[hongda]

http://www.gotapex.com/deals.php

4 or 5th deal down.

DellSB - Inspiron 2650 Special Edition 1.7Ghz Pentium 4-M, 256mb DDR SDRAM, 24x CD-RW/DVD Combo, 16mb nVidia Geforce2Go, 14.1" XGA LCD, 20gb Drive for $1023
after Rebate with FREE Shipping!

SB refers to Small Business. I've gotten away with it before.

 

[CaptBubba]

We've strayed from the point here.

The point is, for that price you will get one of the following:

A cheaply built, easily breakable Dell.

A heavy, built like a tank but also looks like one IBM

Some bulky, easitly breakable no-name.

An ibook.

I, if I used my laptop for only what you said, would buy the ibook.. This is coming from somebody who does not own a mac, likes Windows XP, and is generally not pro-mac. I'm kinda indifferent about the whole thing. Really, does it matter that some people think that they have a better OS than you? They aren't hurting anybody, let them live in peace.

I'm not saying (like some people seem to be here) that the ibook is better than every PC laptop, no exceptions. It isn't, but at this price point it is the best choice.

Here are the reasons I wouldn't buy an ibook:

1. I was going to use it as my primary computer.
   I needed to use PC only applications (SPICE models, ect)
   If I would only be using it portably ever now and then.

Here is when I would buy one:

1. If I did mainly graphic work
   If I just surfed the internet/typed on it
   Battery life. Battery Life. Battery Life!
   I used it portablely every day.
   If shiny objects entranced me

 

[williamgoody]

For all the Windows lovers out there (shivohum). Maybe there are more issues to deal with with windows because of the tendency Microsoft has for forsaking quality and reliability for profitability. Apple can be evil like this a well, but not to the sake where they forsake quality control. Apple tries not to be everything to everybody, and generally doesn't put out anything until they're sure it works (lately anyway, just don't ask the joggers who use the Ipod
There's a lot of software people develop for the Mac OS as well, but this software doesn't corrupt and crash the platfom like PC software can for windows.
It's all arbitrary and comes down to preference anyway, but realistically, pound for pound, Mac OS' are better than Windows when speaking about reliability. I have XP on a 1.6 gig, 512MB machine (built by a local outfit) and an old (1 year plus) 500 mgh, 256Mb powerbook running 9.2.
The Mac kicks Window's butt in my house (reliability wise).
Mac users are just as vocal as Pc users when venting about problems. They're consumers just like PC users are, but the amount of problems they have to deal with concerning their OS platforms aren't nearly as plentiful.
Mac users...Underdogs...I don't think so. Just open minded.

 

[elnero]

I just wandered in to see what was up in this thread.

Hmmmmmm, I think I'll keep my big mouth shut for this one.

 

[Kubernetes]

Quote:

Have you ever noticed that Mac users never speak about the stability of their operating system? Ever wonder why that is? It's never been an issue for them.

Huh? Try using a pre-X macos. Stable? uhhh... no. OTOH, XP is damn stable, at least as much so as 2000 was. Honestly, stability of the OS has become such a nonissue in 2002 I don't see why it's even discussed anymore (unless you run a non-NT kernel Windows or pre-X Macos).

Quote:

Maybe there are more issues to deal with with windows because of the tendency Microsoft has for forsaking quality and reliability for profitability.

There are more "issues" because there's just...well more out there for Windows. Things like device drivers et al get complex because there's just more stuff out (motherboards, soundboards, video cards, etc.) there to complicate things. As for profitability, Apple consistently has the highest profit margins in the industry. And a lot of their parts are off-the-shelf just like Dells.

Quote:

They're consumers just like PC users are, but the amount of problems they have to deal with concerning their OS platforms aren't nearly as plentiful.

Of course there are a lot less Mac users, and less stuff to mess up their systems, so it's not surprising if, in aggregate, there are more PC problems.


Honestly, I don't want to get into some platform war, but the truth is that both platforms are very mature, stable, very functional. Computer choice now is about bells and whistles. I would argue for Apple for notebooks and Intel/Windows for desktops.

