- Status
I think the author did a good job on the article, IMO. I think he could of compared MAC to a company like SUN. The Ultra 20 and 40 workstations are comparable priced as MAC's . Someone that understand hardware and can upgrade hardware himself will buy the low-end model and buy upgrades locally or online elsewhere. Sun computers are designed for CAD more so than anything else or anything that doesn?t use Direct3d (because of the video card), but if you upgrade the video card then you extend the options. SUN is designed to run better on SUN Solaris, than Windows, but the option is there. Mac on the other hand is about the same, but comes with a video card that can handle Direct3d (even though OSX may not even use it, but it?s still there) and it is designed for OSX more so than Windows. If someone built computers for a hobby, chances are he may build a computer for himself. If someone doesn?t know what hardware is and how to build computers he will buy from a vendor, or ask someone to build a computer for him. Chances are it would be MAC, HP, Dell, etc... (the large corporations). That is only one aspect of the reasoning behind buying a vendor computer in general, but there is too many to list.
[citation][nom]angry_ducky[/nom]I don't think that comparing the MacBook Pro and the XPS M1730 is a good comparison; the XPS is a desktop-replacement gaming machine, and is therefore bigger and heavier than the Mac. Also, the 8700M GT will outperform the 8600GT, and I am unable to find where it specifies that the 8700 has shared graphics memory.Dell sells the XPS M1530 which is a 15.4 inch laptop designed more for multimedia than for gaming (similar to the Mac). The M1530 starts at $1000, and with identical specs to the MacBook Pro (and Vista Ultimate), the price is $1650.[/citation]
"2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz [Included in Price]
Dell Recommended for an enhanced Windows Vista experience"
You'll find it in the custom configuration section.
Or
"Memory
2GB2 Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz"
In the main "features" page.
Or you could look under the Tech Specs tab and actually read footnote 2 "Important Details" beside the video cards' memory specs under Graphics.
"Shared Memory (SDRAM) - (under 4GB) - Significant system memory may be allocated to support graphics, depending on system memory size and other factors."
The easiest way not to find something is to never look for it. What I don't see anywhere is explicit shared or dedicated graphics memory specs for any of the MacBook Pro's.
"2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz [Included in Price]
Dell Recommended for an enhanced Windows Vista experience"
You'll find it in the custom configuration section.
Or
"Memory
2GB2 Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz"
In the main "features" page.
Or you could look under the Tech Specs tab and actually read footnote 2 "Important Details" beside the video cards' memory specs under Graphics.
"Shared Memory (SDRAM) - (under 4GB) - Significant system memory may be allocated to support graphics, depending on system memory size and other factors."
The easiest way not to find something is to never look for it. What I don't see anywhere is explicit shared or dedicated graphics memory specs for any of the MacBook Pro's.
onearmedscissorb
Distinguished
- Apr 25, 2008
- 38
- 0
- 18,530
I saw someone post a comment on an article here the other day saying that this site is looking like Apple has paid them off. I'm starting to believe it.
Yes, a computer with dual high end Xeons is expensive, and it's not going to be "cheap" if you try to make it yourself. It's also pretty much snake oil for the vast majority of us out there. The uses for a computer like that are VERY few and far between, and yet, they have an entire line they try to push based on that idea.
So where are the comparisons to cheaper PCs that are suited to normal people? I can guarantee you that if I go and buy some random computer at Best Buy that will see little use more demanding than surfing the internet, it will probably run about HALF what Apple will try to make you pay for a computer they advertise for that purpose.
It's not so much that Apple makes identical computers and then charges twice as much. The bigger issue is that they sell you the wrong thing to begin with.
Yes, a computer with dual high end Xeons is expensive, and it's not going to be "cheap" if you try to make it yourself. It's also pretty much snake oil for the vast majority of us out there. The uses for a computer like that are VERY few and far between, and yet, they have an entire line they try to push based on that idea.
So where are the comparisons to cheaper PCs that are suited to normal people? I can guarantee you that if I go and buy some random computer at Best Buy that will see little use more demanding than surfing the internet, it will probably run about HALF what Apple will try to make you pay for a computer they advertise for that purpose.
It's not so much that Apple makes identical computers and then charges twice as much. The bigger issue is that they sell you the wrong thing to begin with.
