I hope Apple wakes up and realizes they don't need to extort such high prices for their hardware. Any company that has $18 billion in the bank has way too much profit margin!
I imagine if someone did benchmarks between these two machines, would totally kill the premise of this ad.
Someone should. Its as if they wanted to pick the worst possible comparison for Microsoft. Who paid the maker of this ad?
I mean you could have found a machine with great specs and battery life or even gone with a gaming machine or a machine with a built in TV tuner, lots of ports, card readers, etco talk about the extra value you get with the PC.
Instead, they choose this HP machine. There has to be some kind of speed comparison cross platform somewhere right?
Or can we get a comparison on the mac with parallels or bootcamp...
I agree with your points. But further proof someone like you should have written the ad. Note the Blueray option, the dedicated GPU for games, maybe wider range of PC software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
I am not sure what was worse, the commercial or AI's critique?
So much time was spent talking about differences in memory speeds, which probably don't have a huge affect on performance, but AI conveniently ignored the fact that the HP has a dedicated GPU. The GPU could have a substantially bigger impact on performance depending on how the machine is used.
Also, the guy doesn't state he wants the longest battery life. He asks which laptop has the best battery life that meets his needs. He clearly indicated a preference for size and power which of course, reduce battery life.
Hours installing antivirus and antispyware programs? Yeah right. Vista comes with Windows Defender so antispyware isn't needed and a antivirus program doesn't take more than 15 minutes to install. It will come with OS updates turned on so conflicker is a non-issue. If he runs most of time as a standard user not as an admin (same as what OS X users should do) he won't have malware problems.
Can't argue about the low pixel density on the screen. Although I will say many will see that as advantage because it makes the screen much easier to read. But at least this machine has some options in that regard. Does the MacBook?
And what about the HP's firewire port, express card slot, HDMI out and, from what I can tell from their web site, an optical drive with Blu-ray capability? Don't see those on the MacBook anywhere.
Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't buy one of those things. I have a 2.2Ghz BlackBook and it works great for me. But I do miss some of the options that are seen on the HP. I would love the current MacBook if it had FW, HDMI out and a BD drive. I would easily trade the LED backlit display for those things.
What it comes down to is choices. Apple has made design decisions with their products and have given very few options to meet various needs. Meanwhile, their competitors continue to sell a lot of machines with a clearly inferior OS because they give people hardware choices at a reasonable cost. And for some, that is enough. It doesn't make them wrong or stupid. It just means that they want different things from their computing experience.
Let's compare shopping at Fry's and shopping at the Apple store or even Best Buy. Fry's has an extremely strict return policy and it's clear that they don't welcome returns even with defective merchandise per my unresolved experience. My product was missing the specialized screws to assemble. Also, some "new" items appear used. I have even heard stories of buying a "new" product with someone's else's personal information on it. It looks like they have close-outs that might only be discounted a couple of dollars. They do have a parts inventory for hobbyist.
Just to clear up any confusion that might arise from comments about how Macs lack the same "software", "compatibility" and "processing power" of their PC counterparts...
Macs are no longer those macs from 1999. Present day Apple computers use most of the same software as PC's. Any software you use on a PC has a Mac version or counterpart. All hardware that works on a PC, works on a Mac and usually with less issues. The reason that benchmarks of Photoshop on boot camp run faster than on the Mac is because the hardware is just that good.
Welcome to 2009, a time when Macs are better than PC's. Feel free to use Windows... but if you want it to run at full speed, you'll run it on a Mac.
This message has been brought to you by an Apple Fanboy... because it's much better than not choosing a side and hating on people who's only crime is supporting the company that actually takes care of their customers. So there.
I hope Apple wakes up and realizes they don't need to extort such high prices for their hardware. Any company that has $18 billion in the bank has way too much profit margin!
I thought it was 28 billion and probably not in the bank. So companies without money like General Motors are the better. Doesn't Microsoft have some cash too?
Apple hardware always strikes people as lightweight. The difference is the system isn't bloated with inefficiency like Windows. The whole concept of treating each user like it is a separate machine is flawed.
