Should i buy a macbook?
Discussion
I need a new laptop and i fancy buying a macbook purely because they look cool. The thing that puzzles me though is the price. Why are they so damn expensive? are they really worth £800? they seem to lag behind any windows running laptop in performance specs.
Now i have never used a mac and so nothing of how they work. are they hard to learn? im not buying a book, i will self teach but will it be annoying?
or should i buy another laptop running windows for the same money?
its a minefield
Now i have never used a mac and so nothing of how they work. are they hard to learn? im not buying a book, i will self teach but will it be annoying?
or should i buy another laptop running windows for the same money?
its a minefield
No it's not (a minefield, not a Macbook, or a giant catfish).
There are two reasons for buying a Mac. One is because you want to run OS X, which you can't easily on any other manufacturer's hardware. The other is the styling.
Other than that, the Macbook is an Intel-based PC and if you're concerned with megagiga and feature-list PC spec geekery then I'm sure there are cheaper deals out there. The Macbook *is* well made, with good quality materials (it's no shitbox bottom-line cheapo notebook) - but the Thinkpads (do Lenovo still call them that) are well made too. The Macbook, unlike many previous Apple laptops, is also designed to be really easy to swap hard disk and RAM. The current one will take 4 GB of RAM - it's basically a Macbook Pro without a proper graphics card. If you're not doing graphics work then the Macbook is just as fast as a Macbook Pro - I switched back from a top-line MBP to a black Macbook with 4 GB RAM because it was just as quick
If you're going to use Windows then don't buy a Macbook. For a start, Mac freaks will consider you a rapist for using Windows as your primary OS on Apple hardware, and secondly you'll get wound up with Apple-specific stuff like the single button trackpad and the keyboard modifier key names.
But if you want to run OS X, then yeah the Macbook is a good machine. I've been using one daily since they came out as my on-client-site consulting laptop, it's tough enough for constant lugging to London and back and 8+ hours a day use.
There are two reasons for buying a Mac. One is because you want to run OS X, which you can't easily on any other manufacturer's hardware. The other is the styling.
Other than that, the Macbook is an Intel-based PC and if you're concerned with megagiga and feature-list PC spec geekery then I'm sure there are cheaper deals out there. The Macbook *is* well made, with good quality materials (it's no shitbox bottom-line cheapo notebook) - but the Thinkpads (do Lenovo still call them that) are well made too. The Macbook, unlike many previous Apple laptops, is also designed to be really easy to swap hard disk and RAM. The current one will take 4 GB of RAM - it's basically a Macbook Pro without a proper graphics card. If you're not doing graphics work then the Macbook is just as fast as a Macbook Pro - I switched back from a top-line MBP to a black Macbook with 4 GB RAM because it was just as quick
If you're going to use Windows then don't buy a Macbook. For a start, Mac freaks will consider you a rapist for using Windows as your primary OS on Apple hardware, and secondly you'll get wound up with Apple-specific stuff like the single button trackpad and the keyboard modifier key names.
But if you want to run OS X, then yeah the Macbook is a good machine. I've been using one daily since they came out as my on-client-site consulting laptop, it's tough enough for constant lugging to London and back and 8+ hours a day use.
Blue Meanie said:
page3 said:
Be aware rumours are pointing to a new smaller Macbook possibly in January.
People were saying only a few months ago to wait, as the new macbook was coming out in October. If we all waitined for the new one, we'd never get a macbook.Burgmeister said:
thanks for le replies, its looking like apple will have themselves a sale.
any problems likely to be encountered networking it (wirelessly) with windows machines?
second question can i plug another monitor in for tv card fun?
Wireless networking is generally fine. It uses a *spit* Atheros card which have been known to cause aggro every so often. But not any interoperability problems with Windows, the Mac can join a workgroup, domain or even go the whole hog and integrate into Active Directory... you'll find it just easier to use Windows Sharing and export a simple share for your user files. I'd advise getting a router rather than doing peer-to-peer 802.11 networking though. Any will do, you don't need Apple, though you get what you pay for. Apple's admin utility is very good as well, but their wireless routers *are* expensive.any problems likely to be encountered networking it (wirelessly) with windows machines?
second question can i plug another monitor in for tv card fun?
