never buy an apple, resistance to monopoly and such centralized control can only be healthy for us all, plus the other button ;)

a tablet ver?

i'm no pro at these things (just a fellow M.Arch technology shopper), but the HP seems to have much higher performance specs...which is pretty much what you'll find if you compare mac vs. pc at the same price point.

if you're ok w/HP, you may wanna check out the EliteBook series.

BOXX ? http://www.boxxtech.com/products/goBOXX/goboxx_overview.asp

boxx laptops are amazing...but base price is 3.5k...

ive always been under the assumption that tablets lacked in power??

thanks for comments so far.

Why a laptop? Unless you are already have a decent quality desktop, you could get a desktop with a lot more everything for probably the same amount of money.

looking to carry my work around...to studio and back home? can bite me in the butt later i suppose.

do most ppl work solely in studio?? i guess would be the appropriate question

I can't answer for batdinger, but in my case it's a school requirement. Mobility is a priority, for a number of reasons.

probably depends on the school and the nature of the work that you will be doing. Also it somewhat depends on the students in your class.

previous comment was cross posted...

I believe our mobility requirement is based primarily on the fact that we'll be working in various locations (for design studio, seminars and periodic workshops)...not to mention study abroad, which is a major aspect of the curriculum.

My budget is a bit less than yours, batdinger, but tomorrow morning I'll post the models and specs I'm looking at.

thanks for comments...

been searching around for more laptops...
my school gets a discount with lenovo.

i can get a Lenovo W700 ThinkPad
-Intel Core 2 Quad Core (2.00Ghz)
-4GB memory
-Nvidia Quadro FX 2700m
-320GB 7200rpm HD

for just under $2000 (expensive...)

eeeep....

this makes it more difficult

^ Wow, that is expensive for those specs. I mean ThinkPads are very good, but that's a lot of money, especially after a discount.

the MacBook Pro is clearly the right answer, if only for the operating system since any new PC is going to come with Windows Vista. Gross. Never mind that the Mac will be able to juggle between multiple graphics applications much better than the PC.

You could probably get a smaller internal hard drive and spend the money on other components or upgrading to the 17" screen. External hard drives are pretty cheap and you will need the extra memory anyway. 1TB drives are routinely on sale for about $150 or less and you will be surprised how quickly you can fill that up.

tablet is def to me the ideal organic input, would/could never go back

under powered for what?

you'll appreciate the extra power of the HP when it's 3am and you need to finish your renderings by morning...

have used both PC and Mac laptops (currently a 13" Macbook user) and would say that for the same price, i'd still go with a PC for serious work as you'll get much more for your money...not just in buying the laptop, but also on the peripherals afterwards...

reason i bought Mac this time around is that i no longer need to do as much 3D and drawing work, and thus value a bit more the incredibly well built chassis for ruggedness (i bring it everywhere), and the multi-touch touchpad which allows me to leave the mouse at home more often than with a regular touchpad (still need it for sketchup though)...

functionally, my opinion is that there is little if any advantage to a Mac over a PC of the same price, although i miss expose when i use windows...one thing i did notice though, is that my Macbook screen is MUCH brighter/clearer than most of my friend's PC laptop screens...not sure if the HP you picked has a good screen, but try to compare at a store...

and despite .._. .._ _._. _._ 's comments, there is no advantage i know of in using multiple graphics programs in Mac rather than PC...maybe some obscure stuff that i haven't discovered? .._. .._ _._. _._ 's viewpoint is like many Mac lovers' arguments - based on emotion rather than facts and cost parameters...

i love my Macbook, but i wouldn't use it to do grad school with...

the hp is alot more powerful than the macbook pro for the same price. plus the quad processor really comes in handy when rendering.
i say go with hp.

spaceman spiff, one of apple's amazing powers is that the operating system is hardwired into using alpha layer transparencies.

Meaning, that's actually how the GUI works differently. In windows, it is an add-on feature. So on Vista/XP/2000, it has to calculate and refresh the transparency much more frequently than it does on mac.

Mac does this in a formulaic fashion (vector based) while Windows does it pixel based.

So, the lack of extra memory and processing power being wasted on calculating drop shadows, transparencies and anti-aliasing really pays off when running multiple programs that have multiple pretty interfaces.

That and the fonts on windows are processed in a bitmap fashion (clear type) versus macs which use "true" truetype fonts.

Apple. Not for the cool factor, but for the way better investment factor.

I had the same (13" iBook) laptop through my 5 years of undergrad, while my friends who got pc's to "save money" were frequently repairing/replacing their computers. I certainly made it out ahead in the long run. The computer (7+ years old) is still used daily by my parents.

With that said, you would be stupid to not go for the extended warranty simply for peace of mind.