 

[williamgoody]

I believe you'll find the ratio of problems/Pc users to be higher than problems/Mac users regarding operating systems. How old is the "pre x macos you refer to? Is it as recent as Windows ME? There was a horrible platform.
If you read my post I didn't exonerate Apple from being as greedy. They can be overpriced definitely, but at least it's a quality product. You don't have to keep an abacus nearby to keep track of the OS problems on hand.
I really just hate Microsoft for what they claim to be and want to be. Yet they put out these "less than what should be acceptable" platforms like Windows.It's like a place like the Wiz in the NY area claiming to be the king of your audio/visual experts, yet you go there and no one has a clue when you mention Sennheiser. I just really believe Mac puts out a better product quality wise. Overpriced, but quality.
Just out of curiosity why do you recommend PC's for desktops?
I have no experience with a Mac desktop.

 

[Audio Redneck]

Redneck - (n) Opinionated so-in-so who can't stay out of a good fight.


First choice if it is for stand alone use and requires no special (CAD) windows only software - iMac with OS-X. I understand there is a good windows imulation program with it or available for it for those "gotta-have-window" programs.

If it must be the windows world, find out what companies have good service in your country (check tech forums and ask IT departments at local companies). And get Windows 2000, and Service Pack 2. Win2k is about as stable as you are going to get with a Micro$oft OS. WinXP is still giving my users fits (XP Home inparticular for some reason)

My work pc is a Toshiba Satellite. My personal PC is a 7 year old IBM 560 Thinkpad (I call it 'Timex'). The only thing I don't like about my old IBM is that I can't run Win2000 (I use Win95b on it).

 

[williamgoody]

Audio, why do you recommend the Imac as a desktop?

 

[Flasken]

[BUUUUUURP]

I'll take him to the apple shop, so stop flaming eachother !!

[/BUUUUUURP]

 

[HighwayStar]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audio Redneck Redneck - (n) Opinionated so-in-so who can't stay out of a good fight. First choice if it is for stand alone use and requires no special (CAD) windows only software - iMac with OS-X. I understand there is a good windows imulation program with it or available for it for those "gotta-have-window" programs. If it must be the windows world, find out what companies have good service in your country (check tech forums and ask IT departments at local companies). And get Windows 2000, and Service Pack 2. Win2k is about as stable as you are going to get with a Micro$oft OS. WinXP is still giving my users fits (XP Home inparticular for some reason) My work pc is a Toshiba Satellite. My personal PC is a 7 year old IBM 560 Thinkpad (I call it 'Timex'). The only thing I don't like about my old IBM is that I can't run Win2000 (I use Win95b on it).

Service Pack 3 is now available

 

[dariusf]

They are build very well, I used to have the 740 model (I think) and it was around 4lbs

Quote:

Originally posted by acidtripwow IBM laptops are built like tanks but unfortunately that means they weigh like a tank, too

 

[dariusf]

The IBM was nice, now I have a Toshiba Portege 7200, Its a nice notebook, little on the heavier side. I like to stick to 4lbs+/-, 5 at the most.

The Sony slim ones are very nice, a friend has one. I guess it depends what you are looking for. I personally need the following in this order:

1. as light as possible 4lbs +/-

2. external display resolution. Nothing as bad as connecting a notebook to a 21" monitor with only 1024x768 res. You want 1280x1024 in this case at least and with good refresh rate like 85 hertz

3. no CD inside since how often do you use one and you have to carry it around, besides you can always share one over the network (if you have it)

4. performance which mainly is memory at least 256mb and then CPU

5. options, for example build in wireless, firewire (for iPod)

You can always add PCMCIA cards but considering that most notebooks have only 2 slots... which you can use up with things like Compact Flash reader, NIC, Wireless etc.

The PowerBook G4 is sweet, my friend has one but you don't want a Mac.

As for reliability, well anything with Windows on it is going to be a problem. I use windows 2000 on my notebook and all desktops. Windows usually needs a reinstall every few months. Just try not to install too much junk.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly If you do need C# or Delphi (or maybe Maya or some other must-have program that's not on Mac) or really are just a stubborn idiot, buy the IBM Thinkpad.

