight the same price war everyone else does). Even for a basic Office/Web machine I want it to be a nice experience. I am fortunate enough that I can afford so (I understand not everyone can).

Most netbooks with dual-core atom processors can handle that acceptably for much less (well, not full HD stuff unless they have a ION, but they don't have the screen for that either).

The experience is atrocious (with first-hand experience). The only redeeming factor was size and battery life, which we can now handle with real laptops (or tablets).

It's almost certainly structurally suspect (as most consumer-grade laptops are). There's no real frame or structure to such machines; the motherboard can end up taking much of the strain from daily motion, directly impacting longevity and reliability.

Well, it's a computer, it's not meant to be used as a weapon . Most plastic casings I saw were relatively crappy, but as long as the thing is kept in a bag made to carry laptops and handled with some respect it won't die before it's time for it to be replaced.

Even in a laptop bag (and most laptop bags or sleeves are not well designed for actually protecting laptops!) those laptops face all sorts of stress. Even from someone just picking the machine up (or resting their hands on the palmrest). Portable computers should be able to withstand some level of basic strain and abuse (and many can't even handle that).

In most cases a fall from a table (or an idiot ramming your bag with something) trashes a laptop's screen, while split liquids, rain, whatever kills it regardless of brand. So I don't know how much is worth spending more for a tougher frame.

As it happens, better ThinkPads are (or were) designed specifically so that spilt liquid into the keyboard could naturally drain and not fry the machine It's design choices like that which make me recommend them for PC laptops despite their real price premium.

using the MBA as some price benchmark is pretty retarded. It's a netbook? Seriously? Lol

Phongn, you're talking way too much about things that aren't numbers. Surely the really important issues with laptops is megas and pixels and dodge rams? Things that are - remarkably - easy to market and cheap to inflate! The best part is when pixel hunters consider themselves informed. :v

Stark wrote:using the MBA as some price benchmark is pretty retarded. It's a netbook? Seriously? Lol

I guess because the 11" MBA looks like a netbook it must be one?

Phongn, you're talking way too much about things that aren't numbers. Surely the really important issues with laptops is megas and pixels and dodge rams? Things that are - remarkably - easy to market and cheap to inflate! The best part is when pixel hunters consider themselves informed. :v

Well, specifications can matter even for consumers: the high resolution of a Retina-MBP makes for a vastly superior user-experience; an SSD makes I/O-bound tasks (read: almost everything) so much more pleasant and decent CPU power also helps things out nicely. But they're an means to an end (accomplishing user tasks in a pleasant, usable and quick manner).

I hope like hell that Apple will be able to get 'Retina' displays on their entire product line within a few years. We've been accepting low-dpi screens for way too long. The SSD transition has been fantastic, too (rotational latency is annoying as hell on hard drives)

The focus on the marketing numbers (ie what low-cost manufacturers can supply in bulk) has never been about anything b capturing different parts of the market, but some people seem convinced a race to the bottom for cheapest stat-line is the 'best' way to buy consumer appliances. Of course performance matters, but it doesn't follow that a cheaper alternative is 'just as good' or 'better' based on how many turbogibbis is on the box, and people treating 'enthusiast' requirements or experiences as a baseline are off the mark.

someone_else wrote:

General Zod wrote:I don't see how that's an argument in favor of Dell. "LOL sure your battery might accidentally burn up, ruin your hard drive and cause a loss of all your valuable data but don't worry, we'll give you a new one with all the same flaws!"

This is actually an issue of lithium batteries as a whole, even the good ones can burn due to damage/moisture/virus. Even Apple ones (especially due to virus). Unless Apple is using LiFePo4 batteries (and they aren't, none is afaik), they are all in the same boat.

So having a great replacement plan is a + for Dell.

I could go on and list a number of other manufacturing flaws, but the point is I'll stick with the brands not known for going tits up if you sneeze on them too hard.

It's funny because Macbooks actually do fail about as much as other laptops. Dells might fail more than Apple, but it's only a 1% difference (PDF). The idea that Macbook is anywhere near price competitive is just fucking hilarious. That's ASUS's ultimate "E-peen way more than I need" gaming laptop. Go for Apple's e-peen (sans retina, because I want to make this remotely fair and Retina is just more bullshit marketing anyway) and you get less hardware for $800 more.

