Most of the time computers are not performing at nearly their maximum. Those hours of using OS X is (in my opinion) absolutely worth the few minutes you may have saved for heavy computing with a PC.
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.
Should I keep my MacBook?
- Thread starter kim6ball
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The MacBook is all about perceived value. If you like the aluminum casing, and like using OS X, then it's a good value. Apple's support is also better than HP, Dell, or Asus in my experience.
Computers aren't just about raw numbers. If you're looking at a machine strictly by what processor, drive, ram, and graphics card and not the overall package of the computer + operating system, then the MacBook probably isn't for you.
I have the uMBP, and it's definitely a sturdy machine; no scratches, dents, or otherwise. And I'm certainly not gentle with it. OS X has been extraordinarily stable even while running 4 to 5 virtual machines as well as having Firefox, Entourage, and Excel open.
At the same time I run an HP workstation with Windows 7 x64 and Ubuntu. Both also great OSes.
I would say that if you're going to go to Windows, that's fine. But get a quality machine such as a Lenovo Thinkpad or high end Dell. I personally would avoid HP; yes I run one, no I didn't pay for it (though their workstations are relatively decent, albeit overpriced). I find their service to be pretty bad these days.
Something like the Thinkpad T400 with the same specs as the 2.4Ghz MB but with a dedicated ATI Radeon 3470 and an ExpressCard slot would run $1200, and it's actually a solid machine, unlike the crap you'll find at Best Buy.
Macbook
I got my macbook 2.4GHz three weeks ago and absolutely love it. It's my third laptop that I've owned (Toshiba and Sony being the previous two) and it is such a huge difference in build quality, ease of use and ofcourse the OS X Leopard. It puts a smile on my face each time I turn it on! When I look at pc laptops now they all look ridiculous with all that glossy cheap plastic. Plus don't let the specs get you down, 2gb of ram running OS X and 2gb running vista is a huge difference. And if you think that you have to have the 4gb ram it's just another $100 that you can upgrade later on. So keep the Mac and stop worrying, enjoy!!
I got my macbook 2.4GHz three weeks ago and absolutely love it. It's my third laptop that I've owned (Toshiba and Sony being the previous two) and it is such a huge difference in build quality, ease of use and ofcourse the OS X Leopard. It puts a smile on my face each time I turn it on! When I look at pc laptops now they all look ridiculous with all that glossy cheap plastic. Plus don't let the specs get you down, 2gb of ram running OS X and 2gb running vista is a huge difference. And if you think that you have to have the 4gb ram it's just another $100 that you can upgrade later on. So keep the Mac and stop worrying, enjoy!!
Norton antvirus is $89.99 Before tax, which after tax, In canada anyway, would bring it up to $100.78. This may differ a couple dollars either way, depending on which province your in.
Norton AV is horrid, and should never, ever be used. There are quite a few free solutions that are excellent, such as Avast and AVG that do the job better. If you want to pay, ESET NOD32 is a better choice, and that's only $40.
Theres a lot of things wrong with this post.
First of all, you'd be hard pressed to find a PC notebook running a Core 2 Duo that is not Penryn based these days. Let's not forget that PC notebooks typically upgrade WELL before Apple. Apple only upgrades twice a year in most cases. A Spring and a Fall update. PC manufacturers upgrade as the new hardware becomes available. If you can find a Merom based Core 2 Duo PC notebook being sold still, its either a refurb or very old stock that nobody will buy.
Any Core 2 Duo system you buy new from Dell, HP, Asus, MSI, Gateway, eMachines, the list goes on, will have a Penryn revision CPU in it.
At this moment, having DDR2 667 versus DDR3 1066 makes very little difference in a notebook. When it comes to gaming, it does make a dramatic difference with the 9400M, because DDR3 is fast enough so that one channel is basically good enough to feed the CPU and the other channel is essentially free and dedicated to the GPU. But when it comes to how it affects overall CPU performance, the difference is almost not there. That will change when Intel finally starts making a mobile version of Nehalem, which can take full advantage of DDR3's triple channel capabilities and is actually fast enough to be able to keep up with that kind of bandwidth. But right now the Core 2 Duo benefits very little, if at all from DDR3. Again, the only time DDR3 is beneficial is when we're discussing the 9400M being used to play games. But why bother with that? For $1299 you can get something with a 9800M GS and outperform any of the MacBook Pros by about double. A $1,000 PC with a 1GB GeForce 9650M GT will still outperform any of the MacBook Pros, and it will especially outperform the $1,999 MBP with 256MB of video memory because of that ridiculous lack of memory. Even though the 9650M is only slightly faster than the 9600M, the fact that PCs at that price have 4x the video memory will allow them to perform much better at higher resolutions because they have more dedicated memory to work with.
It's also not true that Windows Vista is more of a resource hog than Leopard. Both have almost exactly the same system requirements. And having run both on the same hardware with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo and 1GB of RAM (way back at first launch) and more recently on the UniBody MacBook, I can tell you from experience that Leopard is more of a RAM hog (it runs AWFUL on 1GB) and Leopard throws more CPU cycles at every task than Windows does. Leopard also tends to just run slower and feel slower than Vista SP1. Windows 7 makes the gap even bigger.
Also, if you want to talk about screen quality, its a well known fact that MacBooks tend to have some of the worst screens available. My LED backlit UniBody MacBook screen is brighter than my CCFL backlit HP screen, but the HP screen has more natural colors and is sharper overall despite being the same resolution and 2" bigger. The HP's viewing angles are also significantly improved over the MacBooks screen. And the best part is the HP is more than a year older than the MacBook and, at the time of purchase, was almost $500 less. And it has dedicated graphics and double the memory!
My experience of Vista is that it runs on 1GB but is quite sluggish. It will do the basics if thats all thats needed. It runs briskly on 2GB of RAM but I don't know if I would trust it for something intensive like gaming with that much. 4GB is great for gaming on Vista.
Leopard is running on my 1GHz iBook with 768MB of RAM, but I wish I could go back to Tiger (Tiger won't let me use my mobile phone as a tether). It seemed very smooth on the 2GB iMac in the Apple Store.
And about the antivirus, someone mentioned the free ones which are fine, but I want to correct that $100 quote for Norton. Maybe the initial purchase would be $100 but thereafter the fee to continue receiving updates is much less. I can't give you an exact figure because I never use Norton
Leopard is running on my 1GHz iBook with 768MB of RAM, but I wish I could go back to Tiger (Tiger won't let me use my mobile phone as a tether). It seemed very smooth on the 2GB iMac in the Apple Store.
And about the antivirus, someone mentioned the free ones which are fine, but I want to correct that $100 quote for Norton. Maybe the initial purchase would be $100 but thereafter the fee to continue receiving updates is much less. I can't give you an exact figure because I never use Norton
My experience of Vista is that it runs on 1GB but is quite sluggish. It will do the basics if thats all thats needed. It runs briskly on 2GB of RAM but I don't know if I would trust it for something intensive like gaming with that much. 4GB is great for gaming on Vista.
Leopard is running on my 1GHz iBook with 768MB of RAM, but I wish I could go back to Tiger (Tiger won't let me use my mobile phone as a tether). It seemed very smooth on the 2GB iMac in the Apple Store.
And about the antivirus, someone mentioned the free ones which are fine, but I want to correct that $100 quote for Norton. Maybe the initial purchase would be $100 but thereafter the fee to continue receiving updates is much less. I can't give you an exact figure because I never use Norton
The price of norton is per year. When ever my subscription was over, I had to go and buy another norton AV for full price. Although there is cheaper solutions than norton, even at 50 dollars, if you use your computer for 5 years, thats an extra 250 dollars. I guess in the long run, thats not to bad, but thats 250 dollars that wouldn't be necessary to spend if using mac OSX.
On a side note, I realize not everyone needs, or even buys AV software for their PC's. So maybe the OP would not even need to purchase software, Im just saying that if he does purchase it, than thats money that would not have to be spent if he/she were using OSX.
Norton is $100 a year? Yipes. I use Kaspersky and it costs me 15pounds a year (I think that must be about $25) and I can put it on 3 machines. Student prices ftw.
In fact I don't even bother to put it on my dad's old computer because it would slow it down, and free antivirus does the trick. Its really a case of not downloading crap like free smilies and screensavers, and being behind a router helps. But with wireless these days, routers are very common.
In fact I don't even bother to put it on my dad's old computer because it would slow it down, and free antivirus does the trick. Its really a case of not downloading crap like free smilies and screensavers, and being behind a router helps. But with wireless these days, routers are very common.
Kaspersky is that cheap? wow, in canada its 79.99 before tax, so just around 90 with tax..
I just want to point to this: http://www.ibuypower.com/ibp/store/configurator.aspx?mid=418
2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (Penryn on the Montevina platform), 2GB DDR3, 250GB 7200RPM HDD, proper 16x9 display, Radeon 4650 512MB all for $879 For a little less than $200 more you can bump it up to a 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, and 320GB HDD.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220499 $1,199. Screen resolution is a little low for 15.4", but you get a 1GB GeForce 9650M GT, 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, 320GB 7200 RPM HDD, HDMI, VGA, eSATA, card reader, fingerprint reader, 30 day zero bright dot warranty on the screen, 1 year accidental damage standard, and 2 year standard warranty, along with a free case.
