My spider sense is telling me that Tom's is desperate to bring in more readers with the release of this article, which is bound to conger up the same epic comment wars regarding Mac vs. PC of Mac articles past.

*conjure

Yawn. Basically, you were just explaining a normal notebook that costs more than it should. It's slightly thinner by the standards in it's class but is 0.38" really a big deal? (No.) The famed apple screens can be outperformed and sometimes for cheaper if you shop around, upgradability is shaky at it's very best, and it is generally more expensive than everything in it's class.
Then of course, you list the Mac OS X as an improvement over the PC's. That's where almost every single person will find error in your article. It is nothing more than a watered down version of more powerful unix/linux OS's. Anyone who has work to do, wont use this. Yawn.

Oh yeah, why would the need to reformat your computer lead to building a new core i7 machine?

..The scent of Mac-ness and the sense of power that comes with it. Maybe spending twice as much isn't such a bad idea after all.............

[I started checking the headers and my heart skipped a beat--the spam was truly coming from my system]

I found lots of spam "comming" from my computer. Even when I had run Linux -Live CD only- for a month.

Headers are easy to fake, so, are a common spam trick, to hide real spam origin.

By the way, there are some easy fix you could had used:

1- Use virtual machines to access Internet.
2- Use utilities as Norton Ghost for fast "formatting". In minutes your computer restore a partition image ready to use with all your software installed.


I don't want to hurt your feelings, but it looks like you spent an enormous effort to justify pay for an overpriced Mac OS (overpriced because the obsolete hardware you had buy does not wort a penny, so you are paying for the OS only).

Reads like crap only Anand himself would have written. You went Mac because someone better (a hacker, virus writer, whoever) defeated you? That's like saying you went gay because someone get the girl you're after.

BTW, where are the reviews of web based Java game we were promised? You got a Mac so you're not reviewing SC2 that's for sure.

Why would anyone "switch" to a mac, when pc will do everything you need for half the price. Everything you mentioned in this article, all pc's (vista pc's) in the world can do at half the price.

As for security, i don't need security on my computer, i NEVER get any viruses, and if i did Norton or avg would take care of all that.

Mac aint got shit on pc.

It more like an opinion (commercial stile) not a review. It a good article with all the specs and the pictures, but it far from being objective. And the suggestions that was made here...If you writing a review, you can't emphasize the superiority of your product on expanse of other (Microsoft in this case).

[While these ~200:1 contrast ratios sound like a catastrophically horrible results...]
Excuses, excuses, excuses...

If you pay premium prices, you should not get worse hardware.


[Using a digital Munsell... the AUO screen had very good.... The LG-Philips display was worse]

Another puny excuse. So you buy a Mac, and need third party software to calibrate it? I remarks: Overpriced.
Why it does not get calibrated from fab?

And you can't compare it with some trademark PC version. There are so many PC versions that you will ever find some example to make your point. It's manipulative, and aimed only to the computer ignorant victims who can read the article.

Smart PC buyers don't buy Dells, HP, or Lenovos. They are choices bad as Apple, because of the reason that they are overpriced, and limited.

[There is more misinformation about ... everyone agrees with: glossy screens have more vivid color and contrast while matte screens are better at rejecting reflections from ambient light.]

misinformation as your article.
"everyone agrees with"? Subtle. A trick to say that you have not basis for your statement.

"glossy screens have more vivid color and contrast"?

Plain lie.
"glossy screens" looks good only in stores. That is the only reason for the mac "glossy" screen.
As soon as you need to use it, you learn the hard way than all those reflections damage your eyes, because reflections on the screen:
-don't let you see the screen.
-forces you to use dark rooms, and move away all reflective the objects at your back.
-You can't choose environment with a notebook, so generally you can't avoid reflections.
-Damage your eyes and cause headaches, because the eye interprets reflections as incorrect focus, and constantly tries to focus the screen and the reflected object simultaneously. Since it is impossible, it causes health problems. It should be prohibited. You are not a good parent if you give a glossy screen to your children.

