Laptops

[Faulty]

I'm a college student and have a laptop for writing notes and doing work. The problem is, it's so big and heavy that it hurts my back and shoulders when I carry it around. I didn't buy it, my parents bought it for me, and they didn't really keep that in mind. So I'm looking for a new laptop. It needs to run windows, be lightweight and small, and preferably as inexpensive as possible. Other than that, I occassionally watch movies on the thing, or play an older game (as in Baldur's Gate 2 old) on it, but it's mostly for word processing and internet.

Thanks.

[Moofin Bard]

Umm maybe you should just go to Best Buy or Walmart and ask one of them?

[eidreff]

A netbook might suit your needs. Specifically one of the windows XP loaded ones, though the screen may ba a touch small for games and typing for long periods could get annoying on a small keyboard.

[Hannes]

How heavy are we talking about?

[Faulty]

Um, I'll ball park like 10 to 13 lbs. The thing is pretty big.

[Alteran]

Maybe one of these (http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/webca/LenovoPortal/en_CA/catalog.workflow:category.details?current-catalog-id=12F0696583E04D86B9B79B0FEC01C087&current-category-id=CB40336AC5144061B5E54E38336B5279&menu-id=products)? I have a Lenovo (a T Series), and I'm very happy with it. These ones seem to be pretty inexpensive for what you get, and they're about half the weight of what you think your current laptop is.

[Hannes]

Hm... I'd say that getting a proper backpack for it would be much cheaper, but if it's really old and you really can't handle the weight and you have enough money, buying a (relatively) new one is a good idea. As for which ones to buy - check ads, check stores, look for good deals. There's bound to be a sale somewhere, someday, so keep looking.

[Faulty]

I have a bag with a laptop area in it and it still weighs on my neck and shoulders.

[xPANCAKEx]

get a better bag

[Faulty]

get a better bag

Find me an anti-gravity bag.

[RS14]

Bag of Holding, P. 248 DMG.

I second the suggestion for a netbook. Don't try to replace your current laptop; just get something super cheap and super compact to take to class, and keep your current computer on your desk for serious work.

[Faulty]

I have a desktop for at-home work.

[Groundhog]

Get a netbook, or a slim laptop. The slim laptops don't have much hard disk space, but it doesn't sound like you'll need very much anyway.

[Swordlol]

What laptop is it?

[xPANCAKEx]

a decent back pack (with a decent laptop craddle inside) won't be too heavy on your shoulders as long as you wear it right - and shouldn't put any strain on your neck... why you've strained your neck i'll never know...

[alchemyprime]

I work in electronics, so I'll let you know:

Get a netbook if you can, or a thin laptop. You want a 2gb dual core if you can, but 1 gig is okay.

And get an external portable hard drive with a USB 2.0 port. Keep movies on that. That's what I do.

I have a normal laptop. Compaq FR767 I beleive. Nice little guy. Just don't remove your keys. Those buggers hate staying on. I think it weighs 10 pounds or so. Normally really light in my Guyver messanger bag, :smallwink:

[Trixie]

Well, I was also thinking about netbook, but you didn't say what you're going to use it for. That is, web and movies, but that is mostly home usage, in which weight of your current one shouldn't matter, right?

If it is only for sporadic out-of-home usage, a netbook might be fine, but if you go out/travel often I'd suggest getting cheapest, lightest laptop with 13-15" screen (just make sure it's 16:10, not 16:9) you can find - if you look around big shops you can catch a nice rebate on not quite-old-machine. If it is for old games, I'd rather not get anything with fancy multicore/low-voltage processors, as you might have various issues with them, find something with celeron or core solo processor (big disk and 2-3 gb of ram would still be nice, though), if not, one of the simpler two core ones will do.

[Last_resort_33]

Get an EEE, the 901 with the Intel Atom... great 'lil piece of kit. You might want a USB Hard Drive as well though, but you don't have to take that with you if you're just making notes etc.

[Flickerdart]

Computers that are light-weight usually have a similar set of features.
1. No internal DVD drive. This makes it considerably lighter and thinner.
2. 12.1 or 13.3 inch displays. This makes them smaller, and thus lighter.
3. ULV (ultra low voltage) processors. These are usually less powerful than other laptops.
4. Small batteries (6 or 4-cell) but immense battery life due to the ULV, the smaller display and no DVD drive to power. You may want to buy a solid state drive to make that battery life go up further.

These things are ideal for note-taking (you shouldn't go lower than 12.1", the keyboard gets cramped then) but not much else. Look into the new 4500MHD integrated graphics cards, not the old X3100 ones.

[Swordlol]

What laptop is it?

Would be useful to know what laptop it is....

[Ichneumon]

If you hadn't said "cheap" I would have adviced you to by a small macbook and bootcamp windows on it.

[Mando Knight]

Specifically one of the windows XP loaded ones,

It's not really going to make that big of a difference, especially if Faulty keeps it in sleep/standby mode rather than shutting it all the way down all the time. (It'll drain the battery a little, but IIRC it shouldn't be much unless it's for several hours on end.) Vista has a lot of dedicated compatibility updates, so it should work for just about anything.

If the version of Windows is that important, then I'm going to say you should wait until October, when Windows 7 comes out, or look into an upgrade discount. Win7 is Vista's slimmer, more attractive little sister.

[skywalker]

If you hadn't said "cheap" I would have adviced you to by a small macbook and bootcamp windows on it.

+1

No reason to leave the macs out of this when this is actually a really good situation for a mac.

(for reference, people usually suggest macs in a variety of bad situations to have a mac)


If it is only for sporadic out-of-home usage, a netbook might be fine, but if you go out/travel often I'd suggest getting cheapest, lightest laptop with 13-15" screen (just make sure it's 16:10, not 16:9) you can find - if you look around big shops you can catch a nice rebate on not quite-old-machine. If it is for old games, I'd rather not get anything with fancy multicore/low-voltage processors, as you might have various issues with them, find something with celeron or core solo processor (big disk and 2-3 gb of ram would still be nice, though), if not, one of the simpler two core ones will do.

I think in the long run it is a much better idea to grab the multi-core processor and get a new(er) game if it won't run what she wants. Because while not being able to play that really old game (highly unlikely, as far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any reason why Baldur's Gate 2 interacts strangely with a multi-core) could kinda suck, not being able to use all the new software coming out would absolutely suck.

[RS14]

I think in the long run it is a much better idea to grab the multi-core processor and get a new(er) game if it won't run what she wants. Because while not being able to play that really old game (highly unlikely, as far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any reason why Baldur's Gate 2 interacts strangely with a multi-core) could kinda suck, not being able to use all the new software coming out would absolutely suck.

There is no reason at all to make this a gaming computer. Faulty has stated that he already has a desktop and laptop that presumably perform adequately in that role.

[Trixie]

No reason to leave the macs out of this when this is actually a really good situation for a mac.

(for reference, people usually suggest macs in a variety of bad situations to have a mac)

Actually, in 99.99% of cases getting a mac is a bad idea. I'm saying this from experience, I can think only of maybe one or two usages where mac won't lose to a similarly priced PC.

To be honest, the country I live in adds 3 major reasons to 'cons' side of the macs, so I might be a bit biased, but not much.


I think in the long run it is a much better idea to grab the multi-core processor and get a new(er) game if it won't run what she wants. Because while not being able to play that really old game (highly unlikely, as far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any reason why Baldur's Gate 2 interacts strangely with a multi-core) could kinda suck, not being able to use all the new software coming out would absolutely suck.

Yeah, but life teached me to not second-guess pleas for help - if there's need for a specific usage (old games), then this is a first thing to consider. I hate when I give someone advice that results in much superior hardware being bought, but due to said hardware being incapable of performing said task (despite performing everything else much better) the person in question usually fails to see this and begins an argument on said equipment sucking.

