What makes a MBP better than the E1505?

[kumbaya]

In no particular order these things make an MBP better than an E1505

• Better Video Card: MBP has ATi X1600 Mobility Radeon, featuring DDR3 memory as opposed to X1400 with DDR2 memory for the E1505
• Better Video Card, part 2: Has dual link DVI support so you can drive a 30” Apple Cinema Display. E1505 only has a VGA port – what is the maximum external display E1505 can drive? For MBP it is 2560 x 1600
• Better Hard Drive: MBP uses Seagate or equivalent, E1505 uses ?? re-packaged as Dell!
• Audio: input and output sockets are optical digital (I read earlier this gives lower latency)
• Better design: MBP can do dual display or video mirroring or lid-closed driving an external monitor
• Install/Restore DVD – more convenient to restore your computer to when you got it (not sure what Dell gives you – you have to pay for the Windows CD if you want one)
• Faster RAM – it runs at the speed of the 667 frontside system bus on MBP, on E1505 only at 533MHz

Built-in on MBP, not available on E1505:

• MagSafe Power Adapter – reduces your chance of accidentally tripping over the power cable and completely trashing your computer
• Lithium Polymer Battery – better technology
• Battery Charge Indicator LED – one touch to check the remaining charge in your battery
• Apple Remote – simpler and easier to use
• Built-in webcam
• Back-lit keyboard
• Ambient light sensors dims screen and lit keyboard automatically
• Lighter: MBP is 5.6 pounds; E1505 starts at 6.18 pounds
• Thinner: MBP is 1 inch high, E1505 is 1.42 inches high
• Faster Network capability: MBP has 10/100/1000 network card, E1505 only has 10/100
• 6-pin FireWire 400 port, E1505 only has 4-pin FireWire, so you need an adapter to use most FireWire stuff
• iLife, Photo Booth and Front Row software

Oh, and one more thing. With the Dell, you’re running Windows, dude.

 

[kumbaya]

Comparing like with like

To get a true idea of what a Dell that is something equivalent to the MBP would cost, you should spec off the XPS M1710. It comes out to $2964 for the Dell vs $2699 for the 17 inch MBP, with the Dell having a larger screen resolution on the display.

E1505 is more equivalent to the MacBook. Although MacBook is only 13 inch display, the resolution is 1200 x 800 - the same as E1505.

Even then, MacBook has a lot of things like MagSafe, Lithium Polymer Battery, faster RAM, faster networking card like the MacBook Pro that E1505 does not and cannot have - and the pricing is a lot, lot closer.

The suspect part of this p***ing contest between Dell and Apple's notebooks is the statement 'the E1505 can be had with just about the same specs as the MBP'.

That statement is complete rubbish.

 

[QCassidy352]

Uhhh... the cost of 533/667 mhz ram is really not much difference. Maybe $20. So I think I can pretty easily compare. And no, the Core Duo is not SUPPOSED to get "633". The chipset supports either. I'm running my MBP w/ 533mhz ram.

configure a high end (XPS) dell laptop. Choose 4 GB RAM. 667 mhz RAM adds $3000 to your purchase. 533 mhz adds $1800 to your purchase. So there must be some difference, eh?

In any case, the bottom line is that Dell Laptops are cheaper than Macs no matter how you price it. Some one already summed it up nicely but it seemed to have been glossed over so I'll repeat it. Dell Laptops are cheaper compared to ANY laptop brand. Why? Because they can. Larger market share plus various other reasons.

Yes, that was me. I'm not sure why no one seems to understand this. Dell is the 800 lb. gorilla of the computer world, so they can undersell the competition to the point of making razor thin profits per machine.

And again I'll say, the E laptop line seems to be a great deal even by Dell's standards. Price it against Dell's own XPS line; the XPS comes out looking about twice as expensive for marginally more power. Kudos to Dell for producing a quality, well priced product in the E line, but frankly that's the exception.
macbook price comparison

 

[dpaanlka]

I must say the $469 B130 with 15" display is an impressive deal. If, for some reason, I wanted a PC, that would probably be it.

 

[Makosuke]

Man, this is one of the silliest Mac vs. Wintel threads I've read in a while.

