MAC or PC?

[Guest]

I'm going to study Architecture, so I'll be getting a laptop/macbook, and I need a system that handles designe programs with no problems. So what I'm asking is wich one is better for me? I'm going to be using Autocad, which is not in Mac, but there is Parallel, so the compatibility problem is not a problem.
What I need to know is which has the best performance with heavy programs and please give me examples with links; thank u all!!!

P.S.: Does Parallel work fine on mac? I mean, if I open Autocad on mac through Parallel, does it work good or does the matchine colapse?

P.S.2: PLEASE don't start a fight about which one is better, just give your opinions so i can deside which to buy, thanks!!!

[Borman]

My tip is to buy ram, max out the system. Just don't buy it from Apple. So long as you have plenty of RAM, Parallels, VMware, or any other solution should work great. Alternatively, you can boot into BootCamp, which is just plain old Windows running as normal.

Generally speaking, Windows programs have been slightly quicker in some cases. But the OSX software runs just as well, usually more stable, and the gap is pretty much gone now. No matter what though, the stuff will be quick, so don't fret the millisecond difference.

[Burnside]

Haven't you ever seen the commercials? MAC all the way.

[JcFFx]

For about $1,100 Canadian I can buy a Macbook laptop.

Alternatively, for roughly the same price (slightly cheaper), I can buy an Asus laptop with the same processor speed, a screen that's 2-inches larger, double the hard drive space, more USB ports, HDMI output, and a better graphic card.

I can't answer your autocad/parallel question. I'm just going to point that out in case you're on a budget or something.

[Guest]

Thanks. Yeah, my mom and dad are buying it, and they think the Macbook pro I want is to expensive ($1700), so I'm seing my options at what to buy. I think they want something from 1000 and under, but I don't really know were to look for laptops and what to look for in them, hehehe.
If i was to choos a Mac, which one should I? I mean, with which one do I get a "good" video card?

[Member_of_STARS]

Thanks. Yeah, my mom and dad are buying it, and they think the Macbook pro I want is to expensive ($1700), so I'm seing my options at what to buy. I think they want something from 1000 and under, but I don't really know were to look for laptops and what to look for in them, hehehe.
If i was to choos a Mac, which one should I? I mean, with which one do I get a "good" video card?

It depends completely on which software youre using and which platform youre used to. People swear by Macs when it comes to graphic and audio design, but so far all the top montages and video editing pieces Ive seen have all come from users using Windows.

Macs are also more pricey compared to PCs/PC lappys.

Whichever you go for, remember to do a *lot* of research if you find a model of interest. A lot of laptops have issues with cooling and changing your motherboard every 6 months is really not that fun. Apple goes around this issue by underclocking their Macbooks.

One of the most frustrating cases with cooling issues is with Dell XPS high perfomance gaming laptops, their solutions are just comical and bizarre.

[Guest]

I am looking up on laptops, but i don't really know what's better. Dell, HP, Vaio (though they are expensive), ... I don't now which other one is good (I don't like Toshibas).

[WeskerIncarnate]

It depends completely on which software youre using and which platform youre used to. People swear by Macs when it comes to graphic and audio design, but so far all the top montages and video editing pieces Ive seen have all come from users using Windows.

Macs are also more pricey compared to PCs/PC lappys.

Whichever you go for, remember to do a *lot* of research if you find a model of interest. A lot of laptops have issues with cooling and changing your motherboard every 6 months is really not that fun. Apple goes around this issue by underclocking their Macbooks.

One of the most frustrating cases with cooling issues is with Dell XPS high perfomance gaming laptops, their solutions are just comical and bizarre.

I got a Studio XPS 1640. The cooling in place for it is absolutely retarded, but I have a cooling stand, that keeps the processor temps from going too high, I'm sure (the model processor in my laptop is supposed to be resistant to heat up to 100 degrees Celcius).

Other then that, it's a pretty good computer.

[Member_of_STARS]

I am looking up on laptops, but i don't really know what's better. Dell, HP, Vaio (though they are expensive), ... I don't now which other one is good (I don't like Toshibas).

Well, if you want to go for 100% certainty, then Vaios are amazing. But they are extremely expensive if you want a model with perfomance. Like I said, if you find something youre interested in, just Google it for known issues. Start with overheating, search for common issues with laptops and see if that model has any of the same issues. Even problems with your intended software use (compatibility and whatnot), go Sherlock Holmes on that ass. Youll learn a lot in the process.

Incarnate, one of the most hilarious issues with XPS models (particulaly with the 13xx series) was that they thought they would cut costs by releasing newer models with aluminum coolong grids. Thats just pathetic. Especially considering 6 months was their motherboards life expectancy.

One of XPS models was just absurt. Apparently, its air intake vent was next to a hot air exhaust vent, haha.

Things to look for when buying a laptop.

