Which computer to buy? (MBP vs Pc)?? urgent!

[juanbenavid]

well im currently in the process of buying a new computer, more specifically a laptop, and im currently torn between a macbook pro, (13 inch , Intel core i7 2.8 ghz, 8gb ram, 750 gb hdd [5400 rmp]) and a PC laptop. The problem is i don't know of good windows PC out there that i could use to compare to the MBP, you know something with similar specs and a price range of up to like 1600 bucks or so. Ive been looking at alienware but their more oriented towards gaming ? are they any good?and secondly , once i have a PC to compare to the mac, which do i buy? i need it to be fast, and have a performance similar to that of a mac book pro, but i still don't know about mac OS x, im a life long windows xp user but have seen macs in action and their pretty great, my only worry is the limitations the OS brings, im really interested in programming and trying to get into it, as well as video editing and effects, im not gonna be a hardcore computer gamer ( that's what my Xbox is for) but i need to be able to play stuff like minecraft without lag. all in all i need a computer that can stand the usual stuff plus things like programming,some gaming etc. MBP or some other pc laptop, and if the PC, which one?

[Sanjuricus]

If you're after Apple bling in a laptop, you could do worse than look at a Sony Vaio or a top end Dell XPS.

[Steax]

If you're deciding about OS X vs Windows on a laptop, you, as you posted, need to decide on why you're using it. Don't worry about the specs too much, as nowadays you can relax about RAM and hard disk space anyway, unless you want heavy gaming and whatnot. OS X doesn't have very many limitations, and you have all the usual tools you want (actually, it has python and php and such already built in - and remember, it's based on Unix). OS X has Xcode, Windows has Visual Studio. Both have apache/php/mysql stacks for web programming. Minecraft is fine on my 4GB RAM iMac. Games can be a dealbreaker, though, so make sure all your favorite games are available. Windows has a movie maker, OS X has iMovie. Both are more or less the same. Adobe CS 5 runs on both equally.

I clearly have bias towards the MBP, but really, I think it's a fine choice, especially when you're not on a budget.

[Jplus]

I would go further and say that macs are great for programming. Like in any unixy system, the shell and the terminal are much more mature than on Windows.

So a MBP won't disappoint you, especially if you like the way Mac OS X works. However, it won't hurt to also have a look at Sony Vaio and Dell XPS lines, as Sanjuricus said (though I wouldn't say those have "Apple bling"). A Lenovo Thinkpad might also be worth consideration.

[Steax]

Well, I'd say that too, but my bias would show a bit too much.

... But then again, it's religious wars.

Lets just say that I'm a web developer and I've transitioned entirely to an Apple-based toolset. I only have a spare Windows device for testing purposes. Most of my fellow developers have also made this jump, and are quite happy with it.

My father has a Vaio and I'm not very happy with it. It feels plasticky and the battery isn't long enough for full-day use. The screen felt dim and desaturated, too - though that might just be because of me being used to my Mac's screen. Of course, YMMV.

[PhoenixEnigma]

The XPS and (I think) Viao are pretty poor competitors to the MBP - they're trading build quality for bling. The closest competitors are going to be business oriented laptops: ThinkPads, Latitudes, etc. If you're looking 13", I'd suggest the ThinkPad T420 as a starting point. It's likely cheaper than the MBP, and will trade blows with it depending on configuration - better graphics and faster hard drive (seriously, 5.4k hard drives suck), slightly higher resolution (and matte, IIRC) display, but a bit larger and likely shorter battery life. The W520 is an interesting comparison to the 15" MBP as well, if something larger is also on the table.

Really, though, I think the question is "Do you want a Mac?", which is mostly "Do you want OS X?" A lot of that is going to comd down to what you want to do - media is mostly a wash these days, gaming and Windows programming are going to be better with Windows, if you want to develop for iOS you'll want a Mac, etc. Apple tends to pack in slightly better software for many things, in my opinion, but buying a PC could well leave you with money left for better third party tools (a T420 with the Adobe Elements bundle is still a touch cheaper than a similar MBP without).

Once you've decided the OS, then look at hardware.

[Jplus]

One more thing to take into consideration: energy consumption. In the long run, a laptop that ships for $200 less won't save any money if it takes double the amount of energy.

[cjmcjmcjmcjm]

One more thing to take into consideration: energy consumption. In the long run, a laptop that ships for $200 less won't save any money if it takes double the amount of energy.

That's assuming you're paying your own electric bill.

[EvanED]

I think it's also overstating the energy use of computers, especially laptops. Bearing in mind throughout this post I have a very small laptop (a Lenovo x60 tablet that I love), but I couldn't even get it to 40 watts; maximum I measured was 39. (I might be able to get it higher if it was charging battery while loading the CPU.) That's about 1 kwh/day if you run it constantly -- and are CPU loading it constantly. If your electricity is 15 cents/kwh (according to this site the April 2009 average for the US was 12 cents/kwh), you're looking at over 3 1/2 years before you'd even spend $200. Even if you double the cost of electricity and double the energy use you're still at about 11 months.

