2011 mbp

[pVVn3c|]

Don't buy a mac unless you absolutely must.

[User has received an infraction for this post. You can have an opinion, but back it up with something. - Cilraaz]


Im'a skurred

[Cyanotical]

two things to keep in mind, macs use the exact same hardware as pcs, the difference is the addition of an efi chip

also, mac laptops have a serious issue with the battery swelling and bulging, and it has to be sent back to apple, even an apple certified tech will void the warranty, unless he is working at the apple store

however, anyone who thinks an all aluminium laptop is ugly has a different opinion on design then I do

[ispano]

Well I think it's hideous. Does that mean EVERYONE has to think so? No. I like my PC looking like a PC, to me it's more "techy" looking. If you had said something along the lines of "I just can't seem to understand why someone would think an aluminum unibody is ugly" I would have ignored it altogether. But thinking that someone who truly dislikes it needs counseling or whatnot, really is a bad idea.

[Cyanotical]

Well I think it's hideous. Does that mean EVERYONE has to think so? No. I like my PC looking like a PC, to me it's more "techy" looking. If you had said something along the lines of "I just can't seem to understand why someone would think an aluminum unibody is ugly" I would have ignored it altogether. But thinking that someone who truly dislikes it needs counseling or whatnot, really is a bad idea.

.......fixed

[User has received an infraction for this post. "Fixed" is not a valid post, falling under our spam rule. - Cilraaz]

[Fuzzykins]

.......fixed

Wait, what'd you fix?

[Cyanotical]

Wait, what'd you fix?

A bad statement about differing opinions

[Fuzzykins]

A bad statement about differing opinions

Anyone who doesn't believe that a unibody, aluminum chassis is not sexy is a nazi. (And by that, I mean I hate the look of MBP's, but to each their own.)

[Alorn]

Lolwat? MacBooks are notoriously overpriced. The Hardware is usually double what it's actually worth.

Notoriously overpriced? I think not. I agree it's more expensive than what you may get if you build your own computer, but depending on which specs you need, regular Windows PCs vary in price from below to above Apple prices. The money issue is an outdated argument, plus the more you like the Apple design, the more redundant the issue becomes. I love the space-saving design of iMacs and the fact that I can get a machine that supports both text editing, music editing, video editing, a diverse array of operating systems and gaming on a casual level, more than makes up for the fact that my new 27" iMac cost about 4-600 euros more than a cheaper and less elegant alternative.

I'm not just another fanboy. As I wrote in my post, I've used Windows for many years, but it wasn't until I bought my first iMac that I experienced how easy and problem-free a system could run. No blue screen of death. No sudden game crashes. No installs that left unwanted files behind in hidden folders.

The point of my previous post was to address the diversity of opinions out there. So what that you don't want to pay extra for design and functionality - does that make other's choice of spending extra any less valid? I have a decent job and make a decent living, why shouldn't I be allowed to spend extra if I like the design and OS? I'm not saying my opinion is the best there is, but I'm certainly not saying it's the worst either.

The OP says he's tired of Windows and since that's the case, Apple and Mac OSX is an excellent choice. If you, just for a moment, ignore the whole money issue, surely you must agree. He needs a machine suitable for working with graphics. Well, Apple has been well known and recognized for their ability to work with graphics and even music. I know quite a few musicians, producers, web designers and artists who prefer Mac over most other machines.

Anyway, I still don't want to tell anyone what to do - the choice should be their own, however I can, and quite validly, argue that compared to the specs he requires, an Apple machine would be a very reasonable option. Forget the f***ing money, forget the prejudices, forget the design issues. If you talk pure machine and functionality, Mac is, and always will be, a reasonable choice. (of course I don't know if this is true in the future, but you know.. figure of speech)

[Deleted]

I can get a machine that supports both text editing, music editing, video editing, a diverse array of operating systems

Diverse array of OSs okay, Macs are even necessary for certain development houses where being able to program for iOS is a requirement.

But text editing, video editing, music editing cited as some form of advantage - when this is doable on just about any machine including antiquated ones? Mac OS has been outright inferior for photo editing for years because software for it has lagged behind PC equivalents. As for the monitor itself:


A difference of 25% is quite severe; though I realize some do prefer it down in this range.

[ispano]

Notoriously overpriced? I think not. I agree it's more expensive than what you may get if you build your own computer, but depending on which specs you need, regular Windows PCs vary in price from below to above Apple prices. The money issue is an outdated argument, plus the more you like the Apple design, the more redundant the issue becomes. I love the space-saving design of iMacs and the fact that I can get a machine that supports both text editing, music editing, video editing, a diverse array of operating systems and gaming on a casual level, more than makes up for the fact that my new 27" iMac cost about 4-600 euros more than a cheaper and less elegant alternative.

I'm not just another fanboy. As I wrote in my post, I've used Windows for many years, but it wasn't until I bought my first iMac that I experienced how easy and problem-free a system could run. No blue screen of death. No sudden game crashes. No installs that left unwanted files behind in hidden folders.

The point of my previous post was to address the diversity of opinions out there. So what that you don't want to pay extra for design and functionality - does that make other's choice of spending extra any less valid? I have a decent job and make a decent living, why shouldn't I be allowed to spend extra if I like the design and OS? I'm not saying my opinion is the best there is, but I'm certainly not saying it's the worst either.