Cooling problems
Screen brightness (very important) and contrast, theres immense difference between different rigs, but can be made a nonfactor if you plug a different screen in stationary work
Build material (magnesium alloy offers great cooling properties and wont crack as fast as plastic, although plastic isnt necessarily evil by default)
The hinges and how durable they are, one of the first "mechanical" problems youll face
GPU- integrated or not, and if not, will it be sufficient

(then theres a shitload of technical tidbits like the number of sensors and whatnot)

People say battery life is important. Fact is, laptops have become pretty much "smaller PC-s" anyway. Mobile multimedia and entertainment with modern high perfomance laptops is only an option if you buy one which has a shitload of functions to throttle down and underclock your hardware. Most cafes and trains have electricity and if you do 4+ hour journeys routinely, you should invest into a PSP (or a DS, iPhone, you get the idea), so I wouldnt really be bothered if the battery lasts you 1.5 hours or 4 hours.
However, what I can tell you for certain is that if you dont want your battery life to decrease dramatically, detatch it from the laptop every time you plug it in, make it a religious habbit. For example, some HP batteries go from 2 hours to 15 minutes in a matter of months.

People also say weight is important. Its not. They havent seen a 10 kilogram laptop (or a portable computer, would be a better name for it). What you need is a good laptop bag and it doesnt matter if its 1.5 kgs or even 3.5.

These two aspects people seem to care the most about are directly disproportionate to laptop perfomance and cooling. I would rather have a bigger and fatter lappy which runs stuff while not requiring a cooling pad, than go for the latest fad and get myself a 4 lbs paperweight which burns my balls off. However, investing into a cooling pad for a lappy is a good idea nonetheless. The cooler your laptop overall is, the higher its life expectancy. Especially if the software youre going to be using with it is going to put a strain to it. Just remember to do research on those aswell. Vast majority of market laptop cooling pads are useless and flawed by their design. Theres no point in shelling out 30-50 bucks for something which takes 3 degrees Celsius off the CPU heat.

Anyway, I know it sounds like a lot of hassle. Buying a laptop is like building a space shuttle. But you get two things in return. First, you learn stuff, done underestimate that (as most tend to learn their tech when its broken). Secondly, you will likely end up with something you like and can depend on, instead of something which you think others would like and which dies on you.

You dont have to be a tech wizz to buy a laptop, but you have to know how to use Google ;).

If you want to be cheaper, and go for the safest route, a desktop PC would have no issues with cooling, offer higher perfomance for a lot less money, and you could upgrade it with ease. Cant take it with you anywhere, though.

[Borman]

Macs have anywhere from 8-10 hours of battery life. Screen is wonderful, one of the best on the market. GPU is dual in most cases. Macs run all video software, plus Final Cut which is amazing. They are also generally the highest quality on the market. I know plenty of people with Dells and HPs that just give up and buy a mac, after too many failures. Honestly, Macs are the only sort of laptops I would consider. Desktops are a different story.

[Carnivol]

Final Cut > Everything
(as far as video goes)


Also, my general experience with multi-tasking between (potentially) resource heavy stuff like Illustrator, Photoshop and Quark has been much more positive in OS-X than it's ever been in a windows OS on systems with up to twice the amount of system resources available.

Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with bootcamp (other than being able to confirm that it works as a nice dual boot solution) and that running a virtual machine certainly could work too (though, I still have horrible nightmares about the OS 9 loading screen back from when I was jumping between OS-X and OS 9 software on my old workstation. Haven't had to do that in 6 years, but I guess windows in a VMware solution should be much more stable than what stuff like the OS 9 emulation was back then.)


To this day I still log in on apple.com every now and then and make myself a dream monster machine that I wish I could've bought on down-payment (but can't, as at least last time I checked they didn't offer that in my local store)

[Member_of_STARS]

Macs have anywhere from 8-10 hours of battery life.

Even laptops which are designed for absolute top battery life are unable to produce these results. The "up to 8 hours" Apple model has a nonremovable battery and the battery time is measure pretty much while the computer is idling with the WiFi on.

Also, Dells Alienware M11 series claims their battery lasts up to about 8 hours aswell.

Honestly, I think the whole 8 hour limit is under ideal lab conditions and should be taken with some serious doubt.

Note also that in order to get the MacBook which does have the high perfomance GPU along with "up to 8 hours of battery life" costs more than 2000 dollars while its PC competitors cost 1000 for almost the same hardware build. And Macs still run hot, people say their Mac is running at 120F and its "normal".

I love the double GPU idea, but they are not working both at the same time. The 9400GM, a weaker card is working when youre not using intensive programs. You need to manually switch between the two cards.

All in all, you can get a Sony Vaio for two times less, much better perfomance and with much less temperature damage risks. The downside is that you wont have an 8 hour battery life. You only get 3.

Id stay clear from Dell and HP aswell, but I wouldnt shell out twice as much money on a Mac for no real value besides the trademark. Software, thats an entirely different subject.

[Borman]

The difference is that Apple's can last that long pretty damn easily, something that many can confirm. I wouldn't have mentioned battery life if I didnt think it was good. I got 3 hours+ of battery life out of a freaking iBook, and its only gotten better since.

