Why Apple notebooks outclass Wintel notebooks even without the speed bump

[lmalave]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Apple notebooks outclass Wintel notebooks even without the speed bump

Originally posted by jettredmont


From Dell, try the Latitude 400, $1499 (price just dropped) (you can go to an 866 MHz P3 with 10GB HD for $1299, but the online customizer won't allow it ... they might be out of stock on it ...)

http://www.dell.com/us/en/bsd/products/model_latit_latit_c400.htm

1.0 GHz P3
12" screen
24/10/24 CD-RW
128 MB RAM
20 GB HD

Or, better yet, an Inspiron 4150, $1437, compared to the $1499 iBook:

1.7GHz P4-M (better than 800MHz G3)
14.1" XGA (1024x768) screen (same)
Radeon 7500 with 32MB VRAM (same)
24/10/24 CD-RW+DVD combo drive (same but faster CD-R and CD-RW rated speeds [iBook is 16x8x24], or save $99 and get the CD-RW only drive)
30 GB HD (same)
256MB DDR RAM (same quantity, but faster)
Wireless Ready (internal antennae; mini-PCI internal card is $89 - same)
5.6lb/1.4" thin (iBook is 5.9 lb, 1.35" thin)

Again, you're just proving my point. I bought my mid-range iBook for $1333 at ClubMac.com, and that's with 384MB RAM total. If you'll notice your specs above, the Latitude 400 is configured with only a CD-RW, whereas my iBook also has DVD, and has a 30GB hard drive. I got a price of $1926 for the Dell Latitude 400 with the following configuration:

1.0 GHz P3
12" screen
Combo drive
256MB RAM
30 GB HD

That's a $600 price difference! So again, you have to compare computers with similar specs.

The Inspiron 4150 is too big, heavy, and expensive. If you take a look at the fine print, the 5.6 lb. weight is with the following:
"Weight shown for all models is with a hard-disk drive, a battery in the battery bay, a travel module in the modular bay, and one memory module. The computer might weigh more or less, depending on its configuration."
So this weight is without an optical drive in the drive bay, with that it would probably weigh at least 7 lbs!

Anyway, if you want to compare it to the bigger and more expensive 14.1 inch iBook, I could get one from MacMall.com with 640MB of RAM for $1633. The Latitude 4150, on the other hand, cost $1687 with similar specs (Combo drive, 512MB RAM, 30GB HD).

So even at the 14.1" size the iBook is a better value, unless you consider the different CPUs. But as I said before, MHz is overrated since most people don't need it, whereas the G3 doesn't heat up nearly as much and has 3 times the battery life (14 inch iBook has 6 hrs.)

I see your point that PC makers' marketing is based more on technical specs (especially MHz), whereas Apple's marketing is based more on usability, but the point I am trying to make is that Apple is unfairly saddled with a reputation for being overpriced. And if you ask me, Dell has an undeserved reputation for value, durability and reliability, at least based on my own personal experience with the Inspiron 5000.

The point is, I fully expect my rugged iBook to last me for much longer than a measly 2 years and to be more than fast enough for my needs during that time, which is something that in the final analysis I didn't have faith I could get from Dell or any other PC maker, hence my decision to give Apple a try.

I am very budget-conscious right now, and in fact given the choice I would rather not be buying new computer at this time if my piece of junk Dell had lasted longer. I looked at all the usual suspects (Dell, Sony, Fujitsu, Gateway, HP, Toshiba, etc.), and I decided that nothing else right now comes even close to the value I'm getting from my new mid-range iBook.

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Apple notebooks outclass Wintel notebooks even without the speed bump

Originally posted by lmalave


Again, you're just proving my point. I bought my mid-range iBook for $1333 at ClubMac.com, and that's with 384MB RAM total. If you'll notice your specs above, the Latitude 400 is configured with only a CD-RW, whereas my iBook also has DVD, and has a 30GB hard drive. I got a price of $2046 for the Dell Latitude 400 with the following configuration:

1.0 GHz P3
12" screen
Combo drive
256MB RAM
30 GB HD

First of all, that price is with Office and 3 year parts/labor/onsite warranty.

