Microsoft has copied Apple and Apple Microsoft so many times over the last few decades that learning Mac OS is really not that difficult for most Windows users. Hell, Apple will even move your stuff for you at their retail store and show you how everything works. The biggest difference is that you use the command key instead of control for most keyboard shortcuts, otherwise, almost everything you know on Windows will work almost the same on a Mac.

I would go with Mac then Sony VAIO!!!!

I'm about two shakes away from buying an HP nw8440.

After selling my T400 on the forum I was going to buy a T510, but noticed that Apple now has matte screens on the 15" MacBook Pro, so now for the first time in a decade I don't currently own a ThinkPad. Never fear, I'm going to buy a T2x or low-end T4x soon for 32-bit gaming (Win 9x and XP dual boot).

Even though its resolution is limited to 1440x900? Its 110.27 DPI is one of the lowest pixel densities among laptop screens.

Yup, they are low-dpi, but the image quality (color, evenness of backlight, contrast) are up there in Flexview territory.

Unless you're unlucky.

Apple doesn't use a single screen supplier, and there's a tremendous variation in quality between the various makes of panel. Most of them are pretty solid nowadays, but it's still hit and miss. I have a newish MBP at home that's absolute junk, even when compared to other cheap TN panels -- certainly nowhere near IPS in terms of color or viewing angle.

How newish? Apple completely revamped all of their MBP screens in June 09 with much higher quality panels than the previous models. Its hard to tell which generation MBP you have if you have a 17" model, but the 13" and 15" are easy. All 13" models have the new screen (unibody non-Pro MacBooks do not), while the 15" will have the new screen if it has the non-replaceable battery, and the old screen if it has the swappable batteries.

The difference between the June 09 and earlier screens is night and day, and the new ones are quite consistent.

goofyGAguy wrote:



Although the machine itself is quite nice, the screen is...OMG...

asiafish wrote:



Pretty nice they might be, but FlexView viewing angles are still terra incognita for Apple...or anyone else for that fact...

Its definitely NOT a Flexview and the viewing angles are par for the TN course, but when at the correct viewing position, the new Apple LCDs rival even medium grade color-correct desktop monitors and are far superior to most other currently shipping laptop panels for color accuracy and contrast.

I have a new (hardly ever used) HP dx2200 with XP Pro x86/Vista Ultimate x64 dual boot and its much better than my ThinkCentre ever was. HP used to be really rubbish, use to have a really old HP desktop model with a miniscure little 18GB HDD and a tiny ammount of RAM, manufactured in early 00s and this 2008 dx2200 is fabulous!
Never used to like HPs but since getting this dx2200, I can recommend HP.

Eh. The 13-inch ones that I've seen have had decent TN screens, but that's about it. A quick look at http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ has indicated that they're nothing special -- at least the ones I tested weren't. YMMV though -- I've only tried about 5 or 6 of the 13-inch amongst friends, etc. so it's quite possible I just had bum luck.

My MBP is definitely not one of the post-refresh ones though, so I'll concede that it's likely not a representative sample.

The glossy glass cover on the 13 and most others can and does make calibration difficult. The new panels of all sizes though are color correct, so long as you are looking at the post-refresh models.

The 13" unibody (non-Pro) MacBook in its last weeks also shipped with the new panels. My daughter has one and it is gorgeous, every bit as nice (and with wider color gamut) than my MacBook Air.

My new-model MacBook Pro with antiglare screen is "out for delivery" on the UPS tracker, so I'll report back how it compares with the24" iMac that my secretary uses. The 24" iMac is a true IPS panel.

Another Pro laptop? I would probably go for an HP Elitebook or a Sony Vaio.

Last week I actually saw an entry level Vaio (VGN-NW215T) in Sam's that have a really great chiclet keyboard, I was really impressed. I actually looked for it on Sony website, but it's apparently a lone model and not a part of a series. Too bad as the screen Dpi was really bad (1366 x 768 on a 15.5”), would have loved a similar laptop with a decent screen.

img]http://www.e-megatone.com.ar/imagenes/producto/articulos/118924g.jpg[/img]

Can't wait to try to thinkpad Edge keyboard to see if it's similar.

