PDA

View Full Version : MacBook grafic card Intel GMA X3100




Zer00
Aug 22, 2008, 05:51 PM
i just bought a new macbook and realized that it has the Intel GMA X3100 grafic card.
i have to say that it is totally useless for most of the games i wanted to play as i thought that the macbook would have a Nvidia as the macbook pro.
my question now:
is it possible to insert a new grafic card into the macbook???



MasterNile
Aug 22, 2008, 05:53 PM
No

ayeying
Aug 22, 2008, 05:54 PM
i just bought a new macbook and realized that it has the Intel GMA X3100 grafic card.
i have to say that it is totally useless for most of the games i wanted to play as i thought that the macbook would have a Nvidia as the macbook pro.
my question now:
is it possible to insert a new grafic card into the macbook???

No.

airjuggernaut
Aug 22, 2008, 05:57 PM
no you can't insert a new "graphic" card into your MacBook.

The most you could do is max out the ram to 4gb which will give the integrated card a slight performance boost.

JoeDRC
Aug 22, 2008, 07:04 PM
Nope.
Should of done your research.

wilmor42
Aug 22, 2008, 07:17 PM
bing bang boom.. yep its been said..
should have done the research, would have taken you less than a minute to find the information.. upgrading the ram is your only bet.. personally i dont play games with my mac.. i never play games.. might aswell just have a peecee for that really...

Eidorian
Aug 22, 2008, 07:18 PM
You'd be much better off getting a PC for a few hundred dollars to game.

alphaod
Aug 22, 2008, 08:17 PM
Even if you could upgrade it, the cost would be better justified to spend a extra few bucks and get a PC like Eidorian said

Winter Charm
Aug 22, 2008, 08:21 PM
i just bought a new macbook and realized that it has the Intel GMA X3100 grafic card.
i have to say that it is totally useless for most of the games i wanted to play as i thought that the macbook would have a Nvidia as the macbook pro.
my question now:
is it possible to insert a new grafic card into the macbook???

If YOu use bootcamp, and install windows vista, - it allocates the GMA X3100 with 358 MB of video RAM - a big boost over OSX for games (OSX only gives 144 MB of VRAM)

so you can still play games like crysis.... but only in low detail. :(

Warbrain
Aug 22, 2008, 08:22 PM
What games? The X3100, from my own experience, isn't that bad.

DeusInvictus7
Aug 22, 2008, 08:28 PM
i thought that the macbook would have a Nvidia as the macbook pro.

being perfectly honest, since when has the macbook had anything more than just integrated graphics?

and like Warbrain said, the X3100 isnt that bad, it just wont play any intensive games and especially not at really high FPS

Elven
Aug 22, 2008, 09:38 PM
Dude you bought a Macbook, then found out.


BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA OWNED DUDE.


Seriously what a plank you are, you mean you did not even check the specifications of a expensive machine, come to my store I'll happily sell you a Pentium 2 with onboard gfx, I'll put it in a modern case and hell you'd buy it.

Chundles
Aug 22, 2008, 09:49 PM
i just bought a new macbook and realized that it has the Intel GMA X3100 grafic card.
i have to say that it is totally useless for most of the games i wanted to play as i thought that the macbook would have a Nvidia as the macbook pro.
my question now:
is it possible to insert a new grafic card into the macbook???

No.

The system specifications for the MacBook are listed on the website, the box, anyone who sells them would be able to tell you the specs.

Nothing you can do I'm sorry.

Zer00
Aug 23, 2008, 03:41 AM
Dude you bought a Macbook, then found out.


BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA OWNED DUDE.


Seriously what a plank you are, you mean you did not even check the specifications of a expensive machine, come to my store I'll happily sell you a Pentium 2 with onboard gfx, I'll put it in a modern case and hell you'd buy it.

Well I thought due to the fact that it IS AN EXPENSIVE MACHINE they could at least have some good hardware...
well whatever i bought it now and wont make the same mistake again.
my next computer is gonna be a macbook pro or mac pro ^^

mosx
Aug 23, 2008, 03:49 AM
Well I thought due to the fact that it IS AN EXPENSIVE MACHINE they could at least have some good hardware...
well whatever i bought it now and wont make the same mistake again.
my next computer is gonna be a macbook pro or mac pro ^^

Take it back and get a different computer.

If I could I would have returned my MacBook for a computer with real hardware. But I made the mistake of buying into the Apple Hype until the return window was closed.

Lachman
Aug 23, 2008, 04:56 AM
The X3100 isnt that bad i can play Halo on it :D

Scarlet Fever
Aug 23, 2008, 05:08 AM
Well I thought due to the fact that it IS AN EXPENSIVE MACHINE they could at least have some good hardware...
well whatever i bought it now and wont make the same mistake again.
my next computer is gonna be a macbook pro or mac pro ^^

find us a 13" notebook with a 2.1GHz or 2.4GHz dual core chip, bluetooth, N wireless, SATA HDD and up to 4GB of RAM with anything more than the X3100 for the same cost as a MacBook and we'll believe that statement.

Honestly, if your goal is to play games on your computer, you'd be better off building yourself a desktop PC.

mynameisshawn
Aug 23, 2008, 05:26 AM
The X3100 isnt that bad i can play Halo on it :D

Dude, my 5 year old Dell Dimension 4600 could play Halo with its integrated graphics chip, mind you this specific computer is #10 in PC World's 10 worst computers (the 256mb NVidia card died along with half of the computer). Honestly I like bragging about it :p

Anyway back on topic: I don't get gaming with a laptop, unless its flash, widgets, or ROMs - something small and occasional.

Admonitor
Aug 23, 2008, 06:29 AM
find us a 13" notebook with a 2.1GHz or 2.4GHz dual core chip, bluetooth, N wireless, SATA HDD and up to 4GB of RAM with anything more than the X3100 for the same cost as a MacBook and we'll believe that statement.

Honestly, if your goal is to play games on your computer, you'd be better off building yourself a desktop PC.

http://configure.euro.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?b=&c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&kc=NRS13304&l=en&oc=N08X3307&rbc=N08X3307&s=dhs

That's in the price range between the low and mid range Macbook in the UK, and it has a dedicated graphics card, with Bluetooth, N wifi, can have up to 4GB (and in fact comes with more RAM by default than the Macbook), can have a free upgrade to a much bigger battery..etc

Challenging people to find a similar spec PC to a Mac is not exactly hard...

nick9191
Aug 23, 2008, 06:44 AM
If YOu use bootcamp, and install windows vista, - it allocates the GMA X3100 with 358 MB of video RAM - a big boost over OSX for games (OSX only gives 144 MB of VRAM)

so you can still play games like crysis.... but only in low detail. :(
You can chuck 900gigs of VRAM on it and thats what it will be. A useless ancient card with 900gigs of VRAM. Its not VRAM that increases speed, its just a contributing factor.

OP, within a month or two they will be releasing new Apple laptops. Take it back and see what rolls around. At the very least it will have the X4500 integrated chip, which is comparable to Nvidia's 8400GS.

UltraNEO*
Aug 23, 2008, 07:01 AM
Dude you bought a Macbook, then found out.


BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA OWNED DUDE.


I second that!! :D:D:D

FYI: http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html

leekohler
Aug 23, 2008, 07:52 AM
Nope.
Should of done your research.

Yep- what was the OP thinking? Macs aren't for gaming- they're for work. You wanna play games, get an XBox or a Wii.

bartzilla
Aug 23, 2008, 07:57 AM
http://configure.euro.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?b=&c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&kc=NRS13304&l=en&oc=N08X3307&rbc=N08X3307&s=dhsand it has a dedicated graphics card,


People keep going on about "dedicated graphics card" like simply having one is the holy grail of being able to play games. The 8400M you're talking about there is a nice card to have for pushing pixels about on a laptop but in terms of being able to play recent games "properly", it's still carved out of pure fail.

Challenging people to find a similar spec PC to a Mac is not exactly hard...

Well no, but looking at laundry lists of circuit boards that got slung inside the case kinda misses the point. Fit and finish is what counts, and is why Dell are cheap and cheerful but spanked by quite a few other PC manufacturers when it comes to making products that are actually nice to use, without even having to bring Apple and OS X into the equation.

*Sandy*
Aug 23, 2008, 08:35 AM
Everyone makes mistakes , buy a MBP in the future.

panzer06
Aug 23, 2008, 08:53 AM
Yep- what was the OP thinking? Macs aren't for gaming- they're for work.

This is great, the Mac guy of the commercials would heartily disagree, though I can see PC smiling at that one!


find us a 13" notebook with a 2.1GHz or 2.4GHz dual core chip, bluetooth, N wireless, SATA HDD and up to 4GB of RAM with anything more than the X3100 for the same cost as a MacBook and we'll believe that statement.

Honestly, if your goal is to play games on your computer, you'd be better off building yourself a desktop PC.

Not the same form factor but definitely more power for a very reasonable price.

A Friend of mine got this version of the 16 inch Vaio VGN-FW139E/H. It has a 1600x900 resolution running the Centrino 2 2.26 CPU, ATI 3470, 3GB RAM, GBe, HDMI, FW and 250GB HD. I must say for $999 (when it was on sale, now $1050 -$ 1150) it was a good deal. Also the 3470 does pretty good on most games, no super high frame rates but certainly enjoyable with Company of Heroes (using the DX9 settings), AOE3, C&C3, etc.

At 6.5 lb. its nice, as general purpose Windows laptop that can play games but its certainly not a Mac (no OSX).

Cheers,

JoeDRC
Aug 23, 2008, 10:11 AM
Well I thought due to the fact that it IS AN EXPENSIVE MACHINE they could at least have some good hardware...
well whatever i bought it now and wont make the same mistake again.
my next computer is gonna be a macbook pro or mac pro ^^

Sorry but if the MacBook is so "expensive" for you, then you should of actually done some research into the specs before forking out more money then your comfortable with

Cave Man
Aug 23, 2008, 10:21 AM
I think everybody ought to stop giving Zer00 so much sh!+. After all, all you have done dumb things in your lives, too.

Admonitor
Aug 23, 2008, 02:09 PM
People keep going on about "dedicated graphics card" like simply having one is the holy grail of being able to play games. The 8400M you're talking about there is a nice card to have for pushing pixels about on a laptop but in terms of being able to play recent games "properly", it's still carved out of pure fail.



Well no, but looking at laundry lists of circuit boards that got slung inside the case kinda misses the point. Fit and finish is what counts, and is why Dell are cheap and cheerful but spanked by quite a few other PC manufacturers when it comes to making products that are actually nice to use, without even having to bring Apple and OS X into the equation.

It's not the holy grail, but dedicated graphics are a better start to playing games than integrated graphics. The 8400 is better than the X3100, which was the point, so if the 8400 is carved out of pure fail, the X3100 is the 8400's braindead step-child.

And the other point was, is there another laptop of similar specs to the Macbook at a similar price - yes. And if you take the time to think before falling into the "PCs =/= Macs so therefore they suck" mentality, look up some reviews of the XPS M1330.

Am I bashing Macs? No, but I am trying to show that the one sided approach that is often taken with regards to PC is exactly that - one sided.

Babooshka
Aug 23, 2008, 02:14 PM
Sorry but if the MacBook is so "expensive" for you, then you should of actually done some research into the specs before forking out more money then your comfortable with

It might be a bit harsh, but Joe is right.

JoeDRC
Aug 23, 2008, 02:47 PM
It might be a bit harsh, but Joe is right.
I sound too harsh don't I? :/ sorry zer00

mosx
Aug 23, 2008, 03:18 PM
find us a 13" notebook with a 2.1GHz or 2.4GHz dual core chip, bluetooth, N wireless, SATA HDD and up to 4GB of RAM with anything more than the X3100 for the same cost as a MacBook and we'll believe that statement.

Honestly, if your goal is to play games on your computer, you'd be better off building yourself a desktop PC.

As I've said before, people don't buy the MacBook because it is 13.3". They buy it because it is all they can afford. The 13.3" screen is NOT what attracts them to the system or anything like that. Its the fact that they canNOT afford to spend $2,000 on the MacBook Pro.

The OP is right, the MacBook is an expensive machine. In California, the MacBook with DVD writer will run you around $1400 after taxes depending on the county you're in. I got mine in LA County for $1406 and some change. If I had bought it in San Bernardino County, where the Victoria Gardens Apple Store is, it would have been $1399 and some change.

Anyway, that is a lot of money for a computer. Especially when you consider that you can go to any PC manufacturer and get roughly the equivalent of a 15.4" 1680x1050 screen, blu-ray, 2.4GHz C2D, 2GB of RAM, GeForce 9600M GT, and other options like higher capacity (but not physically bigger) batteries and fingerprint readers. For under $1,000 you can go with a 2.2GHz AMD system with Hybrid Crossfire using the Radeon 3200 IGP and Radeon 3450 GPU, 3GB of RAM, etc. The AMD 3200 IGP will mop the floor with the X3100 and the new X4500. If you go over to HP you can get a 15.4" 1680x1050 AMD based system with the Radeon 3200 IGP, 3GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, and a high capacity battery for $853.99. Thats WITH a DVD writer. The processor is faster than the one in the entry level MacBook and the graphics will beat any Intel GPU, especially the X4500. For an extra $100 you can toss in the Radeon 3450 which enables hybrid crossfire.

The prices Apple charges for their computers are simply outrageous. Theres no valid reason for the pricing. OS X is simply not worth the sometimes $1,000 premium you pay for Apple hardware (or about $700 in the case of the MacBook).

At the very least it will have the X4500 integrated chip, which is comparable to Nvidia's 8400GS.

Not even close. The X3100 was supposed to be as fast as some dedicated GPUs. And just like the X4500, Intel instructed websites to do very limited pre-release benchmarks with a very limited number of software and specialized drivers.

Even benchmarks done by Apple fansites show the X4500 not even getting half the framerate of the 8400M GS while having a FASTER processor to work with than the 8400M GS. The x4500 will be another piece of trash that Apple should be ashamed of using in their systems.

And those benchmarks were done with OLDER nvidia drivers. Not the 177.xx series which gave a SIGNIFICANT boost in performance.

People keep going on about "dedicated graphics card" like simply having one is the holy grail of being able to play games. The 8400M you're talking about there is a nice card to have for pushing pixels about on a laptop but in terms of being able to play recent games "properly", it's still carved out of pure fail.

Apparently you've never used one.

My PC has a Core 2 Duo 2GHz (Merom core, Santa Rosa chipset) with 2GB of RAM and a 128MB GeForce 8400M GS. It plays Crysis at 800x600 with everything set to medium, but advanced settings set to low. It plays CoD4 at high settings with FSAA (default auto-detected settings!), GRID, UT3, Halo 2, Gears of War, HL2 EP2, etc.

The 8400M GS is also fantastic for video playback. DVDs look better on it than they do on my Onkyo upscaling DVD player, thanks to Windows taking advantage of the hardware (something OS X does NOT do). It can push blu-ray movies at around 5% CPU use.

The 8400M GS is a fantastic GPU as long as you keep your settings realistic (don't expect to play Crysis or GRID at native resolution at high settings) and use it for video playback.

The 8400M GS is still, to this day, FAR better than any of the Intel GPUs, X4500 included.

The use of Intel integrated graphics in the MacBook and Mac mini is actually quite amusing. When the Mac mini was introduced in 2005, Steve Jobs stood up and ripped on Intel GPUs while proclaiming how great the dedicated processor in the Mac mini was. A year later their "Consumer" line was filled with those same Intel GPUs he once made fun of. Thus proving that Apple cares more about profit than the consumer and that they will not back up their own words.

I also want to point out how sad it is that Mac owners are ripping on the OP for the fact that he was expecting good hardware for his money. IF you buy an expensive system you have every right to expect it to be the best in its class. Its not his fault he believed the Apple hype and didn't realize that Apple charges twice as much for their computers as they should.

The way you're all acting is surely making many Mac owners ashamed to be a part of the "Mac Community".

jjahshik32
Aug 23, 2008, 03:31 PM
people buy the macbook because it just works and for me to be able to run osx natively is worth the premium because most of us mac users buy a mac for ease of use and especially even after 7-10 years with old hardware osx still runs beautifully.

Basically buy once until it breaks on you and buy another one years later for mostly general computing needs. Also most MacBook users don't buy for gaming.

panzer06
Aug 23, 2008, 03:54 PM
I also want to point out how sad it is that Mac owners are ripping on the OP for the fact that he was expecting good hardware for his money. IF you buy an expensive system you have every right to expect it to be the best in its class. Its not his fault he believed the Apple hype and didn't realize that Apple charges twice as much for their computers as they should.

The way you're all acting is surely making many Mac owners ashamed to be a part of the "Mac Community".

You make some good points (I personally prefer the ATI 3470 to the nVidia8400 but that's just personal preference), however I beleive your last points are somewhat flawed.

While several of the posts were indelicate in their expression of surprise that the OP would spend what he clearly felt was a fairly signifcant sum on a computer without the requisite research to make sure it met his needs, they are not incorrect.

To spend over $1000 on anything and ASSUME it will have all the features you desire is flawed logic and in my opinion indicative of poor reasoning. Such thinking would imply cost alone is the determining factor in feature/functionality and value equations. There are many, many products where asthetics or market cachet determine cost and yet those that desire such things will pay.

Buying a Mac is a choice, one that more and more people are making. I've been mildly amused at the concern expressed by a small but vocal few who really don't want the "unwashed masses" using their precious status symbol.

Mac are computers to be used for a variety of purposes. Each person must decide whether a Mac meets those needs and whether the premium they pay is worth it. If I didn't enjoy how a Mac works, I would use a PC all the time. As it is I must use one at work and to play the latest games. Yet, I paid my own money and indure the difficulties inherent to using a non-supported system within our corporate environment because I WANT TOO.

You cannot fault the people posting for stating the obvious. The OP made a decision, however uninformed and since nothing indicates he was forced to make this decision, he will need to live with it. If someone buys a product and has buyers remorse, he can return or sell it. In the case of Mac they currently command decent used prices so all is not lost.

Cheers,

SnowLeopard2008
Aug 23, 2008, 04:04 PM
As I've said before, people don't buy the MacBook because it is 13.3". They buy it because it is all they can afford. The 13.3" screen is NOT what attracts them to the system or anything like that. Its the fact that they canNOT afford to spend $2,000 on the MacBook Pro.

The OP is right, the MacBook is an expensive machine. In California, the MacBook with DVD writer will run you around $1400 after taxes depending on the county you're in. I got mine in LA County for $1406 and some change. If I had bought it in San Bernardino County, where the Victoria Gardens Apple Store is, it would have been $1399 and some change.

Anyway, that is a lot of money for a computer. Especially when you consider that you can go to any PC manufacturer and get roughly the equivalent of a 15.4" 1680x1050 screen, blu-ray, 2.4GHz C2D, 2GB of RAM, GeForce 9600M GT, and other options like higher capacity (but not physically bigger) batteries and fingerprint readers. For under $1,000 you can go with a 2.2GHz AMD system with Hybrid Crossfire using the Radeon 3200 IGP and Radeon 3450 GPU, 3GB of RAM, etc. The AMD 3200 IGP will mop the floor with the X3100 and the new X4500. If you go over to HP you can get a 15.4" 1680x1050 AMD based system with the Radeon 3200 IGP, 3GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, and a high capacity battery for $853.99. Thats WITH a DVD writer. The processor is faster than the one in the entry level MacBook and the graphics will beat any Intel GPU, especially the X4500. For an extra $100 you can toss in the Radeon 3450 which enables hybrid crossfire.

The prices Apple charges for their computers are simply outrageous. Theres no valid reason for the pricing. OS X is simply not worth the sometimes $1,000 premium you pay for Apple hardware (or about $700 in the case of the MacBook).



Not even close. The X3100 was supposed to be as fast as some dedicated GPUs. And just like the X4500, Intel instructed websites to do very limited pre-release benchmarks with a very limited number of software and specialized drivers.

Even benchmarks done by Apple fansites show the X4500 not even getting half the framerate of the 8400M GS while having a FASTER processor to work with than the 8400M GS. The x4500 will be another piece of trash that Apple should be ashamed of using in their systems.

And those benchmarks were done with OLDER nvidia drivers. Not the 177.xx series which gave a SIGNIFICANT boost in performance.



Apparently you've never used one.

My PC has a Core 2 Duo 2GHz (Merom core, Santa Rosa chipset) with 2GB of RAM and a 128MB GeForce 8400M GS. It plays Crysis at 800x600 with everything set to medium, but advanced settings set to low. It plays CoD4 at high settings with FSAA (default auto-detected settings!), GRID, UT3, Halo 2, Gears of War, HL2 EP2, etc.

The 8400M GS is also fantastic for video playback. DVDs look better on it than they do on my Onkyo upscaling DVD player, thanks to Windows taking advantage of the hardware (something OS X does NOT do). It can push blu-ray movies at around 5% CPU use.

The 8400M GS is a fantastic GPU as long as you keep your settings realistic (don't expect to play Crysis or GRID at native resolution at high settings) and use it for video playback.

The 8400M GS is still, to this day, FAR better than any of the Intel GPUs, X4500 included.

The use of Intel integrated graphics in the MacBook and Mac mini is actually quite amusing. When the Mac mini was introduced in 2005, Steve Jobs stood up and ripped on Intel GPUs while proclaiming how great the dedicated processor in the Mac mini was. A year later their "Consumer" line was filled with those same Intel GPUs he once made fun of. Thus proving that Apple cares more about profit than the consumer and that they will not back up their own words.

I also want to point out how sad it is that Mac owners are ripping on the OP for the fact that he was expecting good hardware for his money. IF you buy an expensive system you have every right to expect it to be the best in its class. Its not his fault he believed the Apple hype and didn't realize that Apple charges twice as much for their computers as they should.

The way you're all acting is surely making many Mac owners ashamed to be a part of the "Mac Community".

No, you're shaming the PC world, which is kind of hard, taking in to account that it SUCKS so bad already. First you say you can get a PC for less, yes that's right, BUT hardware isn't the only thing in a computer. What happened to software? OS X can run faster and better with less hardware needs than Vista with more hardware. Secondly, quality. Hardware specs is one thing, quality is another. PC's build quality is pretty bad, unless you spend over $2000 or so. The MacBook is on par in terms of pricing, way above par in terms of NO VIRUSES. PCs are poorly built, cobbled together from various sorts of hardware, and stamped with an even worse OS, called Windows, it's a window to the garbage dump.

And, what is the $1000 premium for OS X? The MacBook Pro is $1,999, so you're saying you can find a similar spec'd notebook for $999? Vista Ultimate alone is about one third of that price. And the X4500 is NOT a piece of trash. Sure, it's NOT better than an nVidia. But NOT everyone is a gamer who needs an nVidia chip. Gaming is pointless and stupid and wastes time. People should see gaming like the Wii, casual fun, not "I'm gonna shoot ur head in COD!" The smarter people make games and watch people waste their time playing it, while the game makers count the cash.

And IF your so called PC can take advantage better than OS X can, how about this, can it run with 512MB of ram? Vista can't. Leopard can. End of story, that's "taking advantage of hardware". Blu-Ray is just one pirce of hardware amongst many. People have different ideas of expensive. Macs are the best of it's class, hardware isn't 100% of a computer, it's half. Software is the other half. MAcs have great hardware and better software, and excellent build quality. PCs have good hardware, but **** software, and terrible build quality.

