It's only 1.5 inches thick instead of 2.5 LOL. I never said macs were ugly, just over priced.
This is a prime example of your previous price comparisons being off. We can't really put a price tag on what it costs to engineer a machine to under an inch as opposed to 2.5" and make them lighter and more durable. You can say it doesn't cost much, but if that is so then why don't other companies do it with all their machines? Why do the ones that do it typically charge more than Apple for that engineering (e.g.: MBA, Dell Adamo, Lenovo X300).
There are so many 'intangibles' that can't get priced out or put on spec sheets but all add to the quality and usability of the machine. These comparisons are like Frankenstein's Monster, but the sum of the parts does make a whole. There is more to it than that.
Regarding your example, above, i can't find data on the type of display? Is it IPS what is the viewing angle, etc? These are important to people that tend to buy 17" MBPs. What about the machine's environmental rating? This doesn't concern a lot of people but these things do cost more to produce, if they didn't I think they would be more common. Apple makes the greenest PCs by a large margin and they have to as a marketing tactic now that they are in the spotlight which has made them a target for Green Peace. The engineers of that notebook you posted only has to follow local laws that the machine will be released. Which brings up another issue, since Apple is really just an overgrown boutique PC maker who has a limited product catalog they like to make their products as international as possible, so they try to make each machine follow the laws of all countries they work in. Even the OS starts off by having you select a language. The only real differences are the power supply and keyboard layout, both of which I'm sure Jobs hates, which is why I doubt we'll see any Apple-made physical keyboard for the iPhone. Also, don't forget the battery. How good is it in that PC you link to? The new MBP gets 8 hours. It has the trade off of requiring 10 screws to get to the battery, but that is really an issue for the few that change their batteries often.
Quote:
They want 1000 bucks to upgrade from 4gb to 8gb of ram. Please explain that to me because I don't understand it. Ram is supposed to be cheaper these days. 8gb of pc laptop ram doesn't come close to 1000 bucks. (And keep in mind thats 1000 bucks extra going from 4gb already. What would they charge if they sold the ram alone?)
Apple has dropped their outrageous RAM upgrades over the last couple years. The charge of $1000 over the $700 that Newegg charges isn't much. Newegg is only 30% less. First of all, it's Newegg, and secondly 3rd-party RAM is always a lot cheaper from 3rd-parties than OEMs. Dell charges $800 for 8GB, but then again Dell isn't in the position of dominating the high-end of the notebook market. These costs are high and you can get them cheaper elsewhere, but like with all businesses you are paying for a convenience.
When I bought my MacBook I got the 4GB upgrade from Apple instead of buying it from a 3rd-party. For starters, the price difference at the time was under $30 and the whole system is warranted. If the RAM fails, which it has before, Apple will send me a shipping box or I can take into an Apple store for service. This isn't true with internet purchased 3rd-party RAM. I can send it in on my own dime and get it replaced, but that isn't as convenient. Is that worth $30 to me? Hell yes! Does that have to be worth $30 to you? Of course not. Does the 8GB upgrade have to be the same value to you and others? No.
Personally, I don't see anyone but a professional needing 8GB and $300 for that convenience probably wouldn't be a big deal to them, and I bet that is who that is marketed for. I'd like to think that Apple's RAM is a little faster than the ones sold on Newegg or that it's better tested before getting that Apple sticker on it, but I have no evidence to support that, only anecdotal evidence that cheap 3rd-party RAM has given me trouble with Macs and non-Mac PCs over the years.
I'm in no way trying to push these laptops on anyone, just responding to what you said about them all being made of cheap hardware.
Don't forget, it's not just about the clockspeed of a CPU or the capacity of a drive. There are many other factors involved with the HW and engineering.
Quote:
Apple definitely has the laptop and notebook market in check. When you look around at a press conference for things like sports and stuff, all the reporters are using a mac. I in no way am saying that the laptops are junk or that PC's are better.
If you need a 17" notebook that doesn't need to be as portable or as durable as the 17" MBP, and will only be used for typical internet and file storing usage then a 17" MBP isn't for you. I don't think anyone is saying that Apple's computers are the only computers people should be using. The idea that Apple could ever have a majority of the OS marketshare is insane. If they had 50% they would have the same PC marketshare of HP and Dell combined. That is just unfathomable to me at their current marketshare.
that asus screen is wuxga so is the mbp. dont know if that's gonna mean it's the same quality or what.
WUXGA only designates the resolution, but that is only one factor to look at when buying a professional machine. Here are just a couple of the major things that one would consider. These are features that do cost more and people are willing to spend more money on if they need it or simply want it.
I'll reiterate, the technology in the MBP may be better, but that doesn't mean that it's needed for the average person. If you need/want a 17" notebook then the one you list above looks like a great deal. I recommend Asus to people all the time. If I were buying a non-Apple notebook I'd probably buy Asus. But comparing only certain superficial aspects of an item doesn't make them the same component.
If you can lug a 17" MBP around you can lug a 1.5" 17" Asus or even a 2.5" 17" HP around. Let's not act like 17" laptops are actually all that portable. 15" wide is huge.
