LOL. Only delusional people belive that Windoze 10 is as stable as OS X. The only Win OS that got close to OS X on stablity is Windoze 2000.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Surface Pro 4 and 'SurfaceBook' announced - rMBP redesign couldn't come soon enough....
- Thread starter SSD-GUY
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LOL. Only delusional people belive that Windoze 10 is as stable as OS X. The only Win OS that got close to OS X on stablity is Windoze 2000.
4770HQ > 4710HQ (L4 cache vs L3 only)
PCIE x4 SSD > SATA 3 SSD
RAM performace is equal
Dell is better in gaming performance
rMBP display is far more accurate than the dell display
Battery life in rMBP is better than Dell
Therefore, only thing that dell is better is gaming due to Nvidia GPU.
Gonna try one more time. Windows 10 runs BETTER than El Capitan on my rMBP late 2013.
DirectX and Direct3D Draw are the only things that made it run lag free. Stability/Reliability wise, it doesn't compare to OS X.
It's not just the main items you need to compare, because it's the small things that Apple sweats, things that most PC manufacturers figure customers don't care about. Apple focuses on the big picture and how hardware and software work together to provide great performance, while also recognizing you need to maintain battery life and weight and end-of-life recycling of the product. Using carbon fiber, that XPS piece will end up in the landfill, because you can't recycle CF.
I would also note, as I have previously, that before everyone jumps on the bandwagon about these new wave of PC's being faster, better, stronger, longer-lasting, wait until there are some real world tests. Because if the past is any guide to what you can expect, you'll be sorely disappointed.
Oh man. I give up on you. You're so brainwashed it's just sad
What are you talking about? You're so busy apologizing for Apple that you aren't even looking at the right computer. Those are the specs from the old XPS 15 introduced in March or April. The new XPS 15 has Skylake processors (5xxx, not 4xxx), it has a PCI SSD, Thunderbolt 3, 2133 RAM in two upgradable slots (meaning 32GB is possible in the future), a 100% Adobe RGB gamut 4k IGZO display, and 17 hour battery life in a significantly smaller package than the 15" rMBP, for less money. The only thing you got right is the video card.
These things like big picture how hardware and software works together is just gimmicky, i agree that they can optimize a bit more but you can't say that when yosemite ui lags on rmbp 13 for example.
Real world tests, what tests do you want? This isn't android vs ios, its just intel chips that are better than the last year version even if not by much, it's not like they will be slower or something.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not on a hate bandwagon, i like RMBP, but at this moment how can i justify for example paying 1000$ more for the same stuff? Oh it's not even the same stuff, those slim bezels are just beautiful.
For example i really wanted to buy a 13' rmbp until this day because my options are like this
13' rmbp - i5 (low voltage chip) - 256gb ssd - 8gb ram - iris pro - 1500 euro
15' dell xps - i5 (Quad core) - 1tb sshd(with 32gb ssd)(ssd is user replaceable) - gtx 960m - 8gb ram - beautifull screen(1080p) - 1400 euro! 4k screen = 1750 euro where 15rmbp without dGPU is starting at 2000 euro
The ideea is that i get a lot more value with dell now.
Last edited:
I think that with exceptions like Sony, you've always gotten more value from makers that use Windows. The difference is that now the things that Apple has always used to set itself apart aren't as important. Windows 10 is objectively as good or better than OS X at everything the vast majority of people will use a notebook for. Hell, most people could probably get by with a Chromebook these days.It genuinely comes down to a preference on which UI you like best in most instances.
Hardware quality is often a tossup now... everyone uses premium materials (aluminum, magnesium, carbon fiber) and they are all thin and lighter than ever. So what does someone gain by choosing OS X on a rMBP vs Windows 10 on a new Dell for less money?
Hardware quality is often a tossup now... everyone uses premium materials (aluminum, magnesium, carbon fiber) and they are all thin and lighter than ever. So what does someone gain by choosing OS X on a rMBP vs Windows 10 on a new Dell for less money?
I'm not brainwashed. I speak from experience with PCs regardless if it's a modern or old hardware. The stability and reliability OS wise became even worse since Windoze 2000 SP4/Windoze 7 SP1. The only thing that improved is the hardware where the chassis and functionality are becoming pleasing to the eye that only Mac hardware used to have.
I wouldn't ever try to tell you or anyone to not buy whatever you want, but the old adage - "You get what you pay for", is certainly true, with computers, cars, education, clothes, food, etc.
The dell isn't necessarily cheaper if you wanna go spec for spec. But I would argue the design on the XPS 13 blows away the rMBP.
The XPS 13 doesn't compete with the rMBP. It uses similar components to the Macbook Air. The new XPS 15 was several hundred dollars cheaper than the equivalent dGPU Macbook Pro. When they had the configurator up this morning, an XPS that matched the $2500 Macbook Pro was $2199 with the added benefit of upgradable components (the SSD and RAM are upgradable). That's not an insignificant amount of money for superior hardware in a smaller package.
But it is apple choosing NOT to offer a 13" with dGPU - for the sole purpose of forcing folks to go for a higher margin machine.
And spare me the "they can't do it" - just like the richest company on the planet can't work with two different motherboards, to offer a quad Mac mini, right? They choose to force folks to go with a MBP, iMac, or Mac Pro for quad core.
$$$ - customer experience/desires be damned.
Both the XPS and rMBP 13 use the U class series processors and the XPS has Skylake vs the Broadwell in the rMBP.
The XPS lineup wins both screen size battles.
Do you understand what heat constraints are? They can't actually fit a dGPU in the 13rMBP.
While I admit that you were right about the U series processors (I was actually kind of surprised by that), I just don't buy that they couldn't do a dGPU in the 13". What you are saying has been the excuse for years, since way back when the 13" plastic Macbook was out, and that was a much larger enclosure. All the while I was able to buy a Vaio four years ago with a blu-ray burner, GPU, 13" 1080p screen, and quad core processor that weighed the same as a Macbook Air.
The same way that they left Firewire 800 out of the first Macbook Pro and everyone swore up and down there was nowhere for them to add it, until they did it, Apple makes choices to exclude technically feasible features all the time, and it isn't a stretch to assume that they do it to drive you to more expensive models.
My argument is that each laptop has a total TDP that is allowed to the system and Apple can't get a GPU in. Dell can't either. It's not because they are price gouging but I do admit if Apple was truly motivated to do so, they could easily try.
I like when security researchers post they're findings publicly because the more people know they better they are able to protect themselves. The issue I take with that at least in regards to Linux is they don't specify which kernel they're talking about there are 4 kernels released per year but yeah it's been a tough 18 months.
Never happen - Apple will not produce a product that will cannibalize their laptop line
But there is because that's what Apple is doing to market the tablet. By the way the SP model is not a keyboard less laptop, you can buy a keyboard and infact I'd say its all but required (from a SP3 owner)
My SP3 running both win8.1 and now windows 10 has been the epitome of stability and pain free experience.