To me, the first reason sounds more compelling. Honestly, I'd rather use a core2 era macbook pro that was top of the line then than a $350 corei3 dell laptop that is bottom of the line now.
Yeah... it's worth noting that just because you can buy _some_ 42" TV for $400 or less right now, doesn't mean that TV is comparable to a TV that was $1500 and arguably the best on the market when it came out. To get comparable features in a new set you might still have to pay $600 or more.
No that was his point.
A 1080p TV from 2007 was probably a Sony class product, I would rather buy that for $300 than a 'new' no-name 1080p TV for $350.
Similarly I would buy a 2007 Macbook for $500 rather than a new $500 Walmart laptop.
If that was his point, it was poorly made. My point was that Apple products are in a class by themselves and not a useful comparable in this discussion. Not even Sony TVs are in that class (not that they were mentioned).
The peson was trying to compare a tv comparison to an Apple/non-Apple comparison. I stand firmly by my contention that that is not a good comparison because Apple products are in a class essentially by themselves (not even approached by Sony TVs). The illustration is weak at best.
The illustration is even more non-sensical since it specifies a top-of-the-line Mac with a bottom of the line no-name.
Wow. You're either being intentionally obtuse or you have no hope of understanding this. But we'll go through it one more time.
A second-hand Sony television is often higher quality than a brand-new generic manufacturer's TV. In the same vein, a second-hand Macintosh is often higher quality than a brand-new generic manufacturer's computer.
Nobody cares how highly you rank Apple. Their specific quality is irrelevant to the comparison.
