New MacBook Pro
Hey guys, What do you think about the new MacBook Pro? the world's thinnest and lightest 17-inch notebook… Who has already tried it?
shadowls wrote: [quote]TheChosen1337 wrote: [quote]ynori7 wrote: Who cares how thin it is? That doesn't make it a better computer. Quite true. However, Macs do have their uses… Like being able to fit into an envelope. [/quote]
And making videos coughporncough[/quote] You ever tried watching porn in Quicktime?
I dont care what flack i get for this, ive got my macbook pro coming on monday, and im stoked. Theyre really nice machines, IMHO the best laptop (whatever OS you run on it) around at tho mo, for the price its specs and design is wicked. Not the best vfm but definitely good. Im just waiting for the troll 'windows rules' response, or something along the lines of 'you could have just got a dell', so in preparation for these I have my answer for you:
It was my choice, my cash, and I know its the right one for me. It may not suit you but its spot on for me.
Flame on :ninja:
In terms of working with Graphics Design you'd almost be a fool not to have ever tried a mac or considered owning one. All the tutorial books I've seen are made on macs, which is a significant amount.
So if I think they're so great, why don't I have one? The Price. Being a student is of no help in trying to get that much cash together. As A College or below student it's a large sum of money, but on the outside it becomes pocket change with some of the shiny new tech jobs coming out.
Though from what I've learned of Photoshop it pays for itself in the web and graphics design industry in about 3 jobs. (Most web designs range from 500-1500$ for professional usage.) I can only guess that the same form of reasoning can be used to justify the cost of a mac.
As far as speed of Photoshop and other design software I've been informed of a substantial gain in time and productivity. This can lead to more money faster, another justifying factor.
As soon as I get about 3k I'll buy one and give a good review on here.
TheChosen1337 wrote: [quote]shadowls wrote: [quote]TheChosen1337 wrote: [quote]ynori7 wrote: Who cares how thin it is? That doesn't make it a better computer. Quite true. However, Macs do have their uses… Like being able to fit into an envelope. [/quote]
And making videos coughporncough[/quote] You ever tried watching porn in Quicktime?[/quote]
Yeah, i have watched porn in quicktime pro. it looks fabulous.
Lemur wrote: Though from what I've learned of Photoshop it pays for itself in the web and graphics design industry in about 3 jobs. (Most web designs range from 500-1500$ for professional usage.) I can only guess that the same form of reasoning can be used to justify the cost of a mac.
You can get photoshop and dreamweaver for windows too. It is somehow better on a mac?
shadowls wrote: The reason i don't like mac is that you can get a pc for way cheaper and has way better specs. i could get a pc with a Intel chip with processor chip P8600 running at 2.5 gigahertz. Not even a mac runs that fast.
true true. i just dont like the mac OS. i dont like the whole lay out of it. but i havent messed around with one in ages so it could be differnt from what i remember
darkpyroSG wrote: [quote]shadowls wrote: The reason i don't like mac is that you can get a pc for way cheaper and has way better specs. i could get a pc with a Intel chip with processor chip P8600 running at 2.5 gigahertz. Not even a mac runs that fast.
true true. i just dont like the mac OS. i dont like the whole lay out of it. but i havent messed around with one in ages so it could be differnt from what i remember[/quote]
The only upside i can think of it is, that you can parallel on it and run windows or any other OS without restarting the comp. But for the specs on a mac, for 2000 is just not worth it.
shadowls wrote: The reason i don't like mac is that you can get a pc for way cheaper and has way better specs. i could get a pc with a Intel chip with processor chip P8600 running at 2.5 gigahertz. Not even a mac runs that fast.
My macbook pro:
2.53 Core2 Duo 4 Gb DDR3 ram 320Gb 7200rpm hd
1500 quid. And it'll probably run faster than a more powerful windows laptop, as vista is the biggest resource hog of an OS I have ever seen (before I saw the windows 7 beta :D)
Plus you get an ace OS, just started taking part in a wargame, a few of the people on my team were having to sort SSHv2 keys out, and having to download puttygen or what have you. I was pleasently surprised to see I had ssh-keygen, so I was up and running as fast as if I were running linux.
