Still, why does people think it performed better?
Another argument I've heard is that Apple uses components of higher manufacturing quality. Simply, made with better materials, something which perhaps could explain the higher prices???
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 hardware does Apple make themselves?
- Thread starter Ramius
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Still, why does people think it performed better?
Another argument I've heard is that Apple uses components of higher manufacturing quality. Simply, made with better materials, something which perhaps could explain the higher prices???
hey
ok firstly, performance isnt just from the hardware!! a LARGE percentage of it comes from the Operating System itself, and how it interacts with users and all that junk. OSX performs very very well (IMO) for this part, and that is why i believe some benchmarks of it pull of better than others (only where the benchmarks test the OS itself).
i should say that some benchmarks are hardware based only, so if you get a mac and a similarly spec'd PC, they will give pretty much the exact same result.
secondly, apple uses pretty much exactly the same components as ANY PC. they are neither better nor worse. the reason the prices are so high is because apple feels comfortable in doing so, they have a large enough market and people 'need' to have their computers & software.. so people keep on buying them even though you can get a computer that is much much cheaper with the same specifications.
and thirdly, to your original post: apple pretty much only designs the layout and case, nothing else. e.g
CPU's are from intel
mobo's and graphics chips are from NVIDIA
HD's are from either seagate, western digital, hitachi or a few others
RAM is from....hhmm i donno!!
LCD's are from either LG, samsung or a few others
keyboards/trackpads etc aren't really anything, they are just buttons with caps!
CD/DVD drives are bought from other people.
apple builds the case, keyboard caps etc and puts the whole thing together. they are pretty much no different from an everyday PC, the main difference is the OS
(why i use OSX)hope this helps
The reason why macs "run" faster than other pc's is because Apple only supports a couple different combinations where as Windows has to accomodate thousands or even millions of different combinations of cpu's, gpu's, ram, chipsets etc.... If Apple allowed you to install OSX on any combination of parts you wanted like you can with Windows or linux they would suffer the same types of problems as windows. Mostly driver support, especially for legacy devices.
As it stands now there is nothing special about the hardware used in macs. About the only thing you get choice over is the hard drive and RAM.
As it stands now there is nothing special about the hardware used in macs. About the only thing you get choice over is the hard drive and RAM.
I think you have to look at Apple as collaborative designers. Sure they use computer parts that are accessible by the industry but it is the way they work with other companies to ensure their products work.
Look at the current laptops. Not only are they concerned with the computing properties, but they have considered the aesthetics, construction, interface with the new trackpad, the move to greener production etc. All of these things are considerations that are made to develop a product. If they designed nothing, there would be no need to hire engineers and designers to work for them.
If you frequent Macrumors, Arn often lists the new patents Apple registers. One was registered on the 25th of December. It may be that you have a concept, then you have to find someone or some company to help you deliver that concept. It's the combination of good ideas, collaboration and good software.
Have you ever cracked open a Mac Pro? It's beautifully simple inside. It's a design that is thought out for easy installation, cooling and airflow. That configuration doesn't happen by accident.
hey
apple builds the case, keyboard caps etc and puts the whole thing together. they are pretty much no different from an everyday PC, the main difference is the OS
hope this helps
I think the case is made in China by some sub contracted factory,the keyboards are made by Mitsumi or Alps, Apple dont build them.......the laptops are built by Asus or Foxconn for Apple..........
The trackpads prolly made by Syaptics or the othe touchpad maker, keyboards by Mitsumi.......
As others mentioned, apple doesn't make most of the hardware in their computers.
Apple make a few different computers and sell a **** load of each. So they can get companies like nVidia and Intel to design stuff specifically for what they have in mind since those companies have the certainty to sell several millions of those chips. For example, the 9400m chipset in the MB was specifically designed for the MacBook. And it allows apple to rely less on Intel, thus differentiate their computers even more from the competition. It makes for a streamlined computer with a smaller chipset. That probably makes a computer with less bottlenecks but also a cheaper one. Mind you, it is probably only compatible with the hardware in the macbook the way it is implemented.
That's the way apple works, streamlined design for a faster product.
Mind you, saying that OS X is purely and extensively tested and accelerated for apple computers is absolute BS. The drivers on apple computers are usually of higher quality (mind you my external screen still isn't recognized properly and flickers at time) and the hardware is possibly better selected for what the computer will need to do.
But the os still doesn't talk faster to the hardware. IE still many layers between the end user and the hardware. Less than Windows but hackintoshes, unix PCs and Linux PCs and apple macs are all quite comparable in terms of performance. Mind you, grand central might just change that all up.
Apple make a few different computers and sell a **** load of each. So they can get companies like nVidia and Intel to design stuff specifically for what they have in mind since those companies have the certainty to sell several millions of those chips. For example, the 9400m chipset in the MB was specifically designed for the MacBook. And it allows apple to rely less on Intel, thus differentiate their computers even more from the competition. It makes for a streamlined computer with a smaller chipset. That probably makes a computer with less bottlenecks but also a cheaper one. Mind you, it is probably only compatible with the hardware in the macbook the way it is implemented.
