If you could get a mac...

If you had the choice between a 17" Macbook Pro, or a similar laptop with around the same specs or better, which one would you take.

Me personally, I would take the PC, because they have cheaper (pricewise) support, and can easily be upgraded. Plus Windows 7 is better than SL.

MacBook Pro, Battery life IMHO is the most important issue in mobile devices - and the new MBPs have excellent battery life. As for the "easy to upgrade" argument... Laptops aren't upgradeable, so this argument is flawed. As for Desktop/Tower PCs, the "easy to upgrade" argument is also flawed... An upgrade that consist of upgrading the processor to a new motherboard - is considered as buying a new computer... (-_-)a. Upgrading a gfx card, Tower macs can do that too, and also true for upgrading memory or adding a storage controller... PCs aren't "easier to upgrade", you just got used to the fact that you can build PCs from ground up, but not Macs.

Just my 2cents,

zzz2496

zzz2496 said:

MacBook Pro, Battery life IMHO is the most important issue in mobile devices - and the new MBPs have excellent battery life. As for the "easy to upgrade" argument... Laptops aren't upgradeable, so this argument is flawed. As for Desktop/Tower PCs, the "easy to upgrade" argument is also flawed... An upgrade that consist of upgrading the processor to a new motherboard - is considered as buying a new computer... (-_-)a. Upgrading a gfx card, Tower macs can do that too, and also true for upgrading memory or adding a storage controller... PCs aren't "easier to upgrade", you just got used to the fact that you can build PCs from ground up, but not Macs.

Just my 2cents,

zzz2496

I believe they are referring to opportunity cost factors, and actual costs themselves. I also believe that the argument on "upgradability" is not limited to "specifications".

cclloyd9785 said:

If you had the choice between a 17" Macbook Pro, or a similar laptop with around the same specs or better, which one would you take.

Me personally, I would take the PC, because they have cheaper (pricewise) support, and can easily be upgraded. Plus Windows 7 is better than SL.

I'd get the MacBook Pro. Apple makes great products, its just their own 'closed-off little world' that I dislike.

Windows 7 is NOT better than Snow Leopard, nor vice versa. Every Operating System has its ups and downs. None is better than the other. Besides, Macs support Windows (via bootcamp) so you can have both. So why not?

arkhi said:

zzz2496 said:

MacBook Pro, Battery life IMHO is the most important issue in mobile devices - and the new MBPs have excellent battery life. As for the "easy to upgrade" argument... Laptops aren't upgradeable, so this argument is flawed. As for Desktop/Tower PCs, the "easy to upgrade" argument is also flawed... An upgrade that consist of upgrading the processor to a new motherboard - is considered as buying a new computer... (-_-)a. Upgrading a gfx card, Tower macs can do that too, and also true for upgrading memory or adding a storage controller... PCs aren't "easier to upgrade", you just got used to the fact that you can build PCs from ground up, but not Macs.

Just my 2cents,

zzz2496

I believe they are referring to opportunity cost factors, and actual costs themselves. I also believe that the argument is not on "upgradability" is not limited to "specifications".

Hmm... I see. I don't see how servicing a Mac can cost more than servicing a PC though (I have 2007 MacBook Pro, the MB failed several times, Apple care covered it like nothing happens...).

DarkNovaGamer said:

cclloyd9785 said:

If you had the choice between a 17" Macbook Pro, or a similar laptop with around the same specs or better, which one would you take.

Me personally, I would take the PC, because they have cheaper (pricewise) support, and can easily be upgraded. Plus Windows 7 is better than SL.

I'd get the MacBook Pro. Apple makes great products, its just their own 'closed-off little world' that I dislike.

Windows 7 is NOT better than Snow Leopard, nor vice versa. Every Operating System has its ups and downs. None is better than the other. Besides, Macs support Windows (via bootcamp) so you can have both. So why not?