And of course you're not comparing against "free", you're comparing against another computer. The MBP also pretty much sips power from what I can tell, so if you get some power-hungry monster (think gaming laptop) that could theoretically make the margin actually bigger than what my laptop actually draws. But at the same time, you're extremely unlikely to be loading it 24/7. Heck, especially with a laptop, what's the probability that you'll even be running it 24/7?

You take all of this into account and, IMO, laptop power use is largely a non-issue. Desktops? Sure, it's worth paying attention there. But from what I can tell, you'd need to be considering laptops that look very different from a MBP in order for this to become a concern.

[Jplus]

The MBP has a normal 77.5 Wh battery, and according to Apple it lasts up to 7 hours on one battery charge. In reality that's probably 6 hours, but I think this proves the machine isn't actually that power-hungry.
By the way: my 12'' iBook from 2004 takes at most 20 W, so that's only half of what your very small laptop takes. You think that's impossible? The Mac Mini takes 7.5 W (that excludes the screen, but still).

Macs are efficient. Really.

[PhoenixEnigma]

The MBP has a normal 77.5 Wh battery, and according to Apple it lasts up to 7 hours on one battery charge. In reality that's probably 6 hours, but I think this proves the machine isn't actually that power-hungry.
By the way: my 12'' iBook from 2004 takes at most 20 W, so that's only half of what your very small laptop takes. You think that's impossible? The Mac Mini takes 7.5 W (that excludes the screen, but still).

Macs are efficient. Really.

You're missing the fact that EvanED's numbers are worst case. The 15" MBP hits over 90W under full load, and the mac mini closer to 30W (although that's a slightly older model. Newer mini's will probably idle lower due to the new CPU, but consume more under load due to the 10W higher TDP on that CPU.)


Given that the average person doesn't run a laptop 100% flat out 24/7 (more likely it's off at least half the time and maybe 10-20% CPU load most of the remainder), I'd agree power usage for laptops is essentially a non-issue. Hell, look for one with a keyboard backlight, and it'll probably save you more power by letting you turn the light sometimes.

[Endless Mike]

Do you want OS X: Y/N
If Y: Get the MBP
If N: Maybe get the MBP (you can still put Windows and/or Linux on it), but cross-shop against other professional line computers, especially from Lenovo.

[EvanED]

The MBP has a normal 77.5 Wh battery, and according to Apple it lasts up to 7 hours on one battery charge. In reality that's probably 6 hours, but I think this proves the machine isn't actually that power-hungry.
By the way: my 12'' iBook from 2004 takes at most 20 W, so that's only half of what your very small laptop takes. You think that's impossible? The Mac Mini takes 7.5 W (that excludes the screen, but still).

Macs are efficient. Really.

You're missing the fact that EvanED's numbers are worst case. The 15" MBP hits over 90W under full load, and the mac mini closer to 30W (although that's a slightly older model. Newer mini's will probably idle lower due to the new CPU, but consume more under load due to the 10W higher TDP on that CPU.)

Thanks for pointing that out. With screen brightness all the way up, my laptop basically idles at around 18 watts; with screen dimmed, it's 13-14 watts. Based on some numbers from Anandtech the 13" MBP might be as little as half that (they record about 9hrs battery life, while I could get around 5hr with a new battery of nearly the same Wh), but the absolute difference is still very low. The load numbers are similar between the two systems, at about 40 watts each. (The MBP records up to 54 watts, but that's stressing the GPU, which I didn't try.)

[Endless Mike]

I think power consumption is a wash. If you're able to spend $1600 on a laptop, a few extra dollars per year on power (one way or the other) is irrelevant.

[Yakk]

Lower power consumption means less heat, longer battery life, and (often) more reliablity (as heat is the devil), and less fan noise (which can be mitigated with quieter fans, but still...)

Laptop lifetimes of 3 years at 0.1$/kwh (because the number is easy), at 20 watts and 24 hours/day of being on, after 365 days is 175 kWh or ~18$ per year.

Or, as an easy rule of thumb, an "always on" X watt item costs X$ per year.

[EvanED]

Lower power consumption means less heat, longer battery life, and (often) more reliablity (as heat is the devil), and less fan noise (which can be mitigated with quieter fans, but still...)

I definitely agree here (though when it comes to batteries, usually higher power consumption is at least somewhat mitigated by larger-capacity batteries); I was just disputing the claim that by spending a bit more now you might save money long-term because of lower power usage. That seems highly unlikely.

[yukizora]

Do you care about bling and have a few hundreds to spare for that, and don't care about gaming?

