Pro 15 and 17 versus XPS 16

[Michael CM1]

Have any of you actually used Vista in the past few months? It's freaking sweet, and seems to run better on my Macbook than OS X (but this is probably due to me having less installed on it)

Windows XP was a decent OS, but then MS decided to make everything look flashier instead of work better. They make the start button ginormous, clutter even more crap in there, add 700 new folders to put crap in that are God knows where. Fustercluck doesn't begin to describe it.

Windows Photo Gallery is a disastrous attempt to mimic iPhoto. Windows Explorer is still just...eh. Internet Explorer has so many buttons and menus that it confuses me, let alone my computerphobe mother. The taskbar gets cluttered with 1,800 icons at startup, none of which are of any use.

This is all on a six-month-old Dell. I don't really see any performance problems, but it is just SO HORRIBLY DESIGNED. Microsoft needs to gut it and just have two versions - home and pro. Implement some OS 9 Classic-type environment to emulate the old OS and make something that isn't still based on DOS. Pay the licensing fee to Apple to use the damn dock instead of coming up with an "application pier" that doesn't work. And lastly, get rid of your stupid WMV video format if you're not going to support it on multiple platforms.

 

[HLdan]

Have any of you actually used Vista in the past few months? It's freaking sweet, and seems to run better on my Macbook than OS X (but this is probably due to me having less installed on it)

Yes, I have Vista installed on my MBA. Windows, whether it's XP, 2000, 95 or Vista or 7 won't matter. I have it installed for tinkering when I'm bored or IF I have to run a specific business app.
The one thing all those above versions have in common is the CRAP ASSED REGISTRY. You can update Windows until it's smooth as a babie's ass but it still will have the REGISTRY. I spent too many nites dealing with it and getting no work done until I reformatted.
There's a reason to pay for the Macintosh. That's why I don't care that the 17" is $2800 (which is no different in price from the previous one), if I can actually get work done instead of working on my computer I will gladly pay Apple as I have for my MBA.
Also some of you that go so far as to compare ANY Mac to Windows machine always conveniently leave out the feature that a Macintosh can run UNIX, Windows and OS X natively. You can also install Linux which is wasteful. Having native use of OS X, Windows and UNIX is something NO Windows PC can do. That's worth the price of admission for a person that needs a computer to do everything.

 

[Abstract]

You seriously need to do some research before comparing a $1200 computer to the $2800 MBP.

The $1200 model has a 2.26Ghz CPU, 16 inches instead of 17, and a 720p display, not 1080p. The 2.66Ghz option isn't available on the Dell, but the 2.53Ghz bumps the price up a few hundred, while the 2.8 goes up even more. Add $250 to get the same display that the MBP has. Those upgrades got it to $1724, still with a slower CPU. I can't compare the Dell GPU vs. the MBP GPU, so that could be another premium added to the MBP. There is no battery option, and I guarantee you the Dell battery doesn't last 8 hours.

There is no iLife suite (the Windows Vista apps that try to do the same are crap). There is also the obvious "do you want to use Vista?" question. I don't like Vista one bit, so it's worth whatever extra money it is for a Mac. I wouldn't spend the extra $700-1,000 or whatever it is, but you can get the 15-inch MBP for about that same price.

As Ron said, it all boils down to OS X. What good would a car with 10-cylinder power be to someone in, say, Texas without an air conditioner? Such is OS X to some of us. OS X keeps us cool.

The Dell is as good a notebook. It just happens to be less pretty.

So you either pay $2800 for the MBP, or $1900 for an equivalent Dell XPS. If you buy the MBP, just remember that you're paying for a $1900 laptop and $900 for OS X and slightly better looks.


Ok.....$900. Is OS X worth $900??

I like OS X. It's the only reason I'm still using a Mac. That, and it's UNIX based, and I need something that works on Linux, but was ported to Mac OS X because it's easy to do.

Saying that, if I could put OS X on a non-Apple computer, I'd have a hard time deciding between a 15" MBP (with upgraded screen resolution....whenever that happens), and several others. I think the MB and MBP are good, but in terms of value for money, you're right to admire other machines.