I wouldn't expect you to understand, you're just a "specs are everything" type of person. PCs get viruses, Macs dont. One feature among many on why Macs >>>>>> PCs. Apple doesn't charge twice the money, PCs just give huge discounts to help sell crappy systems. That's why Apple rarely gives discounts on brand new systems. Apple wants their systems to be easy-to-use, while PC makers just want cold cash, and "screw the customers user experience". The way we are acting gives facts, not zealotry of PCs and nVidia GPUs. At least mac owners have a community, PC owner have something called "customer support", which is more like fighting on the phone to get help. Apple has award-winning customer support and excellent service. I don't see pcrumors.com. That's because PCs are just hardware-only. The OS, nobody could care less. Apple, here we discuss new iPhones, iPods, Laptops, desktops, etc. i don't see any PC owners doing that.

panzer06
Aug 23, 2008, 04:16 PM
No, you're shaming the PC world, which is kind of hard, taking in to account that it SUCKS so bad already. First you say you can get a PC for less, yes that's right, BUT hardware isn't the only thing in a computer. What happened to software? OS X can run faster and better with less hardware needs than Vista with more hardware. Secondly, quality. Hardware specs is one thing, quality is another. PC's build quality is pretty bad, unless you spend over $2000 or so. The MacBook is on par in terms of pricing, way above par in terms of NO VIRUSES. PCs are poorly built, cobbled together from various sorts of hardware, and stamped with an even worse OS, called Windows, it's a window to the garbage dump.

And, what is the $1000 premium for OS X? The MacBook Pro is $1,999, so you're saying you can find a similar spec'd notebook for $999? Vista Ultimate alone is about one third of that price. And the X4500 is NOT a piece of trash. Sure, it's NOT better than an nVidia. But NOT everyone is a gamer who needs an nVidia chip. Gaming is pointless and stupid and wastes time. People should see gaming like the Wii, casual fun, not "I'm gonna shoot ur head in COD!" The smarter people make games and watch people waste their time playing it, while the game makers count the cash.

And IF your so called PC can take advantage better than OS X can, how about this, can it run with 512MB of ram? Vista can't. Leopard can. End of story, that's "taking advantage of hardware". Blu-Ray is just one pirce of hardware amongst many. People have different ideas of expensive. Macs are the best of it's class, hardware isn't 100% of a computer, it's half. Software is the other half. MAcs have great hardware and better software, and excellent build quality. PCs have good hardware, but **** software, and terrible build quality.

I wouldn't expect you to understand, you're just a "specs are everything" type of person. PCs get viruses, Macs dont. One feature among many on why Macs >>>>>> PCs. Apple doesn't charge twice the money, PCs just give huge discounts to help sell crappy systems. That's why Apple rarely gives discounts on brand new systems. Apple wants their systems to be easy-to-use, while PC makers just want cold cash, and "screw the customers user experience". The way we are acting gives facts, not zealotry of PCs and nVidia GPUs. At least mac owners have a community, PC owner have something called "customer support", which is more like fighting on the phone to get help. Apple has award-winning customer support and excellent service. I don't see pcrumors.com. That's because PCs are just hardware-only. The OS, nobody could care less. Apple, here we discuss new iPhones, iPods, Laptops, desktops, etc. i don't see any PC owners doing that.

Was it neccesary to even write this rant? You make some of the same unsubstantiated generalizations you rail against.

There are plenty of well made PCs. Windows Vista or XP are not all bad (OS X is just much better).

The whole point of this thread was about the perceived lack of value represented by a Macbook because the OP failed to do the research not to rehash the ancient Mac vs. PC arguement.

bartzilla
Aug 23, 2008, 04:20 PM
It's not the holy grail, but dedicated graphics are a better start to playing games than integrated graphics. The 8400 is better than the X3100, which was the point, so if the 8400 is carved out of pure fail, the X3100 is the 8400's braindead step-child.

Comparing the 8400M to the X3100 for games playing is like comparing a horse to a goat when looking for a suitable life partner for a human. You can carve out whatever reason you like why one is better than the other, but you're missing the point that even the "better" one is still completely unsuitable.

And the other point was, is there another laptop of similar specs to the Macbook at a similar price - yes. And if you take the time to think before falling into the "PCs =/= Macs so therefore they suck" mentality, look up some reviews of the XPS M1330.

Am I bashing Macs? No, but I am trying to show that the one sided approach that is often taken with regards to PC is exactly that - one sided.

Wow. This is the first time someone has ever implied that I'm an Apple fanboy. I feel kinda honoured. I'd like to thank my parents, the academy, Reddit....

Maybe you didn't notice the bit where I said that Dell's approach was sometimes lacking compared to other Windows vendors, and that I was specifically using that to set the whole PC vs Mac thing aside?

Though to be fair the new studio range of lappys and desktops from Dell don't look too bad, I actually tried to buy one of the desktop jobs for a special job at work but our Dell AM couldn't get a decent price for us so I ended up going for a Mini w/ bootcamp instead.

hogfaninga
Aug 23, 2008, 05:19 PM
mosx:

I can easily afford the Macbook Pro. Heck it was only $450 dollars more than the Macbook I have. I chose not to get it because I didn't need the extras it comes with. I don't play games, make movies, ect.. I chose it because I personally love the Apple brand(you don't and that is OK--we all can choose to do whatever we want with our money). I also chose it because of its size. It might weigh about the same as the Pro, but the dimensions are a lot smaller or it seems a lot to me. I travel a lot for my job and the Macbook is perfectly suited for it.

I would be careful lumping everyone into one group. It takes away from your arguments. I'm sure there are many others who chose the Macbook for precisely the same reasons I did. I know a number in my place of employment who did and they make a pretty good salary.

At the end of the day, you can choose whatever you/others want and I/others can choose the Apple brand. I don't understand why you want to come to a dedicated Mac site to bash Apple. I'm sure you have better things to do or I hope you do.

nick9191
Aug 23, 2008, 06:25 PM
As I've said before, people don't buy the MacBook because it is 13.3". They buy it because it is all they can afford. The 13.3" screen is NOT what attracts them to the system or anything like that. Its the fact that they canNOT afford to spend $2,000 on the MacBook Pro.

Err wrong. I know many, myself included, who would buy the Macbook over the Pro any day because of the smaller screen.


Anyway, that is a lot of money for a computer. Especially when you consider that you can go to any PC manufacturer and get roughly the equivalent of a 15.4" 1680x1050 screen, blu-ray, 2.4GHz C2D, 2GB of RAM, GeForce 9600M GT, and other options like higher capacity (but not physically bigger) batteries and fingerprint readers. For under $1,000 you can go with a 2.2GHz AMD system with Hybrid Crossfire using the Radeon 3200 IGP and Radeon 3450 GPU, 3GB of RAM, etc. The AMD 3200 IGP will mop the floor with the X3100 and the new X4500. If you go over to HP you can get a 15.4" 1680x1050 AMD based system with the Radeon 3200 IGP, 3GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, and a high capacity battery for $853.99. Thats WITH a DVD writer. The processor is faster than the one in the entry level MacBook and the graphics will beat any Intel GPU, especially the X4500. For an extra $100 you can toss in the Radeon 3450 which enables hybrid crossfire.

If you buy a $899 computer, thats exactly what it is, an $899 computer. A revoltingly hideous thing with a joke for an OS. By the way hows the 1.5 hour battery life on that badass machine :rolleyes: Ooh bet that AMD processor is nice, want to bench it against my Mini :rolleyes: ;) I doubt it.

The prices Apple charges for their computers are simply outrageous. Theres no valid reason for the pricing. OS X is simply not worth the sometimes $1,000 premium you pay for Apple hardware (or about $700 in the case of the MacBook).

Theres a perfectly valid reason, you get a real computer with a real OS. Why are you still here? If you don't want to pay the price then theres the door.


Not even close. The X3100 was supposed to be as fast as some dedicated GPUs. And just like the X4500, Intel instructed websites to do very limited pre-release benchmarks with a very limited number of software and specialized drivers.

I'll get the Violin. Again, don't like it? Buy a PC. Apple is not going to sell you a crappy machine just because your too cheap.

Apparently you've never used one.

My PC has a Core 2 Duo 2GHz (Merom core, Santa Rosa chipset) with 2GB of RAM and a 128MB GeForce 8400M GS. It plays Crysis at 800x600 with everything set to medium, but advanced settings set to low. It plays CoD4 at high settings with FSAA (default auto-detected settings!), GRID, UT3, Halo 2, Gears of War, HL2 EP2, etc.

Well once you've got passed the glory graphics and realised that both Crysis and COD4 have terrible gameplay, you might want to go and kick a ball or something.

The 8400M GS is also fantastic for video playback. DVDs look better on it than they do on my Onkyo upscaling DVD player, thanks to Windows taking advantage of the hardware (something OS X does NOT do). It can push blu-ray movies at around 5% CPU use.

Well theres something for the Microsoft Ads eh!

"We may have a ****** operating system, but at least we can push blu ray at 5% CPU usage."

The 8400M GS is a fantastic GPU as long as you keep your settings realistic (don't expect to play Crysis or GRID at native resolution at high settings) and use it for video playback.

The 8400M GS is still, to this day, FAR better than any of the Intel GPUs, X4500 included.

The use of Intel integrated graphics in the MacBook and Mac mini is actually quite amusing. When the Mac mini was introduced in 2005, Steve Jobs stood up and ripped on Intel GPUs while proclaiming how great the dedicated processor in the Mac mini was. A year later their "Consumer" line was filled with those same Intel GPUs he once made fun of. Thus proving that Apple cares more about profit than the consumer and that they will not back up their own words.

An American corporation caring about profit :eek: Never!

I also want to point out how sad it is that Mac owners are ripping on the OP for the fact that he was expecting good hardware for his money. IF you buy an expensive system you have every right to expect it to be the best in its class. Its not his fault he believed the Apple hype and didn't realize that Apple charges twice as much for their computers as they should.

You do get a computer the best in its class. Your a typical Windows user that things hardware is the be all and end all of a computer. Push off and get a Dell, you'll make your life and our life much better.

Zer00
Aug 24, 2008, 02:11 AM
Yep- what was the OP thinking? Macs aren't for gaming- they're for work. You wanna play games, get an XBox or a Wii.

well i got both the wii and the xbox360 :D:D
and macs are quite nice for gaming aswell if you have the correct hardware but anyways i am still happy with my macbook ^^

Sorry but if the MacBook is so "expensive" for you, then you should of actually done some research into the specs before forking out more money then your comfortable with

dont worry it isnt too expensive for me and as i said before: i made a mistake and next time i will simply buy a macbook pro however i am still happy with the macbook for now.

199708
Aug 24, 2008, 03:11 AM
Yep- what was the OP thinking? Macs aren't for gaming- they're for work. You wanna play games, get an XBox or a Wii.

work?, more like being creative, showing off your photo album and making home video's to family and friends.
:confused:

Cave Man
Aug 24, 2008, 01:37 PM
As I've said before, people don't buy the MacBook because it is 13.3". They buy it because it is all they can afford. The 13.3" screen is NOT what attracts them to the system or anything like that.

While this may be true for some, it isn't for many. There are plenty of reasons to get a MB over a MBP.

Anyway, that is a lot of money for a computer. Especially when you consider that you can go to any PC manufacturer and get roughly the equivalent...

The only comparable machine I've seen is one of Sony's laptops. I'd challenge you to find a Win PC built on Penryn/Santa Rosa that has similar features to a MB that costs substantially less. The Sony is about the same price (and is based on Penryn/Santa Rosa).

JoeDRC
Aug 24, 2008, 04:30 PM
As I've said before, people don't buy the MacBook because it is 13.3". They buy it because it is all they can afford. The 13.3" screen is NOT what attracts them to the system or anything like that. Its the fact that they canNOT afford to spend $2,000 on the MacBook Pro.



I actually bought my MacBook for a number of factors;

The 13.3 inch screen is more portable, a 15 inch screen is too big for me

I don't need to edit video, I am a designer I use photoshop, Illustrator etc.

It is more affordable, but it suits my needs fine
Plus I don't have to baby my MacBook, I don't treat it badly but I also don't worry about putting it in its sleeve and chucking it in my bag

tsice19
Aug 24, 2008, 05:58 PM
As I've said before, people don't buy the MacBook because it is 13.3". They buy it because it is all they can afford. The 13.3" screen is NOT what attracts them to the system or anything like that. Its the fact that they canNOT afford to spend $2,000 on the MacBook Pro.

Not true. I bought the MacBook because it suited my needs. I was considering getting the MBP but ended up buying the MB because I needed more portability but at the same time wanted functionality (Hence not buying an Air).

I'm not saying that you are, but I certainly hate when people hate on the MacBook. It's a great consumer machine for $1,099. Why spend more money on a Pro machine when you are a consumer who doesn't need pro features. And, even though it is a consumer machine, it still has no trouble with Adobe CS3 or Final Cut, from what I hear.

kperrone
Aug 25, 2008, 04:06 AM
All I can say is that all of these people whining about the MB being bad for gaming is getting old.

If you want to play video games buy a desktop or an xbox or something, quit buying a 13" laptop and expecting it to be the best gaming machine ever.

But don't stop posting about the graphics card, I get a lot of good laughs out of the replies sometimes.

mosx
Aug 25, 2008, 04:17 AM
To spend over $1000 on anything and ASSUME it will have all the features you desire is flawed logic and in my opinion indicative of poor reasoning. Such thinking would imply cost alone is the determining factor in feature/functionality and value equations. There are many, many products where asthetics or market cachet determine cost and yet those that desire such things will pay.

Well, considering that most, if not all, Windows notebook PCs in the $900+ range come with dedicated graphics, one has the right to assume that any computer hardware will be spec'ed the same. One shouldn't be told "should have done your research" when any person could walk into Best Buy and see all of the $900+ Windows systems that have Radeon HD2600 Pros, 3450s, GeForce 8600M GTs, 8800M GTS (and thats all under $1300!). So one who isn't well versed in computer hardware should have the right to assume that a product that is generally marketed as better all around than the competition would at least have similar hardware and not be the complete ripoff that it is.

Mac are computers to be used for a variety of purposes. Each person must decide whether a Mac meets those needs and whether the premium they pay is worth it. If I didn't enjoy how a Mac works, I would use a PC all the time. As it is I must use one at work and to play the latest games. Yet, I paid my own money and indure the difficulties inherent to using a non-supported system within our corporate environment because I WANT TOO.

Good for you. But a lot of us (and I gather even more in the future thanks to Apple's current high sales) have seen that light and have seen that OS X really isn't all its cracked up to be. And we've "switched" back to Windows. If OS X could do what I wanted (even at least give me decent video playback) and the hardware was reasonably priced, then I wouldn't have any complaints. If the MacBook shipped with the equivalent of a GeForce 8400M GS, I wouldn't have any complaints at all. Could use OS X for browsing and emailing (all its good for really) and Vista for everything else. But since the MacBook ships with an Intel GPU, its essentially no better than a $300 EEE PC.

If someone buys a product and has buyers remorse, he can return or sell it. In the case of Mac they currently command decent used prices so all is not lost.

Unfortunately, the OP will have to suffer a ridiculous restocking fee if he chooses to return it or lose a bit more money by selling it.

No, you're shaming the PC world, which is kind of hard, taking in to account that it SUCKS so bad already.

According to your youtube, you're 14 years old. You're old enough to at least display a little bit of maturity. So please try, okay?

What happened to software? OS X can run faster and better with less hardware needs than Vista with more hardware.

Thats not true at all. Vista runs faster on the same hardware, and both Vista and Leopard have VERY SIMILAR hardware requirements. Both on paper and in real world. Both need modern processors and both need 2GB of RAM to "shine" as well as decent GPUs to draw all of their eye candy.

But Vista has features that OS X does not. Such as caching. Vista will cache the data for all of your most used software. Thanks to this, Firefox 3, iTunes, and other cross platform software that I use regularly loads FASTER on Vista than it does on my Mac after a fresh boot.

Also, Vista and XP (even Windows 98!) take advantage of the hardware in the system. For example, audio playback. Look at the difference in CPU use between Windows and OS X when playing music. If you're using software in Windows that takes advantage of hardware acceleration (nearly everything), you get roughly 0% CPU use while playing music. iTunes in OS X? Anywhere between 4-6% CPU use. Yeah thats not much but it is a significant difference. Look at DVD playback. In OS X, DVD Player can eat as much as 30% CPU time depending on the bitrate, onscreen action, de-interlacing mode selected (the default mode sucks), EQ (have to EQ it since DVD Player does NOT decode the LFE channel, like all Windows DVD players do). In Windows? About 2%.

Not only that, but thanks to ATI and nvidia, software developers ALREADY have the technology to take advantage of the GPU for speed improvements. They had it a full year before Snow Leopard will be released and they had been talking about it before Apple even mentioned they would try it in Snow Leopard. Not to mention the fact that Apple's version of the technology is entirely dependent on their awful OpenGL support.

PC's build quality is pretty bad, unless you spend over $2000 or so. The MacBook is on par in terms of pricing, way above par in terms of NO VIRUSES. PCs are poorly built, cobbled together from various sorts of hardware, and stamped with an even worse OS, called Windows, it's a window to the garbage dump.

rofl, you're funny. If Apple's build quality is so good, then why do hundreds of people at this very forum agree that Apple's build quality has sunk to the lowest its ever been? If the build quality is so good, why do the MacBooks have so many issues? The discoloring issue still exists, though not as much as before. But the white MacBook can also yellow on the bottom and on the hinge due to HEAT. It can also crack on the bottom due to heat, and around the hinge as well due to heat. The magnetic latches are notorious for cracking the top case. People in this branch of the forum have even accepted as fact that the MacBooks are meant to be "soft" on the port side and sometimes under the mouse as well. To me, a well built computer has NO "soft" spots. When my MacBook came back from repair (due to the case literally coming apart even though it lived a desk life, and the battery warping) with soft spots I sent it back and demanded it be rebuilt as strong as it was when I bought it. I most certainly would NOT have bought it with any soft spots.

The MacBook Pros also come OUT OF THE BOX in some cases with bent, warped, and dented cases. Sometimes the case on it starts to separate. Sometimes the MacBook Pro will WARP due to heat. The MacBook Pro also has known issues with yellowing screens and the poorly designed cooling system causes motherboard and chip failures.

The iMacs have been known to have condensation issues. Yes, actual water forming from heat under the glass screen.

The PowerMac G5s had issues with their cooling systems failing.

The MacBook Air is known to have motherboard failures caused by heat. Many MacBook Airs can't even watch downloaded iTunes videos because of heat issues causing throttling and core shut downs.

If you want to talk about good build quality then Apple is the LAST company you will talk about.

And, what is the $1000 premium for OS X? The MacBook Pro is $1,999, so you're saying you can find a similar spec'd notebook for $999? Go back to pre-school.

You can. Hell, you can get a notebook from Best Buy with more RAM and a GeForce 8800M GTS for $1300. You can get a Gateway with the same processor, more RAM, bigger HDD, etc. with a Radeon HD2600 Pro (8600M equivalent) for $1050.

Vista Ultimate alone is about one third of that price.

Vista Ultimate over at newegg is $50 more than Leopard ;) Full version.


ure, it's NOT better than an nVidia. But NOT everyone is a gamer who needs an nVidia chip.

Dedicated graphics do a lot more than play games. They're good for video as well as the technologies that are already available from nvidia and ATI that will allow software developers to use the GPU for high speed tasks. Also, the most recent revision of Flash for Windows uses DXVA. Too bad OS X has nothing like that ;)

Gaming is pointless and stupid and wastes time. People should see gaming like the Wii, casual fun, not "I'm gonna shoot ur head in COD!" The smarter people make games and watch people waste their time playing it, while the game makers count the cash.

Please, the Wii is a joke. If game developers are so smart, why do they sign contracts with big publishers like EA that make the record industry look innocent? With the exception of very few developers (like Rockstar North), many of those "smarter people" end up signing contracts that would make most recording artists happy with their deal with the devil and end up making crap games.

And IF your so called PC can take advantage better than OS X can, how about this, can it run with 512MB of ram? Vista can't. Leopard can.

Thats funny because not only do both require 512MB of RAM, I do know somebody that IS running Vista on 512MB of RAM. Granted Aero and all of that is disable. At least Windows gives you the option to tweak advanced settings. You know, I can actually go into advanced settings in Windows and set my clock speed and power saving settings for specific pieces of hardware? Can't do that with OS X.

Oh, and neither Vista nor Leopard runs good on 512MB of RAM. Tiger didn't even run good on 512MB of RAM, but XP flies on 512MB of RAM. You need at least a dual core processor and 2GB of RAM for either Leopard or Vista to run good.

End of story, that's "taking advantage of hardware".

Let me know when Apple's OpenGL support makes OpenGL native games run as fast as they do in Windows and Linux. Let me know when OS X has system wide hardware acceleration for sound and video.

Blu-Ray is just one pirce of hardware amongst many.

Blu-ray is for those of us who care about quality. But considering you only have a MacBook, you wouldn't know what quality video playback is like.

Macs are the best of it's class, hardware isn't 100% of a computer, it's half. Software is the other half. MAcs have great hardware and better software, and excellent build quality. PCs have good hardware, but **** software, and terrible build quality.

If you honestly believe Macs have "excellent build quality" then you need to read around these forums a little more and read google a little more. Even the most hardcore Apple fanboys will tell you that Apple's build quality has been on a steady decline over the last several years. I can vouche for that. Both of my MacBooks have had build quality issues. The first one discolored from heat and the optical drive died. The second one started falling apart. My HP on the other hand is built like a rock. No soft spots, no spots that can discolor, none of that nonsense.

You also need to grow up and actually use Vista. You'll see its far more capable than OS X.

PCs get viruses, Macs dont.

XP SP2 made it next to impossible for IE to download and install viruses without the users knowledge. Before that, Firefox/Mozilla and others had made it impossible. Outlook Express hasn't been automatically running attachments since the Win9x days. Vista has all of that plus UAC (which only appears as often as a password prompt in OS X) which has been proven to catch all forms of malware.

Apple doesn't charge twice the money, PCs just give huge discounts to help sell crappy systems.

rofl, no. Apple charges more than anyone else. Thats why a company that only sells between 6-8% of all computers accounts for more than 1/4 of all of the money spent on computers.

Also, look at realistic prices. The $1299 MacBook comes a 2.4GHz C2D, 2GB of RAM, DVD writer, GMA 950, 13.3" 1280x800 screen. For $1230 at HP you get the same processor, 250GB HDD, 2GB of RAM, DVD writer, fingerprint reader, high capacity battery, GeForce 9600M GT 512MB, HDMI output, memory card reader, fullsize expresscard slot, VGA, S-Video, 3 USB, firewire, and a 15.4" 1680x1050 screen.

So for less you get a more powerful GPU than any in current Apple notebook, and all but 1 of the iMac models, and better than the stock GPU in the Mac Pro. You get more connectivity options than any Mac, a bigger screen, higher resolution than all but the 17" MacBook Pro, etc. etc. Do I need to go on?

