MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Mar 04, 09 - 06:22 pm Comment from: January 24, 1984

Might have to.

Mar 04, 09 - 06:26 pm Comment from: Bitjockey

It's interesting to note that I paid almost $5,000 for a top of the line portable computer in 1993....

Mar 04, 09 - 06:30 pm Comment from: Bitjockey

Oops, I meant 1983.... I guess that's the price point

overpriced.

Mar 04, 09 - 06:51 pm Comment from: ken1w

It's only "overpriced" if customers do not buy at the price. In this case, I'm sure there will be plenty of customers.

My first portable was the Kaypro II.....

Mar 04, 09 - 07:27 pm Comment from: occams razor

you want cheap, buy cheap, you want quality you buy quality, sent from my overpriced 15" MBP the most beautiful example of engineered design I have ever held. Apart from my wife that is, but she was genetic.

@Gil
Me too! An awesome machine for its time.

Thought probably not much older than me. I used those in highschool to layout news papers. (well, to make columnized text on a daisywheel printer)

ok, I'm really f***ing old too.

Mar 04, 09 - 07:43 pm Comment from: knowhowe

What sexual favours do I have to perform, and with who, to get my hands on one of these?

Ahh... The Kaypro II - what an amazing system... My sister got one and so did my fraternity's resident Geek in 1984. It took me almost 9 years to realize that a total art-geek could transform into a total Mac Geek, but I bought a used "luggable" Mac Classic in 1993 for $800 and haven't looked back since... It lasted almost 10 years (still works) until I shelved it. Now I have an "old" iBook 1.33 ghz which still hums along just fine and even does small Photoshop jobs from time to time. But now I need more power... A lot of these cartoons (http://gallery.me.com/cartoonasaur) were colored on it.

I was considering a Macbook but this machine is too too sweet - I could save a little longer maybe...

"Needless to say, performance wasn't much of an issue -- but the final cost ($4,899) might be a little extreme for most." Topolsky reports.

Awww... boo-hoo-hoo... Topolsky says: "We got a 'maxxed-out', top-of-the-line' model. What ever are we gonna do?? boo-hoo.."

*sniff*... Toposlky [begins to look at / touch /study the 17" Macbook Pro]... 'Wow, this is really nice!'

If you don't *need* a 17-incher, don't buy a 17-incher...

If you don't *need* a 15-incher, don't buy a 15-incher...

If you *want* a 17 or 15 inch Mac, then save your nickles to buy what you want. Whatever you do, don't b!tch and complain that Macs are *too* expensive; be intellectually honest and confess that you really are a cheap-ass and only want to pay $400 for a brand new lappy. I could at least respect your honesty.

btw, If you only want to pay US$200-500... then get an iPhone or an iPod Touch. They are wonderful internet devices with many, many other features. There is also an App Store if you want / need to augment your portable computing platform.

The point is: Apple has many internet / computing devices ranging in price from about US$230 to almost US$20K depending on configuration. Consumer choice??? Hell yes!! Only the most beligerent, mouth-breathing troglodyte could accuse Apple of not providing consumers with an array of 'choice'.

Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.

So please. Be my guest. Go buy a cheap netbook. Please compromise. But don't come whining to me when you find the money you thought you saved really wasn't a savings at all.

You people make my head hurt. Is whining all you ever do?

Mar 04, 09 - 08:36 pm Comment from: HueyLong

@ occams razor:

sorry, but I definitely have the most beautiful piece of genetic design ever held... and she loves the 24" iMac I bought her last Christmas too.

I'd say my advice is, buy what you really want. I say that with automobiles, and follow it with. "You ain't gonna be happy making payments on something you don't really want."

Mar 04, 09 - 10:10 pm Comment from: brewmattster

I bought my 15" MBP in April '07. Paid cash for it, and have never looked back. Brand new PC Notebooks that cost more than mine would be worth used now are still less powerful! And I've wonderful OS X!

Well then why can't Apple give the anti-glare option on the 15" MBP and the 13" MB, and MacBook Air, and iMac's?

For me, I'm not buying any more Mac's until they give the matte screen. The only thing that could force me to buy a new Mac is if my current MBP and iMac die.

It's not a tantrum. It's just that I value my eyesight. After 40, your eyesight deteriorates gradually all the way into your 70+'s, and eyestrain hastens that. No way am I going to use glossy screens. I've tried them, and in the lighting conditions I use them in, the glare simply can't be avoided by tilting the screen -- so, Phil Schiller, don't give us simplistic solutions like that. Just give us the matte screen option back. Charge us big bucks for it. I'd rather have it manufactured by Apple at higher cost, rather than letting TechRestore meddle and prise open the cover of my Mac.

It's getting to the point of being bloody minded. Clearly there are some 40% of people who prefer matte, and yet someone at Apple is taking the view (I wish we knew who he/she is) who think that if they just keep this going, the matte-crowd's cries will die away gradually.

