Do you think Dell Precision M3800 is a better choice than rMBP 15''?

[MTL18]

I personally wouldn't, but I am heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem and do not run software that isn't Mac compatible.

If I wasn't deep into the ecosystem and required software that isn't available for Mac, this computer would be enticing as it looks good! Your choice...

 

[therealseebs]

Depends hugely on what you want. I'm not a huge Dell fan, but for me, the Retina displays are a complete non-starter. I need a working resolution that's higher than 1440x900, but I don't have good enough eyes for 2880x1800 on a 15" display. I can't handle the way the scaling looks, it makes everything look fuzzy to me, and the glossy display really bugs me. (Yes, I've been told at length that matte screens "reflect more light". But I don't care about total lumens of reflection; I care about the clearly visible reflections making it harder for me to perceive the pixels on the screen clearly.) On the other hand, OS X is a lot nicer than Windows, MHO.

If I had to get a laptop today, I'd probably just cry and write a sad letter to Apple about how they used to make higher-end laptops and man those were the days, weren't they.

 

[jayrammac]

I am a big fan of Windows 8.1. Best operating system of all in my opinion (personal choice) apart from the security (which is a big issue of course!).

I looked at the XPS 15 and the M3800 from Dell and it was my first choice before doing my research. Ultimately the poor reviews on battery life put me off the machine and I ended up going for the rMBP 15 inch.

----------

Depends hugely on what you want. I'm not a huge Dell fan, but for me, the Retina displays are a complete non-starter. I need a working resolution that's higher than 1440x900, but I don't have good enough eyes for 2880x1800 on a 15" display. I can't handle the way the scaling looks, it makes everything look fuzzy to me, and the glossy display really bugs me. (Yes, I've been told at length that matte screens "reflect more light". But I don't care about total lumens of reflection; I care about the clearly visible reflections making it harder for me to perceive the pixels on the screen clearly.) On the other hand, OS X is a lot nicer than Windows, MHO.

If I had to get a laptop today, I'd probably just cry and write a sad letter to Apple about how they used to make higher-end laptops and man those were the days, weren't they.

Can't a rMBP deliver a working resolution of 1920*1200? I thought it could, but haven't got mine yet so just reading off the Apple site...

 

[yjchua95]

I am a big fan of Windows 8.1. Best operating system of all in my opinion (personal choice) apart from the security (which is a big issue of course!).

I looked at the XPS 15 and the M3800 from Dell and it was my first choice before doing my research. Ultimately the poor reviews on battery life put me off the machine and I ended up going for the rMBP 15 inch.

----------



Can't a rMBP deliver a working resolution of 1920*1200? I thought it could, but haven't got mine yet so just reading off the Apple site...

The 15" rMBP can. It can give effective screen estates of 1440x900, 1680x1050 and 1920x1200.

 

[melburstein]

Use a Mac and you will never go back.

I was a Dell bigot for decades and never thought I would say that. Lol.

 

[galaksy]

I was a Dell bigot for decades and never thought I would say that. Lol.

Does that mean you were favored towards Dell?

 

[LostSoul80]

I like thinking of the responses as being poor actors' responses trying to keep useless and dumb arguments alive in order to defend their cause.

That's what I hope, at least.

 

[leman]

Depends hugely on what you want. I'm not a huge Dell fan, but for me, the Retina displays are a complete non-starter. I need a working resolution that's higher than 1440x900, but I don't have good enough eyes for 2880x1800 on a 15" display. I can't handle the way the scaling looks, it makes everything look fuzzy to me, and the glossy display really bugs me. (Yes, I've been told at length that matte screens "reflect more light". But I don't care about total lumens of reflection; I care about the clearly visible reflections making it harder for me to perceive the pixels on the screen clearly.) On the other hand, OS X is a lot nicer than Windows, MHO.

If I had to get a laptop today, I'd probably just cry and write a sad letter to Apple about how they used to make higher-end laptops and man those were the days, weren't they.

Just two short comments.

First, Apple tries to make products for a general population. I am indeed very sorry if you have some sort of medical condition and a HiDPI display with its more detailed imagery appears fuzzy for you, but I don't see this as a valid reason to criticise a product.

Second, and more important (at least for me). Your complaint about 'lack of higher-end' is completely ridiculous. Apple laptops are faster and lighter than they ever were, have a significantly better battery life, better build quality and also better connectivity options. The design solutions chosen by Apple does not fit your usage scenario anymore? Fine, I can respect that and I also think its a shame. It still does not make the product any less impressive or high-end.

 

[melburstein]

Does that mean you were favored towards Dell?

I recommended nothing but Dell for years. But after realizing that I was spending 40% of the time fixing Windows, I happily switched to Apple.

 

[melburstein]

Does that mean you were favored towards Dell?

I recommended nothing but Dell for years.

 

[alphaod]

If you run all Windows programs, yes I think a non-Mac is better.

If you're considering a Mac, it should be because you want to use OS X.

 

[leman]

If you run all Windows programs, yes I think a non-Mac is better.

If you're considering a Mac, it should be because you want to use OS X.

Macs are also an excellent choice for users who need a Unix OS.

I would ALWAYS recommend Windows to someone who uses the computer for a specialised purpose, e.g. photo or video editing. If all you do with a computer is run a single program (such as Photoshop), a Windows-based system is likely to be faster, cheaper and more stable. However, if you need flexibility, multitasking and data organisation, OS X would be a better choice in my book.

 

[galaksy]

Why is OS X better choice for flexibility, multitasking, and data organization?

 

[Fishrrman]

Why not?

Which version of the Mac OS does the Dell run?

 

[leman]

Why is OS X better choice for flexibility, multitasking, and data organization?

Well, obviously, your needs and experience might vary, but important points for me include:

1. OS X has a rich set of APIs for cross-application interoperability, so Mac apps often play better with each other. In addition, writing software for OS X is still more pleasurable, especially if you want to build something 'crazy' (at least from my viewpoint).

2. More clean OS design, logical configuration options, supports tons of formats and features out of box (like virtual PDF printer etc.), beautiful fonts, plenty of convenience tools (Automator, Spotlight, launchd, Quick Look), OS-wide scripting with AppleScript, ingenious treatment of application installation/deinstallation (bundles)

3. Clear UI guidelines, which gives a more intuitive, clean look-and-feel (besides the aesthetics component it also often reduces the time needed to learn how a new application works)

4. Unix commandline and open-source foundation

5. (based on 4) Pluggable OS components (e.g. virtual file system support like FUSE, open-source spell-checker, spotlight filters etc.). Overall, OS X offers a number of abstraction layers through the system which can be used to implement some cool features, like flexible file tagging.

6. Time Machine!

 

[ayeying]

I cannot stand how Windows 8.1 handles scaling. It looks just crap especially with the incompatible programs.

Under OSX, even programs that are not Retina ready at least look pixelated (like it's been doubled) instead of under Windows where you have fonts being doubled, icons being small and just all around ugly.

Until Windows really fixes it, the RMBP would be my choice because of the OS that can handle the retina screen properly.

 

[MacFoYoAzz]

Well, I have both. From a horse power stand point, they are identical. However, we are talking about what is useful to you. The main difference is the operating system. That is about it.

I have the M4800 that I use for Windows Development, and programming Machinery, Autocad, etc..... This is a commercial grade laptop. I could very well do the same thing on the MBP if I set it up to boot in Windows. I have also ran a Hackintosh Virtual machine in the M4800.

For me, if I had to choose one, it would be the Mac. Simply because it is a more versatile platform. I can run GNU/Linux applications out of the box(Must have X11 and GCC libraries installed) The hardware will run Linux, SCO, BSD, FreeDos, etc.... The PC cannot "legally" run MacOSX, but it will do everything else. For Music, the sound card on the Macs are better sounding.

The only thing the M4800 has on the Mac is Memory expandability, a docking station, and standard hookups without adapters. MBPs will nickle and dime you for adapters.

Lastly, I have Macs that are 10 years old now. They still run, and are still usable. PC just do not have the same track record over all. You are lucky to get 7 years out of a GOOD PC if that.

Hopefully this will help you.

----------

Which version of the Mac OS does the Dell run?

Officially unofficial, Maverick will run on a Dell. Have personal experience.....but know nothing about it.

 

[RedRaven571]

I recommended nothing but Dell for years.

Funny, I'm having a little of the opposite view myself; I always thought badly of Dell, thought they were poorly built, and favored HP.

Well, I recently retired my aging HP Elitebook (company supplied work PC) and it was replaced with a Dell Latitude E7440 with a dual core i7 Haswell processor (4600U, according to CPU-Z), 16GB RAM and a 256GB SSD. Battery lasted 4 1/2 hrs this morning, running my normal programs (Outlook, Excel, Toad, etc.). The PC also has a very slim form factor (no CD/DVD drive), and the trackpad has some of the same gestures as the Apple trackpad (not nearly as smooth/fluid, though). Probably the only negative thing I have to say, at this point, is that the keyboard, although having the chiclet type keys, feels cheaply made.

Overall, I must admit I am completely impressed, although not enough to go back to Windows on my home computers....

 

[7itanium]

Good lord no there isnt even a comparison..... Nothing that dell makes can compete with a low end macbook of any kind in any way.... stop even entertaining the idea

 

[Meister]

Good lord no there isnt even a comparison..... Nothing that dell makes can compete with a low end macbook of any kind in any way.... stop even entertaining the idea

I have to agree. Just take it to some windows forum. I want nothing to do with microsoft.

Just listen to the names:

MAC - sounds mannly, reliable and strong
Microsoft - micro and soft - seriously?

Mavericks - now thats a proper name for an OS, as was Mountain Lion and Snow Leopard
Windows -

Btw Delle in german = dent - like what you get when you drop your laptop

 

[walkie]

I prefer the MBP over the Dell, why?, because battery life is way better, IMO the trackpad that comes with the MBP and OSX gestures is a much better approach than a touch screen on a laptop, the MBP's trackpad is the best trackpad I've ever used because is extremely acute and comfortable to use.

Touch screens IMO are better for tablets & phones because the IU interface in those devices are designed from the ground up to be touch friendly, and the natural position for those devices is horizontal which is perfect for touching unlike laptops that are meant to be used with a vertical screen and a keyboard attached, besides I prefer OSX over Windows 8, because OSX is FeeBSD which is similar and compatible with most UNIX/Linux flavours, Linux/UNIX is way better for work while Windows is better only for gaming.

 

[Cassady]

The trackpad.

On a MBP, it's like gliding your fingers over the bonnet of a freshly waxed Ferrari 250 LM.

On anything else, it's like caressing a bag of smashed crabs.

 

[Meister]

I actually like kissing my macbook goodnite. With dells its just not the same.

 

[7itanium]

Not only that but if you insist on running microsoft OS (I do occasionally for some games)... just bootcamp the MBP and your still running circles around a high end dell

 

[leman]

Until Windows really fixes it, the RMBP would be my choice because of the OS that can handle the retina screen properly.

That is exactly the funny thing about it: Windows cannot fix it. Right now, Windows supports at least 3 graphical subsystems (GDI,GDI+, WPF) and only two of them (GDI+ and WPF) support scaling — and GDI+ can be a real mess to get to work with scaling properly (also the documentation is really lacking). To properly work with scaling, Windows developers (especially those who are not using the .NET platform) have to design and rebuild the code in a particular way — and usually nobody bothers.

In contrast, Apple has been designing its main graphics subsystem with resolution independence in mind for over a decade now. Most of mac apps written in Cocoa will support retina out of the box, even if they were written before the rMBP was released. The 'biggest' quality concern — bitmap images are handled by the OS automagically, to make your app retina-compatible, you simply need to provide the higher-quality image files with a '@2x' suffix and the OS will use it when its appropriate (compare it with Windows where developers have to do all this manually). The only tricky case are applications which do certain kinds of custom drawing, but they also usually can be ported with ease.

So yes, for next few years, I don't really see Microsoft improving much in the resolution-independence world, and ironically, the reason for that is their obsession with remaining backwards-compatible. And, as far as I know, Linux is even worse off.