Banwatch: I'm starting an iPhone thread

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You are being ridiculous. I've ALWAYS expressed interest in the cheap Macbook or the Mac Mini. Gaming, I got a desktop for. Besides, who games on the Mac?

Bull ****ing ****.

You want me to go through the archive? I would, but my time is too valuable to me to waste on you.

You're almost as pathetic as Asher.

[Space05us]

I have a cell phone. I can make phone calls with it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon


Bull ****ing ****.

You want me to go through the archive? I would, but my time is too valuable to me to waste on you.

You're almost as pathetic as Asher.

Get your banning rods out, moderators.

[Verto]

The phone I have right now is some free LG phone I got from AT&T. No bells and whistles. I've had it for a couple years, so I'm looking to upgrade. At the iPhone's original price, there was no way I was going to buy one. At $199, it's a lot more appealing, but I'm not sure I want to spend 70-80$ a month for the service plan.

BTW, that HTC Diamond looks pretty cool, but I don't see why they designed the back of the phone like that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
Bull ****ing ****.

You want me to go through the archive? I would, but my time is too valuable to me to waste on you.

You're almost as pathetic as Asher.

Go ahead. Go through the archive. I think anyone who knows my posts on this topic has known I've always expressed an interest in purchasing a cheaper version of Mac (a Mini or Macbook) to play around with it.

It's not exactly a secret and I've asked about it a number of times. Hell, plenty of times you've told me about them (and I was also told a MacBook Pro is far better to get).

And laptops are where getting a Mac would make sense for me, because there is far less useless **** Apple's pack into the limited packages they offer, so you pay more than you should for what you want it for (ie, as snoopy says, what a user wants to compare machines against each other for in order to determine which is the lowest price for their desires). But of course, that blows your argument out of the water (regardless of whether you choose to see it or not, everyone else does).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Go ahead. Go through the archive. I think anyone who knows my posts on this topic has known I've always expressed an interest in purchasing a cheaper version of Mac (a Mini or Macbook) to play around with it.

It's not exactly a secret and I've asked about it a number of times. Hell, plenty of times you've told me about them (and I was also told a MacBook Pro is far better to get).

Yeah right. Leopards are changing their spots all over the place these days.

And laptops are where getting a Mac would make sense for me, because there is far less useless **** Apple's pack into the limited packages they offer, so you pay more than you should for what you want it for (ie, as snoopy says, what a user wants to compare machines against each other for in order to determine which is the lowest price for their desires). But of course, that blows your argument out of the water (regardless of whether you choose to see it or not, everyone else does).

Of course it doesn't. You are conflating comparing machines in terms of satisfying your desires with comparing them in terms of cost per equivalent hardware. Cost is an objective measure. Your particular desires are not. For example, if you want a top of the line gaming machine, you would be a clown to buy a Mac Pro (or any Workstation class machine), since it would be massively overpowered for gaming. Apple doesn't offer machines for hard core gamers, so hard core gamers won't be well served buying an Apple machine.

None of this affects the point that Apple's workstations are much cheaper than what Dell is offering for virtually the same equipment. Dell offers gimped low power workstations for a cheaper price, but Apple doesn't offer a gimped workstation, so any comparison is pointless.

Similarly, the idiots who argue that building your own is cheaper conveniently forget to include the hours they spend building the thing, or the cost of not having a warranty, or the hours they spend learning how to put them together in the first place.

Or the clowns who compare Apple's entry level laptops with the dog **** that Dell sells at entry level. The difference between Apple and Dell is that Apple is pretty upfront about what it's going to cost you. Dell put a low price on the front, but sting you for the things you need to make it a decent machine.

By cost, Apple's machines compare reasonably to similar machines from other manufacturers (once you look at things like the software bundle and so on). But that doesn't mean they are necessary a good deal for everyone. People want different things. It turns out that people who want more capable computers tend to buy Apple (which is why Apple cleans up at the high end of the market).

[Asher]

For example, if you want a top of the line gaming machine, you would be a clown to buy a Mac Pro (or any Workstation class machine), since it would be massively overpowered for gaming.

It still can't run Crysis without dropping frames.

The Mac Pro is not "overpowered" as a gaming computer, it's not configured and is not a gaming computer. If you can run triple SLI and drop in a new processor next year, then I'll call it a gaming computer. Until then, it is a Photoshop Adapter.

No wonder Mac Pro sales suck so much that Apple actually has to price them reasonably. And people still don't buy them.

****, you can't even put in a high end graphics card on the thing. "Massively overpowered for gaming", I wish I could smack you through the internet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah right.

