Apple Refreshes The MacBook Pro Line Discussion

My other posts? What other posts? Certainly my HD5850 in a $1150 machine should give you a sense of what I am looking for in terms of value, no?

If you are referring to my post about that pricing tactic, I still stand by what I said: it's brilliant. Rolex watches are immensely successful but their movement isn't any better than a $300 watch. As someone pointed out, the practice is called prestige pricing, and it works very well considering we are social animals.

 

is there another computer at the 17" size that offers equivalent quality in the screen + equivalent battery life + i5/i7 processors?

 

The Sony Z line doesn't?

 

Oh yeah, I read your one post after then a little bit of that tl;dr post and was under the impression you were defending it, nvm lol. I gotta stop partially reading posts lesson learned.

 

Omitting Core i CPUs from the 13" machines is a mistake. Even if Apple was unhappy with the idea of a discrete GPU (heat, battery performance), Intel HD graphics aren't that bad. A step down from the nvidia 9400M, but not a really big one (unlike the old x4500 integrated graphics).

So now the 13" MBPs have a fairly good integrated GPU, but a needlessly outdated processor. That was preferable to having an adequate integrated GPU and a state of the art processor?

I would consider going back to a 13" MBP in the future -- but only if Apple offers a model for, you know, professionals. I have no use for a "jack of all trades, master of none" machine. Not one with a premium pricetag, no matter how nice the industrial design.

Also...

Upgrading from a P8600 to P8800, and from a 250GB 5400 HDD to a 320GB model costs $300?!?. Even Apple fans would have to admit, that's a cold cup of fail.

 

If cheaply textured plastic and the plate of aluminium as a sop does it for you, sure.

I happen to think the current Z is functionally an awesome piece of kit without peer, the merits of which overrules it's deficiencies that I've uncovered so far - and anyone going for a 13 or 15-inch Macbook Pro over the Z when they don't actually *need* OS X should admit to themselves that it is completely a looks decision with practically no other merit...

...but I also happen to think that the Z, especially now, is a complete mess in terms of tactile picks, detailing and style. Some clearly don't think so as previously discussed in the Sony subforum, but they're invariably one-sided without ownership experience of the 'competition'.

 

Wow... this is what I've been waiting for all year?

 

You know, I was very surprised in January that Sony decided to let Best Buy have monopoly on the VPC-S here in US and just let SR soldier on to face competitions...well, now I know why...

 

No, there isn't. I'm not a big Apple fan but it is pretty clear that Apple has this market by the throat. They can charge what they damn well please even if it does seem absurd on paper.

 

What a dud by Apple.

I, like many other posters here, was waiting for this refresh to buy a 13" MB or MBP, but what a disappointment! Couldn't they have at least included an i3 for the 13"??

Well, Apple's not going to get me to burn $1300 on last year's technology.

 

You never got great value for money on Apple notebooks when you compared the insides that are non-apple (RAM,HDD,CPU) and to me that became very apparent when Apple left the PowerPC world for the Intel-based architecture. The things you pay a premium on when you buy an Apple computer are:

1. Package - Aluminium unibody, end to end glass screen
2. OS
3. Customer Service

Those things are all unique to Apple and are usually market leaders or viewed in that light. However, Apple tends to play it safe when it comes to integration of bleeding-edge technology. Limiting a 15" notebook to an i5 and avoiding the hotter i7-720 is typical Apple. They rather play it safe and have less potential issues knowing that the 3 things they do well will still separate them from the rest of the pack than tarnish the reliability of their systems.

They know their customers. Apples are only poor value for money if you do not value the superior service, OS, and build quality of their products.

(I am a PC)

 

Apple can charge what they want because Apple is alone in its market. No other computer can run OSX or use any other proprietary Apple stuff.

>.>

 

I disagree. There's nothing about OSX that Linux cannot make. However, if you used Linux and created something like the OSX, you won't sell. Why? Because you can't create the hype about your product. It's entirely about the hype. On the notebook forum here we largely agree that the iPad is a massive failure in terms of performance and features, yet people all over the world lined up at the stores to buy it. You ask them what CPU it uses? What special programs it'll let them do? What the platform provides to developers in terms of SDKs and runtime environments? They have no idea. But they just want that shiny toy that everyone seems to be so crazy about, so they can be in the "in-crowd".

