JustJess

*Purrrrrr*
It's so pretty. I looooove it. I want it now... but alas, I am still saving. $2800 WITH an education discount!! The only thing I'm waivering on is what hard drive to get. What do you think?

MacBook Pro 15.4"

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Plaid13

Pretty... i think $2800 is way way way too much for any computer. Only reason i could think of spending that much on a laptop is if you plan to be gaming with it... but as a mac i doubt thats gonna be happening. What exactly do you plan on using it for?

Charlatan

They are very nice... a colleague has one. I am slowly being converted to the world of Mac.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

JustJess

Well, mostly for school stuff. I'm applying to a PA program that wants you to come in with a Mac laptop, plus we already have so many Macs in the family, it means I have easy access to software etc.

So mostly, it's schoolwork, DVDs (programs and entertainment), some music stuff, etc... I'm going for the upper end of things because I want it to last me a loooooong time. I won't be able to buy any kind of new computer for at least 5 years after this. So I figure the faster the processor and the bigger/better RAM will last me longer.

No?

And Charlatan - yeah, they really are Very Pretty. Plus, if you're really using them for their full range of graphics and editing type stuff in the entertainment world, it's the only way to go.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Charlatan

Here's what I want

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

JustJess

Those are very very hot, but ! No expandability! For a desktop system, don't you want to be able to add stuff? I do love the fact that the screen is all there is, however...

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

amonkie

I originally wanted the Pro, but I opted for the Macbook instead - I still have a functional PC at home that has over 40g of space on it - and it's much easier to get a USB hard drive than pay $$$$$ for an internal.

__________________
Calling from deep in the heart, from where the eyes can't see and the ears can't hear, from where the mountain trails end and only love can go... ~~~ Three Rivers Hare Krishna

Willravel

Well, you can get an upgraded processor (from a 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo to a 2.33 GHz), you can add more ram(anywhere from 1 to 3GB), you can upgrade from the ATI Radeon X1200/128 MB to 256 MB for the graphics, and you can get a larger hard drive (from 250 to 500 BG). But yeah, there's no room for like 6 hard drives or a 2 slot graphics card. If you want that, you'll have to get a tower, be it Mac or PC.

ubertuber

Jess:

Personally I'd get the faster drive (and sacrifice the space). Get an external later when you run out of storage. I highly doubt you'd fill that drive up with things you NEED.

I'd also get the 17 incher. More money, but more real estate for the life of the product.

P.S. I have your sweatshirt.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Manic_Skafe

They're beautiful laptops but the specs just don't seem to justify the cost.

What is it that I don't see?

__________________
"Porn is a zoo of exotic animals that becomes boring upon ownership." -Nersesian

Willravel

The laptops are a little more expensive, but you get Mac OS, which is surprisngly more stable than anything Windows has ever, or will ever, develope. You're paying for, in Mac OS, features and abilities that might get to PCs in 5-10 years. You're also paying for an OS that is litterally germ free: there are no known viruses for Mac OS X. My computer, in the 3+ years that I've had it, has never frozen once. I've not had programs quit. I've not had to restart. I'm not saying that Windows does this on all of the PC x86 machines, but you do have to spend a lot and probably customize (break the thing open and tinker with) a PC to make it anywhere near as stable as a Mac. Also, Mac doesn't give you free trials of their software like Windows. If it's on your computer when you buy it, you have it for life. That's gotta be worth a few hundred bucks.

Also, they're pretty cool.

ubertuber

I restarted once, back in 2005. For now I've only been up for 19 days. I think I installed a software update.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

KnifeMissile

As willravel has pointed out, there's some expandability. There are other ways to "expand" your mac, like external harddrives and such. Mostly, you're not supposed to expand your mac. It's all the computer you need... and if it's not, what you need is not a mac...

I'm interested to know if you make a distinction between MacOS and MacOS X.

I also can't help but notice some of your claims have dubious relevance. For instance, your claim that you've never "had programs quit." What does this have to do with the OS? ...or the computer, for that matter?

I'm told that they are excellent laptops.

Personally, I'm holding out until they replace their current processors with the Core 2 Duo, although I can understand if you can't wait that long...