Putting 2.5" in bold red letters is a tad melodramatic. Thickness doesn't mean much to portability. It means a lot for the intangible view of things, the aesthetics and such, but let's not put too much stock into the idea that 1" and 2.5" are world'sapart portability-wise when we've still got a staggering 15" of horizontal space to contend with.
If you can lug a 17" MBP around you can lug a 1.5" 17" Asus or even a 2.5" 17" HP around. Let's not act like 17" laptops are actually all that portable. 15" wide is huge.
Putting 2.5" in bold red letters is a tad melodramatic. Thickness doesn't mean much to portability. It means a lot for the intangible view of things, the aesthetics and such, but let's not put too much stock into the idea that 1" and 2.5" are world'sapart portability-wise when we've still got a staggering 15" of horizontal space to contend with.
"Portable" is an almost-meaningless word.
in his defense, I'm the one who chose to compare to the 17". In retrospect, I probably should have chosen a 15" model or something lol. Can't wait to see what apple has up their sleeve for a netbook.
I was reading an article a few weeks ago saying how they surveyed a bunch of companies and like 85% of them won't upgrade to Windows 7 when it comes out. I can't remember the numbers but a lot of them will be waiting 1-2 years before upgrading. Vista's problems right out of the gate just left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Perhaps when those companies see customer's response to Windows 7, they'll change their mind and upgrade sooner.
Really, there was no reason to release Vista. It was obviously just a way for Microsoft to make some money, just like Windows Millennium. People can argue that DirectX10 games only run on Vista, but it's been proven this is an artificial limitation set by Microsoft to sell Vista. Even games like Crysis had artificial limitations when they came out, where the "Very High" setting was only available to Vista users in-game, but a simple edit to a config file let you run these settings on XP.
Some might argue that Vista is "highly threaded" and as such is better suited for multicore cpu's, but honestly, until we get beyond quad core, you won't see that much of a difference between a quad core machine running xp and a quad core machine running vista.
I know it sounds weird to say Vista was ahead of it's time, but that's not exactly a compliment. Hopefully they learned from it and Windows 7 is the next XP.
Most companies never upgrade to a new OS right away - it's just stupid, until the SW has been tested with it.
That's not something that is unique to Win7 or Vista, but it happened with XP and 2000 as well. If it's proven and stable, companies don't just upgrade "just because".
From a security standpoint, it makes sense to move to Win7, but until everything has been tested, switching over will just cause more harm than good at that point.
I have to actually disagree. As someone who lives in NYC and carries around a notebook quite often. An inch thinner and a pound lighter make a world of difference on your back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat
tonton:
If you can lug a 17" MBP around you can lug a 1.5" 17" Asus or even a 2.5" 17" HP around. Let's not act like 17" laptops are actually all that portable. 15" wide is huge.
Putting 2.5" in bold red letters is a tad melodramatic. Thickness doesn't mean much to portability. It means a lot for the intangible view of things, the aesthetics and such, but let's not put too much stock into the idea that 1" and 2.5" are world'sapart portability-wise when we've still got a staggering 15" of horizontal space to contend with.
Most companies never upgrade to a new OS right away - it's just stupid, until the SW has been tested with it.
We do the same with Mac OS as well. I can't risk problems with our Final Cut/After Effects systems - they are our profit centers. In fact our two Avid systems are still on Tiger. I always wait until other brave users have done my field testing for me.
I have to actually disagree. As someone who lives in NYC and carries around a notebook quite often. An inch thinner and a pound lighter make a world of difference on your back.
In that case you should shave your head, wear water shoes, running shorts, a wife beater, and god forbid you need to carry water with u.
Seriously, do you even know what one pound means? If one pound makes a "world of difference" on your back, you are completely and utterly out of shape.
In that case you should shave your head, wear water shoes, running shorts, a wife beater, and god forbid you need to carry water with u.
Seriously, do you even know what one pound means? If one pound makes a "world of difference" on your back, you are completely and utterly out of shape.
Carrying around weight is a cumulative effect. Something can feel light when you first pick it up. If you have to hold or carry an object long enough your muscles and body will eventually experience fatigue. It has nothing to do with being in or out of shape.
If weight did not matter then why don't people typically buy 10 pound notebooks? Why are smaller and lighter notebooks more popular than the heavier ones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStink
In that case you should shave your head, wear water shoes, running shorts, a wife beater, and god forbid you need to carry water with u.
Seriously, do you even know what one pound means? If one pound makes a "world of difference" on your back, you are completely and utterly out of shape.
That's as far as I got, before dismissing Goldman as a complete idiot. Half-truths are one thing, but complete and utter false BS is another.
Other points he brought are questionable too, it's not like Windows is hurting for freeware, and iTunes/WMP are capable media apps. Even MS' free Live apps are pretty good (blogging, photo gallery, messenger, mail).
I think PS Elements and Paint Shop Pro are less than $100, and more than enough for most home users, and then there is always Gimp, which is cross-platform (and not bad on OSX either).
For A/V, I use Avast or AVG, which are also both free, and haven't used Norton in years.
I could see it if he said iPhoto but nope, he went the whole hog.
That's as far as I got, before dismissing Goldman as a complete idiot. Half-truths are one thing, but complete and utter false BS is another.