Even better: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220526 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB, 320GB 7200 RPM HDD, blu-ray(!), GeForce GT 120M 1GB, 16" proper 16x9 display, same 30 day screen warranty, 1 year accidental, 2 year standard warranties, HDMI, etc.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152099 15.4" 1680x1050 screen, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, 320GB HDD, GeForce 9800M GS 1GB, blu-ray, HDMI, Firewire, eSATA, and it supports Dolby Digital Live. So if you've got that system hooked up to your HDTV and surround sound via an HDMI cable, you'll get true 5.1 sound out of your games. It only weighs 5.9 pounds and is only 1.22" thick at the back. All that for $1299, the same as the UniBody MacBook that gets you half the RAM, half the HDD space, a GPU thats not even close to being in the same league (probably not even 1/8th as powerful), no HDMI, no ExpressCard, slower processor, lower quality and smaller screen.. basically damn near nothing in comparison.
Ugh, I have a SERIOUS case of buyers remorse regarding my MacBook right now.
2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (Penryn on the Montevina platform), 2GB DDR3, 250GB 7200RPM HDD, proper 16x9 display, Radeon 4650 512MB all for $879 For a little less than $200 more you can bump it up to a 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, and 320GB HDD.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220499 $1,199. Screen resolution is a little low for 15.4", but you get a 1GB GeForce 9650M GT, 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, 320GB 7200 RPM HDD, HDMI, VGA, eSATA, card reader, fingerprint reader, 30 day zero bright dot warranty on the screen, 1 year accidental damage standard, and 2 year standard warranty, along with a free case.
Even better: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220526 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB, 320GB 7200 RPM HDD, blu-ray(!), GeForce GT 120M 1GB, 16" proper 16x9 display, same 30 day screen warranty, 1 year accidental, 2 year standard warranties, HDMI, etc.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152099 15.4" 1680x1050 screen, 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM, 320GB HDD, GeForce 9800M GS 1GB, blu-ray, HDMI, Firewire, eSATA, and it supports Dolby Digital Live. So if you've got that system hooked up to your HDTV and surround sound via an HDMI cable, you'll get true 5.1 sound out of your games. It only weighs 5.9 pounds and is only 1.22" thick at the back. All that for $1299, the same as the UniBody MacBook that gets you half the RAM, half the HDD space, a GPU thats not even close to being in the same league (probably not even 1/8th as powerful), no HDMI, no ExpressCard, slower processor, lower quality and smaller screen.. basically damn near nothing in comparison.
Ugh, I have a SERIOUS case of buyers remorse regarding my MacBook right now.
mosx, why are you even on this website if you have buyers remorse. Why dont you go ahead and sell your macbook if you dont like it. Remember, Macs arent for everyone, thats the great thing about choice. I think your logic is VERY flawed. Dont you realize that the sum of the parts DOES NOT always equal the whole.
Most people buy macs for one or more of the following reasons'
1. Stability
2. Design
3. OSx
There are many other reasons (especially for people involved in creative pursuits). You are essentially comparing a 38K Nissan 350z with 330 HP to a 60k Porsche cayman S with 296 HP (might have been updated to more horsepower). Yes the Nissan might have more horsepower and might offer a much better bang for the buck, but there are many people willing to pay more for a Porsche because of its combination of refinement, luxury / status and performance. With the Nissan, you get performance and not much else. Same analogy with a 26k 260HP Honda accord and a 38K BMW 328i. Stop pushing hardware specs, it doesnt mean much. To be honest, I see where you are coming from, but it doesnt matter if a computer has all the specs in the world if you dont even use it. Why would anyone want to watch a Blu-ray movie on a 13" PC ?? Who cares about a 256MB graphics card if I dont play games (not even solitaire), The difference between a 1" thick PC and a 1.22" thick PC is major, lets not even go there. As for HDMI, why would I need HDMI on my PC when I dont plan on ever connecting it to a TV (sorry but thats what a PS3 or XBOX or appletv is for... at least in my case). And as for weight, I am about to go back to school so every pound counts.
I was in a store the other day and I saw a sony laptop that had a pretty nice design which I really liked. Unfortunately, it cost $1900 (pretty well loaded though) and was built of really flimsy plastic some of which was chrome plated (which cheapened it a bit). In the same store (Bestbuy), I played a bit with a macbook (unibody). Night and day difference. For me design carries a bit of a premium and you cant really put a price tag on it. Even though I am an Engineer, the only other thing that is more important than design is ease of use which OSX definately has....
