The XPS has the better display...that surprised me! I know it’s higher-res, but that isn’t everything. But more color accurate than the Mac too! I thought Apple led the industry in product display quality...apparently not.
It isn't more color accurate... the article has an error. P3 is a wider gamut than sRGB.
k4ever said: ... once the smoke and mirrors clear you find that there is absolutely nothing special or advantageous about Apple's implementation.
I'd restate that a bit. Once the smoke and mirrors clear, maybe we'll find that some other high-end PC implementations match what Apple has done, but the average PC typically won't. The problem in this case, though, is as Apple goes to more and more custom hardware, even that might not be the case.
k4ever said: I also love how they respond with something that sounds really technical and cool at first blush (like offloading overhead to the T2 chip), only to find out that it really doesn't matter to performance in the long run. ... I already posted my SSD speed, in which my 2016 Windows laptop trounced the 2016 MBP, which had the fastest SSD ever tested in a laptop at the time!
Well, the T2 is about more than just performance, but I can't help but think that offloading that has to help some, even if it is quite small.
Second, you're talking about a 2016 MBP, which is fair in that you're comparing your 2016 PC... but we're talking about 2018. If the argument is that some PC laptops are more upgradable, and that by later adding more recent, improved hardware, will make them faster... no contest. I'm not sure anyone is arguing the contrary.
Yes, PCs are typically a bit cheaper, often more upgradable, and sometimes even faster if you pick just the right components. Then, the problem comes down to that they generally don't run macOS.
I've built PCs (especially worked on high-end PC servers) for years. If I didn't mind mucking with a Hackintosh, I'd probably have one. A friend of mine still has a box that would kill anything stock Apple, except possibly the new iMac Pro... and he built it several years ago. I prefer the 'off-the-shelf' nature of Apple's hardware and software combo. It costs a bit more, but my time and frustration are worth it.
I spoke about the 2016 MBP to prove a point. Two years ago I was ready to purchase a new laptop for the first time in over 5 years, and was considering a 2015-2016 MBP or one of the new thin Windows gaming laptops. I spec'd out the MBP, but noticed that the price was too high for the components and that GPU was not good for gaming (one of my requirements). When I discussed this with others in another Apple centric forum, and how I thought that Apple had lost its way, someone starting into me about how gaming laptops didn't look professional and that Apple put better components in the MBP. Then that person really started going on and on about the 2016 MBP's SSD. When I mentioned that I could probably get the same SSD for the gaming laptop and get the same performance, he told me I was wrong. I wasn't, and I am glad I didn't listen to him. I would have a slower laptop (the 2016 MBP) that was not upgradeable, it would have cost me well over $1000 USD more, and I would not be able to game on it.
I have very few issues with someone wanting to run MacOS or any of Apple's software, although I think that MacOS is too limited. I run Linux for Christ's sake! My major issue is with Apple's hardware. Ever since Apple moved to Intel's x86 processors (and finally ditched PPC processors) there has been absolutely no difference, with the exception of aesthetics, between Apple's computers and Windows PCs. Why do you think you could suddenly run Windows natively on an Apple computer after the switch? Because they use the EXACT SAME HARDWARE! However, Apple makes little tweaks to cripple their computers in order to lock their users in, then charges a premium for the same hardware. Apple didn't go with custom SSD chips to benefit anyone but themselves, just like their failed experiment with PPC and Firewire which were used instead of Intel x86 and USB primarily to benefit Apple. They give us a bunch of meaningless technical jargon and useless (doctored) benchmarks in order to try and prove their locked in hardware is better, but it almost always is not. History has proven that time and time again.
I have to utmost respect for you in building a Hackintosh. That way you get better hardware, plus the software you love to use, without having to pay the Apple tax or deal with Apple lock in. Good luck and don't believe the hype! If more people thought about how well their computers ran and how much they cost instead of how good they looked, that would compel Apple to give them better hardware for less instead of parlor tricks.
k4ever said: I spoke about the 2016 MBP to prove a point. Two years ago I was ready to purchase a new laptop for the first time in over 5 years, and was considering a 2015-2016 MBP or one of the new thin Windows gaming laptops. I spec'd out the MBP, but noticed that the price was too high for the components and that GPU was not good for gaming (one of my requirements). When I discussed this with others in another Apple centric forum, and how I thought that Apple had lost its way, someone starting into me about how gaming laptops didn't look professional and that Apple put better components in the MBP. Then that person really started going on and on about the 2016 MBP's SSD. When I mentioned that I could probably get the same SSD for the gaming laptop and get the same performance, he told me I was wrong. I wasn't, and I am glad I didn't listen to him. I would have a slower laptop (the 2016 MBP) that was not upgradeable, it would have cost me well over $1000 USD more, and I would not be able to game on it.
Ahh, I see. I guess my only rebuttal would be that some of Apple's implementations are superior at least initially (which I think you indicated as well... they make deals and get parts earlier). They've been slipping on this some lately. They used to be the first to get the latest and greatest from Intel into machines, too.