If I was going to buy a laptop today, and I could get OS X on any laptop, I'd either get a 15" MBP and HP Mini-note 2140 netbook, or I'd just get an 11" Sony TT and a big external LCD.

 

[jaytv111]

That's worth the price of admission for a person that needs a computer to do everything.

Yeah I know it's wonderful when my computer can do everything. Like load a Blu Ray or connect my eSATA drive. Oh wait... lol

Anyways these threads are pointless in that someone says "oh here's a great PC that has good specs and a nice price." then the Mac people are like "so what? WINDOWS!!". The point is to compare hardware but no one sticks to that. Hardware is where we should compare after all, since software can always be changed and upgraded. Hardware in laptops has hardly any upgradability. Not to mention OSx86 means I can run OS X on any PC nowadays lol.

Ok back to my corner.

 

[bruinsrme]

Have any of you actually used Vista in the past few months? It's freaking sweet, and seems to run better on my Macbook than OS X (but this is probably due to me having less installed on it)

I fought with vista for months.

Once, i learned what the new features being offered, when I pop onto one of my XP machnes XP looks lame.

 

[HLdan]

Yeah I know it's wonderful when my computer can do everything. Like load a Blu Ray or connect my eSATA drive. Oh wait... lol

Anyways these threads are pointless in that someone says "oh here's a great PC that has good specs and a nice price." then the Mac people are like "so what? WINDOWS!!". The point is to compare hardware but no one sticks to that. Hardware is where we should compare after all, since software can always be changed and upgraded. Hardware in laptops has hardly any upgradability. Not to mention OSx86 means I can run OS X on any PC nowadays lol.

Ok back to my corner.

Yeah, it's interesting that you would prefer to install OS X in an unsupported fashion. Only an idiot would use a hackintosh for their primary computer.
News flash buddy, you cannot JUST compare hardware if certain users don't want to use the OS that they have to be stuck with when buying it. Linux doesn't cut it for many people as a primary OS so the 2 major OS's are Mac OS X and Windows which in question are the two OS's that are natively installed and supported on the hardware in question.

So yes, people are in their right place to judge the hardware based on the operating system.
What I find interesting is regardless how much Apple charges for a Macintosh, Windows users will buy them, pay extra for a Windows license, install Windows and use it as their primary OS. Then many of those Windows fanboys admit that they can't find anything out there that's as good as Apple's hardware. Somebody answer that for me please???

 

[bruinsrme]

Yeah I know it's wonderful when my computer can do everything. Like load a Blu Ray or connect my eSATA drive. Oh wait... lol

Anyways these threads are pointless in that someone says "oh here's a great PC that has good specs and a nice price." then the Mac people are like "so what? WINDOWS!!". The point is to compare hardware but no one sticks to that. Hardware is where we should compare after all, since software can always be changed and upgraded. Hardware in laptops has hardly any upgradability. Not to mention OSx86 means I can run OS X on any PC nowadays lol.

Ok back to my corner.

Good point.

The new dell has a LED display in 1366x768 or 1920x1080 nice very nice

 

[tubbymac]

Implement some OS 9 Classic-type environment to emulate the old OS and make something that isn't still based on DOS.

Think you hit the nail on the head there. The Achilles' heel of Windows is it's backward compatibility above all else. Years from now it'll probably still support some archaic 8 bit DOS program through some Windows thunk layer even though only 0.2% of the population use it. It'll take Apple's Snow Leopard to drag us kicking and screaming into the 64 bit era, not Microsoft. Apple isn't afraid to cut the cord when required.

The one thing all those above versions have in common is the CRAP ASSED REGISTRY. You can update Windows until it's smooth as a babie's ass but it still will have the REGISTRY.

YES! Somebody else shares my hatred of the registry!

 

[bruinsrme]

Yeah, it's interesting that you would prefer to install OS X in an unsupported fashion. Only an idiot would use a hackintosh for their primary computer.
News flash buddy, you cannot JUST compare hardware if certain users don't want to use the OS that they have to be stuck with when buying it. Linux doesn't cut it for many people as a primary OS so the 2 major OS's are Mac OS X and Windows which in question are the two OS's that are natively installed and supported on the hardware in question.