So there you have it, another point of view. By the way, I currently have a 5 year old dell 600m with a 40gb hardrive and 512mb of RAM which I should be upgrading on the 8th of June to a shiny new unibody macbook. I like my dell but I am not really a fan of windows, or the designs of their laptops. I will likely dualboot windows 7 with the laptop because it looks promising. Even if I end up hating OSX (highly unlikely based on my experience), I still LOVE the design of the MACS. That alone is worth the price premium...
Good Night
Most people buy macs for one or more of the following reasons'
1. Stability
2. Design
3. OSx
There are many other reasons (especially for people involved in creative pursuits). You are essentially comparing a 38K Nissan 350z with 330 HP to a 60k Porsche cayman S with 296 HP (might have been updated to more horsepower). Yes the Nissan might have more horsepower and might offer a much better bang for the buck, but there are many people willing to pay more for a Porsche because of its combination of refinement, luxury / status and performance. With the Nissan, you get performance and not much else. Same analogy with a 26k 260HP Honda accord and a 38K BMW 328i. Stop pushing hardware specs, it doesnt mean much. To be honest, I see where you are coming from, but it doesnt matter if a computer has all the specs in the world if you dont even use it. Why would anyone want to watch a Blu-ray movie on a 13" PC ?? Who cares about a 256MB graphics card if I dont play games (not even solitaire), The difference between a 1" thick PC and a 1.22" thick PC is major, lets not even go there. As for HDMI, why would I need HDMI on my PC when I dont plan on ever connecting it to a TV (sorry but thats what a PS3 or XBOX or appletv is for... at least in my case). And as for weight, I am about to go back to school so every pound counts.
I was in a store the other day and I saw a sony laptop that had a pretty nice design which I really liked. Unfortunately, it cost $1900 (pretty well loaded though) and was built of really flimsy plastic some of which was chrome plated (which cheapened it a bit). In the same store (Bestbuy), I played a bit with a macbook (unibody). Night and day difference. For me design carries a bit of a premium and you cant really put a price tag on it. Even though I am an Engineer, the only other thing that is more important than design is ease of use which OSX definately has....
So there you have it, another point of view. By the way, I currently have a 5 year old dell 600m with a 40gb hardrive and 512mb of RAM which I should be upgrading on the 8th of June to a shiny new unibody macbook. I like my dell but I am not really a fan of windows, or the designs of their laptops. I will likely dualboot windows 7 with the laptop because it looks promising. Even if I end up hating OSX (highly unlikely based on my experience), I still LOVE the design of the MACS. That alone is worth the price premium...
Good Night
That is true, there is more to a computer than just the parts. However, when you bring this argument up, it shows how Macs fail in an even greater sense.
And I can tell you from using various versions of OS X on multiple Macs, along with the experience of former Mac owners I know (who switched back to Windows), OS X does not have the stability people claim it to have. It is honestly nowhere near as stable as XP SP2/3 or Vista SP1/2. When I bought my Mac, after using OS X for a couple of weeks and having the system hard lock when emptying the trash (nothing but JPG files my friend had sent me), that was the first time I had seen a system fully lock up since the first version of Windows 98. Not even Vista's beta locked up like that. Applications tend to be more stable under Windows as well. I've had iTunes, Safari, Firefox, Mail, and DVD Player, and other apps crash for seemingly no reason under OS X. None of that happens on Windows.
This is subjective. The UniBody systems are no more than HP's old two tone and glass design combined with Sony's keyboard in a metal frame. The "UniBody" piece in the middle of the system is nice and sturdy, but the bottom and top metal are soft and more prone to denting and scratching than plastic cracking on a well built PC. My year and a half old HP's bottom and top plastic, especially the bottom, are more sturdy than the aluminum housing on my MacBooks top and bottom. The bottom on my HP is solid as a rock, yet if I hold the MacBook I feel as if I might warp the aluminum if I have too tihgt of a grip.
Which is overrated and, honestly, not as capable as Windows. OS X uses more RAM and more CPU cycles than Vista. Video playback isn't as optimized as Windows. Third party software, in comparison to Windows, is virtually non-existent. In some cases you only have ONE piece of software to choose from for a specific task. Under Windows you have endless choices. We all know the 3D support under OS X isn't even up to where Windows was with DirectX and OpenGL back in the 90s, seeing as how poorly OpenGL native games run under OS X. You can't play modern video, pass modern audio over digital connection (8 channel LPCM over HDMI like you can in Windows). OS X doesn't allow you to set custom resolutions or even properly control external displays if you're running a portable Mac. I mean I could go on all night. The only way someone can truly be happy with OS X is if they either bought into the hype, or they were Mac users all their life and they've never experience all Windows has to offer over OS X. I remember the first few days I had my MacBook. I didn't want to put Windows on it. I wanted it to be OS X only. But I found out pretty quickly that I'd need Windows to still do what I wanted and needed to do.