I'm just going to point out one thing:

Yes, you can get a similarly equipped Dell for less than a MacBook Pro. But an $1100 Inspiron (it does have a name) E1505 vs $2500 is ridiculous. Even with the upgrades that Dell added to the E1505 since yesterday, the $2000 MBP with an added 100GB drive and 1GB RAM ($2200) is a much closer match, and just adding an WSXGA+ screen, a 2.0GHz processor, and 7300 graphics (all of which are stock on the cheapest MBP... ok, the WSXXGA+ is a little higher res, but the 7300 isn't equivalent to the X1600) to the E1505 brings its price up to about $1350. Toss in Bluetooth and XP Pro, and you're at $1550.

Still a lot cheaper, obviously, but that's still not the point, because the E1505 is NOT an equivalent machine to the MBP. It might be perfectly fine for a lot of users who don't want to pay that much, but it's not equivalent. It's a half-inch thicker, a pound heavier, doesn't have a midrange graphics chip like the X1600 even as an option, only VGA out (certainly not DualLink DVI), no camera or mic built in, the ethernet is 10/100 instead of gigabit, and while it does have a full-sized ExpressCard slot, modem, and a media reader built in, there's no firewire ports, it certainly doesn't have optical audio I/O, and you're going to pay extra for a software bundle like iLife if you have use for it.

The point isn't necessarily that you need all (or any) of those things, and if you don't, the E1505 is a great deal. The point is, the E1505 is not a high-end "thin" laptop, it's a midrange "standard" one, and does not include all the bells and whistles.

You can certainly argue that Apple should offer a basic 15" model like the E1505 *without* the bells and whistles for a price closer to the MacBook (which, in fact, ALSO includes all the bells and whistles), but Apple doesn't. Basically, you get a decked out computer whether you want it or not. You pay for it, and you pay a premium, but it's not as drastic a difference as it seems if you compare similar models.

Does Dell even sell a laptop thinner than 1.44" that's not an Alienware? And you're certainly looking at the XPS (or Alienware) models to get into the same feature set range as the MBP, with a larger (and probably heavier) case.

 

[SC68Cal]

In no particular order these things make an MBP better than an E1505

• Better Video Card: MBP has ATi X1600 Mobility Radeon, featuring DDR3 memory as opposed to X1400 with DDR2 memory for the E1505
• Better Video Card, part 2: Has dual link DVI support so you can drive a 30” Apple Cinema Display. E1505 only has a VGA port – what is the maximum external display E1505 can drive? For MBP it is 2560 x 1600
• Better Hard Drive: MBP uses Seagate or equivalent, E1505 uses ?? re-packaged as Dell!
• Audio: input and output sockets are optical digital (I read earlier this gives lower latency)
• Better design: MBP can do dual display or video mirroring or lid-closed driving an external monitor
• Install/Restore DVD – more convenient to restore your computer to when you got it (not sure what Dell gives you – you have to pay for the Windows CD if you want one)
• Faster RAM – it runs at the speed of the 667 frontside system bus on MBP, on E1505 only at 533MHz

Built-in on MBP, not available on E1505:

• MagSafe Power Adapter – reduces your chance of accidentally tripping over the power cable and completely trashing your computer
• Lithium Polymer Battery – better technology
• Battery Charge Indicator LED – one touch to check the remaining charge in your battery
• Apple Remote – simpler and easier to use
• Built-in webcam
• Back-lit keyboard
• Ambient light sensors dims screen and lit keyboard automatically
• Lighter: MBP is 5.6 pounds; E1505 starts at 6.18 pounds
• Thinner: MBP is 1 inch high, E1505 is 1.42 inches high
• Faster Network capability: MBP has 10/100/1000 network card, E1505 only has 10/100
• 6-pin FireWire 400 port, E1505 only has 4-pin FireWire, so you need an adapter to use most FireWire stuff
• iLife, Photo Booth and Front Row software

Oh, and one more thing. With the Dell, you’re running Windows, dude.

It's about time that someone actually pounded out a real answer to the OP.

 

[displaced]

Built-in on MBP, not available on E1505:

• MagSafe Power Adapter – reduces your chance of accidentally tripping over the power cable and completely trashing your computer

Before I got my MBP, I read with nervousness the reports of how annoying MagSafe was -- cables coming out unexpectedly at the slightest movement, etc. But I must say, in the 3 1/2 month I've had my machine, MagSafe has avoided 2 or 3 nasty falls. Neat little touch, that.