The video out on a Macbook is a Mini DVI - so you need to pay Apple another 15-20 for the adapter that you need. I use a Mini DVI to full DVI and plug my Macbook into a normal 18" 1280x1024 external LCD screen and span across two displays for work.
What you mean by 'TV card fun' I'm not sure, but you can get Mini DVI to S-video or VGA or whatever to plug into a plasma screen TV or something, and then use the Miglia DVB USB stick (I have one) to put Freeview on your Mac using software called EyeTV.
Alas I live in a Freeview shadow area and can only pick up 3 channels with my aerial so it's useless to me, but I've proved the concept works. Actually, should you want it, I may sell it... it's useless to me as it is. It's a Miglia TVMini (TVM01) USB2 adapter.
Burgmeister said:
The thing that puzzles me though is the price. Why are they so damn expensive? are they really worth £800?
Hardware-wise, they're comparable with any equivalent Windows laptop. Apple doesn't do low-end. Try to buy a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo (on the better, newer Santa Rosa platform), with built-in Bluetooth, firewire, camera and media remote and a battery that lasts 4-5 hours for the same money. The nearest equivalent is the Dell XPSM1330 which doesn't feel as well built and can often cost more to bring up to that spec (but is also frequently discounted).Whether that stuff (plus being able to run OSX) is important is up to you. It is to me, but if you're using it at home and aren't likely to use the power or that extra stuff, then you'll probably be happy with one of the £400 windows laptops.
On a slightly sober point before my posts degenerate into Friday delinquency, think about what you're going to use the machine for in detail.
Assuming you actually pay for software you use that adds value to your life (as opposed to an app you use once, try out and don't bother using it again), the software costs of licences for many important packages can be a significant proportion of the price of the entire 'solution'.
If you need to deal with industry-standard Microsoft Office documents, then a copy of Office for either Windows or OS X will be more than a hundred quid on its own. Proper design / photo manipulation / website creation etc. software costs money. Many really good shareware tools are exactly that - you can avoid paying if you put up with the nag screens etc. but morally you ought to compensate the author.
As a result I reckon the cost of software on my Macbook, for example (compared to my other, more expensive Macs) is a major fraction of the entire solution's overall cost.
Getting a cheap £400 windows shitbox may give you a computer with an OS, but one BIG difference between OS X and Windows is that the consumer (i.e. not the pro / server boxen) Apple machines get real, proper, usable software bundles that aren't either cobbled together shareware you ought to pay for, or disks full of crapware, poor unsaleable software or worse, malware and viruses. The cheap end of the PC Windows laptop spectrum will come with a bunch of unknown 'productivity' apps but they'll either be crap, or shareware 'demo' versions or some other rubbish. Apple's stuff works out of the box.
The wild card here is Linux. Of course, Linux is free and so are the vast majority of applications. But by the very nature, opensource apps are variable in quality and support. For basic stuff, Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, the GIMP etc, are all solid and free, so would make sense on your cheap-ass £400 Windows laptop. But just because a Linux app is written by an enthusiast (pretty much by definition) doesn't mean it'll be well coded and good enough for production use... there are plenty of crap programmers out there!!!
Just do your research if you're very cost-sensitive, because if cost is the primary concern then a decent new Linux distro makes a strong case for itself, but some of the hardware in cheap laptops is utter crap and may not have reliable, stable Linux drivers. Wireless internet devices (another Atheros rant anyone?) can be a pig to get working in Linux because the manufacturer won't release open source for the driver.
Lastly, you can ignore all of this post if you haven't thought about software costs because you were planning to steal it all (very common with M$ Office because it's actually quite an expensive app suite..) Some employers also operate a scheme where their site licence for standard productivity apps extends to employees' home machines, which can help.
Assuming you actually pay for software you use that adds value to your life (as opposed to an app you use once, try out and don't bother using it again), the software costs of licences for many important packages can be a significant proportion of the price of the entire 'solution'.
If you need to deal with industry-standard Microsoft Office documents, then a copy of Office for either Windows or OS X will be more than a hundred quid on its own. Proper design / photo manipulation / website creation etc. software costs money. Many really good shareware tools are exactly that - you can avoid paying if you put up with the nag screens etc. but morally you ought to compensate the author.
As a result I reckon the cost of software on my Macbook, for example (compared to my other, more expensive Macs) is a major fraction of the entire solution's overall cost.
