Across the great divide: MacBook Pro vs. the PC competition

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, May 4, 2006.

  1. MacBytes macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003


    Category: Reviews
    Link: Across the great divide: MacBook Pro vs. the PC competition
    Description:: For years, the Mac vs. PC debate has been fueled mostly by subjective ranting; the platforms and the components were so different that it was impossible to compare fundamental characteristics such as performance.

    Posted on
    Approved by Mudbug
  2. JordanNZ macrumors 6502a

    Apr 29, 2004
    Auckland, New Zealand
    The MBP DOES have SPDIF... How they missed that I have no idea.
  3. pth-webdev macrumors member

    Dec 20, 2005
    right here

    Warning: this review was originally published in the "Awsome awsome computer weekly journal".

    Eight comparisons. I can't shake the impression that where the Apple won it did so by a significant difference, while the Acer won with only a insignificant amounts. By simplifying each difference to a single point and counting these points will the Acer give you the impression that it is a winner.

    Even the price: while the Acer costs less, the author acknowledges that the Apple offers much more value, but is was a "win" for the Acer nonetheless. (yes, $400 is a lot of money and using this machine for 40 months still makes it $10/month. However, you probably spend more then that on coffee.)

    And performance: while Rosetta can not deliver raw native performance, the Mac does well.
    Yes, this is *really* important: a machine with a €2500 pricetag gets smoked if used to play a game (but would be a tie otherwise).

    Coming from Windows the anti-aliassing might look different, but this is a setting that can be changed. However, the original setting is more comfortable in the long run anyway. The display performed well with other tasks, but this setting for text confused the author and made her conclude there was something wrong with the display itself.

    Buy the Acer. This review will give you the confidence that staying with Windows is a good idea. You can look down on the Mac now and use this review to show others why your choice was good. But be warned: Windows is all you get on that Acer.

    One thing I learned again: there is no point comparing two machines if they run different OSses. I'd trade the Acer even for a tiBook, just to get away from Windows, even if the tiBook is less of a screamer.

    Please reviewers, could we get some intelligent tests? Like: unpack a machine, install Office and some other apps, set up three users or set up different email accounts, then perform a few tasks, clean the machine from everything you added and look at how much time it took.
    I mean, how important is double the framerate if your display isn't that fast anyway? Is it now impossible to enjoy the game?
    So a photoshop filter is faster running natively on Windows, but if looking for the file, opening it, processing it, saving it with another name and uploading it to a webserber isn't easier, you still won't be more productive.

    Perhaps from the point of view of a Windows user do these test make sense. For me, as a Mac user, they mean very little.
  4. jayb2000 macrumors 6502a


    Apr 18, 2003
    RI -> CA -> ME
    Bad Battery Test

    "On the MacBook Pro, screen brightness was lowered to half and the power management was set at Better Battery Life. The TravelMate 8200's screen brightness was adjusted to 60cd/m2 to 70cd/m2 and, it was set to run in Windows XP's Portable/Laptop power scheme."

    But in the display section c|net wrote:
    "The TravelMate 8200 scored a respectable 186 candelas per square meter (cd/m²), but the MacBook Pro was far brighter, measuring 269 cd/m²."

    That means, for the battery test, the Apple was at 134.5 and the acer was at 60-70 candelas. Also, there were no other power adjustments on the Apple, like disabling Widgets and such. At least they did not say so.

    So, at double the brightness, with no other power reductions, the MacBook Pro lasted 8 minutes shorter, or about four percent. So if we reduced the brightness to the same level as the Acer, presumeably the batter would have lasted FAR longer.
    Which would mean the MBP would win 4, the Acer 3 and Apple would win. :D
    Oh, wait, this is c|net, that can't happen. :rolleyes:
  5. winmacguy macrumors 68020


    Nov 8, 2003
    New Zealand
    That wasn't the ONLY thing they missed. Check the part about PCs requiring antivirus software on No. 7, there is NO mention of OS X being virus free....
  6. MacFan782040 macrumors 6502a


    Dec 1, 2003
    Scranton, PA
    $400... is EASILY comparable to the simplicity of OS X, the front row remote, no viruses, iLife 06 suite, backlit keyboard, magsafe, a POUND lighter, thinner, brighter screen... it's a no brainer.
  7. joelypolly macrumors 6502

    Sep 14, 2003
    Melbourne & Shanghai
  8. SPUY767 macrumors 68000


    Jun 22, 2003
    Agreed. . .

    I knew how this was going to turn out before I even red it. And technically, The MBP doesn't have S/PDIF, as S/PDIF is a coaxical port. If the acer in fact, has a toslink optical port, like the MBP, then the test is just misworded, If however, the ACER does have an S/PDIF option, then the MBP has an advantage as most modern receivers use toslink instead of the older S/PDIF ports for surround sound applications. And in a side note, you knew that C|Net would add some BS test just so that the PC would win.

Share This Page