• Battery Charge Indicator LED – one touch to check the remaining charge in your battery

To be fair, every Dell battery I've seen has had that too. However, it's on the side of the battery, so you have to remove it from the machine to check it. The Apple batteries therefore have a much more usable display. I've used this on many times to check the MBP's charge level before taking it out somewhere. Handy to check the charge without having to wake it or remove the battery.

• Back-lit keyboard
• Ambient light sensors dims screen and lit keyboard automatically

These features are greatly under-estimated by some (including myself before I got my MBP). I absolutely love the backlit keyboard.

• Faster Network capability: MBP has 10/100/1000 network card, E1505 only has 10/100

This is also of great use to me. My workplace is all gigabit ethernet, and it's a real pleasure to have file transfers happen that much quicker.

• 6-pin FireWire 400 port, E1505 only has 4-pin FireWire, so you need an adapter to use most FireWire stuff

... and not only do you need a different cable or adapter, but you also lose the joy of bus-powered devices (the extra 2 pins are power). It's fantastic to have an external hard disk that's every bit as portable as the computer - just plug in and go without hunting for a mains socket or messing with multiple USB plugs to feed the drive with enough power.

• iLife, Photo Booth and Front Row software

Say no more... iLife and OS X's excellent integration of all forms of personal data and personal devices (iPod, bluetooth phone, etc) has finally given me a system which fulfils the promise that computers had for me the first time I made an address book database on my Acorn Electron back in 1985.

Oh, and one more thing. With the Dell, you’re running Windows, dude.

I'm very, very happy with OS X. There genuinely is absolutely nothing that Windows can offer me other than gaming. And that's why I've got a 'Wintendo' BootCamp partition

(edit: the DVI thing is important to me now. I don't want to use VGA for anything. I'm amazed it's taken so incredibly long for DVI to become standard on PC laptops. I don't see how you gain anything by sticking with VGA... I mean, the DVI carries the legacy VGA signal on a few pins, should you need it, anyway... not to mention S-Video and composite as well).

 

[user23]

Nice try.

Macs remain at the same speed from the day you buy it to the day you sell it. "Quick" is a relative term. If I sell my new MBP in 5 years, it will not be "quick" by the standards of 2011.

Obviously. However, unless one does a) video work b) heavy graphics work (ie: multi hundred megabyte files) c) hard-core gaming - well, you're just not really going to need to get a faster & faster machine as the years go by. My point in mentioning the speed of a Mac is that they are quick machines, and stay quick. No need to constantly defrag & the like either. And, best of all, unlike Windows revisions (vide Vista system requirements) & upgrades, OS X, as it evolves, actually increases performance on legacy Macs.

They are quality designs made from normal parts. In fact, my friends will Dell 700Ms have MUCH BETTER Wi-Fi range than my MBP :/ It kinda stinks.

what does normal mean?
While on the subject of WiFi, I'm with you there. It is a curiosity that my MBP gets crappier range than my friend's older iBook. Oh well, I'm not one who needs to stretch the limits of my wireless range, anyway. I don't think the vast majority of people need to, either. And, in a market, it's all about vast majorities and what they need or don't need.

Oh, and Macs have a high resale value years down the line because Macs have a fixed cycle of upgrades. PCs upgrade monthyl or bi-monthly. With a Mac you get upgrades every six months or so. The Mac upgrade cycle is what lends it to such a good level of depreciation.

sorry, but this does't make too much sense to me. If anything, the "slow" upgrade cycle of Macs should hinder their resale value. While Macs take a long time to refresh, the PC makers are frequently increasing chip speed, etc. the whole time. So, you see, an "old" Mac *should* be comparatively worthless to a much newer PC...if you compare clock speed alone. But, instead, "old, slow" Macs seem to hold on to their value. Why? Because they are Well Made machines, made with the best quality components available at time of manufacture...and everyone knows quality simply lasts longer.

Ask Mercedes Benz & Volvo owners about this phenomenon. Or, even Honda & Toyota owners at the other end of the cost spectrum.

 

[aristobrat]

I too am curious about the big brother chip. If it's anything like what I'm thinking of, it does not exist.

