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. > has a harder polycarbonate plastic case. > Big deal. Not worth spending the 600 dollars I saved, because I'm not > in the habit of throwing my property around. Nobody is suggesting that you personally buy a Mac. Or that you do anything at all. The point of dispute is whether the machines you say are equivalent really are, and they quite plainly are not. > And I'm not swayed by any > the bundled software included on the Mac, I don't use that on Windows > either. 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. That is a definite apples and oranges comparison you've just made there. > After all, I don't buy computers for software, I buy them for, > well computers! Fancy that! So here, have your slice of crow pie too. Grow up, Kim. You and Eric are acting like 2-year-olds. > Or you going to nitpick this to death and tell me why the features I > think are not important are really not important? Being the betting > man that I am, I'm willing to predict yes. You are not reading for content. I've not told you anything about what you should or should not value, or which computer you should or should not buy. I've limited my comments to two important points that are very, very often completely overlooked because people obsess with the price tag. I'm saying that obsession is shortsighted and based on an incorrect reading of the facts. I'm building my case for this bit by bit, providing facts and citations as I go along. You, on the other hand, are calling names. Hmm. > > That does not mean that some people won't find the cheapo PC fine > > for their needs. It only means that the conventional wisdom about > > Macs being more expensive is WRONG. > > Not really, I've seen some of the articles about that, and most of the > comparisons are crap. Ya know Apples and Oranges ? *Wink wink wink* I > think it depends on a case by case situation. Show me a PC configured with the same hardware and software as a Mac that is significantly cheaper than the Mac. The problem with those who make the argument you are making is that they refuse to actually make the comparison -- they discount those factors that aren't important to them, instead of going down the line and valuing each particular component of each machine. This is an intellectually dishonest way of discussing something like this. I'm trying to introduce facts. You're going with emotion and name calling. -- 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
