Comments on: Comparing the New Apple MacBook Pro To the PC Competition

By: spin rewriter

spin rewriter — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:43:47 +0000

Wow, marvelous weblog format! How long have you been running a blog for? you make blogging look easy. The total glance of your web site is great, let alone the content!

By: Rabih Nicolas

Rabih Nicolas — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:32:21 +0000

I think the review is generally good, but one eyed.

Manufacturers bump up the PC hardware at lots of cost. System heating, or in the case of most common notebooks “OVER HEATING”.

It’s not as if you cannot upgrade the RAM/Hard Disk of a Macbook Pro… its not exactly a built-in chip

Multi touch trackpad anyone?

I might have a soft spot for Apple, but one has got to admit that these people always deliver in quality. Sometimes their competitors are crappy (aka iPod vs the rest) but in this case it’s an industry that they cant simply overrun

By: LM

LM — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:03:10 +0000

Simply put, you can get a better deal with a PC laptop IF you don’t need a long batter life. If a long batter life is a must then a Macbook Pro might be the best choice. If you need exceelent performance and occasionally move locations (you don’t take it to your local Starbucks everyday) I would definitely go with a PC laptop. As far as the operating systems go, OSX is definitely fun to use but so is the new Windows 7. When you buy a Mac you’re really paying for the brand and looks more than anything. It’s like buying a car that looks really good but runs average, and when it comes to specs Macbook Pro is really quite average compared to PCs.

By: Emir

Emir — Tue, 25 May 2010 06:39:11 +0000

I think your way of comparing laptops or “notebooks” are flawed, if i was looking for a powerhorse, i would be looking at desktops. Battery life is the most important thing for me among similar specs of notebooks since i take my laptop out with me in the morning and sometimes i don't get to charge it for several hours at a time when I need to use it. I would say all of these have similar hardware specs. So Macbook vs Competition for me is a win at all except for HP, which is a tie with the extended battery. Depends on how clunky that is. I'm not a pussy so i don't usually mind a few more pounds but why carry more then you have to? I'm going for a Macbook Pro for next year but this is great, especially seeing that the hardwares are so similar. i was afraid i was giving up on power when at the dorm (not bringing my desktop there form home) with the mac for reliability and batterylife/weight. But I guess I am not. If mostly used around the house though, then the toshiba also seems great. But again, i don't understand why you would buy a laptop then. Regard, Emir

By: macuserinnapa

macuserinnapa — Tue, 04 May 2010 10:19:39 +0000

Your report brought back memories of my old Mac laptop, back in the 90s.

It had 2 ports (one on each side) that could accommodate batteries.

I owned 3 of these batteries. The 3 bats, w/the laptop, were still pounds lighter than comparable PCs.

I was on a flight from Sydney, Australia, back to the US, working on my computer. I was in business class (thanks to upgrade miles), and virtually everyone around me was using their laptops.

As we got into the flight, one by one, the other laptops ran out of juice, and the owners shut them down.

I worked off one battery, then the Mac switched over to the other one. When it started getting low, I swapped out the first (discharged) battery w/the 3rd fresh one.

Seven hours into the flight, I had half the cabin looking at me. Everyone's laptops had quit hours before. Finally, someone close by said, "What kind of computer is that?"

"A Mac" I answered, smiling.

Lots of rolled eyeballs. But the fact remained: I got hours more work done on every flight, because Apple had designed a system that could run hours longer than any PC laptop.

So don't discount the long battery life. A faster processor isn't very fast when the battery is dead, and you're 30,000 miles up.

-A road warrior who wound up loving the Mac

By: dee

dee — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:25:36 +0000

First off I think this was about as fair a “hardware review” as I have reviewed between the Apple and Oranges debate of the PC and MAC platforms for laptops. Great job! Now for my two cents. I am a systems engineer and have worked with Macs since 1986 and PC's that far back as well and I will tell you, honestly your talking about two kinds of fruit, apples and oranges. If you want stability, longevity, complete integration with OS, software and hardware, the Mac is untouchable with the far superior OS X and the bundled productivity software that comes with the MacBook Pro's, you take it out the box, turn it on, work, period, end of story. PC laptops require much more configuration of the OS, the software for productivity, and just laborious configuration of the OS and the software you need to be productive. No Windows OS system can run my OS X software yet with Parallels software, I have Red Hat Linux, Windows 2003 Server, Windows XP, and SUSE Linux all running as Virtual Machines on my Mac OS X Powerbook. Truly, for the money, lack of frustration, major ease of use out of the box, PC laptops are not even comparable to the POWERBook.

By: ck

ck — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:26:26 +0000

Interesting. How many of the competing PC laptops have illuminated keyboards, multi-touch trackpads, FW 800 etc.?

By: John

John — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:36:54 +0000

Hmmm. The thing is, Apple is really a software company that makes its money selling hardware. To do a comparison, you need to factor in the value of the INCLUDED software. You need to consider iPhoto, iTunes, iDVD, iMovie, iWeb, etc. Each application is fantastic for what it does. For example, iPhoto one click fix is all I do for most 98% of my photos (and Photoshop the rest). But for most consumers, these are all you need.
Once you get to a certain level of hardware, it is all about the software. If your software does not run on a Mac, you buy a PC. (or Parallels).
The article only told us that the Mac hardware price, without considering the software is in the same ballpark. It just failed to consider the software value. My guess is that when software is factored in–Apple wins.

By: TheCarlos

TheCarlos — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:51:43 +0000

You know what I love? Mr. Purcell mentioned several times in the article that he was not comparing operating systems, but that didn't stop you commenters, now did it?

This comparison is important to me, as I am typing this from a first generation Intel MacBook that I have maxed out, performance-wise. It is time to upgrade. And my next machine will most probably not be a Mac. I've been programming video applications for more than 10 years. I know digital video and believe me when I tell you that there is no credible technical reason for Macs to not have Blu-ray. I'm not paying anyone $2000 for a computer without it. That's insane.

By: George

George — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:05:58 +0000

I have done comparisons like this in the past and have come to the same general conclusion. I think the “problem” with Apple's lineup is lack of choice, not price. Apple's strategy is to be focused and by design have a limited lineup. If you want to buy their product you end up with a higher end model in whatever segment you are shopping in. If you want something a less featured but still aimed at that segment, too bad. If you want a wide selection of graphics cards and processors, too bad. My conclusion is generally similar to yours – Macs sell at a premium but it's relatively modest. However, unlike other suppliers they rarely on sale, so the “blow-out” pricing that sometimes ends up on the net as comparisons will never favor Apple. It's just their strategy to target the higher end of each market segment and have a relatively restricted product set. Guess that's how they kept the boat afloat all those years when they had a small market share.