# Who makes the best laptop? Why?



## EJG

Someone told me ASUS makes the best (that's what he has).  Is it?  Who do YOU think makes the best one?

I am thinking of getting a new laptop (current one is 3yo HP).  I don't use it for games, I mainly use it for internet, photo download/storage, word processing and stuff like that.  Would prefer 3 USB ports, and definitely need DVD drive.  Am open to any suggestion.  

Thanks


----------



## voyagerfan99

Asus is definitely a very good brand. They're warranty and support are very good, and you get a good bang for your buck.

Dell is also good, though I prefer Latitudes over Inspirons.

I don't care for Acer simply because they are cheap, underpowered, entry level laptops.


----------



## Laquer Head

ASUS are definitely awesome!

Rock solid chassis, excellent range of models, excellent looks great customer support, 2-year warranty (at least in Canada it's 2), competitive prices!

I honestly wouldn't buy another brand, that's also not saying that other brands aren't good--but when you find something you like, you tend to stick with it.

I've had 1 Dell, 1 Toshiba, 1 HP, 1 Acer, and I'm on my 3rd ASUS currently!


----------



## Shane

Asus FTW.....i have one and its great,sharp,bright screen quality...runs very cool,solid laptops overall.


----------



## aviation_man

Asus is a very good brand. I don't think you will be disappointed at all.


----------



## bomberboysk

Asus is great, 2 year warranty, 1 year of accidental damage protection included is amazingly great.


Sager however makes one heck of a notebook, very tough units and some of the best as far as gaming notebooks. For standard use however, asus is great.


----------



## The_Other_One

From ones I've come in contact with/ones that are more readily available, I would have to say Toshiba.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Asus fan, but it's very hard to beat Toshiba's for their price and quality.


----------



## ANNR

Asus is a good manufacture.  I just received my UL30A two days ago and I am loving it.  This is my second laptop from Asus and will not buy any other brand.  

Toshiba is also a good brand.  Both Toshiba and Asus have good build quality from what I can tell with the laptops that I own.  

Sony also make good laptops in the sense that their design is sleek and appealing to the eye, but they are way over priced.  However Asus is also catching up with the design and I will never look back on Sony ever again.  Just check out their Asus's new line up of low Voltage CPU laptops.  You can find them in Newegg, and amazon. They are perfect for school.


----------



## Glliw

Man this thread makes me feel crappy with my Hp dv6700 laptop haha.

My only experience with ASUS is their G50, which my roommate has.  More trouble than its worth I'd say.  He got it about 6 months ago for about $1,000ish.  It intermittently has network problems, scrolling problems, etc.  The flashy lights are a real nuisance as well.


----------



## ANNR

Glliw said:


> Man this thread makes me feel crappy with my Hp dv6700 laptop haha.
> 
> My only experience with ASUS is their G50, which my roommate has.  More trouble than its worth I'd say.  He got it about 6 months ago for about $1,000ish.  It intermittently has network problems, scrolling problems, etc.  The flashy lights are a real nuisance as well.



sounds like he has got some driver problems.  As for the lights,  Chose the model that has no flashy lights. ^^


----------



## Feuerfrei.x

I think HP.

Only cuz my m8s dad is one of the big bosses for it.

Oh well

I dont like laptops much - people need proper computers


----------



## ANNR

don't get me wrong, Hp make good laptops too.  As matter affect I own a Dv3 for  half year before I give it to my cousin.  Good machine, but I wish Hp would do away with their super duper glassy mouse pad.


----------



## Feuerfrei.x

true true wiv the mouse pad thing


----------



## ganzey

hp, this is from personal experience. my sis had a compaq and about a year later hp bought out compaq and her laptop started crappin out on her and she sent it in numerous times, and thanks to hp support, she had the mobo replaced 3 times, hdd 2 times, ram once, and they even left in a battery in it once so now she has two batterys. i have had my hp since 2003, and it has NEVER broken down or had anything wrong with it, theyre customer support is amazing.


----------



## The_Other_One

I've had horrible experiences with HP machines, along with my grandparent's poorly performing Compaq (now with motherboard issues).  Build quality seems pretty decent with HPs, but actual system quality seems poor.


----------



## PabloTeK

bomberboysk said:


> Sager however makes one heck of a notebook, very tough units and some of the best as far as gaming notebooks.



You mean Compal 

Asus are very good machines for consumers although Dell and Lenovo are hard to beat for corporate class kit. I'd say Apple's Mac some of the best out there. They might not be spec-wise as powerful as an equivalent-priced machine but the hardware feels solidly built (unlike the two HP's I had, ugh) and the inclusion of an integrated and dedicated card setup means I can play games and still have a 5 hour battery life under normal use. 

