So there's a bit of grumbling on the internets that PC World, like, totally sold out and lied about the MacBook Pro being the fastest Vista laptop they ever tested (presumably just so they could get mentioned in that new Apple commercial, right?) shortly before the staff went cow tipping and passed out drunk in a public park. The reality is PC World apparently hadn't tested a laptop faster than the MacBook Pro at the time, and it wasn't until weeks later they tested the Eurocom D900C Phantom-X, which handily bested Apple's lappie by a broad margin. At least that's what PC World's editor Harry McCracken told us, but then again we did hear he recently got an Apple tat and is planning a hostile takeover of Macworld magazine in '08.
Read - PC World's statement about the MBP
Read - ... and their review of the Eurocom
Read - The punter doing the grumbling
Watch - The Apple ad
posted Dec 7th 2007 2:23PM
lies and the lying liars that print them
Yup... something is up with those benchmarks. I guess Dell, Gateway, HP, etc... had no idea how to crank out some K/A benchmarks on their own "Windows Only Certified Hardware." And they have been doing this stuff for years!
Now here comes along Apple with their little Macbook Pro thats not even design to run Vista "Vista Certified Hardware" not to mention any other OS and then, *POOF*, overnight they become king of the hill in benchmarks on Vista and everything else, meanwhile everybody else on the planet is complaining how Microsoft made their own OS to slow and it has way too many "compatibly" issues?
I guess Vista needed Steve Jobs blessing just for it to run faster and then installed on a MacBook Pro "Non Certified Hardware" just to get the bugs out!
Come on bro... I ain't *buying* that!
Wow, Phantom-X is $5158.
Engadget needs to stop reffering to "boutique" brand and model notebooks.
Eurocom puts paint on a Clevo D900C jacks up the pirce a couple grand and calls it product. Sager sells it as the NP9260, NP9261, and NP9262.
The D900C has a desktop chipset, SLI (up to dual 512MB 8800M GTX), and up to 3 HDD's in RAID 0/1/5. No other notebook can come close that kind of power.
These notebooks can be built for as low as $2200, but can be specced above $5000. Eurocom's prices are ridiculous.
Its a quad-core in a laptop. Its one of the very, very few. To think it wouldnt be expensive because of the performance advantage is just naive.
And just because its a boutique laptop still means its a laptop. As far as PC world's statement, had they said the Mac Pro is the fastest Vista laptop for its price range, then there would be no argument. But they didnt. They said it was the fastest tested this year, a year that hadnt ended. Stupid move.
And, they said it twice, as if i had shit myself reading it once, cleaned up, then continued where i ended off just to have it reiterated. PCWorld is a dead resource for information.
Ruben,
What I mean by boutique laptops are those webstores that just rebrand a laptop that is available elsewhere. FalconNW, Eurocom, and VoodooPC basically slap paint on a machine you can get somewhere else for less. Boutique laptops are rip-offs. For instance. VoodooPC offers a painted D900C (Envy H171) for $5742 base. I can get an exact same unpainted D900C for less than half that price!!! $2500 for some gimmick accessories and paint!?
Clevo is the manufacturer. You can get them barebones from www.rjtech.com. Or you can get well priced Sager (Clevo rebadge) from www.xoticpc.com with or without paint.
Harry McCracken? Really?
I thought his name was Phil.
"PC World's editor Harry McCracken."
More like Harry OnCracken...
it was such a stupid thing for them to say since
1. The macbook pro running vista was just as fast as any other laptop with the same specs, which had nothing to do with it being an apple computer
2. For those specs, you're paying the apple premium so any other laptop which cost the same would be faster and any other laptop as fast would be cheaper
Price out a Mac and a comparable non-Mac, then come and tell me there's an Apple premium again.
The problem is that with only a few models and limited options, it's difficult to exactly match the configuration of a Mac. I've done it many times with similarly or better configured PCs at much cheaper prices, but let's try the reverse this time. Let's see if you can match either of the laptops I've bought this year with Macs.
1. 17" widescreen LCD, dual core, AMD X2, 100GB hard drive, 1GB, DVD/RW, GeForce Go 7600 w/ 256MB dedicated graphics, ExpressCard slot, modem, wi-fi, card reader, and Vista Home Premium for $700.