[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]I'll respond to the "cheaper PC" posts here in one response instead of individually.The bottom line here guys, is that you can ALWAYS build anything for cheaper. A car, a computer, a PC, a Mac, a house, whatever it may be. You can get from Point A to Point B cheaper one way or another.The whole argument was, can you build the SAME thing Apple builds for less?Even in this question, it is sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the point is, it's not WAY WAY less like some people mentioned. One last person in the article said he build the "exact" same system for HALF the price. C'mon now./ Tuan[/citation]
Well, as was the problem with this article, how do you quantize "WAY WAY less?"
Yes, there was one comment where a person said he could build the same machine for half the price. You showed him that the added too many fluff options that increased the overall price. But if I recall correctly, you re-specced the machine and removed the fluff to make it cheaper, but in the end wasn't it still $2000 more expensive - or at least noticeably so?
I have no problem with there being Mac reviews on Tom's. The problem is that you can't review the hardware (this is Toms HARDWARE) because, as was pointed out before, it's usually a bit older than cutting edge, and what cutting edge hardware is included in the Mac was already reviewed as a separate component on THG (such as the new Qxxxx Intel processor, etc.). That leaves only the operating system to review. However, most people can't separate OSX from the hardware, and rightly so - Apple won't let you. Toms Hardware usually reviews components, not whole machines, and this is simply not something you can easily do with Macs. And again, now that Macs run in Intel hardware, the technical reviews done on hardware relate to mac.
Well, as was the problem with this article, how do you quantize "WAY WAY less?"
Yes, there was one comment where a person said he could build the same machine for half the price. You showed him that the added too many fluff options that increased the overall price. But if I recall correctly, you re-specced the machine and removed the fluff to make it cheaper, but in the end wasn't it still $2000 more expensive - or at least noticeably so?
I have no problem with there being Mac reviews on Tom's. The problem is that you can't review the hardware (this is Toms HARDWARE) because, as was pointed out before, it's usually a bit older than cutting edge, and what cutting edge hardware is included in the Mac was already reviewed as a separate component on THG (such as the new Qxxxx Intel processor, etc.). That leaves only the operating system to review. However, most people can't separate OSX from the hardware, and rightly so - Apple won't let you. Toms Hardware usually reviews components, not whole machines, and this is simply not something you can easily do with Macs. And again, now that Macs run in Intel hardware, the technical reviews done on hardware relate to mac.
I'm sorry to make a follow up post to soon - but THG was always about reviews which included thorough testing and statistics. But when Tuan starts throwing around scientific terms like "WAY WAY less" it starts looking opinionated and deviates from what THG was: less technical, more consumer-oriented fluff.
I think everyone should just agree that Tuan clearly wrote about something non-objective and by doing so crossed the line tht Tom's Hardware used to stand for...
Simple as that... This is a debate over preference and otherwise non-objective discussion.
So On that note Tuan, please hang yourself
Simple as that... This is a debate over preference and otherwise non-objective discussion.
So On that note Tuan, please hang yourself
T-Bone
Distinguished
- Jun 3, 2004
- 153
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]I'll respond to the "cheaper PC" posts here in one response instead of individually.The bottom line here guys, is that you can ALWAYS build anything for cheaper. A car, a computer, a PC, a Mac, a house, whatever it may be. You can get from Point A to Point B cheaper one way or another.The whole argument was, can you build the SAME thing Apple builds for less?Even in this question, it is sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the point is, it's not WAY WAY less like some people mentioned. One last person in the article said he build the "exact" same system for HALF the price. C'mon now./ Tuan[/citation]
No, no, no. The point IS that you CAN'T buy a cheaper Mac! A car, a computer PC, a house, whatever it may be...but NOT a Mac! You have so so so many choices for all of the items above EXCEPT the Mac. The Mac price advantage only comes in on a basic stripped down Mac which you then have to install a bunch of peripherals to; which means to me that your building a system and if you're gonna do that then I am sure that you can build a pc system for a lot less. Of course, some or many of the components won't be of the same quality but in the pc world you actually DO have that choice.
No, no, no. The point IS that you CAN'T buy a cheaper Mac! A car, a computer PC, a house, whatever it may be...but NOT a Mac! You have so so so many choices for all of the items above EXCEPT the Mac. The Mac price advantage only comes in on a basic stripped down Mac which you then have to install a bunch of peripherals to; which means to me that your building a system and if you're gonna do that then I am sure that you can build a pc system for a lot less. Of course, some or many of the components won't be of the same quality but in the pc world you actually DO have that choice.
cjl
Splendid
- Jun 18, 2008
- 7,676
- 0
- 31,160
[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom][/citation]Did you not notice the annotation to the memory category? "2" ?[/citation]
What, this?