The OP says he's tired of Windows and since that's the case, Apple and Mac OSX is an excellent choice. If you, just for a moment, ignore the whole money issue, surely you must agree. He needs a machine suitable for working with graphics. Well, Apple has been well known and recognized for their ability to work with graphics and even music. I know quite a few musicians, producers, web designers and artists who prefer Mac over most other machines.

Anyway, I still don't want to tell anyone what to do - the choice should be their own, however I can, and quite validly, argue that compared to the specs he requires, an Apple machine would be a very reasonable option. Forget the f***ing money, forget the prejudices, forget the design issues. If you talk pure machine and functionality, Mac is, and always will be, a reasonable choice. (of course I don't know if this is true in the future, but you know.. figure of speech)

The only flaw I see with this, is the new iMacs. They're basically supposed to be the desktop Macs, right? The only issue is they use mobile GPUs, not desktop GPUs. And that brings down the value for what's paid a fair chunk. The laptop models it could go either way based on brand, but with the iMacs you're paying heavily for design(if you like it that is, I of course do not) and integration(again, do not like).

[Alorn]

The only flaw I see with this, is the new iMacs. They're basically supposed to be the desktop Macs, right? The only issue is they use mobile GPUs, not desktop GPUs. And that brings down the value for what's paid a fair chunk. The laptop models it could go either way based on brand, but with the iMacs you're paying heavily for design(if you like it that is, I of course do not) and integration(again, do not like).

Yes, you are correct, this was the case with older models, however in newer models this is no longer the case. My old 20" iMac had a laptop GPU, but my new 27" iMac has a ATI Radeon HD 5750, which is entirely different from the ATI mobility series - the laptop GPUs. Anyway, it is no longer true that they use mobile GPU exclusively in their iMac series.

Diverse array of OSs okay, Macs are even necessary for certain development houses where being able to program for iOS is a requirement.

But text editing, video editing, music editing cited as some form of advantage - when this is doable on just about any machine including antiquated ones? Mac OS has been outright inferior for photo editing for years because software for it has lagged behind PC equivalents; and the monitor included with the iMac is quite a distance away from fulfilling the Adobe RGB spec.

So tell me - when, in our modern time, has Adobe Photoshop lagged behind PC equivalents? I do remember, quite a few years back, a 'battle' between PSPro and PS, however ever since then, PS has been the choice of many. Additionally, on the list you posted, the 15" MBP (2010) is the highest ranking laptop. All of the monitors above are external monitors. Sure, you can get better monitors, but they wont be as easy to carry around if you want to bring it to school or when travelling. And yes, the iMac monitor may be behind other alternatives, but with the iMac you don't get as much clutter around your desk.
Additionally, when it comes to music editing, I agree most PC equivalents run them just as well, however if you produce music professionally (or if you just want to do it better than most), you are bound to cross paths with Final Cut Pro, which has been a Mac exclusive product for years. They stopped Windows production a long time ago.

Anyway, I don't want to argue just for the sake of arguing, but I disagree with most of your points.

[ispano]

*goes to apple.com for the second time today, to verify all the iMacs listed use mobile GPUs* *finds that he was correct and they all use mobile GPUs*

[Deleted]

*goes to apple.com for the second time today, to verify all the iMacs listed use mobile GPUs* *finds that he was correct and they all use mobile GPUs*

He is correct that the last-generation iMac uses a handful of desktop GPUs. Of course, these are all generally GPUs that you'd expect in high-end HTPCs though; and don't really offer performance advantages over high-end M chips anyway.

Adobe Photoshop lagged behind PC equivalents?

You do realize that Photoshop is available on PC? The PC version of Photoshop that has been superior to the Mac version for quite a while now - particularly due to superior hardware acceleration, and for a while also via +4gb memory support on the Windows version, something which the Mac OS version first acquired via CS5 about a year ago.

[Alorn]

*goes to apple.com for the second time today, to verify all the iMacs listed use mobile GPUs* *finds that he was correct and they all use mobile GPUs*

If you want I can link a screenshot of my system specs where you can see that it is in fact not a mobile GPU - I'm just too lazy right now, maybe tomorrow.

[ispano]

Well I said all the iMacs on the apple website. ie the new ones. Which means yours is not a new one, make sense? While i'm not saying you're wrong, nor am I calling your system ancient, all the new ones on the site, use mobile GPUs. 6xxx series in fact.

[Alorn]

Ah, it appears they have launced a new model since I purchased mine - I wasn't aware of that. New model is from May 3rd, mine is from July last year. However, if you look at the GPU used in the new models in, for example, the highest default configuration, you'll find that it places quite neatly on a benchmark test score.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

The AMD Radeon HD 6970M ranks #17, which isn't all that bad compared to fitting all of the components in the space of a monitor.

[ispano]

It's not the performance I take issue with. It's the fact they use a mobile GPU in the system in the first place, without the option to use a desktop GPU. If the option was there, it wouldn't bother me, since you could use the mobile model for a lower end system or upgrade tot he desktop GPU.

EDIT: Forgot to add that the PassMark site is pretty good for overall CPU performance charts, unless you want performance per core. And with GPUs it's poor at showing the benefit of Dual GPU cards, as can plainly be seen, and likely doesn't put into perspective certain features mobiles GPUs lack compared to their desktop counterparts.