Unix is infinitely more powerful and versatile than Windows 7...
That is just an epic fail statement you made.
All current Apple notebooks can output HDMI with sound through DisplayPort.
The new Envy actually does have an optical drive.
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.
Curious, why did you buy a MBP 15" instead of Envy 15"?
- Thread starter gagaliya
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unix is infinitely more powerful and versatile than Windows 7...
That is just an epic fail statement you made.
I'm having a hard time justifying the costs of a MBP. They seriously overprice like crazy.
This Dell laptop costs the same as the cheapest 13 inch MBP, yet it outperforms the MBP i7 in every possible way.
INTEL® CORE i7-620M (2,66 GHZ, four THREADS, TURBO BOOST TO 3,33 GHZ, 3 MB CACHE)
Legitimate Windows® 7 Home Premium 64 BIT
17.3 High Definition+ (1600x900) LED with TL
Black chainlink
1 year warranty
4.096 MB 1067 MHz Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM [2 x 2.048]
1TB (7,200rpm) Serial ATA Dual Hard Drive (2x 500GB)
1 GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650
9-cel lithium-ion battery (85 Wh)
The i7 Quad core Dell laptops lost only by 30 minutes in battery life to a MBP. This Dual core i7-620M with the optional 9-cel lithium-ion battery (85 Wh) should probably offer the same battery life if not more than the MBP i7. ( This was with working with google docs )
But the resale value of a MBP is nice however. And the MBP looks better to see.
Anyway, I had set my sight on a MBP for along time and I'm buying it. But I find it rediculous how much Apple charges for this ****I'm a sucker for paying it
How does this out perform the MBP i7 in every possible way? Same processor and RAM, then you have to take the OS into account. I've ran Geekbench on my MBP and Hackintosh in both OS X and Win 7, and both get higher scores when running in OS X so leads me to conclude it utilises the hardware better.
The 17" MBP has similar size screen but a better resolution.
Granted I'll give you the GPU and HDD capacity and speed.
Willing to bet build quality, trackpad etc isn't as good on the Dell.
Cool story bro.
Really? You just regurgitate things you read without stopping to think. Unix/linux is open-source, runs a bit lighter and is more coder-friendly. There are a few things you can do more directly on linux, but there isn't really anything you can't do on a windows machine.
On top of this, most power users game, period. Guess what sucks? OpenGL sucks.
Maybe just a miscontstrued epicwin statement.
I know this, but with the stupid ass dongle it's just a mess, let alone it's expensive considering most people will use it to hook up to an HDTV or whatever. More and more dongles all the time with Apple. Displayport isn't being readily adopted either, so this wasn't my favourite feature.
Envy 14/17 do, 15 does not. Read the thread title and/or do a little more research.
I'd never even heard of geekbench before visiting macrumours. Go over to the xtremesystems benchmarking section of the forum and check how many people use Geekbench to test their clocks. I'm fairly sure it was built for OSX and ported to windows, and for this reason performs worse.
This statement is completely false. On a Mac you can run all through OS's legitimately. On windows, you cannot all three platforms on the same system without some serious hacking (hackintosh, not literally "hacking"). As far as security goes there are lots of things Linux/Unix/OSX users can do that windows users can't.
And I would not consider a power to always be a gamer. A power user could be a video editor/photo shop running multiple virtual machines. I would consider myself to be a "power user" and do not game on my computer. Except for IE (compatibility testing), I have no need for windows and would consider my capabilities for greater than anyone who just had one system, as I have all three at my finger tips with a single click.
It would appear we strongly disagree on what constitutes a power user.
Gaming is definitely not on my list and neither is a graphic user interface most of the time.
The flat framework layout of unix (Mac OS X) is just much superior to the layers upon layers which make up the Windows operating system.
What does this post contribute to this thread?
The Envy 15 has some significant technological advantages over an MBP. If you're not willing to consider it because "it's still a PC", how does that further the discussion?
It does add because the question posed by the OP was why not an Envy. Many of the answers are the same--because of the OS--OS-X instead of Win 7. That is a good enough reason for many of us. If you want Win 7--or don't care--maybe the Envy is fine for you.
"Envy"; what a ridiculous name. Who wants their laptop named after one of the seven deadly sins (pride, greed, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony and sloth)? Not exactly inspiring, is it?
And it doesn't work as a noun either. Compare, "I did it on my MacBook", to, "I did it on my envy". Huh?
Specs and techs aside, they've completely botched the marketing. Or is this just stodgy old HP trying to be 'hip'?
Who knows?
And it doesn't work as a noun either. Compare, "I did it on my MacBook", to, "I did it on my envy". Huh?
Specs and techs aside, they've completely botched the marketing. Or is this just stodgy old HP trying to be 'hip'?
Who knows?
Even Kayla on SIRIUS Octane understands the beauty of a MacBook. She was interviewing someone live at a rock concert in Ohio and warned them to stay clear of her MacBook!
Thanks for your post. Because it was both rational and fact based, it places you in a distinct minority among recent posters to this thread.
Pftt.
The people on notebookreviews are right about you guys. Why does every thread comparing a macbook to anything turn into this childish flamewar. It's a laptop running OSX. Jeebas.I'm not really on either side of the argument. I just give my input and the "Nothing can be wrong with my expensive product sydrome" kicks in.
From my personal experience, a PC has never lasted more than a year. I've had 4 PCs during my life (sadly) until I finally made the switch to Apple. My first PC was a Compaq laptop. It became infected with malware within 8 months and never worked the same. Second was a Dell Desktop, and the motherboard on that fried within 2 months for no apparent reason (talk about cheap, faulty hardware), my 3rd was a Sony Laptop, and the motherboard on that fried as well due to power outages when traveling abroad. Finally came the Lenovo, which practically fell apart (the screen just came of its hinges).
As you can see, specs mean nothing, because PC hardware is pure crap. The only company that actually produces long lasting computers, IMO, is Sony. The funny thing though, is that they aren't spec heavy. I've been using Apple for 6 years now, and during that time, I've owned 2 Macbooks. The first one I owned for 2 years, reason due to it being stolen. And from then on, I've owned this Black Macbook, with absolutely no hardware problems, except for freezing when I bash it around and disconnect it from a power source (which I suspect is from the battery). Theres just absolutely no comparison between PCs and Macs.
Here's the thing about pricing. You really do get what you pay for. A Mac is guaranteed to last you at least 3 years (upwards to 5 years), I know one person who has had the same Mac for 8 years, albeit running slowly. The average PC will last you about 1 - 2 years. So in the long run, you'll end up buying 2 PCs for every Mac you own. Taking this into consideration, you end up paying equal or more for PCs.
To top it all off, I have a friend that works at a large 100 room (each room spread separately across acres of land) resort. The offices their have approximately 200 PCs. One PC becomes infected with malware, and because all of these computers are connected to the hotel's network, guess what happens! The virus spreads to each and every computer. Their entire system shuts down. If any of you work in the hotel industry or offices, you know how devastating this can be. So the resolution: Run the antivirus software on each separate computer. Because they dont have 200 copies of this software, they have to run it on just a handful of computers at a time, and it takes hours, if not an entire day, to complete its malware cleanup. Now what really sums it up? The owner of the resort uses an iMac in his office, which is also connected to the hotel's network. It wasn't affected one bit, but I'm sure you could've guessed that.
As you can see, specs mean nothing, because PC hardware is pure crap. The only company that actually produces long lasting computers, IMO, is Sony. The funny thing though, is that they aren't spec heavy. I've been using Apple for 6 years now, and during that time, I've owned 2 Macbooks. The first one I owned for 2 years, reason due to it being stolen. And from then on, I've owned this Black Macbook, with absolutely no hardware problems, except for freezing when I bash it around and disconnect it from a power source (which I suspect is from the battery). Theres just absolutely no comparison between PCs and Macs.
Here's the thing about pricing. You really do get what you pay for. A Mac is guaranteed to last you at least 3 years (upwards to 5 years), I know one person who has had the same Mac for 8 years, albeit running slowly. The average PC will last you about 1 - 2 years. So in the long run, you'll end up buying 2 PCs for every Mac you own. Taking this into consideration, you end up paying equal or more for PCs.
To top it all off, I have a friend that works at a large 100 room (each room spread separately across acres of land) resort. The offices their have approximately 200 PCs. One PC becomes infected with malware, and because all of these computers are connected to the hotel's network, guess what happens! The virus spreads to each and every computer. Their entire system shuts down. If any of you work in the hotel industry or offices, you know how devastating this can be. So the resolution: Run the antivirus software on each separate computer. Because they dont have 200 copies of this software, they have to run it on just a handful of computers at a time, and it takes hours, if not an entire day, to complete its malware cleanup. Now what really sums it up? The owner of the resort uses an iMac in his office, which is also connected to the hotel's network. It wasn't affected one bit, but I'm sure you could've guessed that.
Macs are PCs with OSX at this point, Apple packages them in a specific enclosure. Once OSX gains enough market share, there will be more viruses than it has now (there are very few at the moment, search google).
Then there will be a constant war between virus&antivirus that will be a much worse experience than on windows because of the software immaturity.
Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I posted to compliment a poster who had actually bought and used a 15 inch HP Envy before deciding, reluctantly, to return it and stick with Macs. That poster's decision, as I noted in my post, was based on actual experience, not on mindless bashing of Windows or equally mindless proclamations of the Superiority of Macs and OS X. Pftt. andPftt.
I'm not really on either side of the argument. I just give my input and the "Nothing can be wrong with my expensive product sydrome" kicks in.
right back at you, partner.Thanks. Unsurprisingly, this thread turned into a Windows vs OS X holy war instead of a discussion of which laptop is better.
I am a *nix sysadmin by trade, so I might know of what I speak. On a pragmatic level, there's very little difference between OS X and Windows 7 for end-users, and a lot of the cards fall on Windows' side now regarding security. I find a Linux VM to be less of a pain than trying to pretend that OS X is a proper Unix.
It's unfortunate that none of the Windows laptop manufacturers seem to have usability experts deciding product direction. It's obvious that Apple has people who actually *USE* their products and can influence design - this doesn't seem to be the case for PC laptops. Small trackpads, terrible trackpad buttons, keyboards with bad layouts, bad battery life, etc. The specs on these laptops are better, and the enclosures are no bigger (in some circumstances, anyway) that it saddens me to see that nobody else "gets it" but Apple, except possibly Lenovo, and Lenovo's top end model laptops aren't sold in stores. Then again, even Lenovo has switched to obviously inferior 16:9 displays in their current generation of laptops.
That's not to say that Apple is anywhere near perfect - they just put some design decisions first.
Apple is always behind in everything but CPU technology, while charging the same price as up-to-date Windows hardware.
Examples:
No blueray drive option.
No docking stations - seriously, this is ridiculous - how many of us use laptops with external monitors and keyboards?
No USB 3.0? Three years from now when we have external SSDs and the fastest port on our laptops can push ~110MB/sec (FW800) we'll be cursing Apple for this. That's assuming there will even be firewire SSDs, USB 2.0's max is ~57MB/sec
An Nvidia 330M is an embarrassing video card to put in a top-of-the-line machine, especially one with switchable graphics.
I run Windows 7 in tandem with OS X on my MBP and agree that the differences between the two are slight, indeed. I also agree that while Apple's industrial designs are peerless, Macs are almost always behind the PC manufacturers on the power curve, sometimes far behind. Thus, I am still shaking my head as to why an earlier poster indicated that I, and by implication you, always get defensive and became Mac fanboys in every thread comparing Windows machines to OS X machines. Go figure.