MacBook Pro Alternatives

[Tomsguiderachel]

[citation][nom]dwhizzle[/nom]I still wouldn't consider that a large amount of people; most photographers/designers aren't going to be using a laptop for "on the go" editing. That is probably a niche, which again, can be better filled by other laptops.[/citation]
I've worked with quite a few photographers. Each one has owned a Mac Laptop and done editing for me on the fly, as they do every day for each client. Maybe it is a tiny niche, but what are the odds that every single one did the same thing? I don't mean to belabor the point, but there is an established trend amongst media professionals to use macs for their graphic needs. You'd probably say that they're just wrong--plain and simple--but I think it is probably a bit more complicated than that.

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

[citation][nom]dwhizzle[/nom]Racheal,I believe the post mentioned above did mainly speak about the price/performance of the aforementioned laptop, so that is why Curnel made light of said point.[/citation]
Not sure what you're referring to--to Bill Lake's article? It most definitely did not focus on price/performance--that's why it was so controversial 😉. By the way, the name's Rachel.

 

[dwhizzle]

[citation][nom]Tomsguiderachel[/nom]I've worked with quite a few photographers. Each one has owned a Mac Laptop and done editing for me on the fly, as they do every day for each client. Maybe it is a tiny niche, but what are the odds that every single one did the same thing? I don't mean to belabor the point, but there is an established trend amongst media professionals to use macs for their graphic needs. You'd probably say that they're just wrong--plain and simple--but I think it is probably a bit more complicated than that.[/citation]

I think that some people, as you've mentioned, use macs for on-the-go photo editing, but how many honestly use it for the screen (which is the point that was mentioned)?

I dont care if they want to do their editing on an Atari 2600; if they like it, go for it. But to say they chose that laptop for its screen (which again, isn't the best by far) sounds odd to me. If it is personal preference, fine. But don't veil it as the screen is the main reason.

 

[dwhizzle]

[citation][nom]Tomsguiderachel[/nom]Not sure what you're referring to--to Bill Lake's article? It most definitely did not focus on price/performance--that's why it was so controversial . By the way, the name's Rachel.[/citation]

Ahh.... sorry about that RachEl ^_^ I noticed too late to change it.

Well, to me it seemed like he was trying to give an alternative view to a mac, making it cheaper, while matching performance. What would the gist of the article be from your standpoint as editor?

 

[dwhizzle]

Oh, and i was referring to Pauls article, sorry about the confusion.

 

[rooket]

Why would photographers need this, don't you know that they make a full Adobe suite for Windows? I think the typical Mac user is just clueless as to what is available for either platform. As far as I can tell, they both have exactly the same capabilities.

 

[quantumrand]

I think I need to point out that the battery life times in the article are only what the manufacturers claimed, not through personal testing.

I completely agree that those claiming 8 hours is unrealistic in real world use, but it has become pretty common case for manufacturer's to report 8 hours these days.

 

[dwhizzle]

[citation][nom]rooket[/nom]Why would photographers need this, don't you know that they make a full Adobe suite for Windows? I think the typical Mac user is just clueless as to what is available for either platform. As far as I can tell, they both have exactly the same capabilities.[/citation]

I think your comment sums it up well. The thing that kinda gets me is people often times don't know that windows, ya know, can "do" photoshop too... 😛

 

[Powersworder]

There is an long established culture of Mac use amongst multimedia professionals. I think its a throw back to when Macs were the best systems for using Adobe products (not any more) and they have just got used to the O/S. My girlfriend works in advertising, and they use a Mac based network, because all their creative teams use Macs for their design work.

When I went to university, part of my degree included a course on multimedia. The lecturer, who was a mac fanboi, said that hed used a mac for years, because: "they are better and more powerful I think, but anyway they look nicer...". Most media professionals dont really know much about IT hardware, but the Mac aesthetics angle appeals to their arty nature.

Anyway I agree with Curnel_D. The only thing that Apple has going for it is the "coolness factor" which only works on people who dont know anything about computers. In all other respects, Windows based pcs are superior... Price, performance, compatibility, etc, etc. This is why Apple has such a tiny percentage of global market share.