OS X simply doesn't demand as many resources. I was concerned a bit about a 2.0 ghz alum Macbook with only 2 gb of memory. Ha! It is fantastic!
I expect big things with Snow Leopard. Can you believe a company is actually trying to optimize performance? The standard has been just wait for new hardware to come out. Of course, the real goal is to make an efficient multiprocessor environment. No doubt the wave of the future.
The equivalent of the MacBook is an HP DV3; they cost about $650-$1000, depending on configuration and weigh about 4.3 pounds.
Of course, the best way of running it is with Ubuntu: that way, you get inexpensive hardware, a great UI, and tons of free software. It beats both Apple and Microsoft hands down.
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.
I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.
I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)
Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
I wonder how many of those laptop hunters MS did not tell us about because they decided to go with a Mac?! But again we will never know. They probably signed a NDA!
I work in the advertising industry and we have a saying that "poor innovation leads to heavy advertising" - I think this applies to MS and this advert so clearly...
Everyone here is obviously biased. I have both a Mac and a PC, and Macs can't do everything a PC can without running the Mac AS the PC... and PC's are not as reliable as Macs because Macs are built to run fine exactly as-is and is restricted to a bunch of Apple anti-consumer licensing... So they are equal but on different levels.
Quit pretending that Mac is better. They are the same.
Question? Why are you complaining about people on this forum being biased and using your comment to twice insult Apple while basically giving PCs a light slap on the wrist? Does that not strike you as at all hypocritical?
Also, do you have any idea what anti-consumer even means? If you're angry that it ties OS and hardware, then you shouldn't have complimented its reliability because that's precisely where it comes from. Go research Sony if you wanna begin a discussion of anti-consumerism (more pointlessly DRMed formats than the eye can see).
I'm seriously tired of you "consumerist" nazis that like to act as if copyright laws are evil because they keep you from doing something you never had the right to do in the first place. Until you have to deal with intellectual property law on a daily basis, don't presume to act as if its purpose is to destroy your freedoms.
I seriously wonder what it is you people believe you're fighting for. Does the thought of OS X being a more secure Vista somehow make you happy? Apple is a better company precisely because it doesn't have to be everything to everyone.
Anti-consumer, my g-d you have no idea what your talking about. Any idea how many times Microsoft has had to settle in court over such activities? Just because Big Brother lets you put its OS on any hardware you desire doesn't mean it doesn't leverage its market share to keep out competitors and reap royalties on in-house development tools that a developer is basically required to use. Being a little stingy with options does not make one anti-consumer: tactically trying to limit consumers to only your stuff is (ever wonder why Apple and Google make Ballmer so nervous).
I pity you if you honestly believe you're looking at equals.
I thought it was 28 billion and probably not in the bank. So companies without money like General Motors are the better. Doesn't Microsoft have some cash too?
Don't worry about him/her. The idea that premium quality, service, & support should be cheap is already ridiculous. The further misuse of the word extort (which means to force an action) clearly gives away his mindset
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.
I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.
I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)
Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
If you can't tell then Mac's aren't for you - it's that simple.
Comments
I imagine if someone did benchmarks between these two machines, would totally kill the premise of this ad.
Someone should. Its as if they wanted to pick the worst possible comparison for Microsoft. Who paid the maker of this ad?
I mean you could have found a machine with great specs and battery life or even gone with a gaming machine or a machine with a built in TV tuner, lots of ports, card readers, etco talk about the extra value you get with the PC.
Instead, they choose this HP machine. There has to be some kind of speed comparison cross platform somewhere right?
Or can we get a comparison on the mac with parallels or bootcamp...
I am not sure what was worse, the commercial or AI's critique?
So much time was spent talking about differences in memory speeds, which probably don't have a huge affect on performance, but AI conveniently ignored the fact that the HP has a dedicated GPU. The GPU could have a substantially bigger impact on performance depending on how the machine is used.
Also, the guy doesn't state he wants the longest battery life. He asks which laptop has the best battery life that meets his needs. He clearly indicated a preference for size and power which of course, reduce battery life.
