My problem with this is that you don't really know what you're talking about.
|Apple MacBook Pro - Intel Core i5 2.5 GHz - 500 GB HDD / 5400 rpm - 13.3″ 1280 x 800 -4 GB RAM|
Toshiba Satellite L875D-S7332 - A series 2.7 GHz - 640 GB HDD / 5400 rpm - 17.3″ 1600 x 900 - 6 GB RAM - Mercury silver
I'm probably going to blow a gasket the next time I see someone compare computers by CPU speed and memory size alone.
I'm going to guide you on a trip through reality real quick: you've told us nothing about those two computers.
There used to be a day where CPU speed mattered. There used to be a day where memory size mattered. And they still do, to a very
small extent. What you've failed to mention (or even research) is the model and architecture of CPUs are in those two machines. Seriously. Speed hardly matters when comparing chips on the market. The amount of cores doesn't matter either.
Want to know why?
Four core Intel Core-i7 chips outperform every single version of AMD Zambezi 8 core chips. The frequency of the i7 chip compared to the zambezi chip doesn't matter. i7 chips that underclock zambezi chips outperform the zambezi chips.
It doesn't matter how fast something operates if it can't operate well.
Which brings me to my next point. AMD A-series chips are terrible.
All of them. Every single one of them. You know what else sucks? The integrated graphics on those APUs. So you'll be enjoying the higher resolution with much worse video capabilities.
Now about memory. After 4GB, there's almost no noticeable change in computer performance. The only way more than 4GB of memory benefits you is if you're running enough applications to require more than 4GB of memory. While this sounds like an easy task, you almost have to go out of your way to use more than 4GB simultaneously. I.e., running a virtual machine will cause you to need more memory. And sometimes feeding photoshop requires more memory. But if you're not an extreme power user, there's almost no difference.
Apple develops almost all of their devices in house. Which leads to outstanding
quality control. MacBooks have unbelievably long lifespans because the hardware put in them aren't prone to faults for the aforementioned reason. And I'll give you a perfect example: The class action lawsuit over the early HP dv-series laptops. They were built shitty. They got hot, solder melted in the GPU and everything went to shit. Because they were built without care. Apple has very high quality standards. Every Windows laptop manufacturer I can think of doesn't even begin to compare.
It's not about what you can and can't do on one computer versus the other. Everyone knows you can do the same things on all the mainstream OS's. That's why they're mainstream. It's about the quality of the machine you're using.
The amount of problems I've had with my Windows based machine in the past year: about 17.
The amount of problems I've had with my MacBook in the last 6 years: 0
So I'll tell you why I chose to buy a $2,000 MacBook over a $450 Toshiba laptop: I like things that don't suck.