Slashdot Mirror
Doing the Math On the New MacBook
Technologizer writes "Apple's new MacBook is a significantly different machine than its predecessor — a slicker laptop at a higher price point. But does it carry a large price premium over similar Windows PCs? I did a painstaking spec-by-spec comparison versus three roughly comparably-configured Windows machines, and came to the conclusion that the value it offers for price paid is not out of whack with the Windows world." The article uses the phrase "Mac tax," which one commenter points out is a recent Microsoft marketing canard.
There are many, many examples of how the 'reviewer' has simply picked the wrong comparisons. Sony and Lenovo are notoriously expensive. Generic Dells are notoriously crappy. And of course, where the Apple is deficient (e.g. hard disk space or RAM) the reviewer doesn't add the necessary upgrades at Apple's prices to make the price comparison fair, it simply ignores them.
I can't link to it because of Dell's site, but for about $100 more Dell currently has an XPS 1330 which whips the Macbook in virtually every respect: much better graphics, much more RAM and HDD, significantly faster CPU, bigger battery, better connectivity, and so on. Mysteriously, the reviewer has instead selected a relatively poor quality Dell as a comparison point.
Some other selections from TFA:
How? This is not explained. Does "different class" mean "much cheaper?
I understand that the objective is to compare "like-for-like" and see whether Apple is adding a premium, but if an AMD chip (or a different Intel chip) offers comparable or better performance but is not available on a Mac, then how is that not part of the 'cost' of buying Apple? Limiting it to Core 2 Duo seems unneccessary. And why is it legitimate to reconfigure the competition, but not the Mac? Could it be that Apple savagely gouge you for any upgrades?
Why not pay whatever Apple charges for the same capacity? One of the biggest Apple gouges is when you add RAM or storage to their preconfigured systems. Ignoring this is not justified.
And yet, there would be hundreds of x86 laptops on the market that provide 4 or more.
Or you could pick a different Dell, like an XPS series model, and get HDMI, s-video and DVI as standard. In addition, the review does not appear to add in the cost of Apples various dongles and attachments.
HDMI equates to "optical out" and is arguably more useful for modern hi-fi equipment. I am relatively ignorant about audio in options.
Again, this is simply a result of picking the wrong competition - again check out (for instance) Dell XPS laptops, which are extremely well built and solid.
Read Pynchon.
Interesting. Does Apple offer a refund for OS X to make itself competitive in this regard?
Read Pynchon.
One reason I dislike current laptops are their (generally) crappy LCD resolutions. Over the past 7-8 years I've only used laptops with 14.1in SXGA+ LCDs, including the T60p I'm typing this from. I actually prefer the 14.1in SXGA+ LCDs, but I know it's a losing battle. A very limited number of T61p were released with them, and I'm pretty sure they'll be the last in history.
I'm not unreasonable, and I understand that movies look better if they fill the widescreen. Although with all the variations in widescreen ratios, I'm yet to see a movie without any black borders. You can also display two documents side by side, even though 90% of people I've seen only show a single maximized instance of MS Word with a single document open. Widescreens do take less room in cramped spaces, allow for more keyboard space and even numpads, etc. However I use my laptop for typing, and screen height is far more important than width. I'm a minority though, so I'll adapt.
Now assuming I'd be looking for a replacement laptop tomorrow (hopefully my T60p will last a while), moving to Apple would mean going "down" to a 15.4in WSXGA (loss of 150pixel height) on the Macbook Pros or 13.3in WXGA (loss of 250pixel height and 200pixel width) on the Macbooks. THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS.
On the other hand I just checked out Lenovo's site. Their T500 laptop is offered with a 15.4in WSXGA or WSGA+ resolution. The WSXGA+ is only a $75 upgrade, and it offers the same height and much more width than my SXGA+. The rest of the specs are very close to the Macbook Pro, but at first glance it's about $200 cheaper.
Beyond their arguably sleek design, the absolutely only reason any rational person would even consider a Macbook or Macbook Pro is OS X. I used it briefly, and I really liked it. Unfortunately given my laptop use, the OS alone is not incentive enough to put up with the limited and (slightly) more expensive hardware.
I think Apple's thought process is that if they get rid of the firewire from the low end laptops, people who need it are going to upgrade to Macbook Pros. Which probably isn't that far off. If you require firewire for your work and you're accustomed to FCP, then chances are you're not going to get a Win laptop and Hackintosh it, you're just gonna put in the money to get the one with firewire.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
To add:
4. Backlit keyboard. Really nice in dim rooms.
If there are other differentiations, I either don't know about them or not that important to me.
The thing which I find annoying with all these analysis is that they never, ever compare battery life, which to me is the singulary most important spec of a highly portable laptop (10-13 inches or so, above that is portable (14-17), below that is netbooks (7-9)).
The cheapest MacBook/iBook has, from at least 2005 (as long as I've checked out the market) been in the top cathegory for battery life in it's priceclass, and, they don't even lie that much with how long time they can actually be used responsibly.
Also, they are pretty much noiceless and doesn' generate extreme hot spots like many laptops do, making them more comfortable to use in your lap.
Colour me surprised when I found out that at the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute (KURRI - nuclear reactor-based research), the percentage of Macs was around 40-50%!
At a month-long course on X-Ray and Neutron science in France, 25% of the presenters laptops were macs too.
I guess we go for the shiny and UNIX.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
I know you jest, but Every man that I see that touches one of the newest Macbook's has a wet stain on his pants and says in a low tone..."I must have this"
Honestly, If Dell made a laptop that was near the macbook pro caliber in build they would sell just as well and cost as much.
I tolerate dell lattitude laptops simply because the parts are dirt cheap. I have had "high end" sony Viao laptops and they are utter crap in build quality and design. Alienware laptops feel cheap and I dont want to carry a cartoon character around, they look incredibly dorky in the boardroom, I might as well have a giant "the TICK" sticker on my laptop and wear a TICK t-shirt.
Well the hipper part is kind of fun... When you walk in with a laptop that makes the suits stare, and then you use keynote to show them a presentation that makes their best power point look like a childs crayon drawing... well yeah, it's nice to look hipper than the CEO that makes 40X your salary. You end up closing the deal far faster that way.
it's why all our salespeople have them. That and the sales idiots cant infect a OSX laptop in 20 seconds with all their inane clicking and downloading. They still bitch they cant have windows laptops.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
After using half Windows and half Mac for 6 months last year, I switched totally to the Mac about 6 months ago. Here's what I've concluded:
1) OSX is not very fast. I think it's bloated. I've got a ridiculous amount of processing power on this Mac Pro, but it just doesn't move that fast.
2) XP is not very fast. I know it's bloated.
So what's the difference?
OSX is still as slow on my MacBook as it was the day I bought it. I've already formatted my XP Boot Camp gaming partition once this year to get my speed back.
The big problem with Windows is that it gets slower as you go. I haven't noticed that at all with the Mac, even as I wantonly install and uninstall programs. I used to be terrified of what new programs would do to my XP machine. I just haven't had that problem with OSX. Plus, I have access to lots of cool things developed for UNIX that don't seem to slow anything down, stay out of my way, and Just Work.
I agree.
The marginal utility of the Mac is the amount of thought that goes into the entire system. Everything from MagSafe and freefall harddrive locking to built-in webcams (which you'll notice PCs quickly copied) to POSIXy goodness and Open Group certification. Different volume settings for different audio pipelines. Self-contained applications, system-wide and per-user settings, etc.
Add to that its greatness as a development environment and I'm pretty much sold.
If only OS X (specifically HFS+) would support filesystem holes. Grrrr...