So yes, people are in their right place to judge the hardware based on the operating system.
What I find interesting is regardless how much Apple charges for a Macintosh, Windows users will buy them, pay extra for a Windows license, install Windows and use it as their primary OS. Then many of those Windows fanboys admit that they can't find anything out there that's as good as Apple's hardware. Somebody answer that for me please???

Apples Hardware????
Intel processors and chipsets - Intel doesn't make special ones for apple
(we didn't make ICH products for apple and then retool to make them for Dell)
Nvidia same models and memory
Displays - apple but it will be interesting to see how the Dell's LED displays look.

 

[kastenbrust]

Apples Hardware????
Intel processors and chipsets - Intel doesn't make special ones for apple

Actually it does. Find me an Apple logicboard (motherboard) for sale in another computer.

Find me any Intel processor from the Macbook Air, Macbook, or Macbook pro for sale in another computer.

Thats right, you cant, because Intel made them specially for Apple to have a smaller architecture, and keep the same speed.
However they do sacrifice this for increased heat output.

 

[YahonMaizosz]

Yes, I have Vista installed on my MBA. Windows, whether it's XP, 2000, 95 or Vista or 7 won't matter. I have it installed for tinkering when I'm bored or IF I have to run a specific business app.
The one thing all those above versions have in common is the CRAP ASSED REGISTRY. You can update Windows until it's smooth as a babie's ass but it still will have the REGISTRY. I spent too many nites dealing with it and getting no work done until I reformatted.
There's a reason to pay for the Macintosh. That's why I don't care that the 17" is $2800 (which is no different in price from the previous one), if I can actually get work done instead of working on my computer I will gladly pay Apple as I have for my MBA.
Also some of you that go so far as to compare ANY Mac to Windows machine always conveniently leave out the feature that a Macintosh can run UNIX, Windows and OS X natively. You can also install Linux which is wasteful. Having native use of OS X, Windows and UNIX is something NO Windows PC can do. That's worth the price of admission for a person that needs a computer to do everything.

What is it that you have to do in a windows machine that requires toggling the registry so frequently??

You trying to modify Vista from the ground up or what??

Actually it does. Find me an Apple logicboard (motherboard) for sale in another computer.

Find me any Intel processor from the Macbook Air, Macbook, or Macbook pro for sale in another computer.

Thats right, you cant, because Intel made them specially for Apple to have a smaller architecture, and keep the same speed.
However they do sacrifice this for increased heat output.

Actually, it is the same processor that Intel had been giving to others such as Dell and HP...

 

[NT1440]

Yeah I know it's wonderful when my computer can do everything. Like load a Blu Ray or connect my eSATA drive. Oh wait... lol

Anyways these threads are pointless in that someone says "oh here's a great PC that has good specs and a nice price." then the Mac people are like "so what? WINDOWS!!". The point is to compare hardware but no one sticks to that. Hardware is where we should compare after all, since software can always be changed and upgraded. Hardware in laptops has hardly any upgradability. Not to mention OSx86 means I can run OS X on any PC nowadays lol.

Ok back to my corner.

There is no way only hardware should be compared!

OSX! All that needs to be said.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

There is no way only hardware should be compared!

OSX! All that needs to be said.

Seriously? You'd be willing to pay a thousand extra dollars on an inferior machine just because it has OS X? What a waste.

Computers these days, even Windows, don't really have many issues with malware, and they can mostly all run the same apps or comparable apps. The more I think about it the more I realize that the OS wars are coming to an end without a winner. Neither OS is really that much better than its competitor.

 

[Moriarty]

Apple is the only company as yet who knows how to make a laptop trackpad. Every other laptop aside from Macbooks has a pathetically tiny, insensitive trackpad with a poor tracking surface in terms of texture, and tiny, squidgy, uncomfortable buttons.

Macbook trackpad FTW. A lot of other trackpads dont even have the functionality to click by tapping, let alone right click by tapping with two fingers... ugh.

