Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaneuf3
gotcha. I'm starting to notice a pattern here... you're allowing trade offs on the specs when it suits your tastes and your purposes. when it suits someone else's tastes and preferences they fail your silly little challenge.
Its clearly a rigged game and unwinnable. In the end, use what you want.
|
Wow are you serious?
It's a pretty simple concept to match specs. I'm not making this up as I go along here. I think you need to give your head a shake and stop taking this so personally. You couldn't do what I asked, so obviously I'm cheating?
I allowed the 30" monitor, even though it failed to match the LED back-lighting. I allowed it, because it was the first monitor used that would even come close to being the same price as the proper one. I'm sorry, but you're not going to get a 27" IPS panel with LED back-lighting and 2600 x 1450 resolution for $400 like someone you were trying to claim.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, my point was made all the way back on page 3. All this other crap has been going on for two days now. You guys keep dreaming up these configurations and trying to find sneaky little ways to prove me wrong, but I've called out every failed attempt. American prices, 24" monitors, vague references to "Core 2 Duos" that turn out to be 1.6GHz, half the hard drive size, missing video cards, using expired sale prices... etc etc.
Two days is more than I can take of this. If you guys are still unwilling the grasp the concept that an iMac might be EXPENSIVE but it isn't OVER-PRICED, than you're just never going to get it.
Peace out and all that jazz.