But listen, Phil Schiller, the matte issue is not like the floppy disk or Firewire, which is a technological issue that, over time, goes away as newer tech replaces it. No, the matte issue has to do with the human physiology of the eye. That's not going to change in hundreds of years. If we get eyestrain, then in 5 years, 10 years, we're still going to get eyestrain.

So FW*$%)(W*% BRING BACK THE MATTE SCREEN OPTION TO THE MBP AND IMAC.

Our last hope for matte screens was the Mac Mini and cinema screen, but you've gone and made the cinema screen glossy too. Sure we can use a Dell screen but cr*(&, isn't the idea for Mac fanboys to be able to buy Mac gear. Do I really want to use a Mac Mini with a Dell screen just to get matte?

Apple has moved to glossy screens because Al Gore sells carbon credits to Apple, and glossy screens are "greener" and require fewer carbon credits to offset the fossil fuel energy used to manufacture the product.

Each new laptop requires roughly $25 in carbon credits to produce, and the cost is passed on to the consumer.






Think this is absolutely crazy? It is the future if the eco-Nazis in the Obama administration get their way.

Mar 05, 09 - 12:24 am Comment from: anaknipedro

@TruthMan

You're a troll, but I'll feed you because I'm with you.

I get an eye strain looking at a matt screen.

When I'm working on field, and I happen to be outdoors. Matt screens are useless.

Just go and buy your self an acer/fujitsu screen ...

Mar 05, 09 - 03:18 am Comment from: almux

@TruthMan
May be you don't have kids... If yes, you're a stupid selfish ignorant!
I wish my kids (and all others) to see more "eco-Nazis" and Obamas groing in this world, so that they'll still can enjoy to be living on a living world!
...And while using the term Nazi, be carefull... because you might got more of it yourself than you even suspect!

Mar 05, 09 - 04:47 am Comment from: MizuInOz

I have a nice array of Apple oriented products - in fact everything except the Mini Mac... I have all glossy screens. I am in the "field" - ummm - a still surviving Starbucks - or in an office with a client or on a plane - blah blah blah - and at home and in my office I have MacPros (which will be replaced shortly) with dual 30" monitors - alas - glossy!

Now - eye strain? Nope - in fact my eyes have IMP\ROVED a full diopter in one year! Unheard of!

And I am purchasing 7 of the new 17" fully kitted with GLOSSY screens for my immediate staff. None seem to be complaining.

Hmmm... funny - that.

I would suspect that most who complain about glossy are really just beotching about affordability... as in they can't.

As for those who do not like the glossy screen and have actually bought one - WTF. You know you don't like and you still but it?
That's insane.

Insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results.

Cheers.

@ MizuInOz: Are you hiring immediate staff?

I bought a 400mhz Powerbook ten years ago (black one with the white upside down apple logo). I paid IR£4,000 incl. VAT in old money which converts to €5,078.95 (or $6,382.46 if you're that way inclined). Was it worth it? I spent all I had but I was the only one in college who didn't have to queue up to use the ancient Quadras. Definitely!

Max out 17 incher may be expensive, but when you take into consideration what you can do with the machine, both at work, at home, and at your clients office, it is still well worth the price. Time is money and in my graphics business, speed is king...toss in not worrying about the machine breaking down and the 17 inch is a no brainer.
Yes, you could settle for a lesser MS run machine, but why kiss your cousin when you can marry your dream girl!

@almux
I second that emotion....

This world is rapidly turning to crap, environmentally speaking. The best way to save it is for governments to reduce population growth to negative numbers (e.g. distribute the pill for free). If fewer people live on the planet, that would be the best way to reduce the demand on oil and electricity and severely reduce pollution.
Since politicians won't do that then we will have to rely on Obama and Apple and any other forward thinkers. Hopefully it will be enough but given the moronic right wing (i.e. nazism) comments I see here I despair sometimes.

and (yes) an anti-glare display...The new display is stunning. Not only is the thing massive in terms of resolution, but the color depth and contrast are stunning. Apple seems to have really honed the art of light sensing, and we found the display accurately adjusting itself to a room's light. When cranked up to full brightness, the screen beams -- it's crisp, clear, and colors pop," Topolsky reports.


YOU SEE, a anti-glare screen can look GREAT without annoying reflections!

Now Apple just needs to do this FOR ALL Mac's with screens!

Until then, I and all my friends and family waits.

@TruthMan
"Apple has moved to glossy screens because Al Gore sells carbon credits to Apple, and glossy screens are "greener" and require fewer carbon credits to offset the fossil fuel energy used to manufacture the product."

Is that TRUE???

If so, Apple is the new Microsoft.

Don't blame Al Gore or Obama. That's just ignorance and prejudice.

I will say this: I want a matte screen, and the only reason why I haven't yet bought a new MBP or iMac is due to the lack of one.

As for this quote:
"Yes, you could settle for a lesser MS run machine, but why kiss your cousin when you can marry your dream girl!"

Greatest line I've seen here yet!