I get $1827 with the $200 combo drive added, and note that the price drops by $200 if you choose the 867MHz P3 and smaller HD, (niether of which is available from the Web but might be available if you call ...)

Second, you missed my point. You said you couldn't configure *any* lightweight Dell for less than $1500. I configured three for you.

And, yes, as I said, Dell doesn't beat Apple in price/features on the 12" iBook line; 12" screens are not the focus of PC makers like Dell. Dell beats Apple quite soundly in price/features on 14" screens, both in the iBook and PowerBook lines.

So again, you have to compare computers with the same specs.

I missed the combo drive. My apologies. But, as I said, I was not trying to match up feature-for-feature to the iBook with that first config, just see if I could get a leightweight 12" Dell for less than your claimed $1500. Which, as you could see, I did.

When I was aiming for feature-equal laptops (on the 14" models), you can see that I did quite well in matching options, and the Dell repeatedly came out on top.

The Inspiron 4150 is too big, heavy, and expensive. If you take a look at the fine print, the 5.6 lb. weight is with the following:
"Weight shown for all models is with a hard-disk drive, a battery in the battery bay, a travel module in the modular bay, and one memory module. The computer might weigh more or less, depending on its configuration."
So this weight is without an optical drive in the drive bay, with that it would probably weigh at least 7 lbs!

Hmmm. True, I missed that the combo drive was not included there.

Well, a modular optical drive might add .75 lbs, max. The Toshiba SD-R1202 (not sure if this is what Dell uses or not, but many laptop manufacturers use this drive) shows a weight of 0.54lb (246g). The wrapper around the drive itself to snap it into Dell's modular bay won't weight .2lb, but we'll pretend they made it of lead instead of lightweight plastic.

That leaves the weight/size characteristics of the Dell at:

6.35 lb with DVD/CD-RW (which, I might add, can be brought down to 5.6lb if you don't need your optical drive when you are travelling, which is common)
1.47"x12.5"x10.0"

The 14.1" iBook weighs in at:
5.9 lb (a .45lb savings, but no option to lose another .3lb for travel)
1.35"x12.7"x10.2": virtually the same size; slightly thinner, but wider and longer (IMHO the dimensions that matter when in cramped quarters). In any case, the dimension differences are unnoticable.

In other words, if the Lattitude is "too big heavy and expensive", then the 14" iBook, which is just as big, just as heavy, and $50 MORE expensive is a horrible choice, no?

So even at the 14.1" size the iBook is a better value, unless you consider the different CPUs. But as I said before, MHz is overrated since most people don't need it, whereas the G3 doesn't heat up nearly as much and has 3 times the battery life (14 inch iBook has 6 hrs.)

MHz is overrated. That's a nice, pat answer, but it doesn't make my Mac run any faster.

Personally, I use every last processor cycle on my computers (I've said why too many times on these forums). For what I do, my P3s run MHz-for-MHz as fast as the G4 in my Mac (granted, that's not using AltiVec). My P4 runs 2.5x as fast as the Mac with a clock rate 3x as large (2.2GHz vs 733MHz). The slow processor on the Mac means that I can be sitting staring at my computer compiling for a half hour instead of getting back to work five minutes later as with my PC.

If you don't want MHz, then you can find a used P3-700 laptop for real cheap out there (like $800 or less). Heck, I bet you could go to eBay and find a P3-400 out there someone's selling for more like $200. No, you won't get a warrantee, but you can purchase a third-party protection/service plan if that really bothers you and still end up many hundreds less than a new Mac. But, no, you'll have a hard time finding a new, yet underpowered laptop out there in the PC world.

It is impossible for Macs to compete in performance until the G4+ advances significantly. It is impossible for Apple, a single vendor, to supply the breadth of options that the many PC vendors can manage. It is unlikely that Apple would sell its hardware at commodity-level prices as it has no direct competition in its hardware.

