Just ordered an Apple Mac Book Pro...
Discussion
...17" screen version! Should be with me within a week - can't wait!!
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM-2x1GB
100GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200rpm
SuperDrive 8X
17 Glossy Widescreen Display
Have also ordered the Mac versions of 'Office' and 'Aperture 1.5', as well as the Applecare Protection.
I know non-Mac laptops are cheaper - but there's just something about the Mac.
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM-2x1GB
100GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200rpm
SuperDrive 8X
17 Glossy Widescreen Display
Have also ordered the Mac versions of 'Office' and 'Aperture 1.5', as well as the Applecare Protection.
I know non-Mac laptops are cheaper - but there's just something about the Mac.
Thanks.
I realise I may come across as a bit sad - but am REALLY looking forward to getting the Apple and becoming a Mac nerd!
Bit of an impulse purchase, but my wife's a teacher - so I got an 8% educational discount on the total cost! Still more expensive than an equivalent Dell/Toshiba/HP though.
Hope I can get the wireless connected properly!
I realise I may come across as a bit sad - but am REALLY looking forward to getting the Apple and becoming a Mac nerd!
Bit of an impulse purchase, but my wife's a teacher - so I got an 8% educational discount on the total cost! Still more expensive than an equivalent Dell/Toshiba/HP though.
Hope I can get the wireless connected properly!
16610LV said:
Hope I can get the wireless connected properly!
Feed it SSID, feed it key. It won't ask if it's WEP, WPA it'll just wander off and try every possible combination of protocol until it gets let in. If it runs out of options it comes back for more info.
At least that's the case on my imac running 10.4
page3 said:
16610LV said:
I know non-Mac laptops are cheaper - but there's just something about the Mac.
Not like for like they aren't. Congratulations, and enjoy your new computer.
(...runs off to unbox new quad-core 64bit Intel Xeon x-serve
)MAC's are much more expensive. The thing about MAC's is they compete in their own market and hence no competition if you are lured into buying one.
In the PC/Laptop market there is fierce competition which by the laws of the markets drives prices down.
They are ok but at the end of the day you pay for packaging and brand rather than quality. That's not to say there is anything wrong with them but the reliability of the hardware is equal to most main brand PC's/Laptops. The OS is a little more rebust but doesn't have a 10th of Windows compatability.
I suppose its just horses for courses. A bit like buying into the IPOD brand rather than a normal MP3 player which tends to have more funcationality.
__LEE__ said:
page3 said:
16610LV said:
I know non-Mac laptops are cheaper - but there's just something about the Mac.
Not like for like they aren't. Congratulations, and enjoy your new computer.
(...runs off to unbox new quad-core 64bit Intel Xeon x-serve
)MAC's are much more expensive. The thing about MAC's is they compete in their own market and hence no competition if you are lured into buying one.
In the PC/Laptop market there is fierce competition which by the laws of the markets drives prices down.
They are ok but at the end of the day you pay for packaging and brand rather than quality. That's not to say there is anything wrong with them but the reliability of the hardware is equal to most main brand PC's/Laptops. The OS is a little more rebust but doesn't have a 10th of Windows compatability.
I suppose its just horses for courses. A bit like buying into the IPOD brand rather than a normal MP3 player which tends to have more funcationality.
If MAC's ruled the market (could never happen) PC's would be ultra cool, its just a minority rumor based on no fact. It is the same how Linux people view MAC's as kids toys and Windows as flawed.
page3 said:
16610LV said:
I know non-Mac laptops are cheaper - but there's just something about the Mac.
Not like for like they aren't. Congratulations, and enjoy your new computer.
(...runs off to unbox new quad-core 64bit Intel Xeon x-serve
)NICE!! You rendering the next Pixar animation, or something?
ThePassenger said:
Out of interest has anyone actually done a study on that? As Apple's longevity, repairs (via design issues), parts availability, all seem better than Dell and co, but...
It'd be nice to have figures to compare.
My old company did and found the MAC's to be only slightly more expensive.
The criteria worked slightly like this:
1. Employee normal windows Techies or more expensive MAC techies (less of them).
2. Out of warranty hardware repair costs. Obviously MAC's did bad in this area.
3. Software/Licence costs.
4. How scaleable are MAC's in a large environment compared to Windows?
5. User related issues. How much/time intensive to retrain users? Very expensive for all departments involved.
6. Bespoke software. How to develop software in a MAC environment?
Because of the environment the costs were too severe and personnel presented problems (Windows tech dept and Developers trained for a windows environment) the company were unwilling to try. No this isn't to say that there may not be uses for MAC's in the workplace but they couldn't be used in the company I used to work for.