Except that Maya is a Mac OS app, and C# compiling is already available (coding is coming out soon)

Sorry, Kelly, I actually agree with you -- there is enterprise-level software that's simply not available for Mac. For those types of things, you want a Windows machine.



Quote:

I'm thinking of buying an older, used PowerBook instead of a new iBook because the PowerBooks have larger monitors. As far as I know, the only reason to choose a new iBook over a used PowerBook would be the inclusion of a combo CDRW/DVD drive (the older Macs have DVD only drives). Anyone know otherwise?

The newer iBooks have smaller screens than the older PowerBooks (except for the 14" iBook), but don't let size fool you. The 12" screens on the smaller iBooks are much clearer and brighter than the 14" screens on older PowerBooks (they have the same resolution). Or are you talking about a PowerBook from a year ago with a 15" widescreen?

The biggest advantages of the iBooks are size and weight. After carrying around a 14" laptop for a couple years, the 4lb, 12" iBook was a godsend.



Now for some good ol' platform discussion

Flasken, sorry to get off-topic on you

Don't worry, no flaming here. (You might even find some of this interesting.)


Quote:

Originally posted by shivohum Some basic popular programs are available on both platforms (word processing, internet, email), but the enormous majority of interesting software is for the PC.

This is one of the biggest myths of the whole Windows/Mac debate. The areas where Windows has a decisive software advantage are games and enterprise. If you're a gamer, you should buy a Windows PC (and you shouldn't buy a laptop

). However, in other areas (including shareware, which you mentioned), it's simply not an issue. Just as there is lots of cool shareware only for Windows, there's lots of cool shareware only for Mac. Plus pretty much any UNIX software can be run on a Mac (which explains a lot of the new interest in the Mac OS -- now that it's UNIX-based, a lot of UNIX users are switching over because they finally have a good interface

).

On top of that, much of the software written for Mac is simply better than comparable Windows products. They usually do the same or similar things, but the interface is better on the Mac side, and stuff is generally less buggy. I don't say this as some crazy Mac person; I say it from many years working in large cross-platform environments. Even apps that are made by the same company exhibit this. For example, Office for Mac vs. Windows, IE for Mac vs. Windows, Outlook Express for Mac vs. Windows -- the Mac versions are consistently rated higher than the Windows versions. These sentiments have been echoed by many a Windows columnist.

Then there's the rather obvious point that seldom gets raised in this whole "more software" discussion: Say there are 50 text editors available for Mac, and 250 for Windows. Does the average user care? Not really. Especially if the best, or one of the best, is available for their platform. So for the average user the software argument really has no relevance (again, gamers and enterprise excepted).


Quote:

I also really like the right-click that PCs have.

Mac users do, too -- they've had it for years

Quote:

Wow, I think this is highly misinformed. Go check out the Mac newsgroups or some posts on Mac discussion boards. There are plenty of people speaking about problems.

While it's definitely not true that Mac users never talk about problems, it's just as misleading to quote posts on newsgroups or boards where troubleshooting is the topic to "disprove" the stability of the OS. Computers aren't perfect. Every OS -- Mac, Windows, Linux, BeOS, Amiga -- has problems. But as Kubernetes said, for the most part, stability is a non-issue with Windows XP and Mac OS X. Both tend to be immensely stable compared to their predecessors.

Overall, my experiences with Windows XP have been very good; not quite as stable as 2000, but still very good. My experience with OS X has been excellent -- only a single OS crash in a year of use, and that was caused by a defective piece of hardware. In contrast, Mac OS 9 and 8 and Windows 9x were much less stable.


Quote:

Oh? In what way is a Mac better at any of these tasks? [contacts, emailing, surfing the web, playing a cd/dvd, transferring data, editing 2d graphics images, editing html] At each of these tasks the PC has access not only to best-of-breed general software, but also to a vast spectrum of specialized software that takes care of exceptional situations.

