On May 11, 2:50=A0pm, Mitch <mi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <Y5CVj.35869$3v1.34...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, weedhopper
>
> <wendelhop...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "Mitch" <mi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:100520081433365734%mitch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Finally we have a differently-styled small laptop to compare to MBA,
> > > but it is again far too different to compare directly.
>
> > > Buyers re****t horrible performance, major tweaks necessary, short
> > > charge life, too-glossy display, and lots of bad trade-offs. All
users=
> > > seem to have had to revert to earlier software versions to get
mediocr=
e
> > > performance. None have thought it compared well to peers.
>
> > Who would it's peers be? =A0I am looking for a notebook. but there are
s=
o many
> > seemingly good ones out there. =A0I want a small, lightweight unit.
=A0T=
he
> > MacAir is one that draws my interest, but there are so many that are
sim=
ilar
> > to it .
>
> The first sentence sounds like you don't think it has many peers, and
> the last sounds like you know of many. Whazzup?
>
> I was looking at this comparison from
PCWorld:http://www.pcworld.com/artic=
le/id,123867-page,1-c,notebooks/article.html
>
> Still a lot of variation in ultra****tables.
> Amazing people are still writing about MBA as though stunned it doesn't
> have one features or another. It's hardly unique!
Please point out where anything with the specs you snipped out appears
at that site:
"HP:
2GB RAM, 120 GB 5400 HD
1280x768 display (8.9 inch), too reflective
2.86 pounds, est. 85 cu in volume
Ethernet, Expresscard, SD slots
bigger battery option, but adds half pound
loud fan, small trackpad, BT optional
re****tedly poor CPU, poor GPU -- horrible reviews
$750 "
Did you snip them because you made them up, Mitch?
|