 

[quantumrand]

[citation][nom]Powersworder[/nom]When I went to university, part of my degree included a course on multimedia. The lecturer, who was a mac fanboi, said that hed used a mac for years, because: "they are better and more powerful I think, but anyway they look nicer...". Most media professionals dont really know much about IT hardware, but the Mac aesthetics angle appeals to their arty nature.[/citation]

This reminds me of the few Mac fanboys I've known over the years. They always said something along the lines of "Macs are more powerful than PCs. They even run windows better than a PC can." And they completely thought that statement was true, which just baffled me because the statement didnt even make sense. PCs weren't limited to one hardware configuration, so how could they say a Mac was more powerful?

 

[radnor]

[citation][nom]Tomsguiderachel[/nom]Hi Curnel_D, thanks for your comment. I would just like to point out that "most people" are average computer users. Also, most people tend to use their laptops for personal use as well as work use. I doubt I need to go on and on to you about the hundreds of thousands of individuals in the graphic design, publishing, film and other media industries that prefer to use Apple computers. But the point is, those are professions where people do prefer the way the Mac OS handles the software they use. I simply want to remind you that usefulness isn't only defined by performance and IT environments. Your perspective, as someone who cares deeply about a machine's performance in an IT environment or for enthusiast gaming, is very far outside the norm.Thanks,Rachel RosmarinEditor of Tom's Guide[/citation]

I'm doing what i don't liek doing, but i'm quoting and already quoted reply. Anyway.

The norm is this. People want their computers to do what they need. Period. They really care and get frustrated if the computers doesn't match their needs. That is the norm.

That is why marketing people and salesman sometimes suck big time. And thats what Apple does it decently. And that is it. Don't over hype what is already overpriced.

People like to buy a netbook for 250$, but hate when it struggles on Youtube. Bad advice or just ignorance. Maybe a bit of both.

Caring deeply about a computer performance and inner working is OUR job as IT Professionals. You are right, a normal user has no time to spend on it. So, all is left to the marketing guys and the salesmonkeys. Toms and others might give educated information, but the rest of them are just sales monkeys.

Most publicists, imaging, design (etc) professionals prefer Apple, because of brand penetration (yes, thats how in marketing it is called). Nothing more, nothing less.

Apple sells a full bundle, with polished software and a normal x86 plataform. They get way with the word "Premium" to justify their price. While people pay for it, good for them.

But you are still paying alot for a sticker. And don't come rambling saying that laptops are jacks of all trades and have great performance. A monitor for professional work wont be on a laptop. Forget about it, that is just marketing. And bad one. You might be damaging the brand, by falsely enhancing costumer expectation.

I hate to rain on your parade, but please, laptops have a very defined job. And that is "somewhat" portable power on a small power/thermal envelope. It is neither power, quality or durability or price compared to a desktop PC.

 

[Guest]

want better laptop for less money? ... buy a samsung

 

[sublifer]

I like that MSI. Before this I'm not sure I would have ever considered them. 5.5hr battery time is still quite a bit, especially for a machine that has a 9800m gpu. With the money saved on the MSI you could always buy a spare battery.

 

[Guest]

"It all comes down to what you are going to use this laptop for and for how many years.If you intend to buy a new laptop once a year just for Casual Gaming, Facebook, and other non critical things or just because you easily get bored then it's pretty obvious: Don't buy a Mac.If you do tons of color critical work such as prints, movie, special effects, & CAD then it's quite obvious too: Among all the choices in the article, Macbook Pro is the only one that comes with a Monitor suited for those specific tasks even if your choice of OS is Windows."

I agree that mac does offer software like final cut if you are doing upper end video editing. but if you are doing upper end video editing you will not have the power on a laptop you will need a desktop, else you really aren't serious about it. that and cs4 does not offer 64bit support for mac os. Oh also, you mentioned cad? well that's funny because AutoCAD as well as power house programs like SolidWORKS are not compatible with mac os.