If you said yes, then a MBP is your choice.
If you said no because of the bling / money, linux is your choice.
If you said no because of gaming, windows is the best option (Cause dual boot sucks).

Easy.
Oh, Apple folks: Linux exists!

[Steax]

I've found that using linux takes a bit more time to tweak to your needs. In several ways it's just like OS X, but it's more geeky and you'll be spending more time in technical things. This is, of course, entirely up to you: if you want to modify and tweak and work on things to get your dream setup, go linux. I personally just want it to run and get out of my way so I can do my actual work, so I use OS X.

What's wrong with dual booting? It's perfectly fine.

[Iranon]

Agreed in general.

With Linux, choice can be a little overwhelming because of its modular nature. Fortunately, this includes the choice to leave basic decisions to someone else.
Example: Linux itself has no default GUI, and some distributions drop you into a minimal command line environment, promise to never break anything with unwanted automation, and expect you to build and administer your dream system yourself. Easier than it sounds, and a high-quality desktop is just minutes away, whatever your preferences: Minimalism, a powerful geek toy, a functional workhorse, a sophisticated general purpose desktop or a modern post-PC take on user-friendliness.
However, most consumer-oriented distributions come with a preconfigured desktop environment and a sizable software suite, available straight from the CD without installing anything.

Powerful tools, no artificial restrictions and modularity should appeal to power users. A robust, instantly productive system with many annoyances gone (centralised software repository, driver and application upgrades are done for you, virtually no malware, spyware or crapware) is a boon to casual users.
It's less attractive to intermediate users and heavy consumers: there is likely to be a bit of a culture shock, and there isn't much available in the terms of native commercial software. Most popular Windows programs can run through a compatibility layer like WINE... but overall expereience varies from 'better than under Windows' to 'not worth trying', with 'performance hit + a few glitches/limitations' being the norm.
content distribution may also be a problem, mostly for DRM reasons.

[yukizora]

I've found that using linux takes a bit more time to tweak to your needs. In several ways it's just like OS X, but it's more geeky and you'll be spending more time in technical things. This is, of course, entirely up to you: if you want to modify and tweak and work on things to get your dream setup, go linux. I personally just want it to run and get out of my way so I can do my actual work, so I use OS X.

What's wrong with dual booting? It's perfectly fine.

You got it wrong, it doesn't take more time. It just demands that you tweak more stuff. On a new install, tweaking will probably take 15 minutes of your time.
For example:
-Create a new user
-Upgrade the install
-Change config files, adding dbus / alsa / wicd daemons.
-With a one line command, install all applications you need, and just grab a coffee or keep looking at your config files if you have more stuff to do.
-Eventually configure the wireless, if applicable.

And for a Mac OSX?
I have to wait for the intro to finish...
I have to enter my full name, address, useless stuff, pick a picture for my user (Which I couldn't care less about), etc...
And by the time I get on my empty desktop, I'll probably have had the time to finish with a full install, and then, with OSX you're going to have to visit various websites, download applications one by one, and install them all.
With linux, one line it is.

Oh, and dual booting is just not worth the time. I'd rather stay under windows all the time, or make a VM if I need it.

[Steax]

You're practically cherry-picking. I'd argue that installing linux requires the know-how on said 'config files' and various things, and you spend time looking that up. OS X just has an intro, a few user details, and you're done. Nothing to worry about in terms of hardware or configuration, since the hardware is always built to match anyway. It's no-brainer process. You can't compare modifying configuration files with entring a name, email, and taking a webcam picture of yourself.

OS X has an app store - 1 click it is, even for commercial apps. You can also download linux apps from the web. There's practically no difference at this point.

What part of dual booting is not worth the time? Yes, if you switch between them a lot you're better off with a VM. But if you just need to switch between them, there's no problem to just reboot into the other OS. It just takes a couple minutes.

[Jplus]

Apart from what Steax said, I think yukizora and Iranon are heavily over-idealizing Linux. Sure, you can configure a lot, and sure, you don't need to configure a lot if you don't want to, and sure, it's technically superior to Windows (like most operating systems), but that's where the advantages stop. There are also disadvantages: some things are extremely ugly or annoying unless you take your time to configure them (e.g. GRUB), and far too often things simply don't work, forcing you to spend hours and hours searching for solutions, which are usually rather technical and involved (if there exists a solution at all). Especially hardware support can be a royal pain in the ass when using Linux.

In fact, even while Windows is one of the most ugly systems in existence from a design perspective, it works better than Linux most of the time. That's simply because there is a lot more money and a lot more work force behind the system.