Edited by __LEE__ on Saturday 2nd December 23:17
__LEE__ said:
page3 said:
16610LV said:
I know non-Mac laptops are cheaper - but there's just something about the Mac.
Not like for like they aren't. Congratulations, and enjoy your new computer.
(...runs off to unbox new quad-core 64bit Intel Xeon x-serve
)MAC's are much more expensive. The thing about MAC's is they compete in their own market and hence no competition if you are lured into buying one.
In the PC/Laptop market there is fierce competition which by the laws of the markets drives prices down.
They are ok but at the end of the day you pay for packaging and brand rather than quality. That's not to say there is anything wrong with them but the reliability of the hardware is equal to most main brand PC's/Laptops. The OS is a little more rebust but doesn't have a 10th of Windows compatability.
I suppose its just horses for courses. A bit like buying into the IPOD brand rather than a normal MP3 player which tends to have more funcationality.
If MAC's ruled the market (could never happen) PC's would be ultra cool, its just a minority rumor based on no fact. It is the same how Linux people view MAC's as kids toys and Windows as flawed.
In some respects I agree about Apple being a law unto itself and having zero competitors, however they do also sell outside of the video editing/music market... and seem to have found a niech from which nobody else seems to topple them. Although the same can be said of "Gaming laptops" I can only think of one manu who does it... Dell (who now own Alienware) others might sell identical and less 'blingy' systems but only Dell does the whole 'moding' thing.
The WinTel market tends to be very much focused on hardware, leaving the end user to come up with a software solution that ties it all together on their own (Usually supplied by Microsoft). Apple conversely seem to favour engineering a total solution; the ipod talks to the Mac which talks to the Xserve with very little tinkering required. This engineering does show in their product range as well, my old bottom rung G5 iMac is very well designed and whilst I'm sure some cost saving measures have been employed but as an end user you really don't see it.
As to the "Cult of iPod", well I've seen some people who will foam at the mouth about a new 'ipod killer' appearing, but personally I can't think of what else I'd want my MP3 player to do... other than play MP3's. I really don't want FM radio, WiFi and/or Bluetooth hanging around draining the battery. Just a simple to use MP3 player that is 'survivable' and for me that's the wee Apple beastie, for others something different might be more appropriate.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by OS X having a lack of functionality when compared to Windows; when you compare default installs they are practically the same. I'd also discount most OEM software bundles, they are often time limited demo's rather than the full product when you judge the two OS's... of course nobody mentions that they are as such in their advertising... unless its buried in the small print somewhere.
As for Linux people look at Macs as kids toys and windows people as inferior... speaking as a 'former' UNIX admin any desktop computer is a childs toy irrespective of it's operating system. Windows an IS inferior kludge of several utterly diseperate code bases all hastily thrown together in a mad panic whilst trying to convince people that it's "new and improved" and keeping compatibility to equally kludged together applications (often from its own stable). Microsoft after all these years STILL have not managed to get WoW (Windows on Windows, their emulation system) working without some serious performance hits... whilst Rosetta seems to just tootle around with minimal impact (people have been playing Word of Warcraft under emulation fine) and it's having to do CPU emulation, WoW just needs to handle API calls! The only reason Microsoft is #1 is that they were able to pull some very dodgy deals with the OEM's (sell no other OS or you'll pay retail per unit in effect), pushed the original Flight Simulator out the door; which was a must have thing in the early days and of course the old IBM deal.
__LEE__ said:
My old company did and found the MAC's to be only slightly more expensive.
The criteria worked slightly like this:
1. Employee normal windows Techies or more expensive MAC techies (less of them).
2. Out of warranty hardware repair costs. Obviously MAC's did bad in this area.
3. Software/Licence costs.
4. How scaleable are MAC's in a large environment compared to Windows?
5. User related issues. How much/time intensive to retrain users? Very expensive for all departments involved.
6. Bespoke software. How to develop software in a MAC environment?
Because of the environment the costs were too severe and personnel presented problems (Windows tech dept and Developers trained for a windows environment) the company were unwilling to try. No this isn't to say that there may not be uses for MAC's in the workplace but they couldn't be used in the company I used to work for.