Willravel

Writing too fast.
Yes. The more stable the operating system, the less likely the program, whether stable on it's own or not, is to fail. I've had AOL crash on my comp at work, but never at home. I've had Firefox, Explorer, etc. all crash or freeze at work, on a technically faster machine, but not at home. The comp at work is basically a Gateway, 2 point something GHz processor, 2 GB RAM, 200 GB memory. It has all the basic programs, and I only run a few at a time, nothing that takes up a lot of popwer like games and such. My comp at home is a second gen eMac with a 1GHz G4 processor, 1024MB (1GB) of RAM, and a slight modification (I built in a video card). The computer at work should be faster, but it's not. Not by a long shot.

NotAnAlias

God i want one :P

I need a new lappy, and i need an apple, so i thought "hey, why not an Apple laptop?".

Problem is, i'm poor.

Got my eye on some second hand liquidator auction ibooks - don't need much speed - they're around $400-$600 (NZD), which is a bit of money but still....so...so purdy. And stable - based on BSD baby.

Good work jess _b

Also, the apple cinemas...jesus christ, i think i almost came when i saw a couple of them hooked up!

KnifeMissile

Okay, so you're not making a distinction. That's good, because MacOS 9 was less stable than anything Microsoft has ever and, it looks like, will ever put out...

You're still drawing false conclusions.

You're not running the same programs on your Mac that you are on your PC, especially when you talk about running "Explorer" and stuff. Because these are not the same application, your comparisons of application stability being attributed to the OS is deeply flawed...

Indeed, and this is not an attack of any kind, you don't appear to be too familiar with how computers work. For instance, when describing your computers, you refered to the processors as being 1 or 2 GB. This clearly makes no sense. You obviously meant GHz and I would normally just take this as a typo (although that, too, is unlikely) but you did so rather consistently, leaving me to believe that you don't really understand what these things are measuring. Furthermore, I get the impression that you think your work computer is "technically" faster than your home machine because it has a higher clock frequency. Is this correct?

I would be more than happy to weigh the honest merits of Windows vs MacOS or even Macs vs PCs (although this would be a shorter debate). I am intimately familiar with Windows and I have a passing familiarity with MacOS X (and MacOS 9) having developed software on all these platforms...

Ch'i

The thread will be called Mac vs. PC KnifeMissle.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Great choice JustJess. I'd be inclined to purchase the same thing.

Willravel

Or....Explorer, whether it be for Windows or MacOSX is made by Microsoft, yes? The it would follow logic that if it were to perform better on a computer running Mac OSX or Windows XP, it'd run better - despite obviously not being the same program, as linux and DOS are completly different - on the Windows OS. If two computers, one a Mac and one a PC, with comparable clock speeds were to run the same system of tests on Explorer, which do you think would run faster?
Is there a name for the computer version of a grammar nazi? I am well aware that the processor is measured in hertz, or in this case GHz, where as the RAM or HD would be measured in bytes, or in this case GB. It was a very, very simple mistake, a mistake even computer geniuses could make. Yeesh. While my mistakes lead you to belive that I don't know the first thing about computers, that simply isn't true. I know at least the first 3 things about computers, maybe 4. I belive that, based on estimate and not actual clock tests, the computer at work should be a lot faster than my computer at home.

Home - eMac, second generation, 3+ years old (or 76 in computer years), 1GHz PowerPC G4 processor, 1GB of RAM, 80GB HD, with a 250GB external HD through firewire, and a graphics card (I'll have to go home and check to see which) that was put in aftermarket.

Work - Gateway GT4022, like 2 weeks old, 2.4 GHz AMD Athelon 64 processor, 2 GB RAM, 200GB HD, nVIDIA GeForce 6100 graphics card.

Which do you think should be faster? Without running tests, my comp at home should be a lot slower with comparable tasks than the Gateway at work.


//end threadjack....sorry JustJess

KnifeMissile

I was well aware of the dangers of a threadjack but I was hoping that we can miss this mark and simply go for a more reasoned look at the Macintosh computer, if they're still even called that...


I had to read this paragarph serveral times over before I understood what you are saying and I think I may still be misunderstanding you. Can you rephrase this, please?

Explorer is an MS Windows program. It is the desktop, task bar, and all the GUI file browsers. Is there a version of Explorer for Mac OS X that you are using? ...or, are you talking about Mac OS X's file browser, whatever it's called... Finder, maybe? It is written by Apple for OS X...

Either way, you are running two different programs on the two different platforms. Any difference in behaviour is much more likely to be attributable to the program, itself, rather than the underlying operating system...

It sounds like you might be saying that if a company were to write the same program (defined by intended behaviour, here) for two different platorms, it should run better on the "favoured" platform (that would be Windows for Microsoft and Mac OS X for Apple) and, if it doesn't, that's a failing of the platform and not the program. Is this right?

