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.
Apple Releases the MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
grahamtriggs
macrumors regular
dblissmn said:
When you say base, do you mean the 1.67Ghz? I would say that depends on how much value you attach to certain components. As I said before, for exactly the same money (as the 1.67 MBP) I'm getting a Dell, with:
1.83Ghz Core Duo
1 GB Ram
100 GB HDD
17" 1920x1200 screen
256MB Geforce Go 7800
Dual layer DVD burner
(Oh, and it's currently with UPS for delivery today, despite ordering less than a week ago).
Admittedly there is no backlit keyboard or camera, it's not as thin, small and light as the MBP. Then again, there is also the Sony VGN-FE11S - which has a camera, 1.83 Ghz Duo, 160Gb HDD, only fractionally heavier than the MBP - albeit without backlit keyboard, lower resolution, and a cm thicker. But it's (UK)£150 cheaper than the MBP (and also ships with Photoshop Elements 4/Premiere Elements 2 - which are better than iPhoto/iMovie/iDVD IMHO).
dblissmn said:
Agreed that the additional price of the 1.83 Ghz model doesn't stack up based on what we know about the costs of components (and being Intel based means that we have a better indication of costs than PowerPC).
That said, we don't know what deals Apple has negotiated. It wouldn't surprise me if they have greater discounts on the less powerful components, and therefore the difference in price between the two models more accurately reflects the difference in cost between them than we think (or to put it another way, Apple may be making a greater premium on the lower model than we imagine).
And 'pure profit' is a rather misleading term - Apple has other costs to offset (such as OS development). So, should Apple continue to sell high premium products to a niche market, or more competitively priced (not necessarily lower quality) products to a larger market? (that may not necessarily be running OS X).
MacDonaldsd
macrumors 65816
If your getting a Core Duo laptop and using Windows you need to look out for this problem, no fix or patch available yet.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/28/toms_hardware_uncovers_power_drain_issue/
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/28/toms_hardware_uncovers_power_drain_issue/
grahamtriggs said:
Yeah, but one is a Dell, the other is an Apple. I'm not saying this out of pure Dell-hatred (I like 'em, I've got a 2405FPW attached to my PowerMac, and own two Dell PCs). It's just that laptops are hard (and expensive) to get right, and Apple does laptops better than pretty much anyone else. I've got an Inspiron laptop, and its a piece of crap. For the time, it was a well-specced machine, with a fast P4 processor, tons of RAM, and a gorgeous display. However, it ran hot, was large and heavy, and it was flimsy. To this day, I don't feel comfortable grabbing a Dell by one hand, simply because its scary when the plastic flexes so much under my grip. I have no problem doing the same thing with any recent iBook or PowerBook, since the cases are just so much sturdier.
Laptops aren't like desktops. A desktop just sits under your desk. A laptop, you have to carry around with you. Because of that, good case design matters a lot. You'd be surprised how even a one pound heavier laptop can weigh you down after trudging around airports all day. A cm of width or depth or (especially) height can have a major impact on how easy the machine feels to carry. And the quality and rigidity of the plastic in the case can mean the difference between a laptop you have to treat like a baby and one you can treat like a tool.
mongoos150
macrumors 6502a
I mulled over this for a week and settled on the 2.0Ghz iMac Core Duo. Not only am I getting a far better system (faster processor, much bigger hard drive, dual layer 8x superdrive all for way less than the "cheap" MBP), but I won't have to deal with the heat/battery issues which have yet to be seen. I'm a Media Arts major and do pro work, and the iMac will be far better suited to using FCP and Adobe CS than any current MBP (when UBs ship). I know I'm comparing portables/desktops, but it just didn't make sense for me, a college student to pay $700 more for a system with less computing power, especially when the iMac is more "pro" than the MBP.
asherman13
macrumors 6502a
jacobj said:
Yeah, but we have quality machines that last 5-6+ years. My iBook, bought in 2001, just died recently, and that's only because of a dying HDD, which I can replace/get replaced for around $300. If my HDD didn't die, I'd have a great machine that ran the latest OS, a little slow I'll admit, but did everything I ever asked of it.
With Dell, and most PC's from what I've heard, the "pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap" method ends up forcing its users to buy a new computer every few years, simply because they can't run the latest and greatest stuff and their OS sucks. It may work for Dell, but Apple is more consumer oriented, IMO.
mongoos150
macrumors 6502a
bodeh6
macrumors 6502a
mongoos150 said:
I also have a XPS T450 but I have 512MB of RAM and I changed the Video card from a Diamond V770 Ultra 32MB to a ATI Radeon 7500 64MB. Only thing wrong with it is that the Floppy drive doesn't work anymore. Still rocking Win 98 on it. But I never use it any more since I got my iBook. My mom and sister still use it though.
mongoos150 said:
Yeah, but does it run Vista ? XP even ? I seriously doubt it.
My 3 years old Powerbook still soldiers on with OSX 10.4.4 quite happily.
Any value comparisons between windows pc/laptops and Macs/Macbooks is completely irrelevent unless it takes into account the value of the Mac OS X versus Windows, and the bundled software. The value of OS X, and iLife, to me is far, far, far greater than the retail cost. The time saved in maintenence, anti-virus and spyware protection, and general annoyancies makes it even more valuable to me. Then there's the pure aesthetic appeal - I have to sit and look at this OS all day long, and I'm damned if I'm going to punish myself looking at Windows !
I wonder if anyone has actually calculated the dollar value of these 'intangible ' differences ?
For me at least, even if a windows machine is half the cost, it's not as good value as a Mac running OS X. I am forced to use Windows every single day at work, so this is an informed choice.
grahamtriggs
macrumors regular
rhashem said:
Most of those aren't complaints that can be levelled at Dell specifically - just a reflection of making PC laptops at the time. The P4 was a bad laptop processor, and anybody trying to build a laptop round it faced the same issues.
The Dell I purchased is built around a large portion of identical (or very similar) hardware to the MBP. It's as quiet as, and cooler than, my 1.25Ghz PowerBook. It's plastic, but especially flimsy (although I wouldn't try a one handed pickup whilst it is open - because it's large and unwieldy, but then I specifically wanted a large display).
rhashem said:
That depends on what you buy it for. I use a laptop because they are quiet, and I can move it around the house and use it in situations that even an iMac would be impractical. Which is why large screen with high res is important, and general ease of portability isn't.
If I was looking for something to carry around all day, I would probably look at the Sony, which still outdoes the MBP spec wise at a much lower cost, with only slightly larger dimensions and a weight difference of about 200g.
It's a shame, but it's just too expensive to stay with Macs... both hardware and software (where I have to spend about £500 to get something usable for rather basic needs, yet can easily get software for £50 that more than does the job on Windows).
grahamtriggs
macrumors regular
asherman13 said:
I could say the same thing about PCs - I've rarely seen anything other than drives (and power supplies) die. PSU can be particularly annoying as they have the potential to damage other parts that otherwise are / would be working fine.
asherman13 said:
Which is why Apple has a semi-functional 10-foot interface that is available on virtually every machine apart from the one that is desperately crying out for it (Mac Mini) - and MS have Media Center?
(semi) Joking aside, it's a bit of a nonsense argument anyway - Dell is largely a corporate supplier. And "pile 'em high" doesn't make much sense - all Dell machines are built to order, and they work with a low inventory of parts (regularly replenished).
It also isn't fair to accuse manufacturers of forcing people to buy new computers every few years - all they are doing is assembling the hardware available to them. It's Microsoft and the application developers that are obsoleting old hardware by writing to take advantage of newer developments.
Now that Apple has gone Intel, it will be interesting to see how the market pans out - up until now, developers could only ever write stuff that would work on whatever hardware Apple were supplying. With Intel chips under the hood, there will be a far more consistent and continual release of more powerful hardware - and Apple will be under pressure to keep up along with the PC/Windows market. With the hardware going through more rapid evolution, will the developers take greater advantage of it, and therefore give people more reason to upgrade more often?
grahamtriggs
macrumors regular
Gee4orce said:
Exactly the same here. Although Safari and Delicious Library have a tendency to become completely unresponsive for 30 secs+. And the Mail app craps out when closing sometimes. Spotlight is a dog, and the dashboard has no interest to me (given that it takes up memory and processes, you think Apple would have included a way in the OS to completely disable it if you don't want it?). And it can't run pretty much any big name game released in the last year (some of the ones that do are too slow to be useful).
It's fine to say that the OS runs well, but you have to be able to run the apps as well. I could just as easily have bought a machine the ran XP fine when it first came out, and not look to upgrade until Vista is released. That machine would still be running XP quite happily, and the machine would be older than 3 years!!!
Gee4orce said:
Agreed - except for me iLife is the biggest disappointment I've ever encountered. iTunes is OK (but way too limited in certain important regards), iMovie and iDVD have (had) completely arbitrary and annoying limitations that make them useless to me, even though my needs are fairly simple. I can replace iPhoto/iMovie/iDVD on a PC with £50 worth of Adobe software that is *far* more powerful, iTunes I can get for free anyway (plus many other alternatives), so how much value is there in what's left?
Yes, OS X is still better than Windows, but where it is *importantly* better is being closed all the time - it should (hopefully) be negligible with the release of Vista.
Gee4orce said:
I've used DOS/Windows at work everyday for 13 years, and at home for 11 years. I've used Macs at work for a period about 10 years ago, and have two at home that I've used with almost no recourse to a PC for 3 years. So this is hardly an uninformed choice ;-)
robbieduncan
Moderator emeritus
shivdwiv said:
You are basically asking for interest free credit. Apple do not offer this (at least in the UK). They offer an credit option but the interest rate is pretty high.
powerbook911
macrumors 601
mongoos150
macrumors 6502a
Gee4orce said:
It runs XP Professional, and it doesn't run that slow either. It's a great machine.🙂
Gee4orce said:
Not of the intangible differences. However someone did put together a spreadsheet that calculated total cost of ownership over 5 years. That is, the total cost including software purchases, installation and maintenance time, and losses due to down time.
A link was posted in these forums but I cannot find it now. Google searches for OS X and TCO or Mac and TCO turn up various analysis articles.
buryyourbrideau
macrumors 65816
robbieduncan said:
its nice to see youve already compiled all your apps to run on Intel.
Nice!
- Status