Do you not understand or not care that 'hardware' isn't the beginning and end of decision making for people, or that Apple isn't just an off-the-shelf reseller?

What the fuck are you on about? My post addresses two false-hoods being thrown around in this thread:

1. Apple is better quality-wise than other cheaper products.
2. You have to get near Apple's price point ($1000) in order to match their performance and quality.

Stark, you can justify the popularity of COD:MW7 the same way. But surely people will like the slick interface, the quick loading times! It won't make the game any less crap. Yes, the fact stands that the people look at such stuff and use those benchmarks to make their purchasing decisions. Apple is the computer equivalent of a limited edition Converse shoe. I know there are people who want to pay extra cash so they can blend in with a certain crowd. I do accept the fact that such people exist, just as religious nuts do, but I will never understand them.

Not that OS X's are totally crap, but again, the prices... they are even more outrageous in Poland where "Polish Ice is very poor". I paid 3499 PLN for an i7 laptop with 750GB of space and a 17 inch screen. The most basic MBA costs 4699 PLN. For an equivalent (but without the 17 inch screen) MBP I would have to fork out 5599 PLN. That's a bit too much.

The one good thing though Apple did recently was putting a 15 euro price tag on the Mountain Lion, which is a really good move. At the same time they removed all the other OS X's from sales (at least they disappeared from all the online store). I also do appreciate the fact that any

As for Dell build quality, I have on my desk at work a Dell XPS M1330. It's build quality is horrific. My L702x is nowhere close to even the old MacBook white's (got one on my work desk too), but it is way above the old Dell. So they are probably learning.

And phongn, your sister has probably very small computing needs if she was able to substitute her entire "PC farm" with a single small screen MBA. And that's not "pixel hunting" when you need a 1TB drive for your daily needs, because I would run out of the 256GB on an SSD pretty quickly.

Oh, great fun type of news: german company AG Metro made Microsoft resign from using Metro name. Currently, we are looking at "New User Interface"

Tolya wrote:And phongn, your sister has probably very small computing needs if she was able to substitute her entire "PC farm" with a single small screen MBA. And that's not "pixel hunting" when you need a 1TB drive for your daily needs, because I would run out of the 256GB on an SSD pretty quickly.

Well, yes, clearly: she pretty much just needs Office, a web browser and a media player. The only real compromise is storage space, of which she can use an external drive (and the SSD's speed is an excellent tradeoff).

Not that OS X's are totally crap, but again, the prices... they are even more outrageous in Poland where "Polish Ice is very poor". I paid 3499 PLN for an i7 laptop with 750GB of space and a 17 inch screen. The most basic MBA costs 4699 PLN. For an equivalent (but without the 17 inch screen) MBP I would have to fork out 5599 PLN. That's a bit too much.

Yeesh, that's a bit much compared to prices in the USA.

TheFeniX wrote:It's funny because Macbooks actually do fail about as much as other laptops. Dells might fail more than Apple, but it's only a 1% difference (PDF).

That's an interesting study (though possibly a bit skewed since it's a third-party warranty seller, versus OEM statistics). I wish they broke it down, though: there are major, noticeable differences in build quality across most PC vendors (is this weighted to consumer goods? Are business-grade laptops pulling down failure rates)? I'd love to know more and go into detail (and wish they'd release their dataset). This survey is in contrast to initial-quality surveys which usually put Apple and Lenovo (ThinkPad) up front. Thanks for sharing it.

That's ASUS's ultimate "E-peen way more than I need" gaming laptop. Go for Apple's e-peen (sans retina, because I want to make this remotely fair and Retina is just more bullshit marketing anyway) and you get less hardware for $800 more.

Retina isn't bullshit (it should be the minimum standard), and of course a gaming-desktop replacement is going to be cheaper than a machine designed for portability (like, oh, an EliteBook or ThinkPad T/W-series). And as Stark notes, Acer is pretty much just relabeling a machine, there's no real custom engineering going on.

2. You have to get near Apple's price point ($1000) in order to match their performance and quality.

There's more to quality than reliability (if an important component of it). Again, screen quality, quality of case, quality of keyboard, trackpad, etc. Cheap plastic junk with terrible keyboards and tiny trackpads that barely can do palm rejection are not "quality".