Sorry, messed up the calculations, it's a little over 6 years old, not seven. Still far older than any of the pc variety that I've known personally.

Plus, the macbooks are undeniably sexy.

MacBook pro. The build quality is amazing and it will last longer as switch says. I've got the new 15" and the only negative thing is the screen resolution which is too low. Im used to two displays @ 1920x1200 at work and have developed some nasty habbits with toolbars and desktop realestate. If its your only computer it's not that big a deal.

orochi,

thx for the explanation...no other mac owner has ever explained to me any technical advantage before, but what you say makes sense as there had to be some reason why graphic designers preferred mac...am surprised more people aren't aware of it...

Graphic designers (and other visual professionals) also prefer macs because they are focused more towards workstation use, as opposed to entertainment/gaming.

I just got done with 2 years of grad school using my Intel-based 3-year-old MacBook Pro, and it still performs beautifully. A couple of things I'd like to mention:

1) With the computing power and speed that laptops offer these days, there's no reason to get a desktop anymore. Avoid the hassle and the back pain.

2) I can't say enough about my MacBook Pro or the service I got with Apple. Even after I dropped my machine and broke the screen last year (my fault, so I paid), I was still having problems, so I called up Apple and asked them what to do. They sent me a box in one day; I sent it in for repair; they received it, fixed it, and sent it back out the same day. I had my computer back in 2 days. I was flabbergasted. Oh, and with Applecare, which was standard on my machine, it was free. If HP or Toshiba or whoever can guarantee you this kind of service, then I *might* consider getting a PC. Well, except for the fact that....

3) I didn't have technical problems with my computer like my classmates with PCs did. Never had problems connecting to wireless; no need to install virus protection; no problems running multiple programs. Also I have the entire Adobe Master CS suite on here and with Parallels virtual desktop I could run Autocad and that at the same time, if I needed.

4) ...Almost forgot, there's something about Macs that makes their processors actually run faster than what is posted, so double that Mhz number thingy and use that for comparison.

...eh, sorry. Whenever I talk about my computer I can't stop gushing. :o)

Yeah under the "Windows Experience Index" my computer get's between 4.5s and 5.1s on everything except the "Running Aero" part. I've got a 4.9 on memory, a 5.1 on hard drive and a 3.8 on Aero. O_o.

If i turn off every single Aero feature and otherwise superfluous style, my performance goes from a 3.8 to a 4.3. I mean Vista looks like dogshit then but the performance gain is very noticeable.

Oh well!

I use to be a proud Powerbook owner but MacBook Pro doesn't turn me on for the price. My HP is pretty sweet... the only thing that grinds my gears is HPs OEM software that you can't uninstall without consequence.





Don't get a tablet, they suck and the novelty factor of it wears off pretty quickly. I had one for about a year and after the first two weeks... i maybe used the tablet feature 3 or 4 times.

Go with the HP....I may be a little biased bc I actually have the exact same hp you listed above...but I love it. Especially when rendering....our last project in Studio required a lot of rendering and my hp was rendering at least 10 times faster than all the macbook pros... Also, I constantly work with multiple programs open, and so far I have not encountered any problems with that.

whatever you do, do not under any circumstances purchase a Dell.

or a mac or a hp

^ so what then?

was open minded enough to consider a dell for the first time ever earlier this year...thought that they had turned things around and wanted to build something of quality rather than a kit of the cheapest parts available, but then i saw the boneheaded heat sink design:

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=2328590

bought my unibody mac within 48 hours after seeing that...after three toshibas and an NEC over the years...

@camhard - for serious workstation use, PC's still dominate at the high end don't they (high end CAD, aerospace, engineering work)? hardly fun and games machines...i for one don't notice any speed difference in using multiple programs on a mac or a PC (non-celeron)...

it's just that i've always been aware of the popularity of the mac in the graphic design niche and couldn't figure out why...possible reasons over the years as explained by macheads: ethical and functional concerns over font rights on PC's, better displays on macs, and now - the technical GUI processing explanation...

I guess I'm no pundit when it comes to these things, but I would suggest that aerospace engineering and such doesn't involve a lot of complex graphics and rendering. While what they are producing are very complex indeed, the computer work is extremely simple (visually). For example, there is very little 3D work. A circuit can be represented much better as a mixture or orthogonal lines and very rudimentary (e.g. circle) shapes/symbols in the same plane, with solid colours (i.e. no gradients). While the concept may be extremely complex and a lot of work/calculations, etc. went into it, very little is required on the computers end. In a graphic design, animation, architectural setting, however, rounded, 3D images with shadows, gradients and a whole lot more are far more useful (and therefor commonly used). The software used by 'the high end', as you put it, are often built ontop of much older software. I would argue that it is just too much work to shift over to mac hardware and rewrite the software to merit the switch, especially when what they have does the trick.