No point comparing Windows to Mac. It's a Mac, simple as that. Most people looking at buying a Mac, want a Mac, full stop, no alternative. Wrong forum!

 

[NT1440]

Seriously? You'd be willing to pay a thousand extra dollars on an inferior machine just because it has OS X? What a waste.

Computers these days, even Windows, don't really have many issues with malware, and they can mostly all run the same apps or comparable apps. The more I think about it the more I realize that the OS wars are coming to an end without a winner. Neither OS is really that much better than its competitor.

YES, yes I would. I HATE the world of windows. I hate the look, the feel, almost everything about it. I hate having to stare at it everyday until I get my macbook.

 

[Abstract]

Actually, it is the same processor that Intel had been giving to others such as Dell and HP...

Yep.

Intel did it for Apple once or twice, but that's it. It's all pretty standard hardware. Apple just chooses to use slower hardware at times, or exclude it altogether for no reason.


I guess these arguments don't go anywhere because, like someone said, someone will always act like a kid and say, "Yeah, but Macs have one thing.....OS X. HAH!" With that argument, people are just dodging the questions they don't want to answer. Personally, I'd love to have some really really (really really really really) basic, common features on my laptop such as a 4-in-1 card reader (don't want to carry a USB cable just to offload my photos from my camera), and the more upscale features such as eSATA.


I've been using Macs for awhile, and I do like the hardware and software. Doesn't mean that on many occasions, I can't admit that another company's hardware is better, far better value, or/and beautiful.

 

[NT1440]

I guess these arguments don't go anywhere because, like someone said, someone will always act like a kid and say, "Yeah, but Macs have one thing.....OS X. HAH!" With that argument, people are just dodging the questions they don't want to answer. Personally, I'd love to have some really really (really really really really) basic, common features on my laptop such as a 4-in-1 card reader (don't want to carry a USB cable just to offload my photos from my camera), and the more upscale features such as eSATA.

Im guessing that was aimed at my post?

Beleive it or not the macbook has everything I NEED in a laptop.

 

[kastenbrust]

Actually, it is the same processor that Intel had been giving to others such as Dell and HP...

No its not, look on the Apple website, its quite obvious.

 

[NT1440]

No its not, look on the Apple website, its quite obvious.

ugh.

Apple uses many if not all the same components others use.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

No its not, look on the Apple website, its quite obvious.

wha-rong.

 

[NT1440]

wha-rong.

Even as a person some consider a fanboy, I still find it ridiculous that people think apples components are somehow special or different.

Just kinda a pet peeve.

 

[Tosser]

YES, yes I would. I HATE the world of windows. I hate the look, the feel, almost everything about it. I hate having to stare at it everyday until I get my macbook.

So you don't actually own an Apple computer, yet you praise how good the OS is?

Even as a person some consider a fanboy, I still find it ridiculous that people think apples components are somehow special or different.

Just kinda a pet peeve.

He, he, nice, NT

 

[Michael CM1]

Think you hit the nail on the head there. The Achilles' heel of Windows is it's backward compatibility above all else. Years from now it'll probably still support some archaic 8 bit DOS program through some Windows thunk layer even though only 0.2% of the population use it. It'll take Apple's Snow Leopard to drag us kicking and screaming into the 64 bit era, not Microsoft. Apple isn't afraid to cut the cord when required.



YES! Somebody else shares my hatred of the registry!

Double LOL at all that. The whole DOS way of organization is so annoying, especially with my mom's Dell with a media card bay. When I open My Computer, there are about 8 devices listed even though there's really just one hard drive and a DVD drive. I get the separate drive letter for the separate parition created by Dell (even though I didn't know they would waste 15GB of space for that), but why does the computer need 4 drive letters for those card readers when they're almost NEVER used? It's just clutter.

I am still amazed at the simplicity of the Mac OS folders. I never used OS 9 much, but OS X just does it right. I know exactly where to find applications and documents because, duh, they named the folders as such.

