On 25 May 2011 at 15:54, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David W. Fenton > <lists.fin...@dfenton.com> wrote: > > On 24 May 2011 at 10:59, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > > > >> The Mac is slightly lighter, > > > > Slightly? It weighs only 2/3s what the Acer does, 4.5 lbs. vs. over > > 6. That's a HUGE difference. > > Yeah, 1.5 lbs. OOoo how WILL I lift that laptop!?
Only someone who has not actually carried around a laptop all the time would underrate this. 4.5 pounds is actually the sweet spot where a laptop crosses from being unwieldy and heavy to being not at all difficult to carry around. Three pounds is even better, but you pay a real price premium to get a decent machine at that weight. > > The bundled software on Windows PCs is crapware -- free stuff that > > is intended as marketing to get people to buy the pay version. > > > > The bundled software on Macs is REAL SOFTWARE that is very well- > > designed, full-featured, and not installed as an enticement to buy > > the "pro" version. > > So what? I stated it's not anything I would use either on the PC or > MAC, regardless of what type it is. And nobody is saying you SHOULD. But when comparing the value and cost of an Mac and a PC in the abstract (as opposed to considering it for the individual needs of one person), you have to consider EXACTLY WHAT IS INCLUDED and what it is worth. You can't just throw out the things that don't matter to you and say it doesn't count when the issue is an objective comparison of what you get in the base prices of the computers you're comparing. > But here's a free clue: I could > still buy several software applications as good as what's on the Mac > and still come out ahead. But it's a moot point: I don't buy the > computer for the software it has, The key word here is "I" -- and that word is not relevant to an objective 1:1 comparison of what you get for the price of the two computers. This is something you seem unable to get past. > because I already own copies of what > I need and upgrade them as they become obsolete. And I have a lot more > software options than the limited Apple market (which as I stated > going to get more narrow in the future with Lion's move to "isolate" > viruses in software by limiting even further what apps they'll offer) The Apple software market is not limited by any stretch of the imagination. > > You are not reading for content. > > Neither are you. Well, now you've managed to bring this discussion down to the same childish level of your interactions with Eric. Nice job, Kim. > > I've not told you anything about > > what you should or should not value, or which computer you should or > > should not buy. > > Neither did I. Actually I stated my personal experiences with Apple: > they've not been good. But you're ARGUING WITH ME as though I've told you you shouldn't have bought the laptop you did. I've never even addressed that issue. My participation in this discussion is on the question of whether Macs are really more expensive than PCs. They aren't when you do a real 1:1 comparison. On the other hand, when you throw out components and refuse to consider them (or mischaracterize one side of the question, e.g., claiming there's a limited selection of Apple software), you're no longer doing an objective comparison. THAT'S JUST FINE WITH ME -- you have every right to be subjective and to prioritize which components are valuable to you personally and which are not. But your personal preferences are not relevant to the question of the 1:1 comparison of the two computers. > I offered another website as a suggested > vehicle for finding good deals for any platform, I only mentioned a > good deal I found as an example of that. You asked for a hardware > comparison, I gave you one, No, you gave me a review, not a comparison. It didn't consider any number of issues that are important for a 1:1 comparison. > and then did exactly what you told me not > to do: nitpick on things that are not important You're very narcissistic in your participation here -- what matters to you is all you consider to be important, whereas I've been trying to compare the WHOLE PACKAGE. > and talk about > software as adding value to computer when it's not a factor for my > purchase in the first place. I didn't say it should be -- I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT YOUR PURCHASE DECISION. I'm not talking about it, and I NEVER WAS AT ANY POINT. I've only been addressing the issue of the objective 1:1 price comparison, and for that, you have to consider the whole package, and not just the needs of a particular user. > And if they're such great value: why are > they only ten percent of the market share after nearly 25 years in > business? Why did VHS win out over Betamax? It wasn't because VHS was better. > Is the market that wrong? Markets are quite frequently wrong, but I don't think it's a valid question here. There's plenty of room in the market for a wide range of products for a wide range of users. > Apple products appeal to a small > but very vocal and loyal fan base. That may well be, but that doesn't mean they aren't actually superior to your average $300 PC. And to beat the dead horse: I'm not telling anybody what computer they should buy. I'm only addressing two pieces of conventional wisdom that experience have taught me are WRONG. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