I think he's talking about the Trusted Platform Module, which Apple uses to make sure that unhacked versions of OS X will only run Apple Intel hardware.

http://daringfireball.net/2005/08/trusted

 

[JackSYi]

You pay the Apple premium. First off, where else are you going to get OS X? I am a computer sales associate, and Apple computers are very well built. A similarly spec'd out HP just feels cheap to me.

 

[poppe]

The simple fact is You can compare a Bimmer and a Lexus and try to make pros and cons to decide which one is better, but A Hyundai and and Bimmer or Lexus really can't be compared.

You can easily get almost just as much as what the Bimmer offers (features) as the Hyundai but it still really doesn't compare.

Just different leagues... thats my opinion then

And I'm sorry to do another lame car comparisson I know that it has been exhausted.

 

[aristobrat]

Hrmmm, if I'm not wrong, it warns you about that. You clicked the wrong button. You're just dumb.

The point is that both Windows and OS X both have applictions with inconsistant user interfaces and actions, and it was directed to generik's friend that was thinking that OS X wasn't cracked up to be as good as everyone says it is because she came across an application that had a window with no red button to close it. Excel does not behave the same way as other Win32 applications when it makes multiple Excel documents look like "different copies of the Excel program" running. Word doesn't do that. PowerPoint doesn't do that. Just Excel.

The other examples I gave (print screen, Explorer crashing and not properly restoring the GUI when it recovers, and the ISO) are just some of the Windows crap that I see our helpdesk staff running around helping the averaged IQ regular American folks (you know, the ones that are just dumb and click the wrong button) that work at our company figure out. The point I was trying to make is that every OS has its nuances that the user has to learn.

The average person would take their computer to BestBuy to add memory

Again, this was in reply to generik's friend that seemed upset that she couldn't upgrade her mini's memory. Apparently she's not an average user?

 

[bbrosemer]

I think this more or less sums up the average person they own a PC laptop and dont know all of the features, then if they move to mac it slaps them in the face with its features, there that is the difference.

 

[vv-tim]

To get a true idea of what a Dell that is something equivalent to the MBP would cost, you should spec off the XPS M1710. It comes out to $2964 for the Dell vs $2699 for the 17 inch MBP, with the Dell having a larger screen resolution on the display.

E1505 is more equivalent to the MacBook. Although MacBook is only 13 inch display, the resolution is 1200 x 800 - the same as E1505.

The M1710 is not comparable with a MBP. It's a gaming laptop. Designed for gamers. With gamer budgets. With pointless features. For unreasonable prices (even worse than Apple's premium). You have things like LEDs that change color on the M1710, a better video card, etc.

The E1405 would be more comparable to the MacBook. The E1505 can support a 1920x1200 display with aftermarket parts and a 1680x1050 display when configured on Dell's website (same as the 17" MBP). The MacBook can support a 1280x800 display. I don't see how you can compare something leaning towards an ultraportable (MacBook) with a 15.4" laptop.

In case anyone's looking for a nice Dell deal... you can pick up a E1505 w/ 1.83ghz processor, 1gb ram, 60gb hd, X1300 video, and 8x dvd burner for $632 at Dell today

 

[j26]

...The E1505 can support a 1920x1200 display with aftermarket parts and a 1680x1050 display when configured on Dell's website (same as the 17" MBP). The MacBook can support a 1280x800 display. ...

Ahem...

Graphics and Video Support

* Intel GMA 950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory1
* Extended desktop and video mirroring: Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to 1920 x 1200 pixels on an external display, both at millions of colors

Without any aftermarket parts btw (except a Mini DVI-DVI adaptor ($19))

 

[milozauckerman]

Simply put, spec isn't everything, you buy a Golf, and you get respect, you get build quality, you buy the style. Whereas if you buy the budget car, everyone will look at your car and know you were trying to go cheap, they will know that you'd prefer price over quality. Same goes for a Mac over a Dell.

Jesus, if it were that simple, I'd buy a Dell just to avoid schmucks who consume out of a desire for 'respect.'

A lot of the pro-Apple arguments - excluding the absurd "IT'S GOT A NAME" and "BMW VS. FORD YOU DIRTY PROLE" stuff - focus on where Dell seemingly saves money compared to the Apple. No Gigabit Ethernet, no iLife, more convenient battery lights, yada yada yada. In each of those cases, though, I can't help but wish that I had the option of buying an Apple without all of the unnecessary stuff (if it were actually those components adding into the price, which I don't think is true).

