i meant that they are STURDY COMPUTERS, not so much the hardware. like, i don't know what treg is talking about at all, because in my experience they haven't been fragile at all. i've used an old ibook for a while, and it's the same as what my brother says about his macbook: they're sturdy as hell and don't break very easily even if you drop them (as opposed to a toshiba i once had that broke severely the second i dropped it). one of the things i've always heard about mac laptops is that they're solidly built, so idk where you got this from!
Toshiba is a shitty brand and so many people I know have broken Mac screens just by like them FALLING OFF A TABLE that either they're less well built than your average Windows laptop brand or people I know are just idiots.
what's not to be a fan of? have you spent any amount of time typing on a mbp? also if you don't understand how having a keyboard that ISN'T CRAMPED/POORLY MADE helps when you type a lot then i don't really know what to tell you; this is kind of common sense, dude. the ones they put on their normal macbooks are fine, but the ones on the pros really make the type toshiba, dell et al use look flimsy by comparison.
i have no idea what you are talking about, my keyboards on windows laptops have always been proficient. if anything i find the macbook ones incredibly annoying because it doesn't have as many keys or keys in the same places (but that's because I'm a Windows guy I guess) and they lack a right click on the touchpad which is
absolutely infuriating to someone used to one.
and i sort of understand the argument because osx is clearly TONED DOWN and i sort of miss the customization and options that windows has and that it's omitted to be user-friendly, but most people aren't that into COMPUTER shit i imagine and probably won't miss having to worry about that type of stuff at all.
Macs are alright for the casual user but if you know much at all about computers or desire a wide range of programs/abilities Windows becomes much more convenient than a Mac.
yeah but how much does it weigh, what's the battery life like, how does the video card REALLY compare with the one in the mpb, etc etc? these are probably all little things where your computer falls a bit behind and they definitely start adding up, so it's not really accurate to act as if you're not getting anything for $300. battery life alone is worth paying more for a lot of people. you can always skimp and get a little less FOR a little less, but i think sometimes it's a decent idea to just invest in something that has a bit more longevity. you'll probably be replacing that dell notebook before you would have if you'd bought a macbook pro, so yeah.
I bought my Dell laptop for 1250. The MBP is 2000 bucks.
Let's compare specs:
on low performance mode, my Dell laptop gets nearly 3 hours of battery life... if I keep the screen toned down to maybe 30% brightness, which still isn't bad. low performance affects mostly the graphics unit. the MBP gets 5 hours. it definitely beats me there; but if i really cared about the battery life (I don't, particularly; if I keep it charged I RARELY need more than hour or two since pretty much anyplace you sit down for WiFi has power outlets) I could buy a battery pack which would make it weigh slightly more but dramatically increase the battery life to MBP standards, for only a hundred bucks or so.
the MBP has a maximum resolution of 1440*900. That has me beat; I have 1280*800. But most DVDs don't even stretch to MY resolution and the screen size is the same, so arguably for most purposes, the difference is insignificant... if annoying.
same amount of RAM, except that Vista is able to use flash memory cards as ram in a pinch. I never do that, but it's possible.
my processor is comparatively slow, it's 1.8 Core 2 Duo compared to the MBP's 2.5. That's a pretty huge difference (unless I am just really bad at understanding how dual processors work, which i am); but the primary reason I got a slow processor was price. Let's say I want to upgrade to 2.2 ghz, it'll probably run me a couple hundred - but still, it's a lot cheaper than the MBP. also, 1.8 is still pretty fast for a dual core - more than fast enough for a lot of current games! it runs source games, oblivion, medieval II, etc. pretty well... the main limitation for performance really becomes the memory and graphics card.
MBP has 50 gigs on me, but I don't really need 200 gigs of HD space on a laptop. that is more than enough to hold all of my music and movies, several fold, and you don't require
The MBP has a 8600. I have an 8400. The price difference between the two was approximately 80 bucks at time of purchase; I made a shitty choice there, since the performance difference is probably pretty big - but it's a mobile 8600, which still means it gets much much less performance than the 8400. But what do you need that extra graphics power for? photoshop, arguably, because using dual boot to run windows games is a big performance drop.
If I upgraded my laptop to equivalent specs, it would probably run me 500. okay, so the gap has closed, a lot, but that's because I'm paying for UPGRADES rather than INITIAL PURCHASE PRICE. it'd probably have cost me 200-300 more to clear up the gap on processing power, graphics, and battery
however, if you'd looked at a mac laptop in the same price range as my initial dell, it would have probably run a good 400-500 dollars more expensive at least, and if i'd bought a $2000 dell laptop it would have had features that would have been much more impressive than the MBP's.
i am rather generously including the cost of my warrant plan etc. in the $1250 for my laptop btw. the $2000 for the MBP is just the base price of the unit, and doesn't include any other charges affiliated with buying a new laptop.
EDIT: I checked prices and while I don't seem to be able to upgrade the processor (except for huge piles of cash!) I can get 4 gigs of ram and an upgrade to an 8600 for $200. not a bad deal, right?
Gaming World Forums
College Laptop Time