Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Sesshi

macrumors G3
Jun 3, 2006
8,113
1
One Nation Under Gordon
More expensive? It wasn't for me... you must be looking in the wrong places.

I also appreciate a laptop that doesn't burn up at the first sign of something stressful and is built solidly. I also appreciate that I have 3 year onsite support included in the price. Sure it's a relative hulk compared to the MBP but it's no less luggable in a shoulder bag and more usable for transportable power computing... which is how I use the XPS. (And it could be said, why else would you have a 17" 'laptop'?) I also play games on it and of course it blows the Mac out of the water.
 

urrl78

macrumors member
Oct 26, 2006
89
0
Though it's been quite awhile since anyone has posted here I just thought I would post some screenshots from my 2.33 Ghz Macbook Pro playing Oblivion, which is quite playable windowed at 1280x720 using HDR.

My Character:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/LARA5.jpg
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/LARA6.jpg
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/GlassBowWings.jpg

Indoor setting:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/SkingradHouse.jpg

Petting her main ride:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/UnicornHorn2.jpg
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/RidingUnicorn.jpg

Pet shopping:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/Pets3.jpg

On a Dark Brotherhood Quest:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/DB1.jpg

Facing Dagon:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o41/AshleyT99/Dagon1.jpg

Had the game about a month and can't put it down. Unbelievable graphics, but it does not run as smoothly as I would want, but quite playable.
For casual gaming and a relatively light/thin notebook for a 15" I am happy with the MBP.
 

BarryW

macrumors member
More expensive? It wasn't for me... you must be looking in the wrong places.


Maybe I have this wrong,
But an MBP 17" 2.33Ghz is $2799.00
And the XPS M1710 is $3367.00 2Gb ram, 2.33Ghz cpu, intel next gen N wifi card, 160Gb 5400rpm drive and GO 7900 GS(256 mb) add another $399 for the Go 7950 GTX(512 mb)

So the XPS is $568 more expensive than the MPB, and I forgot to add bluetooth to the XPS which is another 20$.
 

thegrandmaster

macrumors regular
Feb 3, 2007
230
0
Valhalla!
Sorry for highjacking this a bit, but does anyone know C&C RA2 AOE2/3/Mythology play on a 21.6?

And will the bottom level MBP play C&C3, I'm not info FPSes on a computer so I'm not bothered about those, just wondering if anyone played any of those?

Thanks
 

thegrandmaster

macrumors regular
Feb 3, 2007
230
0
Valhalla!
Thanks for the info, C&C3 looks brilliant but my personal favourites are the Red Alert games, love a little bit of what if... in my games!
 

Sesshi

macrumors G3
Jun 3, 2006
8,113
1
One Nation Under Gordon
Maybe I have this wrong,
But an MBP 17" 2.33Ghz is $2799.00
And the XPS M1710 is $3367.00 2Gb ram, 2.33Ghz cpu, intel next gen N wifi card, 160Gb 5400rpm drive and GO 7900 GS(256 mb) add another $399 for the Go 7950 GTX(512 mb)

So the XPS is $568 more expensive than the MPB, and I forgot to add bluetooth to the XPS which is another 20$.

Don't forget to add the onsite support - oh yeah, there is no onsite support -, higher-res screen - oh yeah, there is no higher-res screen - and some sort of giant fan for the MBP which would allow it to wheeze along with the XPS when the CPU and GPU are being given a fair workout without it sounding like a vacuum cleaner ;) It might not hurt also to call Dell, looking for money off deals, etc.

The two machines just aren't comparable. The XPS offers bags of usable power and is a solid, well-supported machine. The MBP is pretty and makes me look somewhat in tune with the zeitgeist.
 

aneks

macrumors regular
Aug 29, 2006
132
0
just finished prey on my 2.33 C2d and it was fine. had it running 1440x900 and most things cranked. Didn't bother checking actual frames as it was all playable and not laggy at all. Just put on Quake 4 and It seems a little once I crank antialiasing and boost it to full res.

Still no complaints. I bought this to take on the road and it performs well for a laptop
 

urrl78

macrumors member
Oct 26, 2006
89
0
If I haven't mentioned it already Tomb Raider Legends looks great at 1400x900 on 2.33 MBP C2D and it runs well.
 

macjonny1

macrumors 6502a
Jan 10, 2006
554
117
What about video encoding and other tasks like that? Isn't the GPU helpful for those as well? Or, is just the middle of the road GPU usually adequate for that. Is a top-notch GPU only useful for gaming? Is there anything else that the MBP would benefit from by having a newer GPU?
 

RojoLeo

macrumors 6502
Mar 11, 2007
380
26
Austin, TX
It really baffles me why everyone compares the MBP to a Dell. Yes, Dells are popular, but they're hardly representative of the entire PC community. Right now Dell is making good ground in their server market, and their desktop market is reasonable, but their laptops are priced way out of the league they should be competing in. As such, it really complicates the PC vs. Mac debate, review, comparisons, etc.

For a true representation of what PC manufacturers are capable of, check out the HP dv9000t.
  • Vista Ultimate
  • C2D 2.0 Ghz
  • 17" 1680x1050
  • 512MB GeForce(R) Go 7600
  • Integrated Mic and Camera
  • 2Gb DDR2
  • 2 100GB SATA 7200RPM drives (That's right, two drives)
  • LightScribe Super Multi 8X DVD+/-RW w/Double Layer
  • Intel(R) PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network w/Bluetooth
  • HP Expresscard TV Tuner
  • Built in standard size keyboard (with full keypad)
  • Standard 1 year warranty, same as Apple, though of course others available

This specific configuration comes to: $2,346.99

Now you have virtually the same specs as a MBP, the only negative on hardware is the slightly slower CPU.

I was very, very close to going with this before deciding to buy my first mac, a 15" 2.33 Ghz MBP. I chose the MBP for many reasons, but in doing so I gave up the larger screen (I know there's a 17" available, but not for the price point of $2300), a secondary and faster hard drive, lightscribe, and a tv tuner card.

I wish Apple would take a few cues from HP on hardware. A second hard drive, 512mb video card, and a tv tuner card should all be options.
 

deadpixels

macrumors 6502a
Oct 30, 2006
913
0
i am not a gamer (doesn't have time for that) and it does not interest me really, but i was wondering, do you guys use gaming consoles xbox wii etc..?? or do you just game on computers?? if only on computers, then why? shouldnt the gaming be much smoother and overall better with a console? just curious :D
 

macjonny1

macrumors 6502a
Jan 10, 2006
554
117
i am not a gamer (doesn't have time for that) and it does not interest me really, but i was wondering, do you guys use gaming consoles xbox wii etc..?? or do you just game on computers?? if only on computers, then why? shouldnt the gaming be much smoother and overall better with a console? just curious :D

WoW is not on a console. 'nuff said.
 

EvryDayImShufln

macrumors 65816
Sep 18, 2006
1,094
1
Don't forget to add the onsite support - oh yeah, there is no onsite support -, higher-res screen - oh yeah, there is no higher-res screen - and some sort of giant fan for the MBP which would allow it to wheeze along with the XPS when the CPU and GPU are being given a fair workout without it sounding like a vacuum cleaner ;) It might not hurt also to call Dell, looking for money off deals, etc.

The two machines just aren't comparable. The XPS offers bags of usable power and is a solid, well-supported machine. The MBP is pretty and makes me look somewhat in tune with the zeitgeist.

Anyway who cares, you can't run OS X on a dell (well at least you couldnt before :D) and most people don't need the power anyway. I need my pc for school, sure extra power would be nice but doubling the weight is not an option (exaggeration)
 

MacGuffin

macrumors regular
Nov 13, 2006
175
18
I wish Apple would take a few cues from HP on hardware. A second hard drive, 512mb video card, and a tv tuner card should all be options.

I know what you mean. In spite of their abundant other qualities, Macs are still unable to compete equally in the commodity hardware market. And a glance at Apple's profit margins will show you why.

I've considered jumping ship, dual booting Linux for work and XP for games. In truth, it's just more fiddling around than I want to do any more. I prefer Apple's sane, dependable no-fuss environment.

That doesn't keep me from wishing it would offer better hardware specifically for games.
 

Gokhan

macrumors 6502a
Oct 7, 2003
703
0
London
k

how about testing the mbp with the ati omega drivers installed ??

this lets the gpu run at a higher core speed should make a differnce !

bizarely i installed these drivers and am alarmed that in windows gpu speed is reported at 440mhz shouldnt it be more like 310mhz for a 17" c2c mbp ??

any ideas ??
 

e12a

macrumors 68000
Oct 28, 2006
1,881
0
how about testing the mbp with the ati omega drivers installed ??

this lets the gpu run at a higher core speed should make a differnce !

bizarely i installed these drivers and am alarmed that in windows gpu speed is reported at 440mhz shouldnt it be more like 310mhz for a 17" c2c mbp ??

any ideas ??

i've tried the omega drivers back in november...be warned, it froze my MBP up. I suggest to play it safe with the Apple drivers.
 

eba

macrumors regular
Mar 14, 2007
242
5
i've tried the omega drivers back in november...be warned, it froze my MBP up. I suggest to play it safe with the Apple drivers.

I've used the Omega drivers on my PC for years and on my MBP since the Intel switch. Never had any problems. As with any Windows video driver, be sure to uninstall the previous driver and restart before installing the new driver. It will work.
 

EvryDayImShufln

macrumors 65816
Sep 18, 2006
1,094
1
True, but you can (as I do now) run Vista Ultimate. Which is - to me - only worse in some areas not important to me, and superior in more ways. But that's another argument entirely of course ;)

I admit Vista looks like a big improvement over XP. Xp was definitely showing its age recently, OS X blew it out of the water without a problem. Vista is another story, but we'll see what leopard can do about that
 

deadpixels

macrumors 6502a
Oct 30, 2006
913
0
I admit Vista looks like a big improvement over XP. Xp was definitely showing its age recently, OS X blew it out of the water without a problem. Vista is another story, but we'll see what leopard can do about that

eeeewwwwwww! 10.4.9 like it is now is already superior to anything the dark side came with, their latest bastard is a blatant ripp off of MacOs, you must know that by now :confused:
remember this?
3350photocopiers-med.jpg
 

Freyqq

macrumors 601
Dec 13, 2004
4,038
181
eeeewwwwwww! 10.4.9 like it is now is already superior to anything the dark side came with, their latest bastard is a blatant ripp off of MacOs, you must know that by now :confused:
remember this?
3350photocopiers-med.jpg

eh? Both oses have their moments.

Don't get me wrong..I own a mac...but seriously..PCs have their uses as well.

Take gaming for instance..gaming on a PC is miles above anything mac because of price, upgradability, and better videcards available.

Personally, I buy mac laptops and pc desktops but that's just me.

I mean...sure there's a lot of blatant ripoffs from osx in vista..but at the end of the day its the end product that matters

If anything, gadgets in vista is more a ripoff of konfabulator than dashboard and linux has had multidesktops since as long as I can remember.
 

Gokhan

macrumors 6502a
Oct 7, 2003
703
0
London
k

well my mbp is stable fingers crossed for the min and i lowered gpu to 310mhz at start-up but the apple drivers suck as i couldnt get extended desktop to work with it and had a few issues so far the omega drivers are ok check it out people
 

Sesshi

macrumors G3
Jun 3, 2006
8,113
1
One Nation Under Gordon
I admit Vista looks like a big improvement over XP. Xp was definitely showing its age recently, OS X blew it out of the water without a problem. Vista is another story, but we'll see what leopard can do about that

I'd say in my personal experience of using almost exactly comparable machines delivered with XP, Vista and Intel OS X that the core is not necessarily less reliable under Windows of either variety. The eye candy isn't there of course under XP, but I find it just as - if not slightly more - reliable than the current flavour of OS X. As a platform to run applications on - which is after all the reason for being of the OS - and not a 'hey look, it can do cool stuff like this which I barely use in my everyday working use' point of view, I don't find it that inferior. It'd be hard for me to say exactly what 'blows the water out of XP' about Tiger from that perspective. Yes it's not as good overall from a technical standpoint, but there are practical advantages which outweigh those issues for some people.

I expect roughly the same situation to be true of Leopard vs Vista 64 with even perhaps slight advantages on the Vista side, only now the eye candy is somewhat more directly comparable.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.