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 December 7th 2007 2:23PM
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.