What has happened to PC laptops?

[knight427]

Better built? I'm currently typing this on a Dell Precision M90 laptop, and I have a Thinkpad T61p as well as an X41 Tablet. All three of these laptops are well made. The M90 especially due to it's age, as well as the X41 tablet as it stood up to the abuse I gave it during college. But, I do think that Apple laptops, specifically the MBPs are just as durable and well built. I will concede that a wholly internal battery is a letdown, but that's their trick to keep it thin.

This is just so incredibly wrong. One could argue the MBP is plenty strong for everyday use and light abuse. But if you really test these systems, the MBP is going to be destroyed way before those others. Maybe you scoff at drops and certainly the stand-on-it test is a bit ludicrous. But these tests clearly demonstrate the a roll cage laptops are far more durable than unibody laptops. And if you want a real world example...a trucking company bought a bunch of MBP for their drivers due to Apple's reputation for "high durability". The vibrations of daily driving started breaking these laptops internals very quickly. When Apple found out their use, they immediately told the company they had voided the warranty by using them in what Apple considered an extreme environment. Do you think a truck cabin would destroy your M90 or X41? I know my 8740w could take it in stride.

Finally, anyone who took high school physics should be able to figure out why a shell + rollcage design is more durable than what is essentially an exoskeleton design. Just look at cars, you seem to know those pretty well. How are car bodies designed to protect their passengers?

 

[Empty_Quarter]

I agree with the above.

I work construction, and we all use thinkpads. It's not exactly the neatest place to be with dust, rock, and mud flying everywhere. and the laptops do take hell continously being moved around and slammed onto tables. I'd love to see what a MBP would look like in that environment, hah, imagine the scratches that thing would get.

There's a reason why car bumpers are not made of metal.

 

[Aurelius]

Apple is good for 'casual' durability -- that is, holding up under just being schlepped around. I've had aluminum Macs since 2004, and they've all held up pretty well. That includes the MacBook Air I took with me to Barcelona this year.

Where it's not as hot is in ruggedness. Sure, get a ThinkPad/EliteBook/Latitude/ToughBook if that's your need. That's usually their focus, and they do it well. However, compared to typical home use Windows notebooks, Apple is just better. I can't tell you how many of the notebooks I see at the big-box stores that still feel flimsy or just cheaply made, and that includes a few models around $1,000. Don't even get me started on how terrible many of their trackpads can be, even in the $2,000 range.

As for people perpetuating the myths about Macs always being more expensive for the same hardware... alright, name a Windows notebook with a 2,880 x 1,800 display and an SSD. Go ahead, I'll wait. Sorry -- it doesn't exist, and we haven't seen any leaks to suggest it's coming all that soon. A lot of the comparisons I see deliberately sidestep comparisons in elements besides just processor, RAM, graphics and hard drive capacity, because it's hard to draw a parallel. How much of a premium do you put on having a good trackpad? On a battery that gets 7 hours of life in real use, not just if you turn the display to minimum and shut off all wireless? On having tech support that isn't outsourced in a way where half the battle is just overcoming the language barrier? These things cost money, but they don't fit neatly into feature checklists.

 

[knight427]

I can play that game too.

Name me one Mac laptop that offers any of the following at any price:
1) 10-bit IPS screen (I can name 4 PC models)
2) Next Business Day on-site service (countless PC models)
3) User Upgradable/Serviceable (w/o voiding warranty) hard drive, memory, wireless, battery, memory, cpu, gpu, keyboard
4) high-end gaming GPU
5) Professional GPU of any level
6) 32GB ram capcity
7) ports that don't need dongles

How much of a premium do you put on having a good trackpad?

Me? None. I use a mouse.

On a battery that gets 7 hours of life in real use, not just if you turn the display to minimum and shut off all wireless?

Sorry, that one died with Sandy Bridge and especially Ivy Bridge (oh yeah, and switchable graphics). But even before then, some PC's offered various capacity batteries and hot-swappable batteries.

On having tech support that isn't outsourced in a way where half the battle is just overcoming the language barrier?

I don't know because my 3yr NBD on-site warranty was included in the purchase price of my laptop.

 

[chx]

Once again: you can pull out a really long laundry list of features and say "Apple doesn't have them"! But if you want a combination of lightweight and powerful suddenly you have very few choices, none of them Dell, HP or Lenovo, mind you, and the Apple Retina Macbook stands out like no other. That's it. Sure, if you want to lug something around... there are niches like laptops at a construction where you rather want a fully rugged laptop anyways. But most of the time weight is an important issue.

 

[silent-circuit]

The MBP isn't that thin, and it isn't that light. Give up a 1/4" in thickness and you get a machine that'll run cooler, is specced higher, is better built and will last longer. Is it a pound or so heavier? Probably, but you can also swap the battery and in many cases even get a slice battery. Show me any MacBook that'll run for 24+ hours on a charge as my EliteBook would with the larger main battery, slice battery, and bay battery.

As for the Retina display, yes it's impressive. I agree Apple has gone in the right direction here and I'm sure it's simply a matter of time before PC manufacturers wake up and get something similar in place. Until then if you want it, Apple is where you go... but given my absolutely terrible experience with their hardware and support I'm just going to have to be patient, and recommend others do the same.

 

[collegeboy69us]

I look at it this way:

At the end of the day it's about either getting work/school/games done. Spec wise I can buy a Dell or HP that's half the price but with the same (or better) specs).

When you ask any rational person if it's worth the price to look "cool" (because it's an apple in a shiny slick package) what would most people say?

I paid 14K for my car (2012 Kia Rio) - would I be willing to pay 28K for the same car, but with some rims, and a special paint job? Hell no.

My main problem is that just like their OS and their phones, apple designs it such that you need an act of god to get in and replace a simple component. Apple is doing a great job of riding the new way of thinking in this country. The idea that people don't care if its fast or reliable, they just want it to look cool so they can score some points with their friends. Same thing with our totally useless government these days. Nobody cares if it works, if its efficient, or if it can pay it's bills. They just want to keep piling on the debt so they can have their handouts and shiny toys.

If specs,durability, and price mean nothing think about it this way we've all seen the ghetto fabulous mom with 3 kids by 3 men, whos on welfare, late on the rent, maxed credit cards, with no job, who by the very definition of responsible should be eating beans and rice, and saving every possible penny to get out of debt. But hark! She has a brand new iPhone4S

That right there tells me everything about the image of apple, it's customer base, and just how logical the people who buy said devices are.