2. Gateway CX210 tablet, 1GB, 1.7GHz Core Duo, DVD/RW, 80GB hard drive, card reader, dedicated video card, 14" display, and Vista home premium for $950 (actually paid $750 after a glitch but I'll be generous).
I purchased both of those over 6 months ago, so you should have no trouble matching that, right?
That was easy. The Dell 15.4" laptop was about $900 less than the comparable Macbook Pro.
Dell: C2D 2.2, 4GB RAM, 3YR service, 8600m GT, 350GB HD, 1680 x 1050 screen, Wireless N, XP Pro, Upgraded Battery, express card sound card, integrated webcam. $2369
MacBook: C2D 2.2, 4G Ram, 250GB HD, 1440x900 screen, wireless-N, 8600m GT, AppleCare, and all the other non-configurable stuff: $3273.
Tell me you're not speccing a 4GB RAM MacBook Pro trough Apple's online store to prove a point. Lol. Apple are a joke for upgrades and extras, no secret there. Only a fool would BTO extra RAM through Apple.
The hp dv6500t is about $800 cheaper comparably configured. I used the base configuration for the MacBook Pro with the 2.2GHZ processor at $1999. The hp with the same processor, Vista Ultimate (64-bit), 2GB RAM (albeit, not sure if they are the same speed), 128MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS (as close as you can get to the 8600 on the MacBook), added the webcam, wireless N, 120GB 5400 RPM HDD, 8x dual layer DVD burner WITH LightScribe, High Capacity 6 Cell Lithium Ion Battery, and added the $19 recovery CD. That only came to $1195.99. You do pay more for a Mac and a PC.
The problem with the PC market is manufacturers sell crap base PCs. Of course, if you compare bottom of the market PCs to "bottom" of the market Macs, the Macs are going to kiss ass. Apple isn't going to sell people computers that won't work.
but then what is really a notebook?
http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/IBM-portable-computer-1984.gif
The apple ads are now stretching itself way too badly... I mean... with the load of crap that it says it's good, why is the PC Vs. Mac ratio still tipped in favor of PC? Ok, fine, PC users are morons, then the point? It's like go buy a mac so you can be cool like me... and make arrogant claims to PC users world wide, whoopy!
I have an idea Apple. Rather than spending 100% of your advertising in bashing Vista, how about using those commercials to actually show off some Mac Hardware or the OS?
Honestly, what kind of marketing is this? If you have good product then why hide it? We haven't seen a Mac on TV since those performa infomercials!
The lastI also agree that Apple's advertising is getting silly. The latest two seem very childish. I have both PCs and Macs but prefer my PC. However, there is nothing wrong with chosing a Mac but Apple need to show case what they have since now they concentrate more on Vista than themselves.
They say Vista is Bad but they do not sell the idea that Macs are really good. Even one of the ad says Vista is so bad and people are downgrading to XP, which is telling peopel wait on Vista insetad of conviencing them to go Mac...
M
Apple uses this type of advertising because it sticks vividly in the mind. That's all they need to do to create an effective ad.
@Machole
THERE IS NO STEP THREE
(step three is a lie?)
@ Machole:
You seem to know a lot of about advertising. I suggest applying for a job at TBWA/Chiat/Day. It's obvious they need a new account planner or even a creative director to work on the Apple account. Imagine relying on something as tried and true as comparative advertising to overcome barriers in the minds of consumers.
Your logic is moronic.
A 10,000 sq. ft. mansion is a lot nicer than a double-wide trailer. Guess which sells more?
Any Mercedes is nicer than any Chevy. Guess which sells more?
Wal-Mart sells a buttload more than Macy's. But which is better?
Vizio sells the most tv's, but they are not the best available.
An assload of happy meals from McDonalds is not better than one steak dinner from Morton's.
Quantity does not mean quality or superiority. It generally means you hit a low price point.
@rip:
So what are you comparing here?
Are you trying to say that PC's are the low-end in computers? That less #'s = good?
I use a Sony Vaio, and it works awesome. In some ways, better than my MacBook Pro. It all depends on what YOU think is better.