 

Of course marketing is a huge part of it lol Apple has one of the biggest marketing campaigns any computer company has. Argue all you want but marketing is a huge part of selling. Why can you think of certain companies rather than others when thinking of certain products? Marketing of course! Why can you name a Harmon Kardon speaker set but not a Magnepan? Why do you think Wacom for tablets but not Genius?

However proper use of Linux requires a certain level of technical knowledge. OSX is made to be "stupid simple" (or so Apple advertises).

 

I never said advertising isn't a big thing. There's a reason brands like MSI, ASUS, and Clevo aren't selling nearly as many units. That's their fault, either they don't know how to advertise, or they don't have the powerful advertising department. I'm actually considering working for Apple sometime down the road (I'm an electrical engineer), and as such, when I'm there I of course hope Apple gets huge profits.

But right now I'm a consumer, as is everyone else on this board. For us, huge amounts of capital thrown into advertising leads to subpar products at inflated prices. You can't argue against that.

Linux is entirely customizable and the room for development is limitless. What I meant to say is that if I had $10 billion right now to invest in a Linux product that has just as easy to use as OSX, there's no technological barrier, at all.

 

At current Apple is mostly alone in its market segment, but honestly I see no reason why it has to stay that way. I should note that I'm a Windows 7 x64 when necessary, Linux preferring user. I'm also a "premium" $2000 USD notebook buyer. I want it all, and I'm willing to pay for it - build quality, premium materials, power, good design (thin for the power), and more. If someone could make an exact design-wise copy of the MacBook Pro, stuff it full of latest gen tech (making concessions where possible - for instance, removing a optical drive. They take up way too much space that could be used for cooling of high powered components), and slap a pineapple on the outside, I'd be happy.

But for whatever reason, nobody does. Most powerful PCs these days are ugly, clunky plastic. Think the Clevo X8100 - Fantastic power, but no metal chassis, no backlit keyboard, no large multitouch trackpad, so-so display (from what I hear) etc... its a big, heavy, plastic cheap looking mess. The Asus G73jh is better and more stylish, but its still a behemoth that is made for desktop replacement use. Head on over to Zareason or System76 to look for Linux notebooks - even their thin and light models are budget minded!

The HP Envy came the closest to taking what the MacBook Pro did design wise and loading it up with powerful new technology. Unfortunately, they halfassed it halfway through the design process. They limited the edge-to-edge screen awesome quality screen to the 13" model, which is equipped with a Core 2 Duo and a weaker (though still very respectable) graphics card. Refreshed with a Core i7 620 and a 5xxx/1gb series graphics card in the 13", they'd do much better. The 15" had excellent hardware, but lacked the edge to edge display Neither model included a backlit keyboard - truly asinine that a premium notebook should go without it these days. The most egregious violation though was the BIOS, which was non-ACPI compliant in my launch model, which meant that it depended on HP software for thermal management - using Linux or even a fresh Windows install could lead to overheating and more! The "slice" batter was truly groundbreaking, but its connector was flimsy and it didn't fit as well as it should. While I know MagSafe is likely patented to some extent, there WAS a fancy power connector ready to launch with the Envy, but they dropped it at the last minute and went with the standard ugly barrel plug. There were simply too many cut corners to justify the price. Why is this always the way?

The Sony Z is another high priced premium model and is in my view at current the best performance to form-factor model in the world, especially the Japanese versions. Outside of Japan, there are many cut corners. The absolutely fabulous 1920x1080 display isn't available for CTO machines, nor is WiMax or GSM 3G. Worst of all is the fact that every model comes with a 128gb SSD RAID or more, which really jacks up the price. (made up of either 2x or 4x SSDs with a proprietary connector). These are old MLC SSD tech, and because they're raided you can't use TRIM to combat performance degradation. I would much rather have the option for a regular HDD in lieu of an internal optical, as they do in the Japanese versions. At the moment, the Sony Z requires the least amount of compromises I can find - It manages to outdo the MacBook Pro's 13" model shamefully as it includes the Core i7 620 in its 2" smaller footprint, along side a 1gb 330 instead of the anemic integrated 320 and is even superior to the 15"s 512mb model. Even with its faults the Z shows how poorly Apple did this time around, as does the power-packed Sony F which is 16" but still relatively thin, equipped with Core i7 820 Quads and a superior 330gt - putting the 15" and especially 17" MacBook Pros to shame.