The only real thing I'm upset about is I'm not the one who tricked an entire world into paying so much more for so little.

 

[knight427]

Once again: you can pull out a really long laundry list of features and say "Apple doesn't have them"! But if you want a combination of lightweight and powerful suddenly you have very few choices, none of them Dell, HP or Lenovo, mind you, and the Apple Retina Macbook stands out like no other. That's it. Sure, if you want to lug something around... there are niches like laptops at a construction where you rather want a fully rugged laptop anyways. But most of the time weight is an important issue.

I only pulled out the laundry list in reply Aurelius who thought he had a laundry list of things unique to Apple. Most are false unfortunately.

In reply to your claim on lightweight and powerful, you are incorrect. Here is the Sager NP6110 with the same GPU. It weighs 3.97 lbs in comparison to rMBP at 4.46 lbs. Of course there are many other tradeoffs, most significantly the screen and the thickness.

And if Apple buyers keep claiming that hardware specs don't matter, there are tons of Ultrbooks and Sleekbooks to chose from (though the GPU in rMBP is really the only spec hard to match/beat...though I suspect there will be many burnt testicles in the near future).

Also, weight matters only to some. I carry my 17" workstation with me all the time. It's a matter of personal preference.

 

[crazjayz]

I'm a little busy now, but thank you all for the replies and keeping the discussion going. I WILL respond later when I get the chance by editing this post. I'm just using this as a place holder.

Really quickly though, Knight427 you bring up a great point. I don't use my laptops in an extreme condition. The worse treatment they get is bouncing around in my backpack when I ride my motorcycle or something. I was always under the impression that Mac were on par compared to Thinkpads and Precisions when it came to durability. The many people that I know use Macs for school and work I guess treat them pretty well, and thus, they seem to last a long time. Thank you for the clarification.

EDIT:

As for people perpetuating the myths about Macs always being more expensive for the same hardware... alright, name a Windows notebook with a 2,880 x 1,800 display and an SSD. Go ahead, I'll wait. Sorry -- it doesn't exist, and we haven't seen any leaks to suggest it's coming all that soon. A lot of the comparisons I see deliberately sidestep comparisons in elements besides just processor, RAM, graphics and hard drive capacity, because it's hard to draw a parallel. How much of a premium do you put on having a good trackpad? On a battery that gets 7 hours of life in real use, not just if you turn the display to minimum and shut off all wireless? On having tech support that isn't outsourced in a way where half the battle is just overcoming the language barrier? These things cost money, but they don't fit neatly into feature checklists.

This is SORT OF what I'm getting at. Yes, Macs and PCs trade hardware (which I'll address below), but why can't PCs have at least the same level of finesse; mainly the display and the trackpad. Why can't Synaptics, or any other company develop a better trackpad? It makes no sense.

I can play that game too.

Name me one Mac laptop that offers any of the following at any price:
1) 10-bit IPS screen (I can name 4 PC models)
2) Next Business Day on-site service (countless PC models)
3) User Upgradable/Serviceable (w/o voiding warranty) hard drive, memory, wireless, battery, memory, cpu, gpu, keyboard
4) high-end gaming GPU
5) Professional GPU of any level
6) 32GB ram capcity
7) ports that don't need dongles

Me? None. I use a mouse.

I don't know because my 3yr NBD on-site warranty was included in the purchase price of my laptop.

So, what I gather is that Macs aren't suitable for professional, workstations environments, or anything that requires VMs. Quite literally, that's all you brought up. 10-bit IPS screen, while very nice, is probably only useful for professional photographers, graphics designers, etc. NBD service (is very nice, I know), but really only required for mission critical applications. Professional level GPUs, once again same thing. 32GB of ram... again.

So I'll say 1/2 of your list has to do with professional level equipment. Which is fine, because Apple doesn't have a laptop that fills that area. So, if you need workstation level hardware, don't go Mac. What I will agree on, is that everything else, the user upgradable parts, gaming GPU, and dongles to a certain extent, is definitely lacking, and that's what PC manufactures do well. So I ask, why can't they go one step beyond and integrate design.

Once again: you can pull out a really long laundry list of features and say "Apple doesn't have them"! But if you want a combination of lightweight and powerful suddenly you have very few choices, none of them Dell, HP or Lenovo, mind you, and the Apple Retina Macbook stands out like no other. That's it. Sure, if you want to lug something around... there are niches like laptops at a construction where you rather want a fully rugged laptop anyways. But most of the time weight is an important issue.

This is kind of my point. The MBPR kinda flipped laptops on their head. It used to be that Macs has low resolutions (for the 15"), meh GPUs, and were all show. But now the MBPR has the best screen, a very good gpu (the GT650 is the best middle-market), all SSD, etc, etc. Sure it's $2.2k, but even if you don't get the display (which is seriously overkill), and $1.2k it's now a very very good laptop.

The MBP isn't that thin, and it isn't that light. Give up a 1/4" in thickness and you get a machine that'll run cooler, is specced higher, is better built and will last longer. Is it a pound or so heavier? Probably, but you can also swap the battery and in many cases even get a slice battery. Show me any MacBook that'll run for 24+ hours on a charge as my EliteBook would with the larger main battery, slice battery, and bay battery.

As for the Retina display, yes it's impressive. I agree Apple has gone in the right direction here and I'm sure it's simply a matter of time before PC manufacturers wake up and get something similar in place. Until then if you want it, Apple is where you go... but given my absolutely terrible experience with their hardware and support I'm just going to have to be patient, and recommend others do the same.

The MBPR is 0.71' thin. It's VERY thin for what it has. Is thin better? NO, i don't think it is. I think that 1" is the sweet spot for me, making me feel that my laptop has no flex and is durable. Regarding your 24hr battery life, that's a very specific example. Once again, if you need something like that, it's going to be a specific niche product. Most people need up to 8, which really means around 6.5, which translates into a flight from LA to NYC.

I look at it this way:

At the end of the day it's about either getting work/school/games done. Spec wise I can buy a Dell or HP that's half the price but with the same (or better) specs).

When you ask any rational person if it's worth the price to look "cool" (because it's an apple in a shiny slick package) what would most people say?