Apple wants their systems to be easy-to-use, while PC makers just want cold cash, and "screw the customers user experience".

OS X is no more easy to use than Vista.

The way we are acting gives facts, not zealotry of PCs and nVidia GPUs.

So you acting like a child with your immature insults somehow gives "Facts"? You want facts, head over to some PC enthusiast sites.

At least mac owners have a community, PC owner have something called "customer support", which is more like fighting on the phone to get help. Apple has award-winning customer support and excellent service. I don't see pcrumors.com. That's because PCs are just hardware-only. The OS, nobody could care less. Apple, here we discuss new iPhones, iPods, Laptops, desktops, etc. i don't see any PC owners doing that. So shut your mouth unless you have specific evidence and not made up stories and lies.

As I said, you really need to grow up because you're giving all teenagers a bad name. I'm sure many others that post at this site are upset with the way you're acting and how immature you're being.

PC owners have SEVERAL communities. In fact, some of the smaller communities, like AVS, have over half a million members. Let that sink in for a minute. "Small" PC communities have more than double the members of this forum.

There are countless other communities as well, like futuremark and all of the communities of hardware review sites like hardocp.

If you want to talk about lies, go watch the Get A Mac ads ;)

Everything I've said is fact. Go look it up.

One last thing. If you want to talk about Apple's customer support, you need to experience it first hand. What happens when something goes wrong with your MacBook? For example, my first MacBook (along with the discoloring) had a bad optical drive. I had to call Apple up and set up the shipment in (because I wasn't about to drive 150 miles across 2 round trips to an Apple Store and have them send it in anyway). I sent it in. It was shipped to the company they contract, Flextronics. It came back with a new case, same DVD drive, and the new case was scratched to hell and back. So out it went again. Yet another new case and this time they performed work on the optical drive that made it completely unable to function.

Fast forward to my second MacBook. The battery starts to warp and the case is coming apart in the bottom right corner. It gets shipped out. It comes back with a new case, same battery, both scratched to all hell. It comes back and comes back again the same way but with a new battery. The third time they get it right.

What happened when the optical drive went bad in one of my HPs? I called them up, told them. Two days later I had a new DVD drive waiting for me on my door step. Less than 2 minutes later it was installed and the call made to FedEx to pick up the defective part.

That system was out of service for a full 2 minutes. While I was without a MacBook for a combined total of about 6 weeks.

Comparing the 8400M to the X3100 for games playing is like comparing a horse to a goat when looking for a suitable life partner for a human. You can carve out whatever reason you like why one is better than the other, but you're missing the point that even the "better" one is still completely unsuitable.

The 8400M GS is perfectly capable of playing modern games at reasonable settings. You're not going to play UT3 at 1280x800 all high settings. But you will play it at 800x600 medium settings. Same with GRID. It won't run at native res and high settings on an 8400M GS, but it will run flawlessly at 800x600 and medium settings.

I can easily afford the Macbook Pro. Heck it was only $450 dollars more than the Macbook I have. I chose not to get it because I didn't need the extras it comes with. I don't play games, make movies, ect.. I chose it because I personally love the Apple brand(you don't and that is OK--we all can choose to do whatever we want with our money). I also chose it because of its size. It might weigh about the same as the Pro, but the dimensions are a lot smaller or it seems a lot to me. I travel a lot for my job and the Macbook is perfectly suited for it.

Those were the same reasons for which I originally bought my MacBook. But after a few months of having it and seeing that I could have (at that time) gotten a 17" system with a GeForce Go 7600 and more RAM and HDD space for $600 less, I came to realize that I should have bought better for the money. Overall, the MacBook really isn't that much smaller than a standard 15.4" PC. They bought require the same size cases to be carried. I don't lose any space in my Targus case when comparing the Mac to the PC I own. So I'd rather have the better hardware.

Err wrong. I know many, myself included, who would buy the Macbook over the Pro any day because of the smaller screen.

If you want a smaller screen, there is still better hardware than the MacBook to be had.

mosx
Aug 25, 2008, 04:19 AM
If you buy a $899 computer, thats exactly what it is, an $899 computer. A revoltingly hideous thing with a joke for an OS. By the way hows the 1.5 hour battery life on that badass machine Ooh bet that AMD processor is nice, want to bench it against my Mini I doubt it.

A joke of an OS? care to explain? And give me some REAL reasons as to why you think Windows is a "joke". Not all of the lies and BS nonsense that Apple spits out either. Don't give me "viruses" or "spyware" because those are no longer relevant. You have to actively download, install, and run malware these days. The basic reason Windows is better than OS X? Well, Windows takes advantage of the hardware at hand. The GPU plays video. The sound processor does sound. OS X's answer to everything is to throw more CPU cycles at it. This is why certain things in OS X take significantly more CPU time than Windows on the same exact hardware.

Oh and my $950 HP gets real world 3 hours and 20 minutes of battery life. The screen set to lowest is equal to the MacBook at 50%, which takes its battery life down to around the same 3.5 hours.

Don't make fun of AMD processors either ;) They're every bit as fast as Core 2 Duos. They might not score as high in synthetic benchmarks, but in the real world you'll notice the significant price difference before you notice the speed difference. My girlfriend has an HP with a Turion64 X2 (slower than the current Turions shipping in the current HPs) running at 2.1GHz with 3GB of RAM. Her and I both used Handbrake to encode the same video on her system and on my MacBook (2.16GHz Core 2 Duo, 2.5GB of RAM) and they were done within seconds of eachother. Sometimes hers finished first, sometimes mine finished first.

For the record, my $950 HP, which is almost a year old now, shipped with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo with 2GB of RAM, a GeForce 8400M GS, HDMI output, fullsize ExpressCard, memory card reader, fingerprint reader, high capacity battery, etc. while at Apple will still shipping the MacBook with 1GB of RAM, 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo, DVD writer, GMA 950, and none of those extras for $1299. My HP also has a 15.4" screen. Much the same way you can get an AMD based system with dedicated graphics and blu-ray for cheaper than the entry-level MacBook, or an Intel system for less than the middle MacBook that comes with a better GPU than the stock GPU in the Mac Pro.

Theres a perfectly valid reason, you get a real computer with a real OS. Why are you still here? If you don't want to pay the price then theres the door.

Windows is a real OS. And its more capable out of the box than OS X. You get an OS that takes full advantage of available hardware, as opposed to the all software based ways of OS X. You get built-in software like Windows Media Center, which mops the floor with Front Row, and Media Center's built-in DVD and video decoders also take ful advantage of the hardware. Thats the thing with Windows. It is built around taking advantage of the hardware. Where OS X is built more around eating as much CPU cycles as possible to get the same thing done. OS X uses the hardware more as an interface for the software to do all of the work, where Windows uses the hardware to do the same thing with less overall resources used and, in many cases, less time.

I'll get the Violin. Again, don't like it? Buy a PC. Apple is not going to sell you a crappy machine just because your too cheap.

You have to realize that Apple IS selling crappy hardware but it is NOT cheap. $2,000 for a 2.4GHz processor with only 2GB of RAM and a GeForce 8600M GT? Not when $1200 gets me the same processor, RAM, and a 9600M GT, along with HDMI, full size ExpressCard, memory card readers, a 1680x1050 screen, proper cooling system, etc.

Well once you've got passed the glory graphics and realised that both Crysis and COD4 have terrible gameplay, you might want to go and kick a ball or something.

Call of Duty 4 was THE highest selling game of the year last year. Its still the most played game on Xbox Live. I would say your opinion is just that, your opinion. There are millions of people out there who bought CoD4 and millions who still play it who will happily disagree with you. Keep in mind that about half as many people bought CoD4 overall as there are Mac users total.

"We may have a ****** operating system, but at least we can push blu ray at 5% CPU usage."

Make fun of Windows all you want. It won't change the fact that it actually takes advantage of the hardware its installed on. It won't change the fact that almost 5x as many people have bought Vista as there are Mac users total.

You do get a computer the best in its class. Your a typical Windows user that things hardware is the be all and end all of a computer. Push off and get a Dell, you'll make your life and our life much better.

You do NOT get the best computer in its class. Why is it a MacBook costs $1400 after taxes and ONLY ships with a GMA X3100? Why is it that an $1100 system only comes with a combo drive when a $400 PC notebook from Wal-Mart will ship with a DVD writer? Why is it that for the same $1400 from HP you can get a system with better graphics, stock, than a Mac Pro, blu-ray, and a higher resolution screen than any of the 15.4" MacBook Pros?

work?, more like being creative, showing off your photo album and making home video's to family and friends.

Showing off photo albums and making home videos for family and friends? Can do that on a PC. Equivalent software can be had for free for Windows. Being creative? How?

I'd challenge you to find a Win PC built on Penryn/Santa Rosa that has similar features to a MB that costs substantially less. The Sony is about the same price (and is based on Penryn/Santa Rosa).

Head over to the "My parents hate Apple" thread and look for the screenshot I posted. A system built at HP with a 2.4GHz C2D, 2GB of RAM, GeForce 9600M GT, 15.4" 1680x1050 screen, blu-ray drive, for $20 more than the MacBook after taxes. Take out the blu-ray drive and it costs LESS before and after taxes than the MacBook with DVD writer does BEFORE taxes.

It's a great consumer machine for $1,099. Why spend more money on a Pro machine when you are a consumer who doesn't need pro features. And, even though it is a consumer machine, it still has no trouble with Adobe CS3 or Final Cut, from what I hear.

The problem is that for $1099 you ONLY get a 13.3" screen, you ONLY get 1GB of RAM, you ONLY get an Intel GMA X3100 GPU, and you ONLY get a combo drive! The combo drive should be banned at that price point.

For around $1,000 over at HP you can build an AMD based system with a faster processor, 2GB of RAM (maybe 3 depending on the promotion), a bigger HDD, DVD writer, HDMI output, dedicated graphics with hybrid crossfire, etc. etc. etc.

The real problem with Apple notebooks is that you get SO LITTLE hardware for SO MUCH money.

Cave Man
Aug 25, 2008, 10:28 AM
Head over to the "My parents hate Apple" thread and look for the screenshot I posted. A system built at HP with a 2.4GHz C2D, 2GB of RAM, GeForce 9600M GT, 15.4" 1680x1050 screen, blu-ray drive, for $20 more than the MacBook after taxes. Take out the blu-ray drive and it costs LESS before and after taxes than the MacBook with DVD writer does BEFORE taxes.

I'd like to see this computer. Can you specify HP's model number.

JoeDRC
Aug 25, 2008, 10:58 AM
MOSX please go away. you obviously don't like apple, macs or os x.
So why are you on an Apple forum, where people who actually like OS X and Macs and don't mind paying for it talk.
I'm sure theres some windows forums out there, stop trying to irritate everyone :D

You've found an OS that works for you, well done. So has everyone else on here.

Luzzio
Aug 25, 2008, 01:09 PM
The only game I have on my macbook is Peggle.

alphaod
Aug 25, 2008, 01:54 PM
<snip>



Great argument there. In Windows, all the HD stuff is decoded by the video card, so even a Pentium 3 could run 1080p with a Purevideo HD or AVIVO HD card. Can't do that on OS X.

Also don't forget there is Linux too.

Zer00
Aug 25, 2008, 04:54 PM
what have i started with my question here :D
this has gone totally off topic :cool:
but whatever my question has been answered long ago ^^

DeusInvictus7
Aug 25, 2008, 07:03 PM
what have i started with my question here :D
this has gone totally off topic :cool:
but whatever my question has been answered long ago ^^


yeah theres a lot of people like that on forums that come in just to bash whatever the forum is about ;)

mosx
Aug 25, 2008, 10:32 PM
I'd like to see this computer. Can you specify HP's model number.

It's the dv5t. Unlike Apple, HP and Dell (among many others) allow you to actually customize your hardware. Not be forced to choose from what they think you will like ;) I'll also post a screenshot at the end of my post.

MOSX please go away. you obviously don't like apple, macs or os x.
So why are you on an Apple forum, where people who actually like OS X and Macs and don't mind paying for it talk.

I'm sorry you can't handle hearing the truth about Macs. But as long as I own one I'll be posting here.

Great argument there. In Windows, all the HD stuff is decoded by the video card, so even a Pentium 3 could run 1080p with a Purevideo HD or AVIVO HD card. Can't do that on OS X.

Also don't forget there is Linux too.

Theres even an open source effort to bring hardware acceleration for video to Linux as well!

Chappers
Aug 26, 2008, 12:35 AM
Maybe mosx if you weren't so aggressive in defending your opinion. You do seem to keep running into arguments.

Cave Man
Aug 26, 2008, 12:49 AM
It's the dv5t. Unlike Apple, HP and Dell (among many others) allow you to actually customize your hardware. Not be forced to choose from what they think you will like ;) I'll also post a screenshot at the end of my post.

While you'll get no disagreement from me about Apple's lack of optional upgrades for any of their computers (nor the conspicuous hole in their lineup), there are substantial differences between the HP and the MacBook. Here are a few from my config:

1. For the OS, you should select Vista Ultimate, as it is most inline with OS X Leopard.
2. The HP has HDMI and a 15" display, but does not have DVI (only VGA). This config is with the x4500 only. The 9600 adds $200 more to the price. It also has an express slot, which Apple should probably include in the MB.
3. The HP's stock battery seems to be low capacity, so I included the 3.5 hour battery as an upgrade (our MacBook gets 4-5 hours, depending on what we're doing).
4. There does not seem to be any optical audio in or out on the HP, which is standard on the MacBook.
5. There does not seem to be Bluetooth for the HP, which is standard on the MacBook.
6. I also added Adobe Photoshop Elements, which has support for RAW image formats from a variety of cameras, which is what iPhoto excels at, and Adobe Premiere as an iMovie/iDVD equivalent.
7. I did not see apps for music (i.e., Garage Band), iCal, iWeb, etc. that are included with all Macs (did I miss these on the HP?).

So the prices of these two computers are about the same. The HP might be better overall in hardware, but the MacBook is better in software.

DeusInvictus7
Aug 26, 2008, 01:14 AM
cave man's right...you have to take into consideration the software that comes with OSX...and by the looks of it...the prices end up pretty similar, if not making the macbook cheaper...

and mosx, the only reason that Windows has to take advantage of the hardware its installed on is because it needs all the help it can get from every part of the computer to do work...(and this is coming from someone hasnt made the switch to mac yet, so dont yak about me being a fanboy)

so stop trolling around bashing mac and OSX cuz thats not what we are looking for here

mosx
Aug 26, 2008, 01:52 AM
1. For the OS, you should select Vista Ultimate, as it is most inline with OS X Leopard.

Wrong. This is a lie made up by the Apple fanboys. If you want to compare Vista Ultimate you'll find many features that OS X does not have, such as full disk encryption based around either a TPM chip or a USB key as a literal key, or both.

Vista Home Premium is every bit "in-line" with Leopard and even itself includes features that Leopard does not. Like built-in support for multiple HDTV tuners. Windows Media Center that makes Front Row look like, in the words of Steve Jobs, "baby software." It also comes with built-in DVD and video decoders that take full advantage of the hardware at hand. It comes with DVD authoring software (video and DVD in general), photo management, calendar, etc.

In other words, Vista Home Premium is everything Leopard is, as well as much more. You do NOT need Vista Ultimate.

The HP has HDMI and a 15" display, but does not have DVI (only VGA). This config is with the x4500 only. The 9600 adds $200 more to the price. It also has an express slot, which Apple should probably include in the MB.

My configuration had the GeForce 9600M GT.

HDMI is DVI, but with audio. Most good displays ship with HDMI inputs these days. You'd be hard pressed to find a display these days that can be considered good and does not have an HDMI input. Plus an HDMI to DVI adapter can be had for about 1/4 the cost of Apple's required mini-DVI adapters.

Plus the HP has VGA and S-Video outputs without requiring separate adapters for both. With a MacBook you need 3 different adapters for all three types of connections, adding up to $60 worth of adapters. With the HP its unlikely you'll never need an adapter as long as you have a good display.

Since you mentioned ExpressCard, the HP also has an option for a fingerprint reader, and the 5-in-1 memory card reader is standard.

The HP's stock battery seems to be low capacity, so I included the 3.5 hour battery as an upgrade (our MacBook gets 4-5 hours, depending on what we're doing).

The MacBook only gets such long battery life in unrealistic conditions. You basically have to turn the screen brightness to the lowest settings and not browse any websites with Flash.

To me, the MacBook screen is unusable at any setting below 50% brightness. Plus I like to browse sites that DO have Flash, so my real world battery life on my MacBook is roughly 3.5 hours. Only a few minutes more than my HP with the same high capacity battery.

If you paid attention, you'd notice that my configuration also had the higher capacity battery.

There does not seem to be any optical audio in or out on the HP, which is standard on the MacBook.

Digital audio output is handled by the HDMI output.

Digital audio input on the MacBook is essentially useless, considering it has either a Sigmatel or Realtek chipset depending on which chips were grabbed for the motherboard.

There does not seem to be Bluetooth for the HP, which is standard on the MacBook.

Because Bluetooth is useless? Its too slow for file transfers. Mobile phones these days, including Apple's own, don't use Bluetooth for anything other than hands-free headsets. So whats the point? After every OS X install I've had to do, one of the first things I've done is disabled Bluetooth. Theres absolutely no point in having it. None. I don't use my earpiece with my MacBook. The built-in mic is higher quality than the one on my Motorola H710. My Logitech USB headset is higher quality than any Bluetooth device or built-in microphone.

I also added Adobe Photoshop Elements, which has support for RAW image formats from a variety of cameras, which is what iPhoto excels at, and Adobe Premiere as an iMovie/iDVD equivalent.

heh, first of all, if you're someone who cares about RAW image support, using iPhoto is completely out of the question. iPhoto is no good at anything beyond simple organizing and Photo albums. Which Vista has built-in, Windows Photo Gallery.

iMovie and iDVD? Windows has built-in movie editing (no its not the terrible Windows Movie Maker you're thinking of) and DVD authorization software. No need for expensive third party software if you're just going to use it the same way you would iMovie and iDVD.

Besides, you know how may times I've used iMovie in the year and a half I've owned a Mac? 0 times. You know how many times I used iDVD? One time. I guarantee you that the vast majority of Mac owners NEVER use the iLife apps outside of iPhoto.

So, just like with your incorrect choice of Vista Ultimate, you can knock these two incorrect choices off as well.

I did not see apps for music (i.e., Garage Band)

Do you know how many freeware apps are out there that do exactly the same thing as Garageband, but with a less pretty interface? Garage Band is nothing more than a prettier interface put on an app that came with a soundcard I had bought way back in 2001.

Not only that, but how many people actually use Garage Band? Aside from playing with it like a kid at first and then never opening it again after that?

iCal

Windows Calendar.

iWeb

Useless without Mobile Me. Not to mention, again, freeware apps?

You know, I would bet every single dollar I will ever make in my entire life that Apple could delete the entire iLife suite, except for iTunes and iPhoto, from every Mac and it would probably not affect 99,999 out of every 100,000 Mac users.

It doesn't matter that this software comes with every Mac because very few Mac users actually take advantage of the built-in software. I mean, I cannot honestly see a situation where I would ever use iWeb, iMovie, or iDVD again. I've only ever fired up Garage Band to play with the instruments and thats it. No interest in it otherwise. If I wanted to record something I'd use Audacity anyway. Much easier to use when recording and chopping up things. Its also free and multi-platform.

So the prices of these two computers are about the same. The HP might be better overall in hardware, but the MacBook is better in software.

No, the real world price is significantly different. The real price of the HP includes a higher resolution screen (1680x1050) and a GeForce 9600M GT. The MacBook ships with hardware that is equal to that of an $800 PC, and software that is essentially useless to the vast majority of computer users in the world.

cave man's right...you have to take into consideration the software that comes with OSX...and by the looks of it...the prices end up pretty similar, if not making the macbook cheaper...

As I said, in the real world, thats not true. Because the vast majority of people (probably more than 99%) will never use the iLife suite outside of iPhoto and iTunes. When it comes to that, Windows Photo Gallery, Picassa, HP Photosmart Essential (free to anyone) are all equal to iPhoto. iTunes is available on Windows as well as many other higher quality alternatives.

The software included with all Macs only drives up the price and most people aren't going to use it anyway.

You still need third party applications and Windows to make the system fully functional anyway.

If you had a Mac, you'd know this.

and mosx, the only reason that Windows has to take advantage of the hardware its installed on is because it needs all the help it can get from every part of the computer to do work...(and this is coming from someone hasnt made the switch to mac yet, so dont yak about me being a fanboy)

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Windows takes advantage of the hardware at hand because its designed better than OS X. Playing a video? The GPU does the work. Playing a video in OS X? CPU does all of the work because its all software based. Playing music in Windows? Sound processor does the work. In OS X? CPU does the work with the help of the sound chip telling the processor what to do, much the same way very low end hardware works on Windows.

Windows even takes better advantage of GPUs thanks to DirectX and better OpenGL support from vendors.

In Windows Vista you can set the maximum CPU cycles, and all kinds of other advanced settings from a simple point and click interface, no need to drop to a command line like in OS X.

so stop trolling around bashing mac and OSX cuz thats not what we are looking for here

"Cuz"?

I'm not "trolling". I'm speaking the truth. If you can't handle the truth then don't read my posts. It's that simple. Theres no "bashing" or "trolling" going on when you're simply stating facts. If i was "trolling" or "bashing" I would be saying things like "haha Mac OS X SUCKS". But you don't see me doing that, do you? No. I am pointing out legitimate facts.

DeusInvictus7
Aug 26, 2008, 02:01 AM
they are legitimate facts, you are right...but thats not what this forum is about.

iwuzbord
Aug 26, 2008, 02:07 AM
Well I thought due to the fact that it IS AN EXPENSIVE MACHINE they could at least have some good hardware...
well whatever i bought it now and wont make the same mistake again.
my next computer is gonna be a macbook pro or mac pro ^^

im actually surprized that you didnt check the specifications on the machine you were buying before you bought it. its one of the golden rules of computerdom.

Because Bluetooth is useless? Its too slow for file transfers. Mobile phones these days, including Apple's own, don't use Bluetooth for anything other than hands-free headsets. So whats the point? After every OS X install I've had to do, one of the first things I've done is disabled Bluetooth. Theres absolutely no point in having it. None. I don't use my earpiece with my MacBook. The built-in mic is higher quality than the one on my Motorola H710. My Logitech USB headset is higher quality than any Bluetooth device or built-in microphone.

there are plenty of ways to sync mobile phones through bluetooth. i do it with my samsung u740. i use BitPim and use a bluetooth port instead of with usb.

To me, the MacBook screen is unusable at any setting below 50% brightness. Plus I like to browse sites that DO have Flash, so my real world battery life on my MacBook is roughly 3.5 hours. Only a few minutes more than my HP with the same high capacity battery.

i get 4 hours on my macbook with better battery life enabled

Useless without Mobile Me. Not to mention, again, freeware apps?

You know, I would bet every single dollar I will ever make in my entire life that Apple could delete the entire iLife suite, except for iTunes and iPhoto, from every Mac and it would probably not affect 99,999 out of every 100,000 Mac users.