+1, Well said, DarkNovaGamer.

zzz2496

zzz2496 said:

MacBook Pro, Battery life IMHO is the most important issue in mobile devices - and the new MBPs have excellent battery life. As for the "easy to upgrade" argument... Laptops aren't upgradeable, so this argument is flawed. As for Desktop/Tower PCs, the "easy to upgrade" argument is also flawed... An upgrade that consist of upgrading the processor to a new motherboard - is considered as buying a new computer... (-_-)a. Upgrading a gfx card, Tower macs can do that too, and also true for upgrading memory or adding a storage controller... PCs aren't "easier to upgrade", you just got used to the fact that you can build PCs from ground up, but not Macs.

Just my 2cents,

zzz2496

Although the question is directed to a MBP--a notebook--you took the opportunity to inject desktops into the equation. If I have a motherboard--say an AM2+ motherboard--and the cpu installed is an Athlon 64 X2 and I get a Phenom, either the first gen or second gen, and the only other thing I have to do is potentially update the BIOS to accept the new proc, then that is an upgrade. That is not buying a new computer as you state, but an upgrade. I took an "inferior" part and replaced it with a "superior" part... Isn't that the definition of an upgrade?

If you get the right type of PC notebook, that upgrade is possible as well. I've done it to a notebook I once owned--took a single core Turion64 proc and replaced it with a dual core Turion64X2. It can be done and it is not as hard as some would make it to be--just keep track of your screws!

mpcrsc562 said:

zzz2496 said:

MacBook Pro, Battery life IMHO is the most important issue in mobile devices - and the new MBPs have excellent battery life. As for the "easy to upgrade" argument... Laptops aren't upgradeable, so this argument is flawed. As for Desktop/Tower PCs, the "easy to upgrade" argument is also flawed... An upgrade that consist of upgrading the processor to a new motherboard - is considered as buying a new computer... (-_-)a. Upgrading a gfx card, Tower macs can do that too, and also true for upgrading memory or adding a storage controller... PCs aren't "easier to upgrade", you just got used to the fact that you can build PCs from ground up, but not Macs.

Just my 2cents,

zzz2496

Although the question is directed to a MBP--a notebook--you took the opportunity to inject desktops into the equation. If I have a motherboard--say an AM2+ motherboard--and the cpu installed is an Athlon 64 X2 and I get a Phenom, either the first gen or second gen, and the only other thing I have to do is potentially update the BIOS to accept the new proc, then that is an upgrade. That is not buying a new computer as you state, but an upgrade. I took an "inferior" part and replaced it with a "superior" part... Isn't that the definition of an upgrade?

If you get the right type of PC notebook, that upgrade is possible as well. I've done it to a notebook I once owned--took a single core Turion64 proc and replaced it with a dual core Turion64X2. It can be done and it is not as hard as some would make it to be--just keep track of your screws!

Hmm... Sorry, I don't upgrade my computer to the same "generation" hardware - I personally think that it's rather pointless. My current processor is Core2Quad Q6600, If I were to upgrade it, it won't be Core2Quad 9000 series (the performance difference is only 20-30% at best, the cost however - isn't worth the while), and I upgrade my PC every 3 - 4 years period, so - that's what I'm basing on.

I know that there are individuals that upgrades his/her processor in one generation family (say AM2 to AM2+ with a BIOS update), but it doesn't make sense at all (again, this is my personal opinion), from economical standpoint doesn't make sense - wasting several hundred dollars to replace a chip that costs almost the same back then, from performance standpoint- the performance difference is no where near 50% or 70% more performance (that is the point of upgrade IMHO, a lot more performance). But again, each to one's own... please excuse my "silly" opinion.

As for laptops, I still prefer MBP, even if it does have inferior hardware - the battery life is the deciding factor. I expect my laptop to work a long time when untethered, not like those gaming laptops, very high system specs with ~1 hour battery life. It is utterly silly for a mobile device... Can you use a phone that runs it's battery out in less than 2 hours for your day to day needs?

zzz2496