That is fine with me. I love my Mac, and I love OS X. Just don't try and tell me it's faster than my PC, or that Macs are cheaper than PCs. They aren't.

I see your point that PC makers' marketing is based more on technical specs (especially MHz), whereas Apple's marketing is based more on usability, but the point I am trying to make is that Apple is unfairly saddled with a reputation for being overpriced, based on its past history. And if you ask me, Dell has an undeserved reputation for value, durability and reliability, at least based on my own personal experience with the Inspiron 5000.

First: Yes, Apple is much more competitive than it used to be. And, yes, many people believe that you will still spend 2-3 times as much to buy a Mac instead of a PC. The difference is now a few percent, and Apple even beats some PC makers some times.

Second: Well, I've had wonderful luck with Dell. I've returned one item that acted up several months after I got it (third-party speaker set bought through Dell) and had the replacement equipment on my doorstep literally the next morning at no charge. The one time I called in for assistance (I was going to be upgrading the power supply), I spoke with a likeable and knowledgable technician. Other than that, it has just plain worked since I got it. I do know, however, that there are others who say they've had horrible experience with Dell. As always, YMMV, and it has.

The point is, I fully expect my rugged iBook to last me for much longer than a measly 2 years and to be more than fast enough for my needs during that time, which is something that in the final analysis I didn't have faith I could get from Dell or any other PC maker, hence my decision to give Apple a try.

I am very budget-conscious right now, and in fact given the choice I would rather not be buying new computer at this time if my piece of junk Dell had lasted longer. I looked at all the usual suspects (Dell, Sony, Fujitsu, Gateway, HP, Toshiba, etc.), and I decided that nothing else right now comes even close to the value I'm getting from my new mid-range iBook.

Well, more power to ya! I'm glad you are happy with it. But, as you probably know, not everyone has the same needs. I, for instance, would not be happy with the 600MHz P3 (I tolerate an 800MHz P3 laptop), and certainly not with a 800MHz G3; my time is worth too much to not spend the extra $500 or so for a "blazingly fast" top-of-the-line PC (granted, if I had to get a new laptop and didn't have the money for it now, that argument would cease to hold any water ). I, personally, don't expect to get more than 2 years out of a laptop, not because I expect it to break down after 2 years (that would make selling it off impossible), but because I don't expect it to remain as fast as I need it to be after 2 years (desktops cycle 3 years, but laptops start off about 6-12mo "slower" than the desktops thanks to IO restrictions, and I don't see that changing).

But, you have a point, I believe. Other than the reported molting of the TiBook finish, it seems that Mac laptops generally have a longer life than PC laptops. That is certainly true of the desktops.

 

[Over Achiever]

Ok, C|Net finally released a review of the PC copy of the powerbook, the VPR Matrix.

Here is the review.

Sporting a 2 GHz P-IV-M, 512 MB DDR, slot loading combo drive, 15.2" 1280x854 screen, its a good deal on the PC side, costing a mere $2300 at your local Best Buy store. Whats impressive is the battery life, which according to C|Net is over three hours, very similar to the powerbook. Some user claimed 200 fps with it...i highly doubt it. The powerbook has the superior graphics card, and it can burn DVDs.

Just wanted to share.

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Apple notebooks outclass Wintel notebooks even without the speed bump

Originally posted by lmalave


The point is, I fully expect my rugged iBook to last me for much longer than a measly 2 years and to be more than fast enough for my needs during that time, which is something that in the final analysis I didn't have faith I could get from Dell or any other PC maker, hence my decision to give Apple a try.