That's the way apple works, streamlined design for a faster product.
Mind you, saying that OS X is purely and extensively tested and accelerated for apple computers is absolute BS. The drivers on apple computers are usually of higher quality (mind you my external screen still isn't recognized properly and flickers at time) and the hardware is possibly better selected for what the computer will need to do.
But the os still doesn't talk faster to the hardware. IE still many layers between the end user and the hardware. Less than Windows but hackintoshes, unix PCs and Linux PCs and apple macs are all quite comparable in terms of performance. Mind you, grand central might just change that all up.
yea i kind of meant that, by build i meant they design it and contract it off, as opposed to say apple buying (from scratch) the CPU's, chipsets etcetc and putting it straight into the computer without any say in the design of it.
No - it is not.
It's the same chipsets, cpu's, graphics cards and ram as you'll find in any one of a dozen other laptops. They got first-call on a new CPU package for the MBA, but everyone else has it now as well. It's the same LCD screen you'll find as well in a dozen laptops. Optical drives? The one in this MBP is especially crappy compared to others I've used.
They design the motherboard to fit their cases - but that makes them no different to HP, Lenovo, Asus, Acer, Samsung, Sony, Alienware, Dell etc.
Apple computers are nothing special. Some say they might look better - that's a judgement call. The components, however, are the same as any other laptop. Don't believe the hype regarding OSX being some magical additive to hardware to make it more powerfull. Using Photoshop? You'll find XP to be faster than OSX on identical hardware.
http://www.overclock3d.net/news.php...obe_photoshop_cs3_beta_performance__osx_vs_xp
"Not only does Windows XP beat OSX in Photoshop CS3 performance, but it demolishes it by a wide margin."
AFX?
http://creativemac.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=589477&afterinter=true
Ouch.
Not to open a whole new can of worms in this thread, but the test run was done with a beta copy of CS3. Who knows what kind of tweaks occurred before the final release.
Here's a site that shows the opposite: http://hansv.com/cs3/
Oh - you can find a dozen reviews and they'll be split down the middle. Point being - OSX isn't some magic elixir of performance any more than XP is.
Mac's are just PC's with a different OS. Nothing more. Nothing less.
If Apple starts putting more proprietary hardware in, that logic won't hold. We'll see. But in general, yes, OS X is an OS. There are others out there.
AFAIK, Apple never assembled products in Cupertino. Maybe the Apple II, I'm not sure. For many years, they operated a large assembly plant in Elk Grove, near Sacramento, and another in Texas -- both long shuttered. Hardly anyone assembles electronic products in the US anymore; now it's all done by contractors in Asia and Mexico. They also used to have an assembly plant in Ireland (Cork, I believe). Not sure if that one is still in operation.
They still assembled in Cupertino into the very early 90's... but that was it. Board manufacturing could very well have been done elsewhere.
Every computer in the world is now manufactured in a handful of Chinese cities. Taiwan is not even in the manufacturing game any longer....My bullet-proof 900 mhz ibook G3 was manufactured in Taiwan, that thing is a strudy beater, throw it across the room and it still works. My 2.4ghz blackbook, made in China, seems a bit more fragile. But I have yet to give it the "toss across the room" test!" Why the world gave China so much manufacturing power is beyond me....
All the differences between Mac and PC are purely cosmetic.
which is exactly why the great Mac OS might someday be opened up to many more hardware manufacturers and PC end-users.....hmmmm?
Read my blog, and then let your fanboy rage towards me begin....it's OK, I am used to it!
http://dougitdesign.com/blog.html
All the differences between Mac and PC are purely cosmetic.
which is exactly why the great Mac OS might someday be opened up to many more hardware manufacturers and PC end-users.....hmmmm?
Read my blog, and then let your fanboy rage towards me begin....it's OK, I am used to it!
http://dougitdesign.com/blog.html
I agree, but is this the case? Talking hardware only, gpu, cpu, ram etc, has Apple made other companies make their own designs?
This might be the answer of what I'm asking. But is it actually true? Since the 9400M is purely made for the MacBook, does it feature less bottlenecks than it's PC-counterpart?
The opinions of the majority of posters here seems to go against this.
Alot. and I remember that when I used the previous generation of iMacs in school, Photoshop performed aweful compared to my PC at home. But I don't know what the reality is now, with CS4. I havent really gotten to use it that much on my MacBook. PS is simply not effecient enough to use without an external mouse. But since it now uses the GPU as well, perhaps it's faster? A friend at work said Adobe specifically designs Photoshop for the Mac, and only ports it over to the PC.
At last, many of you have convinced me that the hardware differences between a Mac and PC is mostly cosmetical. But quotes as such above ^^^^^ still makes me wonder what is actually the case. Cause they seem logical too. That for instance, since the GPU is designed specifically for the new MacBooks, isn't it only logical that they perform better, or more flawless than their counterpart PC-GPU's which is made for 30-40 different chipsets?