I wish there were more options in the world for Premium notebook buyers. I wish Apple could get the "big stuff" right and that other manufacturers would learn that the "little stuff" matters too.

 

The reason that MSI/Clevo are not selling as well is not really because of their marketing, but because their target consumers are techies, who will see pass any marketing gimmick, and dump you for other brands if their laptops are overpriced to their performance. It's much easier to use the marketing trick on the ignorant masses who probably think i series processors are made by apple because of the i, but you only have so many of these people, the tech geeks need laptop companies to cater to as well.

 

The HP EliteBook 8740w has a better screen, better build quality, and the full range of i5/i7s, but portability wise, the MBP is hard to beat at the form factor. Not to mention the EliteBook will have trouble getting close to the battery life of an MBP. Add on the 12 cell battery and you may get close, but you're looking at nearly 10 pounds of weight (not including the gigantic 200W power adapter).

 

I concur. Since the market for the masses is already catered for by the likes of Apple, Dell, Sony, Hp, etc, Clevo (and Asus and MSI) did the smart thing and made a niche in the techie/geek market. Besides, whatever they save on advertising and marketing costs ends up as savings for us.

And I, for one, am perfectly happy that Sager/Clevo is not as well known as whatever's mainstream. I enjoy having a laptop that the vast majority of people who see me using it will not know what it is.

 

Well I argue that Apple cannot charge "whatever" they want. You will not find 10% of the population to be that stupid to buy your product regardless of price. Not in the notebook world.

But the premise behind Forever Melody's point is my point too. Apple is like the Electric car running around among gasoline engines. They have a useable, different product on the market.

This is the ugly truth that makes the Apple camp worry at night: The better Windows gets the less relevant mac products will be.

 

I started this morning thinking that the new MBPs were really far off the mark. I ended the day by purchasing a base 15" model.

Why the change?

Looking into it, unless I wanted a true desktop replacement and the size that comes with it, I would have spent the same money on an equal part from either HP with the Envy, Lenovo with the W series, or Dell with their mobile workstation series.

Even then, I would have to deal with less battery life, and a much less desirable chassis. It does mean something to be able to go to a meeting with prospective clients and not plunk down an obvious gaming laptop.

I dug pretty far into the processor, the GPU and the options before I made my choice, and regardless of being able to get more grunt for less money, I know I made a good choice for me.

 

I am buying a 15" version which will be my first ever Mac. My old Gateway needs an upgrade. I have an i7 Dell desktop which I am happy with, and am a graduate student in the sciences. Recently I've had a lot of experiences with Mac laptops and feel they have some big advantages that most of this thread is missing.

It's true, they are expensive. But they simply work better. Comparing components doesn't get the story, and I'm not talking about the style (although they are snappy). The trackpad, which is something a laptop user interfaces with constantly, is miles ahead of anything offered by any other PC maker. You know it's true. The computers are fast and responsive at all times. They go to sleep the moment you close them. They shut down quickly. When you open them back up they are ready to go immediately. Windows 7 is an improvement for sure, but Windows machines are still miles away from Mac when it comes to how quickly they turn on and off ready to use. And then there is the battery life, which is another important trait to the everyday experience that easily beats all PC competition.

There are still some things about Macs I'm not 100% fond of, but when I'm buying a computer I will be doing massive amounts of work on over the next few years, I'm willing to pay extra for a top of the line experience. I'm a techie and always have been, and this is a big change for me. But working with a Mac is simply more pleasant than working with a PC notebook, and that's worth it to me.

And I wouldn't want a quad core laptop of any brand, as they are right now. They are hot and power intensive. I'm satisfied with this update and am getting an i7 15", but I agree with those who think the 13" upgrade is underwhelming. If I wanted one that size, I would be seriously disappointed.

 

can someone explain to me why metal is considered premium construction material for a notebook?
because unless you will be standing and jumping on your laptop like a trampoline on a daily basis, the increase in strength is NOT beneficial, and therefore wasted. you trade unneccessary strength at the cost of weight, and possibly a minor risk of electrocution.
it adds weight and cost, but no additional functionality. that to me is a bad idea.

