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.
What doesn't MacBook come in 15 inch monitor?
- Thread starter CrimsonTider
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Unless Apple released the new Macs with the specs you want to see and then you might consider buying a Mac again, right?
I hate to defend the guy, but most of the posts here are personal opinions and assumptions. Heck there is literally dozens of threads active right now with kids (see I made an assumption) talking about what the new Macbooks will bring. Please, I can't wait anymore, I think it will be Sept ---, no it will be Oct ---. It will be aluminum with -------------. I find it rather humorous ( when I need a laugh I read those threads), but without opinions why have a message board?
I just dont like that he states his opinions as fact. And he goes off on completely irrelevent tangents. Mosx, no one cares what you consider "real" music, it doesnt change that it is music.
I dont own a mac (yet!) but everytime I come across an Apple store I play half an hour with them and just before leaving I tell myself: "that computer was freaken fast" I look at the specs and there the same I have at home on my brand new pc. Maybe Apple is late hardware wise, but they do much better with what they have.. But thats my opinion, you dont have to agree!
You just described many of the posts by people here. They sound authoritaritive when addressing the supposed new lineup of Macs when in reality they don't know anything. Most threads, as you know, become irrelevant tangents.
Once again I'm not trying to defend him. I think he can handle things in a more civil matter. That is my opinion.
This is what Apple truly needs.
15" Mac Book could take a hike.
13" MacBook with dedicated GPU or 13" MacBook Pro with dedicated GPU and backlit keyboard come to daddy.
I've been on these forums, looking at these wars between chappers and mosx. One, I'm sick of it, and two, im a little apple biased. I was reading mosx's posts and was kinda starting to believe him, at least until my mom got her new vista laptop. She got the Toshiba for a little under 800 bucks with a good warranty. I gotta admit, for the price it has great specs. 2.1ghz AMD processor, 4 gigs of RAM, ATI Radeon Graphics, and a 250gb HDD. From what mosx says, based on specs, this should be awesome right? Not precisely.
What I first noticed after setup was the pure amount of bloatware, around 20-25 programs. Most of them were giving me startup prompts. As my mom really wanted to use it, I just deleted their startup entries. LO AND BEHOLD, they come back next time, and some of them have a disabled x button. (Norton) I also dont really have the time to take them off either, between high school and homework. Also, vista is unexceptably laggy. Slow startup, slow shutdown, slow programs. Firefox takes ~7-10 seconds on this macbook C2D second rev. w/2gb of ram. On moms computer, 15~20 secs. Just tested. And dont try and tell me its hardware either mosx, you use that excuse way too much. And speaking of hardware, it came with a bad Audio out port on the motherboard.
And if you can resist, dont use the experience arguement against me. I have been working on computers for serious things for 6 years. I own my own business fixing computers, and im currently building my own. Its a work in progress
I would say more, but its really late, and I need to get some sleep.
First off, why did she buy a Toshiba? Toshiba is known to be junk as well as being famous for including that bloatware. HP, Dell, and others only include a trial of Norton and a full install of MS Works.
You should search for something called "Norton removal Tool". Norton makes it and it removes any trials or full versions completely with nothing left behind.
Then uninstall the other software and run ccleaner when you're done to clean up the files and registry.
The hardware specs are fine. The problem is that Toshiba is known for their terrible build quality, not honoring warranties, and dropping product support when it becomes clear the product line is problematic. She should return it and get a refund and buy from a better manufacturer, like Dell, HP, Gateway, Asus, or even custom build one online.
You can also blame Toshiba for the preloaded software. No other manufacturer does that. On all of the HPs and Dells I've dealt with, all you have to do is uninstall Norton, delete the desktop shortcuts (all lead to websites) and run ccleaner and its as good as a fresh install.
And like I've said a million times in this thread, don't judge Vista's speed if its rarely been used. Firefox opens instantly on my HP after a fresh boot (which only takes 45 seconds).
What's with the worry that "X Apple Product" will cannibalize "Y Apple Product"?Would not a 15" MacBook or 13" MacBook Pro cannibalise 13" MacBook sales?
Hardware is hardware regardless of which company puts them together. You're pretty much saying that one brand is better then the other but in the PC world, ALL brands use the same hardware. Even apple uses the same hardware as PCs now.