[citation][nom]Dell[/nom]
2GB2 Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
[/citation]
That doesn't tell you anything - it says the exact same thing on the top configuration that you can buy. I just configured one fully loaded, and guess what it said:
[citation][nom]Dell[/nom]4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz[/citation]
It also said this though:
[citation][nom]Dell[/nom] NVIDIA® SLI™ Dual GeForce® 8800M GTX with 1GB GDDR3 Memory[/citation]
Are you going to try to tell us now that the top end Dell machine, with dual 8800M GTXs, uses shared memory?
What, this?
[citation][nom]Dell[/nom]
2GB2 Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
[/citation]
That doesn't tell you anything - it says the exact same thing on the top configuration that you can buy. I just configured one fully loaded, and guess what it said:
[citation][nom]Dell[/nom]4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz[/citation]
It also said this though:
[citation][nom]Dell[/nom] NVIDIA® SLI™ Dual GeForce® 8800M GTX with 1GB GDDR3 Memory[/citation]
Are you going to try to tell us now that the top end Dell machine, with dual 8800M GTXs, uses shared memory?
bfstev
Distinguished
- Aug 4, 2008
- 174
- 0
- 18,680
The 8700m Gt does have shared memory, it is just in addition to the 256mb on board(it comes in 512 or 256). This is done through nvidia's TurboCache(there is suppose to be a little TM sign here) technology. So, your all right in regard to that, but the 8700 will definently out perform the 8600. Especially since through TurboCache in will have access to the additional system memory. This tech is actually also used in the 8600m so really the only difference here is the card model and the 8700 being the better model.
I know wiki aint the best place to quote, but w/e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboCache
You should probably post a fix about that.
the probalem was dell didn't publish this info so it led to confusion, could happen to anyone took me a second myself to realize.
I know wiki aint the best place to quote, but w/e
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboCache
You should probably post a fix about that.
the probalem was dell didn't publish this info so it led to confusion, could happen to anyone took me a second myself to realize.
space_pope
Distinguished
- Aug 4, 2008
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
I'm tired of the bunk that comes out of Toms. Will you please do an apples-to-apples comparison of the Macbook Pro with ANY other laptop that has the same screen size at least!
Experiment 1: configure a Dell XPS 1530 with the same components (15.4" 1440x900 LED LCD, Nvidia 8600M GT, 2GB ram, etc) and you get $1399. But Dell also uses coupons which any moron can find online so take another 20% off and you get $1119. That means the equally equipped Dell is $880 cheaper or roughly 56% the price.
Experiment 2: configure a HP dv5t. You can build an amazing setup for less than $1500, but lets see what we can get with a $1999 limit: 15.4" 1680x1050 LCD, C2D 2.8Ghz CPU, 3GB ram, 512MB Nvidia 9600M GT, 250GG hard drive, Blu-ray drive, High Capacity 6 Cell battery, Intel 5100AGN with Bluetooth, and an HDTV tuner. This is still $72 cheaper ($1928) than the MBP and the HP absolutely destroys it in both performance and features, i.e EVERY option/feature is better on the HP. And if you buy it from Costco the same setup is only $1849 and you get an extra year on the warranty.
Apple completely rips of their customers on hardware and that's before we even mention the outrageously overpriced upgrades they offer. This is just a fact, plain and simple. I happen to hate Vista (I use XP and Ubuntu) and I would love to try OSX, but I will not pay an extra $880 for it, when I could get a similar Dell, and I will not pass up a hugely superior laptop (the HP) for the same price.
Experiment 1: configure a Dell XPS 1530 with the same components (15.4" 1440x900 LED LCD, Nvidia 8600M GT, 2GB ram, etc) and you get $1399. But Dell also uses coupons which any moron can find online so take another 20% off and you get $1119. That means the equally equipped Dell is $880 cheaper or roughly 56% the price.
Experiment 2: configure a HP dv5t. You can build an amazing setup for less than $1500, but lets see what we can get with a $1999 limit: 15.4" 1680x1050 LCD, C2D 2.8Ghz CPU, 3GB ram, 512MB Nvidia 9600M GT, 250GG hard drive, Blu-ray drive, High Capacity 6 Cell battery, Intel 5100AGN with Bluetooth, and an HDTV tuner. This is still $72 cheaper ($1928) than the MBP and the HP absolutely destroys it in both performance and features, i.e EVERY option/feature is better on the HP. And if you buy it from Costco the same setup is only $1849 and you get an extra year on the warranty.