If I was really on the ropes I would go for an Acer. Theses past years I saw their entry-level consumer laptop really improving, while other (HP) are on a downward trend quality wise.

Matte-screen MacBook Pro arrived on Friday, and WOW is that screen gorgeous. It makes the screen on my T400 look like its got a layer of dirt on it, which of course it does not.

I've never seen a flexview screen in person, but this is by far the best laptop display I have ever put eyes on, and is every bit as sharp pleasant as the 20" iMac in my office.

Which OS does your MacBook Pro run just out of interest?

OS X (10.6.2) as primary, Windows 2000 in Parellels Desktop for WordPerfect and military forms.

For gaming I boot into Windows 7 Professional 64 using Boot Camp, but for everything else its all OS X (except for WordPerfect and PureEdge Viewer).

I'm platform agnostic, and generally can get my work done just as easily in Mac or Windows. That said, while I'm equally productive, I find OS X a lot more pleasant. Sleep (suspend/resume) is instant and absolutely reliable and the level of integration with the hardware is far beyond Windows.

APPLE!!!

I really like the new Alu Unibody. The only issue I see is the overprice you pay. But well, New TPs are also expensive.

I particularly like the old black MacBook and I'm always lurking Ebay for a broken or defective model. But even then they are still terrible overpriced! I think a black MacBook and a good Linux flavor would be a terrific combination

Patience... Patience...

How are they overpriced? They are premium machines by a premium vendor. ThinkPads, Vaios and the like cost just as much, more in some instances, less in others, but always close.

Don't forget to look at size and weight in your price comparisons. A 15" MacBook Pro will usually be much more expensive than a 15" Dell, but that Dell will be twice as thick, two or three pounds heavier and generally lack the premium materials and construction.

MacBook Air, ThinkPad X301 and Dell Adamo all cost about the same, with the Apple actually cheapest and most powerful in the 3lb 13" class.

Apple being overpriced was true in the 80s and 90s, but since the return of Steve Jobs and the move to Intel is largely a myth that people still cling to.

Whoa now.

The Air is more powerful in terms of raw CPU, sure. But CPU's not the most important factor anymore. Most users rarely have their CPU pegged for any length of time.

Also, sure the Air is more powerful in theory -- but let's compare the X301 to the Air, shall we?

CPU: Air wins, although there's no ULV option available.

GPU: Air wins, but not by that much.

HD: Tie. Performance depends on the drive you install. Only you can't upgrade the drive on the Air, but you can on the ThinkPad.

Optical: X301 wins. Air has none.

WLAN: Tie. Both support 802.11n

USB: 3 vs. 1 -- advantage X301.

WWAN: Tie. Heh. Just kidding. No option on the Air.

--

So yes, the Air has more raw CPU/GPU power. In exchange for this mild increase in CPU speed, you sacrifice the ability to upgrade your machine's hard drive, the ability to swap out your battery, audio line-in, an optical drive, and the option to have built-in 3G. You also get a lower-resolution screen (1280x800 vs 1440x900).

To top it all off, the Air's actually slightly heavier than the X301, so it's not like they sacrificed all that stuff to save weight -- or if they did, they did a poor job of it. So yes, you're technically right: the Air is the cheapest machine of the three -- provided you're fine with giving up most of the features that its competitor has in order to save a couple bucks. But if you have to sacrifice most of the features, it's not really fair to claim the Air to be the value winner then, is it?

If you *really* want to embarass the Air, compare it to an X200s. It's almost funny how much you'll end up paying for a less-capable machine.

I have an incredibly soft spot for both black and white Macbooks; I think they look much better than the aluminium unibody ones. Unfortunately, the plastic is pretty cheap and fairly notorious for splintering, and the white one also suffers discoloration of the palmrest.