All the software I use I have to buy separately - Nisus Express, Aperture, CS2, etc., Vuescan - or else it's free - VLC, Firefox, Camino - from third-party vendors. I have zero use for gigabit ethernet. I've never really cared about the lights on a laptop battery. iTunes and Safari are the only packaged freebies I couldn't live without (and could live without Safari, really).

 

[milozauckerman]

If anything, the "slow" upgrade cycle of Macs should hinder their resale value. While Macs take a long time to refresh, the PC makers are frequently increasing chip speed, etc. the whole time. So, you see, an "old" Mac *should* be comparatively worthless to a much newer PC...if you compare clock speed alone. But, instead, "old, slow" Macs seem to hold on to their value. Why? Because they are Well Made machines, made with the best quality components available at time of manufacture...and everyone knows quality simply lasts longer.

Um... no.
Back in the day, used prices were artificially inflated because they were comparable to the newest products on the market. A first-gen G4 Powerbook was comparable to the last-gen - so the demand was higher for used. Why buy new and take the hit yourself?

In the future, Apple used prices won't be so high. Product cycles will have to be continuous (or else Apple will be tied into a string of catch-up games in price and features) and there will be a vast difference between the products of today and the products of yesterday.

Does design play a small role? Maybe. People like 'pretty' ****, even though Apple's design is really kind of blasé at this point. But G4 towers held their value, and they were just as ugly as any Dell (or moreso in the case of the blue ones). Nobody was buying a Quicksilver tower in order to pimp out the living room.

 

[vv-tim]

Ahem...


Without any aftermarket parts btw (except a Mini DVI-DVI adaptor ($19))

A Dell laptop can drive external displays as well. It's all about the GPU. The E1505 gets SXGA+ (1680x1050) if you configure it as such. It only takes custom upgrades (which you can order from Dell) to get the 1920x1200.

And just so you know... your MacBook/MacBook Pro does NOT run at "millions of colors". They use dithering to get 24/32bit color.

 

[kumbaya]

The M1710 is not comparable with a MBP. It's a gaming laptop. Designed for gamers. With gamer budgets. With pointless features. For unreasonable prices (even worse than Apple's premium). You have things like LEDs that change color on the M1710, a better video card, etc.

The E1405 would be more comparable to the MacBook. The E1505 can support a 1920x1200 display with aftermarket parts and a 1680x1050 display when configured on Dell's website (same as the 17" MBP). The MacBook can support a 1280x800 display. I don't see how you can compare something leaning towards an ultraportable (MacBook) with a 15.4" laptop.

snip

QUOTE]

if you're going to compare a dell notebook with a macbook pro, the *closest* specc'd machine is the m1710.

this whole thread underlies the point that there are no exact same products from the two companies which you can then price compare.

e1405 and macbook are also a lot closer in price and e1405 still misses a ton of features that macbook has

 

[kumbaya]

A Dell laptop can drive external displays as well. It's all about the GPU. The E1505 gets SXGA+ (1680x1050) if you configure it as such. It only takes custom upgrades (which you can order from Dell) to get the 1920x1200.

And just so you know... your MacBook/MacBook Pro does NOT run at "millions of colors". They use dithering to get 24/32bit color.

are you saying that you can order a new screen from dell for your laptop that will run at 1920x1200?

 

[Hornblower]

I probably shouldn't post, but...

I am finding the arguments about Apple's hardware being far superior to be kind of amusing these days. Considering all the Macbook Pro issues (heat problems, whining issues, mooing issues, warped cases, batteries overheating, etc.) and Macbook problems, its hard to claim Apple's designs are superior to Dell right now. Apple's quality control doesn't seem that great at the moment.

My Macbook Pro had to go back because it had kernal failures every couple hours. I've never had a new Dell do that to me. I've never had a "notebook" computer that I couldn't comfortably use on my lap. Give me a slightly thicker case if it means its more convenient. I didn't have to worry about picking up my Dell laptops while running and having it interfere with the cd drive if I didn't pick it up right.

I think hardware quality of Apple's vs Dell's is a moot point now. They both have lemons.

