Quote :

"They're form AND function."

yep. this goes back to the point i made a few times in the "New iMacs" thread.
Mac OS X and Windows are both to the point where they function just fine. Not saying there's no room for improvement on both of them, but they both work generally good, don't crash, etc.

So.... as long as something works (is functional), what's the problem with making it look good too (form)?

8/16/2007 10:38:12 AM

"form AND function" AND price

8/16/2007 11:11:40 AM

You can get a Macbook for pretty much like $650 if you're a student.

8/16/2007 1:16:43 PM

Quote :

"If it's an ExpressCard, sure."

its pcmcia, the expresscard ones are just now starting to be made available as far as i know

8/16/2007 2:52:23 PM

You'll need an adapter, and I am not sure about driver support.

8/16/2007 2:57:01 PM

went and looked at a macbook pro today, pretty sweet

8/16/2007 2:59:20 PM

yah I thought about getting one, but the price was a bit too high for my requirements. I was also kinda wanting a lighter laptop this time around.

8/16/2007 3:00:41 PM

yea i found a hell of a deal on a 17'' one but i dunno theyre almost too big/heavy

8/16/2007 3:13:03 PM

I really wish they'd have native support for dual external monitors

8/16/2007 3:13:20 PM

i'm about to get either a MacBook or an iMac

what is all this hype about the new leopard osx?

should i wait until that drops to get one or will there be a way to upgrade on the cheap

8/28/2007 8:24:53 PM

You'll have to wait more than a month to get Leopard pre-installed. If you want to wait, fine, else just get a Mac now, and pay the measly $120 later. YMMV, but if it's close to a month before the Leopard launch, Apple will even give you an upgrade for free.

8/28/2007 8:34:17 PM

thanks

i'm leaning toward the iMac, but the only thing that makes me prefer the MacBook is the fact that I can lay on my couch and fuck around instead of having to be at a desk (and eliminating the desk in the process)

I know what the battery life says on the websites, but what actual life are you getting after a charge?

8/29/2007 8:25:11 AM

On my Macbook, I get close to 3.5 hours on a single charge with the wifi and bluetooth on. I also keep my brightness levels below 50% even when it's on power.

That said, I am using a 250GB Western Digital HDD, and those are said to consume much less power compared to the stock Fujitsu's you get pre-installed. I was thinking of an iMac, but mobility is just too much of a big deal for me. You're better off investing money on a widescreen monitor anyway.

8/29/2007 8:31:51 AM

does white show a shit ton of dirt? i'm not the best at keeping things so fresh and so clean

i'm not about to fucking pay an extra 400 bones for black

11/26/2007 9:01:52 PM

Just bought a new Macbook Pro, and after using it all weekend, I'm really impressed.

11/26/2007 10:11:56 PM

i'll be honest...i want one too...vista sucks so hard

11/26/2007 10:13:47 PM

^^ you get the 15" or 17"?
i'm waiting till after christmas..... haven't decided which size yet. 1920x1200 is so enticing...

11/26/2007 11:01:50 PM

15"

the 17" was just sooo much $$... if I had it to spend, I would have gone that route, but it's just a metric shitton of cash

11/26/2007 11:08:38 PM

I've never owned a 17" mac laptop. But i've had a hp 17" and that thing was so damn bulky and heavy. Sucked for traveling although it was an awesome mobile gaming desktop.

However, I would consider getting a 17" macbook pro because they're very thin and fairly light for their size. Currently I have a 15" macbook pro which I'm loving! (Core Duo not a Core 2)

11/27/2007 12:08:12 AM

what is the difference between dual core and core 2 duo?

11/27/2007 12:10:29 AM

"dual-core" is an umbrella term for processors with 2 cores on a single processor. "Core 2 Duo" is an Intel architecture for dual-core processors. "Core 2" refers to the successor to the Intel "Core" brand and architecture. "Duo" refers to dual-core. you can have "Core 2" without it being dual-core, as can you have "Core" without it being dual-core. but you can't have "Core 2 Duo" or "Core Duo" with it being dual-core

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 12:31 AM. Reason : yes]

11/27/2007 12:29:31 AM

I think I'm gonna sell my current laptop and ultra portable and get my parents to pay the difference for my Christmas present 15" is plenty big, 17" is just huge... If I had money to blow I'd probably get that big, but in all actuality I think 15" is probably more practical for someone like me who travels with it constantly.