@Andrew- Marketing 101- Never have an ad campaign that bashes your competitors completely instead of promoting yours. It leads to worse brand recognition(though Im pretty sure this wouldn't be a problem for the mac) and doesn't always sit well with the consumer.
@michael:
What I was saying is that just because something has market share doesn't mean it's better or the best.
The large windows market share is partly due to millions of people who don't know jack about computers buying the cheapest pc they can at Wal-Mart or Best Buy or wherever. Apple doesn't play in that market so they will probably never have >50% market share. Or even 25%.
And Vaio's tend to be higher priced pc's. A lot of the windows posters on here say the same thing about Vaios as Macs; they are overpriced and they built their own pc that will play Crysis at 500fps with some copper wire, duct tape, a soldering iron and a couple of coconuts.
@rip
Apple doesn't play in the Best Buy market? Last time I was in there I saw some Mac systems. Apple's lagging market share isn't because they don't try to compete with other PCs.
Comparing pc sales to mac sales is stupid because apple only sells relatively high end computers. Not everyone wants to or can afford to pay that much for a computer.
like you said, if PC and Macs can't be compared in sales due to difference in "Class" then why is Macs lowering themselves to beat up the cheapskate PC? Isn't that pure arrogance?
Like, you drive a BMW while I drive a Honda, then you purposely tell me you have more horsepower, better luxury equipment and so on... Isn't that just bullying? So how is that fair?
MacBook Pro starts at $1999
Granted that it is a portable....that thing is huge and at 11+ pounds, that's just crazy. But price wise you can almost get 2 macs or 4-5 PCs for the price of one phantom and potentially have a faster computer. :)
Or 12 eee's...and have some money left over to mod them!
Anyone remember the term "desktop replacement"? Nowadays they seem to call everything laptops or notebooks, no matter how heavy, or gigantic they are. Actually 17" powerbooks used to be referred as desktop replacements if I remember right. It seems like the term "laptop" is more about the form factor rather than actually being portable. Not to mention that they get too hot to use on your lap anyways, except in the winter when it keeps you nice and toasty. You could probably use them to heat up your coffee on those long trips.
Meh. I slapped my 30" monitor onto the side of a Mac Pro with the help of some heavy-duty hinges, welded on a case for a couple of car batteries, and added a nice slide out keyboard with trackpad.
It's only slightly more heavy than the Phantom but blows prit-near EVERYTHING out of the water as far as speed goes - laptops and desktops alike. I expect a call from PC World real soon now.
they also forgot to mention that the Phantom-X has a 2.66GHZ QUAD CORE and the macbook pro has a 2.4GHz CORE 2 DUO.
this post really does not make any sence. sure i can build something faster out of my baseman if i had the extra money and time, but also everyone knows QUAD CORE is faster than CORE 2 DUO on any machine. but you guys are also welcome to compare the Phantom-X to the the macpro desktop that comes with 2 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors (8-core)and that my friend makes the macpro the fastest windows running machine ever. it my be the zune banners getting into engadget & Gizmodos heads though
"Your car is only faster than mine because it has a much bigger engine!"
Yes the Phantom-X is more powerful because it has a better processor, thats how these things work. Saying it shouldn't be counted because it has a quad core is stupid. The Mac got beat fair and square.
Oh, and fyi, the Mac Pro definitely isn't the fastest Windows PC out there. Theres the new Dell T7400's for a start, and lets not even get into some of the brutes that Tyan has built in the past
Actually, no, since Dual Quad Core Xeons at 3.4GHz are out, and Apple doesnt offer it. From Dell:
Intel® Xeon™ Quad processors 3.4GHz, 16MB Cache, 800Mhz FSB
Times 2!!!!
Apple does not update its hardware as quickly as companies like HP, Dell, etc, so they can never be number 1 in the PC world for long.
maybe you should check apple.com and check all the ways you could configure a macpro before saying anything
Ok, lets do a top spec comparison between the Mac Pro and Dell T7400
Processor:
Mac: X7350, 65 nm, 8 MB L2, 2.93 GHz
Dell: X5460, 45 nm, 12 MB L2, 3.16 GHz
Graphics:
Mac: Single Nvidia Quadro FX 4500 512MB
Dell: Dual Nvidia Quadro FX 5600 1.5GB
Memory:
Mac: 16gig
Dell: 32gig (although I could only spec that on the UK site, not the US one oddly)
Hard drives:
Mac: 4 bays, up to 1TB each
Dell: 5 bays, up to 1TB or 15,000rpm 146gig
Now, which of those is more powerful?