 

A pity, I would've bought the 13" model if it at least came with a Core i3 option. Guess I'd have to settle with the base 15" methinks.

 

The battery life argument for macbooks are old, if you really want a low performance notebook with long battery life, functionality wise, you are better off with a netbook with similar battery life and functions, that cost less than 1/4 the price.

 

I'm sorry but calling an i7 Macbook Pro, with up to 8GB of RAM a "low performance notebook" is just nonsense.

Computer Shopper's review (the URL of which I'm not allowed to post, but Google "computer shopper new review i7 macbook pro" and you'll find it) shows a Cinebench score that easily beats an Envy 15 with an i7-720, among others. I spend most of my days at school/work running computational models through MATLAB and I promise you I'm not better off with a netbook. To make such a comparison is flatly goofy and makes me think you are just not very objective. A Macbook with an i7 is not going to be a performance slouch by any metric.

When you add in the far superior trackpad, on/off performance and battery life the decision is not hard for me, since I can stomach the price.

 

well it's VERY low performance to other 17'' laptops marketed as 'professional'.
most 17'' media laptops house components in the same category as the 17'' mbp. battery life and screen quality (depends) are it's only advantages in hardware.

 

Can you name some?

I just showed you a review that claims this processor outperforms (by Cinebench) a quad i7-720. What processors are other 17" or 15" "professional" laptops housing that make the MBP "VERY low performance" by comparison?

Personally, I don't want a hot 45nm i7-720 in any laptop of mine, for any purpose. But I don't honestly see any comparison by which an i7 15" MBP is such a slouch. Put 8GB of DDR3 RAM in it, pay $50 for a 7400 RPM hard drive, you have the best dual core laptop processor there is .. what gives?

 

w510, 15'' with same graphics card(quadro ver), and can house a q820 or even a 920xm, and get 4 hours battery life (ridiculusly long considering the EE proc).
8740w, m6400. both can take a 920xm and both have WAY powerful graphics cards.
and all of these can probably take a i7 620 if you want some battery life.

 

No offense, but that's why I think most Mac users don't have a high standard of computer knowledge.

Apple really have a good marketing team, probably bought the reviewer to give such a skewed review anyone with decent computer knowledge can see through rather than believing it like it's the truth itself.

Now, about that cinebench 10, on your review site, it states that macbookpro scored 8612, and envy 15 only scored 8397. I would like to know how the cinebench 10 is done, because on another review site I found, laptop-review, the cinebench score for Envy 15 on all cores is 9327. Your review probably skewed the test to favour macbook by running cinebench on only 2 cores, of course it would give advantage to the dual core i7 620. Moreover, on both reviews, they are using envy's last year version of 4830, a much weaker GPU than the one they are using now, the 5830.

About the netbook part, yes, probably 15 and 17 is not really a netbook, but MBP 13 definitely looks like a netbook to me.

 

OK.

I can configure a w510 with a q820 (which is perhaps a very marginal upgrade), 8GB RAM, 500 HD, antiglare 15" .. all the same stuff I'm getting on my MBP for $2330. A MBP with the same one year warranty and my education discount (not much) is $2540. The Lenovo ships in 17 business days (the MBP 1-3) with a small unfeatured trackpad and half the battery life. You would say the MBP is VERY low performance by comparison when the only difference is 620 vs 820? I think you are overestimating the difference between 2.66 2-core and 1.73 4-core by a lot. I might even prefer the 620 anyway.

Elitebook 8740 - with a 620M, 4GB RAM, 320 HDD is going for $2379. An i7-720QM with the same smallish RAM is listed for $2999, and I am not even sure it would have a performance edge on an MBP for anything I might do (which is a lot). I shudder to think what a 920xm would cost! What do the graphics get you over the MBP graphics, Crysis? I thought this was "professional" ..

The Dell is available with 820 for $2525 with 8GB and 500 HDD .. the 920 is another $530. And again, what is this huge performance increase, the processor? I'll grant you, it may be a tad bit faster, but not by much at 1.73.

All of these systems no longer offer any significant price advantage over the i7 MBP, and offer much worse battery life, and lower tier performance when it comes to trackpads and on/off response times. While they *may* offer a slight boost in speed for certain tasks, they hardly show the i7 MBP to be an overpriced dog by comparison.