I paid 14K for my car (2012 Kia Rio) - would I be willing to pay 28K for the same car, but with some rims, and a special paint job? Hell no.

My main problem is that just like their OS and their phones, apple designs it such that you need an act of god to get in and replace a simple component. Apple is doing a great job of riding the new way of thinking in this country. The idea that people don't care if its fast or reliable, they just want it to look cool so they can score some points with their friends. blahblahblahblah soapboxing

Sorry, I had to cut the quote short. Closer to the end was just soapboxing. Anyway, no, I'm not buying a laptop because it looks good. Sure, it definitely helps the selling point, who doesn't like something that looks good. But I agree, form can't be without function. I've previously stated before for the laptop that I'm looking for, money no object. The sad part is that regardless if it's Mac or PC, I can't get it. And no, I'm not asking for the moon, I'm asking for a manufacturer to put together top of the line pieces.

To summarize: Do Macs have a price premium? Yes. Do people care about their perceived flashy-ness when they buy a Mac? Sure. Do I? NOPE. I just think they they're winning in some of the more important areas.

I only pulled out the laundry list in reply Aurelius who thought he had a laundry list of things unique to Apple. Most are false unfortunately.

In reply to your claim on lightweight and powerful, you are incorrect. Here is the Sager NP6110 with the same GPU. It weighs 3.97 lbs in comparison to rMBP at 4.46 lbs. Of course there are many other tradeoffs, most significantly the screen and the thickness.

And if Apple buyers keep claiming that hardware specs don't matter, there are tons of Ultrbooks and Sleekbooks to chose from (though the GPU in rMBP is really the only spec hard to match/beat...though I suspect there will be many burnt testicles in the near future).

Also, weight matters only to some. I carry my 17" workstation with me all the time. It's a matter of personal preference.

Thank you for being reasonable with this post. You bring up a competitor laptop, which is great. Problem is, who in their right mind would get something with 720p for gaming? You do mention the screen is lacking, as is the thinness, which is awesome. Thank you.

And I do agree that many Apple buyers are lying to themselves about hardware spec. But as you and I have mentioned, the MBPR changes that, for a price.

And thank you for saying what laptop you use. Now I can put into context why in your previous post 1/2 the things you listed were workstation qualities.

I think we can all agree on some reasons why PC laptops have... well not done as well as they have.

1) Every manufacturer is throwing in a CRAP 720p display into every laptop from 11" to 15" This desperately needs to change, or rather, they need to offer higher resolution screens (1200P, 1600P, 1800P). And if Apple can offer 16:10 screens, why can't anyone else? This 16:9 stuff is BS.

2) Manufacturers need to focus on better design. NOT thinner, but better design. Whether is chassis reinforcement (like Lenovo) or better materials (like HP with their Magnesium alloy). I believe most of us are sick of the plastic books that come out to the market year after year. Sure they're fine at the $500 price point, but at $1500, it's quite sickening.

3) Along with external design, internal design and technologies need to be improved. Better motherboard layouts with easy access to RAM, HDD, Battery, and GPU (which should be MXM compatible) as well as better cooling configurations.

 

[Aurelius]

I can play that game too.

Name me one Mac laptop that offers any of the following at any price:
1) 10-bit IPS screen (I can name 4 PC models)
2) Next Business Day on-site service (countless PC models)
3) User Upgradable/Serviceable (w/o voiding warranty) hard drive, memory, wireless, battery, memory, cpu, gpu, keyboard
4) high-end gaming GPU
5) Professional GPU of any level
6) 32GB ram capcity
7) ports that don't need dongles

1. The Retina MBP has an IPS panel - not sure about the colour depth, but I know the gamut is enough for most pro work.

2. You've got that, but you also don't have stores with free service to turn to, either.

3. The traditional MacBook Pro design is closer, but my view is that it's better to build it with parts that resist breaking than to insist on repairability. Sometimes, making things repairable is a crutch.

4. Gaming graphics is an area Windows does well, but I wouldn't call that a make or break point -- some of us just game elsewhere (desktop, console, mobile device).

5. You do know that Quadro, NVS and FirePro graphics are mostly driver and RAM changes, right? That difference doesn't play out the same way on the Mac as it does in Windows.

6. Yes, that's an advantage -- a bit negated by the SSD, but an advantage nonetheless.

7. This just isn't an advantage for Windows notebooks. You're currently a niche user if you absolutely depend on Ethernet -- occasionally you run into a hotel that wants Ethernet, but it's hard to argue that a 450Mbps WiFi connection (even in real-world abuse) is somehow not fast enough for anything but a large, very time-sensitive file transfer. I'd ask why many Windows PCs are still saddled with VGA ports, or why we haven't seen anyone but Apple and Lenovo leap on Thunderbolt when it makes even USB 3 look a bit pokey.

Me? None. I use a mouse.

So why do you think you're qualified to talk about why these things matter, again? Some of us have trackpads good enough that we don't always feel the need to turn to a mouse. A few tasks need the precision, but don't dismiss a major factor because of your niche.

Sorry, that one died with Sandy Bridge and especially Ivy Bridge (oh yeah, and switchable graphics). But even before then, some PC's offered various capacity batteries and hot-swappable batteries.

Still happens -- believe me, I've seen it. The battery life on typical Windows notebooks is a lot better than the 4-hours-if-you-'re-lucky that defined the hardware for awhile, but it's still pretty rare to find a Windows notebook with a standard battery whose claimed battery life matches something you can realistically achieve. The area where Windows models thrive is, as you'd expect, having options like battery slices if you really, really need a lot of battery life.

I don't know because my 3yr NBD on-site warranty was included in the purchase price of my laptop.

An advantage, but also an inconsistent one -- you pay for it either as a custom option or baked into the cost of the PC. I'm also not a fan of using on-site service as a substitute for fixing a software problem quickly over the phone, or for free at a store.

 

[Pylon]

Me? None. I use a mouse.

You can't do that in every situation. Good luck using a mouse on an airline seat or on the train (or in any other case where your laptop's on your lap).

 

[knight427]

1) Here are the DC2 specs on my 8740w.