Other points he brought are questionable too, it's not like Windows is hurting for freeware, and iTunes/WMP are capable media apps. Even MS' free Live apps are pretty good (blogging, photo gallery, messenger, mail).
I think PS Elements and Paint Shop Pro are less than $100, and more than enough for most home users, and then there is always Gimp, which is cross-platform (and not bad on OSX either).
For A/V, I use Avast or AVG, which are also both free, and haven't used Norton in years.
I could see it if he said iPhoto but nope, he went the whole hog.
The argument that there are free security and anti-virus software for Windows isn't really viable to the average person. If it was, then Amazon's top titles wouldn't always be dominated by Norton, so I agree with that part of it.
The part about Photoshop is very strange. I think what he may have originally intended to say or to mean, since photoshopping is a big of general term these days, is perhaps Apple's included software, iPhoto and Preview will let you do most things with pictures that the average person needs it to do. let's face it, the person watching that report to get real info on buying a computer isn't going to be learning the ins and outs of Photoshop. I think it was meant to be a colloquial term for basic photo editing.
The argument that there are free security and anti-virus software for Windows isn't really viable to the average person. If it was, then Amazon's top titles wouldn't always be dominated by Norton, so I agree with that part of it.
The part about Photoshop is very strange. I think what he may have originally intended to say or to mean, since photoshopping is a big of general term these days, is perhaps Apple's included software, iPhoto and Preview will let you do most things with pictures that the average person needs it to do. let's face it, the person watching that report to get real info on buying a computer isn't going to be learning the ins and outs of Photoshop. I think it was meant to be a colloquial term for basic photo editing.
Regardless, I found it quite humorous.
No, I found it as bad as saying a Windows PC comes with Office, and confusing it with MS Works, Wordpad or Notepad. (it comes with a trial, but that's not the same either).
Other parts of his breakdown make no sense either, like the media SW angle (like music and movie playback). Windows comes with WMP, and Vista Home Premium has DVD playback and Windows Media Center included. With WMC, you can watch and record TV, if you've got a tuner.
The virus/malware aspect I can see for someone like my dad, whom I'm actually trying to talk into getting a Mini once SL comes out to replace his 4 year old Vaio laptop (and there a lot of things he likes about my Mini). I had to remove the Spyware Protect 2009 trojan from his laptop, then mail it back to him. Not hard for me to fix, but hard for him.
The virus/malware aspect I can see for someone like my dad, whom I'm actually trying to talk into getting a Mini once SL comes out to replace his 4 year old Vaio laptop (and there a lot of things he likes about my Mini). I had to remove the Spyware Protect 2009 trojan from his laptop, then mail it back to him. Not hard for me to fix, but hard for him.
If you have a Mac you can do iChat A/V and do screensharing so you can see what he's doing wrong or walk him though some steps. I have BackToMyMac setup on my parents iMac so I can do installs and send them videos that are then synced to their AppleTV. I don't even think they know how the stuff gets on their AppleTV. They probably think I call up and Apple and have them do over it the phone like adding a pay-preview movie on a cable box the old school way.
Um... no. Only one of those is a portable computer you could honestly call a "laptop".
Why don't you compare another slim, light 17" notebook with the MacBook Pro instead of a "desktop replacement" that weighs in at nearly 12 pounds and is 2.5" thick. That would be a fairer comparison. And then you have (hack-free, legal) OS X vs. Windows.
Yeah. Those machines are comparable. Riiiight. As if you don't understand the concept that you can fit more, and cheaper, components into a 2.5" thick enclosure than you can fit in an inch-thick enclosure. And that's not an issue about appearance. The Apple enclosure is FUNCTIONALLY BETTER in the regard that it's immensely more portable. The MacBook Pro is the machine you can take outside of the house on an everyday basis. Would you really want someone to see you in Starbucks with a 2.5" thick notebook?
COmpare the Macbook Pro 17" to the ASUS M70 series I suggested in an earlier post.
The ASUS uses a WUXGA+ 1920x1080 display, LED backlit, glossy screen and IPS display with a very good contrast ratio. It's 1.5" thick. It's made by the OEM who makes many of Apple's products. It has numerous advantages over the MBP. It has a superior warranty. You can run OSX on it hacked. Soon with EFI-X you will be able to maybe run OSX UNHACKED on many PC notebook models.
And the M70 kicks the shit out of the Macbook Pro in many respects for a far lower price. The W90 was not a good comparison, though that thing destroys the Macbook Pro in every way except portability and battery life. The GPU on the Macbook Pro is a JOKE for the asking price. The 9650GT is found on $800 PC notebooks from ASUS, Toshiba and MSI and Apple uses the outdated 9600GT; they probably got the chips cheap from nVidia because it's an older GPU.
ASUS makes a $799 notebook called the N50 series, many which are from $700 to $1049. They have better specs and are far cheaper than the Macbook Pro 15" model. The low end N50 however has a lower resolution display. Again, the $1100 premium on the Macbook Pro is not justified for some aluminum, the apple logo and a magsafe power connector do not cost anywhere near $1000 in cost to Apple. Apple may design their machines, but they sure as hell don't actually manufacture them. They are made by Foxcon, ASUS and Quanta - just like everyone else.