I generally agree that dual core (and Vista) would be better for newer games, but a single core is cheaper, lasts longer on batteries and is compatible with old programs - things that were asked for in the OP. Getting non-64 bit mode processor would be even better for this, but these (at least mobile versions) sucked so I'd stop on modern celeron/core solo.

And actually, BG2 has various problems with even XP (needs to be patched to work properly) - so I'd guess with Vista I'd be even worse.

[Ichneumon]

Because a macbook is not possible because of the price, although they would be ideal, being rather light and easy to carry and having good hardware. The next best thing would be to buy a netbook, like others have suggested before. Netbooks are relatively cheap and some are even smaller than the books you carry with you.:smalltongue:

EDIT: A 13'' macbook wought weight around 5 pounds and be easy to carry. In all honestly I have never seen a pc that was similar to a macbook, looking at hardware, that was priced much lower. I hear people say it a lot, that you can get much better laptops for what you would pay for a macbook, but I never saw it.

[Trixie]

EDIT: A 13'' macbook wought weight around 5 pounds and be easy to carry. In all honestly I have never seen a pc that was similar to a macbook, looking at hardware, that was priced much lower. I hear people say it a lot, that you can get much better laptops for what you would pay for a macbook, but I never saw it.

Um, because it's the truth, even if you don't live in a country where greedy distributor doubles their price to line his own pocket (like I do). Give me pretty much any non obsolete mac (that is, without big rebate) and I'll find you superior PC.

Oh, and there is that little matter of extra 100$ you have to cough up if you want to connect your lappy to other things (like a 42" LCD screen or projector, or even a simple monitor) by dvi/hdmi/vga port (all PC's have these in standard) and ridiculously small number of ports on most macs, save for a few pro ones.

[skywalker]

There is no reason at all to make this a gaming computer. Faulty has stated that he already has a desktop and laptop that presumably perform adequately in that role.

Exactly. Which is why I suggested going multi-core. Building the machine around playing BG2 assumes its primary reason to exist is playing BG2. That would be a gaming PC.


Yeah, but life teached me to not second-guess pleas for help - if there's need for a specific usage (old games), then this is a first thing to consider. I hate when I give someone advice that results in much superior hardware being bought, but due to said hardware being incapable of performing said task (despite performing everything else much better) the person in question usually fails to see this and begins an argument on said equipment sucking.

I generally agree that dual core (and Vista) would be better for newer games, but a single core is cheaper, lasts longer on batteries and is compatible with old programs - things that were asked for in the OP. Getting non-64 bit mode processor would be even better for this, but these (at least mobile versions) sucked so I'd stop on modern celeron/core solo.

And actually, BG2 has various problems with even XP (needs to be patched to work properly) - so I'd guess with Vista I'd be even worse.

I'm not even talking about games. I'm talking about the fact that life is better with multiple cores. One thing that was also mentioned was watching movies, which is far less likely to be disrupted by another application when there are two or more cores.

The other reason why I suggested it is because dual-core machines are now far easier to find, even easier than single-core, from what I can tell. It makes the search easier, not harder.


Um, because it's the truth, even if you don't live in a country where greedy distributor doubles their price to line his own pocket (like I do). Give me pretty much any non obsolete mac (that is, without big rebate) and I'll find you superior PC.

Ok, the 13" macbook (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook?intcmp=AIC-NAUS-K2-BUYNOW-MACBOOK-INDEX), starting at $999. Go!

[RTGoodman]

Well, if you wanna go REALLY small, HP has the new Mini something-or-other series that weighs like 2 1/2 pounds and only costs ~$300-400. I haven't heard much about it (other than looking at it since my mom was talking about wanting one for her birthday), but seems to meet most or all of your specifications, I would think.

[Flame of Anor]

Um, because it's the truth, even if you don't live in a country where greedy distributor doubles their price to line his own pocket (like I do). Give me pretty much any non obsolete mac (that is, without big rebate) and I'll find you superior PC.

Oh, and there is that little matter of extra 100$ you have to cough up if you want to connect your lappy to other things (like a 42" LCD screen or projector, or even a simple monitor) by dvi/hdmi/vga port (all PC's have these in standard) and ridiculously small number of ports on most macs, save for a few pro ones.

This is true. Consider the MacBook Air. Starting at fifteen hundred dollars, what does it give you? It's thin. Gosh. So what. It doesn't have a CD drive, a removable battery, an Ethernet port, media card slots, a FireWire port, or even stereo sound! CD drive! Stereo sound! Laptops have had these virtually forever, and now the new thing is not having them? Plus, it overheats. For a few pounds more and four hundred dollars less, you can get a Dell Alienware laptop with everything I mentioned above that the Air doesn't have. It also has a similar processor, more than eight times the storage space, four times the memory, three USB ports instead of one, and, oh yes, Windows, which you can play games on. Also, though the Air is hyped as being so thin, the Alienware laptop is barely a half-inch thicker. I just don't see the appeal of Macs.

[Lord Seth]

Oh, and there is that little matter of extra 100$ you have to cough up if you want to connect your lappy to other things (like a 42" LCD screen or projector, or even a simple monitor) by dvi/hdmi/vga port (all PC's have these in standard) and ridiculously small number of ports on most macs, save for a few pro ones.Huh? Even my iBook from like 5-6 years ago had that. I could easily connect it to the projectors at school. It actually worked slightly better, as it would immediately put it on the projector once connected, whereas the Windows computers required you to set a few things up for it to display right.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Personally I've pretty much settled on an Asus netbook (1000HE) for exactly the same reason as the OP. It's cheap ($450 CDN), super light (4 pounds-ish), super small (I don't have to carry a laptop bag around now) and the battery is rated at 9.5 hours (I have classes on and off from 9AM to 9PM on some days and just in general don't like to waste time on the bus doing nothing). Most netbooks are about a pound lighter too, I just want this one for the battery life.


This is true. Consider the MacBook Air. Starting at fifteen hundred dollars, what does it give you? It's thin. Gosh. So what. It doesn't have a CD drive, a removable battery, an Ethernet port, media card slots, a FireWire port, or even stereo sound! CD drive! Stereo sound! Laptops have had these virtually forever, and now the new thing is not having them? Plus, it overheats. For a few pounds more and four hundred dollars less, you can get a Dell Alienware laptop with everything I mentioned above that the Air doesn't have. It also has a similar processor, more than eight times the storage space, four times the memory, three USB ports instead of one, and, oh yes, Windows, which you can play games on. Also, though the Air is hyped as being so thin, the Alienware laptop is barely a half-inch thicker. I just don't see the appeal of Macs.
Okay. Let's see. "A few pounds." Carry your laptop around for 10 hours straight from class to class to lab to another class to a bar. Let's see how you talk after. Also, a macbook air can fit in a large binder. Try that with something "only half an inch thicker." What else... Firewire port? Can't remember EVER needing one. CD drive? Can't remember needing it for anything other than games in what.. 3 years? Media card slots... They almost never take Compact Flash and I don't need any of the other formats. That said, most people probably don't even need CF. It's also now quite easy to install Windows on Macs if you really need to. So that point doesn't count either.

Now.. what do you get? A large, clunky, UGLY, heavy laptop that has more memory and a bunch of features you don't need. For the same price you could get a full size and full-spec'd laptop that has the same weight and battery life as a netbook. It's also quite pleasing on the eyes and goes well with an iPhone or an iPod if you have them.

Alienware is obviously better for games, but not everyone (if really anyone) needs that. Most gamers already have a desktop. Most non-gamers either have consoles or don't play at all.

[WarBrute]

I have an ASUS eeePC 900 xp. Its about 2 1/2lbs and an 8 inch screen. It doesn't have a disk drive but I own an external drive.