I don't judge vista on how its being used in 10 minutes. I judge vista on a long term use (1+ week at least) and compared to OSX, there is many more flaws in vista then what I see in OSX. Thats MY opinion. Yours is reversed from most of the other posts I've read. While thats fine we agree on different terms, you're severely going off topic stating about the specs and hardware.
From my OPINION on the Dell Inspiron 1525 I've bought for $599, while its cheap, its slow as f**k. At 2.0GHz T5750 processor, 3GB DDR2-667 ram, a 250GB @ 5400RPM hard drive and X3100 integrated video card, I expect this thing to run FASTER then my previous MacBook Air with FAR LESS specs. Yet even in a clean install, it still runs slow as f**k even with more ram, more cpu cycles, more hard drive speed.
Many average users don't care for specs. The specs they do care about is the number. They think a 3.0GHz processor is better then a 2.0GHz without realizing an older generation at 3.0GHz runs slower then 2.0GHz current. Same with memory. They think 4 GB is better then 2 GB (while this part is true in many aspects).
The hardware can be the best in the world. But it doesn't matter if its not put together well. The MacBook is a case in point example. The case falls apart, the case discolors due to heat, the case design makes things run even hotter than they should, the optical drive and HDD will die premature deaths because of the case design and how its put together. It's a known fact that the people who put together the MB, MBP, and MBA all put too much thermal grease on the CPUs and cooling system, which results in even higher temperatures, leading to higher internal and case temps, which leads to premature component failures.
So the quality of the hardware doesn't matter when its not well built. Apple's entire line of computers are all the proof you need of that.
I see far more flaws in OS X. Vista could be improved in a few ways, but OS X has far more things it needs fixed. Like I've asked before, why doesn't OS X have some sort of system wide hardware acceleration for video? This is 90s technology after all. So why doesn't "the worlds most advanced operating system" have something that Microsoft was building into Windows 10 years ago?
Then, quite honestly, you're doing something wrong. Keep your drivers updated, keep Windows updated, etc. Theres NO REASON it should be slow. None at all. My HP has a 2GHz Core 2 Duo and it runs circles around my MacBook with a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo (both have 3GB of RAM).
Which makes Macs perfect for the ignorant
High prices and "cool" designs make them think they're getting the best, despite the fact that you can get something more powerful than the $1,999 MacBook Pro for ~$1200I'm running Vista 32. Its what shipped with my HP. It's rock solid for me and faster than XP on the same hardware. Faster than OS X on my MacBook with a faster CPU. While I want Vista 64, I can't justify the upgrade cost just for 1GB more of RAM.
They have to be doing something wrong. Sony seems to be able to squeeze things into cases just as small (or smaller) than the MacBook and I rarely see as many failure issues as I have (my BlackBook was a total lemon).
I got an OEM copy of 64 because Maya 2008 runs quite a bit better under 64bit and to me was worth the cost of the upgrade. I didn't use Vista when it first came out so I never got caught in the driver issues, I haven't had a problem with it, it's a lot like XP but prettier and faster for (most) things - some older programs run slower but I think that might be the 32-bit virtualization. Spore, Sims 2, etc. all run just as fast as they did under XP.
Personally, while I love Mac OS X, I prefer to do any serious 3d work under Vista. The OS X ports of Maya have always had MAJOR stability issues and it's worth it to reboot into Vista then to spend half an hour figuring out why the Channel Control box won't work. (OT: The Mac Pros at school, under 10.5.5, render slower with their 6GB of RAM then an HP with 2GB of RAM under XP. Terrible!)
Apple's definitely doing something wrong. I've seen more Apple failures in my time than any other brand. Every person I know with a Mac of some sort (shrinking number these days) has had a major failure, aside from HDD or optical drives. While I know of 10 year old low-end AMD-based Compaqs that still function. Its crazy.
I'd love to go 64-bit. I definitely will next year when I upgrade.
Thats quite amusing about those Mac Pros
You're quite alone in this assesment. Unfortunately for the Apple user that benefits from the hardware and software, the number is growing rapidly. And now when I was able to just walk into the Genius Bar and get an appointment I can't. I have to wait in line behind the tard that can't reset their iPod.
Either way, I see that no one here does any multimedia work, so I will throw my two cents in. Vista and XP suck when it comes to running multiple media apps at one time, and Avid is garbage to run under XP and Vista. Avid editors either go to the Mac, which does render and perform faster than XP and Vista with HD, or they buy a dedicated Avid system.
