MacBooks sweep latest Consumer Reports scores - Page 3

Exactly.

Aside from the fact that Apple creates products with much higher hardware quality, software is what really sets it apart. I do this calculation. If windows vista costs $300, then Leopard should cost at least $900, as it really is several-fold better than vista. Alas, it only costs 10-times less than that.

So really, what you "save" in software cost makes the price of hardware an afterthought.

I have had matteb mbp and now glossy mbp with 24" glossy display, glossy rocks.

Hello hiimamac. Why bother with a person who believes that he/she is always right and his/her only posts about a positive Apple article are negative posts. A laugh riot with this guy/girl!!

To be fair, he does speak highly about the iPod Touch he supposedly owns. However, he does only mentions it as a way to bash the iPhone and AT&T, and despite his disdain for glossy screens has no problem with the Touch's glass covered glossy screen.

Same topic analysed on http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15062:

In the lightweight category, the MacBook Air took top honors, scoring 60/100, with HP's dv3-1075us in second with 55/100. The HP system, though, was priced at $850 USD, while the MacBook Air retailed at $2,300 USD.

The 17" MacBook Pro also sat atop its category with a mark of 80/100. Next up was the Dell Studio S17-162B, which received 64/100. The Dell laptop cost $750, while the MacBook Pro retailed for $2,800.

n the 14- to 15-inch category, the MacBook Pro again took top honors with 75/100. The runner ups were the Toshiba Satellite M305-S4910 and the Asus X83Vm-x2, which received 64/100. The 14" MacBook Pro cost $2,000 USD, while the Windows PCs in the category ranged from $450 to $850 USD.

Overall, Consumer Reports say that Macs are superior to PCs in quality, customer support, and innovation, but the publication complains that they are overpriced.

The study certainly was a bit questionable in that it failed to compare pricier, high performance Windows systems like Gateway's gaming laptops (available at some Best Buy locations), Toshiba's X305, Alienware, or Voodoo laptops. In its defense, though, most of the systems are not available at large brick-and-mortar retailers.

However, the quality advantage held by Macs based on factors like battery life and form-factor may not be enough for Apple to outcompete Windows-box OEMs. Mac sales, during the recession economy have fallen, while PC sales have held steady thanks to low-priced offerings like netbooks which continue to post growth.

There is space left to argue if consumers' satisfaction rating can justify price difference, but as someone already mentioned, it is everyone's personal choice to select one's own priorities.

Makes you wonder about some mindsets.

Some people seem to be filtering negative words rather than analysing whole meaning.

Kind of pre-emptive defensive stance \

Yeah, I'm so down. I think I'll have to go and shoot some of those cartoonish people in "Battlefield Heroes" to feel better

Eeek! HP is the worst!

(anyone interested in almost new 6730b?)

It is..?

Number of different things you can do on a computer..?

But what do you consider higher level of performance? It is really not a secret that you can get much higher specs PC notebooks and desktops (short of Mac Pro) for same or less money than competing Mac..?

Quality, well. While there is no doubt Apple is going further in material selection and overall design, number published in this tread - no need to go any further than that - are implying Macs are as reliable as PCs, or even less than some.

Car analogy is so old and not really applicable. In this case - and contrary to the real world - your BMW will have same engine, gearbox and suspension like Ford, but with better looks (arguable), a bit more comfy seats (again arguable - some like softer, some harder seats) and friendlier dashboard. In many cases, Ford will feature twice as much cylinders (Quad vs. dual core) and significantly more horsepowers from it's engine that comes from the same production line as BMW's one (Intel CPU factory).

And your white Ford has less chance to get cracks across the bodywork than white BMW.

So how much is this BMW more worth to you that Ford..? \

You're correct that it's not a secret that you pick out certain aspects of a Mac PC and then find a non-Mac PC with the same or similar components for less money. But you can also find non-Mac PC that are considerably more money than the cheapest ones you found. So why are these two different non-Mac PCs with similar basic specs so different in price?

Yes they are.

Check my other post or http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15062 - some of those PCs are mere 30% of price of Mac being compared. With consumer satisfaction difference being between 10 and 20%.

Price difference is much higher than customer satisfaction is. Not important to you? Good on you.

Additionaly, they didn't compare PC notebooks with price comparable to Macs. Like W series Lenovo.

Software price? Why would you buy retail Windows OS? When you get notebook, it comes with OS. If you want to upgrade, you get OS Upgrade, not Retail. But I do agree, retail MS software should be cheaper - even if noone is buying it.

And iWork can't do everything all users need. Some users - yes. But then, some users will do well with freakin' Wordpad. It is like saying iMovie can do everything all users need - then who'll buy Final Cut Pro???

Give me 2 specific PCs with comparable specs and vastly different price, and I'll try to give you an answer if I can. How's that?

1) You want to upgrade and don't like the "quirkiness" that comes from doing an update instead of a clean install.

2) You built your PC at home and now you need the super expensive version of WIn 7 Ultimate to complete your machine.

Besides that, cheap computers come with the basic or home versions of Windows, which a person may not want or it may be missing a feature they assumed it had (this happened with Vista and XP) so they may decide to buy the feature rich version. They could buy the upgrade-only version but it is still an expense they weren't counting on when they initially made their purchase. Luckily for the consumer MS had made their version vertical and are using more logical feature steppings.

I'll make it simple, both from the same company. Sony SR series and Sony Z series. Both with 2.40GHz C2D (P8600), same amount of RAM, same size and speed HDD, and with 13.3" displays and same OS. $500 difference. The Z series is lighter and thinner and designed to be a higher-end notebook. The SR series has less restrictions so while the Z series maxes out at 2.66GHz the cheaper SR Series will take a 2.93Ghz C2D (T9800).

The Z series, like Apple's notebooks, are thinner so they required more engineering to build them. They may be greener and use higher-quality (read: more expensive) parts than the SR series. The display type (read: not resolution) may be better on the Z series. The keyboard may be better engineered, like Apple's Macs, to be more comfortable to use. That doesn't mean you need the most expensive or smallest computer in a class, but there are reasons why they cost more.

There are easy (enough) workarounds, but I'm not disagreeing with you - retail Windows copies should be cheaper. \

Hm... at a quick glance... here in NZ, Z comes with 4GB DDR3 (instead of 3GB DDR2), better screen with higher resolution, a bit faster CPU with twice as much cache. 5hr battery instead of 3hr battery... there is also Z version with BR, but that one is even more expensive.

So from my point of view, same applies - better it is, but likely isn't worth it. I'd have to check on price difference for above mentioned elements, but as it is, I'd presume Sony is trying to cache some extra margin based on perceived level of exclusivity.

Still. If I really want to experience Vista on Sony notebook, Sony is giving me better choice to choose from; on that sole reason, I can't be too bitter on them. \

Ok I am going to try to explain this again. If you forget everything else please remember these two words: fuuck specs. Specs don't mean anything. Specs versus price alone will give you at most some 20% better "specs" for the dollar or 20% worse.

The software, on the other hand, could give you 100% (double) performance. And there is no doubt that Leopard, iLife and iWorks are leaps and bounds beyond anything microsoft has ever sold. Like I said, pages makes MS Word look like going back to the typewritter. I would gladly get 50% less "specs" in order to run software that gives me double performance.

I'm reading your post and - no idea why - I have a vision of huge, steaming pile of buffalo droppings. \

Yeah, I'm sure you believe what you just said with all your heart.

Then again, some people even believe in Scientology.

I'll indulge myself in one of those silly car analogies: You prefer Golf GT with confy seats and ergonomical dashboard. I prefer Porsche GT3 with hard bucket seats and minimalist dashboard. It is your right not to care about specs. It is my right not to care about what you care.

Everyone - even us poor Windows users - know iLife is just a suite of good looking, nicely polished home user apps with limited functionality. There is no magic about it. It doesn't carry original 10 commandments. It. Is. For. Home. Users.

iWorks fare a bit better, but even with that one - each compare with Office I could google out, boiled down to same conclusion: "Looks good. Works nice. Not as powerful as Office."

But if they are all you need from such software - I'm really happy for you.

So what you are saying is that there are different products that fit different user's needs?

Was I ever saying anything else?

I'm spending most of my time here opposing opinions that one solution is, by default, design and divine rights, much better than the other and same applies to everyone - only difference is some people are enlighten and some are not... yet.

Platform choice is completely personal, and everyone who thinks that one is undeniably better than the other is uninformed and overconfident fool. Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages, and it is matter of everyone's personal preference to decide what is more important and which platform has it.

Roughly speaking... some people will prefer style, more luxurious materials and better looks, exclusive software not available on other platform, dramatically lower exposure to viruses and will not worry about price premium.

Some people will prefer more raw power for the money (or same power for less money), bigger choice of software in general, native gaming, more hardware options and will not worry about viruses.

Both groups are right, as long as they keep in mind that what works for them will not necessarily work for everyone else.

