Replies

"Reasons 1 thru 10 not to get MacBook Airs: The high prices for them. For most of what the vast majority of people need a laptop or ultrabook/MacAirBook, a $699 ultrabook will be more than enough, versus the price of a MacBook Air at around $1300."

Except you're losing out on MacOS, which as I pointed out is a big value-add to the Mac platform.

Plus if you look at resale value, the Mac might even be a better deal monetarily.

Just for fun, why don't you link the $699 ultrabook you think is comparable to an Air?

"Then, Mountain Lion, which is still the OS with around 5-6% of the world’s market share for OSes. Why limit yourself?"

I'm sure you don't drive a Porsche either. After all, Porsche only has 0.1% of the world automotive market...

Plus, as I've pointed out numerous times, Macs will run Windows fine.

"The only reasons for getting a MacBoor Air: a decorative device, and bragging rights for being the only kids on the block that can afford them."

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Except you're losing out on MacOS, which as I pointed out is a big value-add to the Mac platform.

Apparently, you don't get it.

Like I said, for most of what people do with their PCs, regular PCs with Windows are more than enough, and, Macs with MacOS are redundant and over-priced, and not needed. That's the reason that they'll stick around the 5-6% market-share for "PCs".

Plus if you look at resale value, the Mac might even be a better deal monetarily.

Bogus argument.

By the time a Mac is ready for the used-computer market, it will be outdated/obsolete, just like most computers after about 1 or 2 years. And, even then, a used Mac may still cost more than a new PC with the most current technology and the most current OS. Most people would prefer a new PC loaded with the latest and greatest, than something which, while it might still be "attractive" and "shiny" and have the Apple logo on top, would still be "old" technology and obsolete.

Just for fun, why don't you link the $699 ultrabook you think is comparable to an Air?

You still don't get it, and your arguing from the wrong angle.

When it comes to the technology inside, both, the Mac Air and the ultrabook would have very similar specs, and very comparable components. The big difference would be the shinier looking shell and the Apple logo, which is all part of a nicer looking "package"; but, tech-wise and OS-wise, the PC would be very comparable and cost a lot less; but, the advantage goes to the PC ultrabook, because, it comes equipped with Windows OS (whatever flavor), which is still the most used in the world and for which most applications are written, thereby making the Windows ultrabook compatible with millions of applications, right out of the box without having to jump through hoops to make the OS play nice with those applications.

I'm sure you don't drive a Porsche either. After all, Porsche only has 0.1% of the world automotive market...

Strawman argument...

Also, another bogus line of argument.

Most people don't drive a Porsche, for the same reason most people don't own a Mac. They're more expensive to drive out of the store, and more expensive to maintain, and don't really get you to your destination "any better or faster" than another practical equivalent. If the purpose is "transportation", then any make and model car will do the job, and, if computing is the desired function, then, a Mac and a regular PC will work just fine, except that, the PC will do it just as fast and a lot less expensively and have a lot more "roads" in which it can run. Advantage: PC.

Try a more reasonable analogy next time.

BTW, I never said that Macs aren't nicely made or that they wouldn't serve their functions as designed. But, they're still overkill for the job, and on to of that, a lot more expensive.

Plus, as I've pointed out numerous times, Macs will run Windows fine.

Sure, with some other middle-ware to handle Windows and its applications.

But, your own argument contains a huge flaw. If the intent is to run Windows OS and/or all the applications ever written for Windows, why not get a Windows machine to begin with, which will still cost a lot less and will do what Macs do and what all Windows machines do, and will run all applications ever written for Windows, which is in the millions.

Furthermore, you're not locked into the Apple walled garden, which means that, whatever you do with "your" equipment, had better be done through Apple's permission, and you can't really go to a PC expert who doesn't work for Apple, otherwise, your warranty for anything on that Mac becomes invalid.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

I agree, so, why not open up your eyes and try to notice that, you're paying much higher prices for something that is not materially nor functionally, worth that much more than a regular PC with Windows. Macs may be nice, but, why are they "necessary" in a "practical" world, where technology becomes obsolete from one week to the next.

So, my retort would be that, "none are so blind as the sheep that worship at the feet of Jobs (he's dead, so...), at the feet of Apple?".