Yeah it is right (I was even talking to you about a Mac Mini a couple years ago ). Just because you are blind as a bat doesn't mean you get to decide what the world looks like.

You are conflating comparing machines in terms of satisfying your desires with comparing them in terms of cost per equivalent hardware.

You mean comparing costs based on how most people do them... ie, what THEY want out of their computers.

Dell offers gimped low power workstations for a cheaper price, but Apple doesn't offer a gimped workstation, so any comparison is pointless.

Actually it isn't... that's the point you are constantly missing. The beauty of PC's is the wide variety and choice, allowing you to pay far less for a machine because you can choose a machine based on what you want it to do.

You are making my argument for me. Apple DOESN'T MAKE a "gimped workstation", so if that's what I want, I either have to overpay and get a Mac, or I can buy the Dell version and save some dough.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That is the Russian government's fault for fearing that anyone with an decent phone of pocket computer is a spy. They really have been blocking several technologies and major manufactured goods for no good reason.

Such as?

[Asher]

Flying penises, for one.

[-Jrabbit]

This is a little late, but...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yeah right.

Yeah it is right (I was even talking to you about a Mac Mini a couple years ago ). Just because you are blind as a bat doesn't mean you get to decide what the world looks like.

You are conflating comparing machines in terms of satisfying your desires with comparing them in terms of cost per equivalent hardware.

You mean comparing costs based on how most people do them... ie, what THEY want out of their computers.

When you define yourself as "they", which you are wont to do, it makes no sense.

Dell offers gimped low power workstations for a cheaper price, but Apple doesn't offer a gimped workstation, so any comparison is pointless.

Actually it isn't... that's the point you are constantly missing. The beauty of PC's is the wide variety and choice, allowing you to pay far less for a machine because you can choose a machine based on what you want it to do.

So you think it's cool to pay more for something gimped. Apple's Mac Pros are cheaper than the gimped Xeon based ones. You can buy a Core 2 Duo Dell workstation for a whopping $200 cheaper than the Mac Pro, but why would you bother.

You are making my argument for me. Apple DOESN'T MAKE a "gimped workstation", so if that's what I want, I either have to overpay and get a Mac, or I can buy the Dell version and save some dough.

Owned.

I'm not making your argument for you. You are wandering around in circles again. I said that the Mac Pro was competitive on price given equivalent hardware. That's true. End of story. Who gives a **** if you want to buy a machine in a different class.

If your argument is that Dell is cheaper because you can buy a cheaper computer that has inferior hardware, then you're comparing Apple's to oranges.

e.g.

Agathon: Apple sells equivalent hardware cheaper than Dell in the workstation class of PCs.

Imran Siddiqui: So what? I can buy a much ****tier computer that isn't a workstation for cheaper.

You know what dude, I can buy a toaster for a lot cheaper than Dell sells its cheapest laptop. Therefore, by your reasoning I would be overpaying for the Dell.

Your r-tardery knows no bounds.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you think it's cool to pay more for something gimped. Apple's Mac Pros are cheaper than the gimped Xeon based ones. You can buy a Core 2 Duo Dell workstation for a whopping $200 cheaper than the Mac Pro, but why would you bother.

You'd bother if that's what you want. Most people don't need a Xeon processor or even want one. People don't need a 900+W power supply. Why not give them a less powerful option, so they can save money?

What does Apple offer that is an easily upgradable home use desktop option? Oh wait... it doesn't exist... you have to buy a Mac Pro, which includes a ton of things you just don't need.

Owned.

Sorry I didn't put that on the bottom of my post. Next time I'll make sure I note that I have owned you.

I said that the Mac Pro was competitive on price given equivalent hardware. That's true. End of story.

No, not end of story. That was never the argument. That's the argument you tried to make it become. The argument was that Apple, especially Mac Pros are overpriced. You wanted to turn it into a "competitive on price given equivalent hardware", ignoring the fact that Apple offers a highly limited set of hardware meaning that if you want something a bit less powerful because you don't need all that juice under the hood or want less features because you don't need it, then tough, with Apple, you pay for it all. With the PC, you can save money by picking something that's right for you, not what Apple thinks is right for you.


Oh, almost forgot... Owned.

[Asher]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
This is a little late, but...

I am constantly a victim of Agathon's ruthless personal attacks, yet nothing is ever done.



BTW, isn't it a bannable offense to use the upload feature for non-Civ stuff? Oh, the irony!

[Asher]

BTW, and this is said seriously, Steve Jobs does not look healthy. Apple claims it's just a common bug he has, but he is clearly underweight and also looked pretty tired in the keynote.



Is the cancer back?