The resale value argument is also interesting. Apple is going to have to shorten their update windows because they are using Intel hardware now. Intel releases chipsets a lot faster then what Apple has dealt with before, so if Apple doesn't want to fall behind the Windows equivalent laptops, they'll have to upgrade as well.

I found in my brief usage of OS X that it really is superior to Windows XP in a lot of ways. I liked it so much I want to wait for better Apple laptops or consider a tower if they come out soon (with the Intel chips). OS X is great, and iLife looked pretty nice.

That said, Mac users constantly putting down Windows for its stability problems, virus and spyware issues, and such, really need to get better informed. If you use the free tools Microsoft gives you, you rarely will have crashes or issues. Most 'normal' Windows users I know are more then fine running their systems without spyware issues, or viruses. It isn't nearly the problem Mac or this board would have you believe.

Anyway, I'd like to switch to the Mac again. I like the OS X integration and want to run Aperture, which maybe is the one great app I can't reproduce on the Windows side.

 

[generik]

I probably shouldn't post, but...

I am finding the arguments about Apple's hardware being far superior to be kind of amusing these days. Considering all the Macbook Pro issues (heat problems, whining issues, mooing issues, warped cases, batteries overheating, etc.) and Macbook problems, its hard to claim Apple's designs are superior to Dell right now. Apple's quality control doesn't seem that great at the moment.

I won't really say it is so much about comparing Apples with other Citrus fruits (pun intended), it is more about Apple finding itself in a more competitive market, suddenly faced with higher costs (the Intel processors do cost more than the G4s for one), and trying to protect their phat profit margins & appear competitive at the same time.

During the G4 days, nobody really knows how much Apple's hardware really cost to produce. After all they are running largely custom engineered solutions, and they can always claim R&D for their products to be $0 or $100 billion if they so desire, not that it'd be hard to denounce their inflated figures, but it is certainly not as easy now.

There was even word that a G4 1.67Ghz processor only costed Apple US$74 back in the day. This processor is used in a $2000 computer. The beauty of it all? Since there were no equivalent alternatives, Apple can pretend the PPC architecture is so superior that their 1.67Ghz PBG4 is priced equivalently to a 2Ghz Centrino PC laptop.

Is it overpriced? Yes. Do people know better? No. At least they didn't know until a point when Apple can't pretend any longer and the cat is let out of the bag.. hence we have the Intel transition.

Today analysts can simply take a Macbook Pro, strip it down to its parts, and calculated exactly how much it costs Apple to produce one of such devices. The parts of the intel processor, the chipset, and more importantly, the cost of the talent needed to engineer one of these board solutions, are all pretty much common knowledge to the people in the industry. At least more common than the PPC world (that said I should of course say that the PPC is not a stinky backwater architecture that nobody uses, it is actually rather common in embedded applications as well).

With these also come pricing pressures, after all it is not going to look very good if people just compare the pricing of a Mac & a PC with the same processor inside and have the Mac come out twice as expensive. For most people who don't know any better, processor = performance indicator. With the Intel transition Mac pricing has also become a lot more competitive with their PC counterparts. Macs are still more expensive, sure, but today the Mac Price/Mac PerformanceC Price/PC Performance ratio has certainly improved a lot over previous Macs.

Of course, last but not least the darned CPU itself is more expensive, at least for the laptops. For the G5s they might actually be pretty good value, since it is not like IBM is known for cheap solutions, but we won't know for certain until the Mac Pros roll out.

Ultimately? Something's just gotta give, and quite sadly it is the quality of new Macs we get today.

Quite a disgrace really, considering how much a Machead pays for his Mac. But until we know exactly how much money Apple burns on developing and maintaining MacOS, it is actually quite hard to draw a very fair comparison too.

 

[bbrosemer]

Generik, ... are you saying that the G4 PB is any different from the MBP, the use alot of the same parts, other then the logic board and CPU and RAM well the list kinda goes on, but moreover the problem isnt the case or the anything else other then mostly "there are people with monitor problems" but they existed in the G4 as well that Apple who has nothing to do with building the LB, and CPU is the problem, no no, it is intel, their chips are hot, and their LB's well we have seen have problems, this is not apple's lack of putting money into their componets it is companies such as intel looking for even higher profit margins, Apple is the middle man and so is every PC maufacturer, they all just put together the parts that ou need and they can not build better with bad parts, the monitor issues I think need to be adressed but everthing else for the most part "problem wise" they dont have much control over, and the only difference is the only 2 compaines for the most part that you will even see using Core 2's in their Laptops are Lenevo and Apple Gateway too probably, everyone else has made the switch to AMD or will be, there will be once again nothing to compare to Core 2 to other then the Lenevo which will also be a high priced laptop and this will become the only other company that will still be in the Merom market.

