Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dell XPS M1330 better quality than Macbook?
- Thread starter tibi08
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is rather snarky. You'd think they'd have better boiler-plate response than that. Although I could see Steve saying it.
Agreed!
That's either a preference setting, or broken hardware. But not a windows fault.
Why is it completely unacceptable to run Windows without anti-virus software? I ran windows without any virus software for 3 years, and I only started because my college forced me to. I've never gotten a virus, and the anti-virus software they uses hardly taxed my system. What you're spreading is complete FUD, plain and simple.
I agree. I run an online virus scanner once a month or bi-monthly. That's all I've ever needed. It's much more important to have a good firewall, and to make wise decisions when opening attachments and installing unfamiliar software. A spyware/adware checker is also a good thing to run on a regular basis.
The Dell M1330 is a better laptop then the Macbook in EVERY aspect. Its lighter, has LED screen, santa rosa, dedicated graphics, longer battery (yes it does), everything is faster and better. There is no comparison. Hopefully Apple will raise the bar with the next iteration of the Macbook but for the time being Dell has them ******* on.
I know this doesn't help your predicament, but if Apple did release a smaller form factor of the MacBook or MacBook Pro, I believe it would look far nicer than the M1330. The form factor is nice, but the attention to detail in the styling would not measure up to Apple's standards.
If Apple released something like the M1330 there would be a lot of whinging.
Obviously Apple wouldn't make a laptop that resembles Dell's aesthetic designs. They would make it their own. And since it is a given that they will make it their own, I don't see how there could be much room for complaint. It would be the best 13" computer they've ever made.
I don't see your point.
you know, i did soooooo much research and finally decided the macbook would the perfect upgrade for me. small footprint, fast, long battery life, and i can afford to switch to osx. but after that gpu rant, now i'm wondering if i should get the m1330 instead with the dedicated gpu. i don't play any games, which is why i thought i'd never need it, but i do want to use my new laptop to hook up to my plasma and play movies with. if the picture difference (even with an upgraded SR graphics chip) is going to be worse than having a dedicated gpu, should i still get the macbook?
ugh. i was looking forward to the switch. now i'm confused again.
ugh. i was looking forward to the switch. now i'm confused again.
Why is it unacceptable? I've been using Windows since the 3.0 days. You know how many viruses I've had reported on my systems? ONE false positive a few years ago.
Thats it.
Don't browse shady sites or open suspicious file attachments and you'll be fine.
Spyware? Firefox and IE7 have that taken care of. Honestly, if you get a virus or spyware, its generally your own fault. Obviously Windows should be better against viruses and spyware, but at the same time, avoiding them is as simple as not doing things you probably shouldn't be doing in the first place.
The only time running anti-virus or anti-spyware has had any kind of affect on performance, in my experience, was while running full system scans. But if you set both to high priority through their preferences, they'll generally scan your entire hard drive in just a few minutes.
Running anti-virus, anti-spyware, and defragging once a month on Windows is no different, in my opinion, than having to run Onyx once a month or after each major update on OS X.
PowerBooks have dedicated GPUs.
However, OS X doesn't seem to take advantage of GPU's built-in video processing features. I know a few people with MacBook Pros. The difference in DVD playback with DVD Player in OS X and WinDVD in Windows is completely night and day. Even on a GMA950, the difference between video playback in OS X and Windows is staggering.
Its not that you are not relying on your Mac for quality video playback.. its that you really can't rely on it for quality video playback. The only reason I have Windows installed on my MacBook at the moment is so I can watch DVDs and other videos with respectable quality.
Now before you, or maybe others, call me a fanboy or anything, I'm not being fanboy. I'm stating the simple truth. That OS X, while being the ideal platform for producing video, is far from ideal for playing back video.
You also have to look at the value of what you're getting. My MacBook would cost $1408 after taxes (living in California). What do you get for $1408? A 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo (not Santa Rosa), 1GB of RAM, 120GB HDD, Intel GMA 950, DVD writer, and OS X. What would you get with $1408 in a Windows PC? Well, if you go with HP, you can get a 17" system, Santa Rosa Core 2 Duo, at least 2GB of RAM, 160GB or more of HDD space, and a GeForce 8600M. Other manufacturers will give you a 15.4" screen, at least, all offer Santa Rosa based Core 2 Duo systems, as well as minimums of 2GB of RAM, dedicated graphics processors on par with what you get in the $2500 MacBook Pro. Most, if not all, offer other features like HDMI output as well.
Infact, the only way to get an integrated GPU on the Windows side is to spend around $600 on a notebook. What you usually get for around $600 now is a dual-core AMD Turion, 1GB of RAM, DVD writer, 15.4" screen, ~100GB HDD, and an nVidia based integrated GPU that would eat the GMA 950 and X3100 for lunch.