And when you have more issues with the Sony Vaio, or at the least, no OSX, the money saved is money lost when it comes to a production environment. To say there is nothing different at all means you havent seen the internals, how the airflow is made, why the units get hot (spoiler : to keep the internals cooler, most laptops shouldnt be used on your lap, according to their manuals, and also why they are called notebooks). Apple hardware is generally designed so nice, apart from a stinker like the 27inch iMac, and I am NOT talking looks.

[Member_of_STARS]

The difference is that Apple's can last that long pretty damn easily, something that many can confirm. I wouldn't have mentioned battery life if I didnt think it was good. I got 3 hours+ of battery life out of a freaking iBook, and its only gotten better since.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook/faq/macbook-battery-life.html

Youll find that the actual tests show battery life to be around 3-3.5 hours with actual use of the computer. Like Ive already mentioned, the longer battery life with the top model today is achieved by making the battery in a completely different shape, making it integrated and non-dedatchable.

My friends locally assembled laptop, bought in 2004 (iBooks time) has a battery life around 3 hours, still. 6 years later. Thats just as insane.

By the way, notice how this discussion turned into "battery life" discussion, which is one of the aspects Mac users appreciate the most. Fact is that the 2000+ dollar MacBook with the best technical specifications runs hotter than a 999.- dollar Vaio, which has a much better technical specifications list in the startup model. Vaios are known for absolute top quality when it comes to midrange priced laptops. They also run cooler out of the box. If you want to suggest someone a laptop for high perfomance work, and if the software didnt matter (and the recommendee had a set budget), I wouldnt recommend a Mac just because its a Mac.

And when you have more issues with the Sony Vaio, or at the least, no OSX, the money saved is money lost when it comes to a production environment.

Sorry, you confused me here a little. I assume youre saying that when it comes to production (audio/video design, modelling, stuff like that), OSX running programs are superior to Windows ones?

Ive seen a hell of a lot of arguments and debates on the subject, and I was almost convinced that dozens of threads and conclusions made by the "average folks" cant be wrong. However-

I know a couple of people in the local movie industry, who shoot and edit music videos and commercials professionally. Having talked to them about the basics of video-related work, the top programs mentioned were as follows-
Adobe Premiere (available for Windows and OSX)
Sony Vegas (Windows)
Adobe After Effects (available for Windows and OSX, the most used software in professional editing, including Hollywood)
There were a number of other programs listed, but the important part was that Final Cut Pro was pretty down on the suggestion list. Im not saying that FCP isnt used professionally, Im just saying that a professional didnt highlight FCP at all.

More than that. Modern top frag videos are all made with either Vegas or Premiere and all of them use After Effects. I can assure you that montages have gone a long way since 2004.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBhr3lmtRLE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM_d-2spYPI

That is immensely impressive video editing. But the important part is that since 2004 I have not seen a single high production frag video which was done in Final Cut. One of the most famous video editor in the gaming crowd, Snoken, who is now working in DICE and who created a number of Battlefield machinimas only less popular than Red vs Blue because of the fanbase for both games, used Vegas and Adobe After Effects.

Simon Captiva, one of the greatest video editors of all time, whos portfolio has what I consider the greates videogame related videowork to date "Stuntmen Legends" (mandatory watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfpsctDP08Q, but if you really want to watch it, look for a high-quality version), also used Vegas and After Effects.

To say there is nothing different at all means you havent seen the internals, how the airflow is made, why the units get hot (spoiler : to keep the internals cooler, most laptops shouldnt be used on your lap, according to their manuals, and also why they are called notebooks).

Laptops dont get hot because they are on your lap. They get hot because their cooling solution is less than adequate compared to desktops. They have a ton of heat-emitting hardware crammed in a tight space and usually a single vent to cool three chips. Everything counts here, air intake, air outlet, cooling grid, its material, space inside the laptop, the position of vents and grill, thermal paste quality, vents speed. Some laptops you can put on your blanket and their CPU will idle at 40C degrees. Others you have on your desk idling at 60C. The difference between these two figures is colossal, and has nothing to do with whether its on your lap or not.

Apple hardware is generally designed so nice, apart from a stinker like the 27inch iMac, and I am NOT talking looks.

Bu of course you are. It looks great, has a lot of buttons. But thats not technical design. Thats design appreciated by those who just use their laptop. In either case, the software/hardware integreation in MacBooks allows for a lot of control over the notebooks perfomance. Unfortunately they come heavily priced and performing lower compared to their competition.

A) The request was for information on a ~1000 dollar laptop with enough perfomance to run software needed in school
B) I specifically predicted that design and battery is Macs users strongest approved aspects
C) The PC based laptops are much cheaper and offer much more bang for the buck, the downside is that you need to know everything about the model of interest, as there are thousands of varying models

With a limited budget you cant get a high perfomance Mac, but you dont necessarily have to buy a low quality PC laptop either.

[Guest]

hey guys: thanks for the help!!! my dad is going to eeuu in a few months, what I'll do is try and convince my mom and dad to buy me a macbook pro '15 ($1700!!!!!). If I'm not succesfull, I'll just go with a HP Pavilion dv7t + upgrade it to 6GB of RAM ($800 + $50). Only time may say if I end up with a Mac or PC...