Again, I had a really hard time understanding this paragarph...

Lastly, if I were to judge by your use of the term, clock speeds don't mean as much as you think they mean. Either that, or you're using the term in an extremely colloquial manner. I'll have more to say about that, later...

I don't know. My anal retentive demeaner has worked so well for me in my career but it appears to be hampering me in this thread...

Like I said, it wasn't an attack. I was simply expressing a (harmless) opinion based on what I had read.

Clock speeds, in and of themselves, are no indicators of processing power. A 1 MHz machine can be more powerful than a 4 MHz machine. This was a huge problem for AMD (and, to a lesser extent, Apple), whose chips were more powerful than Intel's but ran at slower clock speeds...

I agree that your work computer should be the more powerful machine.

So, if you run a program on your work machine and run the "same" program on your home machine and find the program to run faster on your home machine, you'd blame the OS?

Well, to be fair, if anyone threadjacked, it was me. Sorry JustJess, I didn't think the discussion would go this far.

I'm looking forward to a rational conversation in the Mac vs. PC thread, if only Ch'i would say somethng meaningful...

Willravel

I'm sorry, but it appears that I know more about Windows than you know about Mac. Apple makes Safari, their own web browser. Finder is a way of finding files and such on a computer, similar to the search function on Windoes (but for real fun, try Searchlight...you'll see a version of it in Vista later). Microsoft writes and distributes Explorer for Mac OSX. It has nothing do do with Apple, except for permissions and all that jazz.

Well let's put this back in the context of my original response to the question of MackKnife's question as to the benifit of Mac, justifying the cost. My answer was that programs shared between Windows and Mac OSX, in my experience, run better on Macs. Then you pretended like I was saying that the software is perfectly comparable, and therefore I'm insane.
That's the idea.
Actually, I first blame Microsoft. It's a kneejerk reaction for those of us who have had Macs for more than 10-15 years. I also have to blame a combination of mixed and matched parts in the Gateway machine, and the lack of stability in Windows, be it 2000, Me, XP, et all. It's a combination of faults that lead to the disfunction, but those faults are not to be found in a Mac. That was the bottom line. I was supporting that by explaining that my computer, that should be an inferrior machine, is somehyow able to perform better in comparable tasks (not perfectly comparable, as DOS is drastically different than lunix, but close enough for the comparison to be apt).

I also mention that the freeware that Apple bundles with the Mac comps is superior to Windows on PCs, as they are not 60 day trials. I get to keep everything from Grage Band to Safari to the aforementioned Spotlight to Dashboard. No need to go download them or to purchase them or even to put in CD keys. The plug and play aspect of Mac comps is attractive to people who don't build their own comps.

ubertuber

I love the conversation, but it's a serious threadjack. Let's find another home for it.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

spectre

Not to take any sides in this argument, but a work machine may also be running applications in the background that are large and will help bog down a machine on any platform.

And the Explorer argument is a misunderstanding. will: you're talking about Internet Explorer, which is the web browser available for both platforms. Microsoft also has Explorer which is their equivalent to the Mac's file browser.

Let's try to keep this civil gentlemen.

And Jess: that is freakin' sweet!

__________________
"Fuck these chains
No goddamn slave
I will be different" ~ Machine Head

KnifeMissile

I think I know what's going on here...

*When you say "Explorer," do you mean "Internet Explorer," the web browser?

Do you mean Manic_Skafe? I don't see a "MackKnife" in this thread...

This is a fair enough statement to make. I was merely saying that this is a property of the programs being run and not the platforms they are running on...

Why do you think I'm accusing you of insanity? Is it all the question marks?

I can understand this attitude if you were using Macs for the past five years but ten to fifteen? I have a lot I can say about this but I will simply say that unprotected memory and cooperative time sharing made Mac OS 9 (and under) less stable than WindowsNT ever was. I will save further comment for a more appropriate thread...

I have said nothing about this, nor any of the (many) other claims you've made about the Mac...




*I wrote this before seeing spectre's post...

Martel

If you do go with a Mac laptop, PLEASE get the extended warranty.

Macs may be great but when something goes wrong you're going to be looking at 3-4 times the cost to fix it as you would be with something else.

__________________
Anamnesis

Willravel

I agree 100%. It's like getting a BMW, repairs can be quite costly.

JustJess

Wow. So uh, anyone have any opinions on Macs vs. Microsofties?