I've always been a PC guy, but I've spent several months shopping and looking over these very factors! I'm a high performance interested user, and I am willing to spend for what I want. I can respect that another user could reach a different decision, but to claim the i7 MBP is very underpowered is to be a PC fanboy. I am a graduate student in the sciences and my colleagues and professors use Macs more than they do PCs, and they are very interested in performance, I promise!

 

I'm sorry, but claiming that a clarksfield i7-820 is marginal upgrade from the arandale i7-620 has to be a joke. If so, I guess my netbook comment is not that far off, an i5 probably only give marginal upgrade over an atom as well. An i5 might be tad faster, but not by much, as long as it can do what it's meant to do, heck P4 is good enough.

 

you say you care about high performance but you don't know the benefits of 2 extra cores and 4 extra threads? do you know that 17 inchers (EDIT:that i mentioned) have 4 memory slots? so you can get 8gb as 2gb*4 for cheap?
the graphics card, oh gee i don't know, CAD, cuda?
you compare a laptop with quad core CPU and highend quadro card to a laptop with dual core and run of the mill geforce, at the same price. and say the dell has no price advantage. wat?

i'm being trolled hard.

 

Well I assure you I have "decent computer knowledge" but I don't see what is so terrible about that review. I do know that an i7 MBP is not comparable to a netbook, however, so that's something.

It does seem like the Cinebench for i7-720 on other sites is higher, and indeed slightly higher than what they show for the i7 MBP. So that is interesting. Regardless, the difference is not huge and I don't want a hot, power hungry and potentially throttling 720 in a laptop of mine.

I will grant you that quad laptops are widely available and do, in some ways, offer improved performance compared to the i7 MBP. But you should also grant that double battery life, improved on/off cycling and trackpad features are also marks of improved "performance" in favor of the MBP. The difference between the two is not huge by any metric. If you don't think the sum of these factors is in the Mac's favor, then I can understand that completely. But it doesn't add anything to greatly overstate your case by saying the Mac's performance is going to be terrible.

I doubt you can find a PC without a quad (which I still feel is dubious in a laptop) that will outperform it. And when you configure PC laptops that come close or outperform the Mac, you see the price difference evaporate. In short, it is about more than prestige. I actually would prefer to not get a Mac because I don't like the cult of Apple nor do I like how they must control everything in their computers. The iPad thing really pissed me off. But a rational analysis by a high performance user can indeed lead to a purchase of a MBP. You should realize that it is possible, and not merely about status or some other such nonsense!

I agree with you that the lack of a new processor in the 13" is pretty lame. I'm not sure why anybody would buy that right now. Might as well just get a Macbook if you must have a Mac.

 

Atom Cinebench: 706
MBP i7 Cinebench: 8612
i7-820 Cinebench: 9642

So your argument is that (8612-706) = (9642-8612). Do I have that right?

 

I fail to understand how I can't find a PC without a quad that will outperform the MBP, and if I find one it will be same price as the Mac, which is totally untrue. I can find tons of them that will outperform the MBP at half the price.

This reminds me of a quote I used to describe mac fans:

BTW, do understand sarcasm.

 

Well, same price means no price advantage. Right.

Sure, you can eventually show some performance edge for the PC's, the extent of which is, to me, not huge. I'm not doing CAD and neither are the vast majority of laptop users, even those interested in performance. To show a significant edge you must erase the price difference, and you still lag far behind in other areas like battery life and on/off times which may also be considered "performance".

My claim was never that an i7 MBP will outperform all PC laptops. It was only that claims of the i7 MBP being a "low performance notebook" or "VERY low performance" are flatly wrong. Both of you have since spent quite a bit of time detailing arguments that do not show the MBP being either of those things you claimed it to be. I'm being trolled hard.

 

So much ignorance in the thread.

I think the word was out long ago.... MBP does not equal maximum value for your dollar.

 

well the 17'' inchers i listed will beat the mbp in any benchmark. and in any highly threaded or graphical applications, it would slap it silly. so i stand by my case.

i sell you my dell for 2.3k, same price means no price advantage.

 

Your case is dismissed.

Showing that Michael Jordan is a better basketball player than Scottie Pippen does not make Scottie Pippen a VERY bad basketball player. Logic much?

