IF the op would like to have an SSD, he should get one with a Sandforce controller which kills your intel in speed. And FYI, my CS5 loads in 2.5 seconds after the 4 second first time load...continuing to use CS5 will store it in the flash cache and make it even faster.
17" MBP: $2549
2.66 i7 (Is this an error on macs site? I can't find info on a 2.66 i7 on hp. There's a 2.66 i5 on HP's site)
4GB DDR3
500GB 7200rpm HDD
GeForce GT 330M 512mb
1920x1200 screen
HP Envy 17': $1599
2.66 i5
1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5850 Graphics w/ HDMI
6GB DDR3
500GB 7200RPM HDD
1920x1080 screen
Blu Ray drive
Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 & Adobe Premiere Elements 8
Yes, that your intel is outdated and if your trying to get the OP to buy an SSD dont be recommending the intels until they are updated to the better controllers. If your looking for good performance you need to get a sandforce, I believe they are currently in either OCZ or OWC and one of these does have its own trim support built in so that is not a problem for OS X and Apple may finally integrate the trim support in Lion...who knows
Reconfigured setups thanks to the info in this thread. (still investigating SSD. Super expensive.)
I gotta say.... for $1000 difference..... lack of blu ray, less memory, and lighter weight graphics card..... It seems like a no-brainer to me that the Envy is the better choice.
Tell me if I've missed something?
I've had limited exposure to MBP but I've impressed with the little time I've had. Everything seems to work seamlessly with little delay and it's hard to beat the software suite available for multimedia purposes.
I'm asking for some clarification on spec comparisons. I'm looking at the new envy 17 with quad core i7, 1080 screen, 640gb 7200rpm hdd, blu ray, and a whole bunch of other crap like finger print scanner, photoshop preloaded etc. Total price: 1500 shipped. (The envy is as close in terms of form as I can get. Has a metal body)
The comparable MBP isn't really comparable in price or specs. No quad core, (although they did just add the i7) no 1080 screen, no blu ray, and sans a lot of other crap. (finger print scanner etc.) Price is well over 2200 at last build I did.
Now, my buddy says you can compare specs because of PCs penchant for having a lot of bloat. I agree with that. Also, things like photoshop etc. seem matched with apples offerings as far as I can tell.
Here's what I need. A computer to manage multimedia and a general do it all machine. I have iphones and ipads. Love apple stuff and continually amazed by their innovation. Just wondering if such a huge gap in performance specs would be noticeable? I think the Ipad is the future and wonder when they are going to beef up its performance to make notebooks all together obsolete.
Thanks.
Just so you know, laptop quadcores are running at much lower clock frequencies than their dual core counterparts, which means that for most tasks they'll usually be slower. Only heavily multithreaded stuff like video encoding will be faster. Not to mention they usually put out a lot of heat. There isn't much sense buying quad core for a laptop at the moment IMO.
Every PC laptop I've tried has had an absolutely awful trackpad compared to the Macbook Pros. They also are typically not quite as intuitive to use when it comes to the various extra functions controlling things like volume etc. Even if the Macbook Pros don't have the best specs on paper, in real use they are more effortless in my experience. Plus most OSX software is much higher quality (more intuitive UI etc) than similar efforts for the PC.
Also consider getting for example the cheaper 15" MBP and an external monitor for more desktop real estate. I often use my 13" MBP as a desktop with a 30" 2560x1600 display and it works great.
As for SSDs..it seems to be that the Sandforce controller devices can't really reach the speeds stated, they seem to degrade quite a bit when the drives get full and they seem to have the same sort of "users as beta testers" thing going that OCZ had with their drives. The Intel G2 (though I wouldn't buy one now since G3 is right around the corner) is an effortless, no nonsense option.
Just so you know, laptop quadcores are running at much lower clock frequencies than their dual core counterparts, which means that for most tasks they'll usually be slower. Only heavily multithreaded stuff like video encoding will be faster. Not to mention they usually put out a lot of heat. There isn't much sense buying quad core for a laptop at the moment IMO.
Every PC laptop I've tried has had an absolutely awful trackpad compared to the Macbook Pros. They also are typically not quite as intuitive to use when it comes to the various extra functions controlling things like volume etc. Even if the Macbook Pros don't have the best specs on paper, in real use they are more effortless in my experience. Plus most OSX software is much higher quality (more intuitive UI etc) than similar efforts for the PC.