 

[playaj82]

During the G4 days, nobody really knows how much Apple's hardware really cost to produce. After all they are running largely custom engineered solutions, and they can always claim R&D for their products to be $0 or $100 billion if they so desire, not that it'd be hard to denounce their inflated figures, but it is certainly not as easy now.

There was even word that a G4 1.67Ghz processor only costed Apple US$74 back in the day. This processor is used in a $2000 computer. The beauty of it all? Since there were no equivalent alternatives, Apple can pretend the PPC architecture is so superior that their 1.67Ghz PBG4 is priced equivalently to a 2Ghz Centrino PC laptop.

My guess is that Apple, Motorola, and the analysts knew how much the hardware cost to produce. And inflating figures is not the greatest business model or ethical way to keep customers.

Also, you have an 867mhz G4 in a 1" enclosure it creates (X) degrees of heat. You put in the 1.5Ghz G4 in a 1" enclosure, it creates (X+) degrees of heat. Quite a significant difference between someone upgrading from a 2Ghz Centrino to a 2.4Ghz P-4 Mobile. It isn't quite as simple as just the price of the chip, that chip has to go somewhere, and sometimes adjusting a design adds cost.

Is it overpriced? Yes. Do people know better? No. At least they didn't know until a point when Apple can't pretend any longer and the cat is let out of the bag.. hence we have the Intel transition.

Today analysts can simply take a Macbook Pro, strip it down to its parts, and calculated exactly how much it costs Apple to produce one of such devices. The parts of the intel processor, the chipset, and more importantly, the cost of the talent needed to engineer one of these board solutions, are all pretty much common knowledge to the people in the industry. At least more common than the PPC world (that said I should of course say that the PPC is not a stinky backwater architecture that nobody uses, it is actually rather common in embedded applications as well).

If we applied this logic to the car industry, nobody would buy a BMW, Audi, Lexis, or Mercedes because when you boil it down to the raw cost to produce, people are getting fleeced.

With these also come pricing pressures, after all it is not going to look very good if people just compare the pricing of a Mac & a PC with the same processor inside and have the Mac come out twice as expensive. For most people who don't know any better, processor = performance indicator. With the Intel transition Mac pricing has also become a lot more competitive with their PC counterparts. Macs are still more expensive, sure, but today the Mac Price/Mac PerformanceC Price/PC Performance ratio has certainly improved a lot over previous Macs.

Of course, last but not least the darned CPU itself is more expensive, at least for the laptops. For the G5s they might actually be pretty good value, since it is not like IBM is known for cheap solutions, but we won't know for certain until the Mac Pros roll out.

Ultimately? Something's just gotta give, and quite sadly it is the quality of new Macs we get today.

Quite a disgrace really, considering how much a Machead pays for his Mac. But until we know exactly how much money Apple burns on developing and maintaining MacOS, it is actually quite hard to draw a very fair comparison too.

Can't we just let the "more expensive" argument die out already. Everyone has their own argument about software/hardware/value/quality....blah blah blah. The point is that people have a choice now. Computer are three times less expensive than they used to be 5 years ago, they last about twice as long, and everyone can justify spending money on one because they need one.

If you are telling me that someone will never be able to buy a $1400 computer versus a $1200 computer because they "can't afford it", then you are right.

I still remember buying a Pentium III Dell with a 17" CRT monitor for over $2000.

Regarding quality control, you should never buy the first revision of ANYTHING. It isn't like 1 in 5 MacBooks or MacBook Pros are showing up DOA. They run hot, may make funny sounds, oh well. If you are worried about these problems, then don't buy one. But there are thousands of people who don't care.

The only thing giving right now is the expectation that Apple is this perfect company. Apple is anything but perfect, but at least they try.

 

[generik]

If we applied this logic to the car industry, nobody would buy a BMW, Audi, Lexis, or Mercedes because when you boil it down to the raw cost to produce, people are getting fleeced.