Which $1000 (41% less than the MBP) 15" laptop is a uniform 1.9" and 7.5 lb, please?

There are too many cheap and thick 15" laptops to list. Some are as cheap as $400 and as heavy as 9 or 10 lbs. The general rule though, is the stronger, thinner and lighter a 15" laptop gets, the more expensive it gets.

There is also screen quality, graphics and battery life to consider. I never said that the MacBook Pro was cheaper than anything else, only that meaningful comparisons need to consider build quality, size, weight and many other things beyond screen size and processor speed.

As for the Air vs the X301, yes, the X301 has many advantages, and so does the Air. The point wasn't that the Air is a better or worse computer, its that they are competing models and that the myth of the Mac being much more expensive simply doesn't hold water anymore.

Sorry to burst your bubble though, the CPU in the Air is considerably more powerful. It is a low voltage, rather than super low, at a much higher clock speed. The GPU is vastly superior as well. The nVidia 9400M is actually capable of playing games like Mass Effect and Fallout 3, which the GMA is not.

Processor and graphics are MacBook Air advantages that are quite real, just as real as the optical drive and 1440X900 resolution are as X301 advantages.

As for MacBook plastics, you are in luck. While the white ones are known the crack, the black ones do not. Also, it is the specific area along the front of the palmrest where they crack, not the case itself, but the plastic keyboard plate, which is much cheaper and easier to replace. My wife's black MacBook still looks new after over 2 years, and still works like a champ. Of course, its wimpy GMA graphics (only the last of the white ones had the 9400M) is just as wimpy in OS X as it is in Windows.

Okay, fine, I'll bite again...

I configured a Latitude E6500 to, best as I could, the same specs and features the 15" MBP 2.53 GHz has; the exceptions are W7 Pro (OS X on the MBP), a 3 year warranty (1 year on the MBP), Quadro NVS 160M a.k.a. 9300M GS (9400M on the MBP), and a 250 GB 7200 rpm (5400 rpm on the MBP).

Dell's price is $1389 compared to $1699 for the MBP.

Not an exact comparison, of course: MBP has the unibody construction, E6500 has PCMCIA, ExpressCard and SmartCard slots. Both have SD slots now! E6500 has twice the USB slots MBP has and an eSATA port; MBP has mini-DP but needs an additional adapter for any display not made by Apple. E6500 weight quoted as "starting from 5.2 lbs" (MBP 5.5 lb), thickness 1.0" - 1.3" (MBP "look at me I'm not 1 inch" 0.95"). I didn't look for independent reviews of battery life and as we know all manufacturer-quoted figures are total bunk IRL.

First, you should be using Win7 Ultimate to compete with OS X, which leaves nothing out in its one version. 9300M GS is not equal to 9400M on MBP. What about the glass, multitouch trackpad?

The Dell is $300 less, perhaps $250 less when you specify Win 7 Ultimate. Dell has better warranty, Apple is thinner and arguably better built. Dell has faster HD, Apple faster graphics. What is the value of the USB and eSATA on the Dell? What is the value of the glass multitouch trackpad or the exquisite screen on the Apple? How much do we figure for the unibody construction and the backlit keyboard? How much is the 7-hour battery with 5 year lifespan worth?

$250 is not "vastly" overpriced, it is a higher price on a nicer machine. Only an individual buyer can decide which is the better value. I bought a very high-end 15" MacBook Pro that cost $2400. Much more expensive than most 15"laptops, but them, most 15" laptops don't have switchable 9600M GT graphics with 512 MB. Was it expensive? Absolutely, but then, so would a comparable T510 or top-range VAIO.

Of course, there is no comparable T510 or VAIO, because Apple, Sony, Lenovo, everyone except the no-names, tends to make their own unique design choices when they design a laptop. Apple goes for thinness and sleekness. Lenovo for connectivity and versatility. Sony for, I have no idea as I've never really played with a Sony. The only absolutes are that only Apple has OS X and that you generally get what you pay for.

