MacBook Pro 15" vs HP Envy 15

[ermir4444]

Originally Posted by vant

If you want to buy a computer based on specs, you should avoid Apple. Apple doesn't cater to spec whores.

Yea i know it caters to all the other whores except the specs one...

[DoFoT9]

HP has good specs, just expect to NOT be able to fix it once the OS gets corrupt. i have dealt with a number of HP laptops that simply cannot fix themselves up with their so called "recovery partition". its a load of junk.

[maflynn]

Originally Posted by ermir4444

Yea i know it caters to all the other whores except the specs one...

Actually apple caters to people who care about aesthetics and usability both int the hardware and software. If you're hung up on specs instead of usability, get the usability. You want to mess with windows, that's your business but apple > hp

[klee1987]

Originally Posted by maflynn

Actually apple caters to people who care about aesthetics and usability both int the hardware and software. If you're hung up on specs instead of usability, get the usability. You want to mess with windows, that's your business but apple > hp

I agree. if you search for reviews for the envy you'll probably find most of them don't like the trackpad....

[dan5.5]

Read the reviews about the envys trackpad.
I would go for the mac. It's all about a good balance of hardware and software. Apple has been great about being able to balance these things.

[phrint]

Originally Posted by ermir4444

Yea i know it caters to all the other whores except the specs one...

That's a pretty ignorant comment. Everyone knows specs aren't everything especially on a PC. No way would I pay $1799 for an Envy 15. Add in the other options you would need and you are looking at a little over $2,300 (for me anyway).

I messed around with an Envy a few weeks ago. It is a nice machine but it pales in comparison to the quality the MacBook Pro exudes. It feels cheap when you make a direct comparison with the Mac. The Envy overheats easily and the battery is junk. HP pulls components strictly for specs while the user experience is not taken into consideration. The trackpad is terrible and the mag/aluminum shell feels like an afterthought. With that said the Envy is a good machine that I would probably consider purchasing if it were $500 cheaper.

HP can't sell this laptop at the premium price and expect to compete with Apple. It's just not going to happen.

[ermir4444]

Originally Posted by phrint

That's a pretty ignorant comment. Everyone knows specs aren't everything especially on a PC. No way would I pay $1799 for an Envy 15. Add in the other options you would need and you are looking at a little over $2,300 (for me anyway).

I messed around with an Envy a few weeks ago. It is a nice machine but it pales in comparison to the quality the MacBook Pro exudes. It feels cheap when you make a direct comparison with the Mac. The Envy overheats easily and the battery is junk. HP pulls components strictly for specs while the user experience is not taken into consideration. The trackpad is terrible and the mag/aluminum shell feels like an afterthought. With that said the Envy is a good machine that I would probably consider purchasing if it were $500 cheaper.

HP can't sell this laptop at the premium price and expect to compete with Apple. It's just not going to happen.

you seem like you missed the point of this thread. I was comparing the laptops only specs-wise strictly, i did not mention that envy is better as a whole machine or the operating system. If you can read by the original thread all i asked was wy cant we get similar specs in the 15 " MBP because if hp can fit a 1.6 i7 and a 4830 with 1 gig in a case with the same thickness as the MBP why cant apple do it?

[Cliff3]

They kept the weight and size down by not incorporating an internal optical drive.

[barkomatic]

I'm personally not buying a new MBP until Apple at *least* updates the processor. This cycle, Apple has fallen particularly far behind in terms of updates.

However, I'd rather wait awhile for the MBP I want than purchase another brand. Usually, the wait is worth it.

[phrint]

Originally Posted by ermir4444

you seem like you missed the point of this thread. I was comparing the laptops only specs-wise strictly, i did not mention that envy is better as a whole machine or the operating system. If you can read by the original thread all i asked was wy cant we get similar specs in the 15 " MBP because if hp can fit a 1.6 i7 and a 4830 with 1 gig in a case with the same thickness as the MBP why cant apple do it?

Apple can do it and I think they will in Q1 of 2010. Apple has never been one to rush to the table cause I think adding (or making an option) for an i5 or i7 chip is going to cause a redesign or removing the superdrive altogether. It will be interesting to see how they do it. Personally, I am holding off purchase until the i7 is made available in the 15" MBP. I bought a last-gen Powerbook G4 that has been and still is a champ. My uses have diversified and I need more speed, space, and Snow Leopard along with bringing myself into the Intel Apple world.

[vant]

Originally Posted by ermir4444

you seem like you missed the point of this thread. I was comparing the laptops only specs-wise strictly, i did not mention that envy is better as a whole machine or the operating system. If you can read by the original thread all i asked was wy cant we get similar specs in the 15 " MBP because if hp can fit a 1.6 i7 and a 4830 with 1 gig in a case with the same thickness as the MBP why cant apple do it?

Because Apple actually spends money in R&D instead of Copy & Paste.

[Prom1]

Originally Posted by vant

Because Apple actually spends money in R&D instead of Copy & Paste.

Indeed they do but I have to disagree when it comes to the gpu. Long ago when the TiBooks and first iterations of the Albooks debuted MANY Mac users cried invain for awhile because of aneamic gpu performance. If you recal Apples strongest market is graphical design along with education and music or pre-press. Shipping 256MB of GPU memory today is hurting. As OS X improves - say 2 yrs - you'll notice more implentation of OpenGL used and current GPU memory will hardly be enough.

I think we'll see a mobile version of Intel's Core i5/i7 and 256mb/512mb/1GB gpu memory used. Ati or nvidia. His should happen in February next year.

With smaller chips we'll also see more room for battery size and thus increased life/performance. Maybe even USB3.0

[Techhie]

Originally Posted by Prom1

Indeed they do but I have to disagree when it comes to the gpu. Long ago when the TiBooks and first iterations of the Albooks debuted MANY Mac users cried invain for awhile because of aneamic gpu performance. If you recal Apples strongest market is graphical design along with education and music or pre-press. Shipping 256MB of GPU memory today is hurting. As OS X improves - say 2 yrs - you'll notice more implentation of OpenGL used and current GPU memory will hardly be enough.

I think we'll see a mobile version of Intel's Core i5/i7 and 256mb/512mb/1GB gpu memory used. Ati or nvidia. His should happen in February next year.

With smaller chips we'll also see more room for battery size and thus increased life/performance. Maybe even USB3.0

iThink it's evident by the GPU selection in the new iMacs Apple isn't planning to put any more than 512 MB of graphics memory in a near-future MBP.

[MartiNZ]

Originally Posted by Prom1

I think we'll see a mobile version of Intel's Core i5/i7 and 256mb/512mb/1GB gpu memory used. Ati or nvidia. His should happen in February next year.

With smaller chips we'll also see more room for battery size and thus increased life/performance. Maybe even USB3.0

Yeah that's the sort of thing I think will be really interesting to see. The step-ups in GPU and processor in the new iMacs are hopefully a sign of things to come in terms of a bit better future-proofing.

New shiny GPUs in early '10 MBPs would not surprise me –*I didn't even realise the 15" ones only had 256MB VRAM now; my early 2008 MBP has 512MB. USB3 would also be quite interesting to see, and maybe another random disappearance of FireWire . I know I would certainly happily give it up for another USB slot, but apparently some people use FW.

As for the actual subject, I don't like it how people feel so much need to bash the construction and such of the competition –*IMO in terms of raw numbers, it would make one go huh! if it weren't for the aesthetics and the ability to run OS X plus whatever other OS you feel like running. The 15" could use a resolution hike as well, and a switch to 16:9 is another thing that would not surprise me.

[Techhie]

Originally Posted by ermir4444

you seem like you missed the point of this thread. I was comparing the laptops only specs-wise strictly, i did not mention that envy is better as a whole machine or the operating system. If you can read by the original thread all i asked was wy cant we get similar specs in the 15 " MBP because if hp can fit a 1.6 i7 and a 4830 with 1 gig in a case with the same thickness as the MBP why cant apple do it?

If you operated a multi-billion dollar corporation and the lesser-specced laptops that made you ridiculous profits were selling like hotcakes, why would you want to change anything? It is ignorant to compare these two laptops based solely on raw performance alone, because it wasn't a goal when Apple designed the MBP. That being said, it is clear from the Mac Pro line that they are more interested in earning a few extra bucks than providing more powerful components, even to their highest end customers.

[FSMBP]

If someone offered me a MacBook Pro from 2 years ago, I would take that over the HP (assuming the MBP specs would be A LOT less closer to the HP).

You can't forget Apple makes its own software/hardware; you shouldn't expect any less integration on your personal gadgets.

[cfitz7111]

I am betting that Apple has not done the processor upgrade until they figure out how to keep their "7 Hour battery Life" A great processor is no good if your batter lasts 90 minutes.

I am betting that when the new i7 is released it will have double the battery life of anything in the same class.

[DoFoT9]

Originally Posted by cfitz7111

I am betting that Apple has not done the processor upgrade until they figure out how to keep their "7 Hour battery Life" A great processor is no good if your batter lasts 90 minutes.

I am betting that when the new i7 is released it will have double the battery life of anything in the same class.

apple will not put the high end quads in i feel. i think they would only put a 2ghz in the machine. great battery life (around 4/5hrs). they wouldnt want them interfering with imac sales.

[Techhie]

Originally Posted by cfitz7111

I am betting that Apple has not done the processor upgrade until they figure out how to keep their "7 Hour battery Life" A great processor is no good if your batter lasts 90 minutes.

I am betting that when the new i7 is released it will have double the battery life of anything in the same class.

a lot of the entry-level quad cores use similar amounts of energy to the old penryns, so I don't think this becomes an issue unless they opt to go high-end (and cannibalize iMac sales)

[masse]

This thread is the same as the XPS1530 thread that popped up...whenever ago.

Only it was more like better specs, much much better price.

Use both and see what you think.