Besides, none of the computers you have mentioned, at any price, will beat the MBP at battery life or at how smoothly they load up and shut down/sleep, which are indeed benchmarks of performance.

I'm the guy who has a PC and a Mac on the way, is happy to use either, and can see the benefits of both sides. From the looks of this thread, the ideologues are actually on the PC side. You guys have surprised me! Congratulations. And good night.

 

i don't watch basketball. you're right, it's only low performance compared to other highend 17'' inchers. it's falls right in to the mainstream category.
as for boot time, that's the merit of osx, not hardware, and therefore doesn't fall into performance.

 

Anyone have any idea when the next refresh (or redesign) is coming? For some reason I feel Apple back is holding back on something. The specs are pretty dissapointing, not to mention the dated 16:10 screen ratio.

 

please tell me that was sarcasm.

 

16:10 >16:9 IMO. unless you're watching 1080p movies (which the MBP can't do anyway, without blu-ray) you're not getting any advantage.



the issue is not the processor. an i7 620 in a mbp will work the same as an i7-620 in a dell, or a clevo, or an acer... the downgraded gpu will get slaughtered by any other gpu in a competitors 17 in. And in no way will the difference be marginal. it will blow it away.

 

Battery life is the only thing going for MBP, however, the battery life is only true if you are not using the 330M, and instead use the integrated graphics with backlight etc everything at minimum. If done so, what difference is it from a netbook which will have comparable battery life anyways. If you use the 330M intensively, then the battery life will be similar to other laptops.

About boot up/shut down time, I guess you are not really that much of a PC guy, because windows 7 have just as fast boot up/shut down time, in fact, a sony vaio z with SSD in raid, can boot in about 10 seconds in windows 7 from cold, can a MBP do that with it's slow 5400RPM hard drive?

 

All in all the specs are dissapointing unless your a hardcore APPLE user especially the 13" model.
Yeah they look great and perform well but so do other laptops at the same price.
I was expecting a little more that's all, at least some sort of i3/i5 for what your paying.
Maybe I'm ignorant but I just don't get it, if I'm getting any new APPLE product it'll be a iPad, at least that's not too big a ripoff and it's relatively cool
The ACER 3820TG will be a much better performing 13" laptop with i5/i7 and ATI 5650.

 

I will likely start a separate thread on this later when I'm more awake but I just want to throw JohnSavage some sympathy points as a PC guy currently considering a MacBook Pro for the first time. I value this forum's feedback however & would factor it into my ultimate choice.

Why I haven't gone Apple in past & confession: Honestly I may harbor some hatred for Apple that I would like to work out with you all. As a company they seem annoyingly proprietary, elitist yet seem to push a juvenile looking UI. So why would I consider a MacBook Pro? I'll get to that later.

What I'm considering it against (the only anti-glare matte screen professional notebook with USB 3.0 ports-optical drive I could find & yes I think "EliteBook" sounds like elitist marketing crap as well but its hardware-software still feels more open to me than MBP):

HP EliteBook 8540w
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13529_na/13529_na.HTML

I could order the FN095UT config today for a bottomline price under $1500:

http://computers.pricegrabber.com/l.../m758891875.html/sort_type=bottomline/st=sort

Don't think I want a 17" but considering it:

HP EliteBook 8740w
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13543_na/13543_na.html

So why am I considering a MacBook Pro? I'll get to that tomorrow as I need your guidance frankly.

 

Sooo, a heads-up of two deals I can get:

Code:

HP EliteBook 8540W		MacBook Pro 15" Starter
--------------------------      ---------------------------------
Core i5-540M			Core i5-520M
NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M 1 GB	NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M mit 256 MB
4 GB 1333 MHz RAM		4 GB 1066 MHz RAM
HD+ panel			WXGA+ panel
500 GB 7200 rpm			320 GB 5400 rpm
6-in-1 Card Reader 		SD Card Reader
6 hours battery life		8 - 9 hours (non-removable) battery life
3 yr bring-in warranty		1 yr bring-in warranty
--------------------------      ---------------------------------
1.349,00 €			1.749,00 €

Please, what should I doooo?

ROFL

 

As a disclaimer:
I'm a software engineer working in the consumer electronics industry. I have a thinkpad and macbook pro for home use, and a dell and macbook pro for use at work. I consider myself technically apt and generally computer savvy. I use different versions of windows, linux, and OS X regularly....

