[MW Forums]

PC World.com editor Harry McCracken offers his perspective on using the MacBook with Windows installed. more

[crsgardner]

No offense, but this seems more like a 14-year old's blog post than a usable Hands On.
"First I looked at the icons, then I looked at the keyboard. OMG it has spaces around the space bar! But that ok, because the black case is SOOOO hot! I wish it was in pink, tho! LOL! OMG, I SO am going to put pony stickers on it. OMG PONIES!!!1! LOL!"
Ahem...
Anyway, the comparisons you are making are a little unsound. The guys over at Slashdot did the dirty work and compared the Macbook to a bunch of different PCs. In general, the lowend model compares very favorably, but no one thought the black model was justified.
It makes even less sense when you step away from the tech and think business/marketing. The device is marketed as a consumer portable. Why offer what amounts to a luxury option on a consumer device? If little Johnny wants something stylish to go to college, he'll pick up the MacBook Pro, not MacBook.
Personal opinion: I spent some time with the MacBook at the Apple store and wasn't too impressed. Performance-wise it's ok, but the case seems flimsy. I didn't like the magnet latch (very difficult to open the laptop with one hand). Most importantly, running that resolution at that screensize makes text very hard to read. The MacBook Pro, in my opinion, is a better buy.
By the way, I wouldn't factor Windows XP into the comparison between prices. One could just as easily argue that to properly compare, you need to add Mac OS prices to the PC (which we would have to guesstimate; considering everyone thinks of it so highly, $200-300 for Mac OS would likely be reasonable). Kind of negates the comparison.

[Nobody]

You wrote. " The guys over at Slashdot did the dirty work and compared the Macbook to a bunch of different PCs."
Could you supply the link?
Thank you.
PS Harry, thought your article was well written. Significantly better than the 13 year-old who commented on it.

[fribhey]

In reply to:

---

$200-300 for Mac OS would likely be reasonable

---

oh really? last i checked Mac OS X costs $129

[entspeak]

In reply to:

---

By the way, I wouldn't factor Windows XP into the comparison between prices. One could just as easily argue that to properly compare, you need to add Mac OS prices to the PC (which we would have to guesstimate; considering everyone thinks of it so highly, $200-300 for Mac OS would likely be reasonable). Kind of negates the comparison.

---

When deciding to purchase a Mac, it certainly comes into play and therefore has some value in a price comparison. The fact that you can run both Windows and Mac OS on the MacBook and the fact that the same is not true on other PC's means that you have to ask yourself if it is worth the extra money spent on a copy of Windows.
For myself, I would never purchase a straight Windows machine, so the fact that it costs more to run Windows on a Mac doesn't come into play. If I want to run Windows, it is always going to cost me more. With that in mind, the extra money is well spent it's cheaper than buying a separate similarly equipped PC just to run Windows.
I am also one of those who feel that the premium for the black case is ridiculous and I hope Apple does away with it. Is there some other quality to the case beyond just being black and being matte? Is it sturdier? Is it more scratch proof? I do hope that they will drop the price of the black one in future to match the white. At this point, if I had the cash, I'd buy a white version and upgrade the drive to match the black (still $150 cheaper than the black).

[leicaman]

Either the black case is more expensive to make, or Apple is trying to discourage people from choosing it unless they really want it.
Personally, it would be worth it for me so that I can use a sleek, black laptop. Less attention-grabbing if you ask me. But then I'm used to choosing black cameras over silver cameras.
Will get get a Safari version of the MacBook? Leica several times offered "Safari" models of their cameras that came with a set of three basic lenses with the body, all camouflage green!
Leica R3 Safari at Wikipedia /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[daveedvdv]

That reference to Texas Intruments' "99/4" is mistaken. The TI-99/4A had a normal keyboard (quite a nice one compared to its few home computing competitors, in fact). I suspect, you meant the TI-95 Procalc (a large calculator, whose keyboard shape does indeed look somewhat like the MacBook's... but its tactile behavior wasn't comparable).

