thats so stupid, similar fair trade shirts are $15

shouldnt it be lower weight to power ratio... or high power to weight?

are you retarded?

of course it matters. If each person in the US lowered their per capita pollution... u dont think it would matter?

per capita pollution of the states is 6 times higher than China.

"Ah, just what we needed -- yet another Chinese navigation system that touts mutiple layers of functionality, but probably doesn't really excel in any of them"

Was this backhanded compliment really necessary?

Downtown chicago!

Break You Off - The roots

"As the owner of both a MBP and a T42p I'm not sure why you would say the MBP is a toy compared to the Thinkpads. IMHO both are excellently engineered notebooks with comparable support and build-quality."

For some people, the MBP is more than enough... for some, the Thinkpad comes with a lot more non-gimicky features.

I'm not talking about a nice fibre-optic keyboard... i'm talking about a pro-level gfx card, world class security, etc.

""looking from the spec, the x1600 is obviously a faster chip compared to x1400. but the x1600 chip inside of a MBP is down clocked by 30% which made it a inferior chip compred to a x1400 running at full speed."

And this equates to "a hell of a lot more powerful" how exactly?"

Thinkpads can be equipped with firegl cards (not to mention a plethora of security features) which are - professionally speaking - more powerful than a woefully underclocked x1600. Of course its much more expensive, but thats not the point. My point is that even with the same specs - sometimes higher (FireGL) - and the same, if not smaller, frame (14.1" T60p vs. 15.4" Macbook Pro) the Thinkpad wont sizzle your lap.

"Regarding G4, G5 and Core Duo, the G5 was never going to make it as a laptop processor. So Apple had to make due with way-outdated G4 chips for years. Not a good situation. Hence the Intel switch."

Yet even before the switch, Mac users bought the delicious banter that g4 was as powerful as its Intel counterpart which it was not. This is an example of LYING aka MISREPRESENTATION on Apple's part. The PPC chips from IBM were terrible compared to Intel offerings.

To prove my point, Apple is touting an increase 4 to 5x in the improvement of the processing power. Compared to a last generation Intel chip, the increase isn't as high (easy to research). What does this tell you? It tells us that the g4 was terribly underpowered compared to previous gen intel offerings.

thats kind of funny that you people say that macbooks arent designed to be used on your laps.

Its also kind of funny that you closer your eyes and tell yourself that this is perfectly acceptable for such a thin laptop.

Too bad almost no PC laptops overheat when used on your lap. I can vouch for every thinkpad T series (which is even smaller than the macbook - and a hell, HELL, of a lot more powerful than the macbook and macbook pro) that it doesnt even get warm when used on your lap during normal loads. Even during extreme loads, it doesnt get HOT.

Poor Apple fanboys, the more you bend over and let steve jobs sell you faulty products, the less of a chance that he actually sell a good one. Just look at the g4, Apple fanboys defended it to the death because Steve Jobs hailed it as superior to Intel offerings. Too bad the g4 wasnt that great - as witnessed by the HUGE leap that the core duo gave macbooks.