Fastest Windows Vista Notebook!

Slim should have fun with this one.

Why is it more impressive that Apple "doesn't care" if you run windows? What does that have to do with a computer's speed? I don't care if a $3000 laptop is fast as hell. It better be for that kind of coin. Is it more impressive that its price remains so high in the absence of me giving a flying fck? Congrats to Apple for building a fast laptop. Now try building a desktop that does the same, try selling your computers without MacOS/and or making MacOS available without a computer, oh... and die. How did I do? Was that enough venom? Am I falling off my game? My fans expect championships, not playoffs...

It really is too bad that in six months its gonna be halfway down the pile of laptops because Apple doesn't keep up very well in the long run due to their hardware selectivity and tendancy to cripple certain aspects of their systems for aesthetic related heat reasons. I bet money that a few weeks from now that the "test machine" starts to warp and discolor from the excessive heat caused by Apple sending them a juiced machine.

Powerbooks and MacBook Pros run very well over the long-term. I thought I was going to brick my five-year-old PowerBook when the hard drive died after I dropped the damn thing, but after replacing the hard drive it still runs like a dream, and despite some permanent marks I made on it and the obvious after-market changes, I sold it for nearly $500 to someone who was very happy to pay that amount. By the way, it didn't warp or distort except for the area I dropped it on, and there is zero discoloration on it as well. The plastic MacBooks do have some trouble with that because of people's tendencies to rest their wrists on their laptops when they're typing, but the alum-body PowerBooks and MBPs don't discolor past anything you can wipe off with a wet napkin. Rest assured that despite your best wishes, that test model is more than likely still running perfectly. Every Mac owner will tell you that one of the great things about them is how well they run, years past the point when their individual parts are off the market as obsolete. My PowerBook (now in the hands of someone else) has far outlasted the lifespan of several friends' (and my dad's) non-Apple laptops. Wow, you rounded $2,419 to $3000? You can get the 15" version of that laptop with all of the same specs under the hood for $2200 or so. Cheaper if you're a student and even cheaper during seasonal sales at university bookstores. In fact I'm using the 15.4" MBP with the exact same specs minus the 2" of screen space, and my price was $2099 before tax. But I like your method of arguing: "Make ridiculous assumptions about the computer warping/discoloring because it's "juiced" and add a magical $600 to the price because I can't accept the fact that some Apple computers perform at the top of the class."

Who are you talking to, because none of your points have anything to do with what I said?

A: In six months the Mac will not be the fastest laptop.

B: Six months after that, the laptop that was the fastest then will not be the fastest, so who gives a shit?

C: Apple has a PROVEN history of crippling their laptops performance to save heat (so they can squeeze it into that sleek little case you love. Sounds like this one is juiced up a bit, meaning that its either A: running hot which will affect its long term reliability, or B: A miracle.


No, I rounded $2419 plus the cost of a full version of Windows Vista Home Premium,($240) up to 3k.

Either way, spending that much on any laptop is retarded, Alienware, Gateway, Apple, I don't care.

a) apple sucks
b) it's the fastest tested notebook. i guarantee you that a number of other companies produce fasters ones that juts haven't been tested, but then you know taht because you are just trolling.

I will now exit this thread before the ensuing "debate" between brian and slim makes me want to rip my own eyes out.

You should try ripping off your fur off first.

Jon.

$2500 for a mac book laptop is so fucking expensive.

If you are a student you can buy a Macbook Pro for 1800. You can get the Macbook for about a 1100.


I bought a G4 Powerbook that my sister is now using about 4 years ago and the thing still runs better than any other laptop she has ever bought (All PC's like Dell and IBM) Longer than any that any of my other friends have bought which includes a wide variety. People think they are too high priced. Well the truth is that most dont actually need the MacBook Pro. Yes its nice but you dont really need it and you can get the regular Macbook for a grand. It wont die on you. It will last a long time. Also the point about adding on the cost of vista to the Mac doesnt really matter because everyone who intends to buy a mac and then add vista or xp on it ends up sticking with Mac OS X. I know plenty of people who went in with those intentions. As for "crippling" the processor...do you honeslty notice that big of a difference? I wonder why its still the industry standard in film and photography....


I dont think it makes a big difference. Macs are certainly much more reliable. They make the computing experience more enjoyable. Some people get mad thinking its too expensive not knowing they can have one for about a thousand....

I think they run fast enough. Even if PC is faster who gives a shit cuz id still rather have a mac. Its better to be socrates than a fool even if the fool is happier. Just like that, its better to have a Mac even if the pc is faster. And you wont really get it unless you start using the MAC OS X series. if you used a version before hand then ya sure you will hate it but right now its just you guys being stubborn...

Oh... I've used OSX quite a bit and still hate it... You seem to be regurgitating all the common mac selling points in your post ghulkhan, but is there any PROOF that the Mac is more reliable than a Windows PC? Just curious. What exactly do you imagine goes wrong with PCs all the time that makes them "unreliable"?

I'll say it again. Mac users have the biggest inferiority complex of any consumer base known to man. They always feel the need to tell everyone whenever they get something right. :P

I have a vista computer with an uptime of a month. My laptop is also on vista and it has never crashed, loads up fast, and is a pleasure to use. I don't expect i'll have to do period reinstalls like I did under XP either. I have sql servers and exchange servers with uptimes of several months that are only ever rebooted because of an update or service pack.

I don't know what this more reliable shit is because it's just not true anymore. Back in NT4 and windows 95, I might agree, but then mac was never worth the trade-off of not being able to do anything with it because the majority of the world is on PCs.

Its called years and years of experience with PCs. I was a PC loving Mac hating person too at one point but then I found the light.

GQGeek, do not advocate that Vista is reliable. It is common knowledge that is unrealiable. The majority of people have had terrible experiences with it. You cant use your own experiences to draw conclusions. Almost everyone who has switched to Mac loves it and despises the PC. I dont have an inferiority complex. In fact I think I am superior to you in everyway imaginable, all because I have a Mac and you dont...

i'm a pc user, vista sucks.