Macs work even better. Hardware issues are almost nonexistant because the hardware is from the same manufacturer as the software. Mac OS X is still safer and more stable than Windows, although Microsoft did some heroic efforts to improve the stability of the latter. It's true that there is still more software available for Windows than for the Mac, but that's only a quantitative difference and the gap is shrinking by the day. There is also a shitload more software available for macs than for Linux (also qualitatively), it's way easier to install software on macs than on any other platform, and a mac will never force you to configure or tweak things because everything works very well out of the box. Tweaking is just for personal preference, like it should.

I can see why people prefer Linux personally (I prefer it over Windows myself), but for most people it isn't a good choice. Macs just work so damn well.

@OP: I bet you already made a decision?

[Endless Mike]

I've found that using linux takes a bit more time to tweak to your needs. In several ways it's just like OS X, but it's more geeky and you'll be spending more time in technical things. This is, of course, entirely up to you: if you want to modify and tweak and work on things to get your dream setup, go linux. I personally just want it to run and get out of my way so I can do my actual work, so I use OS X.

What's wrong with dual booting? It's perfectly fine.

You got it wrong, it doesn't take more time. It just demands that you tweak more stuff. On a new install, tweaking will probably take 15 minutes of your time.
For example:
-Create a new user
-Upgrade the install
-Change config files, adding dbus / alsa / wicd daemons.
-With a one line command, install all applications you need, and just grab a coffee or keep looking at your config files if you have more stuff to do.
-Eventually configure the wireless, if applicable.

And for a Mac OSX?
I have to wait for the intro to finish...
I have to enter my full name, address, useless stuff, pick a picture for my user (Which I couldn't care less about), etc...
And by the time I get on my empty desktop, I'll probably have had the time to finish with a full install, and then, with OSX you're going to have to visit various websites, download applications one by one, and install them all.
With linux, one line it is.

Oh, and dual booting is just not worth the time. I'd rather stay under windows all the time, or make a VM if I need it.

This is hilarious. Are you seriously saying changing config files is somehow easier than typing your name and address? Really?

And as noted, OS X has had the App Store (with plenty of free software) since 10.6.6.even if it's lacking something specific, downloading and installing software is a simple drag and drop operation. But there's a thread for this, anyway.

[yukizora]

This is hilarious. Are you seriously saying changing config files is somehow easier than typing your name and address? Really?

And as noted, OS X has had the App Store (with plenty of free software) since 10.6.6.even if it's lacking something specific, downloading and installing software is a simple drag and drop operation. But there's a thread for this, anyway.

I didn't say easier.
I said faster.

Sorry, don't have the motivation to deal with your empty knowledge of linux package managers.

[Steax]

If you're doing a speed comparison, ease is an important factor. If, for the average user, something is much harder/takes more effort to do, then it will take longer.

Well lets take a quantitative comparison, right?

OS X Lion asks for:
A wifi connection (skip if ethernet is connected)
Checks for mouse/keyboard
Asks if you'd like to transfer from older computers, by hard drive or over the connection
AppleID
Name and address
Photo

Done right, and assuming you just want to transfer from another computer manually later on, it asks for 2 steps of text input. And a photo. Is that actually faster than editing config files?

[Iranon]

I'd rather install a minimal base system and configure it by hand. The first time is educational, subsequent ones are just as easy as something fully automated with pretty pictures. But only the most technical Linux distributions force this on you, and those are really not direct competitors to OSX. Expect simplicity, transparency, extreme control over the system... and utter indifference to users who aren't willing to put in the effort.
More mainstreams ones typically give you a fully functional system with no fiddling required. About the same number of questions during installation, less personal and more technical ones (default choices will work). No real migration tools, but you can typically plug in the hard disk from your old computer or copy it 1:1 and your computer will even boot from that.
They are probably a little more technical than OSX, but not in a bad way. Personally, I dislike the latter's tendency to hide supposedly irrelevant information and attempts to be intelligent. More often than not, this introduces little inconsistencies I find annoying, encourages bad practice and just get in my way.

Nevertheless, Apple do a lot things well. Usability, striking and consistent design, pleasing attention to detail, slick integration with their iDevices, sending a strong lifestyle message and offering a wide range of gadgets/services to further enrich user experience. Controlling both hard- and software lets them achieve a level of polish that's rarely equaled, especially with new and innovative concepts (they're often the first to be massively successful with a cool new feature).
The downside is a controlling culture very obvious in their products, fairly high prices, epic vendor lock-in, rapid planned obsolescence.

In the end... if the software you need to use doesn't dictate your choice, pick whatever you're comfortable with.
Macs are not just functional, they are designed to be enjoyable to use. Apple will try to make you their slave, but most of those are happy.
Windows is familiar to most and has a staggering amount of software available... nice even if you don't strictly need it. It's the least robust and technically elegant solution though.
Linux is immensely tweakable and makes running free software more convenient. Hardware support can be an issue, commercial software is limited, and it can be a huge time sink.