Its great for taking notes in class and carrying around school. It takes a little while to get a hang of the tiny keyboard, but I like it.

[Flame of Anor]

Okay. Let's see. "A few pounds." Carry your laptop around for 10 hours straight from class to class to lab to another class to a bar. Let's see how you talk after. Also, a macbook air can fit in a large binder. Try that with something "only half an inch thicker."

As a matter of fact, I spent several weeks carrying my significantly-heavier-than-Alienware laptop around to class, etc., for 8 or 9 hours a day. With a good backpack, it's a cinch. And as for fitting your laptop in a large binder--I ask again, so what? Even if the power adapter fits in the binder as well, a binder is less convenient than a backpack--and if you're going to class, you probably have a backpack anyway.


What else... Firewire port? Can't remember EVER needing one. CD drive? Can't remember needing it for anything other than games in what.. 3 years? Media card slots... They almost never take Compact Flash and I don't need any of the other formats. That said, most people probably don't even need CF.

Maybe you don't need those, but plenty of people use them a lot. (You mention an iPod later--if you want to put your CDs on it, you'll need a CD drive.)


It's also now quite easy to install Windows on Macs if you really need to. So that point doesn't count either.

Well, except that buying a copy of Windows is another couple of hundred dollars, jacking up the already inflated price even more.


Now.. what do you get? A large,

Less than two inches more in both dimensions.


clunky,

That word doesn't really mean anything.


UGLY,

A bit drab, yes, but are you buying a machine or a Van Gogh? I admit there could be a mixup if you've been paying for Macs...


heavy

Four pounds heavier. That's like one textbook.


laptop that has more memory and a bunch of features you don't need. For the same price you could get a full size and full-spec'd laptop that has the same weight and battery life as a netbook.

Okay, what is this laptop you mention?


It's also quite pleasing on the eyes and goes well with an iPhone or an iPod if you have them.

Suit yourself, but I prefer performance.


Alienware is obviously better for games, but not everyone (if really anyone) needs that. Most gamers already have a desktop. Most non-gamers either have consoles or don't play at all.

I'll admit that, but I would like to say that this was just an example of how you can get a PC with many more features than a Mac for a much cheaper price. There are plenty of even cheaper PCs without gaming features, if you don't want those.

[Lord Seth]

The purpose of the MacBook Air is, from what I can tell, to be a really thin and light laptop. That's its purpose. It seems odd to complain about how it's not fulfilling a different purpose than that. Kind of like complaining that a portable MP3 player doesn't have surround sound.

[Erloas]

Huh? Even my iBook from like 5-6 years ago had that. I could easily connect it to the projectors at school. It actually worked slightly better, as it would immediately put it on the projector once connected, whereas the Windows computers required you to set a few things up for it to display right.

The old ones did have those connections, Apple has been systematically removing every connection that other people use so they can make you get their design. I think they have displayport now, which if you really search for you can find maybe a handfull of monitors with that connection. You aren't going to be finding that on the projectors at school, the LCD TV at your friends house, that spare monitor sitting in the computer lab, or anything like that.

As for if a secondary display comes on right away or not, every laptop I've seen, a secdonary display can be turned on with a single keystroke: FN+F5 (you might be able to call that two keystrokes if you want to get picky). If a secondary display is on automatically or not is also easily set up so even if it doesn't the very first time you can set it up so it always does later.

If what you want is a small ultraportable laptop just get a netbook. That is what they were made for.

[Lord Seth]

The old ones did have those connections, Apple has been systematically removing every connection that other people use so they can make you get their design. I think they have displayport now, which if you really search for you can find maybe a handfull of monitors with that connection. You aren't going to be finding that on the projectors at school, the LCD TV at your friends house, that spare monitor sitting in the computer lab, or anything like that.The Macbook Pro I have (which, to be fair, is about 1 1/2 years old, so newer ones might be different) can connect to DVI and VGA; it has a DVI connection and came with an adapter that lets you plug it into a VGA connection.

EDIT: Okay, checked. The newest MacBook Pros only come with a DisplayPort. You can get adapters that let you convert it to VGA or DVI, but they cost $30 each.

EDIT2: Convoluting things even more, it looks like the normal MacBooks *do* come with DVI/VGA adapters.

[Flickerdart]

Ok, the 13" macbook (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook?intcmp=AIC-NAUS-K2-BUYNOW-MACBOOK-INDEX), starting at $999. Go!
Here you go (http://www.laptopauthority.com/product/Notebooks/4777). Larger display, faster hard drive, DDR3 RAM (with 2x the max amount), more powerful processor with bigger cache, one more USB port, PC card and ExpressCard support, 1.5 times the video RAM, fingerprint reader, card reader, 2GB turbo memory, all for fifty dollars less. And it wasn't even difficult to find.

[Lupy]

Or, on topic with what you asked for...

Cheap, does everything. Light, but not the lightest:

A Compaq! (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?storeName=storefronts&landing=rts_notebook&category=rts_notebook&orderflow=1&a1=Brand&v1=Compaq+Presario&product_code=NW159UA%23ABA&catLevel=2)

Or more expensive but lighter and better:

An HP! (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/computer_can_series.do?storeName=computer_store&category=notebooks&a1=Category&v1=Ultra-Portable&series_name=dv3t_series)

If you shop around, look at HP, Lenovo, Acer, and Toshiba for brands. Don't trust Dell, they're cheap for a reason.

[Groundhog]

Okayyyy...This seems to have turned into a Mac-bashing session...

I own a Mac. And I am quite happy with it. Say what you want about the hardware, but the software is far superior to Windows. Therefore, get a good laptop and install Linux on it.

[Erloas]

Okayyyy...This seems to have turned into a Mac-bashing session...

I own a Mac. And I am quite happy with it. Say what you want about the hardware, but the software is far superior to Windows. Therefore, get a good laptop and install Linux on it.

Isn't that basically asking for an arguement though? I know every time I've had to use Apple software, on Apple hardware or on a Windows machine, I've found it painfully annoying and overly controlling with too little control available to the user. I could see how it might be nice if you always wanted to do exactly what it wants you to do, but if you want to do anything slightly different then things get exponentially more difficult then they should be.

As for Linux, it is good if you are looking for a hobby, but not really if you are looking for a product.

[Lord Seth]

If you want a Mac, buy a Mac.

If you don't want a Mac, don't buy a Mac.

Ta-da?

[KilltheToy]

Get an EEE, the 901 with the Intel Atom... great 'lil piece of kit. You might want a USB Hard Drive as well though, but you don't have to take that with you if you're just making notes etc.

I second this, if cheap is the most important thing. My Eee 904HA was something like $299 or so and works great. You have a choice of either Windows XP or Linux for your OS.

The only gripe I have is that the screen is a bit small, but hey, it's a netbook.

[Ichneumon]

Here you go (http://www.laptopauthority.com/product/Notebooks/4777). Larger display, faster hard drive, DDR3 RAM (with 2x the max amount), more powerful processor with bigger cache, one more USB port, PC card and ExpressCard support, 1.5 times the video RAM, fingerprint reader, card reader, 2GB turbo memory, all for fifty dollars less. And it wasn't even difficult to find.

That certainly is interesting, what operating system does it have? Linux (which is free, or windows which would cost extra money if it wasn't included)?

EDIT: I see it has vista on it.


I could see how it might be nice if you always wanted to do exactly what it wants you to do, but if you want to do anything slightly different then things get exponentially more difficult then they should be.

I remember when I used microsoft word 97 as my main photo editor. Those were great times...

[Trixie]

Ok, the 13" macbook (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook?intcmp=AIC-NAUS-K2-BUYNOW-MACBOOK-INDEX), starting at $999. Go!

