Why A PC Diehard Bought A (Used) MacBook Pro (Op Ed)

[ubercake]

I will say if I worked in an artistic field such as video or audio production, I'd be more inclined to use a Mac. There was a time when you could only run video production software on an Amiga or Mac and additionally many photo and audio editing software packages didn't see Windows OS compatibility until around 10-15 years ago depending on the package.

From a do-anything standpoint these days, you can do darned near any of those things you once could only do on a Mac on a Windows PC and with better hardware options and subsequently better performance and without having to run a dual-boot system to do it.

 

[Shneiky]

As I work in an "artistic" field - visual FX, mainly 3D, I have to point out Mac is horrible as software choices or stability goes. The myth that Mac is for the creative and artistic is a lie. Only 20/30% of the software out there runs on a Mac. Of course - there are titles exclusive to each side, but Windows always has an equivalent, while Mac does not. The only thing that pops out in my head is Logic (Mac exclusive Sound design software). But our audio guy switched to Cubase saying that Logic has been lagging in development for the past years.

 

[gggplaya]

As I work in an "artistic" field - visual FX, mainly 3D, I have to point out Mac is horrible as software choices or stability goes. The myth that Mac is for the creative and artistic is a lie. Only 20/30% of the software out there runs on a Mac. Of course - there are titles exclusive to each side, but Windows always has an equivalent, while Mac does not. The only thing that pops out in my head is Logic (Mac exclusive Sound design software). But our audio guy switched to Cubase saying that Logic has been lagging in development for the past years.

Apple is leading the way in 3k and 4k screen implementation, what they call the retina display. I think they're making better strides than PC. Even if you buy a PC with a 4K screen, programs crash constantly and many of the buttons for PC look blurry because they are scaled up from their lower res version. They came up with a little patch for windows 8 to work with 4k screens, but it's just a patch not a ground up implementation. I have a lenovo Y50 4k, but i keep it at 1920x1080 and am crossing my fingers for windows 10 to resolved all the issues with windows 8 at 4k.

I bought the 4k screen specifically for my photography hobby. I'm sure desktop publishers and print people can make use of their 4k-5k screens as well.

Does anyone want to trade a lenovo Y50 4k for a macbook pro 15" retina??

 

[Solandri]

Apple is leading the way in 3k and 4k screen implementation, what they call the retina display.

The retina displays are made by Samsung, LG, and Japan Display. Not by Apple. Almost none of the tech used in Apple devices are actually made by Apple. I think right now it's only the A9 processor, which is an Apple redesign of the reference ARM design (and manufactured by Samsung). Most of Apple's contribution to the device is the software.

I think they're making better strides than PC. Even if you buy a PC with a 4K screen, programs crash constantly and many of the buttons for PC look blurry because they are scaled up from their lower res version. They came up with a little patch for windows 8 to work with 4k screens, but it's just a patch not a ground up implementation.

Apple's OS as far back as the original Macs were designed from the get-go to scale with screen resolution. One of the reasons the Mac was so popular with publishing companies in the 1980s was because it automatically scaled the UI depending on your monitor size. The Mac would ask the monitor what it's size was, then calculate PPI based on the display resolution, and scale the UI the correct amount. This meant a 10 point font was always the same physical size on a Mac screen, regardless of your monitor size or screen resolution. The OS would scale everything automatically.

Windows took a different approach - optimizing output based on pixels. This meant the physical size of a 10 point font differed depending on your screen size and resolution. But it meant that for a given screen size and resolution, the output was sharper than using Apple's approach. You can see this for yourself if you ever hook up a Mac and PC to identical monitors side-by-side. The PC has sharper fonts and icons. In a way, the Macs needed "retina" displays more than PCs.

Neither solution is "right". Which is better depended on the display technology available at the time. With low- and medium-PPI displays, the Windows approach was better. With high-PPI displays, Apple's approach is better. Advances in display and GPU technology have made Apple's solution better today. It does not mean it was always the better solution.