ibooks will definitely last longer..mine is three years old

but after two years, you will be heavily jonesing for a new machine due to technology changes

when i bought my ibook in dec 99, it had a single usb port and 3 gb hard drive and 32 MB of RAM standard

the next february, it had a 6 GB hard drive and 64 MB standard and at the same price

a little later, firewire came on and at a faster speed, 366 mhz, and a lower price

then the dual usb icebook at 500 mhz, lower price again

then 600 mhz for low end model, and doubling of level 2 cache

and now, at three years later, 700 mhz low end with lower price at $999 us, 800 mhz high end

so while it may be nice to have a machine for over "two years", many will not use it that much beyond that unless they are low on cash and/or have little requirements of their machine like word processing, internet, and email (which most computer users need)

if i became an adobe software junkie, or gaming junkie, i would probably buy a computer every single year or year and a half

 

[lmalave]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Apple notebooks outclass Wintel notebooks even without the speed bump

Originally posted by jefhatfield


but after two years, you will be heavily jonesing for a new machine due to technology changes

I've already thought about this for the past couple of years (after plunking down $2700 for what was then a Mid-to-high end laptop at the time and then concluding later that it was total overkill). I think the $1300 iBook is just fine. The CPU and the RAM should be more than adequate for many years. The most CPU and RAM intensive thing I run regularly is the web browser and the Mac OSX itself. I would hope that 640 MB RAM (the max for my iBook) and ATI Radeon 7500 32MB is enough to run the next few versions of Mac OS and Quartz Extreme. The 30GB hard drive is more than sufficient for all my music and software, and would only become inadequate if I was saving lots of video.

But if I needed lots of GB for video a better solution is to get an external FireWire hard drive anyway. Same goes for a DVD burner - I don't really need one and if I really need to burn a lot of videos, I can just get an external one. The only other thing would be lack of USB 2.0 - but the only things that need that much bandwidth are video cameras (which mostly use FireWire anyway), and external drives (which I don't even think I'll need). Besides, Sony is committed to FireWire and should continue to make excellent external drives, if I really feel the need to get one.

The only other technology I see on the horizon that I might be interested in is Bluetooth (for wireless headphones, using my cell phone as a modem, etc.), But I can just get one of those tiny USB bluetooth adapters for no more than $45 bucks when I need it. Or maybe Apple will somehow come out with a combination Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Airport card? Is that even technically feasible?

Anyway, I'm still confident that I'll be very happy with my iBook 3 to 4 years from now. Like I said before, I would've kept my old Dell clunker for another couple of years if that had been an option, but alas it wasn't and now I'm very glad to have my rugged, gorgeous, fast (for my needs), and cool-running iBook.

 

[jefhatfield]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Apple notebooks outclass Wintel notebooks even without the speed bum

Originally posted by lmalave


I've already thought about this for the past couple of years (after plunking down $2700 for what was then a Mid-to-high end laptop at the time and then concluding later that it was total overkill). I think the $1300 iBook is just fine. The CPU and the RAM should be more than adequate for many years. The most CPU and RAM intensive thing I run regularly is the web browser and the Mac OSX itself. I would hope that 640 MB RAM (the max for my iBook) and ATI Radeon 7500 32MB is enough to run the next few versions of Mac OS and Quartz Extreme. The 30GB hard drive is more than sufficient for all my music and software, and would only become inadequate if I was saving lots of video.

But if I needed lots of GB for video a better solution is to get an external FireWire hard drive anyway. Same goes for a DVD burner - I don't really need one and if I really need to burn a lot of videos, I can just get an external one. The only other thing would be lack of USB 2.0 - but the only things that need that much bandwidth are video cameras (which mostly use FireWire anyway), and external drives (which I don't even think I'll need). Besides, Sony is committed to FireWire and should continue to make excellent external drives, if I really feel the need to get one.

The only other technology I see on the horizon that I might be interested in is Bluetooth (for wireless headphones, using my cell phone as a modem, etc.), But I can just get one of those tiny USB bluetooth adapters for no more than $45 bucks when I need it. Or maybe Apple will somehow come out with a combination Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Airport card? Is that even technically feasible?

