Hi Stu, I spent probably an hour and half coming up with the comparison. I used the web sites of each company to configure an order. The fundamental matching point I started with was a 15 inch display size. However, from there I was not always able to find an exact match of componentry between the two brands.
For instance, I insisted that the harddrive be 7200 rpm instead of 5400. However, the closest I could match the HP and Mac Book Pro on that feature was 160 GB to 200 GB. So yeah, the match-up is not as exact as it could be. Yet none-the- less, I think still fairly comparable. Someone responded that Apple really rips people off big time when they choose extra RAM memory. So the thing to do is go to after market, buy memory there, and upgrade the Mac's memory oneself. However, I decided to compare based on what could be shipped to me - the so-called out of the box experience. And I absolutely wanted this notebook to have a 64- bit OS and minimum of 4 GB or RAM. Even if one refined the comparison, I don't think the gap would close by any more than ~ $250. The Mac premium will still remain rather hefty. I could tolerate a ~ $400 Mac premium, but I think the current delta is too much. On Sep 3, 5:34 am, Stu Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it is worthy to nitpick on a few points here, because your > comparison has the mac higher spec'd slightly on a several > points...each one adding cost to the Mac. > > CPU **** > * HP: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor P8400 (2.26 GHz) > * Mac: Intel Core 2 Duo 3MB shared L2 cache (2.4GHz) > > The Mac's processor is a step faster > > SCREEN **** > * HP: Widescreen Display (1280 x 800), Display 15.4" diagonal WXGA > High-Definition HP BrightView Infinity > * Mac: 15.4-inch (viewable) widescreen LED back-lit glossy (1440 x > 900) > > The Mac has over 25% more pixels (1.296mio pixels vs. 1.024mio) > > HDD **** > * HP: 160GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive > * Mac: 200GB Serial ATA @ 7200 rpm > > The Mac has 40GB, or 25% more disk space > > BATTERIE **** > * HP: "6 Cell Lithium Ion Battery"? or the "6 Cell Lithium Ion > Battery High Capacity"? (3-3.5h) > * Mac: 60 Watt-hour Lithium-Polymer-Batterie (5h claim) > > The Mac seems to have a bigger battery, and these puppies are > expensive > > GRAPHICS **** > * HP: GeForce 9200M GS, which is a slower clocked 9300M GS, which is a > rebranded 8400M GS > * Mac: GeForce 8600M GT > > The Mac has a non-trivially more capable graphics card > > OFFICE **** > * HP: Office Basic 2007: Excel, Word, Outlook > * Mac: Office Home 2008: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Entourage > > The Mac has a more recent version, with PowerPoint > > SOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo...I'm going to propose that the HP is not as > comparable to the Mac as you suggest. If they were exactly the same? > Yea, I'd still expect to see a price premium, but not th $1075 you are > quoting. Some of these options are available on the HP, so I'm > curious why you didn't spec out a more comparable pair of machines. > > (Yes, I have too much time today!) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