Cyph3rHell wrote: Someone says that the best OS is Mac, the only mistake that was made is that it is not replaceable with another OS.
Yeah, now macs use intel chips you can put anything on them, you could scrap OSX completely and put any flavor of linux, or XP, vista, whatever you want on. I just feel OSX is a perfectly capable OS, a nice mix of the power of linux and ease of use on a mac.
I could code a hot key program in c++ in a small amount of time to solve the delete key problem. If you wanted you could go with Fedora or some other Linux distro. the only reason I said windows, was because I saw windows fans but no Linux fans…
EDIT: macbook pro does have a delete key. Want proof? http://www.notebookreview.com/assets/15837.jpg
moshbat wrote: It's an incredibly awkward keyboard. It is an awkward keyboard, and I especially hate those mice with only one button. The OS is laid out in a messed up, counter intuitive way. For an OS designed for people who aren't good with computers, it's got a pretty crappy layout.
People keep telling me about the 'amazing' things a mac can do, but so far I haven't seen a single thing that any other OS couldn't do with equal or greater ease.
Spyware is right. Get busy building your own. http://www.alienware.com/customize/M17-notebook.aspx?SysCode=PC-LT-M17&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT
yours31f wrote: Spyware is right. Get busy building your own. http://www.alienware.com/customize/M17-notebook.aspx?SysCode=PC-LT-M17&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT
…
Sigh.
See, this is why I hate you. I really, really do.
moshbat wrote: [quote]shadowls wrote: MAC SUCKS BALLS.(meant to be in caps) Surely we can give reasons, not pointless statements?[/quote]
Ok, Macs is garbage, over price shitty ass computer where all it can do is edit videos. Way over price with nothing special in the computer. I can get a quad core intel processor for way cheaper than a gay ass mac. And for the most part, every part that you want to upgrade on a mac, it has to be special. So it cost even more fucking money.
The only people who buy Macs (at the Apple stores, there's actually one close to where I live) are people >30 years in age. When I walk by (it's in the mall) there are so many old (relatively speaking) people in there! I guess Macs are "simple-er" but I'd rather just download and install Ubuntu or any other Linux distro for that matter.
hellboundhackersok wrote: The only people who buy Macs are people >30 years in age. False. I'm on a college campus, and there are quite a few people using macs. The people who buy macs are generally people who know near nothing about computers and the people who are gullible enough to believe the exaggerations in those stupid commercials.
ynori7 wrote: …and I especially hate those mice with only one button.
They are one piece of plastic, and come configured as 1 button, but they actually have 4 buttons, left, right, center and sides, all of which can be configured as desired, for most OS functions.
I dont see how the mac layout is any worse than the windows layout, you are all just used to windows start menu nonsense. Once you get used to a mac (doesnt take long) windows feels like an archaic dinosaur (IMHO).
To each theyre own
moshbat wrote: [quote]jjbutler88 wrote:
I dont see how the mac layout is any worse than the windows layout, you are all just used to windows start menu nonsense. And linux's. But mac really did confuse the living fuck out of me :D[/quote]
To me, mac is trying to copy some linux distro. That's what I think.
jjbutler88 wrote: They are one piece of plastic, and come configured as 1 button, but they actually have 4 buttons, left, right, center and sides, all of which can be configured as desired, for most OS functions.
They're like that now, but they didn't used to be. They finally realized how fricken stupid it was.
Sigh. Why can't people just take computers as just computers, even on this site? This kind of debate has been going on since mainframes are still around (they do compare what mainframe is best for hacking back then from the late 60's till they become obsolete. I still place my money on a PDP-6 with ITS) to 8-bits (I back the C64) to 16-bits (Amiga) till today.
Yes, Macs are expensive. But there is a reason for the madness, people. Windows and Linux are cheaper than Mac OS since it is developed for all kinds of computers that can run it, while the Mac OS is developed especially for Mac hardware.
Another reason is that it is more stable and secure compared to the PC. Yes, there's the argument that Mac is not as popular as Windows, hence more malware/viruses/exploits are written for Windows than the Mac OS. I'll take my cousin as an example. She studies electrical engineering, btw, so don't go around calling her some stupid user. She used to have an Acer laptop with XP, but even in the first month there are already technical issues ranging from software to hardware. I remember that she once woke me up while I was sleeping since the card reader couldn't read her memory card properly, so I had to trawl the internet to find the proper drivers, and after that, she complained that a friend copied some files to her laptop, and it was then crawling with viruses.
She then bought a Mac Book instead, and since then she has a pretty peaceful computing experience. Another example is my buddy, who I met at an open source user group. That dude's a Linux fanatic and a fantastic coder. He used to have a ThinkPad with Fedora Core, and then his dad bought him a Mac Book, and since then I've seen him with his Mac Book, still coding in multiple languages and telling me how good Mac OS is.
So if you argue that Mac OS simply sticks in some Unix / Linux components and is not as good as the real thing, that's a weak argument since I've personally met many experienced Linux users who can attest to me how good Mac OS is.
And well, most of the multimedia students in my college use Macs, or if they can't, they just used the ones in the labs. They do use PC's, but they just prefer using Macs since they can get more done with a Mac than with a PC for multimedia work.
Well, some of you argue that the first computer with a proper GUI is the Xerox Alto, and I agree with that. But the Mac OS made GUIs popular, during the time when a PC user has to learn how to use command prompts in order to use their computer.
Anyway, I can bet that most of the Mac haters probably only saw a Mac, but never tried or used them. When I came to think of it, I've always heard of a PC user moving to Mac, but never the other way around.
@fuser: word.
fuser wrote: Yes, Macs are expensive. But there is a reason for the madness, people. Windows and Linux are cheaper than Mac OS since it is developed for all kinds of computers that can run it, while the Mac OS is developed especially for Mac hardware.
That's not a good reason. An OS that can only run on specific types of hardware should be cheaper, not more expensive.
And I hate people who argue that Macs don't have hardware or software problems like PC's. I've used Macs quite a bit, and they fuck up just as much. You just don't hear about it as often since fewer people use them.
ynori7 wrote: And I hate people who argue that Macs don't have hardware or software problems like PC's. I've used Macs quite a bit, and they fuck up just as much. You just don't hear about it as often since fewer people use them.
Nah I disagree, as a previous windows user (and currently as well, just not as much), I know the number of crashes I have had with a mac is in single figures over at least a year (since I got the machine). In fact I run XP on my mac, and I recently had to reinstall because it crashed. Theres no denying macs dont crash as much, its all built on BSD (stable as hell). You hear when XP crashes because it does it so often, you dont hear about macs crashing much because they don't as often.
There's an argument in Neal Stephenson's essay "In the Beginning was the Command Line" on why Macs are more expensive compared to PCs.
I'm pretty sure most of the more "educated" crowd in HBH are familiar with the essay.
There's a quotation on why Apple products (esp. Macs) are expensive:
THE FINANCIAL EXPLANATION is that Apple, unlike Microsoft, is and always has been a hardware company. It simply depends on revenue from selling hardware, and cannot exist without it.
THE CHARITABLE EXPLANATION is that the hardware monopoly policy reflected a drive on Apple's part to provide a seamless, unified blending of hardware, operating system, and software. There is something to this. It is hard enough to make an OS that works well on one specific piece of hardware, designed and tested by engineers who work down the hallway from you, in the same company. Making an OS to work on arbitrary pieces of hardware, cranked out by rabidly entrepeneurial clonemakers on the other side of the International Date Line, is very difficult, and accounts for much of the troubles people have using Windows.
And yes, Macs are bound to have all kinds of problems, since no man-made product is perfect, computers included. But some of the problems commonplace on the PC platform is almost unheard of in the Mac OS platform. There will be viruses and malware and exploits for the Mac, they just happen to occur less compared to PCs running Windows.
And as jj himself attests, Mac OS is more stable than Win XP since it is based on the BSD kernel, hence the Mac almost never crashes at all compared to XP.
Look, I don't go for the "this platform is more superior than the shit you have" kind of argument. All kinds of computers have their own strengths and weaknesses, from hulking mainframes that runs SpaceWar, to 8-bit computers that people use to write demos on, to 16-bit computers where people install the first editions of Linux and BSD to 32- and now 64 bit computers, to server platforms and workstations, even supercomputers.
There are always strengths and weaknesses on all kinds of computers, and all you have to do is learn to use all of it, and accept the short comings each platform has. I used to have the "Mac sucks" kind of attitude actually, until one day I just decided to try it out at a computer expo, and realized it's not as bad as the detractors say.
If I still have that kind of attitude, I would have stuck with running XP, coding in VB.NET and listening to pop-punk for the rest of my life. But what happened instead was that I use Windows, Macs, Linux and some lesser used OSs such as Solaris, I am familiar with some of the more popular languages, and my music collection is largely from 70's punk to 80's hardcore punk and some of the newer stuff, grunge, metal, nerdcore and even chiptune music. (I do not however, possess anymore pop-punk albums, since I had expunged all of them from my collection when I first listened to Black Flag.)
And another thing: This type of forum is a "security / computer enthusiast " type of forum. I mean, compared to most of the people using computers today, we are supposed to learn everything we can about computers, and make them do our bidding (whether it is attacking someone's server or creating a render farm). The "This <insert computer topic> sucks because <enter lame argument> " is almost irrelevant since we're supposed to be LEARNING here, not arguing a lot.
shadowls wrote: [quote]moshbat wrote: [quote]shadowls wrote: MAC SUCKS BALLS.(meant to be in caps) Surely we can give reasons, not pointless statements?[/quote]
Ok, Macs is garbage, over price shitty ass computer where all it can do is edit videos. Way over price with nothing special in the computer. I can get a quad core intel processor for way cheaper than a gay ass mac. And for the most part, every part that you want to upgrade on a mac, it has to be special. So it cost even more fucking money.[/quote]
In terms of creative mediums Mac kills. It's like this -
Windows - Business / Gaming Mac - Creative Linux - Programming / Web / Hacking
Each has a specialty, it really all depends on what your own style is as to what computer you get.
Overpriced? I've heard the same of Photoshop and it's suites but the thing pays for itself after a couple good jobs. Web Layouts cost in upwards of 800$ (pro) and logo design in upwards of 500$ (pro) so you can only imagine how easily money would resolve itself in such circumstances.
(Logo design costs that much for a good reason, a crappy logo makes a site look crappy.)
Regardless I'm 18 and I'm buying a Mac when I get the money because I work with graphics and creative software on a daily basis, and Macs accommodate the needs and power for such tasks.
You can quote me on this, but ANYONE who leaves a one sentence reply like "Mac sucks balls" needs to go back to 4chan, really, it'll mean a lot less headaches for the rest of us…
Lemur wrote: [quote]shadowls wrote: [quote]moshbat wrote: [quote]shadowls wrote: MAC SUCKS BALLS.(meant to be in caps) Surely we can give reasons, not pointless statements?[/quote]
Ok, Macs is garbage, over price shitty ass computer where all it can do is edit videos. Way over price with nothing special in the computer. I can get a quad core intel processor for way cheaper than a gay ass mac. And for the most part, every part that you want to upgrade on a mac, it has to be special. So it cost even more fucking money.[/quote]
In terms of creative mediums Mac kills. It's like this -
Windows - Business / Gaming Mac - Creative Linux - Programming / Web / Hacking
Each has a specialty, it really all depends on what your own style is as to what computer you get.
Overpriced? I've heard the same of Photoshop and it's suites but the thing pays for itself after a couple good jobs. Web Layouts cost in upwards of 800$ (pro) and logo design in upwards of 500$ (pro) so you can only imagine how easily money would resolve itself in such circumstances.
(Logo design costs that much for a good reason, a crappy logo makes a site look crappy.)
Regardless I'm 18 and I'm buying a Mac when I get the money because I work with graphics and creative software on a daily basis, and Macs accommodate the needs and power for such tasks.
You can quote me on this, but ANYONE who leaves a one sentence reply like "Mac sucks balls" needs to go back to 4chan, really, it'll mean a lot less headaches for the rest of us…[/quote]
Ok, there is a difference between hardware and software. You cannot compare photoshop to a mac. I think that's a bad comparison. Why? because you can always pirate software, but you cannot pirate hardware. And yet again mac sucks all around. You can still use a pc for all the three above.
shadowls wrote: Ok, there is a difference between hardware and software. You cannot compare photoshop to a mac. I think that's a bad comparison. Why? because you can always pirate software, but you cannot pirate hardware. And yet again mac sucks all around. You can still use a pc for all the three above. Not to mention that you can get photoshop for windows as well. Like I asked earlier, are those programs somehow better on mac?
THE FINANCIAL EXPLANATION is that Apple, unlike Microsoft, is and always has been a hardware company. It simply depends on revenue from selling hardware, and cannot exist without it. As for this, that's exactly why the mac OS sucks. If they want to be a hardware company, be a hardware company.
And for the people saying that Mac hardly ever crashes compared to windows: I use windows, and my computer has crashed maybe twice in the last three years, and both those times were because of something that I did. Back in high school, we had mac computers, and nearly every time we used them someone in the class had to reboot because the system crashed.
Shadowls wrote: Ok, there is a difference between hardware and software. You cannot compare photoshop to a mac. I think that's a bad comparison. Why? because you can always pirate software, but you cannot pirate hardware. And yet again mac sucks all around. You can still use a pc for all the three above. You can use just about any OS for those things, but different OS's are better suited for different tasks. Mac comes pre-packaged with tons of useful stuff for working with images, music, movies etc. Linux comes with a lot of programming features and Windows runs games the best and has good software for businesses.
As for the keyboard layout, it can be awkward at first but I got used to it pretty quick.
Rapt0r wrote: [quote]Shadowls wrote: Ok, there is a difference between hardware and software. You cannot compare photoshop to a mac. I think that's a bad comparison. Why? because you can always pirate software, but you cannot pirate hardware. And yet again mac sucks all around. You can still use a pc for all the three above. You can use just about any OS for those things, but different OS's are better suited for different tasks. Mac comes pre-packaged with tons of useful stuff for working with images, music, movies etc. Linux comes with a lot of programming features and Windows runs games the best and has good software for businesses.
As for the keyboard layout, it can be awkward at first but I got used to it pretty quick.[/quote]
That's all relative. But yourhe keyboard is about the same just now right click and no windows button. 0_o
shadowls wrote: Ok, there is a difference between hardware and software. You cannot compare photoshop to a mac. I think that's a bad comparison. Why? because you can always pirate software, but you cannot pirate hardware. And yet again mac sucks all around. You can still use a pc for all the three above.
Anything can be compared, don't try that…
By that same stream of logic you'd say Linux sucks too. All you've said is Mac sucks with absolutely no valid points as to why. Any imbecile can say something sucks with no reason, now whether or not it's correct is determined by people that have valid points.
Now then, let's take a little math rundown on something like this. Take a look at the speed difference between PC and Mac OS's on the Adobe suite.
http://reviews.cnet.com/search-results/adobe-photoshop-cs3-single/4505-5_7-32386579.html
"…Mac version ran CS3 significantly faster than Windows; it took more than twice as long under Windows Vista…"
CNET says about twice as fast. Now then, let's throw out that it takes Photoshop 2 minutes to load in windows (not the actual, but a test number)
I open Photoshop 8-10 times a day (It takes up considerable memory when left open) and have done so for over 3 years now from v. 7 and up to Cs3.
So…
8 x 2 x (3 x 365) = 17,520 minutes
or
292 hours
Do not try and say that's not substantial, and that's only on load time. Even at 1.25X faster the rate of time consumed grows exponentially, resulting in literally THOUSANDS of hours of work in a few years.
Off of this let's say that I get payed 35$ an hour for Photoshop work (I actually get payed from 25 to 100, but mostly lower.) and I lost a total of 100 hours in a year because of slower load times in windows.
That's $3.5k right there, and would you look at that, the Mac would have payed for itself just based on the load and action times, and given me about an extra 600$ to have fun with.
Don't believe me? Check all the benchmarks.
As of right now I'm saving to get one after running the numbers because to work in the Creative industry without a Mac is wasting money.
You get what you pay for in a Mac if you hold a position in that industry.
moshbat wrote: [quote]Lemur wrote: [quote]shadowls wrote: Ok, there is a difference between hardware and software. You cannot compare photoshop to a mac. I think that's a bad comparison. Why? because you can always pirate software, but you cannot pirate hardware. And yet again mac sucks all around. You can still use a pc for all the three above.
Anything can be compared, don't try that…
By that same stream of logic you'd say Linux sucks too. All you've said is Mac sucks with absolutely no valid points as to why. Any imbecile can say something sucks with no reason, now whether or not it's correct is determined by people that have valid points.
Now then, let's take a little math rundown on something like this. Take a look at the speed difference between PC and Mac OS's on the Adobe suite.
http://reviews.cnet.com/search-results/adobe-photoshop-cs3-single/4505-5_7-32386579.html
"…Mac version ran CS3 significantly faster than Windows; it took more than twice as long under Windows Vista…"
CNET says about twice as fast. Now then, let's throw out that it takes Photoshop 2 minutes to load in windows (not the actual, but a test number)
I open Photoshop 8-10 times a day (It takes up considerable memory when left open) and have done so for over 3 years now from v. 7 and up to Cs3.
So…
8 x 2 x (3 x 365) = 17,520 minutes
or
292 hours
Do not try and say that's not substantial, and that's only on load time. Even at 1.25X faster the rate of time consumed grows exponentially, resulting in literally THOUSANDS of hours of work in a few years.
Off of this let's say that I get payed 35$ an hour for Photoshop work (I actually get payed from 25 to 100, but mostly lower.) and I lost a total of 100 hours in a year because of slower load times in windows.
That's $3.5k right there, and would you look at that, the Mac would have payed for itself just based on the load and action times, and given me about an extra 600$ to have fun with.
Don't believe me? Check all the benchmarks.
As of right now I'm saving to get one after running the numbers because to work in the Creative industry without a Mac is wasting money.
You get what you pay for in a Mac if you hold a position in that industry.[/quote] Or, you could just buy a very good PC, and not put Vista on it, for half the price.[/quote]
I agree. The Pc will be much be much better. My quad core will blow away the new mac and it is way cheaper.
moshbat wrote: I'm actually surprised that nobody has said "Macs are more secure!" yet.
Yes, I'm surprised also. Most of the time, that's the first thing they would say about a mac. The main factor why mac sucks is that it is way too over priced. Without a doubt that it can be a good computer if it was cheaper and is compatible with other hardware and software.
moshbat wrote: I'm actually surprised that nobody has said "Macs are more secure!" yet. Ha, they are, but considering they are so expensive yet underpowered.. why pay that much for "security" when you can just download any Linux distro (besides DVL…)? ;)
I would much rather pay less with a windows computer, then just partition the hard drive. Quick, Simple, Cost Effective. woot.
A Quad Core PC won't have crap on a Mac in terms of speed, including on XP…
Shadows, if price is your only hang up then do some research… Obviously you haven't, otherwise you'd think before typing half the garbage you just did…
I got a chance to play with a Mac Book Pro, one of my friends parents works at an apple retailer. I can say without a doubt that no PC costing less than double that amount would run that quickly.
Try rendering a Terragen scene of 640 x 480 on a PC at max quality and AA and it takes 20-30 minutes, I rendered a scene twice the size in about 10 minutes.
I worked with the smudge tool on a 6000 x 4000 canvas with NO LAG. Try that on a piece that large on windows and you'll be waiting forever for it to respond.
Just to confirm things I tried a 10000 x 10000 res piece and used every filter possible with no lag on easily 98% of them. (Liquify being one of the more difficult ones)
Try ANY of that on a PC and you'll be throwing it against a wall or sitting there for hours that you could have been using to relax if you used a Mac for the job.
LOOK AT THE BENCHMARKS. You get what you pay for, so enough with the whining about price, go out and get a better job then…
moshbat wrote: [quote]hellboundhackersok wrote: [quote]moshbat wrote: I'm actually surprised that nobody has said "Macs are more secure!" yet. Ha, they are, but considering they are so expensive yet underpowered.. why pay that much for "security" when you can just download any Linux distro (besides DVL…) ;). I would much rather pay less with a windows computer, then just partition the hard drive. Quick, Simple, Cost Effective. woot.[/quote] Hang on! Mac is way cheaper than Linux! Oh, wait. No it isn't. I was forgetting that how much it should cost isn't what it really costs. I mean, for Linux, you actually have to buy a blank CD/DVD.[/quote]
why buy when you can take from school for free.
moshbat wrote: [quote]shadowls wrote: [quote]moshbat wrote: [quote]hellboundhackersok wrote: [quote]moshbat wrote: I'm actually surprised that nobody has said "Macs are more secure!" yet. Ha, they are, but considering they are so expensive yet underpowered.. why pay that much for "security" when you can just download any Linux distro (besides DVL…) ;). I would much rather pay less with a windows computer, then just partition the hard drive. Quick, Simple, Cost Effective. woot.[/quote] Hang on! Mac is way cheaper than Linux! Oh, wait. No it isn't. I was forgetting that how much it should cost isn't what it really costs. I mean, for Linux, you actually have to buy a blank CD/DVD.[/quote]
why buy when you can take from school for free.[/quote] They don't use them. I do steal the software CD's they leave in the computers, though…[/quote]
I do not steal. I voluntarily take it. Why take software CD's when you can download them.
I dont know why everyone is saying they can get a quad core laptop for less than £1500 that will blow a mac out of the water…. It might be a little faster, but its still running XP, or worse, vista.
You also have to look at the quality of the components. You might scrape together a quad core with 8Gb of ram, but the mac's components are high quality, and high speed. DDR3 ram, 7200Rpm hitatchi HD, Core2 with a 1033Mhz FSB, its not the budget AMD crap you would end up with on a homebuilt desktop. Also virtually no driver worries.
I literally just got my macbook pro today and it goes like shit off a stick, not to mention the 'cool' (IMHO) features like backlit keyboard, multi touch (done right) trackpad, really high quality screen. And on top of all of these, it runs logic pro, software that is mac only and unrivaled by anything on a PC for any price.
jjbutler88 wrote: I dont know why everyone is saying they can get a quad core laptop for less than £1500 that will blow a mac out of the water…. It might be a little faster, but its still running XP, or worse, vista.
You also have to look at the quality of the components. You might scrape together a quad core with 8Gb of ram, but the mac's components are high quality, and high speed. DDR3 ram, 7200Rpm hitatchi HD, Core2 with a 1033Mhz FSB, its not the budget AMD crap you would end up with on a homebuilt desktop. Also virtually no driver worries.
I literally just got my macbook pro today and it goes like shit off a stick, not to mention the 'cool' (IMHO) features like backlit keyboard, multi touch (done right) trackpad, really high quality screen. And on top of all of these, it runs logic pro, software that is mac only and unrivaled by anything on a PC for any price.
Ok ill give you the backlit keyboard. I got to say. that is awesome. There is nothing wrong with xp, and even Vista. Vista is not that bad as people say it is. They make things too over rated with it though.
moshbat wrote: They don't use them. I do steal the software CD's they leave in the computers, though…
Too bad my school never does that…
the damn admins at my school stopped my proxies… and disabled my from running a CS server! [after I ran a dedicated server ahahahaha]
Hm, well.. Macs are okay for schools, graphic designers, older people…
I can't think of anyone else? :p