[Peter Cohen]

In reply to:

---

That reference to Texas Intruments' "99/4" is mistaken

---

No, it isn't. The TI 99/4 preceded the 4A, and did indeed have a "chiclet" style of keyboard that was significantly different both in form and function than the keyboard included with the 4A. A bit reminiscent of the Tandy CoCo.
Go ahead and Google Image Search "TI994" if you don't believe me -- you'll find plenty of hits.

[hayesk]

In reply to:

---

case seems flimsy

---

No offence, but when someone uses the word "seems" when discussing a non-subjective feature, I pretty much discount the opinion unless they back it up with more information. It's fine to say "black seems ugly to me", but if the case "seems" flimsy, you should back it up. What made it seem flimsy? How did it compare to the iBooks it replaced, which were very rugged?
I accept your opinion on the pixels being smaller, but think about it, it's just wide enough to display widescreen video at 1280x720. Any smaller and people would be complaining it's useless from a video standpoint. The next step up in standard video resolutions 1920x1080 which I agree, would be too much to put in a 13" screen.
If you legally could purchase MacOS X for PCs, I would imagine it would cost upwards of $500. Apple would have to account for lost hardware profits. It definitely wouldn't be the $129 price it is now, which is essentially an upgrade for Mac owners, and $2-300 is a tad low considering the profit margins on may Mac models.

[crsgardner]

In reply to:

---

No offence, but when someone uses the word "seems" when discussing a non-subjective feature, I pretty much discount the opinion unless they back it up with more information. It's fine to say "black seems ugly to me", but if the case "seems" flimsy, you should back it up. What made it seem flimsy?

---

Lots of reasons, but in particular the plastic on the back of screen (the front part of the chassis when you close the case) is extremely thin. It seems likely that with significant force (not something I'd recommend) you could crack the screen by hitting the Apple logo.

In reply to:

---

How did it compare to the iBooks it replaced, which were very rugged?

---

Agreed, and that's why I was disappointed. The original iBook G4s were built like tanks. Aside from an occasional scratch, they took wear and tear very well (particularly when students were using them). I've seen people accidently drop and obtain no damage.

[daveedvdv]

In reply to:

---

No, it isn't. The TI 99/4 preceded the 4A, and did indeed have a "chiclet" style of keyboard that was significantly different both in form and function than the keyboard included with the 4A. A bit reminiscent of the Tandy CoCo.
Go ahead and Google Image Search "TI994" if you don't believe me -- you'll find plenty of hits.

---

I stand corrected. Apologies for the waste of bandwidth.
The memories...

[crsgardner]

In reply to:

---

You wrote. " The guys over at Slashdot did the dirty work and compared the Macbook to a bunch of different PCs."
Could you supply the link?

---

comments here

In reply to:

---

PS Harry, thought your article was well written. Significantly better than the 13 year-old who commented on it.

---

27. Way to judge.
And I would've prefered some actual meat to the article (see the Slashdot observations for objective opinions). Fact of the matter is, the article asks the question "Is the $1500 model really worth it?" and doesn't answer it. Most people who've actually seen the machine have responded with a resounding "no". Again, it makes little sense to ship a luxury option on a consumer notebook.

[Peter Cohen]

A hands on article like this one isn't a review. Which is why this article wasn't prefaced with the header "Review:" and doesn't have a mouse rating attached to it. So "meat" aside, this is one man's perspective -- a PC World editor, at that -- on using a MacBook with Windows installed. We thought it was a unique enough perspective to merit inclusion on our site. Your mileage may vary.

In reply to:

---

see the Slashdot observations for objective opinions

---

OK, let's stop it right there. "Objective opinion" is a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. The very definition of "objective" is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

[crsgardner]

In reply to:

---

When deciding to purchase a Mac, it certainly comes into play and therefore has some value in a price comparison. The fact that you can run both Windows and Mac OS on the MacBook and the fact that the same is not true on other PC's means that you have to ask yourself if it is worth the extra money spent on a copy of Windows.

---

My point is that including the price of Windows in a comparison between Macbooks and PC notebooks is at its best foolish, and at its worst disingenuous. Fact of the matter is, he uses the price of Windows as a means to argue the black Macbook is a fair deal. If the author wishes to use the price of Windows as a measure for comparison, a similar measure should be applied to OS X.