The car analogy fails miserably. I don't even know why those who defend Apple still use.
The difference between a Porsche and a Nissan, or a Honda and a BMW, is much different than the difference between a Mac and a PC. BMW and Porsches are built much better. Everything from the various components in the engines, to the seats, to even the mountain brackets for the seats are all of MUCH higher quality than a Nissan or Honda.
Macs and PCs use the same exact parts. In a Mac you'll find the same Intel processor you get in a PC, the same Intel or nvidia chipset, the same Intel or nvidia or ATI GPU, the same HDDs (though lower speed and capacity on a Mac), the same RAM (though, again, lower capacity), now you'll find the same LG DVD writers (though in a different form factor), the same LG screens (though sometimes with a different backlight).. I mean, everything is the same. The only thing thats different is the casing. And, like I explained above, it is certainly not better on a Mac. The UniBody MacBook (and Pro) really do feel as if you can warp the top and bottom casing if you grip it too tightly. That is not the case on a well built consumer notebook like a Dell, HP, Asus, MSI, ibuypower, etc.
On the issue of performance, cheaper PCs greatly outperform more expensive Macs. When you get into the same price range as Macs, theres absolutely no comparison because a similarly priced PC will completely blow away the Mac. The $1,500 and above price range in PCs these days brings 2.6 to 2.9GHz Core 2 Duos, 2GHz and above Core 2 Quads, as well as Core 2 Extremes (quad core), GeForce 9800M GTs, dual GeForce 9800M GTs, single GeForce GTX 260s, and above. Even in the compact 13.3" range, Dell offers a system thats barely over an inch thick, LED backlit screen, dual GPUs running in Hybrid SLI with a faster processor, twice the memory, faster HDD that is also double the capacity of the same priced MacBook ($1299).
As far as luxury or being a premium product goes, the Mac fails there as well. Premium and luxury products always have more features than the cheaper products and are built much better. Macs are not built better at all. Macs certainly don't offer more features either. In fact, Macs are lacking in features even compared to systems now several years old. These days, on notebooks, standard features include HDMI, card readers, fingerprint readers, full size ExpressCard, eSATA, Firewire (which not all MacBooks have!), even Dolby Digital Live! capabilities. Macs offer either none of these features, or a half assed stripped down version. Like HDMI, the only way to get that is through an adapter. When you do have that, the DisplayPort standard has handshaking issues with the HDMI standard so its really hit and miss whether it will work or not. Macs don't even have VGA output without an adapter. It's ridiculous. Even those crappy little netbooks have standard VGA outputs. A premium computer should also have screens that are actually higher quality and higher resolution than the competition, not worse.
Specs mean everything. The specs of your system tell you how capable it is and exactly what you can do with it.
And that just describes a Mac. OS X won't let you take full advantage of the hardware it includes. You need Windows to do that.
A number of reasons. First of all, the difference between blu-ray and DVD is visible on any high def display. Blu-ray downsampled from 2 million pixels to 1 million will look better than DVD upscaled by 2.5x. I can think of a number of reasons why a small system would benefit from blu-ray. Maybe its the only system you have and you connect it to a nice external display. I connect my MacBook and HP to a nice 23" LG display that blows away the Apple Cinema Displays. It's a proper 16x9 1080p display. I might want to watch a movie on it, you know? In fact, I often do at night. Which brings me to the next point, maybe its late at night and you're not tired and you want to watch a movie but others in your household are sleeping. In that case, watching a movie on a computer makes perfect sense. What if you travel a lot? Then you'll want to watch a movie on your computer.
Video playback. OS X doesn't take full advantage of the GPU for video playback, but Windows certainly does and has for years. Snow Leopard will start to do what Windows has been doing for years now, but it won't quite be up to the same level. Theres also OpenCL, CUDA, and DirectX Compute. A Core 2 Quad based Windows notebook with a GeForce GTX 260, costing less than the middle and top MacBook Pros, will outlast any Mac currently available as these technologies catch on.
It's also funny you mention 256MB of video memory. Only extremely low end PCs under $600 ship with that these days. Yet Apple somehow manages to sell one for $2,000.
How is it major? I put my HP and my MacBook in the same case (not at the same time) and the difference when inside that case made for computers, it makes no difference at all.
