Are you going to notice the 60 extra ppi more or less than the several hours of battery life? If the answer is less, than that sounds like Dell just made a bad engineering trade-off.

I'm going to notice that you're shifting your argument.

You argued that Apple was the only company able to engineer laptops with good screens, when it was pointed out that in fact it was Dell that had the better screen, you're now using that point to argue that Apple is still superior.

So I guess your only point is that "Apple is superior" and you'll massage the facts to support that notion.

- Earlier argument: Worse screen = Apple is superior.

- Latest argument: Better screen = Apple is superior.

No, I asked: "Why is Apple the only one that can build a 15" retina laptop with 9-10 hours of battery life?" Both are retina laptops, but the Dell does not meet the battery life criteria. You're not refuting my point, just explaining why Dell doesn't meet the battery life criteria.

> Period. [...] If you don't understand that [...] then i truly have no idea what to say to you. [...] Enjoy your kool aid.

Please don't be personally abrasive on HN. If you take all that rudeness out, what's left is a fine comment.

> You argued that Apple was the only company able to engineer laptops with good screens

That is not what he said.

Going with that logic, why not downgrade to 1080p? Hardware is hardware dude, Fanboyism is annoying.

So you're buying a house, and decide you're willing to downgrade to a school district where 85% of kids meet the testing standards because the kind of house you want is $100k cheaper than in the district where 93% of kids meet the testing standards. "Going with that logic," are you willing to downgrade to the inner-city district where the house is $200k cheaper but only 45% of kids meet the testing standards? Do you see why your point doesn't make any sense?

That escalated quickly