Easy, my young Padawan :smallamused:

So, a nice 999$ Mac it is, then? Good choice, as any more expensive Mac would be beaten mercilessly. Still, I can meet you challenge effortlessly :smalltongue:

Let's take a look: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220565 - 999$ Asus.

To not produce a wall of text, this Asus has a much superior processor (2.53 vs a previous generation 2.13), screen (14" LED with a 30 days zero bright dot policy and superior resolution vs normal 13.3), memory (5 GB of RAM vs 2 GB - yes, I'm including graphics, because Mac doesn't have any and it comes from main memory), far superior hard drive (320 GB, 7200 vs 160 GB, 5400), better DVD drive... In fact, Mac is far inferior simply due to being build on previous generation platform - Asus has a newer one, with superior parts speed (note 1066 memories vs 800 mhz ones, 'N' wireless card vs 'G' one, slower buses, FSB, etc).

In fact, the Mac is more expensive - because to match this Asus the Mac's owner would have to add 50$ for VGA and DVI cables, and he still wouldn't have access to all othe ports: HDMI, eSata, Express Card Slot, multi card reader, 5 usd ports (to Mac's 2), etc.

Oh, and it is only 190 grams heavier, before you ask.

In fact, that's the main strength of PC's - variety. You need notebook with the most powerful processor, but don't care about other parts? Sure, you can have one. Graphic cards? No problem. All manners of screens, ports, docks? There will be one for you. In fact, you can even pick a color of the skin.

With macs? Yes, as long as it is white (they at least used to have different colors a few years ago), has slow parts and is overpriced. So yeah :smallsigh:

[Trixie]

Okayyyy...This seems to have turned into a Mac-bashing session...

I like to call it "correcting Apple lies" :smallamused:


I own a Mac. And I am quite happy with it. Say what you want about the hardware, but the software is far superior to Windows. Therefore, get a good laptop and install Linux on it.

Sorry, software is much inferior to Windows. And I'm saying it as someone who used both, and works for a living in a field where macs supposedly excel - graphics, design, etc.

In fact, even if we take the very same programs, and compare the Win and Mac version, the mac one will be still inferior, behind one or more generations. To give two widely used examples - MS Office and Adobe Photoshop.

[Last_resort_33]

Macs, Nice, but pricey.... the point is that cheap is in the remit, so macs are out.

Seriously it's like arguing about whether someone should get a Porche or not when they've already said that they need a low cost car. It doesn't matter how well it compares to the Mercedes. At least you have a chance of getting a second hand Merc for a reasonable price.

So, Asus eeePC 901 XP, fits the bill if you want to put your films on an external HDD, which is cheap enough.

Macs are lovely and all but there's better things to spend money on if you're a student on a budget... like food.

[Trixie]

This is true. Consider the MacBook Air. Starting at fifteen hundred dollars, what does it give you? It's thin. Gosh. So what. It doesn't have a CD drive, a removable battery, an Ethernet port, media card slots, a FireWire port, or even stereo sound! CD drive! Stereo sound! Laptops have had these virtually forever, and now the new thing is not having them? Plus, it overheats. For a few pounds more and four hundred dollars less, you can get a Dell Alienware laptop with everything I mentioned above that the Air doesn't have. It also has a similar processor, more than eight times the storage space, four times the memory, three USB ports instead of one, and, oh yes, Windows, which you can play games on. Also, though the Air is hyped as being so thin, the Alienware laptop is barely a half-inch thicker. I just don't see the appeal of Macs.

Well... to be entirely honest and objective, Air is actually one of the few cases I can see someone getting mac (but for a very niche needs only) - such as sales representative or exec needing to show off. Still Air is at best "computer like" product, and you can get just as thin exec laptops (but with way better materials and parts) for the same price.

@Last Resort - fine, but mac isn't a Porsche. It's (at best) Polonez, painted white and marked with a Porsche's price tag, competing with Maybachs and Mercedeses :smalltongue:

@Don Julio - sorry, you're wrong. A large portion of gamers has been getting DTR gaming laptops for a few years already. Even I bought a more powerful laptop, instead of desktop+cheap laptop, as I travel a lot and I like to have my main machine with me (Gateway with GeForce 9800 and 800 GB of internal HD space, slightly modified by me, to be precise).

[Xyk]

To answer the OPs question, a good school laptop for less money would be probably one of the smaller HP ones. I must say that from personal experience, Dells and Toshibas are not the best, (my toshiba's motherboard imploded :smallfrown:). From what I hear, HPs are reliable and it shouldn't be hard to find a 13" and relatively thin one for basic word processing purposes.

In all honesty, though, this is not the best place to ask a question like this. I would go to Best Buy or Circuit City or CompUSA (assuming those exist still).

[Erloas]

To answer the OPs question, a good school laptop for less money would be probably one of the smaller HP ones. I must say that from personal experience, Dells and Toshibas are not the best, (my toshiba's motherboard imploded :smallfrown:). From what I hear, HPs are reliable and it shouldn't be hard to find a 13" and relatively thin one for basic word processing purposes.

In all honesty, though, this is not the best place to ask a question like this. I would go to Best Buy or Circuit City or CompUSA (assuming those exist still).

The only reason to go to one of those stores is to pick up and see a laptop and relative weight and size for yourself. What is the pratical difference between 5.2lbs and 6.5lbs, how small of a keyboard is it really on a 13" screen, etc.

If you are asking someone that works there advice on what to get then you are already in trouble. The chance of actually finding a Best Buy employee that knows anything about computers is about as good as asking any stranger on the street. You would probably have as good or better luck asking some other customer in the store looking at them as you would the employees.

This might not be the best place to get a consistent answer, but it is one of the better places to get general advice. The only better places would be other forums dedicated to technology. Especially since no one here has anything to gain from you buying a specific model or not.

As for which company to buy from, they are all going to have issues and you will find people that have had problems with any manufacturer. As it is, other then Asus, almost no Laptop manufacturer makes their own motherboards. I know both Dell and Gateway bought a lot of their motherboards from Intel (I worked for about 6 months testing returned motherboards for Intel). I'm pretty sure Apple gets their motherboards from Foxconn. I'm not sure about the others, but of them only Asus makes their own boards, because Asus was a board manufacturer long before they got into retail products. In some cases it is probably very likely that who made the motherboard for a HP computer is going to change from one model to the next.

[Flame of Anor]

Well... to be entirely honest and objective, Air is actually one of the few cases I can see someone getting mac (but for a very niche needs only) - such as sales representative or exec needing to show off. Still Air is at best "computer like" product, and you can get just as thin exec laptops (but with way better materials and parts) for the same price.

Yeah, true, but I did qualify it later by saying that I was interested in performance. I don't have anything against Macs' appearance, it's just not what I'm considering.


I like to call it "correcting Apple lies" :smallamused:

:smallbiggrin:

[skywalker]

Here you go (http://www.laptopauthority.com/product/Notebooks/4777). Larger display, faster hard drive, DDR3 RAM (with 2x the max amount), more powerful processor with bigger cache, one more USB port, PC card and ExpressCard support, 1.5 times the video RAM, fingerprint reader, card reader, 2GB turbo memory, all for fifty dollars less. And it wasn't even difficult to find.


Easy, my young Padawan :smallamused:

So, a nice 999$ Mac it is, then? Good choice, as any more expensive Mac would be beaten mercilessly. Still, I can meet you challenge effortlessly :smalltongue:

Let's take a look: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220565 - 999$ Asus.

To not produce a wall of text, this Asus has a much superior processor (2.53 vs a previous generation 2.13), screen (14" LED with a 30 days zero bright dot policy and superior resolution vs normal 13.3), memory (5 GB of RAM vs 2 GB - yes, I'm including graphics, because Mac doesn't have any and it comes from main memory), far superior hard drive (320 GB, 7200 vs 160 GB, 5400), better DVD drive... In fact, Mac is far inferior simply due to being build on previous generation platform - Asus has a newer one, with superior parts speed (note 1066 memories vs 800 mhz ones, 'N' wireless card vs 'G' one, slower buses, FSB, etc).