In reality, it all comes down to the buyer wanting OS X or not. Is it worth it for the buyer to pay the premium to get OS X or is it not? Thats up to them to decide.
When you're comparing a similarly priced Windows PC to a Mac, you have to wonder if the premium you pay is worth it. $1408 for a 13.3" screen with last generation CPU and the worst integrated GPU on the market? Or $1408 for a 15.4" or even 17" screen, dedicated GPU on par with the $2500 MacBook Pro, current generation CPU technology, etc..
Even though I own and like my MacBook (despite the terrible GPU), it's very difficult for me to recommend Macs to other people based on all that I just said.
Oh and one thing to keep in mind: the GPU plays a bigger role these days. It's not all about video playback and gaming. The GPU renders all those nice little effects in OS X and Vista. Minimizing the window, Expose, Dashboard, Coverflow all take advantage of the GPU. Core animation, iMovie, iDVD, all take advantage of the GPU as well. I'm interested to see how well, if at all, Core Animation will run on the GPU.
Having a better GPU enhances your overall desktop experience. It's really bad on Apple's part to have used the Intel GMA 950, and then charge so much for it, when the ATI Xpress 200M, Xpress 1100M, 1150, and nVidia GeForce Go 6150 were all available at the launch of the original MacBook. All are integrated, all offer major power saving features, all are ridiculously cheap, and all offer much better (and much faster) GPUs and video processing features.
Since you stated you were considering the Dell because of build quality, you might want to check out user reports of build quality on PC Magazine or Consumer Reports.
From what I remember, the Intel X3100 is quite good at handling video playback, and even the 950 is adequate. Now if you want 1080p, you will probably need something with a video card that has built-in h.264 encoding, which is uncommon in budget laptops.
Your point:
The M1330 is what the 13" MBP could've been.
My point:
A 13" MBP would be nothing like the M1330.
since the laptops don't have blu-ray or hd-dvd, who needs 1080i playback anyway? is that simply for people using final cut pro who are creating hd content?
if i remember correctly, the gpu rant was about playing dvds back on a big screen. and dvds are only 480i. so the question is, will there be any difference between playing a 480i dvd with an...
1. upscaling dvd player
2. the mb with 950 graphics
3. the potential mb with x3100 graphics
4. the mbp/m1330 with 8400m graphics
i hate having to care about this point, but it doesn't seem like there's much consensus on which graphics solution is useful for non-gamers who still like to watch lots of videos.
if i remember correctly, the gpu rant was about playing dvds back on a big screen. and dvds are only 480i. so the question is, will there be any difference between playing a 480i dvd with an...
1. upscaling dvd player
2. the mb with 950 graphics
3. the potential mb with x3100 graphics
4. the mbp/m1330 with 8400m graphics
i hate having to care about this point, but it doesn't seem like there's much consensus on which graphics solution is useful for non-gamers who still like to watch lots of videos.
I have head the exact opposite findings than the guy above me. I greatly prefer how video looks in OS X than in Windows, and find that my GMA950 can outperform my friend's 6800GT in terms of video playback, but that probably has a lot more to do with the processor differences (he has a P4) than the vid card in that case, but still.
My MacBook can easily handle video up to 720P resolution and encoding, and plays those files back not only with ease, but beautifully. I can do the same in Windows, but they, IMO, don't look nearly as good.
I would suggest to anyone looking to compare, get a 720P movie trailer from Apple, and watch it in OS X. Then, watch it in Windows. I think you will find that unless you have a ridiculously good screen on your machine, the MacBook will run it just as well as any other laptop out there.
Plus, your argument about the GPU becoming more and more used in OSes today is valid, but the GMA950 can handle OS X's openGL stuff (expose, dashboard, spaces, et al) with ease. The only time I notice sluggishness is when I have a lot, and I mean a lot of stuff open. So the argument might be more valid in Vista which is a little bit more demanding (I had it installed for a while on my MacBook)
My MacBook can easily handle video up to 720P resolution and encoding, and plays those files back not only with ease, but beautifully. I can do the same in Windows, but they, IMO, don't look nearly as good.
I would suggest to anyone looking to compare, get a 720P movie trailer from Apple, and watch it in OS X. Then, watch it in Windows. I think you will find that unless you have a ridiculously good screen on your machine, the MacBook will run it just as well as any other laptop out there.
Plus, your argument about the GPU becoming more and more used in OSes today is valid, but the GMA950 can handle OS X's openGL stuff (expose, dashboard, spaces, et al) with ease. The only time I notice sluggishness is when I have a lot, and I mean a lot of stuff open. So the argument might be more valid in Vista which is a little bit more demanding (I had it installed for a while on my MacBook)
QFT. Give that man a cigar.