Hours installing antivirus and antispyware programs? Yeah right. Vista comes with Windows Defender so antispyware isn't needed and a antivirus program doesn't take more than 15 minutes to install. It will come with OS updates turned on so conflicker is a non-issue. If he runs most of time as a standard user not as an admin (same as what OS X users should do) he won't have malware problems.
Can't argue about the low pixel density on the screen. Although I will say many will see that as advantage because it makes the screen much easier to read. But at least this machine has some options in that regard. Does the MacBook?
And what about the HP's firewire port, express card slot, HDMI out and, from what I can tell from their web site, an optical drive with Blu-ray capability? Don't see those on the MacBook anywhere.
Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't buy one of those things. I have a 2.2Ghz BlackBook and it works great for me. But I do miss some of the options that are seen on the HP. I would love the current MacBook if it had FW, HDMI out and a BD drive. I would easily trade the LED backlit display for those things.
What it comes down to is choices. Apple has made design decisions with their products and have given very few options to meet various needs. Meanwhile, their competitors continue to sell a lot of machines with a clearly inferior OS because they give people hardware choices at a reasonable cost. And for some, that is enough. It doesn't make them wrong or stupid. It just means that they want different things from their computing experience.
-kpluck
Macs are no longer those macs from 1999. Present day Apple computers use most of the same software as PC's. Any software you use on a PC has a Mac version or counterpart. All hardware that works on a PC, works on a Mac and usually with less issues. The reason that benchmarks of Photoshop on boot camp run faster than on the Mac is because the hardware is just that good.
Welcome to 2009, a time when Macs are better than PC's. Feel free to use Windows... but if you want it to run at full speed, you'll run it on a Mac.
This message has been brought to you by an Apple Fanboy... because it's much better than not choosing a side and hating on people who's only crime is supporting the company that actually takes care of their customers. So there.
I hope Apple wakes up and realizes they don't need to extort such high prices for their hardware. Any company that has $18 billion in the bank has way too much profit margin!
I thought it was 28 billion and probably not in the bank. So companies without money like General Motors are the better. Doesn't Microsoft have some cash too?
OS X simply doesn't demand as many resources. I was concerned a bit about a 2.0 ghz alum Macbook with only 2 gb of memory. Ha! It is fantastic!
I expect big things with Snow Leopard. Can you believe a company is actually trying to optimize performance? The standard has been just wait for new hardware to come out. Of course, the real goal is to make an efficient multiprocessor environment. No doubt the wave of the future.
Of course, the best way of running it is with Ubuntu: that way, you get inexpensive hardware, a great UI, and tons of free software. It beats both Apple and Microsoft hands down.
Okay, whoever made that ad needs to be fired. Now. What the hell is MS thinking? God.
Anyways, I saw a lot of people talking about benchmark comparisons between macs and PCs, so I decided to see for myself.
I looked at a computer on Apple.com and customized it a bit.
A 15-inch Macbook Pro with
- 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2 Dimms)
- 250GB Serial ATA HDD @ 5400rpm
- 8x optical disc drive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
- NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
- Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
- Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
- 5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
- 320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
- 8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
- ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
- A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
- An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
- HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
- Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
Everyone here is obviously biased. I have both a Mac and a PC, and Macs can't do everything a PC can without running the Mac AS the PC... and PC's are not as reliable as Macs because Macs are built to run fine exactly as-is and is restricted to a bunch of Apple anti-consumer licensing... So they are equal but on different levels.
Quit pretending that Mac is better. They are the same.
Question? Why are you complaining about people on this forum being biased and using your comment to twice insult Apple while basically giving PCs a light slap on the wrist? Does that not strike you as at all hypocritical?
Also, do you have any idea what anti-consumer even means? If you're angry that it ties OS and hardware, then you shouldn't have complimented its reliability because that's precisely where it comes from. Go research Sony if you wanna begin a discussion of anti-consumerism (more pointlessly DRMed formats than the eye can see).
I'm seriously tired of you "consumerist" nazis that like to act as if copyright laws are evil because they keep you from doing something you never had the right to do in the first place. Until you have to deal with intellectual property law on a daily basis, don't presume to act as if its purpose is to destroy your freedoms.
