Apple's Updated MacBook Line-Up

[simple_gifts]

Quote:

You buy 'em from the status symbol. Same applies for the iPod, which I'm guilty of. Then again, aren't we all guilty of such purchases?


Not exactly, people buy them because it provides a better computer or music listening experience in that person's opinion and it is important to that person. The fact a less expensive computer/player can be had that does the same thing doesn't make the Apple overpriced any more than any Accord or BMW is overpriced since my Echo does the same thing for considerably less money...

 

[Mystic]

Well, if batteries gradually provide less and less charge and the run time starts to drop off after two years than that is another good reason why batteries should be replaceable. The outward smooth design of a computer cannot and should not be the only considerations in computer design. Sure you want for the computer to look nice but you also want to be able to replace batteries and service the computer.

And sure people buy stuff such as cars and computers as status symbols. But I think I would rather have the Toyota Camry which is a very good car rather than spending a fortune on some fancy car. A lot of very wealthy people I know drive just ordinary cars. They put their money where it will last, like smart investments and a nice home. That is one of the reasons they are wealthy. Sure, if you drive an expensive car you can tell everybody look what I drive compared to you but I would rather have a nice home myself. I can think of people who have very fancy cars and trashy homes. In fact, I can think of a woman who drives TWO MB cars and she lives in a older home in a bad side of town. Her house was broken into recently and she is saying that she may have to move.

In the case of desktop computers who is going to see your desktop computer at your home?

Let us say that Windows 7 turns out to be a really terrific operating system. I don't know if it will or not but let us say that it will. Let us say that it is about equal to Mac OS X in quality. You can have Windows 7 on a reasonably powerful Windows computer for about $1000 dollars. Otherwise you could buy a MacPro for $2700 dollars, about three times the price. If those two computers can do the same quality of work which one is the better choice? And actually today you could maybe even run Mac OS X on the Windows computer (and you could run Windows on the Mac). What choice would the smart wealthy person make?

 

[simple_gifts]

Quote:

If those two computers can do the same quality of work which one is the better choice?


The one you want to use.

 

[Mystic]

That is true. But for myself, if Windows 7 is about the same quality level of Mac OS X with better hardware and software support, it will run on a much cheaper computer, and I could even run Mac OS X on a second hard drive, I would buy the Windows computer. If Apple made a quality desktop more reasonable in price than the MacPro (say a few hundred dollars more than a good Windows computer), I would seriously look at the Mac (remember, you can run Windows on an Intel Mac).

I would not buy a computer to impress Lady SuzAnna St. Martin-Von Braun.

 

[Mystic]

And, by the way, I also would not buy a $7000 dollar Windows gaming computer just to play computer games. For that kind of money a business could buy a MacPro with 32 gb of ram, big hard drives, and a very nice monitor to do serious computer graphics work. And maybe have some change left over.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
... if Windows 7 is about the same quality level of Mac OS X ...


PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT

Sorry, I just spit my coffee all over my MacBook Pro.

EDIT: The MacBook Pro runs Ubuntu 99% of the time, including now.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Batteries are consumables. The more you cycle them, the less capacity they have. A well-used battery usually lasts about 2 years before the run time starts to significantly drop off.

I'm on my second batt in my T42. When I retired the OEM one last year, it was down to about one hour of run time. New batteries are an upgrade, having improved technology and larger capacities. I've gone over 6 hours on the new one on occasion.

Anyone gauging laptop quality on how well the original battery holds up after many years just misses the point.


I assume you haven't had the priviledge of doing a lot of back-to-back testing of various notebooks and their overall battery life.

I don't think anybody here is "missing the point".

I have observed, first-hand, ACER batteries giving up the ghost in HALF the time of ASUS batteries.

This has been repeatable and easily observable, since I have close to a dozen of each with 17" screens in the field with one client that I service regularly.

Cell QUALITY plays a huge role in how long a battery lasts. Cheaper cells will fail quicker.

Two years with heavy use sounds like a good average. I have seen ACER batteries be complete FUBAR in half that.

But given the price of the ACER notebooks, it doesn't surprise me. They are a bargain notebook at the entry-level, and with that comes compromises.

