On 3/12/03 7:00 AM, "Joost van de Griek" <joost at jvdg.net> wrote: > On 2003-03-12 02:20, "Jerome Williams" <will7403 at mac.com> wrote: > >> On 3/11/03 7:00 PM, "Jack Rodgers" <jackrodgers at earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> Those extra $500 bucks deliver a little more in the performance >>> department. >> >> Yes, I do not doubt your facts. However, the speed odometer on my car >> registers up to 120 mphs, that does mean I can drive that fast. No one >> doubts >> the 12" PB is faster than the iBook. The real question will you need or even >> use that added performance. For me, the $500 wasn't worth the added >> performance, performance that I would never use. I already own a G4 Cube and >> never really tapped the true performance capabilities of the machine. I'm >> sure >> I'm not alone. The same argument can be made for those Intel users who spout >> the MHZ numbers. Average Joe computer users, surfs the web, does email, does >> word processing and plays video games. Does he really need a 3 GHZ machine. >> Markerting reps says yes, but reality says no. > > Even Average Joe couldn't do his daily routine on a computer from 1984, so > your argument is only valid up to a point. No doubt that most users never > use all the horsepower of today's machines, but then again, most users don't > even own today's machines; they have older computers. > > Then again, there are always those that can use every last bit of computing > power. When I type "ant" on my iBook, CPU and HD usage go up to 100%, and > stay like that for some 5 minutes. I hope that with the new 12" PowerBook, > they will be like that for only 2.5 minutes. That should save me much > twiddling of thumbs during a day. I'm sure there are others who can save > time in a similar manner by having a computer that is simply much faster > than what they have today. > >> I bought the iBook not because I needed a faster machine, I just needed >> mobile computing. I was tired of being tied to one room of my house to surf >> the net, check my email and write emails like this one. Oh yeah, I wanted a >> computer that was designed to take a little abuse. The iBook was the >> perfect, cost effective choice. > > It was for me, too, a year and a half ago. Didn't want or need the "bulky" > TiBook, so I went for small, and sturdy. Now that small and sturdy is > available with much more horsepower... > > PS: Please don't quote the entire list footer in your replies, it gives me > RSI from all the scrolling to get to the actual content. ;-) > > ,xtG > .tsooJ Apple marketing reps love you.