It doesn't matter that this software comes with every Mac because very few Mac users actually take advantage of the built-in software. I mean, I cannot honestly see a situation where I would ever use iWeb, iMovie, or iDVD again. I've only ever fired up Garage Band to play with the instruments and thats it. No interest in it otherwise. If I wanted to record something I'd use Audacity anyway. Much easier to use when recording and chopping up things. Its also free and multi-platform.

iweb isnt useless without mobile me. there are ways to use iweb to publish a site without mobile me.
but i people use the iLife suite because its there. its harder to find a freeware app than it is to use an app that came with your computer. and it also depends on what the user uses the apps for. iMovie is great if you want to make a class presentation. iDVD is helpful when wanting to share memories with loved ones.


but what you said about Vista Ultimate is completely correct.

mosx
Aug 26, 2008, 03:08 AM
there are plenty of ways to sync mobile phones through bluetooth. i do it with my samsung u740. i use BitPim and use a bluetooth port instead of with usb.

But Bluetooth is still too slow. Bluetooth 2.0 EDR is still only running at a blazing 3Mbps. Thats if there are no environmental variables to slow the connection down. Real world USB 2 maxes out flash memory speed capacity, with transfers that are more than 10x faster than that.

i get 4 hours on my macbook with better battery life enabled

And I get nearly 5 hours on my MacBook using the better battery life setting while playing a DVD. But with the screen set so low, its unusable. The screen has to be set to 50% at least. Plus if you're browsing sites with Flash (and we all know Flash eats up more CPU on OS X than Windows), then you're eating up battery life even faster thanks to the higher brightness, higher CPU cycles, and higher fan speed to cool the CPU.

iweb isnt useless without mobile me. there are ways to use iweb to publish a site without mobile me.

Yeah, but its somewhat of a hassle because everything in iWeb is designed around being published to Mobile Me. Its a hassle to the point where the majority of people will not use it because they're not Mobile Me subscribers.

but i people use the iLife suite because its there. its harder to find a freeware app than it is to use an app that came with your computer. and it also depends on what the user uses the apps for. iMovie is great if you want to make a class presentation. iDVD is helpful when wanting to share memories with loved ones.

Class presentation? Not everyone is in school. But you can use other presentation software as well. You know OpenOffice.org is freeware and a great piece of software, right? I don't need to make a movie or anything with Open Office, and thanks to Windows proper external monitor support, I can connect the system to a projector and run the presentation without hassle.

iDVD? Well, you can use it to share home videos. Windows makes that a little easier, as you don't have to deal with all of the setup nonsense for the menus. Most people I know don't like menus and don't want them. They just want to pop the DVD in and watch. Its easier to make a menu-less DVD in Vista.

I don't know a single person that cares for picture slideshows on DVD either. Everyone I know wants pictures they can look at on the computer, on their portable device, or a physical print that they can frame or put in a book of their choosing.

When it comes to iMovie and iDVD, Windows Vista has equivalent software built-in. Its just not as flashy as the iLife apps. They also don't get as much attention because most people simply don't use them, or better Windows apps come with their digital video cameras.

JoeDRC
Aug 26, 2008, 04:32 AM
I'm sorry you can't handle hearing the truth about Macs. But as long as I own one I'll be posting here.



How is it the truth, you talk about windows taking advantage of the hardware its run on very well.
You can say the same about OS X, its integrated with the hardware so its less likely to fail.

How often do you use your Mac? From your previous post it appears you've fallen head over heels in love with your HP.

Its your opinion and your very much entitled to it, however its not fact.
Maybe you've had a bad experience with your Mac.

I agree you don't get a lot of hardware for your money, but I'm going to side with other posters and say that OS X is worth the price tag.

Cave Man
Aug 26, 2008, 09:46 AM
Wrong. This is a lie made up by the Apple fanboys.

<sigh> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. There are many features in Leopard that are not in Vista, and vice versa.

Chappers
Aug 26, 2008, 02:52 PM
Sadly mosx, is missing the point.

Apple have tried to create a computer that you can use out of the box. Maybe most people do only use a couple of iLife apps but stuff is there if you want it. Vista scores very badly on this.

Having googled XP vs Vista - Lots of people (around 50%) seem to complain about Vista being a resource hog. In one poll on a PC site - Vista only scored 63 out of 100 overall (over 9 categories).

So yes those boxes are cheaper than the Mac but they still run Windows and that seems to be a problem for enough people that they downgrade to XP

Also enough computer makers were still selling PC's pre-installed with XP up until the end of June this year - I imagine that was because Vista was just so good that people didn't think they deserved it and asked for XP.

Anyway - must go - Seinfeld is on TV.... he used to be so funny .... whats he doing these days?

kabunaru
Aug 26, 2008, 04:15 PM
mosx, is there any thing that you actually like about your Mac? :D

macbooker15
Aug 26, 2008, 04:40 PM
</start rant/>

Another thing about the tao of Mac is the coffee shop factor. I guarantee you that if you walk into any coffee shop (at least where i live) with a Macbook, Macbook Pro, iPhone, or iPod Touch, you know that you are gonna get all kinds of jealous looks from people working on Vista and XP laptops.

@mosx, the thing that most people like about a mac is that out of the box you can do stuff with it. No need to update drivers, or install anti-virus software..(plus the fact that vista is a wierd looking copy of leopard) and while most people wont use all of the iLife software, some people like me find it invaluble for projects of all kinds. Sure, you pay a premium for apple products ( a slight rip-off) but for it you get some of the best designed computers in the business: :apple:

</end rant/>

mosx
Aug 26, 2008, 06:27 PM
How is it the truth, you talk about windows taking advantage of the hardware its run on very well.
You can say the same about OS X, its integrated with the hardware so its less likely to fail.

You're missing the point.

You see, Apple used to claim that OS X and the computers were designed around each other. And this might have been true in the past. But its not now. Now the hardware is the same as every other PC out there. They're using the same Intel chipsets, the same GPUs, the same Intel processors, etc. as everyone else. Theres absolutely nothing "special" about Apple's hardware. The only thing that sets it apart from everyone else is the price.

You also missed the point I made with how Windows uses the hardware versus OS X. Again, let's go back to video. In Vista and XP, if you're watching any video file (especially blu-ray/H.264 and DVDs), Windows will hand off all of the work to the GPU. OS X, on the other hand, uses the processor to do all of the work. Handing the workload off to the hardware that is specifically designed for the task at hand is "taking advantage of the hardware".

Let me repeat that. Windows "takes advantage of the hardware" by using hardware that is designed for specific tasks for those specific tasks. OS X does everything in software. Meaning it relies entirely on the CPU to do all of the work.

How often do you use your Mac? From your previous post it appears you've fallen head over heels in love with your HP.

I'm using it right now ;)

I agree you don't get a lot of hardware for your money, but I'm going to side with other posters and say that OS X is worth the price tag.

Well, many people disagree with that. Thats why Apple's market share is still so small. OS X is simply not worth the money. You don't get what you pay for. You don't need most of what a Mac comes with.

<sigh> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. There are many features in Leopard that are not in Vista, and vice versa.

Leopard is lacking far more than Vista than Vista lacks compared to Leopard. The only features Vista lacks that Leopard has most people will never use. However, Vista's technologies will be used by most and they won't even know it.

Apple have tried to create a computer that you can use out of the box. Maybe most people do only use a couple of iLife apps but stuff is there if you want it. Vista scores very badly on this.

That is simply not true. First of all, Macs are not useable out of the box. You still need countless 3rd party apps, many of which are paid, to get functionality that you can get out of Windows with freeware. You have to download 3rd party instant messengers since iChat only works with a couple of protocols that not everyone uses. You have to download Firefox because Safari isn't anywhere near as secure or currently as fast. You have to download VLC and Perian, since Quicktime doesn't support anything really and VLC will give you somewhat decent sound quality compared to DVD Player's awful sound quality. You have to download Onyx. You have to get some sort of 3rd party firewall, since Apple offers no outbound control. You have to get some sort of 3rd party uninstalling software since so much junk gets left behind when you do uninstall apps.

Saying a Mac is completely useable out of the box is hilarious. Its simply not true.

Vista comes with very comparable software to OS X out of the box, its just not publicized because, quite honestly, nobody uses it or its equivalent iLife app. Vista comes with some better software out of the box (Windows Media Center makes Front Row look like a joke), as well as greater hardware compatibility.

One thing thats actually incredibly ironic is how Vista does NOT need printer/scanner drivers yet OS X, by default, has a couple of gigabytes worth of printer drivers installed and you need to sometimes install more advanced driver sets to take advantage of scanners that work with no drivers in Vista.

Having googled XP vs Vista - Lots of people (around 50%) seem to complain about Vista being a resource hog. In one poll on a PC site - Vista only scored 63 out of 100 overall (over 9 categories).

And how old was that poll? And how old were most of those results? Every negative story I hear about Vista comes from the time period before and shortly after Vista's launch.

So yes those boxes are cheaper than the Mac but they still run Windows and that seems to be a problem for enough people that they downgrade to XP

Prove it. Apple throws this downgrading crap around, and so do the Apple fanboys. But you know what? I see no real numbers supporting it. Even if that 30% made up number from a few days ago was true, that still means theres what? 5 to 6 times more people using Vista right now than there are Mac users entirely.

Also enough computer makers were still selling PC's pre-installed with XP up until the end of June this year - I imagine that was because Vista was just so good that people didn't think they deserved it and asked for XP.

The PC manufacturers that did that offered XP on only the lowest end hardware. HP offered it on some $399 Compaq notebook that had a Celeron and 512MB of RAM. But it still had a DVD writer!

mosx, is there any thing that you actually like about your Mac?

I do like the size. If it actually had hardware that it should have (dedicated graphics) I would have absolutely no problem with it at all.

Another thing about the tao of Mac is the coffee shop factor. I guarantee you that if you walk into any coffee shop (at least where i live) with a Macbook, Macbook Pro, iPhone, or iPod Touch, you know that you are gonna get all kinds of jealous looks from people working on Vista and XP laptops.

Not true at all. When I walk in somewhere and I see people sitting with Macs, I smile and laugh. They think they're better than the rest of us.

No reasonably intelligent person is going to be jealous of a Mac because they know that they got the better deal on hardware and they have an OS that is just as stable and more capable than OS X.

the thing that most people like about a mac is that out of the box you can do stuff with it.

As I already proved, thats not true. You still have to go and acquire plenty of 3rd party software to make the Mac "fully functional".

No need to update drivers

Having driver updates is a very good thing. Nvidia and ATI recently released driver updates that give 3rd party software developers tools and the ability to take advantage of GPUs for just about any task. ATI and nvidia did that for FREE. ANy developer can use it and its available NOW. Apple wants to CHARGE you the user and developer for that functionality in Snow Leopard AND their version of that technology is entirely dependent on their OpenGL support. We all know how bad that is. Theres also the fact that the vast majority of Macs out in the marketplace today do NOT have dedicated GPUs. Their integrated GPUs depend on the CPUs for advanced functions.

install anti-virus software.

The only way you'd need anti-virus software is if you were dumb enough to ignore IE7 (or FF3) telling you that you're downloading malware, ignoring Windows Defender telling you that you're installing and running malware (and telling it not to block it) and ignoring UAC telling you that you need to allow the malware to modify your system.

(plus the fact that vista is a wierd looking copy of leopard)

Are you insane? Vista and Leopard look absolutely nothing alike. Aero Glass is an entirely different looking UI (not to mention the developer previews enabling Aero were around for YEARS before Leopard's updated UI was made available to developers a year ago).

People that try to say that Windows is a ripoff of Mac OS in the UI department really need to leave the late 90s behind and try modern versions of Windows. Windows hasn't looked like Mac OS since Microsoft left Windows 3.11 behind and moved on to Windows 95.

Everything in Leopard is grey. A little too grey if you ask me. Almost to the point of being gloomy and depressing. If you make the menu bar solid, it turns into another depressing grey color.

Everything in Vista is customizable and transparent. The animations are smoother and better. There are live previews for the taskbar and in the alt+tab menu (what happened to dock live previews in Leopard anyway?).

I know a few Mac diehards (who don't post on this forum or other Apple forums because they're ashamed of the Apple forum community) that openly admit that Vista's "Aero" looks MUCH better than Leopard's UI and that the eye candy is all around much better.

while most people wont use all of the iLife software, some people like me find it invaluble for projects of all kinds.

Good for you. You make up that 0.01% of people who do use the iLife apps to their fullest. You know you could have gotten freeware equivalents on Windows, right?

Sure, you pay a premium for apple products ( a slight rip-off) but for it you get some of the best designed computers in the business

Best designed? Sure. If you consider good design on that you have to worry about build quality issues. The MacBook has issues with cracking on the top case thanks to the magnetic latch, discoloring from regular use (yes the problem still exists just not as bad as before), discoloring from heat on the hinge, discoloring on the bottom due to heat, cracking on the bottom due to heat, cracking around the hinge due to heat. The MacBook Pro has build quality issues that can lead to the case bending, denting, scratching, separating, warping from heat, and getting ridiculously hot. The MBP also has known screen issues and motherboard failures caused by heat. The MacBooks have lovely screens that have 24ms response times.

I would hardly call Macs well designed, not even close to best.

DeusInvictus7
Aug 26, 2008, 06:41 PM
mosx, it makes me laugh seeing you spend so much time here and ranting about how much better Vista is than OSX...why do you even have a mac if you hate it so much?

Apple doesnt make computers for everyone, they arent supposed to...

if you like what Apple has to offer, buy it...if you dont, dont...simple

now go away and find some windows forum so you can make love to the other windows fanboys

jav6454
Aug 26, 2008, 06:55 PM
mosx, it makes me laugh seeing you spend so much time here and ranting about how much better Vista is than OSX...why do you even have a mac if you hate it so much?

Apple doesnt make computers for everyone, they arent supposed to...

if you like what Apple has to offer, buy it...if you dont, dont...simple

now go away and find some windows forum so you can make love to the other windows fanboys

You had a good argument until you insulted him, thus going into trolling.

mos x can rant and no one can take that away from him. However, like you said. If he hates Macs so much, why on Earth is he still using one?

I can quote every single application mos x says he uses in Windows and how he doesn't use his MacBook for them. How he never uses iLife or for that matter anyone else. (this fact I want a statistic, and a current one on iLife usage since he says 99,999/100,000 don't use it, well, give me a link or url to an article by a respectable mag or research that shows this)

This is why I am wondering, why the hell hasn't mos x sold his MacBook if his Windows machine does everything he needs?

care to answer mos x?

macbooker15
Aug 26, 2008, 07:18 PM
I agree, and its also funny to see the sheer number of posts by him where he says exactly the same thing :). Its kinda like the Mac vs PC commercials except the PC is speaking out. In the end its all propaganda. How you like a mac depends on what kind of person you are. All i know is that since i got my mac, and when i got my PC, my PC has died twice, requiring a complete reformat. The only problem i've ever had with my mac, are the occasional freeze-up (yes they do happen :mad: ) and one time when i played with root access. :D

DeusInvictus7
Aug 26, 2008, 07:51 PM
You had a good argument until you insulted him, thus going into trolling.

yeah sorry about that last part, i guess i just got annoyed from all that...im over it

Chappers
Aug 27, 2008, 12:37 AM
mosx - you asked when the polls and opinions were quoted from - well from March and April 2008 with people hoping (yet again) for a service pack to improve things. Hopefully everyone is happy with its improvement.

As for OEM's selling XP pre-installed as you mentioned HP - here's what they said "We do still offer XP on a select number of our existing consumer notebook, gaming and business products," said a spokesman for HP. "This will continue through the XP end of life date on June 30, 2008."
Are their gaming products - low-end? In fact apparently there is still a loophole that allows XP until Jan 2009

"HP has been offering business desktops, notebooks and workstations with the option to downgrade to Windows XP Pro from Vista since August 2007, and will continue to offer this option on its business systems through at least July 30, 2009," said the HP spokesman.

The point of the iLife apps is that you don't need to go search and downloading to just get on doing stuff - you already have them. and they will work. 0.01% - nice statistic another mosx opinion maybe. The whole iWeb thing is your opinion - people won't use it because its linked to mobile me....your opinion is not evidence.

You also say "Vista comes with very comparable software to OS X out of the box, its just not publicized because, quite honestly, nobody uses it or its equivalent iLife app" - what are these microsoft Vista apps that are comparable.

The Mac is capable out of the box - I'm not sure what you mean by "fully capable" but if you need to edit movies, photos, music, create web pages write scripts, play movies, write and make DVD's then this stuff is already there. So yes you can just start doing stuff. The absolute need for other 3rd party apps are examples of your opinion. Yes there is room for improvement and yes you can download more software but that doesn't mean you can't already do stuff.


I don't care for the coffee shop argument but yet again - you answer is based solely on you opinion and to be honest - it does sound like an inferiority complex when you accuse Mac users of appearing to "feel better than the rest of us".

As for the whole downgrade to XP thing - you wanted proof :- http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/08/21/one-in-three-new-vista-machines-downgraded-to-xp/



And if all of the articles I read on Vista being a resource hog are even half true then it doesn't say much for your "takes advantage of the hardware" argument. More like - takes it round the back of the bicycle shed and spanks it.

Beric
Aug 27, 2008, 01:07 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I enjoy mosx's posts. They're the voice of reason amidst a crowd of fanboys who will buy Mac no matter what. Macs aren't the only thing out there, and Apple could really improve. The OS isn't everything. Hardware matters too.

I'm keeping my Macbook, but I'll be buying a Nehalem HP notebook in a year, unless Apple really delivers by then, for a good, competitive price. The price, quality, and features of HP's really outdo Apple. No overheating for one, and dedicated graphics on any machine that's worth something.

The OP simply figured that if he was spending $1300 on a computer, it would have a dedicated graphics card and play games well. I made the same (quite reasonable) assumption a year ago, knowing a lot less about Macs back then. I would have bought a PC now if I had known better. I don't hate my machine, but the excessive heat on menial tasks, as well as poor games and flash player performance are quite bad.

airjuggernaut
Aug 27, 2008, 01:57 AM
Honestly, why the hell do people even come on here to look for "voices of reasons" ?

It's a Mac forum, do you think we're going to sit here bashing OSX and Apple about all their pitfalls and their inferiority to windows?

I agree Windows hate is excessive on these forums sometimes, but just go on pretty much any PC forums and you will always find the people who say "MACS SUCK" "THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE RIGHT CLICK" blah blah ****ity blah. Do I go on there and scream "FANBOOOYYYS YOU'RE ALL WRONG!" and get defensive when people hate me for it?

Honestly you "Anti-Mac" mac users are like those people who go door to door talking to you about god and how he changed your life. People aren't magically going to flee to windows and pray for mercy from Bill Gates when you tell them that their processors are running at 30% usage as opposed to Vista 0.3% watching a YouTube video? Who the hell honestly cares?

Oh let me guess you care? Yes, well see YOUR needs and expectations do not match the needs and expectations of thousands of other people, so if YOU need more efficient processing by the operating system then YOU should switch and stop bitching about it to people who just use their Macs for simple tasks and could care less about how efficiently their flash is working for them this fine afternoon.

Well how about I throw this at you since you love to go all techy techy with everything.

Are you willing to argue with me that Microsoft's kernel is way safer than the Unix kernel that OSX, Linux distributions and pretty much every web server on the internet uses? If you are, I would be more than happy to ask some real programmers and other I.T people I know, and ask what they think of any possible argument you can come up with. Really, go ahead try! Go look on Wikipedia for your little statistics and Google "How is Windows better than Linux? because I need to look uber-smart on some macforums filled with FANBOYS!!" go on! I know you were going to do it!

Honestly, both operating systems are good, and I personally love both Windows and Mac, but this constant bickering and little stupid arguments in TWO different threads now is ridiculous, and you've made it quite clear what you think of Macs and OSX.

Thank you, and please move over to any Windows forums where you can post this thread and have a BLAST with all your windows buddies and giggle about how oblivious and stupid mac users are. You will end up being cooler than Hana Montana!!!. If you have an actual problem, rather than just complaints and bitching about your Mac and OSX, you're more than welcome to come back and ask us Fanboys to spew our Apple fanboy hym (it's essentially just the words from the 1984 mac ad)

Or maybe 0.01% of us could make you a picture book using iLife about your time on these forums :)

DeusInvictus7
Aug 27, 2008, 02:21 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I enjoy mosx's posts. They're the voice of reason amidst a crowd of fanboys who will buy Mac no matter what.

hehe, guess what? this is a Mac forum...of course we are gonna love mac and talk mac...

and since this is a mac forum, we dont need windows "fanboys" or whatever to come on here and talk about highly about windows when we DONT want to hear it...i mean, if you really want to talk to people about how windows "takes advantage of the hardware its on" then go to a windows forum and do it there...theres no point doing it here, we are here to talk macs

i have to admit, i do like windows, have been using it for about 13 years...since i was 5, but for ME, mac seems to be the way to go and better for ME and i cannot wait to finally make the switch...it does everything i need it to do, better than my windows computer, everything from video editing, 2D and 3D animation (maya works SO much better on a mac than pc), photo editing, and heck, ive started to like safari so much ive put it on my PC and have been using it as my main browser...

Winter Charm
Aug 27, 2008, 03:59 PM
OK... Guys LET ME GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT HERE!!!

WINDOWS AND MAC BOTH HAVE THIER ADVANTAGES!!!!

Windows Vista:
because of DX10 it has great gaming capabilities... and it allows people to take full advantage of their hardware to run some very nice games.... on the SIDE it does have applications that are somewhat useful... but MOSTLY you must download/get them somehow. Stability is an issue, as of so far, only the 64 Bit Versions of Vista are actually very stable... vista does NOT take full advantage of multiple cores.

Mac OS X:
OS X is mainly built to be a FAST out of the BOX system, where someone can push a power button, and start doing office work in about a minute. its built to take full advantage of your processor to multitask applications that do your office work (NOT for GAMES) - so hardware acceleration isn't REQUIRED. so the other thing is, OS X is MORE stable than windows Vista [EXCEPT the new 64 Bit Edition] - If you are wanting to "game" or do "video editing" then what you need is a windows PC (beware of stability though).
When snow leopard comes out, with grand central, OSX will be able to take full advantage of hardware acceleration.

So looking at the above, THAT Is when i will BUY a Macbook, Use BOOTCAMP, and then Install Vista 64Bit (which will hopefully be supported by Snow Leopard) and have the best of BOTH systems!

i expect about a 1-2 year wait.

Who's With me?? - and NOTE i am NOT bashing EITHER... it would be MUCH better to have BOTH operating system (stability of a mac for schoolwork) and Power of Vista for Gaming.:D

Chappers
Aug 27, 2008, 04:42 PM
Dear dinjin201 - I wish mosx answered as nicely as you.

panzer06
Aug 27, 2008, 05:32 PM
OK... Guys LET ME GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT HERE!!!

WINDOWS AND MAC BOTH HAVE THIER ADVANTAGES!!!!

Windows Vista:
because of DX10 it has great gaming capabilities... and it allows people to take full advantage of their hardware to run some very nice games.... on the SIDE it does have applications that are somewhat useful... but MOSTLY you must download/get them somehow. Stability is an issue, as of so far, only the 64 Bit Versions of Vista are actually very stable... vista does NOT take full advantage of multiple cores.