I pretty much agree with what you've said, except for the car analogy... the difference is that for the brand name cars you've mentioned, well, those cars are all actually better engineered than your garden variety Hondas or Toyotas.

You see, for luxury cars, not only do..

1) they look good
2) but they also perform better
3) and let's not leave out the nice leather seats
4) and the smoother ride
5) and last but not least, hey, for the BMWs they are PowerPC powered for ultimate engine performance!

You can probably do 180mph in a Mercedes on an autobahn and the car will still purr along dutifully, but do that with a consumer car and not only will the engine be howling like some wild injured animal, but the entire car will probably be vibrating like it is going to disintegrate at a moment's notice.

That's the difference.

I won't say that for the MBP there aren't any innovations, sure there are. The backlit keyboards are brilliant, and autosensing LAN adaptors are clever too for the Mac using networking.. guy, same with the Magsafe connector. But it pretty much ends there.

Barring the whine, you pretty much still have that toasty wrist rest and sweaty palm from using the machine, you will still get funny noises when you load in a CD (god forbid if you load in a *scratched* CD!), and yes, unfortunately for what it is worth, similar components using on PC generally performs the same on a Mac. By that I mean..

.. a 2Ghz Core Duo on a PC is pretty much the same as on a Mac
.. ditto for the X1600Pro (actually it is underclocked on the Mac, so it performs worse)
.. same goes for the hard drive performance
.. and everything else..

Hence here is where the car analogy falls apart, the engines in a BMW would actually outpace your normal non premium engines, and similarly a Mercedes would do pretty much the same too, at even better.. comfort levels.

Of course, what the analogy also fails to address is that a luxury car probably costs 10X more than a normal family sedan, and a Mac would generally at worse cost only 50% more than an equivalent PC counterpart.


Can't we just let the "more expensive" argument die out already. Everyone has their own argument about software/hardware/value/quality....blah blah blah. The point is that people have a choice now. Computer are three times less expensive than they used to be 5 years ago, they last about twice as long, and everyone can justify spending money on one because they need one.

If you are telling me that someone will never be able to buy a $1400 computer versus a $1200 computer because they "can't afford it", then you are right.

I still remember buying a Pentium III Dell with a 17" CRT monitor for over $2000.

Regarding quality control, you should never buy the first revision of ANYTHING. It isn't like 1 in 5 MacBooks or MacBook Pros are showing up DOA. They run hot, may make funny sounds, oh well. If you are worried about these problems, then don't buy one. But there are thousands of people who don't care.

The only thing giving right now is the expectation that Apple is this perfect company. Apple is anything but perfect, but at least they try.

Why shouldn't you buy the first revision of anything?

Since we are onto cars, have you ever seen a Rev-B car? Gee, I am going to buy a Toyota Yaris, but it is a new model, never been field-tested, what if the brakes fail on me?! Oh noes!?

Part of the trouble with Apple is, since their products are always developed in secret, the customers are essentially going to be their field beta testers. There engineers might have a go at the prototypes in their labs before they finalised the design, but hey, that's probably at most what, 100-200 people max?

IMO, I don't particularly enjoy seeing Apple getting the kind of PR they'd get when they launch lawsuits like.. the recent Asteroid case, but herein lies the deeper issue.

You see, unlike other manufacturers, Apple actually likes to fleece you big time, max possible. What do I mean by that?

So let's suppose I go to Dell's website today, I don't have to worry that "a new revision is coming out tomorrow", why is that so? Because last month a E1505 might have been $1699, today it might have dropped to $1599. What more if I find it expensive I can probably put in a slower processor for cheaper.

For other manufacturers product revision cycles are a continuum, an evolution that is constantly in progress. For Macs it is more like a quantum stop/go/stop/go process. Woe to those who just got their machines shortly before the "go"

That is something that I personally don't like, and in fact if Apple were to adopt a more.. how should I call it.. norminal way of pushing out new products perhaps there'd be less obsession about what they are trying to keep so damned secret in their labs.

What would you prefer to see, the current system where models get priced at a fixed rigid price point until the next revision ticks in, wherein they get replaced by better models priced at the same rigid price point, or a system where products gradually just slowly move out of the limelight, and down in price.. and just gradually disappear.

Somehow the latter appeals to me more, in fact I can't see why anyone would prefer the former, apart from Apple.