It still shouldn't prevent us from having civilised discussion about what we see as advantages of our chosen platform... \

Actually for the majority of Windows users, it's not about choice, but what was shoved in their faces. It's NOT choice, it's knee-jerk. Default. It's what you're SUPPOSED to use.

A lot of thought goes into choosing to use Macs over Windows. There are some psychological adjustments, but as far as actually USING a Mac, it's simply a better, more solid experience. The computer gets out of the way and lets you do what you want to do.

The main Windows advantage is some vertical market software and gaming. And if you're into building your own machine from scratch, you can do that with, I've heard, relative ease.


Actually, the Macintosh user experience is about total integration of Mac OS X, Mac hardware and Mac software. Apple has stringent User Interface Guidelines that (hopefully) guide programmers to create apps that integrate with the rest of the Macintosh ecosystem.

So-called "raw" power, isn't necessarily controlled and directed power. There's a big difference. There is a massive amount of power working with a fully integrated system vs. a hodgepodge of hardware, OS, drivers, software and on-the-fly "unique" GUI decisions for nearly every software package.

This kind of total integration is IMPOSSIBLE on the Windows side.

So, until you have real exposure to the Mac user experience, you'll never really know what it's all about.

Some people like spending their days and weekends tinkering with their cars, some don't.
(Me? I don't even own a car!)


Yes, but there IS a difference here. The majority of Mac users have been forced, in some capacity, to use Windows. I'd guess that the opposite does NOT hold true with Windows users.

So, when Mac users complain about Windows, we generally have a point of reference. I've heard numerous Windows users rag on the Mac, but when asked about their specific experiences (OS version, hardware, etc.) the answer the majority of the time is they've never used a Mac or not a CURRENT Mac running Leopard or even Tiger.

Those types of "opinions" have zero credibility, zero validity.

BTW: I've used Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP and Vista. AND every Mac System version since 1985.

Are you perhaps mildly retarded?

One doesn't negate the other. You can have Windows "shoved" in your face at work, but still decide to use it or not at home. I don't think too many (if any) people taking part in this forum are in shoved only, no-choice category.


Can't argue with that since I didn't experience Mac properly. I do believe it works that way for Mac users. I don't think, though, it is universal - nothing is.


True that. Box I've recently built hasn't got weak point hardware wise, performance wise is in higher league than any iMac and was significantly cheaper. Once I complete it with new monitor and graphics card, it will round at NZ$2500. Have I selected to go for mid-quality components, I could have easily shaved off extra NZ$500. Cheapest iMac 24" is around NZ$3300.


Another thing I can't argue without proper time spent on Macs. I'm not questioning Mac has such integration, but where I am right now, can't really imagine how much better is that from what I have with Vista... because my personal Vista experience is great, both hardware and software wise.


There is undeniably some extra performance that can be unleashed with hardware-software integration optimization... but there is only that much of it available. I've recently spent some 20 minutes playing with 2.66GHz iMac in local Mac shop, mostly with iPhoto and iMovie, a bit with other installed applications. There was not enough time to really analyse software options, but I did notice some things related to performance. While iPhoto was running perfectly acceptable, I did notice brief (but easy noticeable) period of low-resolution image display before full quality display would be rendered. I had same thing on my previous dual core AMD system, but not on new quad core and ACDSee 9 I'm using now. Also, picture to picture swapping was slower on iMac. Dragging video clips into iMovie flow also felt a bit slower than in Studio 12 on my rig.

Now... I can accept that my applications, running on Vista and same hardware as above mentioned iMac, would be slower than iPhoto and iMovie under OSX. But... why should I run it on the same hardware, when I can get much stronger hardware for less money..? Even if you are not into system building (though most shops here will build configuration for free if you purchase parts from them), machine like Dell XPS 435 with quad core i7 can be configured with higher performing parts for the price of cheapest 24" iMac.


Can't argue that. I'll try to virtualize (or install "educational" copy) of OSX on one of my computers before my next hardware purchase and give it a go... and then, maybe, I'll be able to discuss on that topic. It is a shame Apple is not providing some kind of no-guarantee (that it will work on all hardware) OSX time-limited trial download.


True. That is why my posts are about my PC experience. I do get carried away, sometimes


Being a Mac user in Windows dominant world does have that advantage - exposure to other system - when it comes to forums like this one. But once in a while we come across posts from people who claim that they have moved from Mac to PC for one reason or another. Most of them are being dismissed as trolls. I believe at least some of them are legit. There is no general rule.