Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th Apr 2006 14:05 UTC, submitted by CrimsonScythe
Permalink for comment 118177
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-07
>there is still significant difference between underhoods of Porsches and Fords, also in _raw_ performance.
Thats funny, when did Ford start making cars that ran on nuclear energy? This must be new because the last time I checked they both had cylinders, they both required compression, and they both ran on gas.
But thats way beside the point. The point was that on a whole, Porche makes nicer (and therefore more expensive) cars than Ford, even though they are both automobiles.
>which is not the case for apple vs hp here.
Really? I see it as being very much the case here. Apple makes nicer computers than HP, just like Porsches are nicer than Fords. Are people who buy the HP laptop dumb? No, of course not. But the ones who buy the HP *specifically* thinking they are getting the same quality as an Apple are either very uninformed or just plain kidding themselves, which is what MediaSex appeared to be eluding to. Cheapest rarely == best.