Emma65

I totally disagree. I am now so used to the single button mouse on the laptop that it annoys the cr*p out of me when I sit and work with a client who happens to have PC laptop. nd what is this with that little joystick on the IBM and toshiba? (have had laptops from both of those).

At home I plug in the USB mightymouse which looks like a single button mouse but isn't. At the office I have a big trackball.

When I travel I just stick with what the laptop came with.

And - because it is unix based, slap x11 on it and you get access to a whole world of free software like openoffice, gimp etc.

Sure, when my first MBP had to be repaired twice and eventually PC world refunded me the cost of it I wandered in to an apple store and picked up a new C2D MBP for £50 less than the first one cost me last year. Later that night I started sweating and telling myself I was an idiot as I could have walked away with a PC laptop like Acer for £300 and kept £1100. However, that panicky feeling only lasted a few minutes when I started thinking of my previous life with PC comparing it to being a mac user.

/E

TheMadBrewer

Parallels is not built in -- it costs under $100 ($80 IIRC but don't quote me). I use it on a Mac Mini and it works great. I believe BootCamp is free but it is a "dual boot" situation -- you boot either Mac OS or XP. Parallels allow you to run windows in a window or full screen.

I bought the mac mini last summer just to play with (and see how some web pages I do render on a mac). It needed more memory (cam with 512mb, upgraded to 2GB) but other than that I am happy. I mostly use it as a "media server" -- iTunes, digital photos, as a server for my ReplayTV (think "Tivo" only better ) network.

That being said, when it comes time to replace my traveling computer, I will very closely look what Mac has to offer -- especially if the rumored flash-drive version comes in at a good price.

As to installing office, I don't think there would be a problem. Parallels handled the XP installation key and activation just fine.

nmenaker

all good posts. There is no one is better than the other, but there is a clear comment that within the parameters of what most users are doing, using their computer for, the MAc just works. I use both daily, have no problems going back and forth. appreciate the pcs' laptops mostly for what they are, and offer. Love the macs for the ease of doing so many things, and their ability to do them quickly, effectively and with a bit of flair at the same time.

I use parallels on my macbook, and it works fine. I use bootcamp on the imac at home, and it works great too. I imagine either IT or parallels will be rolled into jaguar or soon thereafter. PL was only 50$ when I bought it, I like the fact that I can use it to run JUST one application and not have to switch wholly over to the XP sp2 base.

MapleLeaf

ok help me here understand 1 thing.

The PC I am looking at has 288 mb of shared RAM for video, the Mac book only has either 64 or 128 MB - doesn't that mean it is inferior in terms of graphic capabilities?

nd_eric_77

No; the video memory on the Mac is dedicated memory. The shared RAM on the PC is actually system RAM which gets used for video. IME, dedicated video RAM generally performs better than shared RAM in almost all scenarios (even when the difference in MBs is so large). YMMV.

SpaceBass

The term "shared RAM" usually implies that the video chip borrows RAM from the system. 288 is a strange number, but it sounds like there is 288mb of built in system RAM...like a DIMM soldered to the board which both the CPU and the video chipset can access...typically its dynamically allocated..you usually get about 32mb by default and the the video chip can request more as needed.

Again, since 288 is such an odd sounding number, I'm not entirely sure what is going on with the PC you are looking at...But 288 minus 32 is 256...so if the video chipset uses 32mb then you have 256 built in for the system...it probably has 2 open DIMM slots then where you can add more...maybe it comes loaded with 1 512 and 1 265 (unlikely though) which would give you 1 gb total....

With the Mac you get dedicated memory for the video. The video chip gets its own RAM chip, either 64 or 128mb...its not shared at all. Its that simple. There is usually a performance bonus to have dedicated RAM both for the system and the video subset.

sllevin

I won't jump to a Mac because, as long as people keep saying you need to run Windows software on it...well, clearly, it's just easier to run windows.

And I like being able to sync my phone with Outlook -- and use Yahoo Calendar as both a public "publishing point" of my calendar (and backup of data) as well as an easy way to sync my calendar/notes/tasks/etc between work and home.

Two button mouse on the laptop. A total brainfade by Apple to not have it built in. Sounds small, but it's deeply annoying not to have it -- and I buy a laptop to make my life EASIER, not harder.

And finally, the cost of constantly upgrading the OS is annoying to me. And Apple makes you pay for upgrades all the time -- compared to MS, where you can pay once and then get upgrades for a LONG time.

And finally...it just costs more.

Steve

Madhouse24

You're very welcome^

http://forum.onmac.net/ If you "become" interested in a mac, there is a pretty good online forum and one for "for sale" items (may be worth having a look)

also


http://www.notebookreview has an excellent forum at http://forum.notebookreview.com/ which has a wealth of information^



Hopes this helps :-)

SpaceBass

I'm going to dissect this one, not for Sllevin's benifit but just to offer another angle for anyone else considering these points... That is to say, I'm not arguing with Sllevin over any of his points, but there is another take...