In fact, the Mac is more expensive - because to match this Asus the Mac's owner would have to add 50$ for VGA and DVI cables, and he still wouldn't have access to all othe ports: HDMI, eSata, Express Card Slot, multi card reader, 5 usd ports (to Mac's 2), etc.

Oh, and it is only 190 grams heavier, before you ask.

In fact, that's the main strength of PC's - variety. You need notebook with the most powerful processor, but don't care about other parts? Sure, you can have one. Graphic cards? No problem. All manners of screens, ports, docks? There will be one for you. In fact, you can even pick a color of the skin.

With macs? Yes, as long as it is white (they at least used to have different colors a few years ago), has slow parts and is overpriced. So yeah :smallsigh:

I apologize, this might seem like a rhetorical technique. But I forgot that students get $50 off. So the macbook is actually $950. On top of that, you can add a free $230 iPod Touch.

I'll be honest with you, I have no idea what I would ever use 320 gigs of HD space for. I'm having a hard time filling up my 80...

I'm also not so sure about the Adobe CS claims you're making. Every other artist/design professional I've ever talked to has been big on the Mac.

Here's the way I see it. Apple will sell you a computer for $950 (or $1150 if you want the shiny MacBook "Pro"). The computer they sell you will not be very easily upgradable. You as the user will have very little control over the machine compared to a Windows or Linux machine. However, a large percentage of the computing population (with the percentage growing all the time) will never want or need to step outside the capabilities of a Mac. In exchange for a slightly elevated price, they get a machine that is much more likely to work when they want it to. They get a place they can take the machine to for guaranteed support. They get a robust shopping experience, and they get a product that won't come apart after 3 years, regardless of whether or not it has reached its life expectancy.

The problem is that you are approaching this from a power user's perspective. Yes, it only works when you do what it wants you to do. But most consumers won't ever even come near that boundary. For a power user, the Mac seems like a cage, and in some ways it is. However, I sometimes wonder if I wouldn't need the power I possess in Windows if I were on a Mac. I'm well aware that most users (especially the ones buying laptops in the $900 to $1500 range) don't need half of the capabilties I make use of, and I don't use a number of Windows' features.

I humbly suggest that for someone who takes notes, writes papers, and occasionally plays the odd game, there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting a slick laptop and a slick MP3 player for $950. Sure, you can get a bunch of ports and a ton of memory for the same price, but how many people actually need or want that stuff? You also don't get a place where you can take your computer and the people there will know how to fix it for free.

I didn't want to go on a crusade for Apple here. But they have a very good product and I respect what they're doing. The computing world is changing. Most people don't need or want 8 USB ports and 3 different video outs. What people do want is a power cable that you can trip over and not kill your computer, just as an example.

[Last_resort_33]

Gah!! *headdesk*

[Whoracle]

Sky, the main problem is:

for the same price of a mac, you'll get more performance. If you're looking for the same performance, the price'll be most likely a whole lot cheaper. And, to stay with your reasoning of not needing a 320 GB HD, well, I don't need an iPod thrown into the deal, so that point is moot.

Macs were great when they had their own hardware (*dreams of the G4*), but ever since they let go of that advantage, they're just overpriced lifestyle gadgets.
Sad but true. Even the beloved underdog can make bad decisions. And even though M$ IS the devil (I would know, I've held that post before Ballmer came along, and Gates before him was barely held at bay, too...), that doesn't make the Apple crowd any better...

[InaVegt]

Sorry, software is much inferior to Windows.

Hahahahahaha

C'est impossible.

There is no such thing as inferior to windows, microsoft has not produced any single product of better than terrible quality since OS/2.

[KuReshtin]

Hahahahahaha

C'est impossible.

There is no such thing as inferior to windows, microsoft has not produced any single product of better than terrible quality since OS/2.

Actually, OS/2 was mainly an IBM OS. Microsoft were part of it at the beginning, but then dropped out and IBM took over the development.

So I don't think Microsoft can be blamed/credited with a whole lot involving OS/2

[Boo]

*Friendly reminder to stay on topic*

I say to get a netbook if only for the price. If you feel like getting a mac is worth it, go on and get one. There's no real difference besides software and price, and those are circumstantial.

People who argue about which one is better: lolno.

The better one is the one you are happy with, and that's it.

[skywalker]

Sky, the main problem is:

for the same price of a mac, you'll get more performance. If you're looking for the same performance, the price'll be most likely a whole lot cheaper. And, to stay with your reasoning of not needing a 320 GB HD, well, I don't need an iPod thrown into the deal, so that point is moot.

Macs were great when they had their own hardware (*dreams of the G4*), but ever since they let go of that advantage, they're just overpriced lifestyle gadgets.
Sad but true. Even the beloved underdog can make bad decisions. And even though M$ IS the devil (I would know, I've held that post before Ballmer came along, and Gates before him was barely held at bay, too...), that doesn't make the Apple crowd any better...

You can get more performance, but if someone isn't looking for performance, what then? I understand that not everyone wants an iPod. My point was that more people are going to want an iPod than will want 3 different kinds of video outs. I have no idea about the HD, honestly. All my friends tell me they're finding uses for all their HD space, and I'm clueless how. Maybe it's because I don't download movies or whatnot.

I think more people are attracted to the Mac since they switched away from the G4, because it allows a Mac to do quite a few more "common" things that it couldn't do before.

And I don't think M$ is the devil, I have a lot of respect for them too, but right now they're in the wrong paradigm. Apple is not my knight in brushed aluminum armor, but they are providing a product a lot of people are interested in.

Again, if 90% of people want to or are going to live in the box Apple wants to put them in anyway, why should they not have a Mac? Because it's a whole hell of a lot easier to acquire and to get serviced, and it has little practical features (like the magnetic power cable) that contribute to its value without showing up in a spec sheet. If you're going to live in the box anyway, you might as well make it a nice box.

For those talking about staying on topic, I think it's practically impossible to stay "on topic" (if we are even off topic) without further input from the OP about likes, dislikes, agreements, disagreements, and the like.

[Flickerdart]

You can get more performance, but if someone isn't looking for performance, what then?
Then they get a machine that's twice as cheap as the Mac. That's the other benefit of PCs, they give complete control of what you are paying for. The Mac has only a handful of versions, all of which are overpriced compared to the competitor's products. There is a reason that Apple only has something like 4% market share.

This seems to be the crux of your argument, actually. That if you don't want to have a powerful machine, Apple generously lets you pay more for a weaker one. I'm not sure I understand how this is supposed to be an advantage.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Then they get a machine that's twice as cheap as the Mac. That's the other benefit of PCs, they give complete control of what you are paying for. The Mac has only a handful of versions, all of which are overpriced compared to the competitor's products. There is a reason that Apple only has something like 4% market share.

This seems to be the crux of your argument, actually. That if you don't want to have a powerful machine, Apple generously lets you pay more for a weaker one. I'm not sure I understand how this is supposed to be an advantage.
You seem to be basing your argument around "macs suck because Windows are better because they're more powerful." Yes, if you're short on cash, a cheaper $700 Windows machine is probably a better idea than a $1500 Macbook Air.

But what you're not realizing is that a computer isn't just a spec sheet. You're still comparing a Mac to a computer that has similar specs and saying the Windows one is better because it's cheaper.