 

[Guest]

"I've worked with quite a few photographers. Each one has owned a Mac Laptop and done editing for me on the fly, as they do every day for each client. Maybe it is a tiny niche, but what are the odds that every single one did the same thing? I don't mean to belabor the point, but there is an established trend amongst media professionals to use macs for their graphic needs. You'd probably say that they're just wrong--plain and simple--but I think it is probably a bit more complicated than that."

That's funny because i'm a photographer, and amongst other things photoshop cs4 does not provide 64 bit support on macs, thus you can't take advantage of 64bit computing on a mac. when doing upper end photo editing this is very useful.

 

[quantumrand]

[citation][nom]hkp_[/nom]That's funny because i'm a photographer, and amongst other things photoshop cs4 does not provide 64 bit support on macs, thus you can't take advantage of 64bit computing on a mac. when doing upper end photo editing this is very useful.[/citation]

I was actually going to mention that too, lol. Macs don't have the true CS4. It's basically CS3 extended, so you don't get the full extend of vector based editing and etc that comes with the 64bit CS4 for Windows.

But you need to keep in mind that a lot of people don't know how to use Windows because OSX is so completely backwords. OSX wasn't designed to provide a visual representation of the inner workings of a computer like that of Windows, or even more so, like Linux. OSX was basically designed by a guy that said, "I think method makes most sense to me, and therefore, to everyone else too."

All those people who learned to "think different" (by which I mean think the same) have to choose between struggling to learn to use Windows, or pay a bit extra for a Mac. I think that choice is pretty simple.

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

[citation][nom]quantumrand[/nom]I was actually going to mention that too, lol. Macs don't have the true CS4. It's basically CS3 extended, so you don't get the full extend of vector based editing and etc that comes with the 64bit CS4 for Windows.But you need to keep in mind that a lot of people don't know how to use Windows because OSX is so completely backwords. OSX wasn't designed to provide a visual representation of the inner workings of a computer like that of Windows, or even more so, like Linux. OSX was basically designed by a guy that said, "I think method makes most sense to me, and therefore, to everyone else too."All those people who learned to "think different" (by which I mean think the same) have to choose between struggling to learn to use Windows, or pay a bit extra for a Mac. I think that choice is pretty simple.[/citation]
So, in some ways, it might be "too late" for all those graphics/artsy/media types to ever learn windows. They have no choice but to continue to use Macs, because who has time to learn a new OS? This is an interesting point, but it doesn't really explain the growth in marketshare that apple has seen in the last couple of years.

 

[rooket]

[citation][nom]quantumrand[/nom]This reminds me of the few Mac fanboys I've known over the years. They always said something along the lines of "Macs are more powerful than PCs. They even run windows better than a PC can." And they completely thought that statement was true, which just baffled me because the statement didnt even make sense. PCs weren't limited to one hardware configuration, so how could they say a Mac was more powerful?[/citation]

I believe there was a time when they were, but I think this was 10 or more years ago and it was about at the time when we could get 3dfx video cards for PC's whereas I don't know what a Mac had, just more processing power I think. Supposedly anyway, I never used one. Those computers are dinosaurs by now.

 

[dwhizzle]

[citation][nom]Tomsguiderachel[/nom]So, in some ways, it might be "too late" for all those graphics/artsy/media types to ever learn windows. They have no choice but to continue to use Macs, because who has time to learn a new OS? This is an interesting point, but it doesn't really explain the growth in marketshare that apple has seen in the last couple of years.[/citation]

Honestly, I have to say something. The more I see of Tom's editors being pro-Mac, the less I want to read the site. I hate to say this, but makes me feel that the site is biased.

Seems odd to have an Editor disagreeing so much with an article published on his/her site.

 

[quantumrand]

[citation][nom]dwhizzle[/nom]Honestly, I have to say something. The more I see of Tom's editors being pro-Mac, the less I want to read the site. I hate to say this, but makes me feel that the site is biased. Seems odd to have an Editor disagreeing so much with an article published on his/her site.[/citation]

I was noticing the trend as well, dwhizzle. That's exactly why I wrote the article