mosx, Windows Media Center has Blu-ray disc media playback now?
With the newest version of PowerDVD it does.
I will only reply to this part.
The glass multi-touch trackpad is VERY useful for me.
One finger,two finger and three finger. I use it almost constantly on my MBP.
Gimmick.. HA!
Sorry, but the touchpad is nowhere near as good as a mouse. Plus the screens are so bad on the MacBook "Pro" line that they're something only to be used when absolutely necessary.
IMO Vista/Win 7 is not the equal of OSX...I rate it as probably about 90%.
IMO, OS X is only about 50% of what Windows is.
If you throw in iLife as a base-line, get me started package, I drop it to about 85%.
iLife is mostly useless. Outside of iPhoto, what apps do people actually use? I know people who have been Mac owners for years and upgraded several versions of iPhoto and not a single one of them has ever launched an iLife app other than iPhoto.
MS is working on their .Live products that if they package properly they could close this gap.
Windows Live Photo Gallery is easily as good as iPhoto. Picassa is better than both, IMO.
The control panel is still cluttered compared to the prefs pane of OSX. And what - I STILL can't use separate wallpaper images for my multiple displays?? Little stuff like that they need to improve if they want to be as polished as OSX.
Heres a better one for you:
Why can't I disable the built-in display in software in OS X like I can in Windows? If I want to use my desktop display, as I'm doing now, I have to start up my MacBook with the screen closed. Which means I have to open it, press the power button, and close the lid almost immediately afterwards. If I don't close it fast enough I have to wait for OS X to boot up, then close the lid to sleep the system, then wake it back up with an external keyboard and mouse. In Windows I can just plug the monitor in. The first time it will ask me what I would like to do with it and from that point on it will remember the settings. Or if I don't have that prompt, I can just right click the desktop, click the appropriate listing on the menu, and then from there I can manipulate the built-in or external display on or off or the resolutions independently as I see fit.
It's MAJOR things like that that keep OS X from being anywhere close to Windows.
Video playback seems equal on both platforms. I mainly use VLC for my media files and stream Netflix shows/movies.
Well, VLC is fully software based.
If you use something that supports DXVA, you get full hardware support under Windows. For example, Windows 7 supports H.264 in DirectShow finally. Which means, if your GPU supports it, you get full bitstream decoding in hardware for your H.264 video. It's that way for DVD and VC-1 as well. Vista and XP support this for DVD, VC-1, and other video formats, plus software like PowerDVD and WinDVD and others can tap into the GPU on their own for full bitstream decoding. OS X can't do that at all.
Most evidence points to online streaming and on demand as the future, even for high-def, so it may be a moot point.
Thats a long way off, considering that only a couple of countries in the world (Japan and Korea) have enough bandwidth to support high def video in the same league as blu-ray. You can bet that in the US at least, cable companies and AT&T (not Verizon so much) will fight tooth and nail to keep their monopoly on video and anything that can begin to touch blu-ray quality is years, if not decades off as a result.
Vista's about 70% of Snow Leopard technologically and capabilities
Is that why Vista (and XP) have had CUDA support for a couple of years now? While Snow Leopard is just getting OpenCL?
Is that why XP, Vista, and Windows 7 all support full bitstream decoding of video while Snow Leopard still doesn't?
Is that why all of those revisions of Windows can support HDMI properly while Apple doesn't even ship?
It's more like the other way around. Snow Leopard is about 60% of Vista, and Windows 7 is beyond that.
For the "Get a Mac" ads lies? A better question would be, in what ads did Apple NOT lie? Everything they said about PCs having virus and spyware issues, crashing issues, Mac OS "just working", etc. was all blatant lying.
but they aren't. they are lying.
How so? It's not a lie that $699 17" notebook PCs exist.
It's not a lie that you can get a 15.4" notebook PC with blu-ray and a better GPU than the MacBook "Pro" for under $1,000.
Microsoft saying they are better priced than Apple fine. But the moment they started naming prices and components they are obligated to be truthful. If the price drops, they should pull the ad and correct it or trash it. we barely see faces until the end so a little ADR ain't that hard
as for the whole 'over spec' claim. get real. if you are going to take price you have to be looking at comparable items. at the least in terms of processor speed, graphics card, ram and hard drive. which these ads rarely do
See, but the Apple fans are forgetting something in these price wars. They're going on and on about "they're not showing the specs!".
What the Apple fans forget is that you get BETTER specs than Apple for sometimes as little as HALF the money.
If you go on to newegg.com right now you can find PCs with better GPUs than the $2299 MacBook Pro for well under $900.
Look at this system
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220560
Look at what you get for the same price as the cheapest Apple notebook. You get a 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo, a GeForce GT 220M 1GB, 320GB 7200 RPM HDD, a PROPER 16x9 display with a PROPER 16x9 resolution, HDMI, a bag, a 1 year accidental damage warranty, 4GB of RAM, etc. You get all of that for HALF the cost of the MacBook "Pro" with an old and outdated 256MB GeForce 9600M GT.
and how long is that battery supposed to last. for the average user. one year, two years. will it be replaced for free after that time. or do you have to buy a new one.
like it or not the built in batteries Apple is using are designed for 4-5 years of use (for the average user). double the old ones. and the cost to replace is the same as what you would have paid for a new battery to put in yourself. probably something you can have done in the 15 minutes you'd have a genius bar appointment. and possibly for no labor charge. we'll see in a couple of years.
Oh man, I can't believe you actually fell for that. Apple's marketing on the new battery technology is also just a flat out lie.
They're completely misleading with their "other batteries last 300 recharges" nonsense. Normal lithium ion and even the lithium polymer batteries used in notebooks today are not only good for 300 "Recharges". They're designed to maintain 80% capacity after 300-500 CYCLES. Theres a HUGE difference between a CHARGE and a CYCLE. You see, if you use 20% of your battery every day, after 5 days that adds up to be 100%. That means 1 cycle every 5 days. Thats roughly 6 cycles a month, or roughly 72 cycles per year.
Even after 5 years, thats still roughly 360 cycles. According to the material on Apple's own website, ALL lithium ion and polymer batteries should still maintain AT LEAST 80% capacity after that time period.
So not only is Apple lying to you about that, they're contradicting themselves with their own nonsense.
The battery in my HP is nearly 2 years old. It's been heavily used. Guess what? Still holds a full 3.5 hour REAL WORLD charge. The 12 cell battery is nearly a year old and it still holds a full 7 hour real world charge.
Apple's lies about battery life are the worst yet. Especially since Apple's systems aren't even designed well enough to last that long. The poor cooling system will have all of the major components inside the system dying from heat years before that 4-5 year mark.
products, but they can be hard to afford.
