Dollar-for-dollar, based upon objective criteria, the MacBook Pro is the best performing laptop on the market. Indeed, it is the best performing sub-$4500 gaming laptop on the market, and at the low price set by Apple, it is a bargain.
I may not agree with iGenius but I can?t see how it could be Teckstud. Besides what Quadra stated, iGenius writes paragraphs and complex compound sentence that aren?t making caustic statements about fanboys and Kool-Aid. The name he going by now is Mr. Koolaid.
You're right. He's (probably) not teckstud and frankly I agree with him...sorta.
Apple machines tend to be most cost competitive when a new generation is released and successively begin to suck more in terms of bang for the buck. The 2009 models are essentially 2007 MBP with a speed bump and new bodies. When the 2010 arrandales come out the MBP will again be cost competitive with the HP and Dell equivalents. Just like when the C2D came out in 2007 the MB and MBPs were cost competitive with Dells. In 2012, they'll suck again because traditionally Apple passes along very little of the cost savings.
In the case of the 2009 MBPs a lot got eaten up by the unibody construction costs anyway.
I suppose I need to parse my comment down to an extremely specific meaning. Apple doesn't work to make the fastest computers, Apple works to make the most usable computers. Usability includes various different factors. With a notebook when you factor in size, weight, battery life, as well as speed. No one makes a comparable machine at a lower price.
I still cannot agree with taking benchmarks from random articles, their are just too many factors to benchmarks for that to fly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
I did, until the "nobody can prove to me that..." shtick got going. The OP had by then dropped out of the conversation, I guess.
I agree the performance/value ratio widens for Apple computers at the end of the refresh cycles. That's because PC manufacturers quickly lower prices as their machines grow older. Apple does not lower the price at all. We all know this and is why Apple enthusiast sites encourage people to not buy a new Mac when its refresh seems imminent.
Where I don't agree is in the 2009 MBP being a 2007 MBP in a new body. I mean for one the 2008 MBP refresh uses an entirely different motherboard and chipset from the 2007 MBP.
But over that time in my profession I can clearly see the evolution. The 2007 MBP could only play the most compressed HD video formats and it still dropped frames. With the 2008 refresh the list of HD playback options expanded considerably. Now with the 2009 refresh, the MBP can pretty much play all compressed HD formats.
This has been a huge change for the film/video industry, only a couple of years ago you could only playback HD on a G5 tower, the PowerBook wasn't an option at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
You're right. He's (probably) not teckstud and frankly I agree with him...sorta.
Apple machines tend to be most cost competitive when a new generation is released and successively begin to suck more in terms of bang for the buck. The 2009 models are essentially 2007 MBP with a speed bump and new bodies. When the 2010 arrandales come out the MBP will again be cost competitive with the HP and Dell equivalents. Just like when the C2D came out in 2007 the MB and MBPs were cost competitive with Dells. In 2012, they'll suck again because traditionally Apple passes along very little of the cost savings.
In the case of the 2009 MBPs a lot got eaten up by the unibody construction costs anyway.
Dollar-for-dollar, based upon objective criteria, the MacBook Pro is the best performing laptop on the market. Indeed, it is the best performing sub-$4500 gaming laptop on the market, and at the low price set by Apple, it is a bargain.
I'm done.
that is what i was trying to tell you dude !!! i am sorry i can't explain my self better
i own 5 mac laptops and all the older ones suck bad when it comes to screen beauty and rendering speed compared to the late 09 MBP'S.
You're right. He's (probably) not teckstud and frankly I agree with him...sorta.
Apple machines tend to be most cost competitive when a new generation is released and successively begin to suck more in terms of bang for the buck. The 2009 models are essentially 2007 MBP with a speed bump and new bodies. When the 2010 arrandales come out the MBP will again be cost competitive with the HP and Dell equivalents. Just like when the C2D came out in 2007 the MB and MBPs were cost competitive with Dells. In 2012, they'll suck again because traditionally Apple passes along very little of the cost savings.
In the case of the 2009 MBPs a lot got eaten up by the unibody construction costs anyway.
So 2010...good time to buy a MBP.
the unibody is cheaper over all than the old labor intensive way of making a laptop.
and economies of scale continue to reduce the over all price \\except for the price of alum which may sky rocket if apple continues to sell so many units .
I suppose I need to parse my comment down to an extremely specific meaning. Apple doesn't work to make the fastest computers, Apple works to make the most usable computers. Usability includes various different factors. With a notebook when you factor in size, weight, battery life, as well as speed. No one makes a comparable machine at a lower price.
Damn. Had you said that in the first place, I would not have argued. You're saying that overall, the combination of attributes embodied by the MacBook best satisfies what you want.
You are welcome to come to that conclusion. Me, I gave up a bit of size/weight (there certainly ARE lighter 15 inch laptops) in order to get added (ahem) performance and a lower price. I neither got the budget Dell Inspiron nor the overpriced Dell XPS.
I got a pretty light, pretty good looking, well provisioned and equipped laptop with blazing (ahem) performance, all at a surprisingly low price. Everything in life is compromises, and given the guts of this machine, I think I made a good choice. Maybe after lugging around the extra 7 ounces for a few months I'll regret my decision. But I doubt it.
Right, that is what I meant. I was not saying that Apple makes the fastest computers, they certainly do not.
I've been looking around at i7 benchmark tests. Primarily all of the tests compare i7 against Quad Core Penryn. They are using tests that emphasis multithreading which plays to the strength of quad processors. So of course i7 will kill those tests. At points where the test is not taking advantage of multithreading i7 is only slightly if any faster.
Your sacrifice for an i7 machine is not size/weight it was in battery life.
Anandtech is finding that i5 with hyperthreading is providing better performance gains than i7 for notebooks, with minimal hit in battery life.
Arrandale is going to deliver the single largest performance improvement we've seen from a new mobile processor in years. Hyper-Threading brings the many of the benefits of having a quad-core processor without the added power consumption. Turbo is also extremely useful in mobile since it's one of the most TDP-constrained environments you can imagine.
Damn. Had you said that in the first place, I would not have argued. You're saying that overall, the combination of attributes embodied by the MacBook best satisfies what you want.
You are welcome to come to that conclusion. Me, I gave up a bit of size/weight (there certainly ARE lighter 15 inch laptops) in order to get added (ahem) performance and a lower price. I neither got the budget Dell Inspiron nor the overpriced Dell XPS.
I got a pretty light, pretty good looking, well provisioned and equipped laptop with blazing (ahem) performance, all at a surprisingly low price. Everything in life is compromises, and given the guts of this machine, I think I made a good choice. Maybe after lugging around the extra 7 ounces for a few months I'll regret my decision. But I doubt it.
You're right. He's (probably) not teckstud and frankly I agree with him...sorta.
Apple machines tend to be most cost competitive when a new generation is released and successively begin to suck more in terms of bang for the buck. The 2009 models are essentially 2007 MBP with a speed bump and new bodies. When the 2010 arrandales come out the MBP will again be cost competitive with the HP and Dell equivalents. Just like when the C2D came out in 2007 the MB and MBPs were cost competitive with Dells. In 2012, they'll suck again because traditionally Apple passes along very little of the cost savings.
In the case of the 2009 MBPs a lot got eaten up by the unibody construction costs anyway.
15" MBP 3.02GHz 500G 7200 rpm 3 chip setup proves you as a silly little man with no money to buy an apple machine.
my laptop out performs all of them except for the monster Allen ware $4500 lap top which is a suit case in reality . Your genius has walked around making agitating silly statements allover the place .
Come to my house your rudeness and play call of duty at full graphics and see no blur no lost frames full sync on every frame .
you had your giggle
we are all amused since you're the first jerk to come here and play these funny sarcasm games
ha ha
happy new year and i hope you get your first mac soon dude
lmao lol, thats what $2500?
check out sagers laptops at the same price as your, the large difference is screen res, better processor, stronger graphics lol at the same price.
