Mac books vs Ordinary laptops

Twoandahalfmen

What is the difference between a mac book and a lets say toshina or dell.

Creamy Goodness

two words.

build quality.

BostonB

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

two words.

build quality.

you mean like this...:D

http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/latitude-e6420-xfr/

Creamy Goodness

error encountered :pac:

BostonB

Boards put a emoticon at the end of the link. Must have thought it was funny too.

yer man!

I was asking the same question before I bought mine in 2010 (macbook pro 13"). I previously had a dell 15" which completely broke apart so that was my reason for wanting a new laptop. I also wanted something a little smaller than dell as I found it really clunky and awkward in my backpack. I was looking at ultrabooks and the macbook, the prices were practically the same and after having used the Mac OS, I just really liked it so I went for that. I'm really happy I did buy it, battery lasts 7 hours easily, lovely to type on, slim and the OS is nice to use with the hand gestures on the trackpad making me a little bit more productive.

In saying all this though, I do think ultrabooks have gotten a lot better since 2010, for example I've used some sony vaio and lenovo laptops and they are lovely to use and have similar battery lifespan and same processors, also a tad cheaper but not by much.

I think it's down to the OS nearly at this stage. For me I just find it better over windows, no drivers to fiddle with or extensive installation or uninstallation of bloatware, the thing just works right out of the box.

Procrastastudy

Build quality of apple products is no better then similarly priced windows based laptops. I'm going to break with tradition and not go on my normal mac rant as we're in the mac forum instead I'm going to tell you about your consumer rights.

You have a contract with the retailer of what ever laptop you buy. Various acts require that the product be free from defects for a reasonable time, and repairs made without significant inconvenience to you. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the small claims court expect laptops to last 3-5 years of moderate usage. I'd let the fact that any laptop you buy mac or PC will be covered under your statutory rights long after your manufacturers guarantee expires guide you to the best value for money.

BostonB

Twoandahalfmen wrote: »

What is the difference between a mac book and a lets say toshina or dell.

If you post that question in a Mac forum in the main you're only going to get a pro mac answer. Just so your aware of that.

Dell sell probably 100 difference type of laptops from about 350-4000. Many of which are modular and have business specific features like workstations, docks etc. or simply as cheap as they can make it for people on a tight budget. Apple sell only 10 or so laptops from 1300~3000. So a very different market and product range. That's before you get into that its a different OS.

You question really should be, this is my budget, this is what I need to do what laptop should I get.

mad m

My Son has saved up money to buy a Mac Pro 13" with retina display. Getting it in states(ok daddy,me) is giving 200 euro towards it. Ive tried to talk him into getting something less pricey but he is having none of it...

Can someone in here advise otherwise? He wants to do a bit of gaming, but with the Intel HD4000 chip I said it wont be up to much! He likes the Os of Apple, his Uncle has an imac and is always on it.

yer man!

mad m wrote: »

My Son has saved up money to buy a Mac Pro 13" with retina display. Getting it in states(ok daddy,me) is giving 200 euro towards it. Ive tried to talk him into getting something less pricey but he is having none of it...

Can someone in here advise otherwise? He wants to do a bit of gaming, but with the Intel HD4000 chip I said it wont be up to much! He likes the Os of Apple, his Uncle has an imac and is always on it.

I would be inclined to agree that the new retina macbooks are too expensive. I don't game so I can't comment on that, but did you tell him to have a look at windows ultrabooks, now some of them are still nearly as expensive as the macbooks but they probably have more power and upgradability for a little less money... go into pc world and have a look, some acer and sony vaio machines are really nice.

I can relate to how your son thinks, when my dell broke I wanted a mac and nothing else (they were a lot cheaper when I bought mine however) so I doubt you'll be able to sway him. If he isn't taking any of it and wants a macbook end of, make sure you get it covered under the house insurance.

muggyog

BostonB wrote: »

you mean like this...:D

http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/latitude-e6420-xfr/

more like this

BallisticArmor™ indeed, wouldn't last ten minutes with my daughter.

Build quality with Apple has over the years come level with other computer manufacturers from its previous better position.
The real question you should ask is the difference in product rather than the difference in manufacturer. ( HP excepted, they are poor in the build quality department. High spec, cr@p computers)

Sinfonia

Apple are known for building their own components and/or rigorously testing any components built by others.

Generally speaking, other PC manufacturers are known to be less rigorous, and less concerned with making sure that everything works together perfectly.

Disclaimer: the above is just my experience & what I've heard from others (some who work for relevant companies)

The Mac OS is not for everybody, but I love it. Also, you can use Windows on a Mac (even use both), but as far as I am aware, you cannot use Mac OS on a non-Apple computer.

As for gaming, most games manufacturers don't currently make games for Mac OS (although it's on the rise) but as before, this can be solved by using Windows on the Mac.

As BostonB said, it should come down to budget and what you actually need a laptop to do; many many people by a Macbook and then use it for basic web browsing, college notes/essays etc. Essentially the kind of usage that could be undertaken with a laptop half or a third of the price.
Most people who buy a Macbook Pro for example, and who actually utilise its power are typically using it for video editing, music production and the likes; i.e. projects that require a lot of power.

That said, the Macbook is a beautiful-looking machine (IMO), and in my experience, once someone wants one, they rarely change their mind.

BostonB

Sinfonia wrote: »

Apple are known for building assembling their own components and/or rigorously testing any components built by others.....

Most of the parts in Macs are the same as all the other manufacturers. Obviously a few are different like the screens, motherboards and case. But in general a lot of the parts are the same. Which is why when Nvida had a design fault in their graphics chips, it affected Apple Mac Books the same as everyone else.

I think where they do better is their after-care under warranty. Out of warranty it might be a problem, but within they are good at fixing and replacing things. At least if there's been a class action to force their hand.

You generally don't end up speaking with someone with poor English why a software update isn't going fix a problem say with the broken hinges, or a button that's fallen off. As you do with some of the cheaper products.

Procrastastudy

BostonB wrote: »

I think where they do better is their after-care under warranty. Out of warranty it might be a problem, but within they are good at fixing and replacing things. At least if there's been a class action to force their hand.

You generally don't end up speaking with someone with poor English why a software update isn't going fix a problem say with the broken hinges, or a button that's fallen off. As you do with some of the cheaper products.

This is the fault of the consumer dealing with the manufacturer rather than with the retailer as they should in the first instance.

One more plus point for Macs before I add something about the OS the screens are very, very good. They are total overkill (mac use AAA panels where as a A+ panel would be grand) but to be fair it does show their commitment to it being perfect out of the box. As it should as if you compared it to the auto mobile sector Apple would be in the same segment as Aston Martin.

The OS happily runs on various platforms. It's Apple's anti-competitive business practices that prevent normal joe soaps from buying a €300 PC and sticking the mac OS on it.

useless

+1 on the mac build quality. My late 2008 aluminium macbook is still near perfect. So good that i couldnt justify the 1500 odd euro it was going to cost to replace it with a new MBP earlier this year. Instead I spend 100 on a new HDD and an 8GB RAM upgrade and its running perfectly.

In comparison, on my 18 month old Dell work laptop the letters are starting to fade on the keyboard and I've a couple of dead pixels on the screen. Maybe thats an unfair comparison- the Dell is a 4-500 euro corporate machine and the macbook cost more than double that when new

ZENER

I still have a MacBook Pro from early 2006 which apart from the battery is in perfect nick ! I doubt there's many Dells or Compaqs could say the same. Because it has SATA I was able to upgrade it to an SSD recently which improved it no end. Only selling it now because I need more horse power for video editing. In comparison to a lot of the low cost laptops on sale today it would rings around them spec-wise.

