Hardware/OS Geek Thread

[sportsfan882]

Macs crash more?  I have never in 4+ years of using a Mac seen a kernel panic (BSOD equivalent).  And to be fair, during my XP days, I only once saw a BSOD which was on a home built PC that I built and had not yet finished installing all the drivers.  Now Windows 98 would give me a BSOD on a regular basis, the switch to the NT kernel with XP pretty much fixed that.

Now I have had *apps* crash all the time on both OS's.  An app crash on 98 would often cause a BSOD but on OS X and XP+, an app crash doesn't bring the whole OS to its knees.

The whole "PC's are cheaper" bit is a little old.  Yes, you can get a cheaper PC than you can get a Mac, but if you go for a comparably spec'd PC with comparable software to what comes on the Mac, you actually come out pretty close.  To be fair, I don't really use stuff like iMovie or iDVD or GarageBand, but they are pretty powerful apps.  On the notebook side of things, I was not able to find a PC notebook with comparable battery life and solid build quality to the MacBook Pro at all.  I was going by what I could actually use and try out at the stores, but I'm sorry, those HPs and Dells just feel flimsy and cheap.  The Vaios are better, but pricier.

I actually agree with most of the points made by that article.  The way Windows 7 is shaping up, it looks to be about equal to OS X in pretty much every area, it is down to preference, or reasonable people who choose both 

My HP has comparable battery life to most Apple notebooks.

It is far from flimsy. 4 GB RAM, 320 GB Hard Drive. Does everything I need it to do.

[Nathan]

My HP has comparable battery life to most Apple notebooks.

It is far from flimsy. 4 GB RAM, 320 GB Hard Drive. Does everything I need it to do.

Your HP gives you 7 hours of battery life?  I owned an HP with 4 GB RAM and a 320 GB HD, it was flimsy as hell, the screen was nowhere near the quality of my MacBook, and the battery would last 3 hours tops.  The actual performance on 7 was just fine, but the quality was not there.  Bought it from Circuit City, maybe those were of a lesser quality than ones you can order direct from HP, but the one I had was not a quality feeling PC.

[sportsfan882]

Your HP gives you 7 hours of battery life?  I owned an HP with 4 GB RAM and a 320 GB HD, it was flimsy as hell, the screen was nowhere near the quality of my MacBook, and the battery would last 3 hours tops.  The actual performance on 7 was just fine, but the quality was not there.  Bought it from Circuit City, maybe those were of a lesser quality than ones you can order direct from HP, but the one I had was not a quality feeling PC.

Battery life is 4-5 hours and that's with doing a lot of crap on it.

I've never had a macbook but my screen is fine. 15.4". could have gotten a bigger one but wanted the increased battery life instead.

Pretty sturdy.

[The Chief]

Nathan, that old software argument is tired as hell.  You can do anything with free or cheap software on a PC that you can do on a Mac with iWishiknewhowtomakeamovie.  Just like the Tricycle analogy, it's just a matter of how much self-edification you're willing to put into it.  And for what it's worth, a friend of mine who does a lot of video editing tells me that the new Windows Movie Maker is fantastic (from a simplicity standpoint).  Anyway, bottom line is, PCs are cheaper.  You Mac guys need to just accept that.  You can make "get what you pay for" jokes if you like, but to make flimsy comparisons based off of arbitrary software pricing values is just silly.

Also, superior battery life has nothing to do with the Mac OS, so please don't imply otherwise.  The underlying hardware, as has been noted before, is more or less identical from an architectural standpoint.  PC notebook makers mostly cater to a different market than Apple, and battery life has always been the red-headed stepchild of when it comes to flashy selling points.  It's only in the last year or two that it has become a much bigger selling point because let's face it, pretty much any $500 notebook is going to be touting more CPU and RAM than the average user needs, so OEMs have to find another way to spruce up their offerings.

PC, I wasn't taking a shot at you, just at the guy who wrote the article.

[Nathan]

Also, superior battery life has nothing to do with the Mac OS, so please don't imply otherwise.

I was not implying such.  Your price argument has nothing to do with the software either.  Are we discussing JUST OS X vs Windows 7 or "Mac" as in the hardware vs "PC" hardware, or a combination?  If we are just talking the actual OS, then the price argument is clearly in favor of the Mac OS X $29 vs however much for what ever flavor of 7 you want.

[The Chief]

I was not implying such.  Your price argument has nothing to do with the software either.  Are we discussing JUST OS X vs Windows 7 or "Mac" as in the hardware vs "PC" hardware, or a combination?  If we are just talking the actual OS, then the price argument is clearly in favor of the Mac OS X $29 vs however much for what ever flavor of 7 you want.

You can't just install the $29 update on a bare drive.  Nice try though.

EDIT - on a non-Mac I mean.  So real cost of Snow Leopard = Cost of new Mac - cost of comparable new PC + $29.  By your logic, 7 is free since most new PCs come with free upgrades to 7.

