Macbook pro - stop me

[Bob_the_lost]

Gaming and screen size. The Macbooks have integrated graphics, which makes them perfect for work machines but next to useless to run any games on.

Other than that there's a small speed bump, larger included RAM (costs tuppence to upgrade yourself) and HD and shinier casing.

 

[The Groke]

never mind Mac/PC wars

can someone explain to me at what point you need a MacBookPRO over a normal macbook

I don't get it (genuine question btw, not point scoring)

supports up to 4Gb RAM and comes with 2 out of the box - useful for some apps; video/image/music making/editing and for games too. Personally I wouldn't want to run OSX with less than 2Gb anyway.

Has high end, current gen graphics card with separate 256Mb VR - again great for all of the above

Faster CPU, with newer chipset, faster bus speed, runs cooler and more efficiently too.

LED backlit screen (in 15") draws less power (good for battery life) and is brighter.

Bigger, faster hard drive out of the box - always important

Depends what you want from it really. Leopard is out soon too, and I warrant that those increased specs will be put to good use with the new functionality.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Futureproofing laptops is utterly mindbogglingly pointless. In desktop land it's hard to justify but in laptops where the price / performance ratio is higher it's indefensible. The shorter lifespan is merely the icing on the cake.

That's so not true. I got my G4 17", what, five years ago, specifically bought top-spec to future-proof it, and it's still perfectly good - the only thing I can't do on it well is run Second Life, and that's a horrible resource hog. I suspect it'll only go obsolete if Apple ever release an OS that's Intel-only.

I did get a refurb at the time.

 

[The Groke]

the only thing I can't do on it well is run Second Life,

It is probably the laptop trying desperately to save you from yourself......

 

[8ball]

Do you reckon PCs and Macs will have pretty much converged in 10 years time? The OS's look a lot more similar and they're becoming much more compatible and even sharing components . . .

It's a long time since I used to use Macs so don't know so much about them any more.

 

[Piers Gibbon]

thanks

 

[Crispy]

Do you reckon PCs and Macs will have pretty much converged in 10 years time? The OS's look a lot more similar and they're becoming much more compatible and even sharing components . . .

It's a long time since I used to use Macs so don't know so much about them any more.

Unless microsoft caves in one day and bases a new version of windows on Unix, then no. There are still fairly fundamental differences in the two OS's that make genuine cross-compatability difficult.

Nick - if you list what you want to use the machine for (and in the future), we can give you a better idea of which machine would suit you best.

 

[The Groke]

Do you reckon PCs and Macs will have pretty much converged in 10 years time? The OS's look a lot more similar and they're becoming much more compatible and even sharing components . . .

It's a long time since I used to use Macs so don't know so much about them any more.

I think you will certainly find a lot more people using Apple hardware even if they are not using Mac OSn. Bootcamp shows how successfully you can run Windows on Mac hardware - in some cases better than "windows" PC's due to the smaller variety of component variations to be considered.

I doubt Apple will ever license their OS to run on anything other than their hardware though, so I suppose it all depends on the functionality and the fanboys!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

That's so not true. I got my G4 17", what, five years ago, specifically bought top-spec to future-proof it, and it's still perfectly good - the only thing I can't do on it well is run Second Life, and that's a horrible resource hog. I suspect it'll only go obsolete if Apple ever release an OS that's Intel-only.

I did get a refurb at the time.

Fair does, but what do you do with it? If you buy a top spec laptop to play games then i'll be very surprised to hear that you're happy going to mediocre graphics settings that everyone and their dog can do in two years and barely able to run them in four.

As to your case:
Are there any programs you run now that wouldn't run on a G3?
Have the programs you run changed at all?

(Note: 2 years or less isn't futureproofing imo)

 

[8ball]

Unless microsoft caves in one day and bases a new version of windows on Unix, then no. There are still fairly fundamental differences in the two OS's that make genuine cross-compatability difficult.

<strokes chin thoughtfully>

Cheers - I didn't even know Mac OS was based on Unix.
I guess the .NET common architecture stuff is another roadblock.

 

[tarannau]

And FWIW I'm still using a 6 year old G4 cube as the the main living room computer. Mainly as a media server mainly, albeit via Airport, but it's fine for everyday tasks and the odd veteran game. It's still a beautiful machine to look at too.

Apple products have tended to be insulated against obsolesence more than the average pc in the past, although the Intel transitition may mitigate against that in future.

 

[8ball]

Bootcamp shows how successfully you can run Windows on Mac hardware - in some cases better than "windows" PC's due to the smaller variety of component variations to be considered.

Hmmm <strokes chin again> . .

I doubt Apple will ever license their OS to run on anything other than their hardware though, so I suppose it all depends on the functionality and the fanboys!

Could you not, like, just do it anyway?

 

[Piers Gibbon]

so the moral of the story seems to be don't get into computer games or you have to buy the more expensive mac all the time


good job I am happy with my standalone wii then..eh

 

[The Groke]

Could you not, like, just do it anyway?

It is not easy....


I read the other day that it is technically possible, but doesn't work that well and requires a lot of arsing about........by all accounts not really worth ones time other than to prove you can do it.

I think you have to have some fairly specific chipsets/CPU's and other compatible hardware as well.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

OSX is beautifully stable for a couple of reasons, the two top ones are: UNIX base and lack of variety of hardware.

Whereas windows, bloated as it is, has inumerable different combinations of hardware thrown at it and, mostly, deals with it. The UNIX base to OSX is much nicer though, no doubts on that.

 

[8ball]

The chin stroking - it does nothing!