I seriously wonder what it is you people believe you're fighting for. Does the thought of OS X being a more secure Vista somehow make you happy? Apple is a better company precisely because it doesn't have to be everything to everyone.
Anti-consumer, my g-d you have no idea what your talking about. Any idea how many times Microsoft has had to settle in court over such activities? Just because Big Brother lets you put its OS on any hardware you desire doesn't mean it doesn't leverage its market share to keep out competitors and reap royalties on in-house development tools that a developer is basically required to use. Being a little stingy with options does not make one anti-consumer: tactically trying to limit consumers to only your stuff is (ever wonder why Apple and Google make Ballmer so nervous).
I pity you if you honestly believe you're looking at equals.
LOL
snip
What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this?
snip
Mac OSX
Aggg these ads are retarded and boring. At least Apple ads are made with style and humor.
Yeah, Steve said it best, Microsoft has no taste.
That fact shows clearly in their advertising.
I thought it was 28 billion and probably not in the bank. So companies without money like General Motors are the better. Doesn't Microsoft have some cash too?
Don't worry about him/her. The idea that premium quality, service, & support should be cheap is already ridiculous. The further misuse of the word extort (which means to force an action) clearly gives away his mindset
*sound of me repeatedly hitting my head on desk*
Okay, whoever made that ad needs to be fired. Now. What the hell is MS thinking? God.
Anyways, I saw a lot of people talking about benchmark comparisons between macs and PCs, so I decided to see for myself.
I looked at a computer on Apple.com and customized it a bit.
A 15-inch Macbook Pro with
- 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2 Dimms)
- 250GB Serial ATA HDD @ 5400rpm
- 8x optical disc drive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
- NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT graphics card with 256MB dedicated video memory
costs $2099.00.I then went to dell.com and looked at a computer there, and customized it a bit.
A 16-inch Dell Studio XPS 16 with
- Intel® Core? 2 Duo T9800 (6MB cache/2.93GHz/1066Mhz FSB)
- Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-bit (yes, it really can handle the next entry...)
- 5GB DDR3 SDRAM at 1067MHz (2 Dimms)
- 320GB Serial ATA HDD @ 7200rpm
- 8X optical drive (DVD+/- R/RW CD-RW)
- ATI Mobility RADEON® HD 3670 graphics card with 512MB dedicated video memory
costs $1,949.00.I am not certain about battery life. As far as I could tell, Apple's website did not mention anything about the computer's battery life, so I'm going to guess the at 3-5 hours from the people below. The Dell ships with a six-cell battery (whatever that means), with an option to add an additional 9-cell battery for $80. (The computer has one battery port, so you would have to switch batteries to change them). In the past, Dell called the 9-cell battery an "85whr" and I think the the 6-cell was a "65whr". They did not elaborate on what "whr" is, so maybe someone can tell me?
The rest of the specifications (such as backlit keyboard, webcam, physical dimensions, weight, included software/accessories, etc.) were either not easily comparable, or merely matters of personal preference, so I purposely did not include them.
Essentially, my point is, for $150.00 less, you are getting
- A processor that is 0.5GHz faster
- An extra GB of RAM (and the same type of RAM as the Macbook, too, so you have nothing there like you did with MS's shitty commercial)
- HDD that is 70GB larger and 1.5 times as fast
- Graphics card which has twice as much memory.
A computer with comparable specifications (actually, essentially identical) to the Macbook mentioned above is a (very slightly modified) Studio XPS 13. If the graphics card is upgraded to the GeForce 9500M, comparable to the one that the Macbook has, this model costs $1,229. (the processor and RAM are the same by default; the Dell has a slightly (inconsequentially, IMHO) larger HDD)Why on earth would I want to spend nine hundred dollars extra to get identical specifications? What does a Macintosh have that could possibly justify this? And don't tell me that Macs are more reliable. They may be, but I have had a Dell laptop for three and a half years, and I have had zero problems with the hardware.
If you can't tell then Mac's aren't for you - it's that simple.