Getting a cheap £400 windows shitbox may give you a computer with an OS, but one BIG difference between OS X and Windows is that the consumer (i.e. not the pro / server boxen) Apple machines get real, proper, usable software bundles that aren't either cobbled together shareware you ought to pay for, or disks full of crapware, poor unsaleable software or worse, malware and viruses. The cheap end of the PC Windows laptop spectrum will come with a bunch of unknown 'productivity' apps but they'll either be crap, or shareware 'demo' versions or some other rubbish. Apple's stuff works out of the box.
The wild card here is Linux. Of course, Linux is free and so are the vast majority of applications. But by the very nature, opensource apps are variable in quality and support. For basic stuff, Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, the GIMP etc, are all solid and free, so would make sense on your cheap-ass £400 Windows laptop. But just because a Linux app is written by an enthusiast (pretty much by definition) doesn't mean it'll be well coded and good enough for production use... there are plenty of crap programmers out there!!!
Just do your research if you're very cost-sensitive, because if cost is the primary concern then a decent new Linux distro makes a strong case for itself, but some of the hardware in cheap laptops is utter crap and may not have reliable, stable Linux drivers. Wireless internet devices (another Atheros rant anyone?) can be a pig to get working in Linux because the manufacturer won't release open source for the driver.
Lastly, you can ignore all of this post if you haven't thought about software costs because you were planning to steal it all (very common with M$ Office because it's actually quite an expensive app suite..) Some employers also operate a scheme where their site licence for standard productivity apps extends to employees' home machines, which can help.
cyberface said:
On a slightly sober point before my posts degenerate into Friday delinquency, think about what you're going to use the machine for in detail.
Assuming you actually pay for software you use that adds value to your life (as opposed to an app you use once, try out and don't bother using it again), the software costs of licences for many important packages can be a significant proportion of the price of the entire 'solution'.
If you need to deal with industry-standard Microsoft Office documents, then a copy of Office for either Windows or OS X will be more than a hundred quid on its own. Proper design / photo manipulation / website creation etc. software costs money. Many really good shareware tools are exactly that - you can avoid paying if you put up with the nag screens etc. but morally you ought to compensate the author.
As a result I reckon the cost of software on my Macbook, for example (compared to my other, more expensive Macs) is a major fraction of the entire solution's overall cost.
Getting a cheap £400 windows shitbox may give you a computer with an OS, but one BIG difference between OS X and Windows is that the consumer (i.e. not the pro / server boxen) Apple machines get real, proper, usable software bundles that aren't either cobbled together shareware you ought to pay for, or disks full of crapware, poor unsaleable software or worse, malware and viruses. The cheap end of the PC Windows laptop spectrum will come with a bunch of unknown 'productivity' apps but they'll either be crap, or shareware 'demo' versions or some other rubbish. Apple's stuff works out of the box.
The wild card here is Linux. Of course, Linux is free and so are the vast majority of applications. But by the very nature, opensource apps are variable in quality and support. For basic stuff, Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, the GIMP etc, are all solid and free, so would make sense on your cheap-ass £400 Windows laptop. But just because a Linux app is written by an enthusiast (pretty much by definition) doesn't mean it'll be well coded and good enough for production use... there are plenty of crap programmers out there!!!
Just do your research if you're very cost-sensitive, because if cost is the primary concern then a decent new Linux distro makes a strong case for itself, but some of the hardware in cheap laptops is utter crap and may not have reliable, stable Linux drivers. Wireless internet devices (another Atheros rant anyone?) can be a pig to get working in Linux because the manufacturer won't release open source for the driver.
Lastly, you can ignore all of this post if you haven't thought about software costs because you were planning to steal it all (very common with M$ Office because it's actually quite an expensive app suite..) Some employers also operate a scheme where their site licence for standard productivity apps extends to employees' home machines, which can help.
no no no, no hardcore apps will be reqd. a small portion of my time will be devoted to video apps but mot enourgh to warrant mega ram. i have forgotten evrrything else, ph is not good when when hammered. emule is a brilliant tool Assuming you actually pay for software you use that adds value to your life (as opposed to an app you use once, try out and don't bother using it again), the software costs of licences for many important packages can be a significant proportion of the price of the entire 'solution'.
