2011 MacBook Pro - Lolfail?

01001010

Golden Master
Messages
7,888
in what world are mac books competativly priced?
Compare other premium notebooks to the MacBook.


(and yes it was a mac book pro, not just the standard mac book).
the trouble was the atom processor.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The MacBook Pro never came with an Intel Atom processor. That alone dismisses your whole argument. Especially when my 2007 MacBook Pro still runs everything with relative ease.
 

root

Site Team
Staff member
Messages
8,181
Location
UK
in what world are mac books competativly priced?
Compare other premium notebooks to the MacBook.
do I really have to explain this in such little baby steps for you.

Yes, compared to other *premium* notepads/notbooks/laptops etc the mac book pro IS competitively prices.

for example to top end of [insert other suppler here] range is prices around the same as a mac book pro.

BUT, the mac book pro, in general appears to have slower processor/less/ram/worse GPU. -and if you're truly honest, still has less possible applications (though how much that affects you does depend on what you're doing).


to just say that it's priced the same as other high end laptops is silly.

it's extraordinarily well priced (as the top of the range) when compared to a top of the range car (which has a much more basic computer. or a top of the line champagne...

but those comparisons are meaningless, all that matters is how much bang for your buck you're getting. and it's still the case that you get more when buying a PC.


This whole thread is about the fact that Apple have just stuck a midrange GPU into the new macbook pro.
it's meant to be their top of the line, meant to be their showing everyone how much at the bleeding edge of design and innovation they are. so why the only par graphics card? -yet still the price tag of a box stuffed with the latest and greatest.

(and yes it was a mac book pro, not just the standard mac book).
the trouble was the atom processor.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The MacBook Pro never came with an Intel Atom processor. That alone dismisses your whole argument. Especially when my 2007 MacBook Pro still runs everything with relative ease.
no. that was an editing/proof reading fail.

I had written a much longer more rambling post, and didn't quite edit all of it out. -edited it now, does that make you happy?

the fact still stands.

I said at the start of the post I didn't own a mac at all.
I quoted directly what had been told me by a friend whom I trust.
(even if I had meant to write that it wouldn't have dismissed an anecdotal argument).

he bought a mac book pro. when it first arrived he absolutely loved it. but soon found that it just wasn't good enough. in his exact words the processor wasn't up to it. when he was using skype the processor usage was sitting at 80-90% leaving practically nothing to do anything else.

you can accuse me of being Anti-Mac if you like.
but the guy who I got the information from to form this opinion isn't, he bought a Mac to start with, found out that it was woefully under powered and upgraded it to the current mac book air.

that said, an alternative experience could be gathered from my house mate, who has a mac book. or my ex, who also has a mac book.

both of them have the older gen mac book (white plastic). both of them love it. it does what they want, and they work in the way that it wants them to.

so perhaps if you're a standard user you can have a mac book and everything is great, for a few years or more even.
but that doesn't change the fact that if you are a pro user (like my friend is), who wants to run a lot of apps, or a lot of possibly resource intensive apps then the macbook pro possibly isn't for you.

and yes I find it laughable that his reasonably current macbook pro couldn't use safari and skype (with video) at the same time, because even the most basic PC can do that. (perhaps that's an exaggeration, but if it is, it's his exaggeration, I'm just repeating it verbatim)

perhaps you use your mac the same as my house-mate uses his. (e.g not intensively), perhaps you're happy with it. it doesn't change the fact that I know someone who wasn't happy with a mac, (yet at the same time still liked the brand and still bought another mac to replace it).


Telling me I have "absolutely no idea" what I'm talking about is just a little silly.
it also doesn't change the fact that this thread is about people saying that
putting substandard hardware in the box is silly (especially given the price tag)
substandard hardware doesn't justify a premium price tag.
you don't have to be Einstein to figure that out,
especially since I can read the specs myself and form an opinion about the hardware


Bear in mind one more thing. my opinion on the cost of the hardware is based on the GBP (sterling prices).
it seems that nobody at apple knows how to use a currency converter.
so if the new mac book might cost $1200 in the states, it'll cost £1200 in the UK (despite the fact that $1200 = £735).
 

01001010

Golden Master
Messages
7,888
but that doesn't change the fact that if you are a pro user (like my friend is), who wants to run a lot of apps, or a lot of possibly resource intensive apps then the macbook pro possibly isn't for you.

and yes I find it laughable that his reasonably current macbook pro couldn't use safari and skype (with video) at the same time, because even the most basic PC can do that. (perhaps that's an exaggeration, but if it is, it's his exaggeration, I'm just repeating it verbatim)
...it is an exaggeration and you know it. Something is wrong with your friend's computer. No need to drag that anomaly any further. I have five Firefox windows open with multiple tabs, along with Skype and ooVoo conducting a video chat bundled with Photoshop and it all runs beautifully. I cannot fathom how you could believe that a 2010 computer could not handle such basic tasks, let alone a MacBook Pro.

perhaps you use your mac the same as my house-mate uses his. (e.g not intensively), perhaps you're happy with it. it doesn't change the fact that I know someone who wasn't happy with a mac, (yet at the same time still liked the brand and still bought another mac to replace it).
Excuse me? I sure as hell use my MacBook Pro for intensive tasks, including (but not limited to) processing high definition video, exporting large image files and photo editing. You think I'm that daft?

Telling me I have "absolutely no idea" what I'm talking about is just a little silly.
it also doesn't change the fact that this thread is about people saying that
putting substandard hardware in the box is silly (especially given the price tag)
substandard hardware doesn't justify a premium price tag.
you don't have to be Einstein to figure that out,
especially since I can read the specs myself and form an opinion about the hardware
You don't. You haven't owned the hardware or used the software long enough to form a constructive opinion. You're just going what others have said, which is as useless as anything in this situation. You're the type of person that focuses purely on specifications without attention paid to integration of hardware and software and that's fine. But don't make such brute statements accusing the MacBook Pro of containing "cheap netbook parts", because that's just ignorance on your part.
 

root

Site Team
Staff member
Messages
8,181
Location
UK
...it is an exaggeration and you know it.
well, all I'm going to say is that I'm the one who said first it was likely an exaggeration. (I've no vested interest in the new mac book appearing to be shit).

Excuse me? I sure as hell use my MacBook Pro for intensive tasks, including (but not limited to) processing high definition video, exporting large image files and photo editing. You think I'm that daft?
I don't think that you're daft, I just have no idea what you use your computer for... just as you have no idea what anyone else uses their computer for...

You don't. You haven't owned the hardware or used the software long enough to form a constructive opinion. You're just going what others have said, which is as useless as anything in this situation. You're the type of person that focuses purely on specifications without attention paid to integration of hardware and software and that's fine.
you're right, I don't own a mac. but I have used them since version 8 of Mac OS (before it ripped off BSD). -as I said in my last post.
I've used OSX, both at work, and at home. I know how well built, how solid feeling, how well integrated previous devices have been.

but that doesn't matter, we're talking about a brand new device that's only just been launched. you haven't used it yet, you have no idea how it works, how fast it is, how well built it is, whether it can justify it's price tag... where has your opinion been formed?

But don't make such brute statements accusing the MacBook Pro of containing "cheap netbook parts", because that's just ignorance on your part.
really.

well, that's me, and darkseeker thinking that the Intel graphics just aren't premium enough to be in this device. (which is/should be a premium device).

and yes. I'm going on the specifications that have been published.
and reviews like this: Apple's new MacBook Pros raise quality concerns - Computerworld
and this 13" MacBook Pro specs leaked, reveal "Thunderbolt" I/O port
and this Apple MacBook Pro Refresh Won't Be Radical: Analyst - Desktops and Notebooks - News & Reviews - eWeek.com
and this Apple boosts MacBook Pro speeds in 'ho-hum' refresh - Computerworld

all people who have also seen the specs, people who have got the device and said things like it's a bit "ho-hum", or "not radical" or that the build quality "isn't up to much", or "poor"...

so yes, I'll go by published specs and what the people who have actually used these machines are saying. (I never met Stalin but I believe when lots of trusted sources say he wasn't a good person) -specifically avoided Godwins law!

you go with your experience of a three year old machine (2 or 3 models behind the leading model now?) and some kind of blind faith that it's going to be great because Apple made it?


Ignoring everything that's been written so far... except the first post.
do you *really* this that integrated graphics from Intel were the best choice?


I mean look at the specs. (of the 13" model)
core i5 processor -great, I'll want to pay decent money for that.
Thunder bolt, multi touch pad, HD web cam built right into the device.
wireless N networking and up to 7 hours of battery life.

these are the things (in that model) that are really great, the stuff that's setting it out as a good device that you'll want to pay good money for.
honestly. type that list, you get excited thinking how great this thing is... right until you get to the downsides.

integrated graphics? the 15 and 17" models got Radeon. why not the 13 (it's not so significantly cheaper)
and just a DVD burner... why no blu ray? (and that affects all three)

that's kind of the point I'm making here.
OSX is a decent OS, it's fast and stable.
the hardware just works.
everyone who uses a mac will tell you that "it just works", and it really really does just work...
the device spec list is half making me really excited and really want one, half making me wonder what on earth apple are on. and that if it's just a so-so, ho-hum, not radical machine then I really want it to be half the list price before I buy it.

we're talking about a laptop that I'm going to spend a thousand pounds on. (about $1500 by the time apple don't bother altering their price in link with the currency [13" model]). and for that I get just an ordinary laptop.
I can buy a dell with a core i5, and blu ray, and multi touch pad, and all of that for less money... -honestly, possibly for half the price... (not including thunder bolt because nobody else has got that yet -which makes it kind of pointless in a funny way)

lets say that I decide that the integrated graphics is really the problem...

then what? I buy the 15 or 17" version and i still just have a DVD drive, so I have a device made by apple. with a decently large display (who manufacture possibly the best and most crystal clear displays in the world) and I can't play hi-definition video on it. (well not from blu ray disk anyway).
and that 17" one carries a price tag of $2500.

it's good...
but it's just not good enough.
 

Kage

Golden Master
Messages
13,873
I've got to stand up for Root here. The specs are certainly not worth the price they are asking, whether its been built in a solid box that looks sexy or not.
Apple is just another manufacturer. Nothing special except for the fact they know how to advertise and sell.

If you are not going to game at all on it though, then it might not be an issue, but I don't see the reason why adding some inches to the screen means they have to then add an ATI chip. They could have easily have kept that in the 13 inch model.
But they are not advertising it as a gaming machine, and it certainly isn't meant to be used for that.
 

The_Lucas

Daemon Poster
Messages
749

Kage

Golden Master
Messages
13,873
He knows about that. Only the 13 inch model has the lower grade graphics, though I wouldn't call the ATI models on offer especially high grade either :p
 

GibsonSGKing

Daemon Poster
Messages
1,384
Their notebooks are actually pretty competitive.



1/3 the price? Doubt it, or are you speaking out of your ass?



Do you even know what a MacBook Pro is?
I wasn't just talking about Macbooks, I was talking about Apple's products in general. To me they seem way overpriced for the actual hardware you get, especially when you consider how closed their OS's seem to be. It just seems to be a bunch of snazzy advertising in my opinion.
 

Cabbs

Golden Master
Messages
7,912
Does anyone besides Apple offer IPS panels with their laptops? Those are considerably more expensive to make than TN film screens.
 
Top