And I am a fan of apple products. Given the nature of this site, where machines are compared by price and specification for the best value (on paper/screen), it's easy to lose site of some of the merits of apple products. It's true that apple doesn't make the fastest laptops available, much less for the best price. Design is subjective so we can't really talk about that, and software is a personal choice.

But as someone who sits in front of a computer for 10-12 hours/day, doing a number of different tasks, it's easy to see that in some ways, apple really is the best at what it aims to do.

While i love the idea of having 4 or even 8 cores so i can do place better in a virtual chest-pounding competition, these extra cores are rarely as useful as benchmarking tools make them out to be. It's true that Linux variants, windows 7, and even OS X are all getting much better about dealing with multiple cores at a system level, there is still much to be done. Particularly when the software packages that you use haven't been optimized to take advantage of multiple cores. At this stage in the game, I'd still prefer 2 cores at a higher clock rate than 4 cores at a lower clock rate.

I'm also on the go often. I have a 15" mbp which is quite portable and very useable on the go. With my development environment running, CE emulators, virtual machines, browsers, and other applications open, i typically still manage to get 5 hours on my newest-generation-until-this-week mbp.

I am a linux user and am comfortable in the command line. In order of preferences for useability...i'd rate OS X > linux > windows. OS X provides many of the premium software packages that would otherwise be unavailable in linux, has much of the linux-like capabilities natively, and with tools like macports and fink, most things can be done directly in OS X. Neither linux or Windows can provide this broad range of functionality. This is benefit enough, and completely ignores the fact that apple laptops are the only laptops that offer OS X as an option (legally), so if you like OS X, this is a competitive advantage.

Then there is the culture. I'm not talking about the ipod-toting hipster culture that's often associated with apple, but the culture of the software developers for apple (a part of which i'm not included). There are a number of truly great and innovative apps available for the mac (quicksilver, etc). Mind you, there's nothing keeping these same apps from being implemented on other OS's, and apps like GNOME DO are slowly doing this, but it seems the same creativity simply isn't there. In the case of windows, we're plagued with shareware, spyware, and loads of crap for apps that aren't usually very useful at all.

Finally, and this may be something that applies only to me, is simplicity. I've spent years tinkering with machines, building PCs, overclocking cpus and gpus, setting up water cooling to get that extra ounce of performance. This included downloading the 'ideal' gpu drivers, etc. I'm over it. When I, and i assume others like me, am ready to spend > $2000 on something, regardless of whether i view it as a tool or a toy, I want it to work. I want to be able to enjoy it without a headache. I don't want to deal with batteries that get loose and a chassis that never quite seems stable enough when i'm holding it with one hand. I don't want to deal with driver issues, and system updates causing things to break. And I don't want to wait 2-3 minutes for my brand-new-in-2010 PC laptop to come back from hibernation because it has to load all 8GB of ram back into memory.

I want all of these things, and I'm willing to accept that i'm not getting the best value compromise a little bit on the top end of the performance scale in exchange for something that is extremely versatile, portable, generally reliable, and most importantly, has close to double the battery life of what that better performing laptop will have.

 

A last note, for anyone who wants to do a realistic comparison of machines...find another 17" laptop with a similar form factor, weight, performance, and battery life. Then start comparing ergonomics and extra features (the trackpad is seriously a step above others right now). Then start comparing included software packages (ilife is nice for free, iwork sucks but it's still included). Finally, compare the intrinsic (or even monetary, if you'd prefer) value in the time saved of buying a mac vs getting a similarly equipped windows machine and either tweaking/configuring it to your liking, or installing your favorite linux distro. Once you've done all of that, take $250 as a starting number for the obligatory apple tax, and start subtracting $5 for every apple product that you own. Iphone? 2 ipods? Great, that's $15 off for the 'buying-into-apple-lineup-really-does-make-things-easier' discount.


Not having any in-depth knowledge of the current laptop market (I actually only visited this site today to see if there were any opinions about the new 15" screen), I still feel pretty confident that if you follow the above steps for a comparison, you may find that apple's not really as far off as everyone thinks.

Then maybe once you have a new mbp, you can use that for some iphone development and make some money back