That doesn't make it a better computer, however. A few things that immediately come to mind:
- You don't know what the support is going to be like, chances are you have to mail it somewhere and wait for a month if it breaks
- You're almost guaranteed to get a PoS screen that will make your eyes hurt and WILL mess up all the colours (and will fake it by having contrast and brightness turned all the way up)
- Bad design. Not just often ugly but also stuff like an uncomfortable keyboard or having to press Fn key to use "Home" or just little tiny bits and pieces (like the little monitor lock) that look really fragile and break off really fast.
- It'll be much bigger and heavier than a Macbook Air. If it's not and has the same specs, it'll cost the same if not more, making the whole point moot.
- Battery life. Not everyone uses their laptops as a plugged in desktop replacement.
- Little things like a tiny power adapter that also won't break your computer when you trip over it.

There is a reason Macs cost what they cost. True, some of it is brand premium, but a lot of it actually does go towards giving you a better computer.

PS: I don't have a Mac and I'm not planning to buy one, well, ever. I'm just trying to point out that for a lot of people and a lot of uses it could be and probably is better than most Windows-based laptops.

[Groundhog]

Isn't that basically asking for an arguement though? I know every time I've had to use Apple software, on Apple hardware or on a Windows machine, I've found it painfully annoying and overly controlling with too little control available to the user. I could see how it might be nice if you always wanted to do exactly what it wants you to do, but if you want to do anything slightly different then things get exponentially more difficult then they should be.

As for Linux, it is good if you are looking for a hobby, but not really if you are looking for a product.

I was attempting to make a joke. Obviously I have failed miserably.

[Lupy]

I was attempting to make a joke. Obviously I have failed miserably.

Linux is not a joke.

Linux is a time consuming source of ultimate arcane digital power!

[Groundhog]

Linux is not a joke.

Linux is a time consuming source of ultimate arcane digital power!

I hope you're only joking and have actually gotten my joke by now...

[Erloas]

That doesn't make it a better computer, however. A few things that immediately come to mind:
- You don't know what the support is going to be like, chances are you have to mail it somewhere and wait for a month if it breaks.
True of a Mac as well, unless you happen to live near a Mac store. The closest one to me is 200 miles away, the second closest is 450 miles.
That is also assuming the problem with the mac is something that can be fixed in store, its not like they keep every part for every computer in every store either. Depending what the problem is there are also a lot of things that can be fixed by the user in very little time.
Besides, its not like Apple scores that much better in reliability or customer service areas anyway. I think they are generally near the top, but that doesn't mean they are unquestionably better in every single aspect all the time.


- You're almost guaranteed to get a PoS screen that will make your eyes hurt and WILL mess up all the colours (and will fake it by having contrast and brightness turned all the way up)
You mean how Apple took away the option of a matte screen on almost every one of their designs, despite the fact that a lot of people really don't like the glossy screens they use? This is in fact one of the most common complaints I read about Macs from normal reviewers.
I also remember a huge issue only a few years ago about Apple selling laptops with 6 bit color and claiming it was true 8-bit color. It really screwed over graphic designers that need that 8-bit color and lead to a law suite.
Its also very easy to find a PC laptop with an LED backlighting if that is what you want. It is also very easy to find true 8-bit screens as well.


- Bad design. Not just often ugly but also stuff like an uncomfortable keyboard or having to press Fn key to use "Home" or just little tiny bits and pieces (like the little monitor lock) that look really fragile and break off really fast.Ugly is entirely based on the user. Personally I have never liked the look of Apple computers, they have never been visually appealing to me at all. The clips to hold a display down vary by model and by manufacturer, its hard to claim Apple is better in every way when other people use the same design and some designs are much more likely to break then others. The size of the keyboard and the layout also changes from one model to the next, you could get one HP with a worse keyboard layout and another with a much better keyboard layout. The laptop I have now has one of the best keyboard layouts on a laptop I've use, it does come from the fact that it is a 17" laptop and has room for a full keyboard. Keyboard layout is also something that people naturally adapt to with use and what someone finds best is going to be what is closest to what they use the most. So naturally someone that is used to the specific layout Apple uses will find that better, but someone that is used to something else won't. When I needed to use my previous roommates MacBook Pro there was nothing about the keyboard that impressed me, I also don't remember anything that was particularly bad about it either though. The feel and how easy and how noisey a keypress is also changes from one model to the next even from the same manufacturer.



- It'll be much bigger and heavier than a Macbook Air. If it's not and has the same specs, it'll cost the same if not more, making the whole point moot.
- Battery life. Not everyone uses their laptops as a plugged in desktop replacement.
- Little things like a tiny power adapter that also won't break your computer when you trip over it.
I haven't looked at them lately but I know there are at least several laptops from other competing companies that are pretty much the same size as the Air, and I know some are slightly smaller. I haven't checked prices on them, but at least at the time of release when I read the initial reviews they were noticably cheaper then the Air as well.
Battery life on an Apple isn't really any better then other notebooks of their class. If you want to compare battery life across classes then you can get a lot better looking numbers for any company you choose to. But Apple uses pretty much all the same parts from the same companies for everything from their screens to their processors to their batteries as every other company and they are all going to have pretty much the same battery life.
As for the power adapter, I can't say much on that, but if something breaks when you trip over a cord is dependant on a lot of factors and there is no guarentee the Apple won't break and another company will. I know my brother's ex-girlfriends laptop took many falls from that sort of thing without breaking, I think it was a Toshiba.

You have basically just set up a classic Apple strawman like they use in most of their ads. They claim things that they can't back up and might be true if you compared their computer with a competitors from years ago, but not against anything contemporary. It would kind of be like if Toyota made a big deal about the fact that the Tundra could out-tow a Chevy S-10, or that their Corolla got better gas milage then a Corvette.

[skywalker]

True of a Mac as well, unless you happen to live near a Mac store. The closest one to me is 200 miles away, the second closest is 450 miles.
That is also assuming the problem with the mac is something that can be fixed in store, its not like they keep every part for every computer in every store either. Depending what the problem is there are also a lot of things that can be fixed by the user in very little time.
Besides, its not like Apple scores that much better in reliability or customer service areas anyway. I think they are generally near the top, but that doesn't mean they are unquestionably better in every single aspect all the time.

Generally near the top sounds pretty darn good to me... And having any option at all of taking it into the store sounds better than mailing it off (trusting it to the vagaries of the postal system) to god-knows-who in god-knows-where.


Ugly is entirely based on the user. Personally I have never liked the look of Apple computers, they have never been visually appealing to me at all. The clips to hold a display down vary by model and by manufacturer, its hard to claim Apple is better in every way when other people use the same design and some designs are much more likely to break then others. The size of the keyboard and the layout also changes from one model to the next, you could get one HP with a worse keyboard layout and another with a much better keyboard layout. The laptop I have now has one of the best keyboard layouts on a laptop I've use, it does come from the fact that it is a 17" laptop and has room for a full keyboard. Keyboard layout is also something that people naturally adapt to with use and what someone finds best is going to be what is closest to what they use the most. So naturally someone that is used to the specific layout Apple uses will find that better, but someone that is used to something else won't. When I needed to use my previous roommates MacBook Pro there was nothing about the keyboard that impressed me, I also don't remember anything that was particularly bad about it either though. The feel and how easy and how noisey a keypress is also changes from one model to the next even from the same manufacturer.

Fair enough, so keyboard and style are moot.


I haven't looked at them lately but I know there are at least several laptops from other competing companies that are pretty much the same size as the Air, and I know some are slightly smaller. I haven't checked prices on them, but at least at the time of release when I read the initial reviews they were noticably cheaper then the Air as well.
Battery life on an Apple isn't really any better then other notebooks of their class. If you want to compare battery life across classes then you can get a lot better looking numbers for any company you choose to. But Apple uses pretty much all the same parts from the same companies for everything from their screens to their processors to their batteries as every other company and they are all going to have pretty much the same battery life.
As for the power adapter, I can't say much on that, but if something breaks when you trip over a cord is dependant on a lot of factors and there is no guarentee the Apple won't break and another company will. I know my brother's ex-girlfriends laptop took many falls from that sort of thing without breaking, I think it was a Toshiba.