HDMI is good for a number of reasons. Every respectable display these days has HDMI. I use HDMI on my 23" display. I get a small cable that plugs in and works perfectly rather than having to deal with a bunch of adapters that might or might not work depending on the standard used. Windows Media Center in Vista and Windows 7 also works far better than the PS3 and Xbox360, and especially the Apple TV which is limited to low quality low bitrate 720p video.
And, again, if you play games... A $1299 notebook PC will ship with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, a 1GB GeForce 9800M GS, HDMI, and Dolby Digital Live capabilities. You hook that system up to your HDTV and surround sound system and you have a better gaming rig than either the Xbox360 or PS3. That system might just push 8 channel LPCM in real time (not from a blu-ray) over HDMI as well, so rather than Dolby Digital Live!, you get uncompressed multi-channel surround sound along with a gaming system thats more powerful than either one of the consoles.
I just finished school a few years ago. Most books weigh more than the 6 pound computer, so it makes little difference if you have a system that weighs 5 or 6 pounds. Especially when that 6 pound system is good enough to be your primary system and will give you better entertainment than the current generation of game consoles. Unlike the MacBook which is akin to a very expensive netbook (secondary system) with an optical drive.
Again, quality of design is subjective. Macs certainly aren't built better, especially the plastic units. But as far as how they look goes, that is entirely subjective. Me personally, I feel the enlarged bezel (they actually made the system larger for the larger bezel) on the 15.4" MacBook Pro is ridiculously ugly. The two tone design is what HP has been doing for years now and, because of it, my MacBook looks almost exactly the same as my HP. The only difference is that my HP is built out of plastic that feels sturdier than the aluminum top and bottom of the MacBook, and the HP has more features and a better keyboard. Don't even get me started on how bad the keyboard is on the MacBook.
OS X easier to use? Absolutely NOT. Not at all. The only advantage it has is installing SOME apps (some still have Windows-style installers) is easier. However, uninstalling leaves a trail of files behind you have to hunt down and get rid of in various folders across the HDD. Its ridiculous. If Finder crashes and won't relaunch from the Force Quit window, you're basically out of luck. Theres no way for you to get the system to shut down other than holding the power button down. I had that happen to me the other day. Finder froze and wouldn't relaunch or shut down. In Windows Vista and 7, control-alt-delete ALWAYS brings up a secondary window that overlays all others and takes focus so it can't be trapped behind a frozen application (as I've had happen to me too).
Ease of use and stability are certainly not there in OS X.
So you're willing to spend 2-3x the price just to have a case that looks prettier, in your opinion, than a more well built and considerably more powerful PC? I mean, if you want to discuss build quality and you're concerned with it, HP and Dell's business systems are built like tanks and come with 3 year warranties as standard, as well as optional on-site support and damage protection.
You don't even own a Mac yet? And you're "not a fan of Windows"? You sound like me two years ago. You're in for a rough wake up call once the honeymoon period is over. After that return window is closed you're going to realize you spent 2-3x as much as you should have, got 1/4 to 1/2 as much hardware as you should have, and the system is built anywhere near as good as everyone told you it was, as well as OS X being far more limited than you could have imagined prior to owning the system.
All good points mosx.
After skipping Vista entirely when it was introduced, I recently installed it (w/SP2) on a Dell and it screams. I haven't used Windows7 yet but from what I hear, the OSX developers have a lot of work to do and I'm not sure Snow Leopard is the answer.
But I don't think Win7 will pull any of us back to PC hardware anytime soon because we paid too much for our macbooks). I do believe though that Win7 will stop the migration to OSX in a big way. I'm only hoping Apple responds appropriately but I seriously doubt it.
That's what happens when you back the underdog horse I guess.
After skipping Vista entirely when it was introduced, I recently installed it (w/SP2) on a Dell and it screams. I haven't used Windows7 yet but from what I hear, the OSX developers have a lot of work to do and I'm not sure Snow Leopard is the answer.
But I don't think Win7 will pull any of us back to PC hardware anytime soon because we paid too much for our macbooks
). I do believe though that Win7 will stop the migration to OSX in a big way. I'm only hoping Apple responds appropriately but I seriously doubt it. That's what happens when you back the underdog horse I guess.
Both car analogies both 'fail miserably.' Nissans and Hondas have way better quality and longevity than BMW's and Porsches. Nissan's and Honda's luxury divisions, Infinity and Acura, definitely have better quality than their German counterparts.
Also, cars all have the same parts, like you say Mac's and PC's have, yet there's a real big difference between GM's cars and Honda's cars. Naturally, the products we're comparing are going to be almost the same because why else would you be comparing the two? It seems that the quality of a product depends on who makes it.