If you need to deal with industry-standard Microsoft Office documents, then a copy of Office for either Windows or OS X will be more than a hundred quid on its own. Proper design / photo manipulation / website creation etc. software costs money. Many really good shareware tools are exactly that - you can avoid paying if you put up with the nag screens etc. but morally you ought to compensate the author.
As a result I reckon the cost of software on my Macbook, for example (compared to my other, more expensive Macs) is a major fraction of the entire solution's overall cost.
Getting a cheap £400 windows shitbox may give you a computer with an OS, but one BIG difference between OS X and Windows is that the consumer (i.e. not the pro / server boxen) Apple machines get real, proper, usable software bundles that aren't either cobbled together shareware you ought to pay for, or disks full of crapware, poor unsaleable software or worse, malware and viruses. The cheap end of the PC Windows laptop spectrum will come with a bunch of unknown 'productivity' apps but they'll either be crap, or shareware 'demo' versions or some other rubbish. Apple's stuff works out of the box.
The wild card here is Linux. Of course, Linux is free and so are the vast majority of applications. But by the very nature, opensource apps are variable in quality and support. For basic stuff, Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, the GIMP etc, are all solid and free, so would make sense on your cheap-ass £400 Windows laptop. But just because a Linux app is written by an enthusiast (pretty much by definition) doesn't mean it'll be well coded and good enough for production use... there are plenty of crap programmers out there!!!
Just do your research if you're very cost-sensitive, because if cost is the primary concern then a decent new Linux distro makes a strong case for itself, but some of the hardware in cheap laptops is utter crap and may not have reliable, stable Linux drivers. Wireless internet devices (another Atheros rant anyone?) can be a pig to get working in Linux because the manufacturer won't release open source for the driver.
Lastly, you can ignore all of this post if you haven't thought about software costs because you were planning to steal it all (very common with M$ Office because it's actually quite an expensive app suite..) Some employers also operate a scheme where their site licence for standard productivity apps extends to employees' home machines, which can help.
i hate acer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxcyberface said:
Getting a cheap £400 windows shitbox may give you a computer with an OS, but one BIG difference between OS X and Windows is that the consumer (i.e. not the pro / server boxen) Apple machines get real, proper, usable software bundles that aren't either cobbled together shareware you ought to pay for, or disks full of crapware, poor unsaleable software or worse, malware and viruses. The cheap end of the PC Windows laptop spectrum will come with a bunch of unknown 'productivity' apps but they'll either be crap, or shareware 'demo' versions or some other rubbish. Apple's stuff works out of the box.
What a silly rant.. 'windows shit box' 'apple's stuff works ot the box' blah be de blah..... utter rubbish and codswollop.For a start; a MAC is just a PC, it's innards are identical - the difference being the OS, and while OSX is elegant.. Windows machines have their uses. I own a Macbook Pro and a couple of Windows machines too.. and I've no problems with any of them. Your rant is just a generic Apple fanboy rant - no foundations in the real world...
All that said, to the OP.. I went through a few Macbooks and the build quality was crappy with misalligned lids on every one. I got a Pro in the end anyway to run Motion / FC and this is built well. Macbooks from personal experience are not built well even if they appear so. As for money.. it's true that actually for the cash outlay, there's not that much difference between a Mac or a Windows based laptop of similar spec.. especially if you can get a refurb or 2nd hand.. brand new a Macbook is maybe £150 overpriced next to a similar spec Sony.
cyberface said:
If Apple finally bring us old 12" Powerbook mourners a super-thin ultraportable Mac laptop then you can bet your house that it will be expensive. The ultraportable Panasonic Toughbook costs a bomb, a solid-state-disk Apple 'Mac Book Flash' would probably be £2,000. And I'd have one in a heartbeat... portability is king
i mourn the 12" powerbook it was tinyThe macbook seemed huge in comparison
LDNrevs said:
cyberface said:
Getting a cheap £400 windows shitbox may give you a computer with an OS, but one BIG difference between OS X and Windows is that the consumer (i.e. not the pro / server boxen) Apple machines get real, proper, usable software bundles that aren't either cobbled together shareware you ought to pay for, or disks full of crapware, poor unsaleable software or worse, malware and viruses. The cheap end of the PC Windows laptop spectrum will come with a bunch of unknown 'productivity' apps but they'll either be crap, or shareware 'demo' versions or some other rubbish. Apple's stuff works out of the box.