My MacBook has no problem playing back standard DVDs on my plasma. DVDs are only 480i so they are hardly taxing for even older systems and most TVs do a much better job of upscaling than a PC can.
okay, well maybe i shouldn't change my decision based on that one rant. if all laptops came standard with blu-ray or hd-dvd, then maybe it would be a more important decision, but we seem to be a ways off from that. (i.e. stupid ***** format war.)
i'm surprised that an hp would render simple 480i graphics better than the macbook, though, from that guy's opinion. you'd think that if they could both handle that equally easily, then the human eye wouldn't notice that much of a difference.
i'm surprised that an hp would render simple 480i graphics better than the macbook, though, from that guy's opinion. you'd think that if they could both handle that equally easily, then the human eye wouldn't notice that much of a difference.
tell me about it. you can't even go by your own opinion until you try it out and don't get a dud.
speaking of opinions, i'm not into supernatural/mystical/whatever, but i read my horoscope since it's my birth month and i'm planning on getting a laptop for my birthday....it specifically said not to get a computer. can you believe that? when you think about it, it's a good prediction to make. the odds of getting a piece of mass produced electronics with some defect are pretty high these days it seems. sigh...
speaking of opinions, i'm not into supernatural/mystical/whatever, but i read my horoscope since it's my birth month and i'm planning on getting a laptop for my birthday....it specifically said not to get a computer. can you believe that? when you think about it, it's a good prediction to make. the odds of getting a piece of mass produced electronics with some defect are pretty high these days it seems. sigh...
So you're saying Apple's design would be inferior to the Dell design? If people here would complain, as you say they would, then that must be the case.
I still don't see where you're going with this.
My understanding is this: The hardware in the XPS1330 is what the MacBook should be right now (I slightly disagree but only slightly), however, Apple would no doubt not design to look at all like the XPS1330, simply because that does not seem to be how Apple is designing their stuff right now.
And that's a good thing, because Apple's designs are typically better looking than Dell designs.
So everyone's happy. Right?
i'm not happy because i don't have a laptop yet. i'll be happy when the macbook specs (and possibly design) are upgraded and i can buy without remorse. or i'll be happy if they don't upgrade the macbooks at all, and i can get the m1330 or something.
it's not happy to be in a holding pattern. maybe in a few weeks we'll all be happier.
it's not happy to be in a holding pattern. maybe in a few weeks we'll all be happier.
If video image quality is a concern at all, you definitely should consider options other than the MacBook. Its not just the GPU thats the problem, but also the software available for OS X. Any single person with an Intel Mac that doesn't believe me can easily install Windows on their Mac, download the WinDVD, PowerDVD, TheaterTek, Nero, etc. demos and see for themselves how much better DVDs look on those pieces of software compared to DVD Player in OS X. Even on the Intel GMA 950, there is a very significant difference. The difference with a dedicated GPU is completely night and day. With DXVA in Windows and an nVidia or ATI GPU from the previous generation the current generation especially, you get full hardware acceleration for decoding H.264 video, VC-1/WMV, and other features, such as deblocking and advanced de-interlacing.
The Intel X3100 still isn't ready for prime-time. The drivers for it are very immature, with most games not even working properly at all yet. Ironically, the chip that was supposed to be better at gaming than the GMA 950 can't even play games that the GMA 950 has no problem with! For video, it still only has hardware support for MPEG-2. Nothing for more advanced codecs, so you can forget H.264 and VC-1 (which means you can forget HD-DVD and blu-ray support as well). The MPEG-2 decoding finally brings Intel up to where nVidia and ATI have been for years, by finally adding iDCT support. Welcome to the year 2000, Intel. It does have better scaling capabilities, going by Intel's specs available on the website.
You mean DEcoding
Not encoding. Being able to decode and play the video and looking good while doing it are two very different things. My MacBook (Core 2 Duo 2.16GHz) is perfectly capable of playing back the H.264 1080p videos from www.quicktime.com, despite the requirement of 128MB of video RAM. Anyway, GPUs that offer hardware acceleration for H.264 video and other advanced video functions are easily available. $599 and $699 HPs and Dell's come with integrated (shared, just like the GMA 950) nVidia and ATI GPU's that offer advanced deblocking and H.264 decoding. A more fully featured GPU, like the GeForce 8400M GS, can be added for around $80 more. Dell even gives you the option of a GeForce 8600M GT. For $1,264 you get 2GB of RAM, 160GB HDD, C2D 2GHz (Santa Rosa), 256MB GeForce 8600M GT, DVD writer, and the built-in webcam. Another $50 will get you a 9 cell battery.
So yes, H.264 and advanced video features are definitely available in "low-end" budget machines.
HP and Dell offer HD-DVD and Blu-ray drives for around $300. You can also get an external case and pickup some of the $199 combo HD-DVD/blu-ray readers (not writers) that have been popping up lately. GeForce 8400M GS and other dedicated GPUs from this generation are all HDCP certified under Windows, so you'll have no problem playing that content either. You don't have to worry about HDCP certification at all if you're using your laptop screen, according to nVidia.