As for me I heve never figured out what some people find so special about OS X. My wife has iMac and it is indeed nice and Mac OS X preforms mostly without problems. But still I fail to see anything special about it. It does have some quirks from time to time (and the same goes for iMac itself by the way) and at some points it is far less user friendly as it is advertised, Moreover, Windows 7 is not loser in all departments in this regard too.
And by the way, as far as I know there is backlit keyboard on Latituded too.
For some couple of months ago I considered to buy a MacBook Por 13" myself but finally decided that I would better get a new ThinkPad. Ther were many reasons for this decision. I despise the fact that on some models I cannot replace the battery myself. This is really something humiliating for a ThinkPad user. Further, the choice of laptops offered by Apple is really poor. There is no trackpoint nad I fail to be impressed by that stupid glass touch pad. Glossy screens are far form usable in serious work and there are no 13" screens with decent resolution. Finally, the identity created by Apple marketing is that specific that i simply don't want be a part of it (well, this is a sort of my personal quirk). So I bought a T500 instead.

When I used it, the selling point was that it was a Unix that offered a great UI as well as a real Unix base. That's not *really* a big deal for me (I actually prefer the command-line for a lot of stuff, and when I don't I like to run a minimal WM/DE), but I know that for some people the ability to use a Unix that's also got a nice shiny is a big perk. Mac OS X also has one of the most consistent UIs of the "big three" desktop platforms. It's not perfectly consistent, but it's got a lot more internal and external consistency than Windows, and more than most Linux distros have out of the box.

From a developer standpoint though, OS X is truly a joy to use. The API is quite clean considering its age and complexity -- Cocoa is pure bliss compared to the Windows equivalents -- and the tool set is downright amazing, especially considering that it's free.

I don't really want to drag this on for too long, but just wondering, do you actually believe this, or did you say it just for the sake of this argument?

Everything you said about OS X (not being so special) can be applied to Windows 7 as well. They are both good systems, each has distinctive strengths and weaknesses that will matter for some and not for others.

Some latitudes have backlit keyboards, some don't. Some are sleek and nice, and some are chunky and cheap.

I like TrackPoints too, and no, Apple doesn't offer one. Some venders do, but only IBM/Lenovo's is worth bothering. As touchpads go, Apple's is by far the best.

Glossy? Where? My 15" MacBook Pro has the antiglare screen, as in MATTE! It is a vastly superior screen to the T400 I had before, or my friend's W500 for that matter.

Built-in battery has good and bad points, like everything else. Not swappable (bad), but should last 5 years of regular use (good) and higher capacity for the weight (also good).

Selection, yes, Apple has very little variety. If they don't make what you want, you are out of luck. Does that make Apple a bad choice? Only in the same way that BMW is a bad choice for minivan shoppers.

Finally, I could give a rat's a$s about marketing. I didn't buy a Mac so that I could pretend to be Justin Long. I bought it because OS X's particular advantages really do make me more productive (instant and reliable sleep/wake - Windows still can't do that) and I like the simple yet robust networking and management (my office is now all Mac and I administer them without any IT resources).

You aren't a Mac guy, great. I've used both platforms about equally for the last 17 years, and currently (not always) the balance rests in the Macs favor for my business, maybe not for yours.

For price comparison only. How do you choose which version of windows to compare with OS X? I compare ultimate because I use encrypted storage (BitLocker on Windows, FileVault on OS X) and Active Directory. For Active Directory you need at least Win 7 Pro, and for BitLocker you need ultimate. OS X only comes in one, complete version.

I don't consider myself being out of luck. In fact I am pretty satisfied with my setup and do not really care about what Apple brags about. The LCD panels on my ThinkPads are adequate for my needs and still fail to see the advantages of a battery that I cannot replace myself (you cannot carry with you a spare battery that you can use if you need more juice, for example). An finally I really like the fact that my thinkpads look extremely boring and don't attract unnecessary attention. But you are right, everybody has his or her own preferences. No point to argue about that.