[bluvg]

Check with any major benchmarking site (xbitlabs, etc.)--the percentage difference in performance between DDR3 and DDR2 is just not that significant in real-world scenarios (i.e., anything besides memory benchmark tests). For example, in a recent test (SYSMark suite) Xbitlabs found the difference between DDR3-1600 vs. DDR2-1066 to be 3-4%. Between DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066, the difference was between 0.5% and 1.5% except for one benchmark, where it was around 3%.

Don't get caught up in the hype!

[joe1946]

If you want a graphic powerhouse Intel Quad core notebook with a pair of ATI Radeon 4870's with 1GB video ram ,6GB RAM and 18.4" 1080p 1920x1080 screen the Asus W90Vp with $2,499 msrp is the one to get.
http://usa.asus.com/...w.aspx?id=14975

[Don_Quixote]

Some people justify the high price of Macs by their high resale value. I partially agree, but I also think it is the other way around. With $500, there is no way one can buy a brand new Mac laptop. There is only one choice: find a used Mac (3-year old PB G4?). With $500, there are more choices for Windows laptop buyers. I think 3-year old Thinkpad T60 is sold at about $500 on eBay, but there are many brand-new laptops with better CPU and more RAM, HDD, etc. However legendary Thinkpad is, there are many people who choose brand-new laptops with "budget" built-quality.
In sum, the high price of Macs has contributed to creating a bigger used-Mac market than the used-PC market. So…I'm not exactly sure whether high resale value is really a good justification of Mac’s high price.

[happymac]

But, that's assuming all laptops are built equally well, which they're not. Also, how did the owners selling their used equipment treat these laptops while they owned them? No two people are alike on that, either. Personally, I would never buy a used computer on Ebay.

[natssdad]

Blue screens actually still do exist in Windows XP/Vista and 7. I was just recently given a laptop to work on that had Vista and I turned the laptop on and Vista starts to boot and it gives a blue screen. I was beta testing Windows 7, and I got a blue screen on that as well. Service packs don't prevent Windows XP from blue screening. If a hardware failure, corruption etc. the system will blue screen.

Pop ups still happen even if you turn the pop up blocker on. Depending on how bad the system is with viruses and spyware, no pop up blocker will prevent pop ups.

[spiderbat]

Up to some time ago there was a fixed factor in these comparisons: with Macintoshes you could run Mac OS [X], with other contraptions you should opt for a more or less geeky OS that forced you to decrypt man pages and learn a lot of -s -tu -p -id option sequences (OK, I'm a little exaggerating here, but Apple was able to hide the ugly face of unix in a far better way) or another abominable one, that I will not even consider... With this condition I wouldn't even look at anything else than a computer made by Apple (alas, not Computer anymore!) Inc.
But if one assumes that it is possible and technically safe to shoehorn Mac OS [X] into non-kosher hardware (and even MW's Jason Snell, in a recent article, implicitly confesses such a sin, by declaring that he tried iMovie with a "netbook"...) I'd say that any laptop with decent performance, FireWire and a matte display would be better for my work and my ocular health.
If it weren't also downright ugly and full of preposterous LEDs, keys and other peculiar gizmos I could even look at it without discomfort. Ok, I might consider the 17" MBP with matte option, but only if Apple provided me free of cost with a minion who carries it for me!

[ggarthe]

I've always accepted the fact that you can get more "bang for the buck" out of a Windoze-based machine than out of a Mac. However, that has NEVER dissuaded me from purchasing a Mac over non-Mac. There are so many factors to consider, but some of the most important go beyond specs and price. OS X's resistance to viruses and malware without the added cost of protection software should be number one. Resale value is another biggie. Even the best, most expensive Windoze laptop will be worth less than half it's purchase value within a year or two. 5 years down the road and you'd have a hard time giving it away. My 15" ALPB is still going for $600-800, according to the various used Mac websites...not bad for a 5 year old machine. Long term cost-of-ownership things need to be considered when comparing the apple to the orange. That PC may be cheaper in the beginning, but after 5 years, how much has it REALLY cost you?

There are other factors to consider as well. Aesthetics, build quality, and construction materials. With the exception of specialty manufacturers like Falcon Northwest or Alienware, I've yet to see a good looking, "sexy", SOLID, well built PC laptop. They all seem cheap to me, even the "expensive" ones.

People will argue about this until the world ends or Apple is no longer (and if that ever happens, then the world might as well have ended), but at least I know in my heart that the nearly 3000 bucks spent on this PowerBook I'm still using was the best 3000 bucks I've ever spent...and will be more than happy to spend again when the time comes.