DJA is referring, if I'm not mistaken, to Apple's famed magnetic power cord connection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MagSafe), which keeps the computer from taking a fall at all. It also reduces a lot of stress on the cord when the cable is pulled. I think DJA and I are both referring to little things like that (and inventive mouse gestures, etc.) that don't show up on a spec sheet but make a big difference in average, everyday usage by the consumer.


You have basically just set up a classic Apple strawman like they use in most of their ads. They claim things that they can't back up and might be true if you compared their computer with a competitors from years ago, but not against anything contemporary. It would kind of be like if Toyota made a big deal about the fact that the Tundra could out-tow a Chevy S-10, or that their Corolla got better gas milage then a Corvette.

But... The Corolla does get better gas mileage than the Corvette... Even the current Corvette.

About Apple's ads... Some of the things they say are questionable. But, for instance, the "cancel or allow" series of ads raises a valid point. Not only is it incredibly annoying to have to click on a button each time you want to do some very simple tasks, there are also many users who have no idea whether they ought to cancel or allow, and simply must guess. A lot of people just click yes because that's simplest.

So, they don't generously let you pay for less capability, they generously let you pay for the ability to know less about how your computer operates. Which still seems somewhat upsetting to me, but is a completely acceptable thing to sell in our culture.

[Don Julio Anejo]

True of a Mac as well, unless you happen to live near a Mac store. The closest one to me is 200 miles away, the second closest is 450 miles.

Uhm, where do you happen to live? If it's outside North America, I'll grant you that but I seriously doubt that unless you're in Dog River, Saskatchewan. I live in Vancouver, which isn't even a big city (barely a city by European standards) and there's two Apple stores within biking distance from where I live. And I think two more in the city.


You have basically just set up a classic Apple strawman like they use in most of their ads. They claim things that they can't back up and might be true if you compared their computer with a competitors from years ago, but not against anything contemporary. It would kind of be like if Toyota made a big deal about the fact that the Tundra could out-tow a Chevy S-10, or that their Corolla got better gas milage then a Corvette.
No, I'm saying you can't compare things that have different uses. If someone wants a car so they can drive 5 miles to work and 2 miles to the grocery store, they don't need horsepower, off-road capability, Nitro or 8 cylinders. They do, however, need good gas mileage, safety rating and little things like air conditioning (just an example, I know almost all cars have it now). Now a Corvette (random example, I honestly know nothing about cars) might have 8 cylinders, 4 wheel drive, 350 horsepower and can go 0 to 60 in 8.2 seconds but I'm willing to guess the person buying the car would appreciate things like good gas mileage, pleasing aesthetics, comfortable seats and air conditioning a lot more.

See my point? Also, a lot of people (especially older people) don't care and don't want to care about what their computer does. They'd be quite happy without one if only they weren't forced to have email and if Google wasn't just that gosh-darn convenient. Or they just want a computer they can take notes and write papers on. Mac satisfies this perfectly. Walk into a Mac store and randomly buy one which you like the most. That's pretty much it. No overload of information trying to choose which one is the best (fact: the more seemingly equal choices you have when buying something, the less happy you'll eventually be with your purchase), easy to use software that works, easy to use hardware, etc...

DJA is referring, if I'm not mistaken, to Apple's famed magnetic power cord connection, which keeps the computer from taking a fall at all. It also reduces a lot of stress on the cord when the cable is pulled. I think DJA and I are both referring to little things like that (and inventive mouse gestures, etc.) that don't show up on a spec sheet but make a big difference in average, everyday usage by the consumer.

This.

[Flickerdart]

You seem to be basing your argument around "macs suck because Windows are better because they're more powerful." Yes, if you're short on cash, a cheaper $700 Windows machine is probably a better idea than a $1500 Macbook Air.

But what you're not realizing is that a computer isn't just a spec sheet. You're still comparing a Mac to a computer that has similar specs and saying the Windows one is better because it's cheaper.

That doesn't make it a better computer, however. A few things that immediately come to mind:
- You don't know what the support is going to be like, chances are you have to mail it somewhere and wait for a month if it breaks
- You're almost guaranteed to get a PoS screen that will make your eyes hurt and WILL mess up all the colours (and will fake it by having contrast and brightness turned all the way up)
- Bad design. Not just often ugly but also stuff like an uncomfortable keyboard or having to press Fn key to use "Home" or just little tiny bits and pieces (like the little monitor lock) that look really fragile and break off really fast.
- It'll be much bigger and heavier than a Macbook Air. If it's not and has the same specs, it'll cost the same if not more, making the whole point moot.
- Battery life. Not everyone uses their laptops as a plugged in desktop replacement.
- Little things like a tiny power adapter that also won't break your computer when you trip over it.

There is a reason Macs cost what they cost. True, some of it is brand premium, but a lot of it actually does go towards giving you a better computer.

PS: I don't have a Mac and I'm not planning to buy one, well, ever. I'm just trying to point out that for a lot of people and a lot of uses it could be and probably is better than most Windows-based laptops.
Oh, please. "Almost guaranteed" to get a bad screen? That's nonsense and I don't know what sort of crap computers you're buying. Support? If you buy from a good manufacturer like Fujitsu or Lenovo, the support is excellent. I can go to any Fujitsu-certified tech place and they fix it for me. Any one, not just some upscale store that I have to drive out to. If you know what you're doing you shouldn't need support in the first place.
Bad design is entirely subjective, but from what I've seen of PC laptops recently, they are absolutely not badly designed at all. It's the Macs that I can't stand, to be honest. They look slippery, like soap.
If you're looking for something the size of the Air, it won't be bigger nor heavier. But I don't care about the Air, the Air sucks as a computer and I never mentioned it. The Eee PC is considerably smaller than the MacBook Air and has what amounts to the same functionality while being 6 times cheaper.
The battery life is also baseless conjecture. Granted, some powerful models will have a shorter battery life. But a better processor does not mean less battery: all processors idle at around the same clock speed. And then the benefit of choice comes in For example, I can get around 8 hours from my Fujitsu's stock battery. I'm quite confident that no Mac can get that much unless you really cut corners while I'm sitting pretty with WiFi and Photoshop.

Again, you don't understand my argument at all. PCs give you choice in their variety. And every choice on the spectrum is better than a Mac. You want a good screen? Here! Support? Go ahead! Battery life? Don't mind if I do! Something that looks absolutely stunning? Easy as pie. And if you really want all the things the Mac offers, there's something for you too, at a smaller price as we've already demonstrated using empirical data and not "almost guaranteeds", subjective opinions and hyperbole.

[Erloas]

Uhm, where do you happen to live? If it's outside North America, I'll grant you that but I seriously doubt that unless you're in Dog River, Saskatchewan. I live in Vancouver, which isn't even a big city (barely a city by European standards) and there's two Apple stores within biking distance from where I live. And I think two more in the city.

Where I live is in my sig. As far as I saw there isn't an Apple store in the entire state. The closest one I found was in Utah and it only showed 1 there, so anyone living outside of the SLC metro area would also be in for a long drive there. I'm sure Idaho and Montana are the same way, maybe 1 in the whole state.


No, I'm saying you can't compare things that have different uses. If someone wants a car so they can drive 5 miles to work and 2 miles to the grocery store, they don't need horsepower, off-road capability, Nitro or 8 cylinders. They do, however, need good gas mileage, safety rating and little things like air conditioning (just an example, I know almost all cars have it now). Now a Corvette (random example, I honestly know nothing about cars) might have 8 cylinders, 4 wheel drive, 350 horsepower and can go 0 to 60 in 8.2 seconds but I'm willing to guess the person buying the car would appreciate things like good gas mileage, pleasing aesthetics, comfortable seats and air conditioning a lot more.
That is also what I am saying. Someone that buys a Corvette buys it for a lot of reasons, gas mileage is probably not even near the top of the list. It would be a useless comparison for Toyota to make because the people looking at a Corolla and the people looking at a Corvette are so completely different customers as to make the claim useless. Apple claiming their $1800 laptop has a few advantages over a $400 netbook is a useless comparison, it might be true, but it is meaningless.