Apple completely rips of their customers on hardware and that's before we even mention the outrageously overpriced upgrades they offer. This is just a fact, plain and simple. I happen to hate Vista (I use XP and Ubuntu) and I would love to try OSX, but I will not pay an extra $880 for it, when I could get a similar Dell, and I will not pass up a hugely superior laptop (the HP) for the same price.
rockbyter
Distinguished
- Feb 13, 2008
- 563
- 0
- 18,980
You have now intrigued me. You knew the consequences when you started, so were you told to go ahead and run with articles to see what happens?
If you are the guinea pig I almost feel bad for you, but at the same time you probably won't get fired for writing against the grain.
Create a new mac section for THG, where people can welcome this sort of article with open arms.
What would have been sufficient, is what every other news site does with Apple reviews. Direct comparison on features, prices, performance, and upgrades. Benchmark them. Write about the limited or abundant functionality between budget, workstation, and performance oriented platforms PC and Apple alike.
The second article to follow the first hardware one is to directly review the operating systems on exactly similar hardware. This means you may need to build a mac clone and install windows, then OS X. You can then write exactly what you 'feel' is the difference, and what features get noticed from one over another. When you upgrade the memory of both systems to 4 gb, what changes in the benchmarks and measurable behavior.
I would actually like you to write these two factual articles and it should clear up the whole thing.
robwright
Distinguished
- Feb 16, 2006
- 1,129
- 7
- 19,285
[citation][nom]scimanal[/nom]I think everyone should just agree that Tuan clearly wrote about something non-objective and by doing so crossed the line tht Tom's Hardware used to stand for...Simple as that... This is a debate over preference and otherwise non-objective discussion.So On that note Tuan, please hang yourself[/citation]
Speaking of crossing the line, Scimanal..."please hang yourself"?
Your comment is not only uncalled for, it's also unbecoming of the informed, intelligent readership we aim to serve here at THG.
Speaking of crossing the line, Scimanal..."please hang yourself"?
Your comment is not only uncalled for, it's also unbecoming of the informed, intelligent readership we aim to serve here at THG.
[citation][nom]rockbyter[/nom]You have now intrigued me. You knew the consequences when you started, so were you told to go ahead and run with articles to see what happens? If you are the guinea pig I almost feel bad for you, but at the same time you probably won't get fired for writing against the grain. Create a new mac section for THG, where people can welcome this sort of article with open arms. What would have been sufficient, is what every other news site does with Apple reviews. Direct comparison on features, prices, performance, and upgrades. Benchmark them. Write about the limited or abundant functionality between budget, workstation, and performance oriented platforms PC and Apple alike. The second article to follow the first hardware one is to directly review the operating systems on exactly similar hardware. This means you may need to build a mac clone and install windows, then OS X. You can then write exactly what you 'feel' is the difference, and what features get noticed from one over another. When you upgrade the memory of both systems to 4 gb, what changes in the benchmarks and measurable behavior. I would actually like you to write these two factual articles and it should clear up the whole thing. [/citation]
Seconded - that's what these articles should have been, that's what THG is.
Seconded - that's what these articles should have been, that's what THG is.
@Tuan, I know you cannot reply to all comments here, but please why not ignore replying to the name calling ones and reply to the ones that are more informed. By replying short messages like "Briliant" etc you stoop to the same level as the name callers and really, that is not the level we want to be on here, now is it?
I, and I'm certain many more here, would like you to give detailed feedback to GoodSyntax.
I would also like a comment on my main argument against a Mac:
You don't use the same components as a Mac, but cheaper component to get an end result that beats the Mac on all benchmark scores. That is my gripe. I don't want to use the latest Xeon CPU because I would only pay for fluff then.
Finally some feedback on your article:
I read it with an open mind. Really I did. And still I felt irritation in the article. It was statements like when you discuss proprietary OS or not that you claim that some people "have no understanding at all about computer...". I don't remember the exact phrasing now, but that is name calling and should never be seen in an article. If you find there is a lot of name calling in the comments, please keep in mind that a lot of readers could have taken offense at the name calling in the article and replied in kind.
I like Macs even if I have arguments against them. I have arguments against Windows and damn I have ammunition against Linux. All things considered I try to stand as neutral as possible. Still I found the quality of the article very bad. And no, it is not that I'm a fanboi (hence me stating that I am neutral just before). It really was a very low level on the arguments and felt more like a forum than an article. The tone was harsher than it should have been (like the comment about people having no understanding) and the examples were cherry picked. It really didn't have a scientific touch there.