What a silly rant.. 'windows shit box' 'apple's stuff works ot the box' blah be de blah..... utter rubbish and codswollop.For a start; a MAC is just a PC, it's innards are identical - the difference being the OS, and while OSX is elegant.. Windows machines have their uses. I own a Macbook Pro and a couple of Windows machines too.. and I've no problems with any of them. Your rant is just a generic Apple fanboy rant - no foundations in the real world...
All that said, to the OP.. I went through a few Macbooks and the build quality was crappy with misalligned lids on every one. I got a Pro in the end anyway to run Motion / FC and this is built well. Macbooks from personal experience are not built well even if they appear so. As for money.. it's true that actually for the cash outlay, there's not that much difference between a Mac or a Windows based laptop of similar spec.. especially if you can get a refurb or 2nd hand.. brand new a Macbook is maybe £150 overpriced next to a similar spec Sony.
I was quite clearly pointing out the difference between the software you get on a £400 windows shitbox compared to the bundled software you get with an Apple computer. The bundled software on the cheap PCs is usually rubbish, the bundled software Apple give you 'just works'.
I stand by that comment. You appear to have got the concepts of hardware and software mixed up.
Flaming me as as a 'generic fanboy' with 'no foundations in the real world' (which is complete demonstrable nonsense if you have read *any* of my posts in this forum) and then 'correcting' me about how the innards are identical, when I was talking about the difference in productivity software - you are an ignorant fool.
cyberface said:
Flaming me as as a 'generic fanboy' with 'no foundations in the real world' (which is complete demonstrable nonsense if you have read *any* of my posts in this forum) and then 'correcting' me about how the innards are identical, when I was talking about the difference in productivity software - you are an ignorant fool.
"Windows shit box" = generic Apple fanboy comment. And you know it You're rumbled my son... devotion to a brand is about as low as you can get.... as for productivity out of the box, they're about equal in my eyes and with a massive library of software / both good and crap for Windows, in some cases and niches; Windows is the way to go. Same applies if you want to play games; I love my Macbook Pro but you'll never catch me saying stupid shit about Windows boxes and the hilarious and frankly genious way Apple fanboys type 'M$'. BlehhLDNrevs said:
cyberface said:
Flaming me as as a 'generic fanboy' with 'no foundations in the real world' (which is complete demonstrable nonsense if you have read *any* of my posts in this forum) and then 'correcting' me about how the innards are identical, when I was talking about the difference in productivity software - you are an ignorant fool.
"Windows shit box" = generic Apple fanboy comment. And you know it You're rumbled my son... devotion to a brand is about as low as you can get.... as for productivity out of the box, they're about equal in my eyes and with a massive library of software / both good and crap for Windows, in some cases and niches; Windows is the way to go. Same applies if you want to play games; I love my Macbook Pro but you'll never catch me saying stupid shit about Windows boxes and the hilarious and frankly genious way Apple fanboys type 'M$'. BlehhIf I was calling all Windows machines 'shitboxes' then I'd have to include all current Apple hardware since you can format the HD, rip off OS X, install Windows natively and run the machine as a pure Windows PC. As I pointed out in this thread. But I didn't - I said, and I quote, '£400 windows shitbox'.
You're slinging arrows at the wrong Apple enthusiast here old bean, I'm an enthusiast for sure, but not a 'generic Apple fanboy'. Anyone here who's read my contributions here over the years will know this.
Saying I'm 'as low as you can get' for 'devotion to a brand' - well piss off fella, you're wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but that's the same as the fact that you're entitled to be a dickhead.
Alternatively, instead of trolling for a fight, show me a new £400 laptop that comes with a suite of paid-for (i.e. not 'demo', 'trial' or 'shareware') applications that equal the Apple iLife stuff you get with a consumer Macbook. After all, I was talking about software, and how cheap PCs are often sold with a spec sheet full of software that turns out to be crapware. But you won't, you'll probably continue to insult me with ad-hominem arguments.
cyberface said:
LDNrevs said:
cyberface said:
Flaming me as as a 'generic fanboy' with 'no foundations in the real world' (which is complete demonstrable nonsense if you have read *any* of my posts in this forum) and then 'correcting' me about how the innards are identical, when I was talking about the difference in productivity software - you are an ignorant fool.