Contrast Ratio 800:1 typical
Brightness 210 nit typical
Backlight RGB LED
Viewing Angle ±89° Horizontal, ±89° Vertical (typical)
Technology Type 30-bit In-Plane Switching (IPS)
Color Depth 10-bits/color
Display Colors Over 1 billion colors (native mode)

Color Gamut Coverage CIE1931 (x,y) CIE 1976 (u',v')
NTSC 109% 129%
AdobeRGB 114% 127%
sRGB 154% 148%

2) I don't want to go to a store. I can get them to come to me.

3) MBP use mostly the same parts as PCs(at least the ones a user can replace on a PC)...so I don't see how you can claim MBP uses better parts.

4) agree

5) Yes, I l know what a professional GPU is. I don't really understand how you can claim they don't work the same way on Mac since they don't exist on a Mac.

6) That's an interesting point I hadn't considered, but I still think someone needing 32GB of ram isn't going to be happy with 16GB ram + 16GB virtual memory since RAM is still faster than SSD.

7)
Ethernet: Some people appreciate redundancy, some don't.
Thunderbolt: I'd take that, though you currently also need USB 3.0 since TB accessories are still pretty rare
VGA: Every projector I've connected to my laptop has used VGA. Nice to not need a dongle.

RE: Trackpad. You asked a question, I answered it. I didn't claim I represented the average user.

RE: Battery life. You asked for 7+ hrs of real life use. Yes, you have to shop around, this isn't standard, but you have more and more choices these days. (links take you to the source reviews at NBR)

T430
The ultra-powerful 94Wh, 9-cell battery propelled our test unit to a whopping 15 hours of battery life during our standard battery rundown test (Windows 7 Balanced power profile, 70% screen brightness, wireless active and refreshing a web page every 60 seconds). This is above and beyond what we expect from a notebook, even one with this large of a battery. The 9-cell battery is a worthwhile upgrade. 15 hours!

The ThinkPad X230 with Intel Core i5-3320M processor delivered 8 hours and 41 minutes of battery life with the 6-cell battery. Our standard battery life test sets the screen to 70% brightness, wireless active and continuously refreshing a website on a 60-second interval, and Windows 7 set to the "balanced" power profile. With the optional nine-cell battery and the slice battery which connects to the bottom of the notebook, Lenovo claims up to 24 hours of battery time. The take away here is that the ThinkPad X230 is the king of the hill in terms of battery life.

XPS 14z (with switchable graphics)-
I measured an excellent seven hours and 15 minutes of battery life from the XPS 14z during our standard battery rundown test (Windows 7 Balanced power profile, 70% screen brightness, wireless on and refreshing a web page every one minute). This is good even by ultraportable notebook standards. Battery life is definitely one of the XPS 14z’s strong points.

RE: onsite service
Yes, of course you pay for it, but when they offer it standard, you get a pretty great deal on it (especially when you consider that it isn't even an option for Apple). I looked at the 17" MBP when I was shopping. The 8740w at medium configurations blew away all the specs of the MBP and was way cheaper even with paying for the baked-in warranty. Also, I can call or chat for tech support in addition to the on-site.

@Pylon: Two words...pointing stick.

 

[Pylon]

@Pylon: Two words...pointing stick.

Yeah, they are awesome. I still find myself using it on my desk when I have a mouse plugged in.

 

[nikonwhore]

I look at it this way:

At the end of the day it's about either getting work/school/games done. Spec wise I can buy a Dell or HP that's half the price but with the same (or better) specs).

When you ask any rational person if it's worth the price to look "cool" (because it's an apple in a shiny slick package) what would most people say?

I paid 14K for my car (2012 Kia Rio) - would I be willing to pay 28K for the same car, but with some rims, and a special paint job? Hell no.

My main problem is that just like their OS and their phones, apple designs it such that you need an act of god to get in and replace a simple component. Apple is doing a great job of riding the new way of thinking in this country. The idea that people don't care if its fast or reliable, they just want it to look cool so they can score some points with their friends. Same thing with our totally useless government these days. Nobody cares if it works, if its efficient, or if it can pay it's bills. They just want to keep piling on the debt so they can have their handouts and shiny toys.

If specs,durability, and price mean nothing think about it this way we've all seen the ghetto fabulous mom with 3 kids by 3 men, whos on welfare, late on the rent, maxed credit cards, with no job, who by the very definition of responsible should be eating beans and rice, and saving every possible penny to get out of debt. But hark! She has a brand new iPhone4S

That right there tells me everything about the image of apple, it's customer base, and just how logical the people who buy said devices are.

The only real thing I'm upset about is I'm not the one who tricked an entire world into paying so much more for so little.

I think the worst thing about taking a Apple vs. everyone war is that everyone is so adamant about function over form and saying that you are wasting money on Apple's design.

Design is of course, to everyone's own opinion and nobody should be shoving your own opinion down on what you should like or dislike.

Nor should everyone dismiss liking design as being shallow. Yes, you do pay a premium for design but that doesn't make you any less of a computer enthusiast because you do.

Look at how long the threads are here on Post your workshop, your laptop or your monitor setup. Almost everybody here gets excited about these threads and checks out everyone's rigs and what they look like.

If everyone was function over form, we would just being looking at the innards of everyone's cases and looking at specs, and not caring about the way their setup looks.

And to be honest, there are plenty of times where I have noted that design can make a big deal over pure functionality. When you goto a business meeting, you of course make sure you have your work done and your smarts pulled in to convey the business aspect. But do you wear your cheapest suit or jeans? No, you dress to impress because of many things, like wanting to show respect to your clients or your boss. My friend runs a business doing security systems for wealthy clients. Does she pull in her basic attire and show up hoping for a contract? Nope, she puts on her best attire. This can show that she runs a successful business that holds enough satisfied clients to pay for shinier attire, or can show that she wants to look her best because she respects her clients. Would it matter if she targeted a lower SES population? Probably not. The important thing here is that she brings not just the knowledge (function) to the meetings, but she also brings the style (form) to impress and hopefully land that contract.

It seems shallow that one cares about design, but really it isn't always. And there are plenty of jobs where design doesn't matter either. And that's cool too.

There's no need to be so dismissive over design and that seems to be the basic case against Apple. I agree that there are many users that know absolutely nothing about function but tout the form as being the be all end all. But in the end, its there money to spend, and they have their own uses out of their own products. Its annoying when they say your Thinkpad, Elitebook don't look as fancy as their Macbook for sure. But sometimes design is worth a lot more than what a lot of users claim it to be here on hardforum.