Yeah, I am definitely getting the AppleCare package. I'd be a fool not to, especially since the CoreDuo chip is brandy-new. Plus AppleCare techs make house calls. Sweet!
Hm, you make a good point. Frankly, I was going between the 100G at 5400rpm vs the 100G at 7200rpm. Because I don't have 10,000 songs or pictures, nor am I likely to compile that much. I've been told that the 7200rpm is really for people doing heavy duty editing and accessing the HD constantly, but my goal is to have it last as long as possible, so I was still considering that. Thoughts?

Oops, forgot about the 17" part: Frankly, I would LOVE to get the 17". But I will honestly be lugging this thing all over hell and back with a lot of other books... on my BACK. The extra 1.5lbs or so will make a difference. And in playing with the 15.4", it feels big enough. I'd never do the 13.3" MacBook, it's just too little (although soooo light).
I know, I know! We need a BBQ date!

Don't worry about the threadjacks, I don't care that much!

Oh, and by the by... "PC" is a misnomer - they're ALL PCs. If we're getting all anal retentive and stuff.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Jinn

Will, I appreciate that you understand the Mac, but berating others with your arguments of "Explorer" is pretty weak, considering that Explorer and Internet Explorer are entirely different pieces of software. I realize that this was probably just a "typo" too, but I agree with Knife that it shows your misunderstanding of computers on a fundamental level (or at least, your Windows knowledge).

And understandly so - most people also don't know that GHz isn't the only measuring stick, and in fact it can be the worst if you're concerned about processing power.

Furthermore, your colloquial experience offers little in the claim that Mac OS is more stable. For every one of your examples, I could cite my own. We've got a server farm in our QA department, with machines running Win NT, XP, and 2003. They've got hundreds of days of uptime, some are measured in years. On the other hand, the one Mac machine we have to test compliance across OS/Browser combinations, has stalled three times on me.

What you'd be interested, perhaps, in reading -- is real benchmarks. Not synthetic, not "toy" benchmarks - real, based-on-real code benchmarks. You'll see that despite your claim of "stability," the x86 ISA, and subsequently Windows, outperforms the heralded Mac in scientific and mathematical computations.

In order to really convince anyone that an OS is superior, you'd have to demonstrate an understanding of what an Operating System is and why it behaves the way it does. There are entire MS programs devoted to OS/instruction set understanding and optimization. There is much more involved than "this program runs better on this OS." The most important is optimization.

In theory, one could write an Application that took ten times longer to execute on a Macintosh than it did on a PC. And of course, one could write an application that took ten times longer to execute on a PC than it did on Macintosh. This does NOT reflect on the quality of the OS, only the ability of the Application Designers.

As you can see, I'll deign that Macintosh might be better at writing Applications, and they're probably better at optimizing that software. So they're a better Application Developer. Those statements, however, are completely unrelated to the Operating System itself.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

ubertuber

Late punches on an expired threadjack. Come on now...

Jess: your baby looks substantially better today. Check out the upgrades - updated processor, more ram available, Firewire 800, hd up to 200GB (but slow)... I'd do it today if I was in the market.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

quadro2000

The new MacBookPros look awesome. I'm going to go for the 15". I notice that they now offer a 200GB hard drive, with the sacrifice being that it's at 4200 RPM. Can anybody advise if I'm better off going for a smaller drive - 160 - at 5400?

__________________
You have to laugh at yourself...because you'd cry your eyes out if you didn't. - Emily Saliers

Jinn

It's our thread too, damnit! :-D

Ch'i tried to get a seperate thread for the discussion, and it was locked.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Glory's Sun

/me hugs his MacBookPro

seriously, anyone who thinks you can get a pc cheaper.. if you compare systems ..I mean really compare and make sure the two are as close as possible on the specs.. you'll find that the mac's are around $400-$900 cheaper.

So say what you will about the price and games.. there's this new thing called parallel... works wonders

I love my MBP so much..I'm thinking about getting a MacPro desktop.. those are so fucking sexy.

So jess, trust me.. it's well worth saving for

KnifeMissile

Ch'i's thread got locked because he never really said anything. Please note that he still hasn't done anything to recitfy this matter. Perhaps we should just create another thread and, this time, start it off with a more substantive opinion...