 

[Mystic]

That makes sense. So how long do Apple Mac batteries last? Do the nonreplaceable batteries in some Apple laptops easily last 5 years?

I have less of a problem with nonreplaceable batteries if Apple's batteries easily last 5 years and the average person will keep a laptop or netbook only 5 years.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
That makes sense. So how long do Apple Mac batteries last? Do the nonreplaceable batteries in some Apple laptops easily last 5 years?

I have less of a problem with nonreplaceable batteries if Apple's batteries easily last 5 years and the average person will keep a laptop or netbook only 5 years.


No idea. My experience with Apple stuff is limited.

 

[Volvohead]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Cell QUALITY plays a huge role in how long a battery lasts. Cheaper cells will fail quicker.


And after the Dell fiasco a few years back, they can blow up too.

The cell manufacturer and the date of manufacture dictate the overall battery quality. Sanyo and Panny are two HQ ones, generally. Lower end laptop makers will use cheaper cells and be less sensitive to manufacture freshness. But that doesn't necessarily reflect on the laptop's quality. I've even seen IBM batts that were a little too stale for my liking. Even the best cells are compromised if they have been sitting in storage too long. That's the nature of present lithium-ion technology.

I source my batts now from an outfit called freshbattery. The last batch were US made and they will not ship stale stock. And the batts have VERY good run times.

Still, I don't understand folks who complain about an older laptop because the OEM batt runtime is now short. Just replace the battery if it otherwise works.

 

[simple_gifts]

Quote:

... if Windows 7 is about the same quality level of Mac OS X ...


It is encouraging that a manufacturer's yet to be released product is as good as the competition's 5 year old fare

 

[Mystic]

Well, Mac OS 10.0 in my opinion should have been a no charge beta. 10.1 and 10.2 were not exactly awe inspiring, 10.3 was starting to get good, and 10.4 was excellent. So it took a few years for Apple to get in right. There were some features in 10.5 that were better than 10.4 but overall I still like 10.4 better and I thought I had trashed my computer when I installed 10.5. I had one of those BSODs for several minutes. Who knows about 10.6-it has not come out yet. And all of these operating systems that Apple charged for were Mac OS X operating systems. Nobody seems to complain about being charged for version updates.

Now what would have happened if Microsoft had charged for Windows XP Service Pack 1, and Windows XP Service Pack 2? Instead, Microsoft lets people download the service packs for free. I had an older version of Windows XP and at that time just a slow dial-up internet connection. I got in touch with Microsoft and they sent me, FOR FREE, a CD with Service Pack 2. How is that for customer service? Say what you like about Microsoft but they have always treated me well.

In the same time period that Microsoft will have had three desktop operating systems (Windows XP, Vista and soon Windows 7) Apple will have had 7 versions of Mac OS X (Including the upcoming 10.6) and Apple will have charged for every one. Yes they had free updates like 10.5.7 but they will have charged for 7 versions of what THEY called the same operating system-Mac OS X.

But the really big difference is what it costs for the computer hardware to run those operating systems. When Windows 7 comes out I could probably walk into a store and buy a Windows computer that is adequately powerful for something like $900 dollars or even less if I could find a computer on sale. I saw an ad recently for a Dell computer with a very nice graphics card, powerful processor, large hard drive, AND a large monitor for about $1000 dollars. Sure you can buy an iMac all-in-one for around $1000 dollars but to really match the Dell with its large separate monitor you would have to buy an Apple MacPro for around $2700 dollars-no monitor. By the time you have bought a nice monitor for the MacPro you will have paid three or even four times as much money for a computer that basically can do what the Dell can do. And you can keep updating that Dell, even getting a new processor, new power supply, etc. I think the Dell I mentioned even had Blu-Ray. Plus when Microsoft comes out with Service Packs for Windows 7 you will probably be able to download those Service Packs for free. Not be charged for what is basically an operating system upgrade.

Maybe my math is faulty but it seems like a big difference in cash to me.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
The Apple operating system is a really smooth, capable operating system. I liked 10.4 the best myself. In many ways Mac OS X can be considered superior to any version of Windows.


Apple fanboy!