 

[nikonwhore]

As an informed shopper as most enthusiasts are here on Hardforum, we can make better choices than most of the consumers out there. But it doesn't hurt to admit that we too, delve into what appear to be mainstream/sheep like ways and enjoy a taste of design. Personally, I am excited over the Samsung Series 9 because of its design and will gladly pay a little extra for something that to me, is a work of art. And I can do all the work that I need to do on it, because the specs suit my line of duties. Could I get a much cheaper option for the work that I do? Probably. But I wouldnt be as excited about my purchase as I could be with the Samsung.

Another case example is the Thinkpad X and T series. I freaking love the Thinkpad design, and the function seems to be awesome too. Unfortunately the screen resolutions and panel types are leaving a lot to be desired for me, so I am looking elsewhere. Not because they are ugly, as many people in the Engadget comments section claim it to be.

 

[crazjayz]

As an informed shopper as most enthusiasts are here on Hardforum, we can make better choices than most of the consumers out there. But it doesn't hurt to admit that we too, delve into what appear to be mainstream/sheep like ways and enjoy a taste of design. Personally, I am excited over the Samsung Series 9 because of its design and will gladly pay a little extra for something that to me, is a work of art. And I can do all the work that I need to do on it, because the specs suit my line of duties. Could I get a much cheaper option for the work that I do? Probably. But I wouldnt be as excited about my purchase as I could be with the Samsung.

Another case example is the Thinkpad X and T series. I freaking love the Thinkpad design, and the function seems to be awesome too. Unfortunately the screen resolutions and panel types are leaving a lot to be desired for me, so I am looking elsewhere. Not because they are ugly, as many people in the Engadget comments section claim it to be.

Sort of OT, but being educated about a product and yet falling for it's design isn't being sheep like. It's about how form, along with function, can compel you to make a purchase.

I too think those are good designs (the Series 9 and the Thinkpads). As of right now, my favorite designs are coming from Sony. Sadly, their function doesn't back up the form, nor the price.

 

[AQ_OC]

Another case example is the Thinkpad X and T series. I freaking love the Thinkpad design, and the function seems to be awesome too. Unfortunately the screen resolutions and panel types are leaving a lot to be desired for me, so I am looking elsewhere. Not because they are ugly, as many people in the Engadget comments section claim it to be.

Nothing wrong with that resolution on a 12.5-inch screen. That same resolution on a 14 or 15 inch screen sucks.

 

[crazjayz]

Nothing wrong with that resolution on a 12.5-inch screen. That same resolution on a 14 or 15 inch screen sucks.

I beg to differ. If I can get that resolution on a tablet that's 1/2 the size, 720p on a 12.5 is crap. IMO, this would be ideal:

11"-13": 1280x800 on lowest cheap models. At least 1440:900 and optional 1680:1050 or 1920x1200. I love how Sony has a 1080p version for the Vaio Z, which is 13.1".
14"-15": 1680:1050 standard. 1920x1200 upgraded
15"+: 1920x1200 standard. 2560x1600 or even 2880:1800 (a la MBPR).

Notice how they are all 16:10. And yes, I'll take 1280x800 on some $500 netbook or whatever that's 11". But on a 13" ultrabook or whatever they want to call them, give me 1680x1050 or even 1920x1200. Ivy bridge and AMDs stuff can run these video on these resolutions without lag on low-end chips now. Why not up the resolution set forth in 2003?

 

[Pylon]

What about people's eyesight? 1366x768 on 11.6" looks quite small to me.

 

[crazjayz]

What about people's eyesight? 1366x768 on 11.6" looks quite small to me.

Increase your DPI? I never understood the argument of less pixels = easier to read. How about more pixels + scaling = clearer everything

 

[pelo]

Increase your DPI? I never understood the argument of less pixels = easier to read. How about more pixels + scaling = clearer everything

You lose real estate this way.

One method to keep the real estate is to increase font/text sizes but that only works if the programs involved comply as the OS level configurations are just OS level and independent of all else.

 

[crazjayz]

You lose real estate this way.

One method to keep the real estate is to increase font/text sizes but that only works if the programs involved comply as the OS level configurations are just OS level and independent of all else.

But you lose real estate either way. If you have 1366x768 resolution, you have no real estate to begin with. If you have 1440:900 or 1680:1050, you have a bit more real estate, but you have to compensate by increasing font size?

The benefit of having the increase resolution is when you're working on something that not text. When watching a movie or looking at pictures, everything will look much clearer due to higher resolution/PPI,

 

[AQ_OC]

I beg to differ. If I can get that resolution on a tablet that's 1/2 the size, 720p on a 12.5 is crap. IMO, this would be ideal:

11"-13": 1280x800 on lowest cheap models. At least 1440:900 and optional 1680:1050 or 1920x1200. I love how Sony has a 1080p version for the Vaio Z, which is 13.1".
14"-15": 1680:1050 standard. 1920x1200 upgraded
15"+: 1920x1200 standard. 2560x1600 or even 2880:1800 (a la MBPR).

Notice how they are all 16:10. And yes, I'll take 1280x800 on some $500 netbook or whatever that's 11". But on a 13" ultrabook or whatever they want to call them, give me 1680x1050 or even 1920x1200. Ivy bridge and AMDs stuff can run these video on these resolutions without lag on low-end chips now. Why not up the resolution set forth in 2003?

I have no problem with 16:10, in fact I much prefer that. But saying that because you can get high res on a tiny tablet that you'll hold a foot from your face is a lot different than having that resolution on a 12.5 in screen that is two feet + from your face. A hand held device needs much higher resolution than a device you will use via a keyboard. Just human ergonomics at work. And the notion that you need more space on the screen for windows with tiny type is just folly. You're probably not as productive as you dream you are.

 

[AQ_OC]

But you lose real estate either way. If you have 1366x768 resolution, you have no real estate to begin with. If you have 1440:900 or 1680:1050, you have a bit more real estate, but you have to compensate by increasing font size?

The benefit of having the increase resolution is when you're working on something that not text. When watching a movie or looking at pictures, everything will look much clearer due to higher resolution/PPI,

Movies do not look sharper on very high res screens. Images do if they are taken at high res, but once you exceed the resolution the movie was shot in, there is no advantage to going higher.