This is part of that software myth I mentioned above. Having more choices does not necessarily mean having the best choices. To touch on a couple of the examples kelly gave, and you responded to, the best email clients on any platform are available for the Mac (in fact, good email clients is one area where Windows has always been really lacking). The multimedia apps (movie editing, CD/DVD burning, etc., both consumer and pro) available for the Mac are better than for Windows. Transferring data? Pretty similar

Web browsers are great on both platforms (you have IE and you have lots of other good clients on both). Etc., Etc. Hi-end apps like Maya are available for both platforms. Overall, I'd instead give the advantage for "best of breed" software for the Mac for those areas where the software is available. As I mentioned above, the areas where Windows has a clear advantage for specialized software is in enterprise-level applications and gaming. This is clearly the purview of Windows.


Finally, when considering "software availability," you also have to be fair and consider the powerful services that come built-into Mac OS that Windows can't touch. The most widely-used web server on the web, Apache, comes built-in. WebDAV is built-in. Sendmail is built-in. A real firewall is built-in. Perl is built-in. Windows/SMB sharing is built-in. FTP serving is built-in. Print serving and CUPS are built-in. These aren't kludges or crippled implementations patched in like they are on Windows -- these are full versions. They have a nice, easy to use GUI for beginners, but are fully configurable for advanced users. You can take an iBook out of the box, plug it into a DSL line, and within 10 minutes have a full-featured, scalable web server, complete with CGI, WebDAV, and mail support.

I don't expect you to become a Mac fan -- I don't expect to change anyone's mind on that matter; people tend to be fairly close-minded on both sides of the debate. However, as someone with a lot more cross-platform experience than most, I do find myself getting involved with these discussions more out of a desire to dispel misconceptions than anything else. And you may not believe it, but when I'm on a Mac-centric board or list, I actually take some of the Mac users to task for the same type of less-than-informed advocacy

Back on-topic (sort of), I work with computers for a living (Windows, Mac, UNIX). The biggest mistake anyone can make in buying a computer is not clearly considering what it will be used for. People often buy a computer they don't need, or one that simply doesn't fit their needs, because one of their "knowledgeable" friends told them what to get without evaluating their needs. Figure out what you MUST be able to do, what you'd LIKE to be able to do, and your budget; make sure you think ahead about what you might like to do in the future. Include in your budget an extra $100 for more RAM -- especially for a laptop. Then get a reliable computer that does what you need to do, and maybe what you'd like to do, within your budget

 

[MadDog5145]

Why isn't anyone mentioning winbooks. I have been looking for a notebook and saw the winbooks as a good choice (at least by the stats). Are these notebooks horrible and everyone knows that but me?

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Except that Maya is a Mac OS app, and C# compiling is already available (coding is coming out soon) Sorry, Kelly, I actually agree with you -- there is enterprise-level software that's simply not available for Mac. For those types of things, you want a Windows machine.

I didn't know Maya was out for Mac -- I guess that shows how long I've been out of that business. Very interesting. Still, you'd want a desktop for that (even if it were a G4).

I'm a little more suspicious about C# and the .Net platform in general coming to Mac, at least in an official capacity. It wouldn't surprise me to see some kid trying to write a compiler but if you mean MicroSoft is actually expanding to the Mac, shoot me some relevant links so I don't have to crawl their wasteland of a website.

I have a feeling if I were a .Net or Delphi developer, I'd probably want a PC regardless. There's something to be said for strength in numbers and for MicroSoft based products, PC is the home team. Now Java on the other hand... Java is gaining ground and that could be fun on the Mac. But man, Java Mac programmer, talk about having the best bragging rights of anyone in the unemployment line.


Quote:

The newer iBooks have smaller screens than the older PowerBooks (except for the 14" iBook), but don't let size fool you. The 12" screens on the smaller iBooks are much clearer and brighter than the 14" screens on older PowerBooks (they have the same resolution). Or are you talking about a PowerBook from a year ago with a 15" widescreen? The biggest advantages of the iBooks are size and weight. After carrying around a 14" laptop for a couple years, the 4lb, 12" iBook was a godsend.

I think the one I was looking at was about two years old, but had a 15" screen, ~500MhZ, DVD only drive and seems to go for about $1200 on the used market. Am I off?

The new PowerBooks are only a few ounces more in weight and only an inch thick with the lid closed. I think I can handle the size.

Quote:

Even apps that are made by the same company exhibit this. For example, Office for Mac vs. Windows, IE for Mac vs. Windows, Outlook Express for Mac vs. Windows -- the Mac versions are consistently rated higher than the Windows versions. These sentiments have been echoed by many a Windows columnist.

Better OS == better integration.

Quote:

While it's definitely not true that Mac users never talk about problems, it's just as misleading to quote posts on newsgroups or boards where troubleshooting is the topic to "disprove" the stability of the OS. Computers aren't perfect. Every OS -- Mac, Windows, Linux, BeOS, Amiga -- has problems. But as Kubernetes said, for the most part, stability is a non-issue with Windows XP and Mac OS X. Both tend to be immensely stable compared to their predecessors. Overall, my experiences with Windows XP have been very good; not quite as stable as 2000, but still very good.

I disagree entirely about Windows XP. That you got a good run on a single configuration I'll believe but that it's overall good and stable compared to Windows 2000? Not in my experience. I'm confused by the two statements. I guess you don't consider 2000 a predecessor to XP? I'm inclined to agree but find it amusing. It's supposed to be, you know. They say it is.

Quote:

Overall, I'd instead give the advantage for "best of breed" software for the Mac for those areas where the software is available.

I want to agree and yet feel compelled to disagree with the notion that less choices is a good thing. I like choices. None the less, I'd find myself mostly picking the ones that did show up on Mac. I mean really, there ARE competitors to Photoshop but I don't really know why.

Quote:

Finally, when considering "software availability," you also have to be fair and consider the powerful services that come built-into Mac OS that Windows can't touch. The most widely-used web server on the web, Apache, comes built-in. WebDAV is built-in. Sendmail is built-in. A real firewall is built-in. Perl is built-in. Windows/SMB sharing is built-in. FTP serving is built-in. Print serving and CUPS are built-in.

Almost all of these are either included with OSs or are free downloads to end users--full versions and all.

Quote:

You can take an iBook out of the box, plug it into a DSL line, and within 10 minutes have a full-featured, scalable web server, complete with CGI, WebDAV, and mail support.

This isn't really a platform argument. It's more of a slam to all PC builders and retailers. In fact, the thing I give Apple the most credit for is common sense. Shouldn't EVERY computer sold be able to be plugged in directly and expected to work? Surely companies like Dell could do this. Surely laptops could do this.

But just like the folding side panels on the G4, what seems like utter common sense on the Mac is alien technology to the people who make PCs. I keep thinking some PC maker will figure it out but the barriers to entry are too high for anyone new and the companies meeting success are incapable of thinking outside of next month's bottom line.

Quote:

And you may not believe it, but when I'm on a Mac-centric board or list, I actually take some of the Mac users to task for the same type of less-than-informed advocacy

It's certainly hard to imagine Macdef being argumentative in another forum.

Quote:

The biggest mistake anyone can make in buying a computer is not clearly considering what it will be used for.

This was the real point I intended to make and failed at conveying. The reason people like you and I can hearily recommend Mac laptops is that we know the average laptop user is not going to enjoy figuring out where there CAB files and DLLs are just so they can get a printer to work and do something that ought to be trivial. And who do they call when they can't get stuff to work? Us.

When I can't convince someone who doesn't need to program or play video games to buy a Mac, I try to convince them to buy Dell WITH Dell's customer support. Sure, they paid as much as they'd have paid for a less problematic solution, but at least they have someone ELSE to call when things don't work the way they expect them to.

Well written response, Mac. It's easy to take pause before throwing oneself into an owners club that seems like a communist cult from the outside and that stigma has hurt Apple far more than anything else. They do make good products and I agree that responses like this are a little easier to stomach than most of the propoganda rhetoric that most Mac drones who have never used a PC or Unix system spout.