Ken

Procrastastudy

ZENER wrote: »

I still have a MacBook Pro from early 2006 which apart from the battery is in perfect nick ! I doubt there's many Dells or Compaqs could say the same. Because it has SATA I was able to upgrade it to an SSD recently which improved it no end. Only selling it now because I need more horse power for video editing. In comparison to a lot of the low cost laptops on sale today it would rings around them spec-wise.

Ken

Sorry to keep commenting but this is pure perspective. There isn't a chance that even a top end machine from seven years ago is a match for current bottom end machines. Computing power doubles every 18 months to two years. We're somewhere between 8 and 16 times the power of 2006 machines.

What is fair to say is for purely market driven reasons macs hold their value. Chances are you probably will be able to sell a 2006 mac where as a 2006 PC would be in the bin.

ZENER

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Sorry to keep commenting but this is pure perspective. There isn't a chance that even a top end machine from seven years ago is a match for current bottom end machines. Computing power doubles every 18 months to two years.

I'm familiar with Moores law but it doesn't take into account aesthetics and build quality, just processing power. It also applies to the top end processors. As you've already mentioned Apple screw together some very impressive kit. This is what you pay for when you buy a Mac. What's your beef with Apple by the way ? You seem to take every opportunity possible to derate them ?

Ken

Procrastastudy

ZENER wrote: »

I'm familiar with Moores law but it doesn't take into account aesthetics and build quality, just processing power. It also applies to the top end processors. As you've already mentioned Apple screw together some very impressive kit. This is what you pay for when you buy a Mac. What's your beef with Apple by the way ? You seem to take every opportunity possible to derate them ?

Ken

My problem is the cost and anti-competitive business practices. I think it's fair to say that if Apple's market penetration was significantly higher there would be cases taken against them for some of their business practises.

I think if you read through this tread I've been very fair to Apple. The kit itself isn't that impressive in all honesty it's pretty standard PC fare with a very good screen and a snazzy case. Someone here has suggested that similar specs are coming into line with PC prices - I don't follow it that closely but if they are my problem, in the main would cease.

I'm afraid, in my opinion, it's simply wrong to suggest that seven year old kit can compete with even the bottom end today, hence my post.

ZENER

Cost is dependent on what the market will bear, if someone is prepared to pay the price asked then it's an acceptable price. Microsoft have always charged a lot for their OS, only with Windows 8 have they reconsidered this practice. Apple by comparison charge a minimal amount for their latest OS (17.99) and in comparison to MS they always have done.

As for competitiveness, Apple are no more protective than any other producer. Microsoft fought tooth and nail to prevent Internet Explorer from being detached from Windows, even then they didn't make it too easy to do so. Samsung (attempt by both to ban sales) and Sony (rootkits) also tried just as hard to protect their business interests ! You can't just single out Apple to be guilty of these practices.

Apple is unique in computer circles, being the only only one to sell both hardware and an OS specific to its hardware to the general public. (SPARC are a similar company but sell to a specific type of user). It would be brilliant if Apple provided a version of OS X that could be installed on any computer, but why should they ? Maybe in the future they will but that's not their business !

Ken

mathepac

Procrastastudy wrote: »

My problem is the cost and anti-competitive business practices. ...

Neither of which is a problem for the market generally. Apple chooses not to licence its OS to garage builders or "me-tooers". They rely on their USP (OS X / iOS) to distinguish them from the opposition. They've invested in it heavily and seem determined to keep it in-house

Procrastastudy wrote: »

... I think it's fair to say that if Apple's market penetration was significantly higher there would be cases taken against them for some of their business practises. ...

Market penetration in what market? Apple is the market leader in its traditional markets, including markets it created. In terms of rivals Apple is now bigger than Dell, Oracle, IBM and Microsoft combined, is the second (or first depending on stock market fluctuations) largest company in the world and defined the business practices in the markets it created.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

... I think if you read through this tread I've been very fair to Apple. The kit itself isn't that impressive in all honesty it's pretty standard PC fare with a very good screen and a snazzy case. Someone here has suggested that similar specs are coming into line with PC prices - I don't follow it that closely but if they are my problem, in the main would cease.

I'm afraid, in my opinion, it's simply wrong to suggest that seven year old kit can compete with even the bottom end today, hence my post.

Maybe you have been fair but like others I think you miss the whole point of Apple and OS X / iOS. It's all about user empowerment and user productivity. Nothing comes close to OS X and user-friendliness and that's the real power Apple has put in users' hands. Ignore CPU cycles, number of cores and hardware specs, it's the power to get your stuff done. As an ad used to say ungrammatically, "Think Different".

Procrastastudy

mathepac wrote: »

Neither of which is a problem for the market generally. Apple chooses not to licence its OS to garage builders or "me-tooers". They rely on their USP (OS X / iOS) to distinguish them from the opposition. They've invested in it heavily and seem determined to keep it in-house

I relaise that but frankly I find it anti-competative. If other companies were allowed to use mac OS we'd see prices come down. Lack of competition in my view is always a bad thing for the consumer.

At a consumer level there is a real belief that Apple's two year warranty is 'good' and market leading when it doesn't even meet statutory rights.

Build quality is never compared like for like,

mathepac wrote: »

Market penetration in what market? Apple is the market leader in its traditional markets, including markets it created. In terms of rivals Apple is now bigger than Dell, Oracle, IBM and Microsoft combined, is the second (or first depending on stock market fluctuations) largest company in the world and defined the business practices in the markets it created.

In the OS market. I don't believe Apple's OS has the penetration Microsoft has. If they did I'm sure they would face litigation along the lines Microsoft has for it's own anti-competitive behaviours, inter alia, Internet Explorer.

I'm also not overly enthused about the various patent cases taken.

mathepac wrote: »

Maybe you have been fair but like others I think you miss the whole point of Apple and OS X / iOS. It's all about user empowerment and user productivity. Nothing comes close to OS X and user-friendliness and that's the real power Apple has put in users' hands. Ignore CPU cycles, number of cores and hardware specs, it's the power to get your stuff done. As an ad used to say ungrammatically, "Think Different".

I simply don't agree that the OS provides that to the degree many proponets suggest. However I'll concede I don't use the mac OS that often. For what I need a computer for; various legal websites, writing, games and porn I'm not sure how any OS could get me there any faster than any version of windows since XP. I again concede that if you're a video editor (to some degree) or an animator there are advantages to mac. I don't think, however, this is where the OP is coming from. On that note I'll leave it at that as I believe I'm/we're dragging this OT.

BostonB

ZENER wrote: »

I still have a MacBook Pro from early 2006 which apart from the battery is in perfect nick ! I doubt there's many Dells or Compaqs could say the same. Because it has SATA I was able to upgrade it to an SSD recently which improved it no end. Only selling it now because I need more horse power for video editing. In comparison to a lot of the low cost laptops on sale today it would rings around them spec-wise.

Ken

Not that unusual. My main laptop coincidentally is a 2006 Dell. Still in daily use. I know a bunch of others similarly in use too. 2006 is a Core2Duo laptop vintage. My sis uses an even older celeron in her laptop. In Work we see a lot of even older laptops still in use. At work I have a Dual Xeon Desktop from 2003 as 2nd machine.

However I'll conceed you'll sell an old Mac for a lot more than an old Dell. But a lot of prices for old Mac gear don't make any sense tbh.

BostonB

mathepac wrote: »

Neither of which is a problem for the market generally. Apple chooses not to licence its OS to garage builders or "me-tooers". They rely on their USP (OS X / iOS) to distinguish them from the opposition. They've invested in it heavily and seem determined to keep it in-house
Market penetration in what market? Apple is the market leader in its traditional markets, including markets it created. In terms of rivals Apple is now bigger than Dell, Oracle, IBM and Microsoft combined, is the second (or first depending on stock market fluctuations) largest company in the world and defined the business practices in the markets it created.....

Slightly misleading there. Apple is the most profitable/valuable company mainly because it concentrates on only selling things it can make a healthy profit on. So it ships less products but makes more profit.

Apple tried the licencing its OS to third parties and making low cost PC's in the 90's and nearly went under. Since then its stayed clear of those markets. Apple doesn't chase market share. It chases profit. Or to put it another way, its only interesting in making things it wants to make as long as it make big margin on it.

mathepac

Procrastastudy wrote: »

... However I'll concede I don't use the mac OS that often. ... On that note I'll leave it at that as I believe I'm/we're dragging this OT.

Fair enough. As a 20+ year Mac veteran, I'm suggesting strongly to OP that he invest in a Mac.

BostonB wrote: »

Slightly misleading there. Apple is the most profitable/valuable company mainly because it concentrates on only selling things it can make a healthy profit on. ...

Which sounds like a very sensible business strategy to me, ensuring the viability of the company and support for their products and customers into the future. Where are Wang, Gateway,et al. today?

BostonB wrote: »

Apple tried the licensing its OS to third parties and making low cost PC's in the 90's and nearly went under. Since then its stayed clear of those markets. Apple doesn't chase market share. It chases profit. Or to put it another way, its only interesting in making things it wants to make as long as it make big margin on it.

My recollection is that this was the issue that lead directly to John Sculley's departure and Steve Jobs being re-hired.

Sculley was successful for his tenure mainly based on Jobs' old ideas. He was a marketeer and the company always needed a visionary-marketeer like Jobs to push designers and engineers to do more and different things. Sculley was limited to more of the same thinking.

Apple tried lots of things that failed but I believe Jobs built a learning organisation so the QuickTake, the Newton and the Newton OS all rolled forward into the iPads and iPhones and iOS of today. They no longer sell Apple printers but were one of the first companies to put quality affordable laser-printing in the hands of the home user. They pioneered the "all-in-one" desktop design and supplied all their products with in-built sharing and cheap wired (PhoneNet) networking (AppleTalk).

They make money certainly but they use the money and innovation to build better products. Oh and remember that profit is the life-blood of business. You need it to give investors a return on their money (a filthy capitalist idea that one), to invest in people, research, plant for the next generation of products to delight customers.

7upfree

BostonB wrote: »

If you post that question in a Mac forum in the main you're only going to get a pro mac answer. Just so your aware of that.

Not necessarily. We have mainly Apple stuff in our house (including a quad core i7 iMac). We also still use a 2007 Dell Desktop with a 24" monitor, along with an Acer Laptop from 2008. To be honest there is no comparison between the build quality and screen definition. The iMac is streets ahead. Everytime. But is reflected in the price unfortunately. The OS is a joy to use.

BostonB

Not necessarily? Is that not a Pro Mac answer?

I would kinda hope a top of the line relative new i7 Machine would trounce a 5 or 6 yr old machine and the tech of that time. If it was a TV I would expect a top of the line Panasonic for this or last year would be massively better than say a bush TV of 5 or 6 yrs ago. Its not like Apple haven't improved their own build quality over that time aswell.

Anyway my point was if you go into a VW forum and ask VW vs Ford you're going to get an overwhelming amount of Pro VW view points.

Passenger

It's really down to personal preference and what exactly the OP is looking for from a laptop. There are valid points from both sides but it really is a personal taste so the best thing to do would be to try out a Mac if that is the way you're leaning and get a feel for the OS. These types of threads are usually an exercise in futility that descend into an argument with both sides trying to shout the other down.

7upfree

BostonB wrote: »

Not necessarily? Is that not a Pro Mac answer?

How so? We are a Mac AND PC household, so we experience both worlds. Personally I think the whole Mac v PC thing is crap. From OUR experience the Mac is a far better machine. And that's after owning PCs since 1998.

It is about personal taste, choice, and, ultimately, the user experience. I couldn't give a fiddlers whether or not people like/dislike Macs. I like them. So does the rest of my family.

We use PCs as well. The Mac in our opinion is better. That's the reality of the situation.

BostonB

How so what?

7upfree

BostonB wrote: »

How so what?

A pro-Mac answer?