Ironically, the situation is completely reversed in mobile devices. For some inexplicable reason, Apple abandoned the PPI-scaling approach they used on MacOS and OS X. They based iOS on a fixed screen size and resolution. That's why iPhones had to double the resolution (it was the only way to scale up the UI), and the UI on the iPad Mini looks a little too small (it's the same resolution as a regular iPad, but has a smaller screen). OTOH, Android has an internal PPI setting which you can change to automatically scale the UI depending on the screen size and resolution so the icons always remain the same physical size. If you hack your phone, you can even change this setting manually - give your parents extra-large icons and text for their aging eyes.

 

[tobalaz]

Well, I bought a cheap Windows 8 laptop without a touchscreen for on the go (have a full fledged Win7 gaming pc at the house for my primary rig) and it was such a horrendous experience I installed Ubuntu Linux on it instead of returning it, and loved it. Its a great laptop OS I can use for internet, music and video. Its not much for gaming, but it runs my old DOS and Win 98 games well enough.
Between PlayOnLinux, WINE, GoG and now Steam if Win10 goes subscription I'll be able to make the switch on my next gaming rig.

 

[USAFRet]

Well, I bought a cheap Windows 8 laptop without a touchscreen for on the go (have a full fledged Win7 gaming pc at the house for my primary rig) and it was such a horrendous experience I installed Ubuntu Linux on it instead of returning it, and loved it. Its a great laptop OS I can use for internet, music and video. Its not much for gaming, but it runs my old DOS and Win 98 games well enough.
Between PlayOnLinux, WINE, GoG and now Steam if Win10 goes subscription I'll be able to make the switch on my next gaming rig.

If it was a new, low end laptop, that 'horrendous' was almost certainly due to the preinstalled crapware. I just went through that with a friends new $350 Toshiba.
Utterly useless OOTB. Reinstall a clean OS (8.1), all problems magically disappeared.

 

[O_Pgamer96]

well boys looks like we lost another one.

 

[canadianvice]

Well, I bought a cheap Windows 8 laptop without a touchscreen for on the go (have a full fledged Win7 gaming pc at the house for my primary rig) and it was such a horrendous experience I installed Ubuntu Linux on it instead of returning it, and loved it. Its a great laptop OS I can use for internet, music and video. Its not much for gaming, but it runs my old DOS and Win 98 games well enough.
Between PlayOnLinux, WINE, GoG and now Steam if Win10 goes subscription I'll be able to make the switch on my next gaming rig.

If it was a new, low end laptop, that 'horrendous' was almost certainly due to the preinstalled crapware. I just went through that with a friends new $350 Toshiba.
Utterly useless OOTB. Reinstall a clean OS (8.1), all problems magically disappeared.

Even the higher ones have a lot of crapware.

Kind of ironic really. In the price war, they install tons of it to help subsidize the price and keep it down, only to be followed by the inevitable sales pitch about removing it all for $125 bucks. It'd probably be better to just have a higher price and not have to worry about that stuff.

I have to admit, since it's really the best option in building your own computer, I found the OEM copies of Windows to be very liberating for that reason.

 

[vsdagama]

You guys keep missing one important fact...macbooks may not compute any better than the same windows machine, but they are sturdier IMO. No having to replace cheap power jacks when the plastic snaps in side or cheap ass hinges is nice. Would you rather replace a power jack or just plug the magsafe cord back in ? Keyboards tend to be more solid and have less slop than their "PC" laptop counterparts as well.

Well sir, I can speak from 4.5 years of experience using a "sturdy", "high quality" macbook pro.
The device itself may be well made, but the power cord ISN'T, the DVD stopped working, the black "feet" were nonexistant after a few years leaving holes in the bottom etc etc...
In those 4.5 years I had to buy a new power adapter/cord 4 TIMES, and 5 TIMES if I didn't frankenstein one together myself with the parts of the previous ones.