Like I previously said, I dont think there is any need to run any windows software. I think for some people its a security blanket and its unique to OS X. You cannot make the transition the other way...or instance, I cannot run OS X software in a window on my PC... thats kind of a bummer to me

I dont know which phone you have, but I can almost guarantee you could do it on the mac. If the built in iSync itself doesnt support the phone then its likely that pocketmac or TheMissingSync would. iCal is compatible with Yahoo Calendars. The built in sync services in OS X (10.4) is simply amazing.

On a mac laptop you can tap with one finger for a left click and two fingers for a right click...you can also drag with 2 fingers to scroll up and down...I find myself doing it ALL THE TIME on my dell laptop only to be disapointed that it doesnt work.
On any mac you can control click or click and hold to emulate the right-click

on a different note, as someone who works closely with software design, one of the problems with right-click menus is that you have to actually do it to know what your options are. In other words, you have to test the waters first which breaks on of the tenets of good application and UI design. Apple put the functionality to support right-clicking into the OS but you shouldn't have to right click to do anything... so really having 2 buttons makes things harder in a lot of ways...

I'm not sure I follow you here...
Personally I'd rather pay $100 every 2 years than $300 (vista ultimate) every 5... I like that OS X isn't rigioursly copy protected either...one could, questionably in the legal sense, buy one copy and easily install it on all their home machines... I have 8 macs...so I can at least spend $250 on the OS X family pack vs $300 x 8 for my PCs

With MS you do not pay once and get continuous upgrades...you pay each time.

I dont agree that every 2 years constitutes constant upgrading either...at any rate its a cycle which I'd embrace rather than run from...look at how dated XP looks and feels compared to Vista...

goaliemn

I currently have an older PC and, much like Maple, am looking at a Mac. I've been eyeing a mac mini, and using my existing PC monitor with a monitor switch between the 2. The pricing on the mac's is one thing that makes me hesitate, but I keep hearing alot of good about them, stability and performace wise. I'm a unix admin by trade, so I do like the unix underlaying OS as well

I'm debating between the 2 intel dual core models. Would it be better to go with a slightly slower CPU and get more memory, or the faster proc and not as much memory? I hate the fact you can't get the superdrive with the slower processor That's another big draw for me.

I see mentions of the new OS coming out this spring. If I bought a Mac Mini now, would I have to buy the OS, or does mac usually offer some sort of discount for "recent" purchases?

Thanks

Flyloha

You don't have to pay for OS upgrades. Yes Apple puts out an entirely new OS every three years or so, but the average price for OSX has always hovered around $100. Microsoft has a tendancy to put out flawed and outdated OS's every 5-8 years, and a full version of Vista will run you $400.

Yes the Mac costs more because it's just better. Plain and simple.

nmenaker

This last point is really funny. As someone who uses both mac laptops and ibm thinkpads daily, I ALWAYS find myself trying to do this when I get back to the thinkpad. It just works really well, as well as the one finger click/select and the two finger click/second menu. Afters almost a year with a macbook pro, I still try it on the IBM daily. Must be a problem between the KB and the CHAIR!

:-)

MapleLeaf

After my meeting this afternoon I do believe i shall wander to the apple store and check out the macbooks. Talk to the sales guy, see what they say etc.

No guarantees I will purchase on the spot though - not like it is a discounted F ticket

bbybear

MapleLeaf

Yes they are cheaper here, and remember if you are resident elsewhere (not Can) then go to Customs before checking in at the aiport to get your receipt stamped for a tax refund.

When we got ours at the Eaton Centre we also got the MS Office software to download onto the Mac - v. simple and effective.

I am so glad that we made the switch!

SpaceBass

Man o man am I in like ultimate fanboy mode today...I'm also working from home for the first week in a long time so I'm just giddy...

I used to agree that they *seemed* more expensive, but I made the argument that if you speced out a similar PC it would be about the same...It had been a while since I'd taken a close look, so I decided to check again.

Here's dell's offering (with Vista):
http://www.archatechs.com/dell.tiff
$1975.00

Here's a black Macbook:
http://www.archatechs.com/apple.tiff
$1,499.00 (before education discount, if one applies for you)

As best as I can tell, the Dell does come with a better video card, so maybe you can justify an additional $100 for the dell...but they only offer G (or A/G) wireless cards where the Mac's come with N chips...
Of course the mac comes with iLife, which I'd personally value at about $100...so maybe its a wash.

Bottom line, it appears that PCs actually cost more!

Of course you can find a $500 PC laptop out there, in which case, yes a Mac costs more. But if that is your price range then you should be prepared for what you are getting. If you just want a portable email and web surfing machine, its probably a better option than either of the machines listed above...but if you expect to get into multimedia, photos, advanced applications (say like running Outlook, Excel and Word at the same time) then you'd be right back in the Macbook price range pretty quickly.