I have a computer that runs a 4.2 - 40. How you like them Apples?
But how's it do in the shuttle drill?
I've got a Quad Core sitting on my desk that specs at 5.5 running Vista... XtremeNotebook's Xtreme917V. You can read about it here: http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/xtreme-notebooks-917v-accelerator/4505-3121_7-32751902.html?tag=pdtl-list
good in Okalhomas and can pass rush like nobody's business
When will we stop differentiating Apple from other PC builders? It is analogous to the question, "Should my next vehicle be a BMW or a car?"
I'd go with the BMW. Cars are so last year.
That reminds me, should I buy an iPod, or an MP3?
Devin Hester made a computer?
dammit, that was supposed to be in response to Jonathan Bergeron
I dropped my PCworld sub this year. I got sick of their lackluster reviews and blatant Apple bias...not to say the MBP isn't a good laptop, but seriously, PCW wouldn't test a decent, widely available configuration of a competitor, well, enough said.
I'm no Mac fan, but isn't this like saying some obscure sports car beats a Honda in 0-60. What the hell is a Phantom-X? That's no Dell or HP...
Well, what PCWorld said was that the Honda was the fastest "car" its tested all year. The year wasnt over, and a faster "car" was released 3 weeks later.
Regardless of the fact the "car" is made by some obscure manufacturer, its still a car, and is still faster than the honda. What does it matter. Your original assertion was false, and was never corrected, and resulted in Apple posting up LIES which was well after the exotic was released.
Wow, Sager's prices are great. Their NP9261 with a quad only costs 3174. Thats far better than a Macbook Pro.
Better than a Macbook Pro that starts at $1999? Has math gone crazy or am I just missing the sarcasm?
Wow, really? That was your response?
The highest end mac (i.e. the one PCWorld reviewed) costs 2900+.
A much more powerful Sager, due to its Quad Core processor costs about 3100. My math is spot on.
Sure, if you want to talk about the 1999 dollar version of the Mac, i can pull a 1499 dollar Asus that beats the shit out of it.
Some of the Thinkpad T60p BTO models offer better specs than the MBP, and yet they cost less, but you'll never hear jack about that in PC World, because they're too busy sucking cock.
This whole story is rather appropriately a reenactment of the advert. PC nutcases are spitting blood and calling PC world useless etc. I own a macbook and I couldn't care less.
And you're finding this funny in light of the fact that the present article is talking about performance difference between a MBP and a "laptop" that costs over $2,000 more...
Yeah, we know that the MBP is the fastest Windows PC and all...
but can it run Crysis at 30fps?
Actually, I've been running the crysis demo at around 30 fps, and I only have an athlon xp 2600 and a geforce 6800. It's all in the settings ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dcXCdrnbbI
Does that answer your question?
I don't really see how you can even call an 11 pound computer running a desktop processor a "laptop."
And PC World's claims might be a little skewed, they never lied. It was the fastest they tested all year up until that point. Did you really want them to go into the future and anticipate a faster computer and post that as the winner instead?
Give me a break. Not that I'd ever want to run Vista on a MacBook Pro.
"This is what they said about the Macbook Pro. Click the image to get a direct link to their review for proof."
Something about it being the fastest Vista laptop this year.
"Now, here's a clipping of the review of a Eurocom laptop they reviewed nearly a month earlier:"
Numbers showing that the Eurocom is actually the fastest Vista laptop this year.
Their claim regarding the MacBook Pro started as a lie. They had already reviewed the fastest laptop, yet said the Pro was the fastest laptop. Thats just lying. Apple made a commercial, no doubt aware that this had happened, or merely their ignorant ad department didn't bother making sure that PCWorld themselves were right in their assertion (one that they falsified a month earlier).
No one really cares about this, in reality. What I, and many others care about is that people go and rub it all over our faces that something that is obviously a lie is true and fact, and to them, changes the world entirely. All they have to justify it with is that quote from PCWorld.
Bring up that it is a good PC in its price range, and i will have no reason to challenge you, and will mostly agree, while bringing up possible alternatives that cant run OSX. But dont say that there isnt, or has never been (this year) a PC laptop that can run Vista as well as a MacBook Pro, because thats just rubbish.
Aren't we splitting hairs here? PC World was responding to the best data they had available at the time and I agree with bhaal, the PC nutcases are overreacting. Why are you guys so defensive about these ads? Why is Apple's success such a thorn in your side? Did you get pissed at Pepsi for saying they were better than Coke because of those Pepsi Challenge commercials?
Christ, they're commercials! The purpose is to create awareness of Macs as an alternative.
Would you guys be more happy if the Mac guy came on and said, "Hey, I'm a Mac, and while I think you'll like using me better than a PC, that doesn't mean that PCs are bad computers. Far from it, in fact, they do some things better. Games, for instance. Yes, we are overpriced some times, but we have less viruses, and a different, easy to use operating system. So it's your decision, and I really hope I didn't disrupt your dinner, but the next time you think of buying a computer, just give us a call, okay. Thanks for your time."
Now that would truly suck.
Well Clak I would prefer Apple t actually show what there system can do and what makes them different and how there software like iLife is a simple to sue program that enables people to do stuff that only pros could 10 years ago.
Their ad campaign right now is borderline lieing sort of like the first 64 bit computer or fastest ever personal computer a few years ago. The PC world tests were against relatively few comercial available labtops and it almost got beat by a cheaper gateway hardly something to trumper or the fact that they showed XP runs faster than OS X on a Macbook Pro.
it really isn't just those ads it is the DLL or the needing to upgrade to run with vista ads or the crashing ads. the truth is stretched and twisted and shows very little about the actual OS and its advantage to the consumer. BTW the Macbook pro is not the fastest notebook in its price range.
You're still missing the point. These Apple commercials create AWARENESS. Do you know what that means? Some people don't even understand that there is an alternative to Windows. I know it's hard to understand that, but there used to be a large segment of people who thought that the alternatives were Dell versus HP or Sony or whatever company sells PCs. Getting an alternative to Windows wasn't even an option because most people don't even understand the concept of an operating system.
My sister is a perfect example. She's the type of person that thinks AOL is "the internet." She doesn't watch a lot of TV because she works nights, but she used to call me so much about fixing her XP computer, that one night I just told her to get a Mac. She says, "What's that?" and I start explaining all the different features and she's just not getting it. So I bought her an iMac and now she thinks it's the best computer she's ever had. She took her laptop and desktop PC to Good Will.
So do you think a person like that is really going to be educated by a thirty second commercial, when I couldn't even explain the Mac to her during an hour long phone call? She just wanted to get on the internet without downloading viruses and malware.
My point with all this is that with people who see these commercials, they're more likely to see and remember THAT THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE, the next time they're frustrated by Windows. And believe me, this is happening more and more, especially since people can get a look at OS X by using an iPhone.
Well if what you say is true:
The next time somebody experiences a problem with OS X (which happens from time to time) I tell them to buy a Sony Vaio. Or a 'quality' PC of some kind.
You'd be surprised at how so many people don't know there's an alternative to crappy hardware (not Windows, but hardware), besides Macs (which has nice hardware). There's a nice brand called Sony Vaios, that I have found work very effective, and whose computers last for quite a while. Some people don't like problems with faulty hardware, or even another OS. So I suggest a Sony Vaio.
Yep, that's logic clak.
I really don't understand the point you're trying to make, Michael, but I guessed you missed the part about my sister calling "so much" (as in heavily and for an extended time). The problem was not her hardware. Who said anything about hardware?
The problem with her computer was malware and adware and viruses, but mostly malware and adware. She had so much malware and adware on her computer that it was too slow for her to operate. How the hell was I supposed to fix that over the phone? It's not that I couldn't. I was a PC user for ten years before switching to Mac, but my sister couldn't be bothered with my recommendations: which was to run Spybot, Ad Aware and the copy of Norton Anti-Virus that I bought for her. She just wanted it "to work." So, my suggestion was for her to get a Mac, because as we know, it just works.
I also have a brother with exactly the same problem. He gets malware all the time, but he actually listens to my recommendations and runs his anti-malware programs every day. I've told him that he could avoid that by switching to a Mac, but unfortunately he doesn't have the money.
So let me conclude by saying the problem with PCs has never been hardware, it's the software (Windows) which is holding it back.
If apple made an informative commercial about their product then what are they going to show in the last 25 seconds of a 30 second commercial?
I think this PC World claim ruffled too many peoples feathers. Honestly I can care less if the macbook pro they tested runs vista the slowest!!! It's a mac and I run leopard... or did people forget that?
> "Apple uses this type of advertising because it sticks vividly in the mind. That's all they need to do to create an effective ad."
I disagree. "Got Milk" is an ad that sticks in your mind. But we already know what milk is. If the average PC user doesn't know what a Mac is, or has never seen one, why are they gonna jump into a $1500, sight unseen product? Even if it's better, they don't know what it is!
Who cares? Its a laptop.
Is PC World owned by cnet? ;)
I just want to say THANK YOU PCWORLD!!!
It is threads like this one, that makes surfing after work worthwhile.
You PC guys are such whiny little brats, but it makes for great reading.
I don't get the dispute.
Yes, PC Mag sucks, we all know that.
Also, it was cool that the MacBook Pro was the top of the heap for awhile, icing on the cake for us Mac fans. But I hardly think anyone is surprised to see another laptop knock them off of the top of the pile; it's bound to happen with literally hundreds of other computer makers out there representing an effective refresh cycle of new products almost daily. In any event, I don't think Apple's ever tried to compete with the ultra-high end portables. I remember a friend with an Alienware laptop with a desktop P4 chip in it back in '02 or '03 -- man that thing was inelegant (8 pounds, huge cooling fans, etc), but it was fast!
I think the better question is, why don't they review the $3000ish laptop that the new champ is based on? It would be a lot more impressive at 3/5ths the price.
I, too, have always wondered why Apple didn't have ads that shows off their products better, but I think their ad agency knows what it's doing better than I do. I really loved the ad back in the day where the PowerMac blew the guy out of his workspace and into the living room. That was damn cool, too bad the UK got the ad shut down for claiming that it was the fastest computer in the world or whatever. That was back before I had ever even owned a Mac. I guess it didn't prod me to buy one, but it did help raise awareness. At least Apple is finally advertising again, rather than letting the brand drift into oblivion. My very small investment in AAPL is thankful.
wow. sell out FTW.
@rawhead
this laptop costs $2000 more? http://www.rjtech.com/d900c.htm like the above, informed posters above already said, only the expensive painted version costs that much.
D901C Clevo D901C Notebook Computer, 17" LCD $1,869.00 $1,869.00
Display: 17 WUXGA Glossy
Video Card: Single nVidia 8700M GT 512MB
CPU: Q6600 $310.00 $310.00
DDR2 Memory: 4GB DDR2/800 - 2 $140.00 $140.00
HDD: 160GB SATA300 7200rpm $175.00 $175.00
RAID: Disable
2nd HD: None
3rd HD: None
CD: 8x DVD+/-RW DL
Network Adapter: Integrated GBLAN + Bluetooth
WLAN: Intel 3945G $35.00 $35.00
TV Tuner: None
Battery: 12-Cell Li-Ion Battery
AC Adapter: Standard
OS: None
Software: None
Carry Bag: Included
USB FDD: None
Warranty: 1 Year
LCD Protection: None
Installation: Install
Ship Schedule: Regular
Total: $2,529.00
I don't understand some of this...
Some have already made comments that prove that for the same price you can build a pc or even a laptop that is capable of much more than a mac at the same price point
And contrary to many "fanboy" beliefs, this has been true since long before pc world made this confused article.
If someone buys a mac they they probably wanted the mac software or didn't know any better
this entire argument is moot
I love how you PC guy always spring this argument about Mac being higher priced, but you ignore the fact that Microsoft rapes you on software. Let's say you build a computer that's just as good as an iMac for $1500. Microsoft charges you $450 for a full version of Microsoft Office. Even if you go on Amazon and order it, you're paying at least $350. And if you build your own computer, you have to pay at least $200 for Vista Home Basic or as much as $400 for Vista Ultimate. So that negates whatever money you save, unless you go the torrent route.
No one is disputing that Macs cost more, but what we pay in hardware, is balanced out by what we pay for software. iWork will cost you $79. Upgrades in OS X will cost you $129. iLife comes free with most Macs now and we don't have the added expense of paying for virus software. You also have to take it account the resell value on Macs. We get as much as 70 percent on our initial investment whenever we decide to resell.
I own an imac, just as well, I'm not one to ignore logic
Even with a "legit" copy of windows, pc hardware is by far cheaper.
On top of that, the initial debate was about vista running on a mac, so you may as well be adding that expense to your mac budget as well.
Three points.
One. There have been 6 releases of OS X since 2001 (Cheetah - Lepoard). Windows Vista, then XP Pro are the two new windows OS releases since then. Pricing @ $130*6 for the OS X "upgrades", vs. 400+300 for Windows Vista Ultimate and XP Pro (Being generous here, since ultimate isn't really necessary...) and that cost advantage moves to the other side of the table.
Two. No companies seriously use iWork as productivity software. Virtually all use Office, and any Apple computers running there will have Office installed. Why? Microsoft has spend billions of dollars on the office suite, and it shows.
Three. "A computer that just works." Apple may have a point with their mantra about "intuitive" computing, but the premium they charge on hardware (I do hope this particular argument has been settled: Apple's cost more for the same hardware) makes that "feature" pointless to anyone born and bred on the Windows farm; Windows systems do crash, yes. So do OS X systems. Equally so in my experience. Plus, the platitudes about stronger security and virus invulnerablilty are based on a lack of hacker interest. If the Apple market share goes up, so will its virus share.
Seriously, anyone with any technical expertise doesn't have these "hey look it's free online games and software oh god now my computer won't work anymore" moments. Mac's are computers with training wheels. Yes, the traning wheels might be shiny, and they keep you from falling down, but damn they make you look like a pussy.
Point Three:
Macbook pro's do cost more for similar hardware.
But there are a few differences in hardware:
1. The keyboard/mouse. I have yet to see any popular PC laptops with as good a keyboard and mouse plus software support. 'Just get a mouse' Ok fine, but that's up to you.
2. The screen is really nice on a macbook pro, again something I have yet to seen match. The largest problem I see on PC laptops is finger prints, yet I touch my macbook pro's screen all the time and I hardly see any marks. Yea I know that's really shallow, but aside from that the screens are really great, but I think standard PC laptops have now caught up to macbook pro's.
3. They are slimmer and weigh less than competitor's PC laptops, however they are not designed to run with a closed lid for some reason.
on an aside, mac mini's are really great compute servers for academia and research. More likely easier to manage than a pc with linux, as easy to manage as a PC with windows and likely easier at the beginning, and all the while very small and probably more power efficient.
I've seen a lot more apple laptops in the research and academic areas recently.
This is to contest the last point.
"Mac's are computers with training wheels. Yes, the traning wheels might be shiny, and they keep you from falling down, but damn they make you look like a pussy."
Many people in research have been neck deep in linux operating systems trying to fix bugs, but now here comes this magical apple operating system OS X that literally just works out of the box. Why waste time on getting a computer to work when one could easily forget about it and continue to focus on what is really more important? Same applies to a casual computer user. OS X has everything they need to do email, internet and google, video ichat with your friends/family. Hey it is nice when you don't have to think about how something works, but rather how to use it. Take cars as an example.
Mac's annoying ad's actually confirm to me that i will never buy a Mac. Insult me then I buy your product? ROFL.
mac user are amateur, point.
Dell xps m1530
2.6 GHz
4GB
200GB at 7200 rpm
8600gt 256mb
(bluetooth, wirless n, low rez screen (only bummer) and webcam) at $2,474
Just buy a mac and be happy, except complaining about them.
Um, the Phantom is over $5K !! You could buy 2, count 'em, TWO Mac Pros for this same money. And, the rest of the Phantom review isn't gold-plated, either.