Just about, since it's been shown how much slower Vista runs than OSX and XP, and how much of an overall resource hog it is.
Go read the benchmarks available all over the net. But continue to argue on hardware alone, as if that really matters.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacBook Shipments Have Begun?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just about, since it's been shown how much slower Vista runs than OSX and XP, and how much of an overall resource hog it is.
Go read the benchmarks available all over the net. But continue to argue on hardware alone, as if that really matters.
Yea I find it utterly amazing that they make people pay a 1000$ extra for a crap card like 8600gt :/
a 13.1 or 13.3 MBP would be really awesome.
Beric,
though i agree with you that the macbook pro is at a ridiculous price, you are not being fair in your comparison. The macbook pro has better specs all around, other than just the graphics processor.
and also, you should expect a ridiculously high price from a company which has no competitors.
though i agree with you that the macbook pro is at a ridiculous price, you are not being fair in your comparison. The macbook pro has better specs all around, other than just the graphics processor.
and also, you should expect a ridiculously high price from a company which has no competitors.
The X4500 graphics are no longer crappy; the chip beats the descrete graphics of yore.
"This chipset also supports the DisplayPort* interface with up to 2560 x 1600 resolution"
In other words 30" Cinema display with 13" macbook, awesome!
Are taking into account the post Vista Service Pack 1 benchmarks?
If you mean half the power of the 8400M GS.
yea, but since the next apple portable I'm buying is going to be my only portable it would be nice to not to have to bring my giant desktop chassi and 24" screen etc over to a friend for a weekend lan or something.
My first Apple laptop was one of the old stock, because they sell it as a refurbished mac
Simple
Just realize that for $1450, you can get this.
Unless the OS really matters to you, or the Macbook Pro's have really great specs, realize that you're spending close to $1000 for OS X if you buy a MBP.
October 14th! The day before my 18th B-Day! SWEET! Maybe I can get one... 
(IF they come out then... you never know with these rumors...)
(IF they come out then... you never know with these rumors...)
That doesn't change my point. If we were to include OS in the price comparison, PC's are selling for hundred of dollars less with an OS valued at $400. That's why OS isn't part of this price comparison. It's all preference.
Yup. I have access to many different models of HP and Lenovo laptops, desktops, and workstations. Vista SP1 has been tested. Vista SP1 is slow. This is in comparison to XP Pro SP3, and, in the case of the soul MacBook currently in office, slower than OSX as well.
It's not a global study, I realize that. But it's consistently slow enough across different architectures that I consider Vista a friggin' joke.
That's right. Everyone I know who runs Vista (I don't myself) says SP1 is a HUGE improvement in both performance and bugs.
beric, the macbookpro has a better processor than the gatewayFX. so you are not correct. You are NOT spending $1000 on OS X. It is more like $700-800 for OS X.
you are just a microsoft fanboy.
OS X does NOT run well on the GatewayFX.
I tried it, and everything is smooth but you will actually need to find a patch to get the sound to work. it took me like 5 hours to find it online.
I tried it, and everything is smooth but you will actually need to find a patch to get the sound to work. it took me like 5 hours to find it online.
I just said, if you value OS X as worth $1000 (actually more like $1500, in that particular model), then get a MBP. Otherwise, a well-specced notebook PC would be a significantly better choice.
Benches or it didn't happen
I'd rather not dig up every post-SP1 benchmark of improvements over XP SP3 from the interweb. In before file copying and transfers still being pitiful in Vista.
XP slower then OS X? What are you doing?
Soon
Wow, thats like... tomorrow! Oh wait... lowsy Smarch weather.
If anyone gets that reference you win many points.
Wow, thats like... tomorrow! Oh wait... lowsy Smarch weather.
If anyone gets that reference you win many points.
XP is not slower than OSX, Vista is slower than XP and OSX. And I don't have printouts of every test I ran 3 months ago.
Believe it or don't, I don't really care. If you really took 5 minutes internet research you'd see Vista SP1 is still slower.
My main point here is comparing laptops based solely on what the clock speed, RAM, etc is is retarded.
Apple never announced an October or any date for that matter of a release for new Macs. This was rumors and speculation, not an official announcement.
No, he's just realistic, your the fanboy here for paying that much for OS.
I myself love OSX, but come on people who think Apple could do a better job than Microsoft seriously have a lot of reevaluating to do, I have a hard time seeing Apple being to support 97-98% of the worlds hardware with their without having 100 times more bugs and problems than Microsoft has with Vista.
Jeez Apple supports such a limited hardware and still a lot of issues and problems they need to deal with constantly.
I think you're entirely missing the point.
Apple is a premium brand, for which you pay a premium price. You're paying for OS X, plus the brand, plus the design. I'm not trying to defend it, I'm just telling it like it is.
If you're looking for an Apple laptop at the same price as a Gateway laptop with a similar hardware spec, then you're simply not Apple's target market.
Yes, your right. The MBP does have a better processor. However, the 17-inch MBP runs $2800, without the extra 2GB RAM, lower resolution, but 50GB more hard-drive space. Either way, its still AT LEAST an $1000 premium. (If I'm missing something, please correct me)