Quote (Eek @ Oct 14 2010 08:24pm)

Well.. Steam now supports OsX

It's overhype'd yes. But it's actually not a whole lot more pricier then other competing laptops in the same market (Base 13"MBP).

I'm a hardcore pc user as most around here knows, and i brought a MacBook Pro for my traveling needs. Being portable, long battery life and well built are 3 of my biggest concerns. I needed more processing power then an Atom can provide so naturally i avoided the netbooks. So Mac comes to mind, most notebooks flex when you pick them up with the screen open, not so with the unibody MBPs, i've pull 9 hours from a single charge at one time.. but i still average 7 hours doing low cpu bounded work.

And you can actually upgrade these things. I brought the lowest model of the 13" MacBook pro since i know it'll be cheaper to get that and upgrade rather then buying the more expensive version. I brought it and since then have upgraded from 2gb of ram to 4gbs. Upgraded the stock 160gb 5400rpm drive for a seagate 500gb 7200 2.5" drive. I'm contemplating on getting a 256gb SSD in the near future.

Apple is actually pretty competitive in the notebook market. The Mac Pros (Desktop) is where it's overpriced.

I don't feel the need to game on the go so that wasn't a concern at all when getting a OSX equipped machine, but it will be able to if i wanted.

Customer service has also been top-notch every time i needed assistance. I say this from experience, been dealing with numerous tech companies the past 7 to 8 years i've been building computers.

Quote (Futurama @ Oct 14 2010 11:37pm)

I was talking about their entire product lineup. Besides if Macs are so good why on earth did they switch to Intel CPUs the very same that are used in PCs 
As for laptops. I guess it really depends on what you use it for but I wouldn't be surprised that most people only use it when they are traveling while have a more powerful
desktop as their main machine so it's really waste of money to buy the latest and best laptops since you can run a lot of stuff on a 600 dollar laptop from Dell and let the
desktop handle the more demanding apps. While you can still upgrade memory and harddrive but how about the more important parts like videocards and CPU? There is a
reason why they want ppl to buy laptops because it would force you to buy new ones a lot more often.

Quote (Eek @ Oct 14 2010 09:53pm)

Apple change from the IBM PowerPC chips to Intel chips was because the x86 and x86-64 architecture, they could have very well went with AMD or Via but those companies are not as well known to the general public.

Even on a window based laptop, ram and hard drives are all that you can upgrade. Laptops do not conform to a standard such as ATX for desktop pc. It's almost impossible to upgrade the cpu and graphics card since most are proprietary designs from the OEM.

But i have to agree with you. 75% of all computers users can get their daily chores done on a lowly netbook.

Quote (Eek @ Oct 14 2010 08:53pm)

Apple change from the IBM PowerPC chips to Intel chips was because the x86 and x86-64 architecture, they could have very well went with AMD or Via but those companies are not as well known to the general public.

Even on a window based laptop, ram and hard drives are all that you can upgrade. Laptops do not conform to a standard such as ATX for desktop pc. It's almost impossible to upgrade the cpu and graphics card since most are proprietary designs from the OEM.

But i have to agree with you. 75% of all computers users can get their daily chores done on a lowly netbook.

Quote (Futurama @ Oct 15 2010 10:17am)

lol that's what I was ranting about. I mean correct me if I am wrong but there are no laptops out there which you can upgrade the vital components like CPU and videocard so if you want to upgrade you have to buy a totally new one while with desktop
you can just upgrade certain parts and still keep everything else like monitor, chassis, power-supply etc  I actually know a few ppl who use laptops for playing games even though they almost always do it at their homes but I guess it's good for our economy

Hey btw when did you get the 15-85 IS? Why didn't you get either the 17-55 f2.8 IS or even 24-70L instead
I don't know the prices in the US but here in Canada the 15-85 is almost as expensive as the 17-55

Quote (Eek @ Oct 15 2010 04:01pm)

I brought the 15-85 IS back in late may. I got a great deal on it so it's pretty hard to pass up, i think i paid $610 for a brand new one from a Canon authorized dealer.. can't pass up on the deal on such a good lens. Right now the lens is selling for $720 on B&H.

I debated long and hard between the 17-55 and the 15-85. Sometimes i just want a walk around lens and the range offer on the 15-85 is just perfect, 2 extra mm on the wide end and 30 extra on the tele. I didnt' get the 24-70 was because of the lack of IS and it's optics are not as good as the 15-85, if they make a 24-70 MK2 then i'll be all over it :P.

What really nailed the coffin on the 17-55 for me was the build quality, dust issues and the somewhat frequent failure of the IS mechanism.

I love the 15-85, it's one heck of a sharp lens.

Take this pic for example.. I'm sure you guys all seem this one by now. Even if 85mm isn't long enough.. I can crop!! I dunno how big the crop is but seems like >100% crop in my eyes. Just look at the sharpness of that thing.

Cropped version
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m223/Jdmhoodz/IMG_5192-1.jpg

Original.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m223/Jdmhoodz/IMG_5192-2.jpg

Quote (Futurama @ Oct 15 2010 07:52pm)

Oh no you didnt!
Have you read too many of those totally inaccurate complaints in POTN forum?
I suggest you check out this resolution chart
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=0
At f2.8 the 24-70L is just as sharp and at f4 and f5.6 it's far superior. I chose the 24-70L because of the f2.8 and with a possible upgrade to fullframe in the future in mind so I don't have to keep buying and selling.
Also so far I haven't found the need for IS even in low light situations. heh I have heard the 24 mm isn't wide enough argument before but that's why we have ultra wide lenses and if you don't want to change
lenses too often just get a second body

f2.8
1/13s
ISO640
http://i537.photobucket.com/albums/ff339/SpammersHeaven/IMG_6777c.jpg

Quote (Eek @ Oct 15 2010 08:24pm)

I dunno man... I'm seeing quite a bit of CA on the 24-70 @ 24mm f/4

Quote (Ice98 @ Oct 15 2010 04:24pm)

what the hell


jesus duck much?