Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Windows vs. Mac: I'm starting to change.
superboyac:
I didn't label MS as the 'bad guy', sheesh!
They are just companies doing what they do.
Have to pass on the reading up,
I don't care, nor could I do a dam thing about it.
However, I do appreciate the info.
I just thought if you can put windows on a mac,
why not mac on the windows machine.
If they do it, fine, if not, so what.
I already said I'm a windows guy,
and I would like to learn the mac,
but I won't pay the price it costs for me to learn it.
My son, yes, majoring in Creative Writing,
any tools he thinks he needs I'll do my best to get it.
That's why I posted on this thread-
cause there is a mac user here close.
Told you why I got it and more.
Maybe get some OPERATING TIPS.
Then a witch hunt for a bad guy?
pffft bs and more from non-mac users
It's business as usual.
I'm throwing a few ideas around, get over it.
I don't have all the facts and haven't seen 'em posted here.
Like a mac can create a ntfs partition on any MS windows comp.
Why can't Windows do a mac partition?
Don't know. Some kind of "deal" in corporate computer crap.
-cmpm (October 14, 2009, 11:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Is this a poem?
f0dder:
Sure is Creative Writing :)
cmpm:
;D lol, thanks, just talking here
i can't hold no ill feelings about any of this
can't afford 'em
i've learned tons here from you all
expect i'll learn more
if i can remember or look it up
1st thing that goes-memory-can't think of the 2nd....
JavaJones:
Neither the 9400M or the 9600M GT on the MacBook Pro are anywhere *near* "top end". The dell has a ATI Mobility RADEON HD 4670 which should be fairly decent - comparable at the least.
<snip />
ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD4650 graphics card with 1GB vRAM-great for games and movies
-JavaJones (October 14, 2009, 01:43 AM)
--- End quote ---
The 4670 is pretty comparable... until you look at the pixel pipelines. the 9600 can pump more graphics through easily, despite being an earlier video card...
-wraith808 (October 14, 2009, 06:26 AM)
--- End quote ---
And you're basing that assertion on what, exactly? Here are some benchmarks
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
9600M:
3DMark01:26807 3DMark03:14889 3DMark05:9592 3DMark06:5063
4670:
3DMark01:24975 3DMark03:22295 3DMark05:12614 3DMark06:6842
The only test the 9600 excels at is a much older and simpler one (3D Mark 01). All the newer, more complex tests are dominated by the 4670.
and the macbook that I was looking at had a 7200 RPM hard drive... another significant upgrade. Add to that the fact that you can switch graphics cards to increase battery life- I have that on my VAIO, and that was a pretty decent upgrade also...
--- End quote ---
The Dell config also had a 7200RPM HD, and it would be a very cheap upgrade in any case, hardly making up the difference in cost for any of the other configs. In fact I could have put a much faster and lower power using SSD in any of the configs I posted and still been below the Mac's cost.
- Oshyan
wraith808:
The pixel pipelines do show up in the 3DMark01 tests.. thats the reason that it does better. For this reason, it's good enough for most practical applications, and that was my point. If you add the newest gee-whiz features graphical upgrades, then yes, you'll fall a bit shorter. But that's if you're buying for gaming pretty much, which isn't the greatest percentage of users out there...
And as far as pricing, when I did mine:
Dell Studio XPS 16: $2128
Sony VAIO: 1998
HP HDX: 1998
MacBook Pro: 2399
Is it more? Yes... I never said it wasn't. However, if you look at the lower end MacBooks vs the lower end Windows PCs, you can get a laptop for $400 (or less) while you're at $1000 for the entry into the MacBook arena. Which still says
The price for a Mac on the lower end is more expensive, but as you scale up, the price isn't that much different, I've found.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version