The difference is noticeable on any size screen.
If you're using the MacBook with the GMA 950 and DVD Player in OS X, you basically get an image thats stretched out to fullscreen. Not properly scaled to the increased resolution. Leopard improves this, but not nearly to the level that you get with a Windows DVD player.
The MacBook Pro with a dedicated GPU (and running Windows), or Dell, or an upscaling DVD player, will all blow away DVD Player in OS X and the GMA 950. My upscaling DVD player and my GeForce 8400M provide complete night and day results compared to the MacBook/DVD Player in OS X.
Upscaling DVD players, as well as properly upscaled DVDs in Windows look absolutely stunning. If you have digital cable, your upscaled DVDs will blow away your digital cable and the HD content over digital cable. If you have DirecTV HD, then your upscaled DVDs will look every bit as good and better in some cases. DVDs have a lot of life left in them. Anybody who puts down DVDs based on their resolution hasn't seen just how amazing an upscaling DVD player can make them look.
If your friend is having problems playing HD video, its definitely the result of his Pentium 4. Even those 3.8GHz P4s have issues with HD video. While the Core 2 Duo line can eat HD video for breakfast and be hungry for more.
Honestly, Quicktime under Windows is terrible. I don't know why, but Apple seems to force their own standards into Windows instead of fully utilizing DXVA. As a result you'll see page tearing, dropped frames, and have extremely high CPU use. Infact, I encourage people to use Windows and watch one of those trailers from Apple. Watch it in Quicktime and check your CPU use. Then switch over to VLC and see how much your CPU use drops thanks to VLC handing off the workload to the GPU.
I happen to have 720p video on my PC right now. I'm watching it in Quicktime as I type this. I see all kinds of page tearing and dropped frames, and my CPU use is locked at 90%! A 2GHz Santa Rosa based Core 2 Duo is locked at 90%! If I play that same video in VLC, not only is there no page tearing and dropped frames, but my CPU use is down to 25%!
If I open up that same video in Nero Showtime (which uses my nVidia GPU's features), the image quality difference is staggering. Compression artifacting is gone and the coloring is much better. The CPU use is even better. It jumps between 12-23%.
Again, being able to PLAY the video is very different from being able to look good while playing it.
Head over here: http://www.avsforum.com/ They'll set you straight on that. A properly configured PC with a dedicated GPU will mop the floor with anything else that tries to challenge it. Or even get yourself an Oppo upscaling DVD player and you'll be surprised just how much better your DVDs look.
As I said before, people who write off DVDs because of their resolution have not seen just how beautiful they can be when properly upscaled. It is the true definition of the phrase "night and day difference".
http://www.avsforum.com/ Go there and they will tell you the exact same thing I am. Infact, browse the Mac HTPC forum. One of the most common questions asked there is how to improve the image quality from DVD Player. The most common answer is either "you can't" or "install Windows".
If video quality is important to you, then you NEED a dedicated GPU and you will need to run Windows.
Video playback is the only area where Mac OS X is simply beat, stabbed, and just all around outperformed by Windows. OS X is better in every other way except that one.
And price.
It's not an opinion. Its an actual fact. You can prove it to yourself by installing Windows on your own Macs, or by getting yourself a good upscaling DVD player. Infact, your sig specifically states that you have 2 iMacs.Which means you have a Mac with a dedicated GPU. Install Windows on there, make sure you have the newest drivers, get yourself a trial copy of WinDVD and check it out for yourself. You WILL see a difference. You'll see that your 20" iMac running Windows with a dedicated GPU and a good piece of DVD playing software will beat your MacBook connected to your HDTV. Also, the people over here: http://www.avsforum.com/ will tell you exactly what I am saying as well. AVS is the most respected video-related website out there. The "experts" there truly are experts and you get people from nvidia and other manufacturers reading and posting there to get feedback on their products.
If video playback is important to you at all, then in all honesty, coming from a Mac owner, the MacBook is not an option for you. You'll need a MacBook Pro or a Windows machine instead. The video playback on a MacBook really is that bad.
A couple of people here have said "my system handles this just fine".. well, as I said, playing the file and looking good while doing it are two very different things. If simply playing the file was good enough, then we would all be happy with $25 Wal-Mart DVD Players, wouldn't we? But thats simply not the case. Yes the MacBook can play DVDs and HD video. But does it look good while doing it? Not at all. It is a combination of hardware and software that causes this problem. You can improve the image quality dramatically by installing Windows on your MacBook and using it to play video. But considering the price of the MacBook w/SuperDrive after taxes, you have to realize that you can easily get a 17" or 15.4" Windows PC with the same GPU that comes in the MacBook Pro priced more than $1,000 above the middle MacBook.