Mac OS X:
OS X is mainly built to be a FAST out of the BOX system, where someone can push a power button, and start doing office work in about a minute. its built to take full advantage of your processor to multitask applications that do your office work (NOT for GAMES) - so hardware acceleration isn't REQUIRED. so the other thing is, OS X is MORE stable than windows Vista [EXCEPT the new 64 Bit Edition] - If you are wanting to "game" or do "video editing" then what you need is a windows PC (beware of stability though).
When snow leopard comes out, with grand central, OSX will be able to take full advantage of hardware acceleration.

So looking at the above, THAT Is when i will BUY a Macbook, Use BOOTCAMP, and then Install Vista 64Bit (which will hopefully be supported by Snow Leopard) and have the best of BOTH systems!

i expect about a 1-2 year wait.

Who's With me?? - and NOTE i am NOT bashing EITHER... it would be MUCH better to have BOTH operating system (stability of a mac for schoolwork) and Power of Vista for Gaming.:D

Precisely why I have a Mac & PC. The only thing on the PC is Vista Business 64 and games. Nothing else. Still run bootcamp with 32 bit Vista for Games on the road. Works great, no crashes, no slowdows. Gets warm but no indication of over-heating.

I also have a company provided HP laptop. Great at everything except games but supports the Notes apps that do not run under the Mac version of Notes. Some day, I will only have a Mac (perhaps when I can afford a Mac Pro with bootcamp to a 4870 based Vista 64 install)

Cheers,

Zer00
Aug 28, 2008, 12:56 AM
there should be one thing clear
mac is not a computer for "office-work"
every single mac or mac product has een produced for multimedia and entertainment.

Amoeba
Aug 28, 2008, 03:14 AM
Hey i was wondering if anyone knew if a game like Starcraft 2 could possibly be playable on a current macbook or would it be much wiser to wait to see what the new macbook is like?

macbooker15
Aug 28, 2008, 10:43 AM
OK... Guys LET ME GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT HERE!!!

WINDOWS AND MAC BOTH HAVE THIER ADVANTAGES!!!!

Windows Vista:
because of DX10 it has great gaming capabilities... and it allows people to take full advantage of their hardware to run some very nice games.... on the SIDE it does have applications that are somewhat useful... but MOSTLY you must download/get them somehow. Stability is an issue, as of so far, only the 64 Bit Versions of Vista are actually very stable... vista does NOT take full advantage of multiple cores.

Mac OS X:
OS X is mainly built to be a FAST out of the BOX system, where someone can push a power button, and start doing office work in about a minute. its built to take full advantage of your processor to multitask applications that do your office work (NOT for GAMES) - so hardware acceleration isn't REQUIRED. so the other thing is, OS X is MORE stable than windows Vista [EXCEPT the new 64 Bit Edition] - If you are wanting to "game" or do "video editing" then what you need is a windows PC (beware of stability though).
When snow leopard comes out, with grand central, OSX will be able to take full advantage of hardware acceleration.

So looking at the above, THAT Is when i will BUY a Macbook, Use BOOTCAMP, and then Install Vista 64Bit (which will hopefully be supported by Snow Leopard) and have the best of BOTH systems!

i expect about a 1-2 year wait.

Who's With me?? - and NOTE i am NOT bashing EITHER... it would be MUCH better to have BOTH operating system (stability of a mac for schoolwork) and Power of Vista for Gaming.:D

+1 for that

fedup flyer
Aug 28, 2008, 02:07 PM
there should be one thing clear
mac is not a computer for "office-work"
every single mac or mac product has een produced for multimedia and entertainment.


HAHAHHAHAHA
You are high.
I know for a fact the Steve Jobs' Gulfstream interior was designed on a Mac. (One of the guys that did the work was on of my friends). So I guess that interior design and professional video editing dont count as office work.
I used to work in the office of an aircraft charter department and we used MACS for price quotes, flight planning, etc. I guess that doesn't count as office work either.

MVApple
Aug 28, 2008, 02:10 PM
I have some extra cash I can spend on some new toys and I've been looking at all of Apple's products, mainly because I own and find the iPod Touch to be an amazing device, and also because I would like a new computer.

Apple's products are not as expensive as people claim them to be though. The problem with many arguements is that people are comparing bare specifications. First of all, even in "pc" terms, if you want the most bang for your buck, you buy a laptop with a 14" or 15" screen. I don't know why, but manufactures can dish out cheaper laptops at the larger sizes than at the smaller 12" and 13" sizes.

The main point people are missing in comparing pcs and macs is engineeringThere are several laptops that claim to be only an inch thick, but they measure an inch thick on the front and on the back they go up to 1.3 inches. The Macbook though is just a tad over an inch thick all around, Apple has an obession with thiness but this adds to the cost of the laptop, which is why most manufactures do not bother doing this. Also, show me a laptop with a magsafe power supply that isn't an Apple, or how about showing me one that has an optical out port? All of these little features adds on to the price of the Macbook and the only other computer manfacturer that can match Apple in terms of engineering and style is Sony. Sony makes some very nice pcs, and they make some budget pcs that aren't at all impressive but are geared towards those who are more budget conscience. If you look at Sony's nice laptops though, you'll see theres a "premium" to be paid, again the engineering involved adds to the cost.

The premium you pay for an Apple isn't just because its an Apple, it's because of the engineering Apple puts in, same as Sony's higher end laptops. If you dont care for the sleek designs, or the small added touches like the magsafe power supply then you are better off getting a pc because your percieved value for your dollar will be higher.

Apple doesn't and will probably never make a low end Macbook the way some manafactures make budget pcs. Can they? I'm sure they could but that would dilute there name brand and I just can't seem them doing that.

Zer00
Aug 28, 2008, 03:06 PM
HAHAHHAHAHA
You are high.
I know for a fact the Steve Jobs' Gulfstream interior was designed on a Mac. (One of the guys that did the work was on of my friends). So I guess that interior design and professional video editing dont count as office work.
I used to work in the office of an aircraft charter department and we used MACS for price quotes, flight planning, etc. I guess that doesn't count as office work either.

well but it is multimedia at the same time -.-
u could call anything office work then because everyone does something else.

timestoby
Aug 28, 2008, 03:08 PM
wot a noob,why would you buy something you know nothing about,nor do any type of research about it.

mosx
Aug 28, 2008, 03:47 PM
mosx, it makes me laugh seeing you spend so much time here and ranting about how much better Vista is than OSX...why do you even have a mac if you hate it so much?

Spending so much time here? It only takes a handful of minutes to post here. Its not like I'm wasting away hours or anything.

I have a Mac because I was stupid and bought into the Apple Hype©. After about 4 months of owning a Mac and getting passed the "honeymoon" and seeing how I could have gotten hardware that was more than twice as powerful at the time (GMA 950 versus GeForce Go 7600) for $600 less, I realized that Macs were just that: hype. OS X isn't all its cracked up to be at all and Windows with cheaper hardware is far more capable.

I still have my Mac because its far too much of a hassle to sell it and I'll lose too much money if I sell it.

mos x can rant and no one can take that away from him. However, like you said. If he hates Macs so much, why on Earth is he still using one?

Thank you ;) And I still use it because I'm too lazy to sell it and I'd lose too much money in the process. I should have taken that refund that was offered to me when my second MacBook (a replacement for a faulty unit) started having issues itself.

(this fact I want a statistic, and a current one on iLife usage since he says 99,999/100,000 don't use it, well, give me a link or url to an article by a respectable mag or research that shows this)

Why not ask around here or other forums? I came up with my own opinion based on the fact that I read a lot of forums and usually only a very small number of people take advantage of the iLife apps outside of iPhoto and iTunes.

This is why I am wondering, why the hell hasn't mos x sold his MacBook if his Windows machine does everything he needs?

Again, I'm lazy and I don't want to lose that much money. However, lately I have been tempted to sell it and put it towards a desktop PC. For the money my MacBook is still worth I could easily build a desktop PC that would be a better gaming machine than a Mac Pro ;)

well from March and April 2008 with people hoping (yet again) for a service pack to improve things. Hopefully everyone is happy with its improvement.

What sites? What kind of people? How many of them were still XP users that voted against Vista? You know, thanks to Apple's lies, Vista has a pretty bad reputation and people think Vista is bad by default.

I had a recent experience like what MS is doing. I knew someone who wanted a new notebook but didn't want Vista and was intelligent enough to realize that Macs are overpriced. So I let use Vista on my HP and she said "this is great. why does Vista have such a bad reputation?"

As for OEM's selling XP pre-installed as you mentioned HP - here's what they said "We do still offer XP on a select number of our existing consumer notebook, gaming and business products," said a spokesman for HP. "This will continue through the XP end of life date on June 30, 2008."
Are their gaming products - low-end? In fact apparently there is still a loophole that allows XP until Jan 2009

Well, I'd like for you to go back and find some of those gaming products they offered it on. Because I frequented the HP site during that time, helping people find computers that would fit their needs, and the only consumer product they offered XP on was a low end Compaq that started at $399. But like I said, it at least came with a DVD writer.

The point of the iLife apps is that you don't need to go search and downloading to just get on doing stuff - you already have them. and they will work. 0.01% - nice statistic another mosx opinion maybe. The whole iWeb thing is your opinion - people won't use it because its linked to mobile me....your opinion is not evidence.

Prove that they do. Of all of the people I know in person and from all of the forums I've read, this one included, not a single person regularly uses any iLife application outside of iTunes and iPhoto. One girl I know has been a Mac user all of her life and she refuses to use iPhoto because it takes so ridiculously long to import pictures from her camera. I showed her how much easier it was to pop the memory card into the memory card reader in my HP and how fast Vista copied the pictures off and she was extremely jealous.

You also say "Vista comes with very comparable software to OS X out of the box, its just not publicized because, quite honestly, nobody uses it or its equivalent iLife app" - what are these microsoft Vista apps that are comparable.

Windows Photo Gallery is basically a direct ripoff of iPhoto but its faster and has separate libraries for video and photos.

The current version of Windows Movie Maker (not the one from the ME/XP days) is about making real movies for DVD, not about youtube clips like the current version of iMovie. It also takes far fewer system resources.

Windows DVD Maker is is the iDVD equivalent. It doesn't have the pointless 3D menus (everyone I know hates DVD menus anyway, they want it quick and too the point) and it also takes far fewer system resources than iDVD.

Both of those apps also take full advantage of hardware acceleration.

Garageband? Well, Vista doesn't have any equal software. But Garageband is pretty pointless anyway for most people. The musicians and other music creators I know won't even touch Garageband.

iWeb? Well, like I said, iWeb is essentially useless if you don't have Mobile Me. Everything is designed around Mobile Me. If you don't publish to MM, you have to go in and change the coding and such to publish it on a different site. That completely ruins the point of iWeb and if you're someone with that kind of knowledge, you're going to use a more advanced editor or code by hand.

The Mac is capable out of the box - I'm not sure what you mean by "fully capable" but if you need to edit movies

Because everyone has a video camera, right? Everyone makes home movies all of the time, right? All quality video cameras ship with video editing software thats more advanced than iMovie anyway, so whats the point? Even my old Leadtek TV tuner shipped with uLead Video Studio and DVD Movie Factory. Full versions. More advanced than iMovie or iDVD and the whole package was only $60 at that time. And that was 4 years ago.

Everyone goes on and on about how Macs ship with iMovie and iDVD. But in reality, you don't need them. Any good DV cam you buy is going to ship with quality editing software (for Windows) that is higher quality than either one of those applications and does the same plus more.

Now I know someone is going to say "but the point of a Mac is you don't need that extra software" and to that I will say yeah, but the Mac comes with inferior software compared to those products. Why should I settle for less?

photos

Windows does this too.

music

Garageband is a joke for anyone who wants to seriously make music. For someone who just wants to play with instruments and string things together, there are plenty of freeware apps that are better than Garageband.

For playing music, Windows has much more variety in terms of software players (better than iTunes, mainly because of the lack of bloat) and in terms of music stores.

create web pages

If you want to pay $100 a year for Mobile Me, sure. If you don't have Mobile Me then its useless.

write scripts

Because everyone wants to be a movie writer? I can't open up WordPad in Vista and do the same? Considering OS X only ships with TextEdit.

play movies

At much lower quality than Windows thanks to integrated graphics and the lack of technology similar to DXVA.

write and make DVD's

Windows does this too.

Yes there is room for improvement and yes you can download more software but that doesn't mean you can't already do stuff.

Very limited stuff. In some cases, not as high quality as Windows and in other cases no more than Windows lets you do you out of the box. Let's not forget that in some instances, like Front Row versus Media Center, Windows wins hands down ;)

I don't care for the coffee shop argument but yet again - you answer is based solely on you opinion and to be honest - it does sound like an inferiority complex when you accuse Mac users of appearing to "feel better than the rest of us".

It only sounds like an inferiority complex to an elitest Mac owner ;) I see most Mac owners as foolish people who bought into a fad because they were told they were getting a superior product but, in the end, got an inferior product and paid twice what they should have.

As for the whole downgrade to XP thing - you wanted proof :- http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/08...ngraded-to-xp/

I don't remember if it was this thread or the other where I mentioned this already. Even if that number were true, that still makes leaves what? 5 times the amount of people using Vista compared to Mac users as a whole. Roughly 10x as many people using Vista as Leopard.

The blog also mentions that the original article author seems to feel that Microsoft is shifting focus away from Vista and on to Windows 7. This after Microsoft announced a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to spread the truth about Vista and clear up Apple's lies.

You see, its only the media and Apple fans that have a problem with Vista. Not the real users ;) There are a number of legitimate reasons for businesses and such to want to stick with XP. For example, its easier for their IT department to XP across the board or it would be too costly to upgrade the entire business to Vista so the few new computers they NEED to buy still have XP on them.

Microsoft and manufacturers at least give consumers and businesses the CHOICE of what they want. With Apple its the iWay or the highway. You either get Leopard or nothing at all, even if your software will only run on Tiger and your business depends on it.


And if all of the articles I read on Vista being a resource hog are even half true then it doesn't say much for your "takes advantage of the hardware" argument. More like - takes it round the back of the bicycle shed and spanks it.

You're missing the point.

First of all, my statements about Vista taking advantage of the hardware have to do with things like video playback being handed off to the GPU rather than being done all in software.

Second, people called Vista a resource hog at first because they noticed their 2GB of RAM was all being used up. Its just the way Vista handles memory and they're used to the XP/Leopard way of using memory as needed. However, this makes Vista faster. All of my most used apps open instantly after a fresh boot, where in OS X they all take seconds or more to open after a fresh boot.

I don't know about you guys, but I enjoy mosx's posts. They're the voice of reason amidst a crowd of fanboys who will buy Mac no matter what. Macs aren't the only thing out there, and Apple could really improve. The OS isn't everything. Hardware matters too.

Thank you ;)

I'm keeping my Macbook, but I'll be buying a Nehalem HP notebook in a year, unless Apple really delivers by then, for a good, competitive price. The price, quality, and features of HP's really outdo Apple. No overheating for one, and dedicated graphics on any machine that's worth something.

Exactly. For $1299 you don't get much at all. This is why I've been pushing everyone towards HP, Gateway, or custom manufacturers like ibuypower. For $1299 you deserve to get a lot more hardware for the money.

I would have bought a PC now if I had known better. I don't hate my machine, but the excessive heat on menial tasks, as well as poor games and flash player performance are quite bad.

Exactly. If I had realized what I was getting into when I bought my Mac, rather than believing the hype and just going off of past experience with Macs, I would have bought a PC instead as well. Thankfully things worked out and I was able to get the HP I have now.

The excessive heat is why my MacBook sits closed and shut down right now. Its a warm day here in the desert and I need a system that runs cool. Not excessively hot because a website has a flash ad. Plus I might want to play a game later. My HP playing games runs at the same temp as my MacBook does idle (55-61c for both)

their processors are running at 30% usage as opposed to Vista 0.3% watching a YouTube video? Who the hell honestly cares?

Everybody should care. Lower CPU use on trivial tasks means longer battery life, less heat, and overall longer component life thanks to lower heat and less stress.

Oh let me guess you care? Yes, well see YOUR needs and expectations do not match the needs and expectations of thousands of other people, so if YOU need more efficient processing by the operating system then YOU should switch and stop bitching about it to people who just use their Macs for simple tasks and could care less about how efficiently their flash is working for them this fine afternoon.

Hey, if Mac users want to spend more money on hardware that will not last as long because of inefficient programming then they are more than welcome to do that. But theres no reason other people can't say "hey! This isn't right! this task shouldn't require that much CPU use".

Are you willing to argue with me that Microsoft's kernel is way safer than the Unix kernel that OSX, Linux distributions and pretty much every web server on the internet uses? If you are, I would be more than happy to ask some real programmers and other I.T people I know, and ask what they think of any possible argument you can come up with. Really, go ahead try! Go look on Wikipedia for your little statistics and Google "How is Windows better than Linux? because I need to look uber-smart on some macforums filled with FANBOYS!!" go on! I know you were going to do it!

The kernel and protections Microsoft have put in place with Vista are two different things. UAC as well as other protections in IE, FF, Windows Mail, etc. protect the system. The kernel itself might not be as "secure" as Linux, however, combined with the other protections and the fact that Windows itself generally only lets signed software modify the system, the user would have to actively try to modify it to mess things up.

Or maybe 0.01% of us could make you a picture book using iLife about your time on these forums

Hey I can do that with HP Photosmart Essentials. And the book will cost half as much as the Apple printed one and I'm not stuck with Apple's stock designs ;)

Yes I am serious.

and since this is a mac forum, we dont need windows "fanboys" or whatever to come on here and talk about highly about windows when we DONT want to hear it...i mean, if you really want to talk to people about how windows "takes advantage of the hardware its on" then go to a windows forum and do it there...theres no point doing it here, we are here to talk macs

Theres no reason there can't be intelligent discussing regarding the differences between the two.

It only gets "out of hand" when the Apple diehards don't like hearing the truth, that their OS isn't as good as it could be.

everything from video editing

With the exception of Final Cut Pro (which I generally hear is overrated from my friends in video creation), all standard video editing software and hardware is on the PC.

2D and 3D animation (maya works SO much better on a mac than pc)

How do you know this? Most 3D modeling and such apps use the GPU for the real-time manipulation and then the CPU for the actual rendering. With Macs generally having low-end GPUs or Intel GPUs, I can't imagine 3D work being good at all on a Mac. I know an artist who relies on Blender for her work and she wouldn't touch a Mac because the MacBook Pro was overpriced and underpowered for the price and the MacBook had an Intel GPU.

photo editing

Photoshop runs the same on Windows as it does on OS X. In fact, Windows will get 64-bit Photoshop before OS X ;) And if Adobe ever does start to use the GPU... well, you're stuck with low-end GPUs on MacBook Pros and Mac Pros versus high end for half the price on Windows PCs.

ive started to like safari so much ive put it on my PC and have been using it as my main browser

Firefox 3 is way better than Safari. Its faster, more stable. And it at least has spoofing/phishing protection. Some security experts warn against Safari because of its lack of spoofing and phishing detection.

and it allows people to take full advantage of their hardware to run some very nice games

And high definition video, like blu-ray discs.

Stability is an issue, as of so far, only the 64 Bit Versions of Vista are actually very stable

Not true. Leopard crashed for me yesterday. You know what I was doing while it crashed? I was moving the mouse. I was going to click to open Firefox and before I could get the mouse to the dock to open FF OS X just locked up for no reason.

Vista has NEVER crashed on me. It has NEVER given me a BSOD, nothing. Windows on my Mac is rock solid as well. But Leopard? Unstable. Random crashes during random tasks that can never be repeated.

vista does NOT take full advantage of multiple cores

How does it not? Both Vista and Leopard take advantage of multiple cores the same way. By handing tasks off to different cores for better multi-tasking. If a multi-threaded app comes along, then the app gets to use both cores at once.

mosx
Aug 28, 2008, 03:48 PM
OS X is mainly built to be a FAST out of the BOX system, where someone can push a power button, and start doing office work in about a minute.

Fast boot time does not make a system itself fast. If you watch activity monitor or iStat pro, you'll see that some processes eating up CPU and HDD cycles are going on in the background for well after the time you've reached a useable desktop.

its built to take full advantage of your processor to multitask applications that do your office work (NOT for GAMES)

Again, how is this any different than what Windows does? Both will micro-manage tasks to different CPU cores to allow for better multi-tasking. You'll have MS Office running on 1 core, iTunes on the other on Vista/XP or Leopard. If you happen to have multiple apps open, as most of us do, then the tasks get divided between the cores based on load. Its no different on either OS. What is different is that Windows generally uses LESS CPU time to get the same task done.

so hardware acceleration isn't REQUIRED.

Hardware acceleration for office work? heh.

Another person missing the point. Hardware acceleration is good for tasks that can be handed off to specific hardware. Such as video or audio.

so the other thing is, OS X is MORE stable than windows Vista [EXCEPT the new 64 Bit Edition] - If you are wanting to "game" or do "video editing" then what you need is a windows PC (beware of stability though).

Again, that is not true. I'm running Vista 32-bit and I have NOT had it crash on me EVER. Nor have I ever had a BSOD. The only instability I ever had was the first version of Firefox3. But 3.0.1 fixed all of that. Where my Mac with Leopard (and my MacBook with Tiger before that) will crash randomly doing random things and I can never repeat the crash. It just simply happens during random tasks at random times. I've run the in-depth Apple Hardware Test and it showed everything as perfect. Windows on the same system installed via Boot Camp, however, is rock solid. I don't have Windows on it at the moment because I intend to re-partition the drive and dedicated the majority of it to Vista and make OS X the secondary OS.

When snow leopard comes out, with grand central, OSX will be able to take full advantage of hardware acceleration.

Again, you're missing the point. I mentioned hardware acceleration for tasks that can be handed off to the hardware that was designed for such tasks.

Thanks to nvidia and ATI, developers for Windows can ALREADY take full advantage of GPUs if they want extra speed. To put that extra speed in perspective, the F@H client on my GeForce 8400M GS can spit out 3 completed units in the time it takes the PS3 to do ONE.

Also, Grand Central is a technology (according to Apple) that will "make better use of multi-core processors".

What you're talking about is OpenCL. That depends on Apple's OpenGL support which, at this moment, is terrible. If Apple wants OpenCL to be taken seriously, then they need get off their butt and join the modern world with their OpenGL support.

OpenCL will also be essentially useless on any MacBook with an Intel GPU.

So looking at the above, THAT Is when i will BUY a Macbook, Use BOOTCAMP, and then Install Vista 64Bit (which will hopefully be supported by Snow Leopard) and have the best of BOTH systems!

Boot Camp already supports Vista 64-bit.

Apple's products are not as expensive as people claim them to be though. The problem with many arguements is that people are comparing bare specifications. First of all, even in "pc" terms, if you want the most bang for your buck, you buy a laptop with a 14" or 15" screen. I don't know why, but manufactures can dish out cheaper laptops at the larger sizes than at the smaller 12" and 13" sizes.

Because sales prove that people want 15.4" and bigger screens.

And as I've pointed out before, the vast majority of people who buy a MacBook do NOT buy it for its size. They buy it because its the only Mac they can afford.

There are several laptops that claim to be only an inch thick, but they measure an inch thick on the front and on the back they go up to 1.3 inches. The Macbook though is just a tad over an inch thick all around, Apple has an obession with thiness but this adds to the cost of the laptop, which is why most manufactures do not bother doing this.

Nobody will claim to be an inch thick if its not. My HP is an inch thick at the front and 1.5 at the back. This actually works out because it allows for PROPER COOLING and my CPU idles 20c lower than that in my MacBook. My GPU and CPU peak under load about the same as the MacBook idles. It also keeps the external case COOL so I don't have to worry about getting ridiculously uncomfortable like with the MacBook.

PCs and Macs are like women. Curvy and well designed is better than stick thin ;)

Also, show me a laptop with a magsafe power supply that isn't an Apple

Considering that MagSafe adapters are known fire hazards, I'd rather not have one. Besides, HP and most all other manufacturers have solved the problems with DC jacks becoming disconnected on the motherboard. They're on their own reinforced boards now.

how about showing me one that has an optical out port?

I had a $1,000 HP before the MacBook was released that had optical in and out.

Now most PC notebooks do digital audio out through their STANDARD HDMI outputs.

Let's compare connectivity of a MacBook to a standard notebook PC, shall we? MacBook has mini-DVI that requires adapters for ANY connection, costing $20 a piece. It has 1 Firewire, 2 USB, optical audio in and out, and ethernet. A standard PC will have HDCP certified HDMI output (and most quality displays have HDMI inputs these days), VGA, S-Video, 3 USB, 1 Firewire, 2 headphone jacks, 1 input, memory card reader, full size ExpressCard, gigabit ethernet (just like the MacBook), dialup modem, and a docking station port.

Yeah I'd say more goes into the PC than the Mac.

The premium you pay for an Apple isn't just because its an Apple, it's because of the engineering Apple puts in, same as Sony's higher end laptops. If you dont care for the sleek designs, or the small added touches like the magsafe power supply then you are better off getting a pc because your percieved value for your dollar will be higher.

Again, MagSafe is a fire hazard. I don't care about "sleek" or "stylish" designs because I'm not shallow. I don't care if someone thinks my PC is ugly (my HP looks better than my Mac anyway). And a standard notebook PC will get you far more connectivity and features than a Mac. Oh, and Sony was, at one time, more overpriced than Apple. But recently they've lowered their prices to become more in-line with others.

kabunaru
Aug 28, 2008, 04:02 PM
mosx, what will it take for Apple to change your perception about Macs and Mac OS X? Basically, what do you want Apple to change before you even consider buying another Mac. I would like to hear your opinion and I like reading your posts.

Also, would you ever buy another Mac besides the MacBook?

mosx
Aug 28, 2008, 05:09 PM
mosx, what will it take for Apple to change your perception about Macs and Mac OS X? Basically, what do you want Apple to change before you even consider buying another Mac. I would like to hear your opinion and I like reading your posts.

Also, would you ever buy another Mac besides the MacBook?

Glad you enjoy my rants ;)

Apple would need to do a couple of things. First and most importantly to me, since I'm a big movie fan, they need to get hardware acceleration going for all video codecs across the entire OS on GPUs that support it. That includes HDCP support.

Second, they need to bring dedicated graphics back to the entire line. Its appalling that the Apple TV has a GeForce 7200 in it, a card better than any of the Intel GPUs, and it costs significantly less than any Mac. The last generation of iBooks had Radeon 9550s, which, when paired with an equal processor, are still better than any Intel GPU. The G4 Mac mini had a Radeon 9200. While it lacks Pixel Shader 3.0, for games and video it would perform better with an equal CPU.

If they put the equivalent of a GeForce 8400M GS in the MacBook and came up with a real cooling solution for it, I'd be happy. Theres no reason for such an expensive computer to have such low end hardware. Especially not when the Apple TV has dedicated graphics that it doesn't even use. If it did use the GPU it wouldn't be hardware limited to 4Mbps 720p H.264 video. That GeForce 7200 can push blu-ray video.

I'd buy a Mac mini for $799 if it also had a GeForce 8400M GS equivalent and HDMI output.

But I won't buy an iMac. I refuse to spend $1500 on a desktop computer that is built off of mobile parts, except for the HDD. I certainly won't buy a Mac Pro ever either, considering you can count the number of applications on one hand that can take advantage of more than 2 cores. There are many games that can use as many cores as you can throw at them, but your GPU options for the Mac Pro are extremely limited and extremely expensive. ATI's new GPU is coming for the Mac Pro and its going to cost nearly double what you can find it for on the PC. If you're an average person, a 3GHz Core 2 Duo with the GeForce GTX 2x0 series for roughly 1/3 the prices will be a better buy. If you're a hardware enthusiast, a GTX 280 and that same 3GHz Core 2 Duo (or slower Core 2 Quad) overclocked (both) to 4GHz on stock cooling will give you more performance than the Mac Pro in its current form could. Plus the Xeon, while being built off Core 2 architecture, is designed more for server and work station style performance. The actual Core 2 Duo and Quad lines are built for gaming and multimedia.

I would also say Apple needs to work on efficiency and the bloat of their software, but it seems thats what Snow Leopard is for. Hopefully Apple can trim file sizes down and cut down the amount of RAM many apps use and optimize CPU use, because some of the apps just eat up far more RAM and CPU cycles than they need to.

Winter Charm
Aug 28, 2008, 05:43 PM
there should be one thing clear
mac is not a computer for "office-work"
every single mac or mac product has een produced for multimedia and entertainment.

ONE small problem with that...

OS X has NO HARDWARE ACCELERATION... HOW am i supposed to PLAY GAMES ON IT???

Video, Pictures and stuff like that i can understand (they are too valueable for me to trust to windows!!!)

and i definetly plan on using iMovie and iDVD to burn stuff like home videos.

Beric
Aug 28, 2008, 06:41 PM
-snip-

And don't forget better flash support.

Flash is prevalent in today's online world. And yet on any Mac in OS X (Windows on the same machine is not so) there is extreme heat and low fps. I can have JUST Safari up on my Macbook, and try to play a flash game or watch a Youtube video. My machine quickly heats to 170+ Fahrenheit, the fans crank up, my lap is stinging in the pain, and my battery life goes down to 1.5 hours, from the 4 hours battery life I normally get with just a browser open.

Completely unacceptable.

mosx
Aug 28, 2008, 06:50 PM
And don't forget better flash support.

Flash is prevalent in today's online world. And yet on any Mac in OS X (Windows on the same machine is not so) there is extreme heat and low fps. I can have JUST Safari up on my Macbook, and try to play a flash game or watch a Youtube video. My machine quickly heats to 170+ Fahrenheit, the fans crank up, my lap is stinging in the pain, and my battery life goes down to 1.5 hours, from the 4 hours battery life I normally get with just a browser open.

Completely unacceptable.

haha thats true. I forgot about that. I generally try to avoid Flash when I'm on my MacBook. Which means avoiding youtube and most sites in general.

Come to think of it, all I really use my Mac for these days is... well, emailing, light browsing, and syncing my iPods and iPhone. I love my iPods and iPhone but Mac OS X is.. not good.

Flash wouldn't be so bad if Apple had better OpenGL support. Considering that Flash 9 makes full use of the hardware at hand. Apple needs to put some real graphics hardware into the MacBook (nothing that relies on the CPU!) and bring their OpenGL support into the modern world.

It seems almost as if they kind of hacked in OpenGL 2.0 support after the specifications and hardware were made public more than half a decade ago and they haven't updated their support for it since.

Apple really needs to bring their OpenGL support up to speed and give us dedicated graphics. Modern GPUs can handle Flash, video, and GUI eye candy like Core Animation in reduced power states. It'll help our battery life and fertility when using MacBooks on our laps.

I also wanted to point out that the Apple TV has the more powerful GeForce Go 7300, not the 7200 I have accidentally been typing.

macbooker15
Aug 28, 2008, 06:50 PM
Glad you enjoy my rants ;)

Apple would need to do a couple of things. First and most importantly to me, since I'm a big movie fan, they need to get hardware acceleration going for all video codecs across the entire OS on GPUs that support it. That includes HDCP support.

Second, they need to bring dedicated graphics back to the entire line. Its appalling that the Apple TV has a GeForce 7200 in it, a card better than any of the Intel GPUs, and it costs significantly less than any Mac. The last generation of iBooks had Radeon 9550s, which, when paired with an equal processor, are still better than any Intel GPU. The G4 Mac mini had a Radeon 9200. While it lacks Pixel Shader 3.0, for games and video it would perform better with an equal CPU.

If they put the equivalent of a GeForce 8400M GS in the MacBook and came up with a real cooling solution for it, I'd be happy. Theres no reason for such an expensive computer to have such low end hardware. Especially not when the Apple TV has dedicated graphics that it doesn't even use. If it did use the GPU it wouldn't be hardware limited to 4Mbps 720p H.264 video. That GeForce 7200 can push blu-ray video.

I'd buy a Mac mini for $799 if it also had a GeForce 8400M GS equivalent and HDMI output.

But I won't buy an iMac. I refuse to spend $1500 on a desktop computer that is built off of mobile parts, except for the HDD. I certainly won't buy a Mac Pro ever either, considering you can count the number of applications on one hand that can take advantage of more than 2 cores. There are many games that can use as many cores as you can throw at them, but your GPU options for the Mac Pro are extremely limited and extremely expensive. ATI's new GPU is coming for the Mac Pro and its going to cost nearly double what you can find it for on the PC. If you're an average person, a 3GHz Core 2 Duo with the GeForce GTX 2x0 series for roughly 1/3 the prices will be a better buy. If you're a hardware enthusiast, a GTX 280 and that same 3GHz Core 2 Duo (or slower Core 2 Quad) overclocked (both) to 4GHz on stock cooling will give you more performance than the Mac Pro in its current form could. Plus the Xeon, while being built off Core 2 architecture, is designed more for server and work station style performance. The actual Core 2 Duo and Quad lines are built for gaming and multimedia.

I would also say Apple needs to work on efficiency and the bloat of their software, but it seems thats what Snow Leopard is for. Hopefully Apple can trim file sizes down and cut down the amount of RAM many apps use and optimize CPU use, because some of the apps just eat up far more RAM and CPU cycles than they need to.

I like your rants too...sometimes i dont agree though. I think this post was extremely logical, and i agree completely with your reasoning here. I have a Macbook 2nd rev and I love it and leopard...but i do have things i really dont like.

1. Entry Level model: NO DVD Burner!! Come on apple!

2. 1 GB of RAM...My windows desktop from 6 years ago has 1 GB of RAM!

3. Leopard is still unstable..I too get random system lock-ups. But they're OK, its still not as bad as my old XP desktop :).

4. Cracks...nuff said

5. Temperature and flash support....nuff said

But I also love my Mac, for these reasons

1. Leopard Design: I think that Leopard is an amazingly well designed OS, quirks and all.

2. UNIX Substructure: I like the large bounty of Open source programs and freeware available for UNIX and mac. The terminal is also a lot more powerful.

3. No Bloatware, only usefulware..nuff said

4. The little things: Magsafe, two finger scrolling, etc. (NOTE: Magsafe fire hazard has 1880 hits in google, so i would assume its not much of a problem)

5. Devotedness of mac delelopers: nuff said.

Therefore i do prefer a mac to a PC. But i dont consider myself a mac fanboy.

kabunaru
Aug 28, 2008, 07:08 PM
Glad you enjoy my rants ;)

Apple would need to do a couple of things. First and most importantly to me, since I'm a big movie fan, they need to get hardware acceleration going for all video codecs across the entire OS on GPUs that support it. That includes HDCP support.

Second, they need to bring dedicated graphics back to the entire line. Its appalling that the Apple TV has a GeForce 7200 in it, a card better than any of the Intel GPUs, and it costs significantly less than any Mac. The last generation of iBooks had Radeon 9550s, which, when paired with an equal processor, are still better than any Intel GPU. The G4 Mac mini had a Radeon 9200. While it lacks Pixel Shader 3.0, for games and video it would perform better with an equal CPU.

If they put the equivalent of a GeForce 8400M GS in the MacBook and came up with a real cooling solution for it, I'd be happy. Theres no reason for such an expensive computer to have such low end hardware. Especially not when the Apple TV has dedicated graphics that it doesn't even use. If it did use the GPU it wouldn't be hardware limited to 4Mbps 720p H.264 video. That GeForce 7200 can push blu-ray video.

I'd buy a Mac mini for $799 if it also had a GeForce 8400M GS equivalent and HDMI output.

But I won't buy an iMac. I refuse to spend $1500 on a desktop computer that is built off of mobile parts, except for the HDD. I certainly won't buy a Mac Pro ever either, considering you can count the number of applications on one hand that can take advantage of more than 2 cores. There are many games that can use as many cores as you can throw at them, but your GPU options for the Mac Pro are extremely limited and extremely expensive. ATI's new GPU is coming for the Mac Pro and its going to cost nearly double what you can find it for on the PC. If you're an average person, a 3GHz Core 2 Duo with the GeForce GTX 2x0 series for roughly 1/3 the prices will be a better buy. If you're a hardware enthusiast, a GTX 280 and that same 3GHz Core 2 Duo (or slower Core 2 Quad) overclocked (both) to 4GHz on stock cooling will give you more performance than the Mac Pro in its current form could. Plus the Xeon, while being built off Core 2 architecture, is designed more for server and work station style performance. The actual Core 2 Duo and Quad lines are built for gaming and multimedia.

I would also say Apple needs to work on efficiency and the bloat of their software, but it seems thats what Snow Leopard is for. Hopefully Apple can trim file sizes down and cut down the amount of RAM many apps use and optimize CPU use, because some of the apps just eat up far more RAM and CPU cycles than they need to.

To tell you the truth, I agree with you. I don't dislike Macs but you show the truth right now. Let's hope these September Mac updates would be surprising.

MVApple
Aug 28, 2008, 08:49 PM
MOSX if you don't care about style and the small touches that go into a product then Apple is the wrong company for you. You're like the majority of American's, easily given and satisfied with mediocrity. I bet you're the type of guy that walks into best buy and buys the biggest tv for the lowest amount of money, nevermind quality.

Yes Apple's laptops have had technical issues, just like any other product. It's easy to pick on Apple's notebooks because they are so popular and have an entire forum dedicated to them, but the bottom line is that if you want rock bottom prices then don't go for a Mac because the R&D that goes into an Apple computer will raise the price.

Why do you spend so much time bashing on Apple though? You [I]easily[I] spend a few hours on here reading through posts and posting. No way do you spend a few minutes.

Are you that bitter about making the wrong purchase? Install Vista on your mac and be done with it, at this point you look like a petty troll.

mosx
Aug 28, 2008, 11:20 PM
To tell you the truth, I agree with you. I don't dislike Macs but you show the truth right now. Let's hope these September Mac updates would be surprising.

I hope so too. I like to see Apple giving Microsoft and others some good competition. But they've fallen behind.

When the Intel Macs were first released, they were priced very close to PCs. There was a little bit of an Apple Premium but not much. You had very similar specs compared to PCs. The only difference is that the PC might have had 1GB of RAM where the Mac had 512MB. You might have seen 80GB in the PC while the Mac had a 60GB HDD.

But now thats completely different. For $750 now you can get an HP with 3GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, blu-ray reader, integrated graphics that put the rest to shame.

Apple really needs to get off of their "update every 6 to 8 month" schedule. It really keeps them behind. It worked back in the PowerPC days because they generally had no competition in that area. But now they're using standard PC parts. And this 6 to 8 month cycle just doesn't cut it. For the past 3 months or so you could walk into Best Buy or Fry's and you'd see the $1299 MacBook with its small screen and Intel graphics sitting next to a $1300 Gateway with a much bigger screen and a GeForce 8800M GTS. Now if you're an average person, whats better to you? Something with a big screen that can play all the latest games? Or something thats small and has fallen behind the curve in hardware?

Every "Joe Sixpack" I know whats a computer with a big screen that can play CoD4 better than other people.

MOSX if you don't care about style and the small touches that go into a product then Apple is the wrong company for you.

What small touches? You mean the discoloring cases? That discolor from both regular use and heat? The cracking caused by the magnetic latches? The AC adapter that has a cord thats notorious for fraying and becoming a fire hazard? The fact that I can't replace my optical drive if it ever dies? The lack of dedicated graphics? Or how about the case getting ridiculously hot during trivial tasks? How about the MacBook Pro? What small touches does it have? Even worse heat issues than the MacBook? The same fire hazard AC adapter? A case that will not discolor, but instead warps from heat? A cooling system linked to mountains of motherboard failures? Yellow screens? Both an optical drive and HDD that are NOT user replaceable? How about both systems lacking standard connectivity like HDMI ports, memory card readers, full size ExpressCard slots? Even many "netbooks" have that!

You're like the majority of American's, easily given and satisfied with mediocrity.

Not to be an ass, but the MacBook and MacBook Pros are the definition of mediocrity. Do I need to repeat what I said above? They lack standard connectivity, ports, and options. They have case issues. They have heat issues. They have an OS that is not as capable as the competitions. The hardware under the hood is mid-range at best, though you're paying high end prices. All in the name of "design!" Sorry, but functionality comes first. Then form. Fortunately, PC makers these days have that down right. Apple needs to catch up.

I bet you're the type of guy that walks into best buy and buys the biggest tv for the lowest amount of money, nevermind quality.

Nah, I did lots of research before buying my HDTV ;)

It's easy to pick on Apple's notebooks because they are so popular and have an entire forum dedicated to them

An entire forum? Wow, really? You do know that theres dozens of other forums dedicated to PCs and Windows notebooks, right?

but the bottom line is that if you want rock bottom prices then don't go for a Mac because the R&D that goes into an Apple computer will raise the price.

What R&D? Theres nothing different about a MacBook compared to any other PC out there. Its using standard Intel processors and chipsets and standard GPUs made by Intel, nvidia, or ATI. The optical drive is a standard thin slot loader that Panasonic (Matsushita) makes and sells to anyone who wants one. Its using a standard 2.5" SATA that PCs adopted before Macs. The webcam is a basic cam with custom firmware that any manufacturer could buy and throw in their system.

The only R&D I could see Apple doing is "hey! Let's see if we can make it this thin, run this hot and see if it will last running that hot just long enough passed the warranty so the person has to buy a new one when it dies an early death from heat!" "yeah that sounds like a great idea!"

Why do you spend so much time bashing on Apple though? You [i]easily[i] spend a few hours on here reading through posts and posting. No way do you spend a few minutes.

Heh, no I do spend a few minutes. I generally come here when I have a few minutes of down time. Sometimes I can't make it here for days at a time. But I can assure you I don't spend "hours" here ;)

Are you that bitter about making the wrong purchase? Install Vista on your mac and be done with it, at this point you look like a petty troll.

Petty troll, eh? People throw that kind of wording around when they don't like hearing people tell the truth about something they support. You would have had more credibility if you didn't resort to that level.

I am better I made the wrong purchase. I bought into the Apple hype. The hardware was not anywhere near what it should have been for the price, and OS X was more unstable than Apple would like you to believe.

I could have gotten a more stable and more powerful system for much less. Which is what I ended up with. My problem now is what to do with my Mac? Sell it and lose lots of money? Can't do that. I most likely will install Vista on it. I just wish I had taken Apple up on that refund offer they gave me a few months ago. I made two mistakes so far. First, buying the Mac. Second, not accepting the refund on the Mac.

MVApple
Aug 28, 2008, 11:37 PM
I hope so too. I like to see Apple giving Microsoft and others some good competition. But they've fallen behind.

When the Intel Macs were first released, they were priced very close to PCs. There was a little bit of an Apple Premium but not much. You had very similar specs compared to PCs. The only difference is that the PC might have had 1GB of RAM where the Mac had 512MB. You might have seen 80GB in the PC while the Mac had a 60GB HDD.

But now thats completely different. For $750 now you can get an HP with 3GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, blu-ray reader, integrated graphics that put the rest to shame.

Apple really needs to get off of their "update every 6 to 8 month" schedule. It really keeps them behind. It worked back in the PowerPC days because they generally had no competition in that area. But now they're using standard PC parts. And this 6 to 8 month cycle just doesn't cut it. For the past 3 months or so you could walk into Best Buy or Fry's and you'd see the $1299 MacBook with its small screen and Intel graphics sitting next to a $1300 Gateway with a much bigger screen and a GeForce 8800M GTS. Now if you're an average person, whats better to you? Something with a big screen that can play all the latest games? Or something thats small and has fallen behind the curve in hardware?

Every "Joe Sixpack" I know whats a computer with a big screen that can play CoD4 better than other people.



What small touches? You mean the discoloring cases? That discolor from both regular use and heat? The cracking caused by the magnetic latches? The AC adapter that has a cord thats notorious for fraying and becoming a fire hazard? The fact that I can't replace my optical drive if it ever dies? The lack of dedicated graphics? Or how about the case getting ridiculously hot during trivial tasks? How about the MacBook Pro? What small touches does it have? Even worse heat issues than the MacBook? The same fire hazard AC adapter? A case that will not discolor, but instead warps from heat? A cooling system linked to mountains of motherboard failures? Yellow screens? Both an optical drive and HDD that are NOT user replaceable? How about both systems lacking standard connectivity like HDMI ports, memory card readers, full size ExpressCard slots? Even many "netbooks" have that!



Not to be an ass, but the MacBook and MacBook Pros are the definition of mediocrity. Do I need to repeat what I said above? They lack standard connectivity, ports, and options. They have case issues. They have heat issues. They have an OS that is not as capable as the competitions. The hardware under the hood is mid-range at best, though you're paying high end prices. All in the name of "design!" Sorry, but functionality comes first. Then form. Fortunately, PC makers these days have that down right. Apple needs to catch up.



Nah, I did lots of research before buying my HDTV ;)



An entire forum? Wow, really? You do know that theres dozens of other forums dedicated to PCs and Windows notebooks, right?



What R&D? Theres nothing different about a MacBook compared to any other PC out there. Its using standard Intel processors and chipsets and standard GPUs made by Intel, nvidia, or ATI. The optical drive is a standard thin slot loader that Panasonic (Matsushita) makes and sells to anyone who wants one. Its using a standard 2.5" SATA that PCs adopted before Macs. The webcam is a basic cam with custom firmware that any manufacturer could buy and throw in their system.

The only R&D I could see Apple doing is "hey! Let's see if we can make it this thin, run this hot and see if it will last running that hot just long enough passed the warranty so the person has to buy a new one when it dies an early death from heat!" "yeah that sounds like a great idea!"



Heh, no I do spend a few minutes. I generally come here when I have a few minutes of down time. Sometimes I can't make it here for days at a time. But I can assure you I don't spend "hours" here ;)



Petty troll, eh? People throw that kind of wording around when they don't like hearing people tell the truth about something they support. You would have had more credibility if you didn't resort to that level.

I am better I made the wrong purchase. I bought into the Apple hype. The hardware was not anywhere near what it should have been for the price, and OS X was more unstable than Apple would like you to believe.

I could have gotten a more stable and more powerful system for much less. Which is what I ended up with. My problem now is what to do with my Mac? Sell it and lose lots of money? Can't do that. I most likely will install Vista on it. I just wish I had taken Apple up on that refund offer they gave me a few months ago. I made two mistakes so far. First, buying the Mac. Second, not accepting the refund on the Mac.


Uhhh no, you do spend hours here, at least you have today. You seem to have a strong vested interest in coming to a Mac forum to bash the product, sorry thats a petty troll. I can understand bashing a mac product at a windows forum, but coming to a mac forum to do it? That's ridiculous. And you seem to hate OSX but you still haven't installed Vista? I guess its not that bad huh?

Show me a notebook you would buy today over the macbook or macbook pro and then point me to a forum that has as many active users as this forum. Yes of course there are forums for other notebooks, but the not at the same level of activity as this one.

You're not chris pirillo are you?

Eidorian
Aug 28, 2008, 11:40 PM
Uhhh no, you do spend hours here, at least you have today. You seem to have a strong vested interest in coming to a Mac forum to bash the product, sorry thats a petty troll. I can understand bashing a mac product at a windows forum, but coming to a mac forum to do it? That's ridiculous. And you seem to hate OSX but you still haven't installed Vista? I guess its not that bad huh?

Show me a notebook you would buy today over the macbook or macbook pro and then point me to a forum that has as many active users as this forum. Yes of course there are forums for other notebooks, but the not at the same level of activity as this one.

You're not chris pirillo are you?Some users want better Apple computer hardware. ;)

Chappers
Aug 29, 2008, 01:53 AM
mosx I was going to reply to your arguments regarding Macs etc, however,

is this anger all down to the fact that you were a switcher whose MacBook went wrong and to put it bluntly - humiliated you because you'd boasted to people how great the Mac is/was.

I'm really sorry that both your MB and Apple let you down - it must have been a major Matsushita for you.

I hope you get on well with you new computer and wish you luck

mosx
Aug 29, 2008, 07:57 PM
Uhhh no, you do spend hours here, at least you have today.

I did? Hmm. Funny. I could have sworn that I came here every so often when I had a few minutes of free time. Oh thats right, I did.

Sorry but your attempt to make it seem like I'm here for hours only to "bash" the Mac has failed. ;)

You seem to have a strong vested interest in coming to a Mac forum to bash the product, sorry thats a petty troll. I can understand bashing a mac product at a windows forum, but coming to a mac forum to do it? That's ridiculous.

I love it when people improperly throw around the term "bash" and "troll". Bashing something is more along the lines of "haha stupid Macs can't do this! it sucks!". But me? I point out the shortcomings of the hardware and software with facts to back it up, in a calm manner. Its actually the Apple diehards, like yourself, that can't handle hearing the truth and get all upset and start with the immature rants and immature name calling. When you point out a fact like OS X lacking technology similar to DXVA, or standard ports like fullsize ExpressCard or HDMI outputs, its the Apple fans who get all bent out of shape and bring the thread down with their immature behavior. Theres no "bashing" or "trolling" when you state a fact, like OS X can't play blu-ray discs thanks to the lack of hardware support (no blu-ray drives, no HDCP support in the GPU firmware or in OS X or in the GPU drivers) and software support (no software to play it, lack of DXVA style technology). Someone states that, a fact, and an Apple diehard will read it and get all hurt and start off with the "you're a troll! get out of here! you're bashing our products!" when thats not bashing or trolling at all. Its simply speaking the truth. If I were to say "haha your Mac sucks because it can't play blu-ray movies! What a piece of crap!" that would be trolling and bashing. But calmly stating the fact in a polite manner? Sorry, thats not "ridiculous". What is ridiculous is people not being able to handle the truth and, thanks to them being overall insecure and lacking confidence in their choices, they come after the person stating facts and call them names and accuse them of things they aren't doing.

Quite honestly, I come here to help people make the right decisions. Its not my fault that certain people loyal to a brand name don't like hearing that their brand is behind others. If you don't like hearing the truth and hearing what I have to say then don't read my posts. Simple.

And you seem to hate OSX but you still haven't installed Vista? I guess its not that bad huh?

I haven't had the time ;) Thanks to a 3 day weekend, however, I'll be doing it tomorrow.

Show me a notebook you would buy today over the macbook or macbook pro and then point me to a forum that has as many active users as this forum. Yes of course there are forums for other notebooks, but the not at the same level of activity as this one.

You seem to act as if having a single large community means that more people like Macs than any other notebook. Let me remind you of the fact that Dell and HP alone (not combined) sell more computers than there are Mac users in total.

Not only that, but how many of Apple's "25m users" have multiple Macs? Apple fans sometimes tend to have more money than sense and tend to buy a computer for every single person in the family, so how many of those 25m users have 4 or 5 Macs? Sorry, I'm one of those people that believes a 10 year old shouldn't have his or her own computer.

It doesn't matter if a particular brand of computer has a rather large community dedicated to it when its still not even close to approaching half of what a single competitor sells.

By the way, I like how you ignored the rest of my post and questions regarding your original statements ;)

You're not chris pirillo are you?

Nope. But you remind me of Ken Bell.

is this anger all down to the fact that you were a switcher whose MacBook went wrong and to put it bluntly - humiliated you because you'd boasted to people how great the Mac is/was.

Humiliated me? No not at all. At first I did love my MacBook and I told people how great it was. Then the dark side showed itself and I saw what real hardware should cost. I told those same people without blinking an eye "boy was I wrong. I really bought into the hype." I will admit when I'm wrong. I have no problem with that. I was certainly wrong in believing the hype surrounding Apple products and I was certainly wrong in thinking it would live up to that hype.

My only real problem with Apple is that they charge twice what the computer should cost. Literally. If they brought their prices down or spec'ed the computers where they should be, I'd have no problem.

kabunaru
Aug 29, 2008, 08:24 PM
mosx, what specs specifically do you want to see on the new Macs?

MVApple
Aug 29, 2008, 09:14 PM
MOSX your attempt at convincing people you arn't a troll and don't spend hours on the forum has failed.

You still haven't shown me the laptop you would replace the macbook or macbook pro with.

If apple charges twice of what there laptop is actually worth, then you should sell your laptop as you'll get more than 50% of what you paid for it and then you would get a better laptop than you have now.

dragonmantek
Aug 29, 2008, 09:16 PM
its a good graphics card and it gets the job done...

it can run spore, and thats all we need in life :D

noodle654
Aug 29, 2008, 09:16 PM
You dont do research before buying things, especially things that cost over 1k?:confused:

Beric
Aug 29, 2008, 09:25 PM
You dont do research before buying things, especially things that cost over 1k?:confused:

When I bought my Macbook a year ago, I didn't know much about Macs. I simply could afford a $1300 computer, and assumed a Macbook would play games well, because ALL OTHER laptops that price range do. How wrong I was.

Eidorian
Aug 29, 2008, 09:26 PM
When I bought my Macbook a year ago, I didn't know much about Macs. I simply could afford a $1300 computer, and assumed a Macbook would play games well, because ALL OTHER laptops that price range do. How wrong I was.What mystery prevents someone from comparing hardware? :confused:

dukebound85
Aug 29, 2008, 09:27 PM
When I bought my Macbook a year ago, I didn't know much about Macs. I simply could afford a $1300 computer, and assumed a Macbook would play games well, because ALL OTHER laptops that price range do. How wrong I was.

how do you know all other laptops in that price range do? did you research that? if so you should have researched the computer you bought instead of all the other ones in the price range lol

Chappers
Aug 29, 2008, 11:34 PM
What sites? What kind of people? How many of them were still XP users that voted against Vista? You know, thanks to Apple's lies, Vista has a pretty bad reputation and people think Vista is bad by default.

You originally accused me of quoting very out of date sites and their polls. I actually quoted from March 2008.
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/106588,xp-vs-vista.aspx/17


Prove that they do. Of all of the people I know in person and from all of the forums I've read, this one included, not a single person regularly uses any iLife application outside of iTunes and iPhoto. One girl I know has been a Mac user all of her life and she refuses to use iPhoto because it takes so ridiculously long to import pictures from her camera. I showed her how much easier it was to pop the memory card into the memory card reader in my HP and how fast Vista copied the pictures off and she was extremely jealous.

I don't need to prove that they do use them - as I only said that they were there if you needed/wanted them. You on the other hand said that only 0.01% of people used them - you prove it.

(everyone I know hates DVD menus anyway.

Yet again - your opinion based only on your opinion and all of your friends.

Garageband? Well, Vista doesn't have any equal software. But Garageband is pretty pointless anyway for most people. The musicians and other music creators I know won't even touch Garageband.

iWeb? Well, like I said, iWeb is essentially useless

Again your opinion

Because everyone has a video camera, right? Everyone makes home movies all of the time, right? All quality video cameras ship with video editing software thats more advanced than iMovie anyway.

Actually a huge percentage of people do have video camera these days (almost all digitals come with one) not forgetting phone video as well. And a nice easy way to edit is iMovie. The new iMovie is very basic - but it is easy to use.

Now I know someone is going to say "but the point of a Mac is you don't need that extra software" and to that I will say yeah, but the Mac comes with inferior software compared to those products. Why should I settle for less?

Windows versions of the software that you said were inferior and not worth talking about (you said that was why MS didn't advertise them). Now your talking about how great they are. On the Mac you don't need the extra software - but like Windows it is available (well except an equivalent to iWeb and Garageband).


Because everyone wants to be a movie writer? I can't open up WordPad in Vista and do the same? Considering OS X only ships with TextEdit.

I didn't mean those types of scripts but you have proved my point that Windows doesn't come with a complete set of iLife comparable apps (3 out of 5) but thats OK you say because no one uses the others - we are still waiting for you to prove this one.

Very limited stuff. In some cases, not as high quality as Windows and in other cases no more than Windows lets you do you out of the box. Let's not forget that in some instances, like Front Row versus Media Center, Windows wins hands down ;)

"Its great that dvd's play "out of the box", but please remind people, particularly non-computer literate types, that Vista Home DOES NOT play DVD's "out of the box" - I quoted this from pcauthority. Is it true?


It only sounds like an inferiority complex to an elitest Mac owner ;) I see most Mac owners as foolish people who bought into a fad because they were told they were getting a superior product but, in the end, got an inferior product and paid twice what they should have.

It is you who accuse Mac users a being elitist, foolish and thinking they are better than everyone else. Therefore you obviously feel people are looking down on you. In fact when someone approached you with your Mac - you seemed quite pleased with yourself.

With regard to Vista downgraders :

I don't remember if it was this thread or the other where I mentioned this already. Even if that number were true, that still makes leaves what? 5 times the amount of people using Vista compared to Mac users as a whole. Roughly 10x as many people using Vista as Leopard.

I quoted a source that explained a survey and the numbers of people who had downgraded, and you question if it's true or not and then say that more people are using Vista than Macs as some way of proving your point - it doesn't.

Of course you chose to disbelieve a PC sites survey results, to accept them would reveal your own blindness that you accuse others of.

I didn't have to work hard to find info on this - there are lots of sites regarding downgrading Vista to XP.

You see, its only the media and Apple fans that have a problem with Vista. Not the real users ;) There are a number of legitimate reasons for businesses and such to want to stick with XP. For example, its easier for their IT department to XP across the board or it would be too costly to upgrade the entire business to Vista so the few new computers they NEED to buy still have XP on them.

So although those computers they NEED to buy can come with Vista pre-installed at no extra cost - they chose to buy with XP pre-installed because its an easier option than Vista (and cheaper). You cannot be serious. I quoted you real users in a real survey and you come up with that!


Microsoft and manufacturers at least give consumers and businesses the CHOICE of what they want. With Apple its the iWay or the highway. You either get Leopard or nothing at all, even if your software will only run on Tiger and your business depends on it.

Microsoft and manufacturers have been forced into still offering XP by disgruntled customers - see the survey that I quoted you or google downgrading Vista to XP, there are lots of sites on the matter. Not because they want you to have choice. Choice isn't given by a company that has been convicted of monopolistic practices unless it's forced too.

All companies want you to do it their way (that's business and includes Apple) but please don't try to prove an argument with it. i.e that people are downgrading because MS offers that choice. Its laughable.



Second, people called Vista a resource hog at first because they noticed their 2GB of RAM was all being used up. Its just the way Vista handles memory and they're used to the XP/Leopard way of using memory as needed. However, this makes Vista faster.

That recent survey that I quoted for you contradicts you.
In fact that's why my brother-in-law downgraded to XP. And believe me - he didn't want to do it as he had just bought a new machine but after 3 months of use he upgraded as he put it (that was in April of this year). He says his machine is now mach faster.


Exactly. If I had realized what I was getting into when I bought my Mac, rather than believing the hype and just going off of past experience with Macs, I would have bought a PC instead as well. Thankfully things worked out and I was able to get the HP I have now.

You didn't do much research did you? You've said in the past how happy you were with your Mac, how it would do everything Windows would do. Also a year and a half ago - you hated HP.

You obviously knew how much it cost at the time otherwise you wouldn't have bought it.

In fact you even had a coffee shop moment (except it was in a library) where someone came up to you about your mac - made you feel good about your decision.

I presume you knew it didn't have a card reader too but now you're complaining about that. You say its because of the cost that you feel this need to tell the new truth. But you knew the cost when you bought it. Sorry it doesn't make sense. Mac has always been more expensive - maybe when you bought yours the gap was narrower than now - but they have always cost more. It's another illogical argument.

And there is still the other reason that you left Windows behind originally - viruses, malware and trojans. It all still exists on Vista (much improved maybe - but still there) and all this still exists on the hardware that you said was crap and you were so pleased to see the back of in the first place (have HP suddenly improved in a year and a half?). I know you probably think it's only idiots and people who visit dodgy websites who have this problem but it doesn't alter the problem is there. I hope you've researched this. You seem to believe all the hype about Vista - and considering you've only just upgraded - you don't want to be disappointed again.

Last year, you and a MacRumors member joked on these forums how you had bored all your friends and family with your talk of how great Macs were when you switched - and you've only just switched to Vista - now you're telling everyone how great HP and Vista are - does this sound familiar?

There are plenty of dual platform users on these boards who give honest unbiased opinions and information regarding Windows - without the preaching.

Beric
Aug 30, 2008, 11:52 AM
how do you know all other laptops in that price range do? did you research that? if so you should have researched the computer you bought instead of all the other ones in the price range lol

I was a "buy a Mac no matter what" kind of person (I've been using Macs in my family since 3 years old), and, as a 18-year-old college student, bought the best I could afford for my first Mac. I knew very little about PC's, but seeing as my friends had good, powerful machines for less than my Macbook, I saw no reason why an even more expensive $1300 Macbook shouldn't outperform them.

mosx
Aug 30, 2008, 06:58 PM
MOSX your attempt at convincing people you arn't a troll and don't spend hours on the forum has failed.

You still haven't shown me the laptop you would replace the macbook or macbook pro with.

If apple charges twice of what there laptop is actually worth, then you should sell your laptop as you'll get more than 50% of what you paid for it and then you would get a better laptop than you have now.

Do you have proof that I spend hours on this forum? Feel free to ask the admin how much time I spend here.

Your silly attempt at trying to paint me as someone who has nothing better to do than spend time here just makes you look like the classic internet troll that can't stand the fact that someone has a better argument than they do (nice reply to all of my counter-points) and you're trying the classic way of turning it around on the other person. But you're failing miserably.

I actually "replaced" my MacBook nearly a year ago. You see, its almost a year to the day that Apple replaced my first MacBook thanks to botched repairs. A few weeks later I received my HP dv6500t from HP. Nearly $500 less after taxes. Similar processor, twice the memory, bigger HDD, dedicated graphics that still play modern games, HDMI output, memory card reader, fingerprint reader, bigger screen, similar real world battery life, VGA, S-Video (no costly adapters for any external monitor), full size ExpressCard, TV tuner, etc.

You originally accused me of quoting very out of date sites and their polls. I actually quoted from March 2008.
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Featur...-vista.aspx/17

So your only proof is a link to an article written based on a poll taken by a 800 people? Really? Eight hundred people? That many, eh? A full 800 people.

Wow.

I never knew that 800 people could represent the nearly 200,000,000 people who have bought Vista so far.

I don't need to prove that they do use them - as I only said that they were there if you needed/wanted them. You on the other hand said that only 0.01% of people used them - you prove it.

Read this forum. Theres over 200,000 registered users here. You're bound to get more than 800 replies ;)

Yet again - your opinion based only on your opinion and all of your friends.

Show me someone, besides you or other Apple supporters, who likes DVD menus.

Again your opinion

Show me musicians that use Garageband seriously. Real musicians. Every hobbyist I know and even the indie bands I know will not only not touch Garageband (some laugh at it) but they don't use Macs either.

Show me how iWeb is useful without Mobile Me as well. With all of the hassle of going in and changing the coding and such to point to other servers and folders and such, you're better off with an easier to use 3rd party tool that is built with that in mind.

Windows versions of the software that you said were inferior and not worth talking about (you said that was why MS didn't advertise them). Now your talking about how great they are. On the Mac you don't need the extra software - but like Windows it is available (well except an equivalent to iWeb and Garageband).

They're inferior? Really? How? Windows Movie Maker was in the past. But now its every bit as easy to use as iMovie. And not nearly as limited as iMovie '08 either.

Actually a huge percentage of people do have video camera these days (almost all digitals come with one) not forgetting phone video as well. And a nice easy way to edit is iMovie. The new iMovie is very basic - but it is easy to use.

rofl, you're going to try to tell me that people edit the movies they take with their cellphone or digital cameras?

Have you ever watched youtube? Every edited movie on there is done by VirtualDub (freeware) and its almost always just text and music edited in.

I didn't mean those types of scripts but you have proved my point that Windows doesn't come with a complete set of iLife comparable apps (3 out of 5) but thats OK you say because no one uses the others - we are still waiting for you to prove this one.

Thats because iWeb and Garageband are utterly useless. If you want to record audio of any kind, Audacity is much better.

And you need a third party alternative to iWeb anyway.

"Its great that dvd's play "out of the box", but please remind people, particularly non-computer literate types, that Vista Home DOES NOT play DVD's "out of the box" - I quoted this from pcauthority. Is it true?

Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate ship with DVD decoders with full DXVA support out of the box.

Vista Home Basic, Business, and Enterprise do not.

However, the only way to really get any of those three is to buy a PC with those pre-installed.

And I have yet to see a PC ship with Vista Home Basic that does not include some sort of DVXA compatible DVD playing suite.

It is you who accuse Mac users a being elitist, foolish and thinking they are better than everyone else. Therefore you obviously feel people are looking down on you. In fact when someone approached you with your Mac - you seemed quite pleased with yourself.

I hadn't even owned it for a few weeks at that point. I hadn't yet experienced my first crash or the faulty DVD writer.

Funny thing, I was going to google seeing about wiping OS X off the drive entirely and installing Vista. When I went to type that into the search box in Safari, OS X crashed.

Anyway, I find it hilarious you think I feel people are looking down on me. You're free to think what you wish.

I quoted a source that explained a survey and the numbers of people who had downgraded, and you question if it's true or not and then say that more people are using Vista than Macs as some way of proving your point - it doesn't.

Of course you chose to disbelieve a PC sites survey results, to accept them would reveal your own blindness that you accuse others of.

I didn't have to work hard to find info on this - there are lots of sites regarding downgrading Vista to XP.

Just like your poll of 800 people?

Give me some real results and I'll believe it. So far there have been no real polls or any sort of real evidence regarding people downgrading to Vista.

But as I said before, at least you get the option with Windows to run the software you want. You buy a new HP or Dell and you can put Windows XP on it.

Good luck getting Tiger to run on a new Mac.

So although those computers they NEED to buy can come with Vista pre-installed at no extra cost - they chose to buy with XP pre-installed because its an easier option than Vista (and cheaper). You cannot be serious. I quoted you real users in a real survey and you come up with that!

What real survey? I have yet to see a real survey. A survey of 800 people, or even 20,000, does NOT represent 200,000,000 people.

If someone chooses to buy a computer with Windows XP, there are legitimate reasons. If they choose XP over Vista because "XP is faster" that shows they are just as ignorant as the average Mac user and have not used Vista and only choose to believe what they are spoon fed by Apple and the media.

Microsoft and manufacturers have been forced into still offering XP by disgruntled customers - see the survey that I quoted you or google downgrading Vista to XP, there are lots of sites on the matter. Not because they want you to have choice. Choice isn't given by a company that has been convicted of monopolistic practices unless it's forced too.

Really? I don't see any consumer systems offered by Dell or HP or Gateway or any manufacturer that still has XP.

In fact, the only way to get XP is to buy certain business models.

And you know why?

Because some businesses STILL NEED XP because of either IT policies or custom software.

When has Apple ever given customers the choice of what software to run?

All companies want you to do it their way (that's business and includes Apple) but please don't try to prove an argument with it. i.e that people are downgrading because MS offers that choice. Its laughable

Microsoft is offering the choice, as are the small number of companies (that you can count on one hand if you're missing fingers on the same hand) on a small number of machines.

Being an Apple fan, you seem to forget that the world outside of Apple is all about choice. With Apple its the iWay or the highway. With PCs, you can install whatever OS and software you choose mixed with whatever hardware you choose.

Saying having the choice to do what you want is laughable is laughable itself. People deserve to have choices. You have NO choice with Apple but EVERY choice with other PC manufacturers.

In fact that's why my brother-in-law downgraded to XP. And believe me - he didn't want to do it as he had just bought a new machine but after 3 months of use he upgraded as he put it (that was in April of this year). He says his machine is now mach faster.

Well thats funny because I had XP on my HP and I made the full move to Vista from XP from dual-booting both. Vista is much faster than XP. As I said, go to hardware enthusiast sites. Or follow the links I post. Theres mountains or reviews, benchmarks, and more people using Vista than there are Mac users total will tell you that Vista is faster than XP.

You didn't do much research did you? You've said in the past how happy you were with your Mac, how it would do everything Windows would do. Also a year and a half ago - you hated HP.

You obviously knew how much it cost at the time otherwise you wouldn't have bought it.

Yeah I was upset with HP because the motherboard had gone bad in my first HP. It was a bad ATI southbridge chip.

But in the end, my experience with HP ended up being MUCH better than with Apple.

Anyway, I did do a lot of research. The thing is, I had used Macs a lot in the Apple store, friends units, and previous experience. I didn't exactly HAVE one yet. I was buying into the Apple hype and trusting my own limited experience (though that limited experience put into hours would be at least 60 or more hours worth of use).

I presume you knew it didn't have a card reader too but now you're complaining about that. You say its because of the cost that you feel this need to tell the new truth. But you knew the cost when you bought it. Sorry it doesn't make sense. Mac has always been more expensive - maybe when you bought yours the gap was narrower than now - but they have always cost more. It's another illogical argument.

Its amusing seeing someone try to use my old arguments against me. Quite funny actually.

I already admitted that I was stupid for buying into the Apple hype and believing everything.

You see, like many others, I thought I could live without standard features because OS X was supposed to be so amazing and so well built.

When it turned out that OS X was not anything like that.... Well, thats when I realized I made a huge mistake in putting software first when I should have put hardware first.

My main argument with that is that OS X is not anywhere near what its cracked up to be and that they shouldn't be charging more for the software and they should be including standard features, like memory card readers.

