So essentially, Pay more for a MacBook Pro for equal or lesser performance, but my farts will smell better?

No, you'll just think your farts smell better, and then tell everyone about how good they smell.

Who cares what little kids think, you could not afford a mac book or the cheaper PC alternative, your opinion doesn't matter...

I want to know why all the crap ware you get with PC manufacturers isn't mentioned. I mean sure, you could just reformat when you get the thing, but for some people, that's a complicated task.

That's like saying, I want to know why the article didn't take into account the range of compatibility with games/applications that the other systems have. If you want to start a whole mac vs. pc thread, then go ahead, because you will probably get plenty of responses. Unlike the title suggests, the author of this article was obviously trying to keep a level playing field. He even threw in a refurbished mac to show a cheaper solution that would be almost just as good as the real thing.

If we are going to be nitpicky, he didn't compare the hdd's, which some of the other systems either had a faster or a bigger hdd than did the macbook pro.

And before someone says "you could always just dual boot with windows", that would be an expense that would need to be taken into account, because windows is expensive. And that would be just as complicated as removing the crapware off of those pcs...

Very nice article by the way. I can't say i needed to be told that there are cheaper/faster alternatives to macs, but it's good to see this site acknowledge people that can't afford them.

Sony Vaio Z is a sleek sexy 13.3" machine weighing at only 3.5 lbs. It looks kinda similar to the FW series, except smaller.

It seems like a nice competitor to the regular MacBook, no?

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.

Another thing: those 8 hr battery life claims--is it with Vista doing nothing? How do you get 8hrs?

I've never come across any Vista Premium notebooks (including any Apple) that lasts more than 4 hrs running Vista doing nothing with all hardware turned on (Wifi, bluetooth, 50% LCD Brightness, 50% Volume, 50% Backlit )

I'd appreciate it if someone can enlighten me.

-ND

Yeah, I'm skeptical about the 8 hours of battery life thing too, but it seems to be about the average laptop manufacturers are claiming for their 9 cell batteries. I seriously doubt any of them, including the macs, get 8 hours.

I just have to say, the 15.4" MacBook Pro doesn't have that great of a screen. True, it's LED backlit, so it gets a uniform brightness. But, at 1440x900, it's held back considerably. The XPS 16 would be a much better choice screen wise, being LED backlit and 1920x1080. The Vaio also has a supperior display.

I just now configured a Dell Latitude E6500 as closely as I could to the MBP and it came out at $1291. I picked the E6500 because it has the all metal chassis. A few months ago I bought an E6500 for myself, spec'd out a little higher than the MBP but I bought it with a coupon from the Dell outlet and got it for a LOT less money.

I also picked the same resolution as the MBP and it is known that of the 3 manufacturers that make these display panels Dell sometimes uses the same one that Apple uses. So the Dell display would not be inferior to the MBP, it would be IDENTICAL. I've checked and my own E6500 has the identical display panel that the MBP uses.

I am not an Apple fan in any way, for several reasons, but I'm learning that part of the price difference between Apple and "the others" is that Apple uses premium hardware. You can get a budget 15" laptop for around $600. You just have to decide if you are willing to spend more money for that and for their other features. I didn't want a budget laptop so I spent a lot more, but still far short of the MBP.

I doubt any laptop running Vista will hit 8 hours of battery life. Mac laptops cannot reach the same battery life in Vista as they have advertised for OS X. Simply because Vista is horrendously bad at energy efficiency. http://www.macuser.co.uk/news/2326 [...] tests.html

Absolutely none of that is true. Apple notebooks are perfect for the average computer user. Granted, most will try and make it last longer than a year so they dont feel stupid when throwing $3k down the drain every year, but the macbook pro is deffinately not built for professional work. Period.

If you want professonal performance in a mobile computer you need to stick with the Dell Precision line or the Lenovo Thinkpad W series.

Funny thing is, they're all cheaper than macbook pro's too. And they have workstation performace.

Lets face it, the main thing apple offers over competition is a cool factor, which will sell something 9 times out of 10, and an oversimplified OS who's performance can be had for free.
Price/performance? Yeah right.
Enthusiest level gaming? Not a chance.
Workstation performance? Only for $5000+, and that's only performing close to what the $2500+ PC's are doing.
Server enviroments? Ha.
Customer service? Lol, dont make me post a link to their absurd forum grues that walk through and delete any realistic posts about mac problems.

Is apple useful? I've only seen it's usefulness twice. Once for professional printing work, but only because they have a monopoly on one file type and extension. And the other was gifting them. Wouldnt want one myself, but they sure make girls eyes light up when they unwrap them. After all, they're just overpriced toys. Who can seriously tell me they've never purchased an overpriced toy, just because it's cool before?

Right on curnel_d, i totally agree. Apple isnt viable for tight budgets, period.

"A few weeks back, we published an article describing Bill Lake’s purchase of a $3,000 MacBook Pro and his justification for such a pricey endeavor. While many of his points are valid, the fact remains that many people simply cannot justify spending so much on a laptop, especially with today’s tough economy. For a consumer to buy even a more basic MacBook Pro, he or she must commit to spending at least $2,000, which is still too much money for many of us for a laptop."

No, as far as I recall it was a low-end laptop that was overpriced by about $1500. Wasn't about economic climate, it was about using your brain.

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 Rosmarin
Editor of Tom's Guide

If you do "Tons" of color work, why in the wide-world of sports are you using ANY laptop? And if you are, use the new Dell Studio 16 - It has the highest color gamut screen ever to be used in a laptop.

And about the battery life, the macbook doesn't get 8 hours of battery life either; check the test and you'll see it gets about 5 hours in normal use, and 6-7 with most things turned off/down.

I can conceive of many situations--photographers, for instance, who often need to do editing on the fly to please a client--where one would need a laptop to do color work.

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.

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.

Wrong quote on above message, sorry about that.