Also, a lot of people (especially older people) don't care and don't want to care about what their computer does. They'd be quite happy without one if only they weren't forced to have email and if Google wasn't just that gosh-darn convenient. Or they just want a computer they can take notes and write papers on. Mac satisfies this perfectly. Walk into a Mac store and randomly buy one which you like the most. That's pretty much it. No overload of information trying to choose which one is the best (fact: the more seemingly equal choices you have when buying something, the less happy you'll eventually be with your purchase), easy to use software that works, easy to use hardware, etc...


Those same people could also walk into Wal-Mart and pick up any computer on the shelf and be equally happy with the performance. It will do everything they need it to do, just like an Apple, and it will cost a fraction as much. The only thing it won't do is look like an Apple while it is sitting on your desk. (which to me is a good thing anyway). They have no demands for a system so what they get doesn't really matter. They may as well pick up a PC for a lot less and not have to worry about it.

If you find someone with a specific need for a computer though then it all changes, because whatever your specific need is you can get a PC for that. Which isn't the case for a Mac. Considering that everyone that posts for help on buying a new system always has some specific needs they want filled, you will always find a PC that will fill that need for less. Unless your specific need is to have OSX, but you can do that with a PC too if you want to. There are a lot of secondary minor applications that people use for hobbies and such that are a lot easier to find on a PC, and most are only written for the PC. Which doesn't mean they won't run on OSX or Linux, but they will take more effort to get working and that would be beyond the abilities of someone that doesn't already know what they are doing. Of course I've ran into some Apple users that didn't realize this until after they bought their new system and couldn't use something they wanted to.

[skywalker]

If you know what you're doing you shouldn't need support in the first place.

This is the attitude that keeps you from seeing what Apple has to offer. Because you don't understand that some people don't have the desire to know what they're doing. They want a quality product that is easy to get help for.


Those same people could also walk into Wal-Mart and pick up any computer on the shelf and be equally happy with the performance. It will do everything they need it to do, just like an Apple, and it will cost a fraction as much. The only thing it won't do is look like an Apple while it is sitting on your desk. (which to me is a good thing anyway). They have no demands for a system so what they get doesn't really matter. They may as well pick up a PC for a lot less and not have to worry about it.

I disagree. I think they are less likely to be satisfied, because there are all sorts of problems that can arise. How likely is a Mac to not work with a product that is "Mac certified?" Much less so than a PC with "PC certified" products. The Mac has fewer moments of sitting there, staring at the screen waiting on something to happen, when all you really wanted to do was check your e-mail. Trust me, my ex-girlfriend's mom is computer illiterate, and didn't trust me with anything in their house. I would stare at her computer knowing exactly how to fix it, but because she didn't know how, nothing could be done. And it was frustrating as hell, as I'm sure it was for her. There are fewer of these moments with the Mac. They do the little things that add up to go a long way.

[Ichneumon]

If Mac really was a waste of money it wouldn't sell as well as they do. In fact, many people become very brand loyal when they buy a mac. Certainly this means they get what they want and I highly doubt the image or lifestyle of the brand/logo etc has much to do with it. (I could see it having a role, but not a big role).

[Erloas]

If something really was a waste of money it wouldn't sell as well as they do.

I changed what you said a little bit... but changing that one word and I don't think there are too many people that would agree with the statement then. There are a LOT of things out there that sell better then a superior product. There are a lot of people that believe if something costs more it is automatically better. People waste a lot of money every day on products from every category.
The only thing that selling better and costing more shows is that they have good marketing. For Macs especially you can see a direct correlation between their product sales and their marketting efforts, and it was their brand recognition from the iPod that drove Mac sales more then anything else. Which is very clear when you look at their market share and sales of their computers related to how well their other products were doing first.


I disagree. I think they are less likely to be satisfied, because there are all sorts of problems that can arise. How likely is a Mac to not work with a product that is "Mac certified?" Much less so than a PC with "PC certified" products. The Mac has fewer moments of sitting there, staring at the screen waiting on something to happen, when all you really wanted to do was check your e-mail. Trust me, my ex-girlfriend's mom is computer illiterate, and didn't trust me with anything in their house. I would stare at her computer knowing exactly how to fix it, but because she didn't know how, nothing could be done. And it was frustrating as hell, as I'm sure it was for her. There are fewer of these moments with the Mac. They do the little things that add up to go a long way.
Of course there are a lot of minor programs from a lot of places that will work on a Mac because they use Java or simply have an emulator wraped around them. The first is just as likely to have issues on one OS as the other, and probably less on the PC because it has had more testing in almost every case. The second situation is likely to have more issues on the Mac then the PC because the emulator just adds another layer of complexing and potential issues.
In terms of things like printers, cameras, etc they are almost all certified for both Mac and PC and then it simply comes down to how well they write their drivers for each system. One isn't really more or less likely to work then the other, unless they are rushing out their drivers in which case the PC is probably better off because they will focus more on that because of a higher market share and so more people will be using it.

If you are talking about first part programs then you have really limited yourself to what you even have options for. And if you went with just MS first party aps on a PC you would run into a lot fewer issues as well. Most things most people use are going to be 3rd party aps for either system. Even using the internet a lot of what is done relies on 3rd party aps, such as flash, or how well the site was written in the first place.

If your girlfriends mom refuses to let you help her with her computer what are the chances she is going to take the computer in for support or even call tech support? No matter what company it is or how fast their support is, that is not something most people are going to do. If she can't fix the problem and isn't looking to someone else (you or the company, because she isn't calling tech support for wherever she got this computer from either) then she still isn't if she has an Apple. In that case the tech support of the company that make the computer is irrelivent.

Every one that I know that uses Apple on a regular basis admits (though grudginlgy) that their Apple computers have just as many issues as their PCs. When my brother went to college for video production he said that almost everyone prefered the PCs to the Apples for doing their video production, however the graphic arts students were the other way around. They all occasionally had problems, but he said the biggest issue with the Mac is when they had problems they took a lot longer to fix, mostly because people didn't know them as well. So it is probably safe to say if someone knew both systems equally well they would be fixed equally fast. However it also shows that apparently the Macs weren't overly more intuitive and needed just about as much specific knowledge to fix as the PCs.

Pretty much the exact same thing was said by one of my roommates that worked at a small video production company.

[Lupy]

Apple makes very nice computers with a well tested and designed operating system.

They don't have any grasp on how to sell computers though, which is why Hewlett Packard (the biggest one here) and other companies outsell them in their own price range.

Let's take the e-Mac. It was a solid computer with a few bugs that sold for $800. This was dirt cheap for an all in one in 2004 and wouldn't be expensive now. They sold like hotcakes.

Apple cancels the product because they are losing i-Mac sales. Do they not understand that selling far more computers at 2/3 the price is better than selling far less at 33% more! They also haven't adjusted prices at all for the recession like... Oh, every other computer company in the world.

Additionally, most people I know who have owned Macs owned a G3 back in the day. They all had an issue, a different one in each case, that made them buy a new computer. Apple customer service was less helpful than Google in every single case. :smallannoyed: They never seem to support products other than their current ones because all they want is for you to buy another $1400 computer. I called HP last month about a PC from 2001 and they walked me through what I needed to do to get it restored to working condition. There is a reason that they sell more computers than Apple! Or anyone else for that matter.