3 ms·
From the article: * "Body is cartoonish and feels cheap: * "$300 less than the comparable model at $1,299" (from me: compared to the "Apple Tax" on the MacBook
by kbutler 15y ago
From the article:
* "Body is cartoonish and feels cheap:
* "$300 less than the comparable model at $1,299" (from me: compared to the "Apple Tax" on the MacBook Pro, 25% seems almost reasonable)
* Bad: "Pre-installed software is abundant, in-your-face"
The article mentions battery life is 6 hours (comparable Air rated at 7 hours), which could be read as "similar" or "not as great".
And the description of the S3 touchpad is more "finally, it's bearable" than "enjoyable to use."
Gonna have to agree with the grandparent on this one. Though it IS a positive review on the whole, that's partly because previous-generation windows thin & lights have been pretty bad. (Recall that the previous-generation Air had its problems as well...)
- ajross 15y agoYou're right, I should probably retract the "lying your face off" bit. The points are ... supportable. Still, cherry picking virtually all the bad points out of what is clearly a very positive review[1] to support a decidedly negative "short version" for an online argument is just terribly dishonest. Please. You two should be ashamed of ourselves. Either make points of your own or stay silent, don't claim that Ars Technica said something they quite clearly didn't. [1] It amuses me greatly that you try to spin even that. Oh, they're only saying positive things because you know (somehow, from facts not apparent in the article) that they really mean them in a negative context by comparison with a piece of hardware they aren't reviewing. You should consider going into politics.