And there is still the other reason that you left Windows behind originally - viruses, malware and trojans. It all still exists on Vista (much improved maybe - but still there) and all this still exists on the hardware that you said was crap and you were so pleased to see the back of in the first place (have HP suddenly improved in a year and a half?). I know you probably think it's only idiots and people who visit dodgy websites who have this problem but it doesn't alter the problem is there. I hope you've researched this. You seem to believe all the hype about Vista - and considering you've only just upgraded - you don't want to be disappointed again.

The whole viruses and such was me being an idiotic Apple fanboy. I have admitted that numerous times. In all of the years I've used Windows I have never had a virus, spyware, or malware of any type. I have only ever had one false positive returned on a java script from cnn.com. That was it.

To get a virus, spyware, or anything, requires the user to actively download, install, and run such software. That is how it is in the modern world.

HP improved significantly in the two years.

You see, unlike Apple, HP listens to their users and revises products based on their complaints. Considering my current system is 2 generations newer than the one I had originally, a lot had changed.

Secondly, I've had this HP since October of last year. It showed up about a month after my replacement MacBook.

I had been using another HP replacement before that. But I told them I wasn't happy with it compared to my previous system. My original HP, purchased in March of 2006, had a Turion64 ML-37, 1GB of RAM, 100GB HDD, ATI Xpress 200M (with 128MB of dedicated memory), TV tuner, etc. The replacement was a Core 2 Duo 1.73GHz, 160GB HDD, 1GB of RAM, Intel GMA 950, TV tuner, etc. I called them and told them I wasn't happy with it. So they offered to replace it with the system I have now. 2GHz Core 2 Duo (compared to the 2.16 in my MacBook), 2GB of RAM, GeForce 8400M GS, HDMI, fingerprint reader, etc.

I haven't "Recently upgraded" at all. I've been using this system for close to a year. And earlier this year it was my only system for about a month when Apple was botching the repairs on my MacBook then.

Before that I had used Vista's public betas and I actually installed XP then Vista on my original MacBook and used it for about 5 months before it went in for repairs.

I've been using Vista, overall, longer than I've been using Tiger or Leopard.

So your argument fails ;)

Last year, you and a MacRumors member joked on these forums how you had bored all your friends and family with your talk of how great Macs were when you switched - and you've only just switched to Vista - now you're telling everyone how great HP and Vista are - does this sound familiar?

No it doesn't sound familiar at all because I've been using Vista since well before I started using OS X. My primary machine has had Vista (with an XP dual boot) for nearly a year now, and it has been Vista only for almost 7 months.

I've been "preaching" about the benefits of PCs and Windows since what? Right after my HP showed up nearly a year ago and I realized I had made a huge mistake putting my faith in a Mac?

There are plenty of dual platform users on these boards who give honest unbiased opinions and information regarding Windows - without the preaching.

I do give honest and unbiased opinions. I can't help the fact that you don't like what I have to say and that most of your arguments in this particular post were completely off ;)

I was a "buy a Mac no matter what" kind of person (I've been using Macs in my family since 3 years old), and, as a 18-year-old college student, bought the best I could afford for my first Mac. I knew very little about PC's, but seeing as my friends had good, powerful machines for less than my Macbook, I saw no reason why an even more expensive $1300 Macbook shouldn't outperform them.

Exactly. Also, OS X is supposed to be this magical OS that is better than everything else, so you're supposed to be happy without those other features because it all "just works" and everything is great.

But it doesn't.

Its hilarious that OS X crashed on me when I was typing "erase OS X install Vista only" into google. It froze right after "erase OS X".

Trinidado
Aug 30, 2008, 07:34 PM
Show me musicians that use Garageband seriously. Real musicians. Every hobbyist I know and even the indie bands I know will not only not touch Garageband (some laugh at it) but they don't use Macs either.


My high school band teacher uses garageband on his macbook pro.

mosx
Aug 30, 2008, 07:39 PM
My high school band teacher uses garageband on his macbook pro.

Not to be a jerk, but the bolded section says it all.

kabunaru
Aug 30, 2008, 08:14 PM
GarageBand is fine but I use Audacity more.

eXan
Aug 30, 2008, 08:32 PM
find us a 13" notebook with a 2.1GHz or 2.4GHz dual core chip, bluetooth, N wireless, SATA HDD and up to 4GB of RAM with anything more than the X3100 for the same cost as a MacBook and we'll believe that statement.

... that is packed into a beautiful 1" thin enclosure with super easy access to the HD and 4+ hours of real battery life and MagSafe.

EDIT: lol why do people still take mosx seriously?

theyellowdart
Aug 30, 2008, 08:46 PM
mosx do you understand how surveys and polls work? Because it certainly appears like you don't.

Also, i'm a bit curious where you pulled the 200 million vista users number from? I attempted to find something that went along with it, but was unable too.

Anyways, in this topic atleast, it truly looks like you've just buried your head in the sand and will refuse to pay attention to the proof in front of you.

Also
I do give honest and unbiased opinions.

This is complete BS, you do not give unbiased opinions. The opinions you give are 100% biased. All you do is bash Apple and OS X and praise Vista. You discredit every advantage and app out for OS X while turning around and imply that Vista and Windows apps are perfect.... so don't come in here with this BS that your opinion is unbiased.

If you wanted to give an unbiased opinion it would give the benefits and cons of both choices. An unbiased opinion would flow something similar to this:

"If you were to buy a Mac you will probably be paying more for less hardware specs simply for the ability to run OS X. So what you need to decide is if the ability to run OS X and the programs that run on it is worth the price difference between the PC you want and the Mac you want. Personally I've had various issues with OS X that I haven't run into with Vista, however other users on this board claim to have no issues at all. You also may sacrifice some performance in certain aspects by going with OS X due to how it handles various tasks. It may be an issue for you, and it may not... Just know ahead of time that these things do exist."

Simply, straight forward, you get to inject a bit of information about your issues and your preference while not coming off like a troll like you frequently do currently. However, acting like OS X is nothing but crap, and vista is a godsend isn't an "unbiased opinion" no matter how much you wish it was.

airjuggernaut
Aug 30, 2008, 09:14 PM
I can't have babies now.

Reason?

My Macbook was playing a youtube video. :rolleyes:

kabunaru
Aug 30, 2008, 09:23 PM
I can't have babies now.

Reason?

My Macbook was playing a youtube video. :rolleyes:

Is this really true? If you have an laptop on your lap a lot, you cannot produce babies?
I am serious and I heard something about this before. Also, sorry if it is an weird question.

Trinidado
Aug 30, 2008, 09:38 PM
Not to be a jerk, but the bolded section says it all.

That's implying that you are ignorant enough to assume that High school band teachers can't create professional music.

For your information, we have recorded two years in a row for EA sports march madness. (with his composed pieces) Trailer
(http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=mYJxgOEJitM&fnc=6)
He makes all his compositions with garageband, and then makes sheet music once he has figured out all the parts.

I think that being hired and getting paid to do music for a game counts as professional, no?

Ps. listen to our hockey night in canada theme song here (http://anthemchallenge.cbc.ca/mediadetail/310986?channel=389&sort=rating+DESC&filetype=2%2C3&moderationstatus=1&offset=8)

He also composed that and we recorded it this summer. Even if it doesn't win the competition, it still sounds sweet. :D

Beric
Aug 30, 2008, 09:44 PM
Is this really true? If you have an laptop on your lap a lot, you cannot produce babies?
I am serious and I heard something about this before. Also, sorry if it is an weird question.

Yes, I remember reading an article about it online somewhere.

Google "laptops and fertility", or something of the like.

But Macs are SO hot during Flash.

kabunaru
Aug 30, 2008, 09:53 PM
But Macs are SO hot during Flash.

I have always wondered that. Why do Macs get hot when playing Flash? Is Flash really not meant/designed well for OS X?

eXan
Aug 30, 2008, 09:55 PM
I can't have babies now.

Reason?

My Macbook was playing a youtube video. :rolleyes:

Judging by your sig, you don't even have a MacBook, so go away. My MacBooks doesn't fry eggs when its playing flash videos :rolleyes:

alphaod
Aug 30, 2008, 10:40 PM
<snip>



tldr :p

Chappers
Aug 31, 2008, 04:46 AM
mosx.

You often ask for proof - you are given it, in the form of of surveys. One survey polled 800 people the other 3000. Both polls replying to claims that I'd used old polls and giving the evidence.

I have at least bothered to come up with evidence . You come up with numbers and opinions without any need to prove them whilst demanding others do, and then say the evidence isn't true because I haven't asked the every single 200,000,000 licensed copies of Vista .

Actually there have been approx 260 million Vista licenses sold - but that's less than a 20% uptake rate of total users - and after so long. Looks like Jerry's got his work cut out. Maybe he can drop by Intel first and convince them - it appears they're sticking with XP.

You even ask me to prove your arguments for you. You say the iLife apps are not used and are useless, then ask me to come up with the information to prove you right.

Normally when a person make a statement as fact they can usually follow it up with some evidence.


Too sum up.

1. You proved for me that Vista does not have a full set of of iLife comparable apps pre-installed.

2. You have been unable to prove that people don't use iWeb and Garageband. You did in fact twist my original comment that these apps were available at start up and could do the job. The number of user groups and forums for these apps prove you wrong. Not forgetting that Oasis and Justice use it and a Radiohead song is for sale on iTunes that is provided with a code that allows users to tinker with it in Garageband. You lose twice (once for twisting my argument and once for just being wrong)


3. You have now agreed that lots of people have basic video cameras and could use iMovie to edit. Now you tell me no one edits these movies but then contradict yourself by saying people use VirtualDub to edit (like trimming the ends I guess). So you lost the argument about possession of video cameras and then lose the argument about editing.

4. You have not proved iWeb and Garageband are useless. (see number 2)

5. You have agreed that Vista doesn't ship with DVD decoders on all versions built in. Can you prove they all come with some third party compatible suite? How much is a copy of Vista with DVD decoder gonna cost me if I upgrade from XP?

6. You (not me) said that Mac users were elitist, foolish and looked down on people. Only those looking up feeling that someone is looking down make comments like that. I have never said or implied that people were looking down on you (but you did). You do like to twist an argument though when you don't have a reply.

7. You implied that Windows pre-installed apps were inferior when you said "its just not publicized because, quite honestly, nobody uses it". You only implied - so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you that one.

8. I showed that lots of people have downgraded from Vista, you showed a continued lack of knowledge for how surveys work.

9. I quote you a survey about people downgrading - thus forcing OEMs to continue offer XP on a range of machines up to 2.5 years after Vista was released. I even quoted your beloved HP on this. It's a supply and demand thing. Lots of people downgrading meant OEM's exploit a loophole in their MS contracts and sell XP.

10. Companies with monopolistic convictions are not offering choice. Thats why they have been convicted.
People are not choosing XP because they think how lucky that MS gave them the choice .... They're choosing it because they think Vista is crap or not worth the upgrade. Now that is laughable. This is another argument that you tried to twist but I'm afraid you lose again.

11. You did not to prove that Vista runs faster than XP. (don't forget to ask all 260 million licenses)

12. You agree that you didn't do much research (playing in an Apple store and buying into hype isn't research).

13. You admit you were stupid and in your opinion made a mistake. That's fair enough.

14. Viruses etc are still a major problem - otherwise they wouldn't exist. Just because you've never had one doesn't mean it's not true. If I google Vista viruses well over 3,00,000 web pages about it, are indexed. Apparently malware is down 60% on Vista - but that's still a lot of malware.

On a side note I was just reading reviews (very recent) of Vista. One person (I mean only one) acclaimed Vista for being great, he'd had no problems what so ever. He had turned off "User Account Control" as it had stopped Outlook working but otherwise everything was dandy. ;)


15. My arguments are only off in that I have provided evidence to support them. You on the other hand have not supported your arguments with anything other than your opinion.

16. You admit to preaching about PC's and Windows (preachers never give unbiased opinion).

Maybe you feel I am blind for my Mac choice, however it does what I bought it for. I also have an XP machine - it's quite good. It is not in my native language and at times I struggle with it. However those truly unbiased users that I mentioned before have helped me. If you have knowledge - help people - don't preach.

I've decided to almost call it a day on this discussion (but will check back for significant updates by you). On some things you have mentioned such as build quality - you are right - Apple needs to improve things but it certainly doesn't make everything Mac wrong and Windows right.


Take care

airjuggernaut
Sep 2, 2008, 08:31 PM
Judging by your sig, you don't even have a MacBook, so go away. My MacBooks doesn't fry eggs when its playing flash videos :rolleyes:
1. It's called a Joke.

2. I did have a Macbook for about 3 months, didn't like it. So I got an iMac.

panzer06
Sep 2, 2008, 09:00 PM
I never knew that 800 people could represent the nearly 200,000,000 people who have bought Vista so far.



I enjoy your well thought-out posts but please stop quoting the obviously inflated marketing number from Microsoft. While technically, MS can claim such sales, nowhere near that number of people are actually using Vista.

You are obviously intelligent, however, continuing to quote this distorted information is really beneath you and dilutes the strength of your argument.

As you can see from the article below even HP questions the dubious 180 million copies of Vista sold.

----------------------
"Hewlett Packard has questioned the reliability of Microsoft’s recent reports of selling 180 million copies of Vista so far.

The apparent disparity involves the loophole by which firms can still sell machines with XP on them, despite the system officially having been withdrawn on 30 June. The trick is to sell what is officially a Vista machine but allow customers to ‘downgrade’ to XP, in the same way that you can often save money on a standard PC package by not taking ‘standard’ parts such as a monitor or keyboard.

This loophole is only open until next January, but it seems it’s more popular than expected. Speaking at the launch of a new range of notebook PCs, HP development manager Jane Bradburn revealed that not only is the firm regularly selling ‘Vista Business’ licensed PCs that actually have XP pre-loaded, but “That is still the majority of business computers we are selling today.”

Given that such deals are officially classed as Vista license sales, the revelation raises some serious questions about how many recent Vista sales actually wind up with customers using the system. It was well known that some firms would look to exploit this loophole, but it’s somewhat of a surprise for a major company such as HP to be doing so in the majority of cases.

HP says the system works well as it cuts down on administration, and is hoping to get the January deadline extended. Apparently HP customers are reporting that they haven’t had time to test whether their software will work with Vista, and they don’t have the time or money to spend on making the leap.

It’s worth remembering, though, that retailers aren’t officially allowed to charge for copies of XP any more; instead, for each of these ‘loophole’ sales, the seller has to pay the relevant license fee for Vista to Microsoft. So while it’s misleading to suggest 180 million people have intentionally gone out and bought a copy of Vista to run, Microsoft is still getting the cash in its pocket."
--------------------------

I use Vista and do not have any problems (I have all newer hardware (Intel Macs and newer AMD-based PCs)) and find it works great for my purposes (Games and the occasional app not available for OS X). That said, I prefer our Macs and would select them for most all applications except my games.

I understand your desire to obtain more reasonably priced Macs with comparable hardware to PCs. Realistically, it is most unlikely to happen any time soon. I find buying used Macs tends to get me close, but certainly, we will get no where near parity. While many of us would like to see an all-purpose Mac that has great GPU, the right mix of ports (esata, hdmi, etc), true hardware video decoding in a portable format running OS X and bootcamp, it would in probably be (considerably) more expensive than the comparable Windows based laptop in the same class.

Apple style and OS X make up some of this but let's be realistic, Apple exists to create wonderful new technological devices that provide superior user experience, look great and make Apple and its shareholders lots of money.

By now I'm sure you must be bored with this semi-intellectual exercise in futility you've embarked upon here on Macrumors. You certainly won't change many minds here. Enjoy the computers you use, I sure do, Mac and PC.

Cheers,

macbooker15
Sep 2, 2008, 11:23 PM
Ok, so I love my macbook right? So two days ago my mom got a new toshiba laptop. At first i was jealous of the hardware. 2.1ghz (AMD though), 4gb of ram, ATI Radeon 3100, and the list goes on. I was green with envy..at least until we booted into Vista. First off the setup page had that vista spinning circle SO MANY TIMES. Set up on Mac: 5 mins Vista setup: 17 mins. So I thought ok..this is just one of those quirks. Then we imported some stuff from her external enclosure. Since vista is advanced as OSX, according to mosx ;), I thought it would just work. I was wrong again! The transfer process took forever, and every 5 seconds there was some kind of notification. Then i thought, ok this is fine, frustrating but fine. Then I encountered UAC...three words: Oh My God. Everytime I did anything, from installing a program, even like using the vista experience calculator, I got the UAC. Even WINDOWS UPDATES froze the whole screen to ask for permission. I know thats totally gonna freak out my mom, who doesn't have any idea whats going on. Shes also getting only 2 hours of battery in power save at the same time as im getting 4. And the one application, the ONE APPLICATION that we wanted to port from XP Quicken 2007, epic failed to install. On the internet people were reporting mixed successes, with using numerous system tools to make it install. Sure the hardware is amazing for $699, the OS is buggy at best. Even with 4 gb of RAM and a fast processor, vista takes 25 seconds and a spinning circle to open up iTunes as a third program. I was thinking that if Vista was as good as mosx posted, i may install it on my macbook..But i know im wrong now, im gonna install XP now, if i can.

</end rant/>

P.S.
btw mosx..no offense. I enjoy your posts. Please dont kill me?

Zer00
Sep 3, 2008, 06:23 AM
if you install another windows operating system it should be XP as it takes less of your RAM. vista is just a human error.

Winter Charm
Sep 4, 2008, 08:36 PM
Ok, so I love my macbook right? So two days ago my mom got a new toshiba laptop. At first i was jealous of the hardware. 2.1ghz (AMD though), 4gb of ram, ATI Radeon 3100, and the list goes on. I was green with envy..at least until we booted into Vista. First off the setup page had that vista spinning circle SO MANY TIMES. Set up on Mac: 5 mins Vista setup: 17 mins. So I thought ok..this is just one of those quirks. Then we imported some stuff from her external enclosure. Since vista is advanced as OSX, according to mosx ;), I thought it would just work. I was wrong again! The transfer process took forever, and every 5 seconds there was some kind of notification. Then i thought, ok this is fine, frustrating but fine. Then I encountered UAC...three words: Oh My God. Everytime I did anything, from installing a program, even like using the vista experience calculator, I got the UAC. Even WINDOWS UPDATES froze the whole screen to ask for permission. I know thats totally gonna freak out my mom, who doesn't have any idea whats going on. Shes also getting only 2 hours of battery in power save at the same time as im getting 4. And the one application, the ONE APPLICATION that we wanted to port from XP Quicken 2007, epic failed to install. On the internet people were reporting mixed successes, with using numerous system tools to make it install. Sure the hardware is amazing for $699, the OS is buggy at best. Even with 4 gb of RAM and a fast processor, vista takes 25 seconds and a spinning circle to open up iTunes as a third program. I was thinking that if Vista was as good as mosx posted, i may install it on my macbook..But i know im wrong now, im gonna install XP now, if i can.
btw mosx..no offense. I enjoy your posts. Please dont kill me?

It was Vista 32 Bit - right? i know 32 bit is really buggy, quirky, and annoying - they 64 bit version is really good though - it is comparable to OSX in STABILITY!!!! (still not as good but really close.)

ayeying
Sep 4, 2008, 09:18 PM
It was Vista 32 Bit - right? i know 32 bit is really buggy, quirky, and annoying - they 64 bit version is really good though - it is comparable to OSX in STABILITY!!!! (still not as good but really close.)

32 or 64 bit doesn't have much to do with anything. Many of the complaints are caused by UAC and bloatware. If those stuff are removed/disabled, it'll run fast regardless of 32 or 64 bit.

Chappers
Sep 5, 2008, 05:30 AM
To be honest I'm still waiting for mosx to come back.

Beric
Sep 5, 2008, 10:28 AM
To be honest I'm still waiting for mosx to come back.

I'm considering emailing him. I'm dying for him to return. :cool:

hogfaninga
Sep 5, 2008, 01:01 PM
It was Vista 32 Bit - right? i know 32 bit is really buggy, quirky, and annoying - they 64 bit version is really good though - it is comparable to OSX in STABILITY!!!! (still not as good but really close.)

32 bit Vista isn't buggy at all for me. It works really well.

Chappers
Sep 5, 2008, 01:20 PM
I'm considering emailing him. I'm dying for him to return. :cool:

I'm not sure I miss him that much ;)

He's probably asking all 260 million license holders of Vista if they like Jerry or not. Thats gonna take time. ;)

I miss those little blue smilies even if they got a bit random at times.

panzer06
Sep 5, 2008, 01:42 PM
I'm not sure I miss him that much ;)

He's probably asking all 260 million license holders of Vista if they like Jerry or not. Thats gonna take time. ;)

I miss those little blue smilies even if they got a bit random at times.

He should be back soon since there are probably only 2.6 million actual Vista users (I'm one and I haven't heard from him yet); the rest downgraded to XP. :D

Chappers
Sep 6, 2008, 07:08 AM
Maybe Vista or his HP died and he's too embarrassed to tell us.

SHADO
Sep 6, 2008, 07:41 AM
Well I have a Macbook and I play Halo Universal, AOE III, COD2, C&C 3, Far Cry (cider port), UT 2004, and Tiger Woods 2005 and they all run fine (although the latest update (10.5.4) has some buggy video drivers, so gaming suffers a bit...still waiting for 10.5.5). Like some people have said, the GMA X3100 isnt that bad. I also have a Vista Ultimate partition and have a few games on there too which run great.

Skeletal-dæmon
Sep 6, 2008, 03:26 PM
Hey everybody look!

Okay... so. Another thread bites the dust. Conclusion: No you cannot upgrade the graphics card... mainly because its not so much a card as another chip on the mother board.

Agreed, the OP should have done research but yeah to be honest when I bought the blackbook even after researching it on here I still wasn't prepared for just how many damn fingerprints it gets, so guys research isn't everything.

Also... yeah the X3100 isn't given as much RAM as it could. So what? Its still better than the old GMA950. Be thankful Apple decided to update it when they did.

Finally, I game on my blackbook in both OS X and WinXP. In OS X it handles well, gets a bit warm and gives a decent performance. In WinXP it runs at full potential and almost singes the hairs off of my legs ... and yet the performance is only a tiny (and we're talking microgeeks of difference in performance here) bit better.

</topic>

Thank you all, we can all go back to watching the rain and wondering how long til the floods reach the bottom of the street...

Chappers
Sep 6, 2008, 11:08 PM
Okay... so. Another thread bites the dust.

I bought the blackbook even after researching it on here I still wasn't prepared for just how many damn fingerprints it gets, so guys research isn't everything.

Thank you all, we can all go back to watching the rain and wondering how long til the floods reach the bottom of the street...

A thread only dies if people stop posting to it os it is executed (wastelanded) :D

I have seen loads of stuff about various kit that happens to be black and how much it fingerprints. You are right you probably wouldn't have found that with research. I have seen it in shops though. It started with the iPod nano (original) and boy, could you see prints. I vowed not to buy black in anything. So I went white.

Ah - one of the reasons I left England - cold damp weather. Not the main reason but it does help at 7am to be already enjoying sunshine in T-Shirt and shorts. Its only 32 (90) degrees outside at the moment but should warm up later so I'm not complaining.