Also, cars all have the same parts, like you say Mac's and PC's have, yet there's a real big difference between GM's cars and Honda's cars. Naturally, the products we're comparing are going to be almost the same because why else would you be comparing the two? It seems that the quality of a product depends on who makes it.
I know this is a computer forum, but to say that Infinity and Acura are better than bmw's and porsches is far from the truth. The only american cars that come close to those cars, are cadillac and Lincoln's.
Edit: Porsche is, I'd say, in a league of its own. A great balance between luxury and performance.
I agree with Mosx. I believe that arguments for stability and build quality are tenuous at best. Windows has come along way. I've recently switched to windows and I've found no problems with stability, I'm using a free antivirus and finding it very much to my liking. For me the main point was thinkpad hardware vs apple hardware, for me the thinkpad won.
Keep it. Mac OS X is the best thing to use IMO. I also like the computers themselves. If I could have any computers, I'd have my current MacBook, Mac Mini HT setup, and maybe an iMac. Just remember all the points when you try to justify the cost of a Mac.
OS X, multi-touch pad, backlit keyboard, no viruses, great design, durable,
logo , LED glass screen, seamless hardware/software integration, the ability to run Windows, UNIX, etc.
It's so worth it. Plus they last for YEARS. I've used eMacs that run better than some of the newest PCs.
OS X, multi-touch pad, backlit keyboard, no viruses, great design, durable,
logo , LED glass screen, seamless hardware/software integration, the ability to run Windows, UNIX, etc.It's so worth it. Plus they last for YEARS. I've used eMacs that run better than some of the newest PCs.
I own both and use both. both have their quirks simple as that.
my macbook has a better processor speed wise...same family (I think) though.
I purchased both within 3 months of each other last (08) spring. they both work.
both are missing things that are now of worth to me. HDMI would be nice but neither has it. a card reader would be nice on my mac but its not there...
I dont have buyers remorse at all. I knew what I was buying when I bought it. I knew that a comparable pc is cheaper but it didnt bother me.
my macbook has a better processor speed wise...same family (I think) though.
I purchased both within 3 months of each other last (08) spring. they both work.
both are missing things that are now of worth to me. HDMI would be nice but neither has it. a card reader would be nice on my mac but its not there...
I dont have buyers remorse at all. I knew what I was buying when I bought it. I knew that a comparable pc is cheaper but it didnt bother me.
I use only Linux, so OS doesn't matter to me. I really wanted a Macbook 13". Really bad! I love the design of it and the feel of the unibody. I assumed because it is a Mac that everything would be top quality. Well, I went to Best Buy and compared the screens with my XPS M1330. The Macbook 13" was horrible. I think at the price that is being charge, Apple should include a top qaulity...or at least a average quality screen. But instead the screen as horrible. It's almost like robbery.
Check one out at an apple store, they've updated the panels used recently to a much better quality and Best Buy probably has old stock. Of course they may not have swopped the display unit around either.
Stick with Mac! I grew up on Mac, switched to PC simply for MS Office, and now I can't wait for my desktop to die on me so I can get a Mac Mini, my Dell Desktop is slow, freezes all the time and just plain stinks, it is about 2 years old, also Apple doesn't clutter the HD up with freeware like PC's do and you won't need antivirus and it is more stable.
Plus they look really cool
i agree full heartedly with mosx concerning feature and price and hdmi.
but, in a laptop world - osx is in my favor. less concerns overall for myself. however, desktop is a different story and windows 7 will remain king in the computer room. i am going to purchase a mac mini just for daily computing for the family as my daughter and wife absolutely destroyed it by accidently downloading viruses (via msn messenger and etc) and lack of maintance.
when i use my windows gaming rig - i am doing maintance on it weekly. with osx it is a little bit harder to slow it down - but, it does occur...just not as painful as windows.
...and i think it brings up an interesting point. from my experience - most mac users ARE laptop users. so i can see why many favor the osx flavor. for me windows is king on desktops and osx is great for laptops. that is mine. no scientific research involved. just user experience.
i am very impressed with micosoft lately (project natal, zune hd, software development including windows 7) and if you have anything negative to say you are one extremely biased individual. but, each to his own.
i realized i always asked these questions alot and debated quite often with friends and forum members. however, that is why God gave us apples and oranges...choice. be happy you have a choice and go with what you enjoy most.
i honestly can't imagine using a laptop now without spaces and multitouch. i think when i messed with a unibody mac - that sealed the deal for me...despite the price. those two features on a 13" were a godsend and makes productivity much more efficient. +1 point for apple in the notebook department...high price or not.
but, in a laptop world - osx is in my favor. less concerns overall for myself. however, desktop is a different story and windows 7 will remain king in the computer room. i am going to purchase a mac mini just for daily computing for the family as my daughter and wife absolutely destroyed it by accidently downloading viruses (via msn messenger and etc) and lack of maintance.
when i use my windows gaming rig - i am doing maintance on it weekly. with osx it is a little bit harder to slow it down - but, it does occur...just not as painful as windows.