The criteria worked slightly like this:
1. Employee normal windows Techies or more expensive MAC techies (less of them).
2. Out of warranty hardware repair costs. Obviously MAC's did bad in this area.
3. Software/Licence costs.
4. How scaleable are MAC's in a large environment compared to Windows?
5. User related issues. How much/time intensive to retrain users? Very expensive for all departments involved.
6. Bespoke software. How to develop software in a MAC environment?
Because of the environment the costs were too severe and personnel presented problems (Windows tech dept and Developers trained for a windows environment) the company were unwilling to try. No this isn't to say that there may not be uses for MAC's in the workplace but they couldn't be used in the company I used to work for.
Indeed, for the most part that's also the problems being faced by places looking put out anything other than the standard Windows+Office stuff. Whilst everyone 'outside' knows that Linux / OS X will scale wonderfully actually proving that you can replace your Windows clusters with them is something totally different.
Software Licenses are one of those weird areas for me. I've seen companies double licensed for stuff all the time (once on an OEM and once on a site license), although often that little cost isn't factored in and most places don't realise they've been sweet talking in to paying twice. Which I'll grant you is a beautiful trick on MS's part.
Edited by ThePassenger on Saturday 2nd December 23:57
__LEE__ said:
page3 said:
16610LV said:
I know non-Mac laptops are cheaper - but there's just something about the Mac.
Not like for like they aren't. Congratulations, and enjoy your new computer.
(...runs off to unbox new quad-core 64bit Intel Xeon x-serve
)MAC's are much more expensive. The thing about MAC's is they compete in their own market and hence no competition if you are lured into buying one.
In the PC/Laptop market there is fierce competition which by the laws of the markets drives prices down.
They are ok but at the end of the day you pay for packaging and brand rather than quality. That's not to say there is anything wrong with them but the reliability of the hardware is equal to most main brand PC's/Laptops. The OS is a little more rebust but doesn't have a 10th of Windows compatability.
I suppose its just horses for courses. A bit like buying into the IPOD brand rather than a normal MP3 player which tends to have more funcationality.
(oh, I'd refute the iPod analogy too! An MP3 player is only as good as the software to integrate it with your computer and manage your library. iTunes rules in this respect. Blimey, I'm argumentative today... )
Edited by page3 on Sunday 3rd December 11:02
ThePassenger said:
Out of interest has anyone actually done a study on that? As Apple's longevity, repairs (via design issues), parts availability, all seem better than Dell and co, but...
It'd be nice to have figures to compare.
It'd be nice to have figures to compare.
There have been studies on initial cost vs spec - often by the Mac magazines (so one might expect some bias) but also the few magazines that cover all systems (perhaps PC World, USA?). But as these are infrequent, they obviously fall out of date.
I recall two relatively recently, but can't give you exact figures.
The first compared the Mac Mini (PPC version, I think), against the Dell equivalent. The second, on launch of the quad-core Intel PowerMac was against the top-of-the-range Dell equivalent.
In both cases, the sticker price of the Dell was lower, but on deeper investigation it was also lower-specced. Matching specs (both ways), the Dell became more expensive - on the tower by $1,000, on the Mini by about £200.
The Mac was consistently higher specced out-of-the-box, but of course those higher specs only have value if you make use of them. Sure, everyone will appreciate a faster chipset, more RAM, a dedicated graphics card, etc., but do you personally use Firewire800, iMovie, etc. Equally, do you really need 8 USB ports?
My interpretation of both reports was that, broadly, the Apple machines are competitively priced against genuinely comparable high-street PCs, but the inclusion of vital (and useless) hardware & software has a major impact - so it always comes down to individual requirements. I also accept that some lesser-known PC manufacturers (Evesham, Alien, etc.) are very competitive on price, if perhaps in rather specialised niches of the market.
The second major report is the Customer Satisfaction one - I can't remember the author, but it's in a very similar style to the Power surveys. For as long as I can remember, at least as far back as the Second Coming of Steve Jobs, Apple has been in the top three on both desktops and laptops. Dell used to be at the same level but have slipped badly in the last two years. I'm pretty sure Gateway does very well, and Lenovo laptops may well have topped the most recent report.
It's worth mentioning here that Apple are far from perfect, what with the various problems with batteries, fans, processor temps, and various recalls.
The final area is on life cost. In the Summer there was another, fully independent analysis. I only read the summary as the full report was a few thousand dollars. Mac users will not be surprised to hear that there was a very significant life benefit in favour of the Mac. IIRC, the singificant areas were:
- Longer usable life.
- Fewer, cheaper OS upgrades (typically £100 vs £200+)
- Better inherent security
- Much less downtime, whether for crashes & failures (and finding out the cause), time & frequency of software updates, and general administration.
Sorry I can't be more specific with sources. You might want to search the news archives of one of the major Mac websites through 2006 to turn up links.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff