Stop me buying a Macbook Pro
Discussion
sebo said:
With regards to the comments about the WiFi card - what's inferior about it? It seems to be an A,B,G,N card.
The current machines hopefully have a different one but in my era of MBP they used an Atheros chipset. It's not that they don't support the various standards, just that they aren't very good.http://pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&t...
http://pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&t...
http://pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&t...
Strangely Brown said:
qube_TA said:
My only gripe with OSX is the file management is over simplified and a bit limiting but there are various apps you can install to add that functionality.
You're the second person to say that. How so? What is that you feel is limited?I also liked the simple batch file renaming on Windows, you've a load of files with random names, if you select them all and then renamed one of them it would rename all of them and place an incremental prefix at the end of each name, Mac doesn't do this.
Also if you're copying a bunch of files from say an external drive and for what ever reason it encounters a problem with a single file, the whole process just stops, it doesn't skip the problem file and carry on. You can't get around this by copying from the command prompt. If you know Linux and can drive the CLI then it's just the same on OSX.
None of them are show stoppers but a little irritating, overall though the OS is much less hassle to use so even with these shortfalls I'd rather use a Mac than anything else.
qube_TA said:
You have a directory called Stuff on your local machine, you have another directory on a DVD with the same name, on Windows if you drag the remote Stuff to the local machine there's an option to merge the contents. On OSX it'll just replace the old directory with new one, regardless of contents, dates etc.
That's exactly what I would expect to happen. To merge the contents: Open remote folder, select all, drag to local folder. Stuff with the same name will be overwritten, new stuff will be created, existing stuff will be preserved. Of course, you'll run into the same problem again if you have nested folders... and so on... but for a folder of files it'll do what you want.There is always 'rsync' on the command line if you need more power.
qube_TA said:
I also liked the simple batch file renaming on Windows, you've a load of files with random names, if you select them all and then renamed one of them it would rename all of them and place an incremental prefix at the end of each name, Mac doesn't do this.
OK, that one I concede. Batch renaming would be useful.qube_TA said:
Also if you're copying a bunch of files from say an external drive and for what ever reason it encounters a problem with a single file, the whole process just stops, it doesn't skip the problem file and carry on. You can't get around this by copying from the command prompt. If you know Linux and can drive the CLI then it's just the same on OSX.
Again, I agree. To stop the entire process rather than just skipping the problem file does seem a little unnecessary.qube_TA said:
None of them are show stoppers but a little irritating, overall though the OS is much less hassle to use so even with these shortfalls I'd rather use a Mac than anything else.
That's the key - It's the overall experience. Some things are just different.Man-At-Arms said:
Thats fine if your company doesn't mind a uncertified VPN client being used to access their network.Silver993tt said:
That's when I bought a Lenovo W500 with 500Gb of internal hd capacity. This laptop is very fast and has a fantastic screen (1900x1200). A colleague has a Macbook pro and we 'benchmarked' our the same business application (he with XP on the MAC) and my Lenovo thinkpad was around 30% faster. In real terms, the application ran in 10mins on the MAc and around 7mins on my Thinkpad. That's a very significant difference when you're giving a demo in front of a client that's considering spending £500k. SUre my Thinkpad is black so not so trendy but hey, when you're using these things for business who cares.
Doesn't that defeat the point of the test? - if the software you're trying to demo requires XP then I'd be surprised if it ran quicker on an XP install on a computer designed for a different OS.The true test would be to compare the OSX version of the softeware with the XP version of the software. Of course, many programs don't have an OSX version. If I was tied to XP software, I wouldn't consider a Mac.
Man-At-Arms said:
Excuse my ignorance but what does this do that the built in VPN client doesn't?ewenm said:
Silver993tt said:
That's when I bought a Lenovo W500 with 500Gb of internal hd capacity. This laptop is very fast and has a fantastic screen (1900x1200). A colleague has a Macbook pro and we 'benchmarked' our the same business application (he with XP on the MAC) and my Lenovo thinkpad was around 30% faster. In real terms, the application ran in 10mins on the MAc and around 7mins on my Thinkpad. That's a very significant difference when you're giving a demo in front of a client that's considering spending £500k. SUre my Thinkpad is black so not so trendy but hey, when you're using these things for business who cares.
Doesn't that defeat the point of the test? - if the software you're trying to demo requires XP then I'd be surprised if it ran quicker on an XP install on a computer designed for a different OS.The true test would be to compare the OSX version of the softeware with the XP version of the software. Of course, many programs don't have an OSX version. If I was tied to XP software, I wouldn't consider a Mac.
Silver993tt said:
It's just an example of where, while Windows has it's imperfections, it is very good at running some serious business applications
It's not really - unless I've misunderstood your post, it's an example of where one machine running Windows is faster than another machine running Windows.Regarding the file management, I guess it's true that the OS X interface is less flexible than modern Windows. However it is entirely by design. Whereas in Windows at every opportunity the OS asks you what to do with a little popup, OS X takes a common-sense approach wherever reasonable.
Case in point: nobody hates the security features of OS X,but everyone hates how Windows warns you about eight times before you open a file you got from the internet. OS X only warns you once, and not even opens some things automatically if they are "safe". Can't really explain it well enough but it's basically like they concentrated on not pissing you off for the 99/100 times you do something rather than making sure you really meant to do it the 1/100 times.
Case in point: nobody hates the security features of OS X,but everyone hates how Windows warns you about eight times before you open a file you got from the internet. OS X only warns you once, and not even opens some things automatically if they are "safe". Can't really explain it well enough but it's basically like they concentrated on not pissing you off for the 99/100 times you do something rather than making sure you really meant to do it the 1/100 times.
jamieboy said:
Silver993tt said:
It's just an example of where, while Windows has it's imperfections, it is very good at running some serious business applications
It's not really - unless I've misunderstood your post, it's an example of where one machine running Windows is faster than another machine running Windows.bogwoppit said:
Regarding the file management, I guess it's true that the OS X interface is less flexible than modern Windows. However it is entirely by design. Whereas in Windows at every opportunity the OS asks you what to do with a little popup, OS X takes a common-sense approach wherever reasonable.
Case in point: nobody hates the security features of OS X,but everyone hates how Windows warns you about eight times before you open a file you got from the internet. OS X only warns you once, and not even opens some things automatically if they are "safe". Can't really explain it well enough but it's basically like they concentrated on not pissing you off for the 99/100 times you do something rather than making sure you really meant to do it the 1/100 times.
I get one warning from Kapersky if there is a security concern.Case in point: nobody hates the security features of OS X,but everyone hates how Windows warns you about eight times before you open a file you got from the internet. OS X only warns you once, and not even opens some things automatically if they are "safe". Can't really explain it well enough but it's basically like they concentrated on not pissing you off for the 99/100 times you do something rather than making sure you really meant to do it the 1/100 times.
Strangely Brown said:
ewenm said:
If I was tied to XP software, I wouldn't consider a Mac.
Why not? If you're tied to XP for business applications there is no reason not to buy a mac. You can still install and run Windows and you have a mac at the same time.Edit: To be fair, I bought my Mac because it's a really nice piece of kit. Great battery life, lightweight, good screen, powerful enough for my needs, and a nice piece of design. I have no major need of a particular operating system, so it was more of a want than a need purchase.
Edited by ewenm on Thursday 6th August 14:09
Silver993tt said:
There are quite a few heavy business apps that won't run on a MAC unless they are also running XP and in the example I gave it highlighted the downsides to that.
Right, but to all intents and purposes, a MBP running XP under bootcamp is exactly the same as a "PC" running XP - if your two machines were identical spec and the test results were so massively different, then I'm astonished - my experience, and the benchmark test results I've looked at, suggest that any differences should be marginal.And I say that as someone who isn't particularly a fan of Macs, but who has been running SQL Server and IIS along with some XP VMs on a MBP running XP, then Vista, now Win7 for a couple of years.
Thanks for all the replies.
I have decided that for what I want to do, I am going to go with a Samsung N110.
I'll upgrade the RAM to 2gb and hve a friend with one already that has Windows 7 working on it with almost no difference to the speeds at which XP runs on it.
I really like the look of Macs and so would likely get an iMac for home use (particularly for viewing photos and movies on in the lounge) once we move house.
But I think for my needs I'll go down the budget route with this Samsung. At least I won't cry too much when I spill beer on it.
I have decided that for what I want to do, I am going to go with a Samsung N110.
I'll upgrade the RAM to 2gb and hve a friend with one already that has Windows 7 working on it with almost no difference to the speeds at which XP runs on it.
I really like the look of Macs and so would likely get an iMac for home use (particularly for viewing photos and movies on in the lounge) once we move house.
But I think for my needs I'll go down the budget route with this Samsung. At least I won't cry too much when I spill beer on it.
ewenm said:
Strangely Brown said:
ewenm said:
If I was tied to XP software, I wouldn't consider a Mac.
Why not? If you're tied to XP for business applications there is no reason not to buy a mac. You can still install and run Windows and you have a mac at the same time.Edit: To be fair, I bought my Mac because it's a really nice piece of kit. Great battery life, lightweight, good screen, powerful enough for my needs, and a nice piece of design. I have no major need of a particular operating system, so it was more of a want than a need purchase.
Edited by ewenm on Thursday 6th August 14:09
I get 2.5 hours using wifi and sling box on batter
2.6Ghz model, pre unibody
jamieboy said:
On that (and I know this a 'me' problem rather than an 'it' problem) - let's say I've got 100 files showing in a Finder window in alphabetical order, and I want to select from "C" through to "F". I highlight the first file starting with "C" and shift-cursor-key down to the "F"s. Except I go one file too far, and highlight the first "G". No problem, just shift-cursor-up. Except that doesn't move the bottom of the selection up, it moves the top of it up. So I've got a "G" I didn't want and now a "B" I didn't want too... 
Have you tried:- Click on first file in group
- Page Up/Down to final file
- Shift-click to select all files between the two
- Option-click to add/remove specific files
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff