Computery-related stuff (firefox and wireless related)
in [Tuning]
|
Prev: Saab 9-5 HOT Aero
Next: 14CUX
From: DanB on 26 Jul 2008 19:13 "SteveH" <steve(a)italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message news:1ikplrm.1hteasvulwor1N%steve(a)italiancar.co.uk... > DanB <iridiumdan(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > Awesome :-) I think it is clear we're not going to agree heh. I think you'd be mad to get a 17" of anything, if you were ever planning on taking it anywhere, I can't stand 17" laptops - you may as well just get a desktop. I was merely showing the Mac hardware was very expensive - as you could get a lot more of the same qualty components, for the same money if you had a PC. The Mac uses most of the same stuff as the Dell, CPU, RAM, Hard drives etc, if you configure the Dell to a similar spec of the Apple it will get similar battery life - but cost several hundred quid less. Reviews for other M1730s show up to 4 hours on the older, none-SLI gfx ones - but they had a slightly less powerful CPU. Still powerful GFX, 4gb Ram etc though. Or if you keep the costs the same, if you really want you can crack a copy of OSX onto the Dell[1] - then you'd have the worlds greatest OS, on a more powerful machine - then you'd be happy both ways :) Or if you reduce the spec of Dell to that of the Mac, then put OSX on, you'd have the same thing - but also several hundred quid in your pocket. Or would this defeat the point because then no one would know you preferred Macs ;-) [1] I have no idea if this is possible but please, don't elaborate on it, we've wasted enough bandwidth on an un-endable argument. -- Dan Clio R27 F1 #65
From: Depresion on 26 Jul 2008 20:04 "DanB" <iridiumdan(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:6f1n4rF97p5oU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > Well neither of them are going to be any good battery life wise, the XPS > has a 9 cell and reviews are saying anywhere between 1 1/2 and 2 hours on > the standard battery are to be expected - which is actually a lot better > than I expected heh, especially from something so powerful with 2 GFX > cards. Macworld.com suggests up to 3 hours for the Macbook, again better > than I thought. But as these 17" laptop are such beasts anyway they;ll > both doubtlessly spend most of their time plugged in. XPS is about a kg > heavier than the Macbook as well, but as I say, they're very sturdy next to > all the other Dells heh. You wouldn't exactly buy either of them though if > you were going to be moving them around a lot and carrying them with you. > Shame you can't spec a 15" XPS to that power really heh. Better still the 13", I'm more than happy with my 12.1 inchis (Err can I sat that?) > The problem with the XPS is I'd get into the old "Well if I'm spending > nearly 2 grand anyway... and it'd get some more upgrades as well... Then > suddenly it'd be �2,800. http://www.techradar.com/products/computing/laptops-portable-pcs/laptops/dpc-tech-frankenstein-328074/review Why settle for less.
From: DanB on 26 Jul 2008 23:37 "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:dY2dnYS-0vu7IRbVRVnytQA(a)posted.plusnet... > > "DanB" <iridiumdan(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:6f1n4rF97p5oU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> Well neither of them are going to be any good battery life wise, the XPS >> has a 9 cell and reviews are saying anywhere between 1 1/2 and 2 hours on >> the standard battery are to be expected - which is actually a lot better >> than I expected heh, especially from something so powerful with 2 GFX >> cards. Macworld.com suggests up to 3 hours for the Macbook, again better >> than I thought. But as these 17" laptop are such beasts anyway they;ll >> both doubtlessly spend most of their time plugged in. XPS is about a kg >> heavier than the Macbook as well, but as I say, they're very sturdy next >> to all the other Dells heh. You wouldn't exactly buy either of them >> though if you were going to be moving them around a lot and carrying them >> with you. Shame you can't spec a 15" XPS to that power really heh. > > Better still the 13", I'm more than happy with my 12.1 inchis (Err can I > sat that?) > >> The problem with the XPS is I'd get into the old "Well if I'm spending >> nearly 2 grand anyway... and it'd get some more upgrades as well... Then >> suddenly it'd be �2,800. > > http://www.techradar.com/products/computing/laptops-portable-pcs/laptops/dpc-tech-frankenstein-328074/review > > Why settle for less. I have been perilously close to ordering an Alienware 15.4" beast. I'm one of those people who likes to buy stuff to cheer themselves up, the amount I spend is directly proportionate to how sad I'm feeling. The laptop I specced was �2,800... If I only I could spec a 15.4" XPS with a 8800GTX :'( -- Dan Clio R27 F1 #65
From: Tim S Kemp on 27 Jul 2008 03:33 SteveH wrote: > RAM is cheap as chips to add these days, and OSX is better at managing > the memory it has than Windows, so that's a non-issue. Ram on Windows is a non-issue. I've just ordered two Windows boxes with 8 cores and 16 gig of ram... > Hard drive space is another red herring in the mix, as, once again, > OSX isn't anywhere near as 'needy' as Vista. Mainly because there's less available software to install... Leopard lists 9gig available hard drive required for installation. Vista needs 15gig.
From: Tim S Kemp on 27 Jul 2008 03:34
SteveH wrote: > As for the GFX stuff, great if you're a games player, but who buys a > MacBook for gaming? - in fact, who buys any 'pro' laptop for gaming? Ever heard of Lan Parties? |