 

[crazjayz]

I have no problem with 16:10, in fact I much prefer that. But saying that because you can get high res on a tiny tablet that you'll hold a foot from your face is a lot different than having that resolution on a 12.5 in screen that is two feet + from your face. A hand held device needs much higher resolution than a device you will use via a keyboard. Just human ergonomics at work. And the notion that you need more space on the screen for windows with tiny type is just folly. You're probably not as productive as you dream you are.

Say what you want, but from my experience, I could DEFINITELY use the increase resolution. My Thinkpad X41t has a 1024x768 resolution in a 12" form factor, my Dell is 1680x1050 in 15", and my desktop is 2560x1600 at 30". For the laptops at 2 feet away, i can dramatically tell the difference in usable screen real estate between the two. Moreover, they don't compare to my 30", and I use my 30" at 2ft as well.

There no notion that I'm not as productive as I dream I am. I KNOW I'm more productive with more real estate. At 1366x768 using the split screen feature in windows 7 is absolutely pointless. Even slightly upping the resolution to 1680x1050 makes it actually useful.

Try using the new MBPR, or even the new iPad at 2 feet away. If you can't read anything, then I'm sorry for assuming that 1366x768 at 12" is too low a resolution. But I think you'll be fine. Even my 62 year old father complains about the low resolution on his Acer netbook, and that's a 10" screen.

Movies do not look sharper on very high res screens. Images do if they are taken at high res, but once you exceed the resolution the movie was shot in, there is no advantage to going higher.

My bad, I made an assumption. I assume'd that most people have stepped it up to 1080p now for movies, even for youtube.

 

[AQ_OC]

Say what you want, but from my experience, I could DEFINITELY use the increase resolution. My Thinkpad X41t has a 1024x768 resolution in a 12" form factor, my Dell is 1680x1050 in 15", and my desktop is 2560x1600 at 30". For the laptops at 2 feet away, i can dramatically tell the difference in usable screen real estate between the two. Moreover, they don't compare to my 30", and I use my 30" at 2ft as well.

There no notion that I'm not as productive as I dream I am. I KNOW I'm more productive with more real estate. At 1366x768 using the split screen feature in windows 7 is absolutely pointless. Even slightly upping the resolution to 1680x1050 makes it actually useful.

Try using the new MBPR, or even the new iPad at 2 feet away. If you can't read anything, then I'm sorry for assuming that 1366x768 at 12" is too low a resolution. But I think you'll be fine. Even my 62 year old father complains about the low resolution on his Acer netbook, and that's a 10" screen.



My bad, I made an assumption. I assume'd that most people have stepped it up to 1080p now for movies, even for youtube.

This makes no since. On a 12-inch screen at two feet, you cannot use any extra real estate. It is just nonsense.

I'm using the new iPad right now. The resolution is meaningful because I'm holding the screen within a foot of my face. At 2ft it is useless and any extra resolution or real estate as a result of resolution is a waste.

You just want resolution for its own sake. You're not really interested in whether it is useful or not. Your prior statement referring to a spec from 2003 is proof of that.

1080p isnt noticeable any a tiny screen unless it is right up under your face. It is useless to have more resolution than that on any screen since there is no way to use it even for a 1080p movie. You're just talking noise here.

 

[crazjayz]

This makes no since. On a 12-inch screen at two feet, you cannot use any extra real estate. It is just nonsense.

I'm using the new iPad right now. The resolution is meaningful because I'm holding the screen within a foot of my face. At 2ft it is useless and any extra resolution or real estate as a result of resolution is a waste.

You just want resolution for its own sake. You're not really interested in whether it is useful or not. Your prior statement referring to a spec from 2003 is proof of that.

1080p isnt noticeable any a tiny screen unless it is right up under your face. It is useless to have more resolution than that on any screen since there is no way to use it even for a 1080p movie. You're just talking noise here.

My reference to the new iPad and MBPR was that increased resolution, even to the point of "retina displays" shows that they can be useful. Using an iPad at 12" is fine, and definitely I do too, but even at 24" you can still read it. It's very clear.

I do no want resolution for its own sake. I know that increased resolution, and thus real estate, increases productivity. I'm sure there's a point where it's completely useless, but 1680x1050 on a 11" definitely isn't it.

If you want to keep your low resolution displays, fine, so be it. I just want the option of high ones as well. And this is what I believe is the largest discerning factor of the MBPR.

 

[pelo]

My reference to the new iPad and MBPR was that increased resolution, even to the point of "retina displays" shows that they can be useful. Using an iPad at 12" is fine, and definitely I do too, but even at 24" you can still read it. It's very clear.

I do no want resolution for its own sake. I know that increased resolution, and thus real estate, increases productivity. I'm sure there's a point where it's completely useless, but 1680x1050 on a 11" definitely it's it.

If you want to keep your low resolution displays, fine, so be it. I just want the option of high ones as well.

You're aware that the "retina" class displays are just a number for PPI (pixels-per-inch)? 108 PPI classifies as a "retina" display on a laptop or desktop display given a 2-3 foot viewing distance. This means that a 1600x900 at 15.6" is technically a retina display.

The quality of displays are much more than how many pixels it has. An IPS with 300-nits brightness, great color accuracy, glossy panel (helps with brightness levels and color accuracy) and deep black levels at 1366x768 will look much better to someone than a 1080p TN panel with shitty colors and poor brightness. What you lose with the smaller display would be real estate but nothing else because image quality is more than just pixels. A 1366x768 at 13" is a retina display at over 117PPI (108 and above classifies as retina). This just goes to show just how little the pixel count has to do with the quality of the display and how much of an impact the other factors, noted above, have. Unless you're sticking your face too close to the screen then given the other factors involved being equal, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a scaled 1080p 13.3" display or a 1366x768 one.

Apple displays are great because they take into account all the different factors but don't ever think that pixel density = better display. Far from it. Higher pixel density can actually mean a worse overall experience if you're gaming and running into issues with scaling and text.

edit - you can buy IPS panels with fantastic quality at the 1366x768 resolution levels in smaller form factors. Sony has offered 250nits brightness (midway between TN and IPS), Samsung offers IPS panels on some laptops at 1366x768 and Lenovo also offers IPS panels on Thinkpads for only +$50. If you're at 13.3" or 14" diagonal size you're also getting a retina display with only 1366x768 so increasing pixel density, while it can increase real estate, wouldn't do much as far as image quality goes.