I, and I'm certain many more here, would like you to give detailed feedback to GoodSyntax.
I would also like a comment on my main argument against a Mac:
You don't use the same components as a Mac, but cheaper component to get an end result that beats the Mac on all benchmark scores. That is my gripe. I don't want to use the latest Xeon CPU because I would only pay for fluff then.
Finally some feedback on your article:
I read it with an open mind. Really I did. And still I felt irritation in the article. It was statements like when you discuss proprietary OS or not that you claim that some people "have no understanding at all about computer...". I don't remember the exact phrasing now, but that is name calling and should never be seen in an article. If you find there is a lot of name calling in the comments, please keep in mind that a lot of readers could have taken offense at the name calling in the article and replied in kind.
I like Macs even if I have arguments against them. I have arguments against Windows and damn I have ammunition against Linux. All things considered I try to stand as neutral as possible. Still I found the quality of the article very bad. And no, it is not that I'm a fanboi (hence me stating that I am neutral just before). It really was a very low level on the arguments and felt more like a forum than an article. The tone was harsher than it should have been (like the comment about people having no understanding) and the examples were cherry picked. It really didn't have a scientific touch there.
As much as I like Apple, I have to agree with most of the comments here. I have a current generation Airport Extreme router and a first generation iphone (this should tell you something,right?) and I absolutely love them because these are what I need, nothing more, nothing less. But when it comes to computers, I have a XP desktop with socket 939 Opteron 170 @2.5GHz, an Ubuntu desktop running as ftp server with old Northwood P4 3GHz, a Dell XPS m1330 Vista laptop(T7500 processor, 3GB ram, 250GB 5400rpm HD, 8400m gpu,with 3 year top of the line warranty, paid $1278 tax and shipping included 8 months ago). There are reasons why I don't have Macs for my computer needs. Like most/a lot of people on this site, I tweak and mod my computers. I can't do that with Macs. I play games and I can't do that with Macs either. These are the deal breakers for me. When we compare products, we have to consider the "what I need" factor. I doubt that regular people like us will have a Mac Pro because we don't need it. So, if the author wants to make a realistic argument (his arguments are quite valid just not realistic), he should compare a mainstream Mac with a comparable mainstream PC. The same goes for the Mac book air. I am not gonna buy it even if I have a million bucks. These are niche products and not a lot of people care about them.And as for the author's comment about not to criticize the author and just to criticize the arguments, here is the thing. You own what you have presented. If we think you did a bad job, we will bash you, not the arguments because these arguments did not write themselves, you did. Personally, I wouldn't call you names but I don't think other people who called you names are wrong either. They are just saying the same thing I am saying, in a different way. Our message is "You suck at writing this article". And to the editors, tom's hardware is my homepage on all my computers and I think that's about to change. Don't tell me if I don't want to come, don't come because every reader/customer counts and I am not the only one with the same sentiment. I wish everybody at Tom's best of luck (because you are gonna need it).
[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]I'll respond to the "cheaper PC" posts here in one response instead of individually.The bottom line here guys, is that you can ALWAYS build anything for cheaper. A car, a computer, a PC, a Mac, a house, whatever it may be. You can get from Point A to Point B cheaper one way or another.The whole argument was, can you build the SAME thing Apple builds for less?Even in this question, it is sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the point is, it's not WAY WAY less like some people mentioned. One last person in the article said he build the "exact" same system for HALF the price. C'mon now./ Tuan[/citation]
Its not like building a car at all. Building a PC consumes FAR less time and energy, and pretty much its just putting tab A into slot B type of thing. You used overpriced hardware and software (Retail vista ultimate - $250+, while OEM premium is only $90 on newegg), and the whole article is extremely biased. That other guy is right, you should be fired.
Its not like building a car at all. Building a PC consumes FAR less time and energy, and pretty much its just putting tab A into slot B type of thing. You used overpriced hardware and software (Retail vista ultimate - $250+, while OEM premium is only $90 on newegg), and the whole article is extremely biased. That other guy is right, you should be fired.
cjl
Splendid
- Jun 18, 2008
- 7,676
- 0
- 31,160
[citation][nom]bfstev[/nom]The 8700m Gt does have shared memory, it is just in addition to the 256mb on board(it comes in 512 or 256). This is done through nvidia's TurboCache(there is suppose to be a little TM sign here) technology. So, your all right in regard to that, but the 8700 will definently out perform the 8600. Especially since through TurboCache in will have access to the additional system memory. This tech is actually also used in the 8600m so really the only difference here is the card model and the 8700 being the better model.I know wiki aint the best place to quote, but w/ehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TurboCacheYou should probably post a fix about that.the probalem was dell didn't publish this info so it led to confusion, could happen to anyone took me a second myself to realize.[/citation]
OK, that makes more sense now. It also should definitely outperform the 8600, as it does have onboard memory in addition to the external memory.
OK, that makes more sense now. It also should definitely outperform the 8600, as it does have onboard memory in addition to the external memory.
Ignoring the opinionated remarks in the article, there are still loads of gaping inaccuracies present which threatens (scrach that, destroy) its credibility.
First let's start on page one. Either you are new to the review business or you really are bias. Comparing a 15.4" Laptop to a 17" laptop is like comparing a Audi to an F250. The Audi is smaller, gets better gas milage, and is prettier. The F250, on the other hand, has better safety ratings, better part avalibility, and can bring along quite a bit of equipment for the ride. Perhaps we should compare an Audi to a BMW, or 15.4" to a 15.4". Perhaps you will get the analogy. I just got off the phone with my Dell representitive and there is dedicated video memory in the 8700M GT in the XPS M1730.
A little farther down the page, we see the VooDoo vs the Air. Finally, a apples to apples comparison. Except, oh yeah, lets pick particular specs that favor the Air more than the VooDoo. I can do that too. Forget the magnetic plug to charge the laptop. Forget iLife. I want to compare the VooDoo's carbon-fiber chassis to the Air's seemingly plastic chassis. I'd also like to compare application compatability, where once again the VooDoo will win.
Others have already covered the issues with the custom-built PC with the MacPro. The PC here has flexibility that the MacPro does not. What if there is a problem with the hard drive? I can easily return and RMA it myself if I built it.
In all fairness, the rest of the article seems more objective than the first few pages.
When it comes down to it, for the average computer enthusiast, a PC will always be a better option. More flexiblity, easier control over the hardware and software, higher compatiblity, and better customization.
However, in the end, when writing an article on a PC enthusiast site, keep in mind your fanbase. We are not idiots. You are not writing to the same audience that "PC World" caters to. Your audience on Tom's Hardware knows about modern technology and how to properly assemble and configure a PC from parts.
First let's start on page one. Either you are new to the review business or you really are bias. Comparing a 15.4" Laptop to a 17" laptop is like comparing a Audi to an F250. The Audi is smaller, gets better gas milage, and is prettier. The F250, on the other hand, has better safety ratings, better part avalibility, and can bring along quite a bit of equipment for the ride. Perhaps we should compare an Audi to a BMW, or 15.4" to a 15.4". Perhaps you will get the analogy. I just got off the phone with my Dell representitive and there is dedicated video memory in the 8700M GT in the XPS M1730.
A little farther down the page, we see the VooDoo vs the Air. Finally, a apples to apples comparison. Except, oh yeah, lets pick particular specs that favor the Air more than the VooDoo. I can do that too. Forget the magnetic plug to charge the laptop. Forget iLife. I want to compare the VooDoo's carbon-fiber chassis to the Air's seemingly plastic chassis. I'd also like to compare application compatability, where once again the VooDoo will win.
Others have already covered the issues with the custom-built PC with the MacPro. The PC here has flexibility that the MacPro does not. What if there is a problem with the hard drive? I can easily return and RMA it myself if I built it.
In all fairness, the rest of the article seems more objective than the first few pages.
When it comes down to it, for the average computer enthusiast, a PC will always be a better option. More flexiblity, easier control over the hardware and software, higher compatiblity, and better customization.
However, in the end, when writing an article on a PC enthusiast site, keep in mind your fanbase. We are not idiots. You are not writing to the same audience that "PC World" caters to. Your audience on Tom's Hardware knows about modern technology and how to properly assemble and configure a PC from parts.
Wow! An article posted in haste.
I suggest the author do "more" research before you hit the "publish" button!
Please don't treat your readers to be ignoramus to the cost of MAC vs Windows based system. This article is waaaaaay out of reality's touch! Get your facts right!
I suggest the author do "more" research before you hit the "publish" button!
Please don't treat your readers to be ignoramus to the cost of MAC vs Windows based system. This article is waaaaaay out of reality's touch! Get your facts right!
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News TSMC founder says Intel should focus on AI, not advanced process technologies- Started by Admin
- Replies: 27
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
News Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger retires, effective immediately — also steps down from BOD, two co-CEOs step in
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 124
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram