Mac prices vs PC prices, spec for spec

[AndroidfoLife]

HP does no Justice to PCs

I would Compare a MBP to an ASUS or a Sony those are the real competitors in terms of Pricing and build quality to Apple. (Both actually are reported to have better build quality then Apple.)

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...0151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644699999

Sony Vaio EB series:
ntel® Core™ i3-380M (2.53GHz)
Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Features: 15.5" LED backlit display,
4GB RAM,
500GB HDD (5400rpm),
CD/DVD player/burner,
Intel® Wireless Display,
HDMI™ out
600$ american

MBP
2.2GHz quad-core
Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz
750GB 5400-rpm1
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB GDDR5
Built-in battery (7 hours)2
Ships: Within 24hrs
2200$ american

The Vaio will last longer if it stays within the normal User perimeters. I just chose to closely spec'd PCs i didn't bother to do some ******** like customizing them. Yes the Mac has a better batter life and a larger hard drive, and video card but is it worth the 1600$ premium.
With that 1600 you could get a two more of the vaios. Or you can get a bomb ass sound system.


**** it I should not even be in this arguement. All Laptops suck, I Use a custom built windows 7 Gaming rig for everything. For note taking in class i have a ****** Hp running linux. My gaming rigs specs are Processor: AMD Phenom IIx4 955 (3.82ghz overclocked)
Motherboard: ASUS R.O.G. Crosshair IV formula
Installed memory (RAM): 4.00 GB DDR3 at 1600
Graphics: AMD Radeon 6870
System type: Windows 7 64bit and ubunto 64bit os
Monitor: ASUS 21" 1080p
Hard Drive: WD Cavier Blue 500gb and 250gb ubunto drive
CPU Cooling: Cooler master p212
Case: Cooler Master HAF 922 (black)
Optical: LG DVD burner
And this baby plays anything I throw at it on max and it ran me 1k. U.S.D.

 

[holmesf]

**** it I should not even be in this arguement. All Laptops suck, I Use a custom built windows 7 Gaming rig for everything. For note taking in class i have a ****** Hp running linux. My gaming rigs specs are Processor: AMD Phenom IIx4 955 (3.82ghz overclocked)
Motherboard: ASUS R.O.G. Crosshair IV formula
Installed memory (RAM): 4.00 GB DDR3 at 1600
Graphics: AMD Radeon 6870
System type: Windows 7 64bit and ubunto 64bit os
Monitor: ASUS 21" 1080p
Hard Drive: WD Cavier Blue 500gb and 250gb ubunto drive
CPU Cooling: Cooler master p212
Case: Cooler Master HAF 922 (black)
Optical: LG DVD burner
And this baby plays anything I throw at it on max and it ran me 1k. U.S.D.

Why would you think anyone cares? In any case, your system loses big time in performance per watt.

 

[munkery]

I thought this thread was about spec for spec?

 

[Hastings101]

Why would you think anyone cares?

Why would you even leave a comment like this?

 

[holmesf]

Why would you even leave a comment like this?

I've been on Macrumors for roughly 10 years. I mostly reply to genuine programming questions, and also come by to mock idiotic comments. The poster who compared a dual core PC to a quad core Mac and then left some comment about all laptops "sucking" anyway falls under the latter category. Anyway, everyone has to have a hobby.

 

[AndroidfoLife]

Asus R.O.G. G73SW Closest ASUS I could find to a common Mac Config,

Intel Core i7-2630QM (2.0GHz with Turbo Boost up to 2.9GHz); 8GB DDR3 1333MHz, 4 SODIMM Sockets, up to 16GB
1TB (500G 7200RPM + 4G SSD x2) HDD;
Blue-Ray Burner; 802.11 b/g/n;
Illumiinated Keyboard;
1x USB 3.0; 3x USB 2.0
Nvidia GTX 460M Graphics with 1.5GB GDDR5;
Windows Home Premium 64-bit Operating System
17.3-Inch Full HD (1920x1080) LED Display,
3D 120HZ; 2.0M Webcam;
Gaming Backpack and Mouse;
Nvidia 3D Vision Glasses
2 Year Standard Warranty and 1 Year Accidental Damage Warranty Included
2K USD

MBP
2.2GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
750GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 RPM
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 17-inch Hi-Resolution Glossy Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard (English) & User's Guide

Its hard to find two computers together as they will have different specs and other things that make them different from each other.

 

[munkery]

The ASUS is a gaming rig and the MBP is a business class machine. It is unmeaningful to compare machines from different classes of hardware.

Spec for spec comparisons with business class hardware are cat and mouse with the roles flipping back and forth. Over time, the spec per cost tends to be comparable across the different brands regardless of OS.

 

[aerring]

That is personal opinion only. My mum has had a Windows PC with XP Home Edition running for the last 5yrs or more. Runs perfectly , she surfs the net, plays games, writes emails etc Just normal stuff and shes never had a virus, never crashed, ive had to wipe it once when my little nephew decided to mess about with command prompt and thats it. So in the last 5yrs it certainly hasnt cost her as much as the equivalent then which was an imac which was 3 times the price.

Matt

wow she's really putting the miles on that baby.

....seriously though. any computer that barely gets used for anything and happens to last a whopping 5 years isn't anything. my imac is a little older than that and still runs all the latest games i've gotten for it. i wouldn't even consider it as being dated. my gf plays starcraft 2 on that one against me on my mb pro (got the pro two years later). it's had the hard drive reformatted and partitioned over ten times while i was testing out different versions of linux and windows. i've upgraded the ram on it from 1.5 to 3, and that's it. still runs better than half the computers my friends have, and theirs aren't even as old, nor do they do much on it. i also got that imac for under a thousand, brand new when if first came out. i believe from comp usa, when they actually sold macs.

 

[aerring]

Totally agree. I have an ASUS 17" that I bought for 600 euros 2.5 years ago and I have only reinstalled the OS when migrating from Vista to W7. Other than that, the computer works fine. I wanted a not so powerful computer with a big screen for home and Apple cannot give that. Full stop. For my needs at home, paying 1800 euros for a MBP (I wanted 15" at least) would have been plain stupid. It is a better computer? Sure. Do I need the extra power for surfing the internet, watching videos, playing occasional games and checking my email? No.
So, no, macs are just not for everyone. Depending on your needs, you get much better deals in PCs.
For work, I use a MBP.

exactly my point. you use the computer that works for you. a guy at my work was commenting on the macbook air and how he wants one so badly...and i'm there like, "well, to be completely honest i don't think it's all that great..." of course he was like, well it does this and this, and it's perfect for when i....etc. etc. etc. everyone has a reason for what computer they use.

i'm not saying windows i bad. i'm not saying you have to get a mac. that's just stupid. i'm just trying to argue that they're not as bad/expensive for what you get, and it's kinda annoying hearing about it all the time.

 

[aerring]

I would Compare a MBP to an ASUS or a Sony those are the real competitors in terms of Pricing and build quality to Apple. (Both actually are reported to have better build quality then Apple.)

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...0151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644699999

Sony Vaio EB series:
ntel® Core™ i3-380M (2.53GHz)
Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Features: 15.5" LED backlit display,
4GB RAM,
500GB HDD (5400rpm),
CD/DVD player/burner,
Intel® Wireless Display,
HDMI™ out
600$ american

MBP
2.2GHz quad-core
Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz
750GB 5400-rpm1
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB GDDR5
Built-in battery (7 hours)2
Ships: Within 24hrs
2200$ american

The Vaio will last longer if it stays within the normal User perimeters. I just chose to closely spec'd PCs i didn't bother to do some ******** like customizing them. Yes the Mac has a better batter life and a larger hard drive, and video card but is it worth the 1600$ premium.
With that 1600 you could get a two more of the vaios. Or you can get a bomb ass sound system.


**** it I should not even be in this arguement. All Laptops suck, I Use a custom built windows 7 Gaming rig for everything. For note taking in class i have a ****** Hp running linux. My gaming rigs specs are Processor: AMD Phenom IIx4 955 (3.82ghz overclocked)
Motherboard: ASUS R.O.G. Crosshair IV formula
Installed memory (RAM): 4.00 GB DDR3 at 1600
Graphics: AMD Radeon 6870
System type: Windows 7 64bit and ubunto 64bit os
Monitor: ASUS 21" 1080p
Hard Drive: WD Cavier Blue 500gb and 250gb ubunto drive
CPU Cooling: Cooler master p212
Case: Cooler Master HAF 922 (black)
Optical: LG DVD burner
And this baby plays anything I throw at it on max and it ran me 1k. U.S.D.

uh..yeah, this is a quad core vs. duo. you can pretty much expect to double the price. i was in comp usa the other day looking for screwdrivers and the intel chips happened to be right next to them. i think the i7 ran for around 800 dollars. just puts it into perspective for you.

 

[Winni]

Spec for Spec they're cheaper than any Windows machine available.

No, they're not. Never have been and unless Apple changes its direction entirely, they never will be.

Reason #1: Unless there is a 1:1 clone of a Mac, you simply cannot compare the machines. That's only possible if you don't care for the design at all. And if you remove the design out of the equation, then it will quickly become very obvious that you will ALWAYS get more bang for the buck when you go for a custom built PC.

Reason #2: Apple does not even remotely offer the same service and support that companies like HP and Dell offer. Apple Care compares to BASIC Dell next-business-day support at best. There is no on-site service/warranty in Apple land. I don't give a crap for "genius bars" or Apple stores. I want to call somebody and expect that they bring the replacement parts to my house. THAT'S what I expect from a product like "Apple Care". And I get that - and more - for the same money that Apple Care costs from Dell or HP.

Reason #3: To what version of Windows (or Linux) do you want to compare Mac OS X? It's not nearly as corporate/enterprise-network-ready as Windows 7 Professional/Ultimate/Enterprise. It is Unix-based, but let's be honest here: What Apple gives us is more like Win 7 Home Premium edition and requires a lot of tweaking and configuration and third party software if you need the OS to function well in a large network environment.

Reason #4: Mac OS X does not nearly support as much business or entertainment software as Windows. If you cannot run the software that you need on OS X, then buying and using a Mac simply does not make sense. And no, using "Boot Camp" or VMWare Fusion or Parallels Desktop basically are crutches that only turn a Mac into a regular PC - and that defies the purpose of choosing a Mac.

Reason #5: It costs more to keep your software up-to-date in the Mac ecosystem than it is in the Windows ecosystem. In my experience, you need more pay-for third party software in OS X land than you need in Windows land to do the SAME job, and the update cycles on Apple's platform are more frequent than they are on Microsoft's platform. Longevity and backwards compatibility are unknown words in the Apple ecosystem, and Apple intentionally breaks a lot of software with each update while Microsoft, because of their enterprise orientation, has to try to maintain compatibility with older software.

Anyway. It still amazes me, though, that there are still people out there that try to sell Macs as "cheaper" than PCs. It's like trying to tell somebody that a BMW or Porsche are not really more expensive than a Volkswagen or a KIA. While a Volkswagen with a modified engine can easily be as fast as a Porsche, we all agree that this is not a reason not to buy a Porsche. Prestige, design and Fahrgefühl still matter.

 

[Macmel]

wow she's really putting the miles on that baby.

....seriously though. any computer that barely gets used for anything and happens to last a whopping 5 years isn't anything. my imac is a little older than that and still runs all the latest games i've gotten for it. i wouldn't even consider it as being dated. my gf plays starcraft 2 on that one against me on my mb pro (got the pro two years later). it's had the hard drive reformatted and partitioned over ten times while i was testing out different versions of linux and windows. i've upgraded the ram on it from 1.5 to 3, and that's it. still runs better than half the computers my friends have, and theirs aren't even as old, nor do they do much on it. i also got that imac for under a thousand, brand new when if first came out. i believe from comp usa, when they actually sold macs.

Excuse me, but up-to-date Macs can hardly be used as gaming machines mostly because the underpowered GPUs. So don't tell me your 5+ year old iMac can handle the latest games you've gotten for it unless, of course, by lattest games you mean a revamp version of Tetris or Pong. Let's be serious here.

 

[r0k]

No, they're not. Never have been and unless Apple changes its direction entirely, they never will be.

Reason #1: Unless there is a 1:1 clone of a Mac, you simply cannot compare the machines. That's only possible if you don't care for the design at all. And if you remove the design out of the equation, then it will quickly become very obvious that you will ALWAYS get more bang for the buck when you go for a custom built PC.

Reason #2: Apple does not even remotely offer the same service and support that companies like HP and Dell offer. Apple Care compares to BASIC Dell next-business-day support at best. There is no on-site service/warranty in Apple land. I don't give a crap for "genius bars" or Apple stores. I want to call somebody and expect that they bring the replacement parts to my house. THAT'S what I expect from a product like "Apple Care". And I get that - and more - for the same money that Apple Care costs from Dell or HP.

Reason #3: To what version of Windows (or Linux) do you want to compare Mac OS X? It's not nearly as corporate/enterprise-network-ready as Windows 7 Professional/Ultimate/Enterprise. It is Unix-based, but let's be honest here: What Apple gives us is more like Win 7 Home Premium edition and requires a lot of tweaking and configuration and third party software if you need the OS to function well in a large network environment.

Reason #4: Mac OS X does not nearly support as much business or entertainment software as Windows. If you cannot run the software that you need on OS X, then buying and using a Mac simply does not make sense. And no, using "Boot Camp" or VMWare Fusion or Parallels Desktop basically are crutches that only turn a Mac into a regular PC - and that defies the purpose of choosing a Mac.

Reason #5: It costs more to keep your software up-to-date in the Mac ecosystem than it is in the Windows ecosystem. In my experience, you need more pay-for third party software in OS X land than you need in Windows land to do the SAME job, and the update cycles on Apple's platform are more frequent than they are on Microsoft's platform. Longevity and backwards compatibility are unknown words in the Apple ecosystem, and Apple intentionally breaks a lot of software with each update while Microsoft, because of their enterprise orientation, has to try to maintain compatibility with older software.

Anyway. It still amazes me, though, that there are still people out there that try to sell Macs as "cheaper" than PCs. It's like trying to tell somebody that a BMW or Porsche are not really more expensive than a Volkswagen or a KIA. While a Volkswagen with a modified engine can easily be as fast as a Porsche, we all agree that this is not a reason not to buy a Porsche. Prestige, design and Fahrgefühl still matter.

1. I agree if you do your own system integration you can get a better deal building up a pc, hackintosh or linux box out of purchased parts. I don't think that is the point of this thread. Most of the posts have compared available models by hp, dell, etc to macbooks. Which saves you more money is largely a matter of opinion and whether you consider total cost of ownership, hence the length of this thread.

2. I have had Dell's top tier support and HP's top tier support and I'll take Apple Care any day. I live near an Apple store and I don't like making appointments and driving to the store for service but I do like Apple's phone support much better than HP or Dell and overall I have a better experience with AppleCare. This is also a matter of opinion but Consumer Reports also rates Apple support higher than their competition. YMMV.

3. Please don't stoop to comparing OS X with Win 7 home anything. This appears to be based on ignorance of what is included with OS X and how OS X works. I use OS X at home and Win 7 Enterprise all day at work. OS X beats Win 7 Enterprise handily. I also use Ubuntu but I prefer OS X. Again, YMMV.

4. True. There is a lot less software out for OS X and Apple is growing but is still a niche player in desktop computers despite the fact Apple owns the high end notebook and tablet markets. I expect more to become available as the OS X App Store begins to mature but I find I can get what I need done on OS X.

5. Bunk. All Apple and most third party OS X software updates are free. Notable exceptions are iLife, iWork and other add on programs sold by Apple. Apple tends to add compelling features and not arbitrarily change file formats to "force" upgrades like a certain company up in Redmond, Wa. Ever try to open an MS publisher file and find that you need to pay for a specific version just to open the file? On OS X I ran into one situation where I allowed shareware to update itself and it asked me to pay over again. I contacted the developer and complained and they gave me a workaround to correct the situation.

You can spend some time with OS X in an Apple store and you can even rent a fractional OS X box online to play with it over the internet. Please take some time to investigate before you make sweeping (and apparently uninformed) claims about how much better Windows is than OS X, especially anything less than Win 7 Enterprise.

BTW, why should Apple change their direction when their market cap exceeds all their competitors and they are making record profits every quarter? Sure I'd like to see less expensive Macs and less restrictions on iOS devices, etc, etc but when a strategy is working for them I find it hard to expect Apple to change it.

 

[Hellhammer]

Reason #2: There is no on-site service/warranty in Apple land. I don't give a crap for "genius bars" or Apple stores. I want to call somebody and expect that they bring the replacement parts to my house. THAT'S what I expect from a product like "Apple Care". And I get that - and more - for the same money that Apple Care costs from Dell or HP.

There is, although it may be more limited than what other brands offer.

Onsite service is available for many desktop computers if the location of the Covered Equipment is within 50 miles/80 kilometers radius of an Apple authorized onsite service provider located in the United States or Canada. Onsite service is not available for some parts. The service for parts that cannot be repaired by onsite service may be repaired under Do-It-Yourself Parts service as described below. Apple will dispatch a service technician to the location of the Covered Equipment.
Service will be performed at the location, or the service technician will transport the Covered Equipment to an Apple Authorized Service Provider or Apple repair service location for repair. If the Covered Equipment is repaired at an Apple Authorized Service Provider or Apple repair service location, Apple will arrange for transportation of the Covered Equipment to your location following service. If the service technician is not granted access to the Covered Equipment at the appointed time, any further onsite visits may be subject to an additional charge.

http://images.apple.com/legal/applecare/docs/NA_APP_English_v5.3.pdf

 

[nickarmadillo]

Macbook Pro
2.0GHz i7 quad-core
4GB 1333MHz
500GB 5400-rpm HD
15" 1440x900 LCD
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
Built-in battery (7 hours)
Stereo Speakers
1 Year Warranty
DVD/RW
$1799

HP DV7-QE
2.0GHz i7 quad-core
6GB 1333MHz
750GB 5400-rpm HD or 640GB 7200-rpm HD
17" 1600x900 LCD
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 1GB GDDR5
2x Interchangeable battery (9 cell/6 cell) (9 hours/5.6 hours)
Beats Audio w/ 2.1 Speakers and Subwoofer
2 Year Warranty (w/full support)
Bluray
$900

/thread

 

[r0k]

Macbook Pro
2.0GHz i7 quad-core
4GB 1333MHz
500GB 5400-rpm HD
15" 1440x900 LCD
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
Built-in battery (7 hours)
Stereo Speakers
1 Year Warranty
DVD/RW
$1799

HP DV7-QE
2.0GHz i7 quad-core
6GB 1333MHz
750GB 5400-rpm HD or 640GB 7200-rpm HD
17" 1600x900 LCD
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 1GB GDDR5
2x Interchangeable battery (9 cell/6 cell) (9 hours/5.6 hours)
Beats Audio w/ 2.1 Speakers and Subwoofer
2 Year Warranty (w/full support)
Bluray
$900

/thread

Thanks for the concrete example, including model number. I went to hp.com and the closest I could find is an hp dv7t quad edition that starts at $1099 and they throw in 8 gig of ram, blu ray, etc. I think there is a lot of suction pulling down on this price and a lot of that suction can be traced to Windows 7 and some can be traced to HP reputation.

I've spent quite a bit of time on the phone with hp support over the years and I'd much rather deal with AppleCare. Still, even if you and I disagree by $200, it's pretty clear these 2 machines are similar in specs (omitting unibody aluminum, thunderbolt and magsafe) and I admit that this price point seems to place between $700 and $900 value on OS X. Personally I think the Apple gear is worth it but your example provides concrete evidence of a difference in price for strikingly similar hardware.

With your example on the record, the argument of this thread tends to devolve to discussions of total cost of ownership, Apple build quality and whether OS X is worth paying a premium. There was a post a few pages back where it was mentioned that Apple gear pricing is better than PC pricing at the time of its introduction and then PC makers run off and build something similar and cheaper. Apple's product cycle is slow enough that for about half the year, the pc stuff represents a better deal. In this case, only a few months has gone by since the introduction of the new MBP line and I'm not sure if the system you cited was available at the time the newest MBP came out.

While you haven't swayed me that the total value proposition of the PC gear is better (for me) than that of the Apple gear, you have provided a concrete example that will hopefully lead to more objective and less opinion based discussion. Thanks again!

 

[nickarmadillo]

Thanks for the concrete example, including model number. I went to hp.com and the closest I could find is an hp dv7t quad edition that starts at $1099 and they throw in 8 gig of ram, blu ray, etc. I think there is a lot of suction pulling down on this price and a lot of that suction can be traced to Windows 7 and some can be traced to HP reputation.

I've spent quite a bit of time on the phone with hp support over the years and I'd much rather deal with AppleCare. Still, even if you and I disagree by $200, it's pretty clear these 2 machines are similar in specs (omitting unibody aluminum, thunderbolt and magsafe) and I admit that this price point seems to place between $700 and $900 value on OS X. Personally I think the Apple gear is worth it but your example provides concrete evidence of a difference in price for strikingly similar hardware.

With your example on the record, the argument of this thread tends to devolve to discussions of total cost of ownership, Apple build quality and whether OS X is worth paying a premium. There was a post a few pages back where it was mentioned that Apple gear pricing is better than PC pricing at the time of its introduction and then PC makers run off and build something similar and cheaper. Apple's product cycle is slow enough that for about half the year, the pc stuff represents a better deal. In this case, only a few months has gone by since the introduction of the new MBP line and I'm not sure if the system you cited was available at the time the newest MBP came out.

While you haven't swayed me that the total value proposition of the PC gear is better (for me) than that of the Apple gear, you have provided a concrete example that will hopefully lead to more objective and less opinion based discussion. Thanks again!

That DV7 that you saw and the machine I mentioned are one and the same. The prices listed on the HP website are MSRP prices. There are ALWAYS coupons available for HP, Dell, etc, so one would never pay MSRP. After the coupon, the price comes down to $900.

So, the advantages of the DV7 are (vs Macbook Pro):
*Costs $900 less ($900 vs $1799)
*Much more powerful videocard (6770 vs 6490)
*Faster and larger Hard Drive (640gb 7200rpm vs 500gb 5400rpm)
*Larger screen with higher resolution (17" 1600x900 vs 15" 1440x900)
*2 interchangeable batteries (1 9-cell & 1 6-cell vs 1 integrated)
*2 year warranty (vs 1 year)
*Bluray (Bluray v DVD/RW)

... and the advantages of the Macbook Pro are:
*Higher-quality LCD (color accuracy, viewing angles, etc)
*Unibody construction
*OSX and iLife
*Longer life on single battery
*Better keyboard w/ backlighting
*Slightly thinner and (subjectively) better looking

Overall though, the machines are about as similar as they come. You just have to decide if the additional price and tradeoffs with the Macbook pro are worth it. For those who value OSX over performance/dollar, it might be.

 

[munkery]

Reason #4: Mac OS X does not nearly support as much business or entertainment software as Windows. If you cannot run the software that you need on OS X, then buying and using a Mac simply does not make sense. And no, using "Boot Camp" or VMWare Fusion or Parallels Desktop basically are crutches that only turn a Mac into a regular PC - and that defies the purpose of choosing a Mac.

The business/professional settings in which Macs are used differs than that of Windows machines so software availability comparisons are meaningless. Macs also seem to be popular in professional settings that do not require special software distributed across a large network.

So, the advantages of the DV7 are (vs Macbook Pro):

... and the advantages of the Macbook Pro are:

When compared to the HP Elitebook which is a more comparable machine to the Macbook Pro, the two machines are close in cost per spec.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12308698/

 

[nickarmadillo]

When compared to the HP Elitebook which is a more comparable machine to the Macbook Pro, the two machines are close in cost per spec.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12308698/

Like the Macbook Pro, I would also say that the HP Elitebook is overpriced for the level of kit that it provides. The DV7 offers much higher performance than the Macbook Pro while coming in at $900 less. You just have to look at the tradeoffs and decide which is best for you. Personally, I would love to have a new Macbook, but can't justify the premium that I would pay over a better equipped PC.

 

[Jonny1989]

I bought my imac after years of buying PC's, even when i just bought one for £700+ i was looking for my next one. splashed out on apple last june and havent looked at any since. not an apple fan boy, although i do own almost every apple thing going if there were a better alternative for the price without it being **** i would buy it.

 

[nefan65]

Like the Macbook Pro, I would also say that the HP Elitebook is overpriced for the level of kit that it provides. The DV7 offers much higher performance than the Macbook Pro while coming in at $900 less. You just have to look at the tradeoffs and decide which is best for you. Personally, I would love to have a new Macbook, but can't justify the premium that I would pay over a better equipped PC.

In an enterprise environment the cost between an MBP and an HP Elitebook, DELL Latitude, or Lenovo is almost moot. I agree that for most people wanting a laptop to do email, web, FB, chat, some bills, and maybe the odd document, the BestBuy weekend specials are more than enough. But if you're looking to compare Apples to Apples [PUN intended!], then the cost isn't the issue any longer. It's what the device provides the user in terms of efficiencies. Even the issue of "We're a Windows shop" is no longer valid. Many of the enterprise systems used today are web enabled, and no longer require or rely on Windows. We just went through this exercise where I'm at. We now offer a Windows based system and a Mac based system. Costs are the same, so it's what the user needs. Even Office is going Web based. Albeit not as robust, but it still does 99% of what is needed in most work places.

 

[r0k]

In an enterprise environment the cost between an MBP and an HP Elitebook, DELL Latitude, or Lenovo is almost moot. I agree that for most people wanting a laptop to do email, web, FB, chat, some bills, and maybe the odd document, the BestBuy weekend specials are more than enough. But if you're looking to compare Apples to Apples [PUN intended!], then the cost isn't the issue any longer. It's what the device provides the user in terms of efficiencies. Even the issue of "We're a Windows shop" is no longer valid. Many of the enterprise systems used today are web enabled, and no longer require or rely on Windows. We just went through this exercise where I'm at. We now offer a Windows based system and a Mac based system. Costs are the same, so it's what the user needs. Even Office is going Web based. Albeit not as robust, but it still does 99% of what is needed in most work places.

My daughter has an elitebook required by her school. I would not put the elitebook on par with the reliability of even the lowest end macbook. Her elietebook has been in for repairs dozens of times while my even older white macbook just works and my son's MBP bought at the same time as her elitebook has never required repair.

I must beg to differ on the Total Cost of Ownership being only an enterprise issue. I have found it is a factor even for the handful of machines we have in our house. I used to bottom feed PCs. I would go to Best Buy, Compusa or Microcenter and dig through the refurbs and floor models about once a year or so. Invariably they simply didn't hold up. Before that I would build my own and I suffered through the days of IRQ conflicts, motherboard chipset drivers and video drivers.

...I wouldn't wish that experience on Satan himself, though I do have this particularly sick fantasy about Glenn Beck and Keith Oberman chained together in a small room full of old PC's solving IRQ conflicts for eternity, but I digress...

A huge factor in TCO is time. As a user, I'm confronted with more issues on Windows than I am on OS X. Defrag is a windows thing. Clearing out temp files is a windows thing (OS X takes care of this sort of thing in crontab). The registry is a centralized magnet for conflicts and problems while plist files are a decentralized and more elegant way of managing preferences.

I would imagine that in an enterprise setting, the two systems might be similar but in a small business or home setting, TCO heavily favors OS X. One way to understand this is to look at the ways the two companies deal with customers' problems. MS has a certification program to train an army of third party MCSEs and if you call MS you often find they cannot or will not help you and their goal seems to be, "Computer problems are inevitable so how can we put a massive support system in place so we don't go broke doing tech support". Apple wants to keep the support burden on itself and their goal is more like, "How do I design this so it just works and we don't go broke doing tech support?"

In this thread I've seen 3 examples that stick in my mind. There's an $1800 MBP, a $900 HP and a $2200 HP. Having owned the $2200 HP I can say that in terms of reliability and build quality it is not nearly as nice as the white plastic Macbook. In doing these comparisons, simply finding a bucket of similar parts thrown together for a cheaper price doesn't mean the lower cost system is a better buy. While I can't claim that my experience is typical, in the case of the elitebook, I have personal experience that it is not as good as a Mac. Not even close.

We have a local high school that when faced with a room full of obsolete machines went and installed Linux on all of them and got another 3 to 5 years out of that old hardware. If I were starting from scratch at setting up a small to medium sized office, depending on their needs I would try to come up with a plan to allow users to choose Win/Linux/OSX but if I had to choose one and if the software were available for their applications, I would choose OS X.

 

[nefan65]

My daughter has an elitebook required by her school. I would not put the elitebook on par with the reliability of even the lowest end macbook. Her elietebook has been in for repairs dozens of times while my even older white macbook just works and my son's MBP bought at the same time as her elitebook has never required repair.

I must beg to differ on the Total Cost of Ownership being only an enterprise issue. I have found it is a factor even for the handful of machines we have in our house. I used to bottom feed PCs. I would go to Best Buy, Compusa or Microcenter and dig through the refurbs and floor models about once a year or so. Invariably they simply didn't hold up. Before that I would build my own and I suffered through the days of IRQ conflicts, motherboard chipset drivers and video drivers.

...I wouldn't wish that experience on Satan himself, though I do have this particularly sick fantasy about Glenn Beck and Keith Oberman chained together in a small room full of old PC's solving IRQ conflicts for eternity, but I digress...

A huge factor in TCO is time. As a user, I'm confronted with more issues on Windows than I am on OS X. Defrag is a windows thing. Clearing out temp files is a windows thing (OS X takes care of this sort of thing in crontab). The registry is a centralized magnet for conflicts and problems while plist files are a decentralized and more elegant way of managing preferences.

I would imagine that in an enterprise setting, the two systems might be similar but in a small business or home setting, TCO heavily favors OS X. One way to understand this is to look at the ways the two companies deal with customers' problems. MS has a certification program to train an army of third party MCSEs and if you call MS you often find they cannot or will not help you and their goal seems to be, "Computer problems are inevitable so how can we put a massive support system in place so we don't go broke doing tech support". Apple wants to keep the support burden on itself and their goal is more like, "How do I design this so it just works and we don't go broke doing tech support?"

In this thread I've seen 3 examples that stick in my mind. There's an $1800 MBP, a $900 HP and a $2200 HP. Having owned the $2200 HP I can say that in terms of reliability and build quality it is not nearly as nice as the white plastic Macbook. In doing these comparisons, simply finding a bucket of similar parts thrown together for a cheaper price doesn't mean the lower cost system is a better buy. While I can't claim that my experience is typical, in the case of the elitebook, I have personal experience that it is not as good as a Mac. Not even close.

We have a local high school that when faced with a room full of obsolete machines went and installed Linux on all of them and got another 3 to 5 years out of that old hardware. If I were starting from scratch at setting up a small to medium sized office, depending on their needs I would try to come up with a plan to allow users to choose Win/Linux/OSX but if I had to choose one and if the software were available for their applications, I would choose OS X.

Makes sense. I wasn't implying the HP's/DELL's/etc. were better. But that when comparing an MBP, or similar, that they should use these HP's/etc. for the comparison, not a plastic Acer on sale.

I've made the same conclusion as you; the Windows counterparts are inferior, based on my experience. We purchased a Lenovo T410 w/ 4GB of RAM, Windows 7 Ent. for an Exec. Pure specs, it was faster, etc. than the 13"entry level MBP I bought. Mine screams in comparison, and is far more stable than his in every way. Better battery, no crashes, no slowdowns, etc. He does mail, web, and documents. I do all that, plus some Dreamweaver, Network management, etc. and have zero issues.

I guess everyone's mileage varies...mine hasn't ... lol

 

[cirus]

It all depends on what you do with your computer and your needs.

If you are a person who will not need special features then Windows 7 Home Premium will be sufficient, If you want extra features then I would go for Windows 7 professional. ex more than 16 GB of RAM, more than 1 processor, multi-languages etc. Window 7 Ultimate will be supported until 2020 by which time any computer will be obselete and should not have compatability issues.

I personally do not understand all the problems people have with windows. Never had a blue screen of death, only things that my 4.5 year old dell laptop had were two hard drives checks which took 20 minutes. That laptop still is going strong without any sign of slowdown (no OS reinstall).

I suppose we've owned 7 or 8 computers (all PCs) over the years.
1. PC from 1992 still worked when we checked it last year, now its sitting in the basement. (desktop)
2.PC from 2000 (Dell) still worked when we checked it last year, like the older PC its too old to be usable. (desktop)
3. 2003 PC (Toshiba) worked fine but was a budget model that could't handle gaming. Died after two years when the pipe broke and spilled water all over it. (laptop)
4. 2005 PC (toshiba) again budget model lasted two years then died when the screen started showing dozens of vertical lines of different colours that changed colours and flickered. Finally bit the dust soon after. (laptop)
5. My 4.5 years old dell, no major problems or slowdowns, the speakers died but that about it. (laptop)
6. (2009) desktop working fine, one virus concealed in a download, one hard drive failure. This was a custom built PC using a high quality hard drive (it just failed)
7. (2010) desktop working fine, no problems.
8. (2011) laptop dell xps with sandy bridge. No problems though a little noisy. Nice computer.

However, the good thing about macs is that you don't need to run antivirus software. It's annoying, troublesome and really slows down your system. More heat and shorter battery life. When mcaffee comes on (with 8% CPU usage on i7 2630qm-- what the hell why that much--this would be like 16% on a dual-core) battery life drops from 5 hours to 3.5 on my dell xps (six cell battery). I can always disable it and it only infrequently comes on but when it does...

 

[Avro]

I personally do not understand all the problems people have with windows. Never had a blue screen of death, only things that my 4.5 year old dell laptop had were two hard drives checks which took 20 minutes. That laptop still is going strong without any sign of slowdown (no OS reinstall).

It depends on what you do with your computer. The problems with Windows are that it is run on a Frankenstein assortment of computers and no software house can test against them all, the Windows code contains a lot of legacy code that is built on over the years, when you fix something you break something else and it is reliant on applications written by large software houses. Something I found with Macs is that the best and most useful software tends to come from small software houses with only 4 or 5 employees.

Macs are traditionally used by people such as creative professionals and academics who have to work long unsociable hours to tight deadlines with very little in the way of technical support. An Enterprise institution running Windows has a small support army to keep the whole house of cards going.

I reckon about 50% of the presentations done on Windows have problems and have noted that a lot of people are bringing their own Mac laptops in to do the presentations on Keynote. So far I haven't seen one give any trouble.

Pay your money and take your chances. Personally I like to play it safe.