Again, I was responding to "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
"measurable and quantifiable" are the criteria that the delusional one wanted, and so that's the criteria I focused on. Listen - I'll admit that the MBP is very pretty and sleek. It is a beauty queen.
But the Mac-Gamer guy wanted performance specs, so that's what I focused on. I quoted two reviews from the same publication using the same benchmark tests. The quad-core Dell trounced the duo-core Mac (Duh - what a surprise!) and the idiot couldn't accept that his delusions were at odds with objective reality.
And he wouldn't accept that Apple does not make high-end laptops (performance-wise), but instead they use last-year's tech and put it in a nice package.
Yes - Apple products are pretty. Yes - Apple products are well engineered. Yes - Apple products are satisfying.
But the performance/price ratio is NOT superior to the alternatives. And until Apple catches up, anybody looking for a high-end (meaning high-performance) laptop should look elsewhere, and anyone looking for bang for the buck should look elsewhere.
agreed lol, just get a computer thats components worth with OSX and then install OSX, congrats u saved 1000-1500 dollars and can have both OS's (and linux 2 if u want XD)
Comments
Fine. I agree.
Dollar-for-dollar, based upon objective criteria, the MacBook Pro is the best performing laptop on the market. Indeed, it is the best performing sub-$4500 gaming laptop on the market, and at the low price set by Apple, it is a bargain.
I'm done.
It?s not a gaming laptop.
It?s not a gaming laptop.
Of course. I was referring, in an oblique way, to this quote from earlier in the thread:
"MY
15" MBP 3.02GHz 500G 7200 rpm 3 chip setup proves you are a silly little man with no money to buy an apple machine.
my laptop out performs all of them except for the monster Allen ware $4500 lap top"
Indeed, this is the quote that got me going in the first place. It refers to a gaming laptop and makes price/performance claims.
Of course. I was referring, in an oblique way, to this quote from earlier in the thread:
"MY
15" MBP 3.02GHz 500G 7200 rpm 3 chip setup proves you are a silly little man with no money to buy an apple machine.
my laptop out performs all of them except for the monster Allen ware $4500 lap top"
Indeed, this is the quote that got me going in the first place. It refers to a gaming laptop and makes price/performance claims.
IMO, that should have the comment you focused on.
IMO, that should have the comment you focused on.
I did, until the "nobody can prove to me that..." shtick got going. The OP had by then dropped out of the conversation, I guess.
I may not agree with iGenius but I can?t see how it could be Teckstud. Besides what Quadra stated, iGenius writes paragraphs and complex compound sentence that aren?t making caustic statements about fanboys and Kool-Aid. The name he going by now is Mr. Koolaid.
You're right. He's (probably) not teckstud and frankly I agree with him...sorta.
Apple machines tend to be most cost competitive when a new generation is released and successively begin to suck more in terms of bang for the buck. The 2009 models are essentially 2007 MBP with a speed bump and new bodies. When the 2010 arrandales come out the MBP will again be cost competitive with the HP and Dell equivalents. Just like when the C2D came out in 2007 the MB and MBPs were cost competitive with Dells. In 2012, they'll suck again because traditionally Apple passes along very little of the cost savings.
In the case of the 2009 MBPs a lot got eaten up by the unibody construction costs anyway.
So 2010...good time to buy a MBP.
I still cannot agree with taking benchmarks from random articles, their are just too many factors to benchmarks for that to fly.
I did, until the "nobody can prove to me that..." shtick got going. The OP had by then dropped out of the conversation, I guess.
Where I don't agree is in the 2009 MBP being a 2007 MBP in a new body. I mean for one the 2008 MBP refresh uses an entirely different motherboard and chipset from the 2007 MBP.
But over that time in my profession I can clearly see the evolution. The 2007 MBP could only play the most compressed HD video formats and it still dropped frames. With the 2008 refresh the list of HD playback options expanded considerably. Now with the 2009 refresh, the MBP can pretty much play all compressed HD formats.
This has been a huge change for the film/video industry, only a couple of years ago you could only playback HD on a G5 tower, the PowerBook wasn't an option at all.
You're right. He's (probably) not teckstud and frankly I agree with him...sorta.
Apple machines tend to be most cost competitive when a new generation is released and successively begin to suck more in terms of bang for the buck. The 2009 models are essentially 2007 MBP with a speed bump and new bodies. When the 2010 arrandales come out the MBP will again be cost competitive with the HP and Dell equivalents. Just like when the C2D came out in 2007 the MB and MBPs were cost competitive with Dells. In 2012, they'll suck again because traditionally Apple passes along very little of the cost savings.
In the case of the 2009 MBPs a lot got eaten up by the unibody construction costs anyway.
So 2010...good time to buy a MBP.
Just to set the record straight, the first Apple product I bought was in 1984. Were you born then?
1957
i got my first mac in 1989
i misunderstood your bravado
you can put the fastest anything thing in the grayest box and my mbp 15" will still out perform your
homemade contraption
day in and day out
ease of use
plug and play all day
Fine. I agree.
Dollar-for-dollar, based upon objective criteria, the MacBook Pro is the best performing laptop on the market. Indeed, it is the best performing sub-$4500 gaming laptop on the market, and at the low price set by Apple, it is a bargain.
I'm done.
that is what i was trying to tell you dude !!! i am sorry i can't explain my self better
i own 5 mac laptops and all the older ones suck bad when it comes to screen beauty and rendering speed compared to the late 09 MBP'S.
my god dude you rock !!
peace
9
It?s not a gaming laptop.
i play all games at high settings except crysis . And i wear fire proof pants to deal with the heat
You're right. He's (probably) not teckstud and frankly I agree with him...sorta.
Apple machines tend to be most cost competitive when a new generation is released and successively begin to suck more in terms of bang for the buck. The 2009 models are essentially 2007 MBP with a speed bump and new bodies. When the 2010 arrandales come out the MBP will again be cost competitive with the HP and Dell equivalents. Just like when the C2D came out in 2007 the MB and MBPs were cost competitive with Dells. In 2012, they'll suck again because traditionally Apple passes along very little of the cost savings.
In the case of the 2009 MBPs a lot got eaten up by the unibody construction costs anyway.
So 2010...good time to buy a MBP.
the unibody is cheaper over all than the old labor intensive way of making a laptop.
and economies of scale continue to reduce the over all price \\except for the price of alum which may sky rocket if apple continues to sell so many units .
You're right. He's (probably) not teckstud and frankly I agree with him...sorta.
You are a brave man, Vinea...sorta.
I suppose I need to parse my comment down to an extremely specific meaning. Apple doesn't work to make the fastest computers, Apple works to make the most usable computers. Usability includes various different factors. With a notebook when you factor in size, weight, battery life, as well as speed. No one makes a comparable machine at a lower price.
Damn. Had you said that in the first place, I would not have argued. You're saying that overall, the combination of attributes embodied by the MacBook best satisfies what you want.
You are welcome to come to that conclusion. Me, I gave up a bit of size/weight (there certainly ARE lighter 15 inch laptops) in order to get added (ahem) performance and a lower price. I neither got the budget Dell Inspiron nor the overpriced Dell XPS.
I got a pretty light, pretty good looking, well provisioned and equipped laptop with blazing (ahem) performance, all at a surprisingly low price. Everything in life is compromises, and given the guts of this machine, I think I made a good choice. Maybe after lugging around the extra 7 ounces for a few months I'll regret my decision. But I doubt it.
I've been looking around at i7 benchmark tests. Primarily all of the tests compare i7 against Quad Core Penryn. They are using tests that emphasis multithreading which plays to the strength of quad processors. So of course i7 will kill those tests. At points where the test is not taking advantage of multithreading i7 is only slightly if any faster.