That amounts to a total of 5 * 79 euro = 395 euro = 450 dollar JUST TO REPLACE "STURDY" POWER CORDS/ADAPTERS!

Also, during the 4.5 years I used it, 99,5% of the time was spent on windows 7.

I'm not even starting about the amount of power cords i've had to buy for my dad's ipad...

And ow yeah, I'm currently rocking on a 800$ dell latitude e5540 now. Having approximately 2-3 times the battery life of the NEW macbook and 9+ !!!! times the battery life the macbook had after 4.5 years. (this is after 2 years of use)

Good day sir, no more apple crap for me.

 

[tobalaz]

Well, I bought a cheap Windows 8 laptop without a touchscreen for on the go (have a full fledged Win7 gaming pc at the house for my primary rig) and it was such a horrendous experience I installed Ubuntu Linux on it instead of returning it, and loved it. Its a great laptop OS I can use for internet, music and video. Its not much for gaming, but it runs my old DOS and Win 98 games well enough.
Between PlayOnLinux, WINE, GoG and now Steam if Win10 goes subscription I'll be able to make the switch on my next gaming rig.

If it was a new, low end laptop, that 'horrendous' was almost certainly due to the preinstalled crapware. I just went through that with a friends new $350 Toshiba.
Utterly useless OOTB. Reinstall a clean OS (8.1), all problems magically disappeared.

No, it was 8, not 8.1, and it was frustrations with login issues, moving my fingers too fast across the touchpad or too close to the edge and it as a result closing programs on me and popping up the charms bar, previous program or clock at what seemed random. It felt like a chore to do anything on, and that god awful mobile tile interface forced on a desktop was nauseating.
I've used Win 8 on 2 other laptops, didn't care for it, and 8.1 on 2 other laptops, and while it was better then 8 I still prefer 7.
I fix PCs and laptops, and I've had some huge issues with them, it seems like when the obscure stuff goes wrong I get to deal with it, like getting locked out of your local login after an update andvrouter change or AVG breaking after updating from Win 8 to 8.1 and Windows not letting you uninstall AVG so you could reinstall.
Hell I never had this many issues with Vista and EVERYBODY hated it.

 

[computertech82]

I'm sorry, this sounds pretty stupid. Apple is nothing more than a pc with a different os. that os is mostly useless compared to most software is designed for windows, NOT an apple os.
And what i've found over and over and over, an apple with the EXACT same parts will cost hundreds more than a pc brand. Only an idiot would get an apple.

 

[canadianvice]

I'm sorry, this sounds pretty stupid. Apple is nothing more than a pc with a different os. that os is mostly useless compared to most software is designed for windows, NOT an apple os.
And what i've found over and over and over, an apple with the EXACT same parts will cost hundreds more than a pc brand. Only an idiot would get an apple.

Apple is decidedly easier to use than Windows. An all-purpose system must accommodate everyone, Apple can be very selective. Many people I know would be willing to pay the extra for that simplicity.

Windows is great, and I love it, but if we're being completely true to fact, Apple's computers generally have a better build and are almost universally simpler to use because they're locked down to anything but the critical activities people do - but it's like they say in computer science: optimize the common case.

 

[ubercake]

Well, I bought a cheap Windows 8 laptop without a touchscreen for on the go (have a full fledged Win7 gaming pc at the house for my primary rig) and it was such a horrendous experience I installed Ubuntu Linux on it instead of returning it, and loved it. Its a great laptop OS I can use for internet, music and video. Its not much for gaming, but it runs my old DOS and Win 98 games well enough.
Between PlayOnLinux, WINE, GoG and now Steam if Win10 goes subscription I'll be able to make the switch on my next gaming rig.

If it was a new, low end laptop, that 'horrendous' was almost certainly due to the preinstalled crapware. I just went through that with a friends new $350 Toshiba.
Utterly useless OOTB. Reinstall a clean OS (8.1), all problems magically disappeared.

This is absolutely true. I picked up a $300 Gateway dual-core Win 8 laptop for my family members to "ruin" when Windows 8 was first released. I cleaned the crapware off and once Windows 8 became 8.1 and a lot of the kinks were ironed out, I upgraded and did the full refresh/reset through Win 8.1 which cleared everything. It's still running like a champ and for only $300. Further, I have a family member who bought a Win 8.1 Stream from the MS Store at the mall. When you buy from the MS Store, they cleanse the crapware prior to the sale. Runs great.

 

[Vlad Rose]

I'm sorry, this sounds pretty stupid. Apple is nothing more than a pc with a different os. that os is mostly useless compared to most software is designed for windows, NOT an apple os.
And what i've found over and over and over, an apple with the EXACT same parts will cost hundreds more than a pc brand. Only an idiot would get an apple.

Apple is decidedly easier to use than Windows. An all-purpose system must accommodate everyone, Apple can be very selective. Many people I know would be willing to pay the extra for that simplicity.

Windows is great, and I love it, but if we're being completely true to fact, Apple's computers generally have a better build and are almost universally simpler to use because they're locked down to anything but the critical activities people do - but it's like they say in computer science: optimize the common case.

That is not true at all that Apple is easier to use than Windows. It all depends on what you're used to. Plus, if you ever have to fix a problem on an Apple, it can be a royal pain to fix short of taking it in to an Apple store and paying a ton to have it done for you.

 

[Vlad Rose]

I'm sorry, this sounds pretty stupid. Apple is nothing more than a pc with a different os. that os is mostly useless compared to most software is designed for windows, NOT an apple os.
And what i've found over and over and over, an apple with the EXACT same parts will cost hundreds more than a pc brand. Only an idiot would get an apple.

Please, tell me more about apple costing more than a PC.

Apple MacBook Pro - $1,299
Dell XPS with the same specs - $1,299
Asus Zenbook with worse specs (1080p screen) - $1,229
HP Elitebook with worst specs (4GB ram, 900p screen) - $1,304

I'm sorry that Apple doesn't make any plastic laptops with Celeron processors and 2GB of RAM to sell to technical illiterates like you for $299

May I ask where you're getting the price on the Asus? The highest price I've seen for the same specs has still been under $1,000.

What's really ironic too is that you compared Apple's laptop to Asus's Ultrabook. It should be Apple's Air vs Asus Zenbook. Or if you want to use the Macbook, pick one of Asus's normal laptops.

 

[canadianvice]

I'm sorry, this sounds pretty stupid. Apple is nothing more than a pc with a different os. that os is mostly useless compared to most software is designed for windows, NOT an apple os.
And what i've found over and over and over, an apple with the EXACT same parts will cost hundreds more than a pc brand. Only an idiot would get an apple.

Apple is decidedly easier to use than Windows. An all-purpose system must accommodate everyone, Apple can be very selective. Many people I know would be willing to pay the extra for that simplicity.

Windows is great, and I love it, but if we're being completely true to fact, Apple's computers generally have a better build and are almost universally simpler to use because they're locked down to anything but the critical activities people do - but it's like they say in computer science: optimize the common case.

That is not true at all that Apple is easier to use than Windows. It all depends on what you're used to. Plus, if you ever have to fix a problem on an Apple, it can be a royal pain to fix short of taking it in to an Apple store and paying a ton to have it done for you.

If you're a casual user and it isn't a hardware issue, software issues should not arise if you stay in the garden. Regardless, Apple has done a far better job at fast-tracking the common case than Windows has - people want cat videos, facebook, email, photos, and office applications. Give them that and you have 99% of the [consumer] market.

 

[Vlad Rose]

I'm sorry, this sounds pretty stupid. Apple is nothing more than a pc with a different os. that os is mostly useless compared to most software is designed for windows, NOT an apple os.
And what i've found over and over and over, an apple with the EXACT same parts will cost hundreds more than a pc brand. Only an idiot would get an apple.

Apple is decidedly easier to use than Windows. An all-purpose system must accommodate everyone, Apple can be very selective. Many people I know would be willing to pay the extra for that simplicity.

Windows is great, and I love it, but if we're being completely true to fact, Apple's computers generally have a better build and are almost universally simpler to use because they're locked down to anything but the critical activities people do - but it's like they say in computer science: optimize the common case.

That is not true at all that Apple is easier to use than Windows. It all depends on what you're used to. Plus, if you ever have to fix a problem on an Apple, it can be a royal pain to fix short of taking it in to an Apple store and paying a ton to have it done for you.

If you're a casual user and it isn't a hardware issue, software issues should not arise if you stay in the garden. Regardless, Apple has done a far better job at fast-tracking the common case than Windows has - people want cat videos, facebook, email, photos, and office applications. Give them that and you have 99% of the [consumer] market.

I really wish that was the case about software issues not arising at the place I used to work at that had Mac's for personal use. They did end up having a bunch of software issues (including a severe ones when they upgraded the OS); which were so bad that they did end up having to take them in to be fixed. Hardware was fine though.

Another issue they had was with external hard drives that they'd buy as backup for their Mac's that weren't Apple brand. They wanted to save a couple hundred dollars (makes sense for any company), and ended up with nothing but headaches with those too.

The biggest thing to remember out of this is that Apple and OSX are no less prone to issues than PCs with Windows are any other piece of hardware or software out there.

Apple machines are fine, as long as you don't run into an issue with them and don't mind paying extra to stay inside their strict ecosystem.

 

[gggplaya]

Apple is leading the way in 3k and 4k screen implementation, what they call the retina display.

The retina displays are made by Samsung, LG, and Japan Display. Not by Apple. Almost none of the tech used in Apple devices are actually made by Apple. I think right now it's only the A9 processor, which is an Apple redesign of the reference ARM design (and manufactured by Samsung). Most of Apple's contribution to the device is the software.

This has no relevance to what i was saying. I was referring to the use of 4k with either OS, not manufacturing.

I think they're making better strides than PC. Even if you buy a PC with a 4K screen, programs crash constantly and many of the buttons for PC look blurry because they are scaled up from their lower res version. They came up with a little patch for windows 8 to work with 4k screens, but it's just a patch not a ground up implementation.

Apple's OS as far back as the original Macs were designed from the get-go to scale with screen resolution. One of the reasons the Mac was so popular with publishing companies in the 1980s was because it automatically scaled the UI depending on your monitor size. The Mac would ask the monitor what it's size was, then calculate PPI based on the display resolution, and scale the UI the correct amount. This meant a 10 point font was always the same physical size on a Mac screen, regardless of your monitor size or screen resolution. The OS would scale everything automatically.

Windows took a different approach - optimizing output based on pixels. This meant the physical size of a 10 point font differed depending on your screen size and resolution. But it meant that for a given screen size and resolution, the output was sharper than using Apple's approach. You can see this for yourself if you ever hook up a Mac and PC to identical monitors side-by-side. The PC has sharper fonts and icons. In a way, the Macs needed "retina" displays more than PCs.

Neither solution is "right". Which is better depended on the display technology available at the time. With low- and medium-PPI displays, the Windows approach was better. With high-PPI displays, Apple's approach is better. Advances in display and GPU technology have made Apple's solution better today. It does not mean it was always the better solution.

Ironically, the situation is completely reversed in mobile devices. For some inexplicable reason, Apple abandoned the PPI-scaling approach they used on MacOS and OS X. They based iOS on a fixed screen size and resolution. That's why iPhones had to double the resolution (it was the only way to scale up the UI), and the UI on the iPad Mini looks a little too small (it's the same resolution as a regular iPad, but has a smaller screen). OTOH, Android has an internal PPI setting which you can change to automatically scale the UI depending on the screen size and resolution so the icons always remain the same physical size. If you hack your phone, you can even change this setting manually - give your parents extra-large icons and text for their aging eyes.