"Windows shit box" = generic Apple fanboy comment. And you know it You're rumbled my son... devotion to a brand is about as low as you can get.... as for productivity out of the box, they're about equal in my eyes and with a massive library of software / both good and crap for Windows, in some cases and niches; Windows is the way to go. Same applies if you want to play games; I love my Macbook Pro but you'll never catch me saying stupid shit about Windows boxes and the hilarious and frankly genious way Apple fanboys type 'M$'. BlehhIf I was calling all Windows machines 'shitboxes' then I'd have to include all current Apple hardware since you can format the HD, rip off OS X, install Windows natively and run the machine as a pure Windows PC. As I pointed out in this thread. But I didn't - I said, and I quote, '£400 windows shitbox'.
You're slinging arrows at the wrong Apple enthusiast here old bean, I'm an enthusiast for sure, but not a 'generic Apple fanboy'. Anyone here who's read my contributions here over the years will know this.
Saying I'm 'as low as you can get' for 'devotion to a brand' - well piss off fella, you're wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but that's the same as the fact that you're entitled to be a dickhead.
Alternatively, instead of trolling for a fight, show me a new £400 laptop that comes with a suite of paid-for (i.e. not 'demo', 'trial' or 'shareware') applications that equal the Apple iLife stuff you get with a consumer Macbook. After all, I was talking about software, and how cheap PCs are often sold with a spec sheet full of software that turns out to be crapware. But you won't, you'll probably continue to insult me with ad-hominem arguments.
You know you're a fanboy when you type 'M$'. No trolling but I simply had to pull your card for being silly lil fanboy now didn't I.
True what you say about £400 computers being often crap.. but what do you get on a 2 grand Windows machine that you don't on a £400 one software wise? Let's use XP as an example - on both machines, you're likely to have the same set of progs are you not? WM, WMM etc etc
Just admit it mate; that's the first step to being cured.
x
cyberface said:
show me a new £400 laptop that comes with a suite of paid-for (i.e. not 'demo', 'trial' or 'shareware') applications that equal the Apple iLife stuff you get with a consumer Macbook.
MovieMaker 6 isn't too bad. Although I would shell out for Premiere Elements TBH.Just download Picasa and Acid Xpress for the iPhoto and Garage Band components. I run Acid Pro, and am amazed at the stuff they have left in Xpress.
Probably the best "free" software is Toshiba's bundling of OneNote with their laptops. It is one of the few MS products that Mac fans seem to love
Of course, the beauty of iLife is that it is all integrated, and all works to same way. Which is no doubt the clincher for most people who want basic stuff.
Noger said:
cyberface said:
show me a new £400 laptop that comes with a suite of paid-for (i.e. not 'demo', 'trial' or 'shareware') applications that equal the Apple iLife stuff you get with a consumer Macbook.
MovieMaker 6 isn't too bad. Although I would shell out for Premiere Elements TBH.Just download Picasa and Acid Xpress for the iPhoto and Garage Band components. I run Acid Pro, and am amazed at the stuff they have left in Xpress.
Probably the best "free" software is Toshiba's bundling of OneNote with their laptops. It is one of the few MS products that Mac fans seem to love
Of course, the beauty of iLife is that it is all integrated, and all works to same way. Which is no doubt the clincher for most people who want basic stuff.
sjg said:
Burgmeister said:
The thing that puzzles me though is the price. Why are they so damn expensive? are they really worth £800?
Hardware-wise, they're comparable with any equivalent Windows laptop. Apple doesn't do low-end. Try to buy a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo (on the better, newer Santa Rosa platform), with built-in Bluetooth, firewire, camera and media remote and a battery that lasts 4-5 hours for the same money. The nearest equivalent is the Dell XPSM1330 which doesn't feel as well built and can often cost more to bring up to that spec (but is also frequently discounted).
My Dell laptop is a Core 2 Duo, bluetooth, firewire, camera, wireless, silly big HD, etc. for a lot less than £800 and it's not in the XPS range, the battery lasts 6 hours without too much bother. A remote is £20.
Buy an Apple if you want to say 'look at my laptop, the apple on the back glows when it's switched on and it's not a Windows PC', the sensible money is on a Windows PC.
I know no-one in the IT industry who uses an Apple as their home laptop.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff