MacBook Pro: are they really worth it?

Student Lounge College Life
81

<p>I didn’t say it was Microsoft’s fault. Apple-branded computers offer full, official support for all major operating systems, and standard PCs don’t. Whether that’s good or bad is irrelevant: it’s a fact.</p>

<p>I’m aware of Hackintoshes–I have one myself, in addition to my MacBook Pro. They’re not supported, drivers are flaky, and you have to build them yourself. The fact that people go through all that trouble to build them tells me that Apple has, even to people who refuse to buy their products, a superior operating system.</p>

<p>(I have a Hackintosh that’s used as a media server and NAS device. Apple doesn’t offer anything that fits my needs, and I’m enough of a techie to make it work. Hackintoshes aren’t an option for most people.)</p>

82

<p>

</p>

<p>So the contrapositive to that is since Linux is distributed so freely and since only very few people bother to put Linux on their computers, Linux must be the worst OS ever, even after Vista and Windows ME?</p>

83

<p>I still have yet to hear a compelling argument for why Macs are pricier for hardware.</p>

<p>And before someone gives an excuse that doesn’t actually get down to the point, also explain why upgrading a component costs so much significantly more, even if the performance is even lower to an extent.</p>

84

<p>That’s a complicated question. Firstly, market share does not equal quality. McDonald’s does not have the very best french fries, even though they sell the most. Budweiser isn’t the best beer, even though it has the highest sales (I’m assuming–maybe it’s Coors, but the example still holds). Windows isn’t the best operating system, just because it has the most users. iPhone isn’t the best smartphone, just because it is the best selling smartphone (in terms of device, not OS). A product very well might be, but there’s not necessarily any correlation between market share and quality.</p>

<p>The most popular products combine price and quality (which has many dimensions). Whatever product is “good enough” in those two categories is the most popular, even though the product may not be the best of its type.</p>

<p>As for the difference between Linux and Windows Me/Vista, I think its clear that Me and Vista offered a higher overall quality than any Linux distribution. Vista and Me weren’t as stable (depending on hardware configuration), fast, or well-designed (e.g., the UNIX user accounts model, etc) as Linux. Where they made up for those deficiencies was with availability (i.e., more hardware options with Windows preinstalled) and momentum (i.e., there was already a large installed base of Windows users). In short, Windows was and is more convenient to use than Linux.</p>

<p>The same was true of Macs even as late as 2004 or 2005. The hardware was too expensive, the software wasn’t compatible enough, and the machines still used PowerPC chips. </p>

<p>Today, OS X has made up for those shortcomings, but PCs still own market share because of price alone. Windows PCs are good enough for the corporate world, with dedicated IT departments. That’s where the majority of Windows PCs are sold.</p>

<p>My point on the willingness of geeks to install OS X is to show that it’s a technically superior operating system, in the same way that Linux is. Geeks who are able to build their own computers and create custom drivers are in a decent place to evaluate a system’s value. Why go through all the trouble to crack Apple’s protection measures, make custom drivers, etc., if Windows and Linux offer the same thing, but are easier to install?</p>

<p>That said, I suspect that Linux is far more popular among homebrew types than OS X. There are no concerns over legality, hardware is better supported, and many geeks like using a fully open source system.</p>

<p>Still, OS X offers the advantages of UNIX, but with much greater usability, and superior third-party applications. That’s why the Hackintosh people do what they do. They’re not installing OS X on an HP as a fashion statement.</p>

85

<p>

</p>

<p>I doubt you’ll think any reason for why a 2.4 GHz Core 2 machine from one manufacturer would cost more than a 2.4 GHz Core 2 from another is compelling, but I’ll try nonetheless. :-)</p>

<p>Essentially, two things: Build quality and software.</p>

<p>For build quality, I’ll just pose this question: Why would anyone buy the HP Envy? It’s more expensive than laptops with the same specs. Answer: Build quality matters. The usability of the trackpad (one area where the original Envy was lacking, but Apple shines) matters. The size and weight matters. Battery life matters. How sturdy the machine is matters–Is it made of cheap plastic, creaking a bit? Or is it made of sturdy plastic or metal?</p>

<p>If you find a PC laptop that offers the same hardware as a MacBook Pro, with 10 hours of battery life, a sturdy plastic or metal casing, and similar weight and size, I doubt the price difference will be more than $200. Apple may even come out costing less in some cases.</p>

<p>For software, the bottom line (and this goes along with my prior post) is that Mac OS X is superior to Windows. Windows 7 is a good operating system. Windows XP was a good operating system. But Mac OS X is better. Not just the OS itself, but the software it supports. </p>

<p>Take a look “Coda,” a popular web development tool with a great interface. Also take a look at Pixelmator, a lightweight photo editing app with an open source core, but built with OS X technologies like Core Image, that hand off much of the processing to the graphics card. Finally, look at Versions, a SVN client. This clearly isn’t a simple app, but it has a well-designed interface.</p>

<p>These apps are well-designed, stable, and fast. In my experience, Mac developers care a lot more about interface than Windows developers, and interface is key. As I said before, design isn’t how it looks, design is how it works. </p>

<p>Build quality and software. That’s why Macs cost a bit more.</p>

86

<p>

</p>

<p>Convenience. Macs are not faster or higher quality than PCs, but they are much easier to use with a much more intuitive user interface, and that’s what you’re paying for.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Simply put, profit. A huge reason why laptops are sold with bodies that make the inside parts inaccessible and the parts themselves unable to be overclocked is so they can sell these “upgraded” parts at a premium price to make more profit.</p>

87

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you there. How does one design a truly upgradable one inch thick laptop? A ZIF socket takes more space. Expansion slots take space. Even if you did, the upgrade options would be specific to a single model of laptop. </p>

<p>The only way to make a truly upgradable machine is to leave plenty of open space–This is the “beige box desktop” model that Dell, HP, and Apple’s Mac Pro use. Some people genuinely need this, but most don’t. For most, it makes more sense to get rid of as much of the computer as possible, and that’s where the iMac comes in for desktops, and laptops come in in general.</p>

<p>The real crime is when companies sell you a standard, beige box-style desktop that uses a proprietary power supply, or a motherboard with no expansion slots. They could have, but chose not to. There’s no excuse for that. There is an excuse for laptop manufacturers to not have their machines be upgradable.</p>

88

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d agree with you there for thin+light laptops like the Envy, MB/P, MB Air, and Asus UL, but what about those thicker laptops like the Studio XPS, for example? Additionally, a trend I’ve noticed (nothing scientific of course) is that parts that are easily upgradable, like HDDs or RAM, have cheaper upgrades when configuring your laptop versus components much harder to access in a laptop, like CPU or screens.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ooh, I hate Dell and their BTX motherboards/power supplies</p>

89

<p>Asus tried a few years ago. The result? 50% thicker than the MacBook Pro. Eight pounds. One hour of battery life while gaming, “more than double that” (2 hours 10 minutes, probably) while doing productivity work. A huge fan/hearsink unit protruding from the rear.</p>

<p>[Asus</a> C90S Laptop: The first user upgradable desktop replacement - Page 4 - Inside the C90S](<a href=“http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/asus_c90s_laptop/4.html]Asus”>Inside the C90S - Asus C90S Laptop: The first user upgradable desktop replacement - Page 4)</p>

<p>All this so you can use a desktop CPU and have the option to upgrade the video card (but not standard desktop video cards).</p>

<p>On a MacBook Pro today, removing one panel exposes the RAM and hard drive, both of which are officially user upgradable. I’d rather have a system that sips power and is relatively thin and light, but doesn’t have a user upgradable CPU or hard drive.</p>

<p>Honestly, I can’t conceptualize a way to build a completely upgradable laptop with standard components that is reasonably sized. Can you think of a way?</p>

<p>If someone really cares about upgradability, he’s going to be building a custom desktop, with an Antec case and an Asus or Gigabyte motherboard. Most people want to buy a machine that does what they want it to. </p>

<p>Sure, there’s a market for custom tuning cars, but most people–rich or poor–just want to buy a stock Mercedes or Toyota.</p>

90

<p>To answer the thread title:</p>

<p>Yes, I think they’re worth it. I am very glad I bought a MBP. The battery power alone is worth dropping $1,000 to me.</p>

91

<p>^If you had the cash, that’s your preogative and decision. After all, although I don’t like Macs, they are gorgeous and the minimalist look is something that appeals to me. HOWEVER, if the OP is someone who still has other college expenses to take care of (books, etc), then the smart thing to do would be to buy a good Windows PC in a more comfortable price range. Face it Mac Users–Nobody is saying Macs aren’t great computers (because they are) but for a college student on a budget they aren’t worth the splurge. Save your money, skip the name brand and look for a computer that meets most of your specs in your price range:)
P.S. Just because you spend more doesn’t mean you get more (or better in this case);)</p>

92

<p>Nowadays, the only difference between the Mac and the PC is the operating system. The HP envy series looks exactly like a mac, but it is a PC with much better specs.</p>

<p>The advent of Windows 7 has greatly improved the OS for PCs.</p>

93

<p>If you’ve only ever used a Mac, of course it’s worth it; you won’t be able to stand a barbaric computer.</p>

<p>If you’ve never used a Mac, it’s not worth it; it will seem foreign and strange.</p>

<p>If you’re on the fence, maybe it’s just a budget issue. If you can afford the overall user experience quality of a Mac, go for it.</p>

<p>(I’ve had to use both at work for years.)</p>

94

<p>Add to the list of computer-ignorant fools who were duped by Apple’s public relations machine into paying too much for a shiny status symbol:</p>

<p>Consumer Reports, in their September Issue, ranked the Apple MacBook and MacBook Pro in the top 3 places for 11-13 inch laptops. They also ranked MacBook Pros in the top 3 places for 15-inch laptops. And, they ranked the iMac in the top 4 places for all-in-one computers.</p>

<p>It’s not like they actually tested them, right?</p>