Your sacrifice for an i7 machine is not size/weight it was in battery life.
Anandtech is finding that i5 with hyperthreading is providing better performance gains than i7 for notebooks, with minimal hit in battery life.
Arrandale is going to deliver the single largest performance improvement we've seen from a new mobile processor in years. Hyper-Threading brings the many of the benefits of having a quad-core processor without the added power consumption. Turbo is also extremely useful in mobile since it's one of the most TDP-constrained environments you can imagine.
anandtech
Damn. Had you said that in the first place, I would not have argued. You're saying that overall, the combination of attributes embodied by the MacBook best satisfies what you want.
You are welcome to come to that conclusion. Me, I gave up a bit of size/weight (there certainly ARE lighter 15 inch laptops) in order to get added (ahem) performance and a lower price. I neither got the budget Dell Inspiron nor the overpriced Dell XPS.
I got a pretty light, pretty good looking, well provisioned and equipped laptop with blazing (ahem) performance, all at a surprisingly low price. Everything in life is compromises, and given the guts of this machine, I think I made a good choice. Maybe after lugging around the extra 7 ounces for a few months I'll regret my decision. But I doubt it.
iphone OS is very nice to see.But can you please tell me how can I installed the OS in my computer?
you have said all this backwards and wrong
but your point is weirdly true.................
Could you please preview your posts and read them to yourself aloud before hitting that submit button.
I'm asking, not telling
You're right. He's (probably) not teckstud and frankly I agree with him...sorta.
Apple machines tend to be most cost competitive when a new generation is released and successively begin to suck more in terms of bang for the buck. The 2009 models are essentially 2007 MBP with a speed bump and new bodies. When the 2010 arrandales come out the MBP will again be cost competitive with the HP and Dell equivalents. Just like when the C2D came out in 2007 the MB and MBPs were cost competitive with Dells. In 2012, they'll suck again because traditionally Apple passes along very little of the cost savings.
In the case of the 2009 MBPs a lot got eaten up by the unibody construction costs anyway.
So 2010...good time to buy a MBP.
I'm hoping they are here on the 27th....hoping.
hey troll boy
MY
15" MBP 3.02GHz 500G 7200 rpm 3 chip setup proves you as a silly little man with no money to buy an apple machine.
my laptop out performs all of them except for the monster Allen ware $4500 lap top which is a suit case in reality . Your genius has walked around making agitating silly statements allover the place .
Come to my house your rudeness and play call of duty at full graphics and see no blur no lost frames full sync on every frame .
you had your giggle
we are all amused since you're the first jerk to come here and play these funny sarcasm games
ha ha
happy new year and i hope you get your first mac soon dude
lmao lol, thats what $2500?
check out sagers laptops at the same price as your, the large difference is screen res, better processor, stronger graphics lol at the same price.
as well, ALIENWARE SUCKS BALLS
u pay like $500 xtra for the case
Again, I was responding to "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
"measurable and quantifiable" are the criteria that the delusional one wanted, and so that's the criteria I focused on. Listen - I'll admit that the MBP is very pretty and sleek. It is a beauty queen.
But the Mac-Gamer guy wanted performance specs, so that's what I focused on. I quoted two reviews from the same publication using the same benchmark tests. The quad-core Dell trounced the duo-core Mac (Duh - what a surprise!) and the idiot couldn't accept that his delusions were at odds with objective reality.
And he wouldn't accept that Apple does not make high-end laptops (performance-wise), but instead they use last-year's tech and put it in a nice package.
Yes - Apple products are pretty. Yes - Apple products are well engineered. Yes - Apple products are satisfying.
But the performance/price ratio is NOT superior to the alternatives. And until Apple catches up, anybody looking for a high-end (meaning high-performance) laptop should look elsewhere, and anyone looking for bang for the buck should look elsewhere.
agreed lol, just get a computer thats components worth with OSX and then install OSX, congrats u saved 1000-1500 dollars and can have both OS's (and linux 2 if u want XD)