[Sparky191]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... windows is not fun for me as it is too much mouse-driven without good keyboard shortcuts.

Like maximize active window?

 

[ikermalli]

White macbook ftw

 

[nirvanaxp]

Personally I like the macbook pro. The older version at least. It has a design that will last the years and still look nice. I was temped to get a thinkpad or something but windows vista really turned me off it. It has all the same amenities as the unibody mbp save for the unibody of course. Fast processor, big battery, good graphics, and a matte screen, thank you. Of course it cost more than 2 grand. That hurt. But it is a great computer! No cheap plastic here!

 

[nineohtoo]

^I'm with you. As much as I do like the new unibodies, the last gen MBP is a timeless look and design. I prefer the keyboard matching the whole body. I do disagree with the aluminum over the poly carbonate. My dad still has the older 15" MBP, and I much prefer the polycarbonate of my blackbook. It doesn't ding as easy, and if I'm not mistaken gets better wireless reception than the aluminum bodies. Only thing I don't like about my blackbook is the fingerprints(not nearly as bad as my Lenovo X300 though), and the lame gloss screen. Colors look good, but the occasional glare sucks.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif windows is not fun for me as it is too much mouse-driven without good keyboard shortcuts.

Oh? Give me a few examples of things there aren't keyboard shortcuts for.

 

[nirvanaxp]

Ah, you make a good point nineohtoo. I suppose a unibody mac would not ding as easily, as it is thicker aluminum, though. There's something about metal cases that is just nice to me, it certainly won't scratch as easily. That's what I liked about the original iphone, before it turned into shiny, shiny black plastic. ehhh that's another thread.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Plastic is not created equal; even among Apple products of the same generation. The matte finish of the polycarbonate Blackbook seems infinitely more elegant, scratch resistant, and durable than the glossy white of the current Macbook. Personally I still prefer the current aluminum Macbooks, but I can't say I'd be disappointed with the feel of the black Macbook.

 

[Andrew LB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raez /img/forum/go_quote.gif Moral of the story: PC > Mac

Exactly.

I spent $1200 for a decked out Dell XPS m1530 (specs below) and not only does it smoke my brothers $3500 Mac Book Pro.... but I also taught my "untrendy PC" some pretty nice tricks.

Such as running OSx86 Leopard.

Dell XPS m1530-
- 2.4ghz Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
- 4gb PC800 DDR2
- nVidia Geforce 9800m GT 512mb PCI-Express Graphics
- 128gb G.Skill 150+ mb/s read/write Solid State Hard Drive
- 15.4" LED Backlit LCD Sceen (yes... the same one they put in Mac Pro's)
- DVD-RW
- Bluetooth
- Wireless-N
- Creative X-Fi Express Card
- HDMI Output
- Ethernet

The notebook also dual boots into Windows 7 Ultimate (beta) x64 edition.

It's got a nice magnesium case too! Much stronger than my brothers Mac Book Pro.

 

[grawk]

Well, the $1999 macbook pro 15" with the 2.4ghz chip both has a faster bus and a faster video card. It also has a gigabit ethernet card and fw800. So yah, it's more expensive (tho not 3x as expensive, like you implied), but you do get some benefits for your money. And for some people, running a pirated operating system isn't something they are willing to do.

 

[Arainach]

The point isn't "what would a PC with comparable specs cost". It's "what would a PC that does everything I need cost" versus "what would a Mac that does everything I need cost". I could get a laptop that would last me for several years just fine for $700. There's no Mac laptop in that price range. The closest is the white plastic 13" MacBook. Sorry, 13" isn't enough for a full-time workstation for me. I need 1440x900 minimum resolution. I can't get that on a Macbook in my budget - not without jumping to $2000, in fact. I'm looking at a VERY well decked out Latitude D630, Thinkpad T400, etc. for $1500 or less. And I can get some very nice laptops with the screen resolution and specs I need in the $700 and less category.

 

[Andrew LB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, the $1999 macbook pro 15" with the 2.4ghz chip both has a faster bus and a faster video card. It also has a gigabit ethernet card and fw800. So yah, it's more expensive (tho not 3x as expensive, like you implied), but you do get some benefits for your money. And for some people, running a pirated operating system isn't something they are willing to do.

Hmm.... i just priced it out on Mac's website and the Mac Book Pro with "similar" specs was $2900. And that isn't including the better video card, the faster SSD drive, faster DVD+-RW drive, much more durable magnesium case, HDMI, etc.

Btw.... I'd wager that less than 1% of gigabit 10/100/1000 owners have actually broken the 100mbps limit. And if you've read the countless reviews on current DDR3 setups, the difference is only seen in some synthetic benchmarks and the gains are pathetic.

As for Firewire.... it still sucks. I'll take eSATA any day for my external drives or just use network drives.

Quote:

The point isn't "what would a PC with comparable specs cost". It's "what would a PC that does everything I need cost" versus "what would a Mac that does everything I need cost". I could get a laptop that would last me for several years just fine for $700. There's no Mac laptop in that price range. The closest is the white plastic 13" MacBook. Sorry, 13" isn't enough for a full-time workstation for me. I need 1440x900 minimum resolution. I can't get that on a Macbook in my budget - not without jumping to $2000, in fact. I'm looking at a VERY well decked out Latitude D630, Thinkpad T400, etc. for $1500 or less. And I can get some very nice laptops with the screen resolution and specs I need in the $700 and less category.

I agree completely. 90% of Mac users out there own them simply because they're "trendy". Today's PCs can do EVERYTHING the latest generation of Mac's can do AND exceed them. Mac had an advantage years ago when they ran RISC processing which helped them get an amost completely exclusive chunk of music creation/editing, video rendering, and graphic design. But now that ALL Mac's are simply a PC with a white case and a huge price tag, any tangible advantage Mac had is now gone.

I almost bought a Mac Book Pro about 6 months ago before I got my Dell XPS, but after a little research I realized that you basically pay $1000+ just for the Mac OS.

 

[grawk]

There are lots of things that go into cost. You have to be aware going in that apple overcharges for memory and disk, so you don't pay them to up the specs. And every macbook has a better graphics board than the one in that dell. On top of that, in a year, that dell will have effectively no value, but the mac will be worth 75% of what you paid, more than likely. But if you don't have a problem with stealing the operating system, and don't plan on selling the laptop in the next 3-5 years, the dell is probably an acceptable system.

As to the "13" isnt' big enough", I run a macbook with a 20" lcd on my desk. I'd never buy a larger laptop, because bigger makes it less portable. The 20" cinema display I bought many years ago is still going strong.

 

[Arainach]

Again, grawk, you miss the point entirely. It has a huge GPU. That's awesome. I don't need it. Neither do most people. Give me an Intel chip that can run Aero in Vista and I'm golden. I'd rather save my money.

 

[mark_h]

A windows laptop with optical out?

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_h /img/forum/go_quote.gif A windows laptop with optical out?

Again: Not a feature I need in my portable rig. Quote:

Originally Posted by Me The point isn't "what would a PC with comparable specs cost". It's "what would a PC that does everything I need cost" versus "what would a Mac that does everything I need cost".

By the way, my D620's docking station had Optical Out.