[jsnowbordr47]

As a graphic designer, the Expose feature added back in Mac OS X Panther is worth the price of admission alone.
I've tried the Flip 3D thing on Vista, but it just doesn't cut it. Sometimes I'll find myself with 3 InDesign files, 1 Photoshop, and several Illustrator files open at one time, even with dual screens I have a hard time keeping track of them. Without Expose, my workflow would be severely slowed down.
There's a reason why most media production firms whether it be for web, print, video, or sound continue to use the Mac. Elegance, Power, and Ease of Use. You only get Power with Windows, and sometimes not even that.

[wartrol]

I also like the many configuration options Dell offers.
Wartrol Review

[ps2os2]

I do not have a note book (and probably never will I do not like them).

What I am continually amazed at is that Apple is selling almost all of their systems (laptops pro and etc) with almost (insufficient memory to run a couple of apps)no memory. Yes you can buy more (a nit later about that) but that isn't what Apple should be doing, IMO. They should have enough memory 6 Gig is min 8G-12G usually what is needed. Then on top of that the max memory you can put in a G5 Pro is 16G why ONLY that amount how about 32G or 64G(I certainly could use it)?

I was helping a friend configure a Mac and she threw a hissy fit because I suggested more memory. "Why doesn't this come standard", she asked that boosted the price to just over $2500 for a desk top. I also suggested a larger HD but told her that could be bought later. She was not happy with the increased HD drive and the memory. She said she would think about it. I do not think I am going to get her to move from windows to Mac because of theses "extras".

The jury is out but it does not look good.

Ed

[jsnowbordr47]

6GB? Are you or your friend planning on using your computer for CAD or heavy duty DVD Authoring/Video Editting/Post Production (After Effects)? Those are the only applications where I'd see the need for more than 3 or 4 gigs. Then again, Vista and XP are/were pretty big memory hogs.

From my experience as a power user (Graphic Designer and Video Editor). Macs are able to get by with much less memory than a Windows XP or Vista machine. All macs now ship with 2GB minimum of memory. This is plenty enough to run anything at a good pace. I mean, I'm sure more memory would be nice, but for most consumers and even prosumers/professionals anything more than 3gigs is potentially overkill. I can see animation studios needing that max of 16gigs (I remember reading that the Southpark dudes have a pretty hardcore setup of G5's daisy chained with massive memory to handle rendering alone) As for me, I get by fine on my Macbook Pro with 2gigs, and I usually run with Adobe Illustrator, Indesign, Photoshop, and Macromedia Dreamweaver/Fireworks open at the same time.

In fact, I still have a Mac Mini 1.25ghz and a Powerbook G4 1.5ghz both with 512MB of ram, and they have only recently started to show their age when running complex Flash pages while running several Adobe CS2 projects. However, I'm still able to multitask between my Adobe Products adequately on both machines.

On the contrary, I also have a Windows Vista machine, it's an HP with a Dual Core AMD Processor and 2 gigs of ram. Now that machine is sluggish without running any programs. And I've tried running Adobe Premiere on it, and it's something I can't see myself using again. So I guess for a Windows machine, your minimum of 6GB might actually make sense.lol

[bear90039]

He didn't say the Apple didn't have a card slot.

[XMattingly]

Another article that tries to compare Macs and PC's by the numbers, and fails to look at the full picture. The difference between both platforms goes well beyond hardware specs as we all know, and deserves a much deeper inspection than an offhand mention at the end of the article. Seriously, if you were going to write an article about sports cars, would you stick to paint jobs and aerodynamic styling? Hell no, you'd want to compare power plants!

Quote

{size:10px} jsnowbordr47 wrote: As a graphic designer, the Expose feature added back in Mac OS X Panther is worth the price of admission alone.
I've tried the Flip 3D thing on Vista, but it just doesn't cut it. Sometimes I'll find myself with 3 InDesign files, 1 Photoshop, and several Illustrator files open at one time, even with dual screens I have a hard time keeping track of them. Without Expose, my workflow would be severely slowed down.{size}

I think this comment would have dovetailed the article nicely, and for me is really spot on about the differences between the two. People often talk about the ease of use and elegance of Mac vs. Windows, but not so often use a great example like this to illustrate it. And I agree; Panther was when OS X really took off and became a thing of its own, and it keeps on getting better.

[Tanker10a]

My two cents to this article is very simple. How do you justify having two operating platforms for the price of one?
I am a REALTOR® and I have to use Windows in order to access my Multiple Listing Service and some other applications not available for the Mac. Since the arrival of the Intel Chip, I have got rid of my awesome Compaq Presario and my PowerBook for one MacBook Pro. Imagine that! I am operating my ($1999) MacBook Pro with minimum memory running Windows XP Pro with minimum Anti Virus Protection for the Windows partition... No downtime on either partition (especially for the WinXP). I will add more memory on the MBPro for the sake of more speed and nothing more!
How is that for comparing Mac versus PC?
Btw-I run my MacPro in the same manner...