There are many situations where the 'better' product is used by a minority of people. Take cars for example. While vehicles may be an integral part of a delivery company, they do not buy the fastest vehicles with the best handling, etc. To a car racer, however, these are far more important characteristics. Not the best example, but hopefully it illustrates the point a little bit.

macs being for graphics anything has always be a unsubstantiated rumor to get sales, it's all fan boi hype

toshiba is still the top selling laptop
i'd look at a asus tabletPC

"The software used by 'the high end', as you put it, are often built ontop of much older software. I would argue that it is just too much work to shift over to mac hardware and rewrite the software to merit the switch, especially when what they have does the trick."


Nope. Most runs on truely Open Source backbone such as Linux. Look at the Santa Fe Institute...they run a SGI (Silicon Graphics) array running proprietary calculation software, etc...all of this stuff does visualization too. To think your desktop mac is doing more than a processing areray is just silly. The advertising is good, but come on.

Well, it seems as though I got myself into a bit of a defensive position and started making unsubstantiated claims with little actual information to back it up. I still believe a bit of what I have said, but...

After thinking about it, and doing a little looking around, I have decided there is little difference in speed or graphics ability between the two extremely broad categories of Mac and PC. That said, I still prefer Mac for many reasons. Now, I don't want to turn this into a Mac vs. Pc thread any more than it already is, but I'll note a few things that are good to consider.

The biggest thing I find people overlook is the general quality of parts. I don't believe the price argument is a good one at all. While it may be possible to pick up a more powerful (on paper) PC for far less than the 'equivalent' Mac, the quality will not be the same. These seemingly better computers go for cheaper components that are not reflected in your standard tech spec sheet. Therefore, it is very difficult for a consumer to understand the actual performance/quality of their product by analyzing characteristics (e.g. RAM, L1, L2 cache, processor speeds, bus speeds, etc.).

People suggest that they don't like Apple's monopolistic approach; however, that is one of their main attractions, for me. It means it is much easier to ensure a quality product. I know whatever Apple product I get will work with all of my other ones very well, and that there is a certain level quality control. With a PC, any unknown brand can make something, and the computers are conglomerations of any number of (potentially poor quality parts).

I find the OS far better/more streamlined. I just find that most programs are designed to work very well within the OS X platform, resulting in a nice workflow and cross-software commands, etc. Windows also requires a lot more of the computer, whereas OS X really is just a platform, supporting what you are really trying to do.

I forget what else I was going to say, and I'm starting to say some more things that I'm not totally sure about, so I'll wrap up, and comment on the OP's question.

There are definitely some high quality, capable PCs out there, but it's a lot harder to be sure you are getting quality by going the PC route. I also prefer the look/feel of Mac... alot. Some might say this is a stupid reason, but I really don't think it is at all, especially the feel. The price argument has very little value. It seems as though the poster is looking at an equivalent product, as opposed to finding something cheaper, but with a huge hard drive/RAM capacity, which is good.

I'd still go the Apple route here. The HP would probably serve you fine though, and it kind of sounds like you want that one. One thing to consider might be the HD speed. I forget why, but 7200rpm drives have actually become less common recently. I can't remember if they were slower, got too hot or what. But I'd do a quick google search if you do decide to go HP here. Also, maybe consider a refurbished mac. I never even used to look there, but I recently found some decent deals (especially on imacs). MBPs weren't as good do to the recent price drop/significant improvements, but check it out.

And then you would install windows on your mac.

ha ha

wait what about ReactOS?

I'd say HP. You're gonna like that bigger monitor, a lot. You're gonna like that higher RPM HDD. And you're gonna like more video RAM. You're going to be able to run full (not beta) versions of software and you're not going to have to dual boot. I've had a Dell for 2+ years now. It's been rock solid. Get the warranty, and just get Open Office (free online, exactly like MS Office).

$500 dell 1545 and drivers are available for xp 3g ram 350g hd

any thoughts on this setup?

link

is the quad core worth it? it looks like you can get a similar set up for about 300 less with a dual core

if you get a laptop...make sure you can find the drivers for it and nuke it...install xp until the bugs in windows7 gets worked out..

the dell i posted above has all the drivers to install xp.... i recently bought a toshiba and it ran like shit and wasn't able to install xp due to not finding drivers....

play it safe....

All i can say is good luck carrying that fat bastard HP, I had a sony vaio with a smaller display but it was so damn uncomfortable to carry even with a good bag.

How much of your software is optimised for a quad core processor? perhaps a higher processor speed is more important.