I understand that certain applications perform better in other OSes, but it's not a general case. No need to bash either one IMHO, since both get work done for someone somewhere.
As for build quality. YES it has suffered. Mainly because Apple's market is growing not shrinking. These cheap keyboards and MM are driving me crazy and I crave for a heavy lifting Mac Book Pro and a tower that is smaller than the Mac Pro... but such is life.
I loved Apple when it was the underdog company, not the fad that it has become.
Lots of opinions in the thread, but there is one part of mosx's argument that I agree with. OSX is not the most advanced operating system, most linuxes are. As people say that windows copies mac every year, the same can be said for mac on linux.
However, Digital Skunk provides FAR more valid arguments than mosx, and personally I currently run a macbook pro and a custom built machine dual booted between XP SP3 and ubuntu 8.04. I have a 3.0 ghz E8400 Intel dual core in my tower, 4 gigs of ram, with an 8800 Ultra (planeed on SLIing, but never got the cash to get the second card)
However, Digital Skunk provides FAR more valid arguments than mosx, and personally I currently run a macbook pro and a custom built machine dual booted between XP SP3 and ubuntu 8.04. I have a 3.0 ghz E8400 Intel dual core in my tower, 4 gigs of ram, with an 8800 Ultra (planeed on SLIing, but never got the cash to get the second card)
I wish I was doing something wrong with that Inspiron but I wasn't. I've installed XP after using Vista for 4 days running painfully slow. I'd figured XP running on those spec hardware would be pretty snappy since my workstation at work (3.0GHz P4 w/HT, 2GB DDR1, 250GB @ 7200RPM, Intel Extreme Integrated Vid Card) has several generation old hardware and it was snapper then the Inspiron in Vista... but it isn't. The workstation at work is FASTER then the Inspiron 1525 even under XP w/ nothing but Drivers installed. Even during the XP/Vista installs, its extremely slower then most systems I've used, including the MacBook Air installing the SAME XP or Vista disk.
For the "World's Most Advanced Operating System", that statement can be debated in many ways. I find OSX to be "advanced" vs the Windows or Linux OSes because it is more simple, easier to use and less fuss with drivers and making hardware to work (At least for me, all my cameras, printers, cameras, monitors, whatever. works when plugged in). In Windows, I'd have to wait for driver install, thats the good part, sometimes, it won't find the driver and I have to go redownload the driver and yadadada. Linux is slightly better, but I'm still a newbie in Linux, its similar to Windows, I'd still have to download drivers if they were not included with the OS itself. In OSX, the massive install size has advantages for the average joe user. I know people who have trouble clicking a few "Next" buttons and have windows find the driver itself and install it.
I wouldn't even come close to say OSX is perfect and windows is not, because OSX is not perfect. There might be some backend stuff, like the hardware video acceleration, but I hardly use it or notice that I use it. I get fussed with OSX's features sometimes, same in Vista. However, I still stay in OSX more then I do in Windows because its productive for me. The applications that comes with OSX integrates my files, information. In windows, Vista is probably the only OS that even comes close to what I regularly use in OSX but Vista's still new imo while OSX has matured quite a bit. There's always room for improvement regardless if its OSX, Windows or Linux.
For the "World's Most Advanced Operating System", that statement can be debated in many ways. I find OSX to be "advanced" vs the Windows or Linux OSes because it is more simple, easier to use and less fuss with drivers and making hardware to work (At least for me, all my cameras, printers, cameras, monitors, whatever. works when plugged in). In Windows, I'd have to wait for driver install, thats the good part, sometimes, it won't find the driver and I have to go redownload the driver and yadadada. Linux is slightly better, but I'm still a newbie in Linux, its similar to Windows, I'd still have to download drivers if they were not included with the OS itself. In OSX, the massive install size has advantages for the average joe user. I know people who have trouble clicking a few "Next" buttons and have windows find the driver itself and install it.
I wouldn't even come close to say OSX is perfect and windows is not, because OSX is not perfect. There might be some backend stuff, like the hardware video acceleration, but I hardly use it or notice that I use it. I get fussed with OSX's features sometimes, same in Vista. However, I still stay in OSX more then I do in Windows because its productive for me. The applications that comes with OSX integrates my files, information. In windows, Vista is probably the only OS that even comes close to what I regularly use in OSX but Vista's still new imo while OSX has matured quite a bit. There's always room for improvement regardless if its OSX, Windows or Linux.
