xp is not the current version of windows. os x leopard is fully supported on macs as far back as 2002 and even earlier with a little coaxing. how well does a pc from 2002 run vista?

those still have a lower spec video chip, slower memory, slower cpu, no firewire, no bluetooth and unknown battery life.

apple doesn't want to play in the under $1000 laptop market, at least right now. if $500 is what you want to spend, it obviously won't be a mac. a $500 laptop is going to have a lower spec than a $1000 laptop, whether it's a mac or a dell or whatever.

Quite well actually. I've also installed Windows 7 on several 2001 machines, and with a little extra ram, it runs very smooth.

While the Mac Mini really is a nice little machine, the entry level Mini is a total piece of junk - 120GB and 1GB is not a serious offering nowadays, especially since neither are easily user-upgradable AND that the $599 does not even get you a keyboard or mouse. Once you spec it on what is considered "normal" nowadays (keyboard, a mouse, 2GB and 320GB) you are looking at a $900 computer - a totally insane price for such a computer.

I really wish Apple would just make a normal desktop computer and price the damn thing at $500.

hahaha, why? Somehow I don't think you would buy it either way.

-David

Clearly, the Amiga.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q

You are splitting hairs. And you know it.

Video is "somewhat slower" if at all. Same goes for chip. 2Ghz vs. 2.13GHz, firewire is of marginal utility at best unless you transfer from a video cam. The Macbook has FW 400 which isn't faster than USB 2.0, either. I'd rather have an HDMI out.

But a bigger screen, twice the Ram and twice the disk space for hundreds of dollars less is not splitting hairs. The specs of these machines make them clearly superior overall and much more so when price/value is factored in.

Overall, it is nicer to work with a Mac and the reliability and quick start-up times play an essential role in that experience. However, I still find that PC is more ergonomic, see my examples, and much more price-worthy.

It's like with everything else, to get the last ten percent of performance you pay double. That's what Mac is.

Till

that's not at all what i'm doing.

there's quite a bit of a difference between an intel gma 4500mhd and an nvidia 9400m, particularly with gpu aware apps. os x itself and quite a few apps, including photoshop cs4, take full advantage of the gpu and a better video chip will make a huge difference in performance.

http://techztalk.com/techwebsite/10-...-graphics-card

"In test done with benchmarking tool 3D Mark Vantage, NVIDIA 9400M offered five-fold performance gain over Intel�s GMA 4500MHD graphics chipset."

the cpu speed is a wash but the memory bus is faster on the macbook (1066 v. 800) along with a 3 meg cache instead of 1 meg. firewire 400 is definitely faster than usb 2 and it also provides enough power to actually spin up a hard drive rather than relying on overspec-ed usb ports or dual usb cables to get more than usb's limit of 500ma per port. in fact, firewire can bus power two laptop drives from the same port. the $479 model only has vga, not hdmi, while the $699 model has hdmi but oddly lacks gigabit ethernet which the $479 model has.

the screen size is an inch bigger but it has exactly the same number of pixels, 1280 x 800, so there's no real difference in actual use. it does come with more memory but that's easy to add, as is swapping the hard drive should it fill up.

overall, it's a less capable machine with a couple of things that spec better than the macbook. in real world use it will be noticeably slower which is why it costs less.

it's actually a very capable entry level computer that's more than adequate for a lot of things.

Yeah, I happily use one for watching movies, web surfing, picture editing etc.

Moving the goalposts a bit there, huh? The computer still works, XP still works and is up-to-date (I think it is still a current OS considering how many still use it, and Microsoft still supports it, but whatever). It does everything my other laptop with Vista does.

But the $479 laptops mentioned above are "noticeably slower?"

The answer to the question is that there is no definitive answer. It is a personal preference thing. Use what you like and enjoy it. There are pros and cons to both platforms at various levels.

agreed. buy whatever best fits your needs. it's just the price comparisons of machines with different specs that i find bogus.

What's going to happen to this argument once Snow Leopard and Windows 7 both start shipping? Snow Leopard's hardware requirements are going to undeniably shift the "longer useful life" argument to Windows 7.

Right now the useful life argument is rather subjective and based largely on personal preferences around what level of performance someone can put up with. Therefore there's no clear winner, as is obvious with some of these responses. However, in a few months from now this argument will no longer be subjective. Snow Leopard simply will not support legacy hardware dating back as far as Windows 7 will. It won't be a debatable point; Windows 7 will have the advantage in the "longer useful life" argument.

"Windows 7 beats Snow Leopard on older hardware support":

http://www.techchuck.com/2009/06/11/...dware-support/

Ahhh..... Nothing but fond memories of the Amiga. I got through a computer science degree with an expanded A500. It's what Mac should have been but didn't didn't achieve before OSX.