 

[crazjayz]

You're aware that the "retina" class displays are just a number for PPI (pixels-per-inch)? 108 PPI classifies as a "retina" display on a laptop or desktop display given a 2-3 foot viewing distance. This means that a 1600x900 at 15.6" is technically a retina display.

Yes, I'm fully aware of this. I'm also fully aware that the term "retina display" was coined by Apple and is a a marketing technique. My question is, where did you get the 108 PPI as being the holy grail of numbers?

The quality of displays are much more than how many pixels it has. An IPS with 300-nits brightness, great color accuracy, glossy panel (helps with brightness levels and color accuracy) and deep black levels at 1366x768 will look much better to someone than a 1080p TN panel with shitty colors and poor brightness. What you lose with the smaller display would be real estate but nothing else because image quality is more than just pixels. A 1366x768 at 13" is a retina display at over 117PPI (108 and above classifies as retina). This just goes to show just how little the pixel count has to do with the quality of the display and how much of an impact the other factors, noted above, have. Unless you're sticking your face too close to the screen then given the other factors involved being equal, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a scaled 1080p 13.3" display or a 1366x768 one.

I didn't know we were discussing the quality of displays now. But yes, higher quality displays (IPS, increase brightness, increase color accuracy and gamut, etc) are all great. Once again, where is the 108 PPI coming from? And finally, sure most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a scaled 1080p or a 1366x768. That is until you try working on one. Yay, I can see 16 cells in excel. Really? There's a reason that Sony felt justified in making a 1080p display for their Vaio Z, and you can bet it wasn't to wave around the proverbial epeen at other manufacturers.

Apple displays are great because they take into account all the different factors but don't ever think that pixel density = better display. Far from it. Higher pixel density can actually mean a worse overall experience if you're gaming and running into issues with scaling and text.

100% agreed.

edit - you can buy IPS panels with fantastic quality at the 1366x768 resolution levels in smaller form factors. Sony has offered 250nits brightness (midway between TN and IPS), Samsung offers IPS panels on some laptops at 1366x768 and Lenovo also offers IPS panels on Thinkpads for only +$50. If you're at 13.3" or 14" diagonal size you're also getting a retina display with only 1366x768 so increasing pixel density, while it can increase real estate, wouldn't do much as far as image quality goes.

Sure. But why sacrifice one, when you can have both (real estate as well as image quality).

In the end, displays are one of the things that PC laptop manufacturers can improve upon. And I'll leave it at that.

 

[pelo]

Real estate is dependent on the size of the display. You can't throw a 2560x1440 into a 13.3" diagonal screen and expect to use all of those pixels at native resolution. That's not gonna' happen. There's a cutoff point to where added real estate at native resolutions becomes a hindrance due to limitations on eyesight. The 2650x1440 is an extreme example, but a more apt one is 1080p on 13.3" displays. If you've used a 1080p display at such a small screen you'd realize that you're struggling to see everything at native resolution and increasing things like text/font size helps but isn't universal and is limited by applications. So you're bobbing your head forward and back like a retarded pigeon trying to see what's on your screen. Not cool. Even Apple acknowledges this problem and the MBPR doesn't run at native resolution but actually scales to x1200 highest.

Personally, I prefer 1366x768 or 1440 at 13.3" and 1600x900 at 14" and 1080 at 15.6". At those resolution-to-size the picture is clear and doesn't require fiddling nor introduces problems at native resolution. I also pay far more attention to the color gamut, brightness, black levels, price and power consumption on displays while most people (like in this thread) only give two shits about resolution and disregard all of the other equally important stuff.

Retina display differs based on the device's display. A phone is held closer to your face so you need higher PPI to classify as "retina" whereas a PC or laptop has a lower requirement because it's farther from you (pixels become indistinguishable). It's 300 PPI for a phone and 108 for a desktop/laptop at 12" and 24-36" respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display

In order to understand why desktop resolutions are stuck at the low end of the spectrum, we need to first acknowledge that higher PPI displays do exist. Newegg stocks multiple 27-inch displays with a 2560×1440 resolution in the $850-$1600 range. At 108 PPI, that’s high enough to qualify as a Retina display at a nominal 32-inch (80cm) viewing distance.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/130605-where-are-all-the-high-resolution-desktop-displays

It's based on the viewing distance to the device/display in question. A TV is viewed at from longer distances therefore requires fewer PPI to qualify as "retina" whereas a tablet or phone is a touch-based device and has a smaller display that's closer to your face and needs to exceed 300 PPI for the same level of clarity.

 

[Aurelius]

In the interests of expediency, focusing on the points where I think there's room for more discussion:

3) MBP use mostly the same parts as PCs(at least the ones a user can replace on a PC)...so I don't see how you can claim MBP uses better parts.

Things like SSDs as standard, the unibody shell (again, not for absolute ruggedization, but for daily use) and batteries that have long life cycles. I'm thinking of the same factors that motivated Apple to replace the iPod mini with the iPod nano: even though it halved the capacity and made it harder to repair, the flash and tighter overall design cut down the repairs by a huge margin.

5) Yes, I l know what a professional GPU is. I don't really understand how you can claim they don't work the same way on Mac since they don't exist on a Mac.

The key is that OS X drivers are optimized differently -- the performance isn't a one-for-one comparison to Windows, where GeForce chips are tuned towards gaming and Quadros towards 3D Studio Max. When the hardware is largely identical and it's down to drivers, it's hard to cite some giant advantage.

VGA: Every projector I've connected to my laptop has used VGA. Nice to not need a dongle.

Lots of modern projectors use HDMI, which the Retina MBP finally has. As of Mountain Lion, the Mac user will also have the option of using AirPlay Mirroring, although that of course requires a $99 Apple TV box.

RE: onsite service
Yes, of course you pay for it, but when they offer it standard, you get a pretty great deal on it (especially when you consider that it isn't even an option for Apple). I looked at the 17" MBP when I was shopping. The 8740w at medium configurations blew away all the specs of the MBP and was way cheaper even with paying for the baked-in warranty. Also, I can call or chat for tech support in addition to the on-site.