I don't know about you, but I get a summary each day by default of what threads I participate have been responded to. I knew full well you'd see my reply, and as I said, I expected you to reply.
Also, I posted that message back before noon Tuesday. You're right. Perhaps I should just list my resume in my sig so that it makes my opinion just as valid as yours.
Machines were used over a test period of 3 months, updating drivers to the most recent as they became available (if relevant). While I'd love to list the configuration of every machine we tested, I simply don't have the time to list every spec detail for that many models.
But they were all C2D 2.2Ghz or greater (up to quad core Xeon 3Ghz) and 2GB or more RAM. As I said in my last post, it was a mixture of all graphics cards that we're currently using.
Of the machines we had duplicates of, we used vLite on a couple of them, to see if slipstreaming had a positive effect on it. It did, a little bit. Not enough to use it globally though. nLite had a much more profound effect on the performance of XP than vLite does Vista.
AutoDesk 3DS Max. drivers varied obviously because it was tested on multiple machines, but they were using the most up to date drivers available. Processors varied, as I've already said.
Video was Sony Vegas. Audio was Tracktion 3 and Reaper, the latter running quite well in Ubuntu 8.04LTS via WINE, which was interesting because Reaper under Linux performed as well (track count with stock plug-ins) as XP did, and performance was definitely better, i.e. higher track counts at the same sample rate/bit rate using the same plugs than it was in Vista.
That's funny, because it was faster in XP. This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of networking on your part.
It's good to see I'm back to being a liar or an idiot.
But I most definitely ran the tests, because it's apart of my job. I'm sorry, how many machines did you test it on again? 2, 3, 4? Wow, that's comprehensive!
What bloat? Hello! You are the only one in the world that I've seen that thinks Vista isn't bloated. There's so much crap code devoted to backwards compatibility it's insane.
And why is it that Tiger runs great on a 400Mhz G4 with a gig of RAM, Leopard runs fantastic on a 1.25Ghz G4 with 1.25GB of RAM, yet Vista is simply unusable on a 2.8Ghz Pentium 4? Just because modern chips run Vista comfortably doesn't make it as efficient as XP.
They've already been posted.
rofl this is getting really funny. Audacity? For someone who bashes GB so readily, you're really showing your very limited knowledge of DAW applications. Audacity is any nothing more than a .wav editor at best, and is far too limiting to do anything worthwhile, even for a quick demo. It doesn't support ASIO necessary for low latency, doesn't support VSTi's, and doesn't support loop files, which are very handy for scratch tracks.
It's true there is no single standard, which is partly why the higher bit rate/sample rates haven't been successful in the market, namely DVD-A and SACD. However if you frequented any recording forums, you'd see that when DVD quality sound is referenced, it's generally 24-bit/96Khz surround.
What people? GarageBand never was and never will be marketed as a professional level application. That's what Logic (and DP, and PT) are for. And how much have you used Sessions? Here's a hint; it's crap. If you only want to spend $50 on an audio app, you should be using Reaper.
Yeah you're right; buy a PC and buy a horrible application for $50, or use the app that came with their computer (GB) of which the files can easily be migrated to Logic Express or Logic Pro when they outgrow GB.
It's quite naive to think that iLife plays a significant part in the cost of a Mac. It's the same as the Linux guys complaining because they buy a PC with Windows on it only to reformat it with their free OS. The OEM pays so little for Windows anyway that removing it would have little effect on the bottom line. It's the same for Apple, especially given they're the manufacturer of both the hardware and the software.
iWeb is not meant for anything BUTpersonal use. A real developer isn't even going to use Dreamweaver, they're going to use Eclipse, VIM, Ultra Edit, or any other text editor. You're quite obviously missing the entire point of iLife.
And Chappers did counter your point about "jumping through hoops". Load it via FTP. You do know how to use FTP, right?
That's not true either. What "full featured" software is included? I asked my friend who's been a salesman at Wolf Camera for 10 years how good the software is, and he said that 90% of the customers end up coming back for either Vegas Movie Studio ($80) or Adobe Premiere Elements (also about $80) because the software included is useless for any real editing. And by real editing I mean anything beyond getting your video into the computer.
