New Computer Time, Suggestion?

[Jeremie Boop]

Buying a Mac that can keep up with my current laptop would cost me $2500.

So it depends if that's worth it for you. I spent much less than half, and haven't had any issues in 3 years. Still running strong.

With that said, I don't get the extreme hate on either side...if you like and want a Mac, go for it.

I was going to touch on the cost difference myself before but didn't. I also have have very few problems with any computer I've ever had. Typically, anyone who is good/knowledgeable with computers will be able to keep their machine running well regardless of which they go with. My sister, on the other hand, has nothing but problems because she clicks on EVERYTHING... You really can't go wrong buying either one, it just all comes down to preference and budget.

[saevel25]

Buying a Mac that can keep up with my current laptop would cost me $2500.

So it depends if that's worth it for you. I spent much less than half, and haven't had any issues in 3 years. Still running strong.

With that said, I don't get the extreme hate on either side...if you like and want a Mac, go for it.

Not entirely sure about that. At least from what I have looked at, most laptops that come close to Apple's hardware specs are all in the $2000-$2500 range. So I don't get were you say you spent much less than half. Given I think MacBook is probably at the higher end for what they offer, but it isn't substantial like you are claiming. I just don't see it when I am looking at similar laptops.

Maybe the only brand I see is ASUS offers some really good deals on gaming laptops.

If you get an iPhone you can use it as an instant wifi hotspot too, so you can use your computer on car trips (ideally when you're the passenger :D).

What, I can't do this? They say no Texting and Driving, but what about Computing and Driving?

[nevets88]

You can get a refurbished or new MacBook during a Black Friday like sale for $800. Most people aren't going to need a souped up laptop. I do see that point about barriers to entry though. You can get a perfectly serviceable Windows laptop that handles HD video playing for $250. This is a huge difference between the two worlds I didn't mention. Plus Windows has the touchscreen option. When you have a Mac, your software choices include the OS X world and Windows world. Also, if you write, read, or listen to a language like Chinese, the experience on a Mac is so much better. To me, it's worth paying more for the better battery life, trackpad, language capabilities plus the Genius Bar.

[iacas]

Not entirely sure about that. At least from what I have looked at, most laptops that come close to Apple's hardware specs are all in the $2000-$2500 range. So I don't get were you say you spent much less than half. Given I think MacBook is probably at the higher end for what they offer, but it isn't substantial like you are claiming. I just don't see it when I am looking at similar laptops.

Yeah, you can certainly get the clock speeds up in the PC world, but on the MacBook Pro, for example, I don't think there are too many Retina-like displays in the PC world. Maybe I'm wrong.

Mac hardware has always been a step above, and the total cost of ownership has always been pretty good too. Wasn't too long ago that a PC magazine rated the MacBook Pro as the best Windows laptop available.

We got a big "tablet/computer" thing (18" touchscreen) Windows 8 thing for our FlightScope recently. It's perfectly fine for what it needs to do and all, but, meh.

At the end of the day… I like that I can drop down into Unix when I need to, and have a GUI when I want it, and so on.

[nevets88]

I use a 2007 Mac Mini as an HTPC and beat the living crap out of it. Never had a problem. Other than replacing the HD and having to clean the dust out of it.

[Slice of Life]

Not entirely sure about that. At least from what I have looked at, most laptops that come close to Apple's hardware specs are all in the $2000-$2500 range. So I don't get were you say you spent much less than half. Given I think MacBook is probably at the higher end for what they offer, but it isn't substantial like you are claiming. I just don't see it when I am looking at similar laptops.

I'm entirely sure about that. I looked at both options when I was shopping.

Quad Core i7, 1 TB hard drive, 8 gigs of ram, 15.4" screen. $999 Samsung, brand new.

Haven't checked prices lately, but when I bought the Samsung, a brand new non-refurbished with the same specs was well over $2k.

[saevel25]

Yeah, you can certainly get the clock speeds up in the PC world, but on the MacBook Pro, for example, I don't think there are too many Retina-like displays in the PC world. Maybe I'm wrong.

Mac hardware has always been a step above, and the total cost of ownership has always been pretty good too. Wasn't too long ago that a PC magazine rated the MacBook Pro as the best Windows laptop available.

We got a big "tablet/computer" thing (18" touchscreen) Windows 8 thing for our FlightScope recently. It's perfectly fine for what it needs to do and all, but, meh.

At the end of the day… I like that I can drop down into Unix when I need to, and have a GUI when I want it, and so on.

Yea I couldn't care less about clock speeds. I'm not trying to edge out every little FPS I can get in Crysis.

I've noticed that before when I have done price comparisons. They do tend to use higher end components. Is it overload or not, I am not sure. I guess if apple users want the hardware they get the hardware

Yea I heard the same thing about Windows 8. I know a few guys who don't like it. It just sits in a no mans land of a tablet OS or a computer OS. I get the touch screen stuff, but not for a desktop. I think it was more of a gimmicky test run.

I'm entirely sure about that. I looked at both options when I was shopping.

Quad Core i7, 1 TB hard drive, 8 gigs of ram, 15.4" screen. $999 Samsung, brand new.

Haven't checked prices lately, but when I bought the Samsung, a brand new non-refurbished with the same specs was well over $2k.

Maybe prices have changed drastically. I could see your laptop being closer to $1500. I found one on Amazon that is close for that price. Really, computers that match the MacBook Pro 15" in spec are with in a few hundred dollars of their price. Apple is pretty competitive in their pricing, at least from what I see.

[Slice of Life]

Maybe prices have changed drastically. I could see your laptop being closer to $1500. I found one on Amazon that is close for that price. Really, computers that match the MacBook Pro 15" in spec are with in a few hundred dollars of their price. Apple is pretty competitive in their pricing, at least from what I see.