I still have no idea what the bloody registry is for aside from making some uber-nerds feel smart. It's like a repository for every file that will screw up a computer. I don't know the inner workings of OS X, but it seems like to remove an application you just DELETE IT. There are a few document files stored in other folders, but none of that shared files crap that will kill some Windows applications.

 

[NT1440]

So you don't actually own an Apple computer, yet you praise how good the OS is?

I like OSX way more than any windows Ive ever had, and that was a dated version on my aunts 2004 G4 powerbook that I got to use exlusively for two weeks.

I'm hooked on the OS, and yes Ive had a decent amount of time on leopard as well.

 

[theNEOone]

Yes. It's like Windows XP with Down Syndrome. Windows XP was a decent OS, but then MS decided to make everything look flashier instead of work better. They make the start button ginormous, clutter even more crap in there, add 700 new folders to put crap in that are God knows where. Fustercluck doesn't begin to describe it.

Windows Photo Gallery is a disastrous attempt to mimic iPhoto. Windows Explorer is still just...eh. Internet Explorer has so many buttons and menus that it confuses me, let alone my computerphobe mother. The taskbar gets cluttered with 1,800 icons at startup, none of which are of any use.

This is all on a six-month-old Dell. I don't really see any performance problems, but it is just SO HORRIBLY DESIGNED. Microsoft needs to gut it and just have two versions - home and pro. Implement some OS 9 Classic-type environment to emulate the old OS and make something that isn't still based on DOS. Pay the licensing fee to Apple to use the damn dock instead of coming up with an "application pier" that doesn't work. And lastly, get rid of your stupid WMV video format if you're not going to support it on multiple platforms.

Rofl. Your post = full of crap.

I've had zero problems with Vista, and for all the praise you throw on iPhoto, I've seen tons of people on this forum flee it in favor of Picassa. Windows Photo Gallery has worked fine for me, although I will admit that I'm not really all that into photo editing and management.....I still don't understand what the fuss is all about: 1. Take pictures 2. Download to computer 3. Email occasionally. 4. Done.

You say that MS made Vista flashier but less useful - I haven't found that to be true. Better computer management, easier networking, file sharing, WMC connectivity, wireless management, etc. I honestly have zero complaints. I'm actually looking forward to Windows 7. (Alot of other people on this forum are also excited....checkout the Windows 7 thread in Windows on a Mac). And I honestly can't believe you're knocking on Windows Explorer. I've read comments from even loyal Apple fans who find OSX to outperform Windows in every category except when comparing Finder vs. Explorer. And IE being confusing?!??! Are you freaking kidding me? Personally I use Chrome simply because it's a faster browser, but from a design and usability perspective, I think IE7 (and IE8 beta which I've used) are fantastic. I think your problem is that you were just stuck in XP land and couldn't wrap your head around the new route MS is taking....which is surprising, considering you could hop from XP to OSX which represents a much starker contrast. I do agree with you in that they should ditch the b.s. wmv format....just like Apple should ditch the b.s aac format. Can we get iTunes songs in mp3 now that the Apple store is going DRM free? Please?

All that being said, though, I just bit the bullet on a new MBP that should arrive in about a week. I was actually holding out because I read about these new Dell Studio XPS notebooks a month or so ago and wanted to see their specs before I decided on a new PC. I have to say, although I like the design, I'm not impressed enough to choose it over a MBP. I'm not digging the 16:9 screen ratio on the 16" nor am I sold on the ATI video card....jury is still out on this one. The biggest issue is the weight...based on the thread I linked below the 13" is 4.9lbs...the 16" would start at what? 7 lbs? Yikes.

Althouuuuggghhh.....the $800 MBP Apple luxury tax is tough to overlook. I spec'd out a 2.8 Dell 1640 w/ BlueRay for about $1,800. The 2.8 MBP priced out to $2,621 through my EPP. Yikes.

I've got no Windows vs. OSX issues...I'm excited about running both on my new PC (yes, Macs are PCs) when it arrives.

If you guys want to know more about these new Dells, check out the following links:

Long thread at NBR: 90+ Pages....page 65 is where they talk about the release info

Configure the 1340

Configure the 1640


=|