My Sony DCR-SR40 came with a really crappy app from some no name company. Not what I consider "full featured".
What about the RAID cards and motherboards? Who's fault is that? That's been a bigger problem, and much more of a "white knuckle" event, because they BIOS on the boards/RAID cards have to match what the OS is looking for, otherwise you'll have issues.
And yet I ask again; how many computers have you dealt with service-wise? 4 laptops? Drop. In. The. Bucket.
That's your OPINION (bolded because I'm still not entirely sure you understand the difference) and you're entitled to it.
Also, I'm still waiting on some of your background information and something to back up your opinions beyond the 4 computers and your friends.
What was it you said you did for a living?
Also, how long do you want to keep this going before you figure out what I already know, and that's that we're not going to change each other's opinions?
The funny thing is that I really quite like Windows XP; it's a great OS. I also really like Linux, Ubuntu in particular. Fan boys of all factions annoy me greatly, because they really can't see the relevance of "the best tool for the job".
Good counter to his point. Most cameras come either with a random noname software, a ****** brandname one, or a 1 month trial of a good one. I (personally) use Adobe products for most of my stuff (i like how they work on the mac, and I'm not too advanced to care about pro editing) Mosx, you do have some decent points, but plaris and Digital Skunk show so much more experience and insight in Mac, windows and Linux than you that I would rather listen to them debate about it.
I love this. I can't explain how true this is. Each operating system has it's merits, and like you, I use all three (ubuntu!) I hope not to fanboy about things, because I do like apple products, and I do like Windows XP, but I use ubuntu for so many things because I just like it's feel. I think that you NEED to have XP for some of the programs that run on it, and it's productivity, and I would love to always have a mac just because of the user interface. I love using all three OS's, dont see why other people dont
I don't know why either. Windows Server is an outstanding directory services platform, mail/collaboration platform, and terminal services platform. Linux, however, kills it for database and web. OS X server doesn't really offer anything over the other two, other than its obvious simplicity for configuration.
The thing with the client OS's as that they tend to overlap more in terms of functionality. Hence the heated debate.
This is the most entertaining thread I have seen in a long time! In much the same way as a train wreck, or a motorway ("freeway" to you guys in the US) multiple crash.
MOSX will continue in this vein until the cows come home.
Why feed the troll???
Just ignore him, and he will go away. There must be plenty of WinXP/Vista/HP/ (whateva!) Fanboy forums he can go to to slag off Macs and all things Apple.
We don't need these tedious in the extreme posts here all the time.
Criticism is fine, but really!!!!
MOSX will continue in this vein until the cows come home.
Why feed the troll???
Just ignore him, and he will go away. There must be plenty of WinXP/Vista/HP/ (whateva!) Fanboy forums he can go to to slag off Macs and all things Apple.
We don't need these tedious in the extreme posts here all the time.
Criticism is fine, but really!!!!
I really don't think he's a troll, despite me calling him one previously. The more I think about it, the more I think that he really believes what he's saying.
It's just that I (and many others) disagree with him. And we've yet to reach the point where we can agree to disagree.
In his defense, he is acting just like alot of people in this thread. He believes that he is right, and UNLIKE the others that just post "ur stupid! mac rulez!" he is backing it up with semivalid arguments. He is a windows fanboy, just like all of the apple fanboys (which by percentages of OS users, there are WAY more of than windows fanboys) He's just outspoken and has napoleon complex right now.
EDIT: oh happy day! post 200, this debate is very long
EDIT2: Looking back over the thread I noticed a very disturbing trend. A mention of "preinstalled" software. Arguments against this is: 1) you have to ask for iWork to be on, along with aperature and the works. 2) Ever heard of CDW? It's a very successful company that makes money by selling computers (mac's and PC's) with preinstalled software (It is usually used for buisnesses) CDW also removes alot of bloatware 3) You can get so many apps preinstalled from different manufacturers that it really shouldn't be a factor 4) How much work does it really take to download/install something? Really, i want to know how hard it is to do that. Someone prove to me that it is extremely hard to do and I will listen to them.
As you can see, I am not arguing either side, merely stating my opinions and not trashing anyone else's (except mosx's, but he's not really sane)
- Status