I'll agree to some extent on warranty, although I'd like to know if you get to talk to truly knowledgeable phone and chat help -- it'd be cold comfort if on-site service was the only option that didn't make you tear your hair out.

It's hard to make a direct comparison now with hardware, since there's no 17-inch MBP left; I will say that Apple has done a much better job of making a convincing case for why you'd want a MacBook Pro if you weren't already inclined. The screen is obvious, but if you're a pro (or just a performance junkie) who's wanted both speed and lightness, it's hard to ignore.

 

[cshard]

The topic has been extended intensively!

For me it's really simple. If any PC laptop makers can come up with the same trackpad Apple laptop uses, I wouldn't have wasted my money on a MBP (gave to GF) and a MBA (returned within 1 week) just to find that I hated MacOS. Trust me, I tried really hard to adapt myself into Mac environment, and kept using Mac for almost a year under MBP, just to find a big "NVM" in my head and let it go. Windows 7 is that much more versatile to me

Unfortunately, no windows laptop ever came up with as perfect as the touchpad that's on MacBooks. I hate all the PC laptop makers for this. As always, I want the Apple hardware + MS software.

That being said, even Apple allowed us to use Windows on their product, Trackpad performs like dog stool under Windows 7 still. And it is totally because the driver that apple provides because some actually developed better 3rd party driver that's specifically for Trackpad's use under Windows 7 called Trackpad++ or sth like that. Still not as good as Trackpad under MacOS but a lot better than that of using Apple's OEM drivers under windows.

 

[AQ_OC]

The topic has been extended intensively!

For me it's really simple. If any PC laptop makers can come up with the same trackpad Apple laptop uses, I wouldn't have wasted my money on a MBP (gave to GF) and a MBA (returned within 1 week) just to find that I hated MacOS. Trust me, I tried really hard to adapt myself into Mac environment, and kept using Mac for almost a year under MBP, just to find a big "NVM" in my head and let it go. Windows 7 is that much more versatile to me

Unfortunately, no windows laptop ever came up with as perfect as the touchpad that's on MacBooks. I hate all the PC laptop makers for this. As always, I want the Apple hardware + MS software.

That being said, even Apple allowed us to use Windows on their product, Trackpad performs like dog stool under Windows 7 still. And it is totally because the driver that apple provides because some actually developed better 3rd party driver that's specifically for Trackpad's use under Windows 7 called Trackpad++ or sth like that. Still not as good as Trackpad under MacOS but a lot better than that of using Apple's OEM drivers under windows.

I just don't get why PC laptop makes and MS can't match or exceed the Apple Trackpad. They have had long enough right? Can they really be this slow? Argh...I guess the answer to that is definitely YES.

 

[pelo]

I just don't get why PC laptop makes and MS can't match or exceed the Apple Trackpad. They have had long enough right? Can they really be this slow? Argh...I guess the answer to that is definitely YES.

There are some that are supposedly very very good. The Sony Vaio T for example, has a very good trackpad.

 

[robvas]

I just don't get why PC laptop makes and MS can't match or exceed the Apple Trackpad. They have had long enough right? Can they really be this slow? Argh...I guess the answer to that is definitely YES.

Part of it is the drivers - if you boot a Macbook into Windows or Linux the trackpad is goofy.

 

[fishrule]

Considering pretty much no good PC laptops exist on the market anymore (slight hyperbole), I'd say PC OEMs are trying their damned hardest to go bankrupt. The screens are junk, the trackpads are terrible, and they all use either shiny plastic or try to look like cheap Macbooks.

 

[wabbitseason]

If/when quality 16:10 or 4:3 PC laptops rejoin the party business users will start buying--and praising--them again. Until then they are categorically absolute crap.

 

[nonlnear]

Considering pretty much no good PC laptops exist on the market anymore (slight hyperbole), I'd say PC OEMs are trying their damned hardest to go bankrupt. The screens are junk, the trackpads are terrible, and they all use either shiny plastic or try to look like cheap Macbooks.

If/when quality 16:10 or 4:3 PC laptops rejoin the party business users will start buying--and praising--them again. Until then they are categorically absolute crap.

This.

I need a laptop for some light CAD work and started shopping for something that was very common the last time I looked at laptops: a machine with high resolution (horizontal lines please!), without pricey overkill in the graphics department. (Obviously it's been a while since I looked at laptops!) I would have spent $1000-ish if anyone made decent machines with 1200 lines (or more?) of resolution. Oh, and 17" is too big.

If you had told me 5 years ago that in 2012 I would be looking for a hi-res laptop I would have guessed that by now the ultra-high end PC laptops would be rocking 2560x1440 or better and WUXGA would be the bottom of mid-range - and still available on 15" class machines. Instead there is not a single PC laptop smaller than 17" with 1200 lines of resolution. I ended up buying an off-lease Dell 830 with WUXGA for $300 shipped. (You have to e-mail Dell Financial Services support to get the resolution of each machine posted, but it's worth the effort.)

After shopping high and low for the last month I can't help but marvel at how many makers and stores have removed resolution as a search criterion for their laptop product sites. It's lamost like they are trying to hide something... If I see the number 1366 or 768 one more time I'm going to gouge an eye out. The consolidation in LCD manufacturing has made PC laptops an utter wasteland when it comes to product improvement. Are there really that many people out there who purchase a laptop for the primary purpose of watching movies?

I'm no Mac person (I just can't afford to be one yet), but I've got to give Apple kudos for being the only company in existence to continue bringing high resolutions to market.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

now this crap again........

laptop from Dell HP or SONY with decent graphics, awesome battery life and at leat 8GB and RB-ROM drive i7, and 1080p all for under $1300 incl tax. It will runs circles around MBP for the price......

Here is my pick for 14" laptop

Sony E series
i7 2.1 - 3.1Ghz
8GB
Radeon 7670 with HDMI and display port
750GB 7200 rpm drive
BD-Rom drive
Large battery 7950 ma or 7.95 amp hours
USB 3.0
1600*900 display
Wireless N and BT 3.0

so now can we plz stop with the PC laptops are crap as if you are willing to spend decent $$ they are NOT crap.

and you will be in the MBP area if you are using SSD as they are still outrageously priced from the OEMS.

 

[Pylon]

How's the build quality of that Vaio?