Bioadam

http://www.macheist.com/bundle/u/201498/

In 2008, more laptop computers were sold than desktop computers. Just running some numbers, it is easy to see why. For about the same amount of money, a laptop has similar performance and features similar to a desktop for about the same price and laptops are portable. Let's compare my new aluminum MacBook to a Apple's Mac Mini desktop computer. Although the current Mac Mini is a bad bargain at the moment, it should get a boost in features soon, and I will update this post then.

Laptop             v.         Desktop
--------------------------------------
Macbook                     Mac Mini
$1300 - 2ghz               $1022 - 2Ghz (slower bus)
2G RAM                     2GB Ram
160GB HD                 160GB hardrive
Superdrive                   Superdrive
13" LED                      $100 - 15 display
Multitouch                  $98 - keyboard + mouse
5 hr battery                  $30 - battery backup
Draft-N wireless         $50 - draft N wireless
Bluetooth                    Bluetooth
iSight                           $30 - Webcam
Nvida 9400M :)          GMA 950 :(
speaker inside              speaker inside
portable                       not portable

--------------------------------------
$1300                          $1330

Looking at the above chart, the new MacBook is actually a good deal compared to the current MacBook. The MacBook may seem like an expense purchase, but laptops includes battery backups and their own screens. These items are often extras on desktop computer. The display comparison is necessarily unfair, because I could not find a stand alone LED backlit display in the 13" range. The biggest advantage of the MacMini is its wider array of ports and size matched accessories. Costwise though, the verdict is in favor of the MacBook. Prospective Apple purchasers should get the laptop.

Bargain hunters often prefer Dell. In my own experience, Dell has the lowest prices of any computer manufacturer. Comparing their Studio line of computers, I pitted their 15" laptop with a "slim" desktop. Dell has a it's own Mac Mini sized desktop, the Studio Hybrid, but I wanted a comparison with a traditional boxy destop. To belabor a fruit analogy I would rather compare apples to oranges to than tangerines to oranges. FYI, the cost with add-ons would be about the same as the Studio 15 anyway.

Dell Studio 15             Dell Studio Slim
$994 2.2 Ghz              $802 2.53Ghz processor
3GB RAM                  3GB Ram
320GB HD                 500GB hardrive
CD/DVD burner         CD/DVD burner
15" LED                      $100 - 15 display
Trackbpad                   keyboard + mouse
5 hr battery                  battery backup bundle
Draft-N wireless         Draft N wireless
Bluetooth                    Bluetooth
Webcam                      $30 - Webcam
ATI HD 3450 :|           ATI HD 3450 :|
speaker inside              speaker bundle
portable                       not portable
---------------------------------------
$994                            $932

True to its roots, Dell packs lots of value into its computers. The Studio Slim I configured on Dell's website has the lowest comparable features I could find and it still includes a 500Gb hard drive and a processor with an almost 25% faster clockrate than its mobile brethren. Considering the convenience of a laptop over a desktop, I still believe the verdict here is in favor the Dell Studio 15.

The Dell comparison in particular shows the traditional strengths of desktop computers, faster processors, more storage space, and better graphics, are becoming less relevant in an age of powerful laptop computers. Laptops have built-in advantage that desktops do not, such as portability and reduced power consumption. Consider also that the weaknesses of a laptop can be supplemented with external hardware like keyboards, mice, hard drives and monitors. My work computer, for instance, is an IBM Thinkpad running dual displays with an external monitor. At home, my MacBook wirelessly connects to any storage device I can plug into my router. The difference between laptops and desktops is literally shrinking with the trend of miniature desktops like the Dell Studio Hybrid or all-in-one computers like the iMac. The difference between laptops and desktops is thus literally shrinking. As a final consideration, I believe that laptops have more resale value than desktops and retain their usefulness over a longer period of time. Any premium paid for a laptop at purchase is worth it in the long run.

Three years after its release, I have finally played "Gears of War". For the first time since the introduction of "Halo", I can say that there is a game that is almost as fun as "Halo". There is no greater kudo I can give a first person shooter. "Halo" dispensed with health and armor packs and other non-fun things to do in games. It introduced a truly kick-ass score that pumps you up through every battle. It has smart enemies and adequately functioning allies. It has pushed a high fun factor for ever encounter that encouraged replay. "Gears of War" has all of this, cursing, and lots of blood.

I did mention that "Gears of War" was almost as fun as "Halo". The almost comes from three not very fun sequences in the game. Two of the sequences involve very slowly running away from a very big and scary Berzerker. Having to go slow in a first person shooter is never fun. (That's why we have first person sneakers like "Thief" and "Splinter Cell".) The other not fun sequence requires driving a vehicle that has to stop to shoot. If going slow is not fun then you better believe that stopping is absolutely the opposite of fun.

One facet of "Gears of War" I did not expect was its linearity. The world looks like a big place but it is cut off by ruins or in same places literally roped off by a small fence. I think, I could just step right over that fence and walk through those woods, but no, that fence can't be stepped over. There is also no jumping, just vaulting (slowly) over low barriers (except that little fence). "Gears of War" has a short single player experience and little in the way of story. At first, I felt cheated, but by the time I finished the game, I appreciated the care that was taken to make the environments interesting. By closing off the spaces, the battles are more intimate and strategic. The game motivates moving forward, encouraging you to get in the fight and have some real fun. I also found that have everything closer to you brings out the detail in the character models. Games like "Halo 3" have great graphics that often go unnoticed because when something is far away, it is represented by fewer pixels on your screen. Those tiny boxes of gourmet chocolate are alwasy better than the big Whitmans' Sampler.

Single player games are usually once-and-done, maybe twice-and-done. Alone, a single player experience rarely justify the price of most games What really gives a game value and keeps it in a frugal gamer's library is multi-player. Fortunately, "Gears of War" is absolutely 100% saturated with great multiplayer gaming. Unfortunately, with the sale of its sequel, "Gears of War 2", the community of original gamers well shrivel and die. Check out this chart of the original "Gears of War" crashing into oblivion.

The perils of video game frugality are borne out best by bargain shopping games with great multiplayer. New players are met with hoardes of experienced players who know every weapon location and exploit. They just love pwning n00bs and effectively keep out new players. Without new players a multiplayer community implodes. Some games die completely, others are left with stragglers and die hards like the Stranded you'll find in "Gears of War". By the numbers, "Gears of War 2" is the 3rd most played game on Xbox live. The original is not even listed. I managed to get in a few games recently, but the writing is on the wall. Play "Gears of War" for the single player experience. Don't keep it for the multiplayer.