Would you like to play again?

[Nathan]

Battery life is 4-5 hours and that's with doing a lot of crap on it.

I've never had a macbook but my screen is fine. 15.4". could have gotten a bigger one but wanted the increased battery life instead.

Pretty sturdy.

Did you buy an extended life battery?  The screen on the HP I had was very washed out looking, like when the initial BIOS splash screen came up it was supposed to be black, it was more gray than black.

[Nathan]

You can't just install the $29 update on a bare drive.  Nice try though.

Yes, you can.  I did.

[The Chief]

Yes, you can.  I did.

Go back and re-read my post, itchy trigger-finger

[sportsfan882]

Did you buy an extended life battery?  The screen on the HP I had was very washed out looking, like when the initial BIOS splash screen came up it was supposed to be black, it was more gray than black.

12 cell lithium battery. it came with the laptop i bought. that was why i chose this laptop over another similar laptop with a larger screen but lesser battery life.

it is so nice not to have to worry about your battery running out ever. with my old laptop it only had like 1 HR battery life so i had to constantly be plugged in.

[The Chief]

The "Macs aren't really more expensive" counter-point is a lot like the "Macs don't really have better battery life" counter-point:  Both are on rare occasions true, but the overwhelming general case, the original axioms hold.

If someone grabbed me right now and asked for a powerful notebook with 5+ hours battery life, I would not be able to name one off the top of my head that wasn't a Mac.  I know I've seen some in the past, and I'm sure there are some now, but PC models come and go so quickly that it's hard to remember any specific one.

Likewise, if someone who knows what they're doing wants to build the most powerful video editing workstation that they can on a $1000 budget, I can damn sure promise you it won't be a Mac.  Conversely, for those who are looking for the easy button and have money to spare, the Apple store is thataway.

[Nathan]

Go back and re-read my post, itchy trigger-finger

Well, since my Mac can run Windows, my Mac is really a Mac and a PC, so lets see:

My MacBook + 7 = $2200 + $319 = $2519

Dell Studio 16 as comparable as I can get (still doesn't have the dual video card) = $2268 - $464 instant savings = $1804.  $1804 x 2 (since my Mac is in fact 2 computers) = $3608

So the Mac is actually $1300 cheaper

[Nathan]

Likewise, if someone who knows what they're doing wants to build the most powerful video editing workstation that they can on a $1000 budget, I can damn sure promise you it won't be a Mac.

I agree on that 100%.  I wish I could install OS X on any computer I wanted, even if Apple charged $300 for a "full" PC version to have a similar price to a full Windows version, I'd have a MONSTER desktop for the money that a Mac Pro would cost.

[The Chief]

Oh please.  Dell is a bunch of overpriced junk, especially at the high end.  Give me the specs of your MacBook and I guarantee you that I can find something better for less.

Well, since my Mac can run Windows, my Mac is really a Mac and a PC, so lets see:

It doesn't work that way, and you know it.

Start from zero.

New PC + free upgrade to Windows 7 = cheaper.  If you want to buy a copy of Windows 7 and put it on an existing PC or Mac, it will cost you $99-$319 depending on version and upgrade vs full

New Mac + upgrade to Snow Leopard = much more expensive.  If you want to buy a copy of Snow Leopard and put it on an existing PC, you can't, go buy a Mac for a grand or two and then pay another $29 for the upgrade.  If you want to put it on an existing Mac, you already paid the Mac tax and are paying another $29 for what is essentially a service pack

[The Chief]

I wish I could install OS X on any computer I wanted

And this is why, in my opinion, Mac vs PC debates are silly.  Apples and Oranges.

[sportsfan882]

I've had my laptop on in class since 4:25. it is now 6:08.

that's 1 hr, 43 minutes.

battery was at 100% when i turned it on and is now down to 78%.

pretty good, no?

[Nathan]

It doesn't work that way, and you know it.

I know, hence the "" smiley.

My MacBook Pro: 
2.8 GHz C2D
4 Gb DDR3
500GB 5400 RPM HDD
Nvidia Geforce 9400m with 256 MB shared
Nvidia Geforce 9600m GT with 512 MB dedicated
Super Drive (basic CD/DVD burner)
7 hour battery (have no idea what the number of cells would be) charge capacity of ~ 6800 mAh

A slot load drive is almost a must, I hate those flimsy tray drives in most notebooks.

$29 for what is essentially a service pack

I don't know why Snow Leopard is a service pack but 7 isn't.  Snow Leopard is Leopard done better, I thought that 7 was supposed to be Vista done better.

To be honest, I don't really notice anything different with Snow Leopard, but 7 looks a lot different than Vista.  The amount of changes under the hood are probably about the same between the two.

[The Chief]

I'm not going to wholly disagree with you, but the changes that people see are what matter to Joe User, and those were significant enough to sell it as a new operating system.  You could say the same thing about 2000 => XP as far as under the hood stuff goes.  It is what it is, companies making money.  I don't fault Apple or MS for trying to make a profit.

I can't speak for Apple but MS's strategy generally seems to echo Intel's "tick-tock" strategy of a major change followed by a minor change.  95/98, 2000/XP, Vista/7, etc.  We don't mention Windows ME  (though really I think ME was what...  Windows 98 part 3? )

[Nathan]

I'm not going to wholly disagree with you, but the changes that people see are what matter to Joe User, and those were significant enough to sell it as a new operating system.  You could say the same thing about 2000 => XP as far as under the hood stuff goes.  It is what it is, companies making money.  I don't fault Apple or MS for trying to make a profit.

You'd think they would at least call it version 7 "just because".

Where's my awesome laptop?

Damn you, stop editing while I'm in the middle of posting,

No, we can definitely just block Me from all memory.  THAT was the worst OS ever.

[The Chief]

My MacBook Pro: 
2.8 GHz C2D
4 Gb DDR3
500GB 5400 RPM HDD
Nvidia Geforce 9400m with 256 MB shared
Nvidia Geforce 9600m GT with 512 MB dedicated
Super Drive (basic CD/DVD burner)
7 hour battery (have no idea what the number of cells would be) charge capacity of ~ 6800 mAh

My brother has an MSI something or another with:

2.0 GHz C2Q(uad)
4GB DDR3
500 GB 7200 RPM HDD
ATI Mobility Radeon 4850 (not sure if it's 512 or 1024 MB dedicated)
Blu-ray drive with DVD/CD read/write
3+ hour battery life

You didn't mention screen size or resolution but his is 17" and 1920x1200.

His notebook was $1599 and is equal or superior to your Macbook in every way except battery life.  I'm conceding that one because everybody knows Macs have better battery life

[The Chief]

Here's a nice one for $1250 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834147996

Again, I'm sure the batt life sucks, but if you want a desktop replacement, you're not worried about battery life, and if you want uber battery life, you're not concerned about getting better-than-average hardware.

Your MB has great battery life and a slightly faster-than-average CPU, but those specs are otherwise unremarkable.  I could buy a DTR AND a 7-hour netbook for less than your MB cost you.

[Nathan]

My MacBook should last me at least 2-3 years.  When it's time to replace, hopefully there will e Windows 8 on the way and I will again look at a PC notebook, just like I did before purchasing the MacBook.  Or maybe OS X will run on generic hardware, PCs will have 4 day battery life, and the Nats will be going to the WS.

[The Chief]

My MacBook should last me at least 2-3 years.  When it's time to replace, hopefully there will e Windows 8 on the way and I will again look at a PC notebook, just like I did before purchasing the MacBook.  Or maybe OS X will run on generic hardware, PCs will have 4 day battery life, and the Nats will be going to the WS.

Don't forget liberals and conservatives living together in peace and SF cheering all Nats equally

My $399 clearance special Compaq has lasted me almost 3 years now for the things I need a notebook for.  Battery is just about shot though.

I'd love to see Apple sell Mac OS for "PC" but it'll never happen.  They make their bread and butter on stylish overpriced hardware, not on their OS.  For those of us who want Unix-like OSes without the Mac tax, there's Linux.  Meh.  Great server, horrible desktop.

I believe we've come full circle now, yes?

[Nathan]

Don't forget liberals and conservatives living together in peace and SF cheering all Nats equally

My $399 clearance special Compaq has lasted me almost 3 years now for the things I need a notebook for.  Battery is just about shot though.

I'd love to see Apple sell Mac OS for "PC" but it'll never happen.  They make their bread and butter on stylish overpriced hardware, not on their OS.  For those of us who want Unix-like OSes without the Mac tax, there's Linux.  Meh.  Great server, horrible desktop.

I believe we've come full circle now, yes?

I think we have already come full circle at least once

The Mac has some sort of battery technology the not only allows it to last up to 7 hours on the 13" and 15" models and 8 hours on the 17".  It also is supposed to last for over 1000 cycles which is 3 times longer than a normal notebook battery, so Apple claims and that is their reason for not needing to have the battery user replaceable (plus the lack of latches etc gives them more room to make the battery larger).

If it is some sort of new tech I hope it expands to other notebooks.

[The Chief]

I don't doubt that they use better batteries, my point is just that PC OEMs could do so as well if they so desired.  Battery quality varies greatly from notebook to notebook, and as my clearance special will clearly demonstrate, cheaper machine = cheaper battery.

The whole thing about batteries not being user replaceable is a non-issue to me.  I can see where some might get worked up over it, but replacing the battery on a notebook that's out of warranty is almost never worth the investment.

And like I said, the increasing sameness of notebook specs will force OEMs to differentiate themselves with battery life.  I've seen several notebooks in Best Buy lately advertising 6-7 hour battery lives - real notebooks, not netbooks.