This is good to know, i didn't know that before.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

I'm sorry, this sounds pretty stupid. Apple is nothing more than a pc with a different os. that os is mostly useless compared to most software is designed for windows, NOT an apple os.
And what i've found over and over and over, an apple with the EXACT same parts will cost hundreds more than a pc brand. Only an idiot would get an apple.

Apple is decidedly easier to use than Windows. An all-purpose system must accommodate everyone, Apple can be very selective. Many people I know would be willing to pay the extra for that simplicity.

paying extra for simplicity........what?
your willing to pay extra for a computer with only one mouse button.
your willing to pay extra to have it not run as many different programs.
your willing to pay extra to have less compatible hardware and peripherals.
your willing to pay extra for the windows license you now have to install because its uses are so limited without.

I....I....I just cant bear to hear any more, your going to give me an aneurism!

 

[USAFRet]

Clearly you don't understand the market for computers - 99% of people want 5 main things:
- Facebook (check)
- Email (check)
- Cat videos (check)
- Photos (check)
- Office Apps (check)

And the other 50% want games.

 

[USAFRet]

Let's try to keep it a little bit civil, and watch the language in here.
OK?

 

[canadianvice]

Gamers are a minority of the market. The vast majority might go as far as browser games. Otherwise people want simple machines they don't have to learn how to operate. Or at least, that's been a constant and recurring theme in my work selling computers in the last 3 years. You don't want to know how hard Windows 8 made my line of work.

 

[canadianvice]

Let me be clear so i don't come off as a fanboy: i utterly hate Mac and OSX. They're useless for my purposes and crippled.

That said, it doesn't stop me from recognizing that they're a great solution for the majority of the "casual" population. Tablets are another option for those people.

 

[USAFRet]

Gamers are a minority of the market. The vast majority might go as far as browser games. Otherwise people want simple machines they don't have to learn how to operate. Or at least, that's been a constant and recurring theme in my work selling computers in the last 3 years. You don't want to know how hard Windows 8 made my line of work.

And for your above stated "99%", that can be met with any $300-500 Walmart or BestBuy machine.
My wife, my ex, a couple of my kids fall into that. All their machines together don't add up to $1200.

 

[canadianvice]

Gamers are a minority of the market. The vast majority might go as far as browser games. Otherwise people want simple machines they don't have to learn how to operate. Or at least, that's been a constant and recurring theme in my work selling computers in the last 3 years. You don't want to know how hard Windows 8 made my line of work.

And for your above stated "99%", that can be met with any $300-500 Walmart or BestBuy machine.
My wife, my ex, a couple of my kids fall into that. All their machines together don't add up to $1200.

Ah, and therein lies my frustration with my work. My talents are wasted - perhaps not for the simple part, but they can realistically walk in and pick any computer they like and get something that does "the basics" (literally the terminology 99% of the people I talk to use to sum up their use.... it's not very helpful). No real point in having me there.

My comment is more along the lines that if people want simplicity without having someone lying in wait for tech support, they're probably better off getting a Mac. They seem to last an eternity, and the software is controlled in such a way it's pretty hard to mess anything up - you get the basics and the basics work well.

Apple, above anything, is an investment for the experience, not for the hardware. That said, it's an experience many people I know either are willing to pay for, or want but think is too expensive. So logically they go with the bottom barrel Asus $329 laptop and wonder why when they come back six months later and it's failed they get told to go to the manufacturer.

My main point is the simplicity - the bells and whistles of Windows (along with catering to numerous markets with one OS - corporate, casual, gamers, powerusers, programmers...) confuse the primary purpose people want to use their devices for - whereas Apple doesn't cater to anything but the casuals and the multimedia professionals and so their OS is much less convoluted - as I've stated earlier, computer science emphasizes optimizing the common case. For many people the common cases are those 5 things I've mentioned and optimization is keeping the use of those simple - Windows doesn't have nearly the liberty to optimize that way that Apple does.