Also consider getting for example the cheaper 15" MBP and an external monitor for more desktop real estate. I often use my 13" MBP as a desktop with a 30" 2560x1600 display and it works great.
As for SSDs..it seems to be that the Sandforce controller devices can't really reach the speeds stated, they seem to degrade quite a bit when the drives get full and they seem to have the same sort of "users as beta testers" thing going that OCZ had with their drives. The Intel G2 (though I wouldn't buy one now since G3 is right around the corner) is an effortless, no nonsense option.
RE: The 15" how is the 1440-by-900 compared to the 1680-by-1050 in real world use? And because of the larger screen, is the 1920x1200 1:1 comparable?
Processor a bit slower and down on screen resolution and size but all other things being equal, $2049. $500 seems like a big difference but is it when considering the 2" screen size, resolution, and processor speed difference?
Along with what everyone else has said...I think you may be overlooking the main reason to switch from pc to mac...mac OS X. Seriously, the overall experience alone is worth any hardware differences any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Don't forget specs are nearly useless in real world use. I've seen slower processor computers wipe the floor with higher spec computers with my own two eyes. System optimization = hardware and software that work well together. No pc will ever give you that. Too many individual components from too many individual companies assembled by yet another company. Apple may be a bit over priced, but you do get what you pay for (take advantage of student discount, apple refurb or 3rd parties like amazon to ease the burden on the wallet, and do your own RAM and HDD upgrades - price should be closer to the Envy). I'm a blu ray fan/collector and was a pc user for 21 years. I ain't going back. Of course, you need to pick the best choice for you, and if you use your computer for blu ray you may be out of luck. Make a list of everything you use your computer for, then list the Envy and the MBP and start checking off what each can and can't do. See how it looks. Good luck.
ps: if you use your computer for much more than just blu ray, you may want to consider buying a cheaper or refurb pc laptop dedicated for blu ray and a 15" MBP for all other computer use.
I agree wholeheartedly about the experience. People who dog the iphone just don't get it. It may not be the on the bleeding edge of specs but between the app store and the phones seamless experience.. tough to beat.
That's a damn good idea! Never even occurred to me. I'm actually considering scrapping my desktop and getting the envy for work/blu ray work and some evolution of the MBP for other things. Lot's of options.
Bottom line after discussing it with my wife. I will need a PC laptop always due to my career but I think we will replace every day laptop-ing with a middle of the line MBP.
Bottom line after discussing it with my wife. I will need a PC laptop always due to my career but I think we will replace every day laptop-ing with a middle of the line MBP.
RE: The 15" how is the 1440-by-900 compared to the 1680-by-1050 in real world use? And because of the larger screen, is the 1920x1200 1:1 comparable?
Processor a bit slower and down on screen resolution and size but all other things being equal, $2049. $500 seems like a big difference but is it when considering the 2" screen size, resolution, and processor speed difference?
Reconfigured setups thanks to the info in this thread. (still investigating SSD. Super expensive.)
I gotta say.... for $1000 difference..... lack of blu ray, less memory, and lighter weight graphics card..... It seems like a no-brainer to me that the Envy is the better choice.
Tell me if I've missed something?
What is it you do that makes use of quad core?
Is there a standard performance test I can run on my buddies MBP and other computers to get a baseline?
Thanks a ton guys! Nice to have technical information and professional opinions unmarred by fanboi-ism.
I can garauntee you in general day to day use you will not notice a difference between a core i7 and a core 2 duo clocked at similar speeds. especially in a laptop.
If you don't use both at the same time you could create a Bootcamp partition on the Mac and boot into Windows when you need a "pure" Windows machine. The down side is you need to reboot when you want to run OSX.
In the end, the best solution is what works for you. For me, while a PC could fit the bill for my work, the overall feel of the MBP (Keyboard, display, construction) and OSX's ability to just work almost all the time made me to decide to go with the Mac. For example, I was often the only person who could use a printer at a client site because my Mac recognized their Bonjour printers while the PC's couldn't find them on the network.
For the rare times I need to use Windows, parallels fits the bill for me but then again split second execution of trades while running proprietary software is not what I am looking for.
I dont know why you cant run windows via bootcamp...*it is* running windows on basic hardware, the only thing mac is doing is providing drivers to allow the keyboard and such to work with the installation. It has nothing to do with the functionality of windows so I dont see why you think it just cant be done.