But, yes, in terms of pure hardware.... you can often do better, at least after a little while. That said, people often tend to compare PC hardware that doesn't have all the stuff Apple puts in when doing the price analysis. After you create a proper 'apples to apples' comparison, often the price gap isn't as much as some think. Though, as you spec-up of the Mac, the gap gets wider. I usually end up with an entry level model, or one with just the RAM/storage bumped up a bit... and feel I'm coming out pretty well price-wise.
k4ever said: I have very few issues with someone wanting to run MacOS or any of Apple's software, although I think that MacOS is too limited. I run Linux for Christ's sake! My major issue is with Apple's hardware. Ever since Apple moved to Intel's x86 processors (and finally ditched PPC processors) there has been absolutely no difference, with the exception of aesthetics, between Apple's computers and Windows PCs. Why do you think you could suddenly run Windows natively on an Apple computer after the switch? Because they use the EXACT SAME HARDWARE! However, Apple makes little tweaks to cripple their computers in order to lock their users in, then charges a premium for the same hardware. Apple didn't go with custom SSD chips to benefit anyone but themselves, just like their failed experiment with PPC and Firewire which were used instead of Intel x86 and USB primarily to benefit Apple. They give us a bunch of meaningless technical jargon and useless (doctored) benchmarks in order to try and prove their locked in hardware is better, but it almost always is not. History has proven that time and time again.
Yeah, I've used Linux/Unix on servers and built a MythTV box several years back. I'm not kept my toe in that water lately, but the problem is on the software application side. Most of what I need to run is Mac (and possibly available for Windows, or alternatives are available there). And, I find the workflow for the things I do to be better in the Mac eco-system.
Yes, post switch to Intel, a Mac has become a few specific PC builds, for better or worse. But, like I said above, Apple usually uses higher end (at least quality) components and sometimes has some performance advantages due to their component choice and setup. It can be matched on the PC side if one chooses to do so... but custom Apple chips of late might impact that.
Pre-move to Intel, it was a tossup. At times Intel was faster, at times PPC. Just before the switch, the G5 was actually beating anything on Intel. People with stock G5 PowerMacs were beating out the highest-end custom-build (even liquid cooled, overclocked units) on the PC side. Apple just recognized the supply problems, and I suppose, the compatibility benefit of going x86. (A lot of us us VMs, for example to run Unix, Windows, and macOS VMs.)
FireWire was an interesting move, as it was far superior to USB, but just never took off quite like everyone hoped. Now USB has become pretty good... though I think, again, TB3 is superior (not just in speed, but stability, etc.).
k4ever said: I have to utmost respect for you in building a Hackintosh. That way you get better hardware, plus the software you love to use, without having to pay the Apple tax or deal with Apple lock in. Good luck and don't believe the hype! If more people thought about how well their computers ran and how much they cost instead of how good they looked, that would compel Apple to give them better hardware for less instead of parlor tricks.
Oh, sorry, that was my friend. I've never attempted to build one (yet), though have strongly considered it. The problem is that he typical limits updating his system to about 2x per year (which is getting more risky in terms of security threats), as it takes him about a half-day each time. And, there have been times, when (for example) he's had to go without Ethernet for several days or things like that.
I just don't want that hassle. It's worth a couple hundred dollars just to have Apple stuff. My main problem, as of late, is that Apple isn't building the stuff any longer to have. I really, really want a prosumer level desktop. The only thing Apple really has is the 2013 Mac Pro, which is pricy-prosumer (now thanks to discounts), but quite behind on port technology and GPU. And, to throw salt in that wound, they disabled TB2 eGPU support (though you can hack around that).
So, I'm considering something like a 2018 MBP 13" with eGPU... or maybe a base 2013 Mac Pro and hack a eGPU on if I need it.... but then the Hackintosh starts looking more attractive. But, building a super quiet, well-designed PC isn't cake-walk either.
The article should be corrected / updated for the following points.
"The MacBook's screen is slightly larger and uses a 16:10 format resulting in extra vertical space"
The screen cannot be both larger and taller. It is taller, but less large. 16:10 = 1,6, which is smaller, not larger, than 16/9 = 1,77.
"The MacBook Pro comes out at an accurate 500 nits of brightness, so it will be much better for outdoor use."
The high brightness is not only very useful outside. I use my MBP only indoor, in a normally lit room, yet always close to the maximum during the day.
"The XPS features a beautiful 4K display, which obviously tops the MacBook Pro's 2.5K display."
The human eye is unable to distinguish such small pixels. Misleading and baseless marketing aside, 4K does not best 2.5K on a 13" laptop screen.
"The XPS has a better display"
As measured by notebookcheck, the Dell has much worse contrast, Colorchecker Delta E2000, black levels, Greyscale Delta E2000 and Brightness Distribution scores. Claiming that the Dell screen is better factors in only partiel elements and as a result, is unwarranted.
@Vadimyuryev - The 'Screens' section of the article needs some error corrections... see the above few posts, but especially the point about sRGB vs P3.
The article should be corrected / updated for the following points.
"The MacBook's screen is slightly larger and uses a 16:10 format resulting in extra vertical space"
The screen cannot be both larger and taller. It is taller, but less large…
Wow! You've made a total of 4 posts as of this writing and they're all filled with false data.
13.3" 16:9 for the XPS translates to 29.44cm(w) × 16.56cm(h) = 487.64cm²(a)
13.3" 16:10 for the MBP translates to 28.65cm(w) × 17.90cm(h) = 512.91cm²(a)
Which is the greater length: 16.56cm or 17.90cm? Which is the greater area? 487.64cm² or 512.91cm²?
Perhaps you'll remember this from grade school: A square provides the greatest area for a given perimeter. In other words, the more you diverge from the square the less area you have for a given diagonal distance between the furthest points on a rectangle.
Still don't believe me? Here is what a square display would look like:
13.3" 1:1 display translates to 23.89cm(w) × 23.89cm(h) = 570.61cm²(a)
PS: Before you try to claim that you're talking about virtual area with pixel counts, keep in mind that you specifically references aspect ratios.
Comments
I have very few issues with someone wanting to run MacOS or any of Apple's software, although I think that MacOS is too limited. I run Linux for Christ's sake! My major issue is with Apple's hardware. Ever since Apple moved to Intel's x86 processors (and finally ditched PPC processors) there has been absolutely no difference, with the exception of aesthetics, between Apple's computers and Windows PCs. Why do you think you could suddenly run Windows natively on an Apple computer after the switch? Because they use the EXACT SAME HARDWARE! However, Apple makes little tweaks to cripple their computers in order to lock their users in, then charges a premium for the same hardware. Apple didn't go with custom SSD chips to benefit anyone but themselves, just like their failed experiment with PPC and Firewire which were used instead of Intel x86 and USB primarily to benefit Apple. They give us a bunch of meaningless technical jargon and useless (doctored) benchmarks in order to try and prove their locked in hardware is better, but it almost always is not. History has proven that time and time again.
I have to utmost respect for you in building a Hackintosh. That way you get better hardware, plus the software you love to use, without having to pay the Apple tax or deal with Apple lock in. Good luck and don't believe the hype! If more people thought about how well their computers ran and how much they cost instead of how good they looked, that would compel Apple to give them better hardware for less instead of parlor tricks.
But, yes, in terms of pure hardware.... you can often do better, at least after a little while. That said, people often tend to compare PC hardware that doesn't have all the stuff Apple puts in when doing the price analysis. After you create a proper 'apples to apples' comparison, often the price gap isn't as much as some think. Though, as you spec-up of the Mac, the gap gets wider. I usually end up with an entry level model, or one with just the RAM/storage bumped up a bit... and feel I'm coming out pretty well price-wise.
Yeah, I've used Linux/Unix on servers and built a MythTV box several years back. I'm not kept my toe in that water lately, but the problem is on the software application side. Most of what I need to run is Mac (and possibly available for Windows, or alternatives are available there). And, I find the workflow for the things I do to be better in the Mac eco-system.
Yes, post switch to Intel, a Mac has become a few specific PC builds, for better or worse. But, like I said above, Apple usually uses higher end (at least quality) components and sometimes has some performance advantages due to their component choice and setup. It can be matched on the PC side if one chooses to do so... but custom Apple chips of late might impact that.
Pre-move to Intel, it was a tossup. At times Intel was faster, at times PPC. Just before the switch, the G5 was actually beating anything on Intel. People with stock G5 PowerMacs were beating out the highest-end custom-build (even liquid cooled, overclocked units) on the PC side. Apple just recognized the supply problems, and I suppose, the compatibility benefit of going x86. (A lot of us us VMs, for example to run Unix, Windows, and macOS VMs.)
FireWire was an interesting move, as it was far superior to USB, but just never took off quite like everyone hoped. Now USB has become pretty good... though I think, again, TB3 is superior (not just in speed, but stability, etc.).
Oh, sorry, that was my friend. I've never attempted to build one (yet), though have strongly considered it. The problem is that he typical limits updating his system to about 2x per year (which is getting more risky in terms of security threats), as it takes him about a half-day each time. And, there have been times, when (for example) he's had to go without Ethernet for several days or things like that.
I just don't want that hassle. It's worth a couple hundred dollars just to have Apple stuff. My main problem, as of late, is that Apple isn't building the stuff any longer to have. I really, really want a prosumer level desktop. The only thing Apple really has is the 2013 Mac Pro, which is pricy-prosumer (now thanks to discounts), but quite behind on port technology and GPU. And, to throw salt in that wound, they disabled TB2 eGPU support (though you can hack around that).
So, I'm considering something like a 2018 MBP 13" with eGPU... or maybe a base 2013 Mac Pro and hack a eGPU on if I need it.... but then the Hackintosh starts looking more attractive. But, building a super quiet, well-designed PC isn't cake-walk either.
Which is the greater length: 16.56cm or 17.90cm?
Which is the greater area? 487.64cm² or 512.91cm²?
Perhaps you'll remember this from grade school: A square provides the greatest area for a given perimeter. In other words, the more you diverge from the square the less area you have for a given diagonal distance between the furthest points on a rectangle.
Still don't believe me? Here is what a square display would look like:
PS: Before you try to claim that you're talking about virtual area with pixel counts, keep in mind that you specifically references aspect ratios.