Why do people buy Macs?

I thought they got updated 3 times every year...Will have to check this one.

Nothing on supporting the Thunderbolt interface is mainstream yet, but for a number of possible uses of this technology in the near future, you might want to look here: http://www.maclife.com/article/howtos/12_possible_uses_thunderbolt_port
Also, the 13" MBP (the latest model, mid-2012, that I have) has, in fact, 2 USB ports, both of which are USB 3.0.

The Vaio you linked me to does seem rather nice but it's about £200 more than the 13" MBP with similar hardware (except for the SSD). You simply cannot compare laptops across different price ranges.

No, I meant to ask what you wanted to say since I couldn't understand you.

True.

The link to the Sony website doesn't work for me.
The Dell you linked me to is 17", so not really portable. It's more than 1.5 times the weight of the 13" MBP, and has poor battery life (3: 37 instead of 6+ hours [7 hours as advertised by Apple]). Also, it seems really old as it's not available online anymore. I can't view the detailed tech specs either.

You have to try harder.

Why is that, might I ask? Does it provide better compatibility than my OS? No. Does it provide better real-world performance than my OS? No. Does it even provide more stability than my OS? No.

Stability is often touted by people who have installed Ubuntu on a partition and now consider themselves an uber hacker. The barebones Linux box is very stable, which is why it forms the basis of most of the worlds servers.
Most popular distributions, bundled in with all their packages and windowing environments, have many, many bugs and causes of instability, however.
But without a windowing environment, a web browser, and all the other bells and whistles it is entirely useless as a check-your-emails-and-facebook computer.

Heck, I always find even the most basic tasks (like the shut down menu) on GNOME can be iffy. That's why I only use Linux if I have a specific reason to, and usually without a windowing environment.

I haven't read the whole thread, but the main anti mac argument i see is why pay more for their products when you can get a much higher spec windows product for the same price. Personally i use both, i have one of the higher spec iMac's and a medium spec windows desktop. Why did i get a mac? because i wanted one . . .simple. I could have got another windows machine but tbh i am bored of windows, it just seems bloated and slow in comparison. The mac, when teamed with the trackpad is so easy to use, multi gesture features just make for complete ease of use and a nicer user experience. In comparison my mac beats my other PC for processing power in every way. I really don't see peoples problems when people suggest buying a mac. If you can afford it and your happy to pay for a mac then you won't be disappointed. I couldn't care less what the haters think, i am very happy with my mac purchase and still use windows machines for work and uni. I much prefer using the mac, but i don't hate windows, a rare thing it seems.

Apple put a lot into marketing.

Do have to credit Macs for Sound Engineering and Video Production.

Ah, this explains it really.

As much as I profess to being anti-Apple (but that's my opinion of course) I don't force my idealisms onto other Mac users. Most Mac users buy Macs without any validation for their purchase. Specs are irrelevant for the most part - but only because you can't do as much commercially (I use 'commercially' loosely) with a Mac like you can with a Windows machine.

Gamers interested in specs and the latest titles will tout for Windows machines, absolutely. Most software is written for a Windows machine, and in real term performance (i.e. day to day) a Mac offers no benefits over a Windows machine.

If people want to buy a Mac, they are entitled to do so absolutely. But, other than aesthetics and things a Mac has that Windows doesn't, Mac users have absolutely failed to explain WHY they bought a Mac in the first place. Most people just wont benefit from the gizmos the Macs offer.

I'm still very much a guy that sticks firmly to his keyboard and mouse set. I have little interest in a trackpad - which is the generalised attitude of why people don't purchase Macs.

The bold parts is what i dont agree on.

Btw, i dont use ubuntu , however, it was the first distro of linux i used when i started to learn it.

You think a barebones box without no GUI is good for most people's uses?

I am all for terminal, I do a lot of programming without a windowing environment in VIm on stripped down CentOS, but it is not good for 99% of day to day uses. There is a reason why I use Windows day to day despite having a strong background in Linux dev.
I mean, you can get Linux to work pretty well with a GUI, but I just don't see the value add if I am honest. With a lot of effort I could move away from Windows, get everything set up in Linux. Get most of my expensive Windows applications working just about well enough in Wine. But I don't see where the advantage comes in. I would certainly lose functionality and performance in my Abobe products, as well as making .NET dev harder. Perhaps acceptable trade-offs, but only if I get back something good in return.

Why do people buy a mac? why do you buy anything over another product? it is personal preference. Everyone has their reasons why one product is better than another. Personally i am quite happy for both to live in harmony. I do a lot of programming, nothing wrong with windows for that purpose. I also do a lot of video, web and graphical work, for that my mac beats my windows machine in every way. Would i claim one machine is superior to the other? No, they both have their place, and have their strengths/weaknesses. You get the hardcore fans on both sides windows and macs, for these people they will never be converted or persuaded. This argument will never go away imo, but i see no reason why if someone wants to buy a mac over a windows machine they get so much abuse and bullying into buying a windows equivalent. The majority of mac users do know they can get an equivalent (or more) spec windows alternative for the same price. personally the user experience and multi tasking performance i have never experienced on a windows machine. But again, that is personal experience and preference. The argument will continue for many years to come i'm sure. . .

No, he hasn't "answered" your question; he simply stated what you wanted to hear to support your cause. There is little wrong with what was said in post 2 but you completely ignored that due to your own blinkered views.

Why is that, might I ask? Does it provide better compatibility than my OS? No. Does it provide better real-world performance than my OS? No. Does it even provide more stability than my OS? No.

Stability is often touted by people who have installed Ubuntu on a partition and now consider themselves an uber hacker. The barebones Linux box is very stable, which is why it forms the basis of most of the worlds servers.
Most popular distributions, bundled in with all their packages and windowing environments, have many, many bugs and causes of instability, however.
But without a windowing environment, a web browser, and all the other bells and whistles it is entirely useless as a check-your-emails-and-facebook computer.

Heck, I always find even the most basic tasks (like the shut down menu) on GNOME can be iffy. That's why I only use Linux if I have a specific reason to, and usually without a windowing environment.