...and i think it brings up an interesting point. from my experience - most mac users ARE laptop users. so i can see why many favor the osx flavor. for me windows is king on desktops and osx is great for laptops. that is mine. no scientific research involved. just user experience.
i am very impressed with micosoft lately (project natal, zune hd, software development including windows 7) and if you have anything negative to say you are one extremely biased individual. but, each to his own.
i realized i always asked these questions alot and debated quite often with friends and forum members. however, that is why God gave us apples and oranges...choice. be happy you have a choice and go with what you enjoy most.
i honestly can't imagine using a laptop now without spaces and multitouch. i think when i messed with a unibody mac - that sealed the deal for me...despite the price. those two features on a 13" were a godsend and makes productivity much more efficient. +1 point for apple in the notebook department...high price or not.
In my experience, Apple's build quality is no worse, and probably better, than the likes of Asus, Dell and HP. I have an HP/Compaq laptop assigned to me from work (which gets almost no use) and it creaks and groans when you pick it up, unlike my MacBook which feels like one solid piece of metal.
(Though the HP/Compaq 2.16GHz C2D and ATI x1600 mobility did make for a fun experiment with the 64-bit version of Windows 7 RC)
But design aspects and such can be debated until you're blue in the face and there will be no winner - like politics, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.
It all comes down to this - if you prefer MacOS X, then your choice is simple. If you prefer Windows or don't care what OS you use, then you've got lots of different manufacturers to choose from and different options to sort through.
In my own experience, using both MacOS X and Windows virtually all day, every day at work and at home, I much prefer MacOS X. Thus, my choice is simple and I've had no buyer's remorse. And I don't have to beat myself up over cheap MSI and Acer laptops because they aren't even an option - no MacOS X.
I'm fortunate that I can afford any computer that I want, so it comes down to how much I'm willing to spend (just because I can afford a $3800 loaded 17" MBP doesn't mean I'll buy one). So if money is the single most important issue and you must get maximum bang-for-the-buck, OS be damned, then a Windows machine looks like your best option.
But if MacOS X is what you want, then don't even worry about the cheap PCs.
Apple does charge a premium, but along with that comes (IMHO) superior industrial design, better build quality, hardware that is at least as reliable as other major manufacturers and better software (MacOS X, iLife, etc.). The Dell Adamo, Dell's attempt at high-level industrial design, is a very nice piece of hardware, but one that also costs significantly more than plastic-shrouded, 1.4" thick designs of similar hardware and is lower in spec than computers costing less. Design costs. That's the way life works. If you don't want to pay for design, or you don't like [Apple's], then you're free to pursue other options.
(Though the HP/Compaq 2.16GHz C2D and ATI x1600 mobility did make for a fun experiment with the 64-bit version of Windows 7 RC)
But design aspects and such can be debated until you're blue in the face and there will be no winner - like politics, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.
It all comes down to this - if you prefer MacOS X, then your choice is simple. If you prefer Windows or don't care what OS you use, then you've got lots of different manufacturers to choose from and different options to sort through.
In my own experience, using both MacOS X and Windows virtually all day, every day at work and at home, I much prefer MacOS X. Thus, my choice is simple and I've had no buyer's remorse. And I don't have to beat myself up over cheap MSI and Acer laptops because they aren't even an option - no MacOS X.
I'm fortunate that I can afford any computer that I want, so it comes down to how much I'm willing to spend (just because I can afford a $3800 loaded 17" MBP doesn't mean I'll buy one). So if money is the single most important issue and you must get maximum bang-for-the-buck, OS be damned, then a Windows machine looks like your best option.
But if MacOS X is what you want, then don't even worry about the cheap PCs.
Apple does charge a premium, but along with that comes (IMHO) superior industrial design, better build quality, hardware that is at least as reliable as other major manufacturers and better software (MacOS X, iLife, etc.). The Dell Adamo, Dell's attempt at high-level industrial design, is a very nice piece of hardware, but one that also costs significantly more than plastic-shrouded, 1.4" thick designs of similar hardware and is lower in spec than computers costing less. Design costs. That's the way life works. If you don't want to pay for design, or you don't like [Apple's], then you're free to pursue other options.