Like I said, I haven't looked at prices recently, but mine was a hair under a grand, and the similar Mac was closer to $2,500.

[scorpion12]

Something that isn't really mentioned all that much in the debate between Windows and Mac: Windows is the main target for malware and viruses... this is because there are more installs of Windows OS than Mac. Since that's the case, there are several different anti-virus programs for Windows.

There are many fewer for Mac OS... another thing is that Windows OS knows .exe and .msi file extensions... which is how some malware and viruses wind up being activated. Since Mac OSX is Unix based, it doesn't know how to handle the .msi and .exe files unless you specifically go out of your way and tell it to...

Another thing to consider is you don't absolutely have to buy Apple specific hardware. You can pick up a refurbished or new laptop and get it without an OS. Then you can get a copy of Mac OSX Yosemite and go from there.

[newtogolf]

If you play games, Windows based PC's beat out the Apple offerings in terms of video card upgrade options.  For non-gamers or laptops, I'd go Apple just for the stability of the OS.

Windows 8 is pretty cool on my Yoga 3 in that it acts like a laptop and tablet but on a desktop Windows 8 is just annoying.  I stick with Windows because of the software investment I've made in Windows based software.  If I had to start from scratch today, I'd go Apple.

I bought my daughter a MacBook Pro for college and she loves it.

[iacas]

Like I said, I haven't looked at prices recently, but mine was a hair under a grand, and the similar Mac was closer to $2,500.

I still doubt that, across the board, the specs were the same. Apple doesn't offer the i7 in non-retina portables, for example.

Something that isn't really mentioned all that much in the debate between Windows and Mac: Windows is the main target for malware and viruses... this is because there are more installs of Windows OS than Mac. Since that's the case, there are several different anti-virus programs for Windows.

That's not "why" at all. There are tens of millions of Macs out there.

There are many fewer for Mac OS... another thing is that Windows OS knows .exe and .msi file extensions... which is how some malware and viruses wind up being activated. Since Mac OSX is Unix based, it doesn't know how to handle the .msi and .exe files unless you specifically go out of your way and tell it to...

That's not entirely accurate either… You can make a file executable in Mac OS X pretty easily, and even AppleScripts can be set to be an application and launch and do things. Shell scripts, etc. Plus you can easily put icons on these things too.

Another thing to consider is you don't absolutely have to buy Apple specific hardware. You can pick up a refurbished or new laptop and get it without an OS. Then you can get a copy of Mac OSX Yosemite and go from there.

Nobody really recommends doing that at all. Just the people at http://www.hackintosh.com .

[Slice of Life]

I still doubt that, across the board, the specs were the same. Apple doesn't offer the i7 in non-retina portables, for example.

Doubt all you want, it isn't an opinion. When I was shopping, the only way I could get a Mac with an i7 QC, 8 GB of ram, 15+" screen, and even close to a 1 TB harddrive was to spend over $2,000.

It's not like I'm guessing...I was actively shopping and open to anything.

[Slice of Life]

FTR, I'm not anti-Mac. Anti iPhone? Sure. But not anti-Mac...I may get one eventually, especially with all the audio recording and producing I do.

[Jeremie Boop]

Doubt all you want, it isn't an opinion. When I was shopping, the only way I could get a Mac with an i7 QC, 8 GB of ram, 15+" screen, and even close to a 1 TB harddrive was to spend over $2,000.

It's not like I'm guessing...I was actively shopping and open to anything.

I think what he meant is that they weren't "comparable" because you would have had to get a retina type display to get the i7, and that the retina display would have been much better than whatever display was included in the windows laptop? I could be wrong but that's how I read it.

[iacas]

Doubt all you want, it isn't an opinion. When I was shopping, the only way I could get a Mac with an i7 QC, 8 GB of ram, 15+" screen, and even close to a 1 TB harddrive was to spend over $2,000. It's not like I'm guessing...I was actively shopping and open to anything.

You're not reading what I'm saying. If you want an i7 it puts you into MacBook Pro territory. Which also puts you into Retina screens and all that entails. I doubt, among other things, your PC had similar hardware there. Yes, a top of the line MBP costs $2k plus. But you can't build Macs piecemeal and plop an i7 into something without Retina displays, thunderbolt, pretty decent graphics cards, etc.

[Slice of Life]

You're not reading what I'm saying.

If you want an i7 it puts you into MacBook Pro territory. Which also puts you into Retina screens and all that entails. I doubt, among other things, your PC had similar hardware there.

No, I'm reading what you're saying. But what I'm saying is, with the features I wanted...I would have had to spend over $2,000. I don't care about a retina screen...the resolution on mine is fine. I needed speed, memory, and storage.

FWIW, the new version of my laptop is closer to $2,000, so maybe I lucked out and got a deal...but either way, I couldn't get a Mac for $999 with the specs I wanted.

[iacas]

No, I'm reading what you're saying. But what I'm saying is, with the features I wanted...I would have had to spend over $2,000. I don't care about a retina screen...the resolution on mine is fine. I needed speed, memory, and storage.

So you weren't comparing like things. That's been my only point. You weren't comparing the entirety of what's being priced. Only the parts that mattered to you. Which is fine… but you didn't imply that earlier. You implied similarly configured products.

[nevets88]

Isn't going by spec isn't always strictly a true measure of performance? With regards to specific tasks, apps, a Mac with substandard specs, CPU/RAM/Motherboard, etc... compared to a Windows laptop may outperform the Windows laptop and vice versa. Another way of going about figuring out which to get is to list your priority tasks that you'll be performing most, and see which machine excels in those.

Also, in those websites that list CPU performance, some i3s outperform i5s and i5s outperform i7s. So even though you see a bigger number, it may not necessarily be faster. An i7 could be de jure an i7, but de facto an i5.