 

[stdPikachu]

<strokes chin thoughtfully>

Cheers - I didn't even know Mac OS was based on Unix.
I guess the .NET common architecture stuff is another roadblock.

Aye, the guts of OSX are BSD/Darwin, with standard GNU tools on top of that and then Carbon/Cocoa/all the rest of it on top of that. As a big Linux fan I've been tempted to buy myself an OSX box for aaages now, but keep falling back to the greater flexibility of Linux.

Much of the .net spec is open and there's been a project based on porting the .net runtime to *nix for a while now.

 

[Crispy]

You should see if any of your current computers will make it as a hackintosh - it'd be a fun project

 

[nick]

Crispy

Nick - if you list what you want to use the machine for (and in the future), we can give you a better idea of which machine would suit you best.

I am after a balance of wanting something completely overpowered without being silly (I want an AUDI RS6, and not a MacLaren F1, IYSWIM)

Uses:

• I tunes
• Email / browsing (
• Storing and viewing photos
• easily updating static website - It is 2 years stale now after I got bored with dreamweaver crasdhing on me
• boot into XP in order to play say half life 2 at a good pace
• software emulation of windows for: running Excel (incl macros) powerpoint etc for work, linking into office via citrix (not sure if this won't actually work in OSX), maybe running standalone development of Hyperion Essbase cubes
• personal finance (using MS money in XP if necessary)
• cope comfortably with the next version of the OS
• Look nice whilst sitting in the living room
• Not take 10 minutes to boot up
• Be "nice to have"

Me and Mrs Nick are Windows users, but are sick of it - reckon that a mac with decent emulation might make a change of OS less of a "big bang".

2 hours to go before he calls me back and I have to make a snap decision.

I Am now wondering whenther to drop from 17" to 15.4" - but my eyes are an important organ to me so I want the best for them. More concerned about heat than size - the thing will rarely move outside the house, but I don't want to fry my nads when it is on my lap.

FWIW I currently have a 2 yr old HP pavilion with a 17" monitor. It was good when I got it but the screen is broken, it takes 10 minutes to boot (only 7GB free space left, and loads of dodgy software on it) and the battery lasts 20 minutes when it is unplugged

 

[Crispy]

If you don't have a pressing need to be portable, then get an imac, otherwise I think you're about right. If you're going to be in windows that often, it might be worth getting parallels, which lets you run windows inside OSX - that'll definitely need the 2GB of ram.

 

[nick]

WIfe doesn't like the look of Imacs - I disagree, but know what is good for me

 

[The Groke]

I Am now wondering whenther to drop from 17" to 15.4" - but my eyes are an important organ to me so I want the best for them. More concerned about heat than size - the thing will rarely move outside the house, but I don't want to fry my nads when it is on my lap.

Oddly enough, the thing runs impressively and unexpectedly cool under OSX (my 15" that is) - more than comfy on my lap.

Under Vista, it gets considerably hotter........probably get away without blisters, but you may want to use a table if you are currently trying to conceive.......

 

[gabi]

WIfe doesn't like the look of Imacs - I disagree, but know what is good for me

What she doesn't like the way it actually physically looks? Or just the whole idea?

If she doesn't think this looks pretty fuckin cool, then I'd trade her in for a new model..

 

[nick]

Yeah - my starting bid was for a new 24" IMAC, she doesn't like also wants to work on the sofa etc - hence the MACpro dilema.

Is a 17" too hot / heavy to put on a lap in comparison to a 15.4"?

 

[The Groke]

Is a 17" too hot / heavy to put on a lap in comparison to a 15.4"?

hotter and heavier by all accounts, but still do-able.

Compared to the previous models, I think the new Santa Rosa chipset/CPU helps in the heat aspect.

 

[Iam]

I'm getting the 15.4", primarily because ime, the 17"s are just too much to lug about.

 

[Crispy]

yeah, I wouldn't put a 17" on my actual lap.

 

[cybertect]

Oddly enough, the thing runs impressively and unexpectedly cool under OSX (my 15" that is) - more than comfy on my lap.

Under Vista, it gets considerably hotter........probably get away without blisters, but you may want to use a table if you are currently trying to conceive.......

OS X is optimised for the MacBook, while Vista doesn't have as highly tuned heat (and power) management software. AFAIK, for example, it doesn't throttle back the processors on idle.

Boot Camp might sort this out in the fullness of time with some sort of compatibility layer, but it's still in Beta. It may be up to Microsoft to make the appropriate changes to Windows [/wishful thinking]

 

[Bob_the_lost]

OS X is optimised for the MacBook, while Vista doesn't have as highly tuned heat (and power) management software. AFAIK, for example, it doesn't throttle back the processors on idle.

Boot Camp might sort this out in the fullness of time with some sort of compatibility layer, but it's still in Beta. It may be up to Microsoft to make the appropriate changes to Windows [/wishful thinking]

It damned well should do, wouldn't surprise me if they'd messed up the code (i think it's XP that won't drop down to the lowest power states if you've got USB devices attached, oh and the inbuilt camera is connected by USB). Linky to hand?

nick: If you go for the 15.4" version then i'd get the cheaper of the two. The added CPU speed and Graphics aren't going to be noticable.

 

[stdPikachu]

Boot Camp might sort this out in the fullness of time with some sort of compatibility layer, but it's still in Beta. It may be up to Microsoft to make the appropriate changes to Windows [/wishful thinking]

I thought Vista was meant to be able to boot from EFI...? Not sure why the bootcamp BIOS emulator is needed if that's the case...