Anyway, I'm still confident that I'll be very happy with my iBook 3 to 4 years from now. Like I said before, I would've kept my old Dell clunker for another couple of years if that had been an option, but alas it wasn't and now I'm very glad to have my rugged, gorgeous, fast (for my needs), and cool-running iBook.

sure, it always looks that way

first, i will say, if os x is the heaviest thing that your machine will have to do, then the $1299 ibook will be ok

however,

let's say, in the next two and a half years, apple goes to an os 11 and the thing will take nothing lower than a G4?

what if that happens 20 months from now?

you know, ibook will eventually go to a G4 or ibm 970 processor well before three years is up

in this game of buying computers, you can never win

while most improvements in the next few years will be predictable, some will not and the only way you can really be "happy" is to buy machines at least every two years

otherwise, you will just be tolerating the technology you decided to settle with for more than two years or three years

my ibook was hailed by apple as the second fastest laptop in the world in mid-late 1999, and with a 300 mhz G3 running os 9, it probably was

 

[jefhatfield]

with what i also said in my previous post, some people can tolerate a slow computer

my neighbor has a five year old pc laptop, originally 4+ grand in 1997, bought by her for $600 three years later, and this 166 mhz laptop with 33k modem is SLOOOOOOOW

on some sites, she gets an error message saying that there is not enough bandwidth and the cpu is not fast enough

on other sites, hyperlinks won't work because her machine can't take any browsers that were introduced within the last couple of years

she can run windows 98 and barely run some components of office 2000 if she wanted to

being that she paid only six hundred for this machine, printer, cables, pcmcia cards, case, and books, she figures you get what you pay for

and in 2000, a pentium pro laptop for $600 was a deal, but right now, this machine could maybe get half of that, but what would be harder would be to even find a buyer of that machine

the last time i was in costco superstore, i saw an athlon xp laptop, at 1.4 ghz, 128 MB RAM for $899 us...so with deals like that, why buy a pentium pro 166 class laptop which can't access many sites and won't take realplayer or quicktime on it?

if you want longevity, for your money, get a desktop tower like the entry level G4 dual 867

that way, at least you can fudge it a little and make the empty ports make up for technology yet to see the light

and a dual 867 G4 has more life in it, at almost the same price[$300 more] than a single G3 800 mhz chip

of course, the tower will be quite heavy in a backpack

 

[lmalave]

Originally posted by jefhatfield

my neighbor has a five year old pc laptop, originally 4+ grand in 1997, bought by her for $600 three years later, and this 166 mhz laptop with 33k modem is SLOOOOOOOW

A funny anecdote along the same vein: I have a friend who still has her 1993(4?) vintage PowerBook 520c at a whopping 100MHz. The amazing thing is, just for fun I upgraded it to Mac OS 8.6 and installed IE5 on it. With an ethernet connection, it actually browsed as fast as a modern PC running IE with a 56K connection!! (Granted, the 10.6 inch 640x480 screen was cramped). She actually still uses the machine for writing Word documents, etc, since her primary machine is a desktop.

Actually, I guess this anecdote is relevant since it convinced me of the durability of the Apple laptops, which is one of the primary reasons I switched to Apple.

Originally posted by jefhatfield

with what i also said in my previous post, some people can tolerate a slow computer

Dude, let a laptop be a laptop! Have you thought of moving to server-centric development? For a web development project I architected, I set up a Dell dev server and I and the other 5 developers all used Terminal Services from their laptops (they had Sony Vaios, I had my Dell). I mean, not only were we running 5 or 6 Terminal Services sessions, but everybody was running their own instance of Weblogic on the server and compiling Java classes on the server. Granted from your build times it sounds like you are programming a language (C/C++) with long link and compile times.

I mean, I still use my iBook at home for development, I just use it as a thin client to connect to machines at work (nowadays to Sun boxes).

