[huggyface]

Apple would never release a laptop with a 1.5 hour battery (wifi web browsing)

That's too bad. I use my laptops as portable desktops, seldom away from a plug. So I have to heft around a giant battery because Apple decides that only one usage model is right?

RIM devices have, generally, dramatically more endurance than Apple mobile devices. Apple seriously compromised battery life on the burgeoning smartphone market because they prioritized other things like a nice interface and a bigger screen. They weren't the leaders in battery life, and it's weird that you compare them particularly to Samsung when most Samsung devices have comparable or battery performance.

[eropple]

> That's too bad. I use my laptops as portable desktops, seldom away from a plug. So I have to heft around a giant battery because Apple decides that only one usage model is right?

False assertion. With a Macbook Pro, you get one of the lightest laptops of its size, plus very competitive specs in pretty much all areas. (This goes for the new Retina one as well as the standard one.)

[huggyface]

With a Macbook Pro, you get one of the lightest laptops of its size

Samsung series 9 notebook - 2.8lbs.

Macbook Pro - 4.4 - 5.6lbs.

Apple is a remarkable organization, but they are still using the same Intel processors and chipsets, SSDs and wifi chips as everyone else. Where they have a longer battery life it usually is because they filled every crevice with battery, as with the new Retina Macbook Pro. It could have been much lighter if they didn't so intently focus on a 7 hour battery life.

[eropple]

You're comparing a 15.4" mobile workstation with a 2.3GHz or 2.6GHz Ivy Bridge Core i7, 16GB of RAM, and a GT650...to a 13.3" notebook with an Intel IGP, a ULV Core i5, and a max of 8GB of RAM. They don't even come close to filling the same role. If you want to compare the MBP 15" to the Series 9 15", you're looking at a ULV Core i5 at 1.7GHz in the Series 9, still a maximum of 8GB of RAM, still a crappy Intel IGP, and it's less than a pound lighter (3.63 lb).

If you want to compare apples to apples, the 13" Air is a much more appropriate comparison to the original machine you were referring to. The Air has a faster processor (and an option to upgrade to an i7) and weighs almost exactly the same (2.96 pounds to 2.9--not 2.8 as you said).

So...you were saying?

[huggyface]

Enjoyable response given the fact that you brought up the ridiculous notion that the MBP was the lightest laptop of 'it's size'. Of course you are carefully amending the claims now ("lightest of its size using a 3rd generation core i7 with a nvidia 650M GPU and..."), unsurprisingly, but the original point was one hundred percent wrong.

You were wrongly saying?

[eropple]

I never actually said the lightest laptop of its size, I said it was one of the lightest laptops of its size, and I kind of assumed you wouldn't be disingenuous enough to compare underspecced ultralights with workstation machines.

So I think I'm done with you. HAND.

[throwaway1979]

Wouldn't the correct device to compare be the Macbook Air?