JustJess

Hot damn! Did you guys see the new laptops yet?? I'm getting the 15.4" one, with 3G RAM and the 120G harddrive at 5400rpm, and the AppleCare Protection Plan. And since I'm a student, I'll be paying about $700 less than you see it listed. I'm trying to wait until I have the actual money saved, but it's soooooo hard. What do y'all think, a decent buy for $2714?

Oh, and here's the thing about computer people: it's like politics. You'll never convince a Mac person that Microsuck is better, and vice versa. But you can't deny the Macs are WAY prettier and slicker. Sorry, dudes!

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Cynthetiq

actually earlier this year (about 2 months ago) I was in the market for a new computer and I did compare spec for spec. I was willing to pay a small premium for a Mac and convert all to Mac knowing that Parallel and Bootcamp were offered.

I was able to get a 2.14 Ghz Core 2 Duo 2Gb RAM 512MB video card 250Gb HD, 1 week after the Core 2 Duo launch for $1200. At the time, Mac didn't offer it, but comparing again, similar performing procs via tomshardware.com I couldn't get anything in the Mac flavor for anything less than $2,000. The extra money I saved, I bought dual 19" monitors and a nice ergo stand for them. I bought 2 systems one for me and one for the wife. The Macs I looked at would have been $5,000 for both systems and that was without any monitor.

If you can find a deal like that now, please show it to me.

as far as the savings is concerned saving now only means that the specs you buy will be even better.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

JustJess

Yeah, I hate to agree, but the desktop systems - while gorgeous, are friggin' expensive. They're a lot more than any iMac or MacBook specs. I'm not really sure why, honestly.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Glory's Sun

give me till tomorrow and I'll show you those specs and prices

Cynthetiq

and just so that people don't think that I'm a mac hater, I just got a silver G4 with a 23" Cinema display.

I told the VP let me borrow it from another group that I don't think he'll get it back, and he said, "Maybe you should keep it then."

Now I just have to clean off my desk to put it someplace...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Glory's Sun

as promised here are specs and prices

First up.. the Mac Pro

Dual 2.66 GHz Xeon (4mb L2 Cache 1.3GHz bus)
2GB 667MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM
250 GB 7,200 RPM SATA with 8mb Cache
Four SATA drive bays
32x16xDvd+-RW/CDRW
Two Ultra ATA/100 Slots
Nvidia GeForce 7300 GT (256MB, Dual and single link)
One, 16x graphics slot three configurable slots (8x, 4x, 1x)
No PCI
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
Two FireWire 800, Two FireWire400
Six USB 2.0
Optical digital, analog audio IN
Opitcal digital, analog audio OUT
Built In Speaker
Apple Pro Keyboard
Mighty Mouse (optical)
Internal AirPort Slot
Dell 19in Display
Three Year Apple Care
Mac 0S X 10.4

Price-- $3,298

Dell Precision 690
Dual 2.66GHz Xeon (4mb L2 cache, 1.3GHz Bus)
2GB 667MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM
250 GB 7,200 RPM SATA with 8mb cache
Four SATA Bays
48x/16x DVD+-RW/CDRW
ATI FireGL V3400 (128MB, Dual link)
One 16x graphics slot, 2 configurable slots (4x,1x)
Three 32 bit 33 Mhz PCI slots
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
Two FireWire400
8 USB 2.0
Two analog audio IN
Two analog audio OUT
Built in speakers
Dell quietkey keyboard
Dell 2button Mouse (optical)
Two PS/2, one parallel, two serial ports
Dell 19in Display
3 year on site econonmy plan (care package)
Windows XP

Price-- $3,945

So there ya have it. Better specs and better price from Apple

Cynthetiq

thanks.. that's also why I didn't buy a Dell, I spec'd and built the machine, which is something you currently cannot do with the Mac. Dell, HP, Compaq, all the machines were 1/3 - 1/2 more in cost from the name brands.

Again, was willing to pay the Mac Club entry price, but it was almost double what I was able to build. I just am a cheap bastard when it comes to electronics.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Glory's Sun

I understand and love to build my own machines, however most people just take the easy route and go pre-assembled.. this proves that macs aren't overpriced like so many people try to say.

The thing I like the most about Apple besides their support is their ProCare program. I can pay $99 a year for 52 hours of training on any program(s) of my choice. That's hard to beat. It's all done on my time and flexibility.

Let's talk NLE's since you're familiar with them cyn. If I take a 3 day course on Avid or Discreet, it will cost over $1,000 not including hotel etc. I can get ProCare for $99 and get more training on FCP and photoshop or anything. That is one reason that makes me pro apple