11/27/2007 8:26:00 AM

Compared to the original 15" laptop I bought and returned, the MacBook Pro feels small. But once you start using it you realize that it really doesn't have a lot of the extra case-space that other laptops have.

The only, only thing that I have any issue with is how hot the thing gets when I'm playing WoW, but that's the only time it heats up plus it's not that bad. During regular use (safari, ichat, itunes all open) it doesn't even get hot and it's whisper quiet.

Still very happy

11/27/2007 10:02:15 AM

love my 15" mbp i've had to get the power cord replaced, other than that the only big issues i've had is when dealing with windows partitions lol

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 10:11 AM. Reason : ]

11/27/2007 10:11:20 AM

I love the new commercial where Mac sales are "through the roof" and PCs are "not going down without a fight."

Gives me a good hard laugh every time. It's one of boldest lies I've ever seen in advertising.

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 9:20 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2007 9:19:03 PM

i don't see a problem with either of those quotes....

11/28/2007 9:37:08 PM

To be fair, I have tried using macs on many occasions. Windows just seems infinitely more intuitive to me. But you people do what you gotta do.

11/28/2007 9:38:54 PM

"to be fair", are you going to address your statement about the commercials?

and also, don't confuse "intuitiveness" with "familiarity". I, actually, and not one of those that says "macs are more intuitive than PCs". I think, for example, if you sit down a 70 year old computer illiterate person in front of either, they will have no idea what to do with either machine. On the flip-side, if you put a 5 year old down in front of either, he will probably be able to learn to use both with nearly equal ease.

11/28/2007 9:42:41 PM

Regarding the commercial quotes, sure - it's a matter of immaturity. They dress a square dude in a suit and act like that's something to be looked down upon. In fact, it is not. I'm curious as to what share macs have in corporate networks. What are their servers capable of? ... ... And they can play the being hip card all they want. But the practical business world doesn't run on Photoshop (which, incidentally, runs equally as well on a PC).

Anyways, to the point - PC sales still VASTLY exceed that of macs.

Also, an excellent point regarding familiarity. Though I've tried many times (dozens), I suppose ten years of Windows might just be impossible to overcome.

11/28/2007 9:51:30 PM

^whats funny is that macs aren't going after business. By looking at the two characters selected for the Mac vs PC commerical you will understand that the PC is the business world and the Mac is the hip I can do anything with my computer.

data point: We all use macs at work.

11/28/2007 9:55:28 PM

And yet, you can "do anything with my computer" if you own a PC as well...

11/28/2007 9:56:30 PM

oh? Can I edit HD movies, create a web gallery, share photos with friends and family with simple minimal mouse clicks knowing NOTHING about a computer AND not buying any additional software?

11/28/2007 9:59:26 PM

Quote :

"AND not buying any additional software?"

Other than the HD movie editing, yes, you can. And even that has minimal functionality on a mac. For either, you've got to get Premiere or equivalent to really do anything.

But I suppose I see your point. The mac appeal is that it's pretty much idiot proof and usable by average unknowledged Joe Hick. Makes sense I guess.

But it certainly doesn't give them market superiority, as they claim.

11/28/2007 10:04:18 PM

Quote :

"Regarding the commercial quotes, sure - it's a matter of immaturity. They dress a square dude in a suit and act like that's something to be looked down upon. In fact, it is not."

that's fair - the commercials can come off as childish. they are funny, however, and "get people talking" about Mac/Apple, so it could be said that they accomplish part of their mission.

your original complaint, though, wasn't about the immaturity of the commercials, it was about the two quotes "mac sales are skyrocketing" and "PC's won't go down without a fight".
Well, Mac sales are skyrocketing, setting records nearly each quarter for the past several years. Is it still a drop in the bucket compared to all PC sales combined? Of course. But that's not the point. Relative to historical Mac sales, modern sales are growing and growing. Also, when you compare Apple vs. each of the other PC makers individually, instead of comparing simply "Mac OS" vs. "Windows", Apple stacks up quite well. Apple has the 3rd highest computer sales marketshare in the US, far behind the clear leaders Dell and HP, but ahead of others like Gateway, Toshiba, IBM/Lenovo, Sony, etc.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071018-dell-staunches-the-market-share-bleeding-while-apple-sees-big-growth.html
In 2007 Q4, Mac sales rose 17% quarter-to-quarter and 34% year-to-year, with 2.2 million macs. Yes, when you start at the bottom, it's easy to make big strides, but you still can't deny that big strides are being made.

Secondly, well, yeah, PCs aren' going down without a fight. Of course, neither I or many other people believe that PCs are "going down" anytime soon, but still - it's a true statement.

Quote :

"I'm curious as to what share macs have in corporate networks. "

Horrible, i'm sure. Which actually, is probably one of the reasons the Mac marketshare appears so low - because companies by PCs by the thousand every day. I wonder what the Mac vs. PC marketshare for home/consumer users only is - i bet it's much higher than the overall marketshare, and clearly it's growing.

Quote :

"What are their servers capable of?"

well, a whole lot, actually. Especially with the latest OS X 10.5 server. See the feature list here
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/
I think that with 10.5, an office would actually be able to deploy a Mac Server and Macs and PCs to the employees and finally have a fully functional business network. OS X Server has all the components that a similar windows+Exchange server has.

Quote :

"But it certainly doesn't give them market superiority, as they claim."

ummm.... no, they don't claim this. The whole premise of the current commercials is that they are clearly not the market leader. Apple is trying to show the public what you can do with a Mac, and that they're now every bit as functional as PCs for every day use and interoperability. Many people's last experience with Macs was back in 1994 when there were compatibility problems and all sorts of shit. In the past couple years (and only in the past couple years, I think) a "normal person" is finally able to switch to Mac and 1) do everything he could do on the PC on the Mac, and 2) easily and seamlessly interoperate with his PC brethren.

In fact, i'm one of the recent back-to-mac-switchers. I grew up on Mac, but when I went to college in 1998, it was simply not feasible or realistic to bring a Mac to campus and expect to "get along" in the PC dominated university. So I got a Dell, and was Windows-only until OS X 10.4 came out, and I finally went back to the Mac, which I've been with solely since then.

And given surveys like this one from Harvard - http://www.fas.harvard.edu/computing/about/statistics/survey07_1.html - more people are bringing Macs to college, obviously getting along fine. More importantly, look at the trajectory - Mac marketshare at Harvard is 27% for Seniors (already pretty high), but 35% for Freshmen. I think there's no reason to imagine that that number won't be even higher next year. Furthermore, many of these people who bring Macs to college are likely to continue to use and keep buying them after college, upping the marketshare even more.
The important point here being - young people (high school and college) are clearly being drawn to Macs in increasingly higher numbers. If these young people turn into life-long Mac users, then yes - we could easily see the tide-turning in the next decades.

11/28/2007 10:38:54 PM

Quote :

"Other than the HD movie editing, yes, you can. And even that has minimal functionality on a mac. For either, you've got to get Premiere or equivalent to really do anything. But I suppose I see your point. The mac appeal is that it's pretty much idiot proof and usable by average unknowledged Joe Hick. Makes sense I guess. But it certainly doesn't give them market superiority, as they claim"

I guess you haven't played with .mac, iPhoto combined with iWeb or hell, garageband for that matter. because as awesome as HD movie editing is...all the other iLife programs are awesome too. And this is coming from a designer. I couldn't put together a really nice looking site in a few mouse clicks that automaticlly scans and uploads any new photos to my website, allows my friends and family to upload their photos to my website, AND movies....and make it look badass. In addition, any non-tech person can sign up for .mac and screen share their iMac/Mac pro at home from any where in the world as though it was just another computer on their local area network. (i do this daily from work) and setup takes 3 easy steps.

1) sign up for .mac
2) enable the 'screen share/remote desktop' option
3) open up finder

11/29/2007 12:08:56 AM

a little more on ^ points. Note: i'm not trying to convince anyone that "OMG MAC IS BETTER", but when you dive into using Mac full time, you start to notice "the little things" and the attention to detail in Mac over Windows.

The integration between all the "core applications" (apps that are free and preinstalled on all Macs - Mail, iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, iWeb, iCal, Address Book, GarageBand, etc + iLife w/ Pages, Numbers & Keynote for an additional $79) is outstanding.
Examples:
In Mail, you have a normal Attachment button where you can select files from the Finder, and you also have a Media Browser button. With this, a small Media Browser window pops up that lets you fully browse your iTunes and iPhoto libraries to select attachments. The important point is that the Media Browser view is organized just like your iTunes/iPhoto libraries with folders/labels/playlists, so you find whta you want quickly and attach it to a message.

The Media Browser pop-up is available in most apps where you can include or attach music files or pictures. Like in iWeb - open up the Media Browser and quickly find pictures to include on a website. Or in iPhoto, start a slideshow, then use the Media Browser to browse your iTunes library for music to play in the background.

Also in Mail, if you get an email with an address in it, you can hover over the address and an arrow will appear that will allow you to either search for that address in Google Maps in Safari, or add that address to a contact in Address Book. Similarly, if it sees a date/time, you can hover over and click an arrow and create an event in iCal, straight from the message.

The point being - each of the applications is powerful and independent enough to use as a standalone app, but they are all linked together smoothly and behind the scenes so that when taken as a whole, all the apps are truly greater than the sum of their parts. ....or something like that

11/29/2007 8:53:32 AM

ok, so I've been hearing a lot about how good macs are and I've thought about getting one (macbook pro)

problem: i'm a gamer

convince me still to get a mac please. srsly

11/30/2007 11:28:37 AM

what games do you play

11/30/2007 11:51:35 AM

^^ easy. I'll give you 3 reasons
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html
http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/
http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/

With the Intel chips, there is virtually no reason not to get a Mac. It can and will run Windows at full speed.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136649-page,3-c,notebooks/article.html

Quote :

"The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year is a Mac. Try that again: The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year--or for that matter, ever--is a Mac. Not a Dell, not a Toshiba, not even an Alienware. The $2419 (plus the price of a copy of Windows Vista, of course) MacBook Pro's PC WorldBench 6 Beta 2 score of 88 beats Gateway's E-265M by a single point, but the MacBook's score is far more impressive simply because Apple couldn't care less whether you run Windows."

11/30/2007 11:56:46 AM

boot camp is your ONLY solution for a windows based game.

why?

Fusion and Parallels only support DX8.

I'm a mac + PC user but i just sold my PC. I do everything on the mac and now that EA publishes to mac, you have a nice selection to chose from.

11/30/2007 12:13:26 PM

^ I'm all for macs and gaming (guitar hero 3 just came out on mac!) but trying to use bootcamp and windows on a mac is not a good idea. You might be able to get away with playing older slower games, but newer games won't run too well. The video cards apple puts in thier computers are usually outdated and slow. You can never get top of the line cards in the computers that are required to play newer games. You could maybe get away using a Mac Pro, but you'd still have to spend thousands on the FX workstation GPU, and accoriding to benchmarks for games the nvidia 8800s are still superior and cost far less.

^^Also that review is biased. The hardware wasn't the same i believe. If they're the same intel chip, the same gpu etc etc the benchmarks will be about the same. You'll just be paying way more for the apple than the pc. I mean they put a minimum 1500$ worth of cpu in a mac pro (xeon chips) when for most applications a core 2 duo (300-500$) will do just as fine. So people go out and spend money on a Mac Pro and spend 1500$ extra on the xeon cpus when the conroes would fit most people. There's only a few applications where the xeons outperform the conroes, and most people don't do that stuff. I'll post the bench marks i found in a bit.

It's just kinda silly to overpay for hardware to play games, when you can build a computer for far cheaper (and put leopard on it) and have the latest hardware that apple doesn't have (8800s, and a desktop w/ a conroe).

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2007 1:20:28 PM

Ok i found the link. It's a good review that hits the topics you guys are talking about in regard to mac gaming and trying to use xp on a mac system.

http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=16

Quote :

"For gaming, before we can even begin to complain about performance, there's the issue of not being able to use cheaper and more readily available PC video cards in the Mac Pro (yet). If you're looking to the Mac Pro as the perfect hybrid OS X/gaming PC, you're either going to have to configure it with a Quadro FX 4500 or an X1900 XT, or wait for the first PC video card hacks to become available for this machine to be a real gaming PC. If and when the latter does happen, the Mac Pro truly could solve the age old problem of not being able to both work and play on your Mac. The FB-DIMM performance penalty in games is noticeable, but with a fast enough GPU it will still be a more cost effective option than buying a Mac Pro and a high end PC for gaming. "

Quote :

"It is still worth noting that if Apple were to release a Core 2 (Conroe/Kentsfield) based Mac similar to the Mac Pro, it could end up outperforming the Mac Pro by being able to use regular DDR2 memory. The Intel 5000X chipset and its FB-DIMM memory are really designed for multi-user server and high end workstation workloads, where large amounts of simultaneous reads/writes are able to mask much of the latency penalty of FB-DIMMs. The problem is that the Mac Pro is the only high end desktop Apple offers without an integrated display, so inevitably it's going to attract a lot of users whose usage models aren't best serviced by the Intel 5000X chipset. "

-So basically if you really wanna game on a mac it's going to be difficult because the mac pros come with a server cpu that most people won't even utilize, and for gaming the conroes perform the same or better. Also the gpus in the mac pro just suck, unless you get a FX4500, and even then for most games the conroes will outperform it.

So why spend thousands on a server cpu with a sucky graphics card when you can build a computer for half the price that'll perform just as well, if not better in games?

I mean the baseline mac pro (2500$) comes with a nvidia 7300GT and only one gig of ram. You'd be lucky if you could run any newer games on that really really old card. 2500$ for one gig of ram and a 7300gt? The high price is because of the xeon chips, and most people won't even utlize them.

So just build a computer and put leopard and xp/vista on it. You'd save thousands and it'll outperform the Mac Pros in games.

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2007 3:40:44 PM

^ umm... duh?

Why would someone by a Xeon workstation if their focus was gaming? WAY overkill for that task.

You can still game on it if you want, and still get great performance out of the games, but you wouldn't buy that machine if one of your focuses was top-notch gaming performance.

11/30/2007 3:51:37 PM

^Yeah i agree, but someone made this comment:

Quote :

"With the Intel chips, there is virtually no reason not to get a Mac. It can and will run Windows at full speed. "

And that's simply not true because of hardware limitations. The gpus included in imacs are only ati 2600s and they suck for gaming performance, and the gpus included in mac pros are even worse (7300gt), unless you pay the thousands extra for a workstation GPU, and even then the nvidia 8800s outperform the FX4500 for many things.

So in conclusion the comment should have said:

Quote :

"With the Intel chips, there is virtually no reason not to get a Mac for gaming. It can't and will not run Windows games at full speed. "

It's a waste of money, and the performance will suck. Build a computer with a conroe and 8800** (neither of which are offered by apple), put leopard and xp/vista on it. Profit.

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2007 3:55:41 PM

How many internets does a MAC have though? My PC's got 2.

11/30/2007 3:57:37 PM

so how is gaming on the mbp? i thought they had the 8600m gt?

11/30/2007 11:50:14 PM

nvm

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 12:26 AM. Reason : doublepost]

12/1/2007 12:23:18 AM

^yeah it does. I mean it would run Wow. The 8600 is still a mid-range non-gaming card. So you wouldn't be able to play any newer games, or you'd have to crank the res down and set all the settings to low. I tried playing oblivion on my friends mac book pro and it was sad.

-Are there hacks to put a nice video card in like a mac pro? Would you be able to run 2 8800s in sli? I'm sure someone must have made the drivers.

12/1/2007 12:26:16 AM

my litmus test for a platform is if there is a simple to use text editor GUI readily available.

the mac does not have this. ergo, it sucks for me.

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 1:35 AM. Reason : s]

12/1/2007 1:34:49 AM

Quote :

"^Yeah i agree, but someone made this comment: Quote : "With the Intel chips, there is virtually no reason not to get a Mac. It can and will run Windows at full speed. " And that's simply not true because of hardware limitations. The gpus included in imacs are only ati 2600s and they suck for gaming performance, and the gpus included in mac pros are even worse (7300gt), unless you pay the thousands extra for a workstation GPU, and even then the nvidia 8800s outperform the FX4500 for many things. "

No, it's completely true. If you buy a Mac and run Windows on it via Boot Camp, it will run at full fucking speed for that computer. Will it be the fastest computer in the universe at running Windows? No, of course not. Might you have problems in upgrading the graphics card? Possibly.
But will it run at full speed? Yes.

The key point here is that running Windows via Boot Camp is not running Windows in emulation. If you run Windows in Parallels, then you are running a form of emulation and performance will be less than full speed.

You can bitch and moan about graphics cards all you want, but agentlion's point is completely valid for most purposes. If you think you're a big enough nerd that you need to build yourself a computer and upgrade the graphics card every week, then you do what you have to do. But for general use for general people, the Mac's hardware will run OS X as well as Windows at perfectly acceptable speeds.

12/1/2007 1:25:42 PM