Now if Apple were to put a 9800 GTX with Hybrid power and make the damn thing upgradable easier (read, no 20 screws to replace the hard drive) then we would be talking.
The problem with Apple is their damn margin is too high. It's artificially inflated, like diamonds.
EFI-X is an awesome thing for computer users. Mac OS X without as much of the Apple Tax (you still have to pay $150 to get the dongle though). I love how OSX runs on my Core2QUad system. I am seriously considering using EFI-X to replace our PMG4 systems at the office. Far faster than the Mac Mini, easier to upgrade and FAR cheaper to service.
COmpare the Macbook Pro 17" to the ASUS M70 series I suggested in an earlier post.
You seem to really not understand the engineering challenge of fitting a high-performance machine into a 1" thick laptop vs. a 1.5" laptop. Don't pretend there is no difference when the difference is 50% in thickness.
Now, there are plenty out there who say that Apple could just produce a 1.5" laptop, then. But that's not what the MacBook pro is all about. If you want a 1.5" laptop, and can accept Windows, then get the Asus. If you want a 1" thick laptop, you may be able to find other PCs that fit that form factor, but they will be comparable in price to the MacBook Pro.
Don't pretend you're too ignorant to know the cost of that 0.5" and claim that Apple is ripping you off.
If you can lug a 17" MBP around you can lug a 1.5" 17" Asus or even a 2.5" 17" HP around. Let's not act like 17" laptops are actually all that portable. 15" wide is huge.
Putting 2.5" in bold red letters is a tad melodramatic. Thickness doesn't mean much to portability. It means a lot for the intangible view of things, the aesthetics and such, but let's not put too much stock into the idea that 1" and 2.5" are world'sapart portability-wise when we've still got a staggering 15" of horizontal space to contend with.
That's easy for you to say. You live in Texas. Everything's bigger in Texas!
If you claim the difference between 1" and 2.5" is negligible, you can't honestly claim to have carried laptops around much.
It is indeed a world of difference when you walk further than from your SUV in the parking lot to the Starbuck's, even though both laptops may fit fine in your shoulder bag. Actually, a 17" MacBook Pro would fit in a (large) shoulder bag or briefcase. A 2.5" laptop would take up an entire briefcase by itself, with no room for anything else. Let's see how many papers you can fit in together with your laptop in your briefcase with a MacBook Pro vs. a 2.5" machine.
You seem to really not understand the engineering challenge of fitting a high-performance machine into a 1" thick laptop vs. a 1.5" laptop. Don't pretend there is no difference when the difference is 50% in thickness.
Now, there are plenty out there who say that Apple could just produce a 1.5" laptop, then. But that's not what the MacBook pro is all about. If you want a 1.5" laptop, and can accept Windows, then get the Asus. If you want a 1" thick laptop, you may be able to find other PCs that fit that form factor, but they will be comparable in price to the MacBook Pro.
Don't pretend you're too ignorant to know the cost of that 0.5" and claim that Apple is ripping you off.
0.5" is not worth $1300. I'm sure I'm not in the minority with my opinion here. 2.5" thick is a bit large I agree; 1.5" is not.
the Macbook pro's slimmer form factor comes from a few things:
1: Quanta and Apple decided to use a low profile optical drive. This was a major drawback in the original Macbook Pros because it significantly increased the price of the drive and the original Macbook Pro could not burn DL media (MAJOR drawback). Newer slim-line 9mm drives however burn DL media just fine, though the drive is much more expensive than the standard 12mm drives.
2: Battery is soldered/not easily replaceable
3: CPU is soldered (saves height of the cpu socket, maybe allows for a slimmer heatsink
4: no Expresscard/54 slot (/34 only)
5: no easy replaceable parts (DVD Drive, wifi card and especially hard disk)
6: theoretically the aluminum enclosure makes heat dissipation better, which allows a slimmer notebook. THe Macbook Pro gets hot, just like a standard PC notebook. Same CPU, same GPU, same Chipset.
There are many laptop manufacturers who make slim notebooks. I personally think the whole slim argument is dumb, as $1300 is not worth 0.5" of thickness, some aluminum and a magsafe power connector. Apple seriously needs to do something about their prices of their machines, they are way out of line with the rest of the industry. The only really cool feature I like about the MBPs is the backlit keyboard. This is worth $50 or $100 to me, not $1300.
Considering everything, I would say the Macbook Pro in a 17" should retail for $1699, not $2799.
The 15" should be around $1200.
Keep in mind these prices are still way more than an ASUS with the same or better parts.
Apple has never been about value for the dollar. Their machines are grossly overpriced and are of excessive profit margin. They artificially limit their products (solder batteries, solder cpus, require 20 screws to replace hard disk) to achieve this goal of locking in customers into higher margin products.
I mean why do I need to pay $1000 more to get a ExpressCard/34 slot and FW, which is not fouund on the normal Macbook? This is even on cheap $400 PC notebooks.
Comments
They start off okay but make some major gaffes in their analysis.
lmfao! You're right man. I didn't even acknowledge that.
here try this one.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834220516
It's only 1.5 inches thick instead of 2.5 LOL. I never said macs were ugly, just over priced.