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by lmalave


Dude, let a laptop be a laptop!

on the pc side, there are now laptops at 2.8 ghz and compaq or one of the other makers (ashton digital perhaps) will likely soon have the 3.06 ghz P4 chip in a laptop since a lot of pc makers are putting desktop chips in laptops

and on some models, battery times are not that bad, but still nowhere near the yields that mac laptops get with their batteries

over the last few years, i have grown used to making laptops completely replace desktops

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by lmalave

Dude, let a laptop be a laptop! Have you thought of moving to server-centric development? For a web development project I architected, I set up a Dell dev server and I and the other 5 developers all used Terminal Services from their laptops (they had Sony Vaios, I had my Dell). I mean, not only were we running 5 or 6 Terminal Services sessions, but everybody was running their own instance of Weblogic on the server and compiling Java classes on the server. Granted from your build times it sounds like you are programming a language (C/C++) with long link and compile times.

I mean, I still use my iBook at home for development, I just use it as a thin client to connect to machines at work (nowadays to Sun boxes).

(I'm not sure if this was intended for me or for jefh., but I'll pretend it was written to me )

Personally, I tend to use my laptop when I'm untethered. As such, it's not a good tool for client/server-based development. And, when I am "tethered" at home I'm on a nice fat DSL through a little itty bitty VPN, so VPN traffic is incredibly low bandwidth; again, not a good choice for client-server-based development.

Yes, I am (usually) working in C++. And, yes, when the compiler runs it takes 100% of the CPU no matter what CPU is using it. No one else would be able to compile at the same time on a single CPU without directly affecting overall compile times (2 builds, 2x as slow on each ... maybe more because of file contention issues with shared headers and such). Which, of course, would be the big huge bottleneck of development (right now, testing and CVS commit is the bottleneck, but at least we can all work ahead on other projects while one project is in the test/commit bottleneck ...)

Also, I have several Macs and PCs because the Macs have to compile Mac apps and the PCs have to compile PC apps. The PC generally does a pretty sorry job of creating a Mac application (yes, I know it is possible, but it is not pretty), and vise-versa. If I were to switch to such a paradigm, though, I'd still be completely stuck when untethered.

 

[Somebody]

Server-centric development

Dude, let a laptop be a laptop! Have you thought of moving to server-centric development? For a web development project I architected, I set up a Dell dev server and I and the other 5 developers all used Terminal Services from their laptops (they had Sony Vaios, I had my Dell).

Ugh. Personally, I'm moving in the opposite direction. Maybe if the 'server' in question is on the local LAN, things will go okay, but currently I do most of my development on a server in a colo rack, which I access via a DSL line. When that line gets flaky, actually doing anything *sucks* -- the editor's responsiveness goes all to hell, I find myself waiting a couple of seconds for screen refreshes when I just scroll a window too far.

One of the reasons I'm looking forward to the PowerBook is that I'll be able to set up a complete development environment on it, and always have that environment immediately at hand. Of course, most of the code that I write is in an interpreted scripting language, which means I don't have to deal with long compile times.

 

[lmalave]

Re: Server-centric development

Originally posted by Somebody


Ugh. Personally, I'm moving in the opposite direction. Maybe if the 'server' in question is on the local LAN, things will go okay, but currently I do most of my development on a server in a colo rack, which I access via a DSL line. When that line gets flaky, actually doing anything *sucks* -- the editor's responsiveness goes all to hell, I find myself waiting a couple of seconds for screen refreshes when I just scroll a window too far.

One of the reasons I'm looking forward to the PowerBook is that I'll be able to set up a complete development environment on it, and always have that environment immediately at hand. Of course, most of the code that I write is in an interpreted scripting language, which means I don't have to deal with long compile times.

Yup, my setup was on a local LAN. The way we had it set up was to put dev server on the local LAN (for exactly the reason you are saying), and the Stage and Prod boxes at the co-lo. This also allowed us to save a little $$$ on the dev box, since it didn't have to be rack-mountable or anything.

Seriously, I've done development both ways (I've even also run Oracle 8i on my laptop), and I've found that server-centric is the way to go. Also, there is less setup time and hence more efficiency, since instead of each developer going through the setup and configuration of a dev environment, you just set up one shared environment.