But Apple, who knows it, sold glossy screens anyway. Why?

Because Apple target victimizable consumers, and don't care about consumer health.
Victimizable consumers are those:
-Without enough information.
-Without ego (manipulable), who need external symbols of status to show, even when they are showing his lack of ego.

[ On the other hand, fans of glossy displays can point out that flagship digital mammography displays such as the Eizo RadiForce GS520 are designed with glossy screens because the superior sharpness (MTF) over matte screens allows radiologists to better detect more subtle changes in the breast and identify breast cancer at earlier stages.]

"digital mammography displays"? you are not buying a "digital mammography display". You are buying a notebook. Such convoluted argument looks like marketing investigation aimed to cheat consumers.
A specific model of "digital mammography display" is not necessarily well designed. ¿do all the "digital mammography displays" use glossy screens? NO. Do that model also implements other measures to avoid reflections? If not, is bad design.

"So, when it’s comes to making a life or death decision, glossy wins." A marketing lie. It implies that "when life is important, you need a glossy display, so they are better". Is a hidden deceit. Life is important for passenger jumbo jets, because if the pilot does not see the computer screens because of a glossy reflection, then the jumbo jet crashes, and all the 400 passenger die.
That is a deceptive argument, as bad as you "mammography point your finger argument".

[While Dell allows... Apple sticks with ...]
Comparing Apple with Dell? not fair. PCs allows lots of choices than Apple does not allow. You can't compare a bad choice -Dell- with no choice -Apple-.

By the way, Apple "sticks" with obsolete hardware.

[GeForce 9400M]
Many PC have that or better graphics if you want it, and for a lower price.
AND if your really need a good graphic chipset, you can't choose any Apple offer. GeForce 9400M is not good enough when you need graphic power.

[traditional GPU-intensive games such as Call of Duty 4 will run at ~30 frames per second at resolutions of 1024x768 at high quality settings]
Another deceit.
-Hand picked game.
-30 fps = not enough. Based on what you pretend that it can reach it a quality settings? You are omitting that it would reach frequently lower fps, specially in the most important parts of that hand picked game, making it unplayable. you omit to tell that your "high quality" does not include anisotropic filtering, and antialiasing.
-looks like your "digital mammography display" does not have goods graphics.

Stop lying. Graphics is important in gaming, and your Apple is puny at best in gaming.
Also, you omit to say that you will need to buy windows to run those games.

[With the exception of games such as Crysis]
And Bioshock, Far Cry 2, left for dead, Unreal Tournament 3, DirectX 10.1 ... and laaarge list.

[it appears that the 9400M is capable of running most modern games at medium or high image quality settings at 30 fps or greater, making it perfectly suitable for casual gaming.]
"it appears"?
"most modern games"?. NO modern game.
"30 fps"? wait. 60 fps is the base quality. 30 fps is not good enough. You see the image jumping, and it is only average fps. In gamming, it matters lower fps a lot.

AND you are paying premium price. You can but a much better computer for that price.

^ super rant. but yeah macs are ok if you do OSx86 (cuz its not costing you the premium)... but then again... windows or linux is better...

Whinnying, I meant

I know just about everyone here is a mac hater, but you really can't judge something until you try it.

Google OSX86 Project. This is the coolest stuff ever. this project made me love mac and i have switched to it.

I guess this is a new traffic magnet tactic. Produce artciles so awful and mis/uninformed that everyone will be tripping over themselves to tell you what a waste this article is.

If that's what you're going for, good job.

The entire article reads like marketing BS. As someone else pointed out, what's the word "we" doing in there? I thought this was one man's account of his transition from a PC to a Mac.

Are you really trying to convert overclockers and pc gamers with this s***? Because I thought that's what tomshardware mostly consisted of. Maybe you should put these kind of articles on tomsguide?

This article lacks any real content. If this article's intent was to appeal to PC Windows users out there, there needs to be something compelling in the article. Make it explicit so we, non "think-different", people can pick it up.