I will say though that that my experience with OSX is a good one. It does without doubt run much faster and is more effecient than Windows XP does. And the features included in OSX are much better than Windows. Things like iDVD with the awesome, absolutely awesome predefined menus. Ilife with applications like Garage Band, and iMovie beats Windows Movie Maker hands down.
I feel that with OSX, I dont need to download new programs. It's all there, and that is something I'll gladly pay a little bit more for when buying a Mac instead of a PC. And also the design of course.
My question of better quality components was dismissed. But with the actual machine itself, it's another story. The design of the new MacBook is in my opinion worth more money than other laptops out there. It never seems to astonish me that machines like the Sony Vaio, NEVER learns from Apple. They have a glossy top, and so does the Acer Ferrari, but it's still so bulky and ugly. And of course, the material in the new Mac. A Machine made entirely in an aluminum casing deserves a bit more money too. The build itself is without doubt better quality than most of the laptops out there.
So here you have a combination of a better operating system which is faster and have the best features. Modern marketleading design, and with quality materials that's more tolerant and looks better than most laptops. But is it worth all the extra cash?
Some extra cash for sure... but I recently saw a laptop, I believe it was from Acer, that had hardware almost twice as good. And it sold for half the price I payed for my MacBook. Which leads me to conclude that the MacBooks simply are more expensive, because they are design-products. In ever sense, in appearance, and whats on the screen.
If I got to say something to Steve Jobs, I would hope Apple could sacrifice some profit, to make their machines more powerfull and equal to their laptop counterparts. So you won't have to listen to nerds say that they got more powerfull hardware for half the price etc.
Seems to be the other way around. Adobe programs are a bit clunkier on OSX and the installers are obviously straight from Windows (and also designed by Satan
). Photoshop is also the only program in CS4 that uses the GPU and in my experience it doesn't bring much benefit for most image editing tasks compared to running it all on the processor. I'd say the Adobe programs are getting too bloated and at some point they have to overhaul them.It isn't. Nvidia is for example coming out with an Intel Atom based chipset that also uses the 9400M. It wouldn't make much sense for Nvidia to design something just for the Macbooks when there's tons of other manufacturers who would want to use the tech too.
Can't agree there. While many of the bundled programs are better on OSX than Windows, I still don't use most of them because there are much better alternatives as 3rd party apps.
Agreed. It's really amazing how all other laptops seem to be essentially the same as 5 years ago in terms of design.
Actually apple does kind of make the hardware themselves for most components, ok so a cheap Dell may use a Core Duo Processor the same as apple in the Macbook air, both 2.6Ghz but the apple one has been specially designed for apple, with a smaller form factor, increased bus speed, massively increased buffer (2 -->10 MB) increased cooling capacity, all leading to higher operating speeds (25% higher!) despite the fact at the end of the day on paper theyre techincally the same processor, so you cant really say that a mac is just another pc because theyre not.
They design everything. They pour huge amounts of money into R&D to get good looking, efficient products.
They commission other companies to manufacture it. They do deals with companies to create custom parts just for them, custom logic boards, processors, GPU's, etc. but they manufacture nothing.
Also bear in mind that despite everything being made in China, different companies offer different levels of quality control based on price. Just because a Dell and a Mac are made in China does not by any means equal that both products use the same parts and that both products have the same build quality. Apple's build quality beats other OEM's by a decent margin.
I should also point out that the "Apple optimises it's software for its hardware" statement is a complete myth.
They commission other companies to manufacture it. They do deals with companies to create custom parts just for them, custom logic boards, processors, GPU's, etc. but they manufacture nothing.
Also bear in mind that despite everything being made in China, different companies offer different levels of quality control based on price. Just because a Dell and a Mac are made in China does not by any means equal that both products use the same parts and that both products have the same build quality. Apple's build quality beats other OEM's by a decent margin.
I should also point out that the "Apple optimises it's software for its hardware" statement is a complete myth.
Pretty simple, because we wanted cheap products. We've only ourselves to blame for this, not companies, not China.
Say what now? So you're saying that... I was right all along? Though I don't believe that myself anymore.
Here you are saying that the same processor on a laptop and a MacBook, performs better on the Mac because it indeed is specially designed for the Mac. Which is contradicting to everything everyone else has been saying in this thread. There seems to be two very very different points of views here.
So you say... if they design everything, that means they've designed their GPU by Nvidia? The CPU by Intel? These companies have just made them according to Apples designs?
Could not agree more. Theres like 20 different ways to adjust light now for instance.
But if you don't like clunky programs, how come you still want third party software to give you the extra features. I think Apple has a huge grip on what users actually do with their programs, and make them accordingly.
Like Garage Band, I think thats the most perfect sound application ever. I think it is better than Qbasic and Logic just because it's adapted to what I do. Not what professionals do. This is where Apple shines, giving users what they want, getting rid of what they don't want.