This is a prime example of your previous price comparisons being off. We can't really put a price tag on what it costs to engineer a machine to under an inch as opposed to 2.5" and make them lighter and more durable. You can say it doesn't cost much, but if that is so then why don't other companies do it with all their machines? Why do the ones that do it typically charge more than Apple for that engineering (e.g.: MBA, Dell Adamo, Lenovo X300).
There are so many 'intangibles' that can't get priced out or put on spec sheets but all add to the quality and usability of the machine. These comparisons are like Frankenstein's Monster, but the sum of the parts does make a whole. There is more to it than that.
Regarding your example, above, i can't find data on the type of display? Is it IPS what is the viewing angle, etc? These are important to people that tend to buy 17" MBPs. What about the machine's environmental rating? This doesn't concern a lot of people but these things do cost more to produce, if they didn't I think they would be more common. Apple makes the greenest PCs by a large margin and they have to as a marketing tactic now that they are in the spotlight which has made them a target for Green Peace. The engineers of that notebook you posted only has to follow local laws that the machine will be released. Which brings up another issue, since Apple is really just an overgrown boutique PC maker who has a limited product catalog they like to make their products as international as possible, so they try to make each machine follow the laws of all countries they work in. Even the OS starts off by having you select a language. The only real differences are the power supply and keyboard layout, both of which I'm sure Jobs hates, which is why I doubt we'll see any Apple-made physical keyboard for the iPhone. Also, don't forget the battery. How good is it in that PC you link to? The new MBP gets 8 hours. It has the trade off of requiring 10 screws to get to the battery, but that is really an issue for the few that change their batteries often.
They want 1000 bucks to upgrade from 4gb to 8gb of ram. Please explain that to me because I don't understand it. Ram is supposed to be cheaper these days. 8gb of pc laptop ram doesn't come close to 1000 bucks. (And keep in mind thats 1000 bucks extra going from 4gb already. What would they charge if they sold the ram alone?)
Apple has dropped their outrageous RAM upgrades over the last couple years. The charge of $1000 over the $700 that Newegg charges isn't much. Newegg is only 30% less. First of all, it's Newegg, and secondly 3rd-party RAM is always a lot cheaper from 3rd-parties than OEMs. Dell charges $800 for 8GB, but then again Dell isn't in the position of dominating the high-end of the notebook market. These costs are high and you can get them cheaper elsewhere, but like with all businesses you are paying for a convenience.
When I bought my MacBook I got the 4GB upgrade from Apple instead of buying it from a 3rd-party. For starters, the price difference at the time was under $30 and the whole system is warranted. If the RAM fails, which it has before, Apple will send me a shipping box or I can take into an Apple store for service. This isn't true with internet purchased 3rd-party RAM. I can send it in on my own dime and get it replaced, but that isn't as convenient. Is that worth $30 to me? Hell yes! Does that have to be worth $30 to you? Of course not. Does the 8GB upgrade have to be the same value to you and others? No.
Personally, I don't see anyone but a professional needing 8GB and $300 for that convenience probably wouldn't be a big deal to them, and I bet that is who that is marketed for. I'd like to think that Apple's RAM is a little faster than the ones sold on Newegg or that it's better tested before getting that Apple sticker on it, but I have no evidence to support that, only anecdotal evidence that cheap 3rd-party RAM has given me trouble with Macs and non-Mac PCs over the years.
I'm in no way trying to push these laptops on anyone, just responding to what you said about them all being made of cheap hardware.
Don't forget, it's not just about the clockspeed of a CPU or the capacity of a drive. There are many other factors involved with the HW and engineering.
Apple definitely has the laptop and notebook market in check. When you look around at a press conference for things like sports and stuff, all the reporters are using a mac. I in no way am saying that the laptops are junk or that PC's are better.
If you need a 17" notebook that doesn't need to be as portable or as durable as the 17" MBP, and will only be used for typical internet and file storing usage then a 17" MBP isn't for you. I don't think anyone is saying that Apple's computers are the only computers people should be using. The idea that Apple could ever have a majority of the OS marketshare is insane. If they had 50% they would have the same PC marketshare of HP and Dell combined. That is just unfathomable to me at their current marketshare.
actually the more i look at that asus the more i want to go out and see if i can't find it at a best buy somewhere and see how it performs.
that asus screen is wuxga so is the mbp. dont know if that's gonna mean it's the same quality or what.
WUXGA only designates the resolution, but that is only one factor to look at when buying a professional machine. Here are just a couple of the major things that one would consider. These are features that do cost more and people are willing to spend more money on if they need it or simply want it.I'll reiterate, the technology in the MBP may be better, but that doesn't mean that it's needed for the average person. If you need/want a 17" notebook then the one you list above looks like a great deal. I recommend Asus to people all the time. If I were buying a non-Apple notebook I'd probably buy Asus. But comparing only certain superficial aspects of an item doesn't make them the same component.
Windows Media Center FAIL
OMG EPIC FAIL FTL OMG!
go away
tonton:
If you can lug a 17" MBP around you can lug a 1.5" 17" Asus or even a 2.5" 17" HP around. Let's not act like 17" laptops are actually all that portable. 15" wide is huge.
Putting 2.5" in bold red letters is a tad melodramatic. Thickness doesn't mean much to portability. It means a lot for the intangible view of things, the aesthetics and such, but let's not put too much stock into the idea that 1" and 2.5" are world'sapart portability-wise when we've still got a staggering 15" of horizontal space to contend with.
"Portable" is an almost-meaningless word.
4.05" thick
15.25" wide
14.83" deep
15.8 lbs
If you can lug a 17" MBP around you can lug a 1.5" 17" Asus or even a 2.5" 17" HP around. Let's not act like 17" laptops are actually all that portable. 15" wide is huge.
Putting 2.5" in bold red letters is a tad melodramatic. Thickness doesn't mean much to portability. It means a lot for the intangible view of things, the aesthetics and such, but let's not put too much stock into the idea that 1" and 2.5" are world'sapart portability-wise when we've still got a staggering 15" of horizontal space to contend with.
"Portable" is an almost-meaningless word.
in his defense, I'm the one who chose to compare to the 17". In retrospect, I probably should have chosen a 15" model or something lol. Can't wait to see what apple has up their sleeve for a netbook.
4.05" thick
15.25" wide
14.83" deep
15.8 lbs
plays crysis at enthusiast settings, 60fps avg :X
I was reading an article a few weeks ago saying how they surveyed a bunch of companies and like 85% of them won't upgrade to Windows 7 when it comes out. I can't remember the numbers but a lot of them will be waiting 1-2 years before upgrading. Vista's problems right out of the gate just left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Perhaps when those companies see customer's response to Windows 7, they'll change their mind and upgrade sooner.
Really, there was no reason to release Vista. It was obviously just a way for Microsoft to make some money, just like Windows Millennium. People can argue that DirectX10 games only run on Vista, but it's been proven this is an artificial limitation set by Microsoft to sell Vista. Even games like Crysis had artificial limitations when they came out, where the "Very High" setting was only available to Vista users in-game, but a simple edit to a config file let you run these settings on XP.
Some might argue that Vista is "highly threaded" and as such is better suited for multicore cpu's, but honestly, until we get beyond quad core, you won't see that much of a difference between a quad core machine running xp and a quad core machine running vista.
I know it sounds weird to say Vista was ahead of it's time, but that's not exactly a compliment. Hopefully they learned from it and Windows 7 is the next XP.
Most companies never upgrade to a new OS right away - it's just stupid, until the SW has been tested with it.
That's not something that is unique to Win7 or Vista, but it happened with XP and 2000 as well. If it's proven and stable, companies don't just upgrade "just because".
From a security standpoint, it makes sense to move to Win7, but until everything has been tested, switching over will just cause more harm than good at that point.
tonton:
If you can lug a 17" MBP around you can lug a 1.5" 17" Asus or even a 2.5" 17" HP around. Let's not act like 17" laptops are actually all that portable. 15" wide is huge.
Putting 2.5" in bold red letters is a tad melodramatic. Thickness doesn't mean much to portability. It means a lot for the intangible view of things, the aesthetics and such, but let's not put too much stock into the idea that 1" and 2.5" are world'sapart portability-wise when we've still got a staggering 15" of horizontal space to contend with.
"Portable" is an almost-meaningless word.
Most companies never upgrade to a new OS right away - it's just stupid, until the SW has been tested with it.
We do the same with Mac OS as well. I can't risk problems with our Final Cut/After Effects systems - they are our profit centers. In fact our two Avid systems are still on Tiger. I always wait until other brave users have done my field testing for me.
I have to actually disagree. As someone who lives in NYC and carries around a notebook quite often. An inch thinner and a pound lighter make a world of difference on your back.
In that case you should shave your head, wear water shoes, running shorts, a wife beater, and god forbid you need to carry water with u.
Seriously, do you even know what one pound means? If one pound makes a "world of difference" on your back, you are completely and utterly out of shape.
In that case you should shave your head, wear water shoes, running shorts, a wife beater, and god forbid you need to carry water with u.
Seriously, do you even know what one pound means? If one pound makes a "world of difference" on your back, you are completely and utterly out of shape.
Wow, you are kind of a turd head.
If weight did not matter then why don't people typically buy 10 pound notebooks? Why are smaller and lighter notebooks more popular than the heavier ones?
In that case you should shave your head, wear water shoes, running shorts, a wife beater, and god forbid you need to carry water with u.
Seriously, do you even know what one pound means? If one pound makes a "world of difference" on your back, you are completely and utterly out of shape.
CNBC compares the true cost of Mac v. PC w/Windows.
They start off okay but make some major gaffes in their analysis.
Buy a Mac, get Photoshop.
That's as far as I got, before dismissing Goldman as a complete idiot. Half-truths are one thing, but complete and utter false BS is another.
Other points he brought are questionable too, it's not like Windows is hurting for freeware, and iTunes/WMP are capable media apps. Even MS' free Live apps are pretty good (blogging, photo gallery, messenger, mail).
I think PS Elements and Paint Shop Pro are less than $100, and more than enough for most home users, and then there is always Gimp, which is cross-platform (and not bad on OSX either).
For A/V, I use Avast or AVG, which are also both free, and haven't used Norton in years.
I could see it if he said iPhoto but nope, he went the whole hog.
Buy a Mac, get Photoshop.
That's as far as I got, before dismissing Goldman as a complete idiot. Half-truths are one thing, but complete and utter false BS is another.
Other points he brought are questionable too, it's not like Windows is hurting for freeware, and iTunes/WMP are capable media apps. Even MS' free Live apps are pretty good (blogging, photo gallery, messenger, mail).
I think PS Elements and Paint Shop Pro are less than $100, and more than enough for most home users, and then there is always Gimp, which is cross-platform (and not bad on OSX either).
For A/V, I use Avast or AVG, which are also both free, and haven't used Norton in years.
I could see it if he said iPhoto but nope, he went the whole hog.
The argument that there are free security and anti-virus software for Windows isn't really viable to the average person. If it was, then Amazon's top titles wouldn't always be dominated by Norton, so I agree with that part of it.
The part about Photoshop is very strange. I think what he may have originally intended to say or to mean, since photoshopping is a big of general term these days, is perhaps Apple's included software, iPhoto and Preview will let you do most things with pictures that the average person needs it to do. let's face it, the person watching that report to get real info on buying a computer isn't going to be learning the ins and outs of Photoshop. I think it was meant to be a colloquial term for basic photo editing.
Regardless, I found it quite humorous.
The argument that there are free security and anti-virus software for Windows isn't really viable to the average person. If it was, then Amazon's top titles wouldn't always be dominated by Norton, so I agree with that part of it.
The part about Photoshop is very strange. I think what he may have originally intended to say or to mean, since photoshopping is a big of general term these days, is perhaps Apple's included software, iPhoto and Preview will let you do most things with pictures that the average person needs it to do. let's face it, the person watching that report to get real info on buying a computer isn't going to be learning the ins and outs of Photoshop. I think it was meant to be a colloquial term for basic photo editing.
Regardless, I found it quite humorous.
No, I found it as bad as saying a Windows PC comes with Office, and confusing it with MS Works, Wordpad or Notepad. (it comes with a trial, but that's not the same either).
Other parts of his breakdown make no sense either, like the media SW angle (like music and movie playback). Windows comes with WMP, and Vista Home Premium has DVD playback and Windows Media Center included. With WMC, you can watch and record TV, if you've got a tuner.
The virus/malware aspect I can see for someone like my dad, whom I'm actually trying to talk into getting a Mini once SL comes out to replace his 4 year old Vaio laptop (and there a lot of things he likes about my Mini). I had to remove the Spyware Protect 2009 trojan from his laptop, then mail it back to him. Not hard for me to fix, but hard for him.
The virus/malware aspect I can see for someone like my dad, whom I'm actually trying to talk into getting a Mini once SL comes out to replace his 4 year old Vaio laptop (and there a lot of things he likes about my Mini). I had to remove the Spyware Protect 2009 trojan from his laptop, then mail it back to him. Not hard for me to fix, but hard for him.
If you have a Mac you can do iChat A/V and do screensharing so you can see what he's doing wrong or walk him though some steps. I have BackToMyMac setup on my parents iMac so I can do installs and send them videos that are then synced to their AppleTV. I don't even think they know how the stuff gets on their AppleTV. They probably think I call up and Apple and have them do over it the phone like adding a pay-preview movie on a cable box the old school way.
Um... no. Only one of those is a portable computer you could honestly call a "laptop".
Why don't you compare another slim, light 17" notebook with the MacBook Pro instead of a "desktop replacement" that weighs in at nearly 12 pounds and is 2.5" thick. That would be a fairer comparison. And then you have (hack-free, legal) OS X vs. Windows.
Yeah. Those machines are comparable. Riiiight. As if you don't understand the concept that you can fit more, and cheaper, components into a 2.5" thick enclosure than you can fit in an inch-thick enclosure. And that's not an issue about appearance. The Apple enclosure is FUNCTIONALLY BETTER in the regard that it's immensely more portable. The MacBook Pro is the machine you can take outside of the house on an everyday basis. Would you really want someone to see you in Starbucks with a 2.5" thick notebook?
COmpare the Macbook Pro 17" to the ASUS M70 series I suggested in an earlier post.
The ASUS uses a WUXGA+ 1920x1080 display, LED backlit, glossy screen and IPS display with a very good contrast ratio. It's 1.5" thick. It's made by the OEM who makes many of Apple's products. It has numerous advantages over the MBP. It has a superior warranty. You can run OSX on it hacked. Soon with EFI-X you will be able to maybe run OSX UNHACKED on many PC notebook models.
And the M70 kicks the shit out of the Macbook Pro in many respects for a far lower price. The W90 was not a good comparison, though that thing destroys the Macbook Pro in every way except portability and battery life. The GPU on the Macbook Pro is a JOKE for the asking price. The 9650GT is found on $800 PC notebooks from ASUS, Toshiba and MSI and Apple uses the outdated 9600GT; they probably got the chips cheap from nVidia because it's an older GPU.
ASUS makes a $799 notebook called the N50 series, many which are from $700 to $1049. They have better specs and are far cheaper than the Macbook Pro 15" model. The low end N50 however has a lower resolution display. Again, the $1100 premium on the Macbook Pro is not justified for some aluminum, the apple logo and a magsafe power connector do not cost anywhere near $1000 in cost to Apple. Apple may design their machines, but they sure as hell don't actually manufacture them. They are made by Foxcon, ASUS and Quanta - just like everyone else.
Now if Apple were to put a 9800 GTX with Hybrid power and make the damn thing upgradable easier (read, no 20 screws to replace the hard drive) then we would be talking.
The problem with Apple is their damn margin is too high. It's artificially inflated, like diamonds.
EFI-X is an awesome thing for computer users. Mac OS X without as much of the Apple Tax (you still have to pay $150 to get the dongle though). I love how OSX runs on my Core2QUad system. I am seriously considering using EFI-X to replace our PMG4 systems at the office. Far faster than the Mac Mini, easier to upgrade and FAR cheaper to service.
COmpare the Macbook Pro 17" to the ASUS M70 series I suggested in an earlier post.
You seem to really not understand the engineering challenge of fitting a high-performance machine into a 1" thick laptop vs. a 1.5" laptop. Don't pretend there is no difference when the difference is 50% in thickness.
Now, there are plenty out there who say that Apple could just produce a 1.5" laptop, then. But that's not what the MacBook pro is all about. If you want a 1.5" laptop, and can accept Windows, then get the Asus. If you want a 1" thick laptop, you may be able to find other PCs that fit that form factor, but they will be comparable in price to the MacBook Pro.
Don't pretend you're too ignorant to know the cost of that 0.5" and claim that Apple is ripping you off.
If you can lug a 17" MBP around you can lug a 1.5" 17" Asus or even a 2.5" 17" HP around. Let's not act like 17" laptops are actually all that portable. 15" wide is huge.
Putting 2.5" in bold red letters is a tad melodramatic. Thickness doesn't mean much to portability. It means a lot for the intangible view of things, the aesthetics and such, but let's not put too much stock into the idea that 1" and 2.5" are world'sapart portability-wise when we've still got a staggering 15" of horizontal space to contend with.
That's easy for you to say. You live in Texas.
If you claim the difference between 1" and 2.5" is negligible, you can't honestly claim to have carried laptops around much.
It is indeed a world of difference when you walk further than from your SUV in the parking lot to the Starbuck's, even though both laptops may fit fine in your shoulder bag. Actually, a 17" MacBook Pro would fit in a (large) shoulder bag or briefcase. A 2.5" laptop would take up an entire briefcase by itself, with no room for anything else. Let's see how many papers you can fit in together with your laptop in your briefcase with a MacBook Pro vs. a 2.5" machine.
You seem to really not understand the engineering challenge of fitting a high-performance machine into a 1" thick laptop vs. a 1.5" laptop. Don't pretend there is no difference when the difference is 50% in thickness.
Now, there are plenty out there who say that Apple could just produce a 1.5" laptop, then. But that's not what the MacBook pro is all about. If you want a 1.5" laptop, and can accept Windows, then get the Asus. If you want a 1" thick laptop, you may be able to find other PCs that fit that form factor, but they will be comparable in price to the MacBook Pro.
Don't pretend you're too ignorant to know the cost of that 0.5" and claim that Apple is ripping you off.
0.5" is not worth $1300. I'm sure I'm not in the minority with my opinion here. 2.5" thick is a bit large I agree; 1.5" is not.
the Macbook pro's slimmer form factor comes from a few things:
1: Quanta and Apple decided to use a low profile optical drive. This was a major drawback in the original Macbook Pros because it significantly increased the price of the drive and the original Macbook Pro could not burn DL media (MAJOR drawback). Newer slim-line 9mm drives however burn DL media just fine, though the drive is much more expensive than the standard 12mm drives.
2: Battery is soldered/not easily replaceable
3: CPU is soldered (saves height of the cpu socket, maybe allows for a slimmer heatsink
4: no Expresscard/54 slot (/34 only)
5: no easy replaceable parts (DVD Drive, wifi card and especially hard disk)
6: theoretically the aluminum enclosure makes heat dissipation better, which allows a slimmer notebook. THe Macbook Pro gets hot, just like a standard PC notebook. Same CPU, same GPU, same Chipset.
There are many laptop manufacturers who make slim notebooks. I personally think the whole slim argument is dumb, as $1300 is not worth 0.5" of thickness, some aluminum and a magsafe power connector. Apple seriously needs to do something about their prices of their machines, they are way out of line with the rest of the industry. The only really cool feature I like about the MBPs is the backlit keyboard. This is worth $50 or $100 to me, not $1300.
Considering everything, I would say the Macbook Pro in a 17" should retail for $1699, not $2799.
The 15" should be around $1200.
Keep in mind these prices are still way more than an ASUS with the same or better parts.
Apple has never been about value for the dollar. Their machines are grossly overpriced and are of excessive profit margin. They artificially limit their products (solder batteries, solder cpus, require 20 screws to replace hard disk) to achieve this goal of locking in customers into higher margin products.
I mean why do I need to pay $1000 more to get a ExpressCard/34 slot and FW, which is not fouund on the normal Macbook? This is even on cheap $400 PC notebooks.