EDIT: T_O_O; did you have that squealing issue with your silver/black HP? I had it with the HDD squealing in some OS's...


----------



## Glliw

ganzey said:


> hp, this is from personal experience. my sis had a compaq and about a year later hp bought out compaq and her laptop started crappin out on her and she sent it in numerous times, and thanks to hp support, she had the mobo replaced 3 times, hdd 2 times, ram once, and they even left in a battery in it once so now she has two batterys. i have had my hp since 2003, and it has NEVER broken down or had anything wrong with it, theyre customer support is amazing.




Yeah, in reality, Hp is pretty BA.  I've had mine since May, spilled water on it once, warranty fully covered the repair.  Service was slow though...took about 2 weeks to diagnose and replace the switchboard and get it back to me.  battery life has been nothing but good to me as well.  There's times when I'm in the library studying and can't get a spot near an outlet and the battery will squeak out 4 hours of life with just Firefox with a few tabs open running.  Compared to a netbook, thats not long, but I think for an "entertainment laptop", I can't complain.


----------



## The_Other_One

PabloTeK said:


> did you have that squealing issue with your silver/black HP? I had it with the HDD squealing in some OS's...



Yes, but it was not the hard drive.  I confirmed this by removing it and the squealing persisted.  Even exchanged the laptops and continued to have the problem.  It also seemed rather sluggish when compared to my Fujitsu or Dell, and the Fujitsu had a slightly slower processor (well, 5300 in the HP, 5250 in the Fujitsu)  Nice thing about that HP though is how cool it ran.  I swear that fan never kicked in!


----------



## PabloTeK

The_Other_One said:


> Yes, but it was not the hard drive.  I confirmed this by removing it and the squealing persisted.  Even exchanged the laptops and continued to have the problem.  It also seemed rather sluggish when compared to my Fujitsu or Dell, and the Fujitsu had a slightly slower processor (well, 5300 in the HP, 5250 in the Fujitsu)  Nice thing about that HP though is how cool it ran.  I swear that fan never kicked in!



Mine was slow all the time, 5 minutes to boot Vista! The squealing was bad though. Glad I got rid of it!


----------



## driverdj2000

what about SONY VAIO.have one myself and its been as reliable as the universe for the 3 years i have it.
they're terrific laptops,styling is second to none,but they are overpriced as are most of sonys products.


----------



## ganzey

The_Other_One said:


> I've had horrible experiences with HP machines, along with my grandparent's poorly performing Compaq (now with motherboard issues).  Build quality seems pretty decent with HPs, but actual system quality seems poor.



compaqs are shitty machines, i would never buy one, i just really wanna buy one of teh hp hdx20's, they got a* 20 inch screen*.http://cgi.ebay.com/HP-Pavilion-HDX...iewItemQQptZLaptops_Nov05?hash=item35a45d3641


----------



## Gooberman

Hey i had my compaq for 2+ years don't say shit about them  it's still going strong! even though you're probably talking about labtops i still take offense to that!


----------



## Xwardos

Asus are for sure a good brand to look up to. i have an Acer at the moment myself...managed to get it very cheap hehe. but if otherwise....i would go for an asus for sure. dell and hp are ok also, but asus have a punch when it comes to design and graphics.


----------



## EJG

Thanks for the replies, really appreciate it. Lots to consider!


----------



## gloveroliver12

asus is all time best bt dell is also good.


----------



## mtb211

i thought alienware was the best, Never used one, probally because I can buy an asus for much less


----------



## ScOuT

Sager...FTW!

http://www.sagernotebook.com/product_customed.php?pid=171297

The new ones have Intel Core i7, Triple channel DDR3 and GTX 280M in SLI! Show me another laptop that will beat that

I have had one for 3 years and still love it. Very nice and solid as a rock!


----------



## Feuerfrei.x

gloveroliver12 said:


> dell is also good.



never dell -- hate them

i on this certain laptop u had to pay £40 more if you wanted it in  a diferent colour!!!


----------



## diduknowthat

Personally I think Macs make the best laptops. If I had the money I would love to buy a Macbook pro and run window 7 on it.


----------



## tlarkin

bomberboysk said:


> Asus is great, 2 year warranty, 1 year of accidental damage protection included is amazingly great.
> 
> 
> Sager however makes one heck of a notebook, very tough units and some of the best as far as gaming notebooks. For standard use however, asus is great.



We've visited their warranty and if I recall we found out that is not really the case, and they don't cover abuse.  Accidental damage seems, very gray in their warranty agreement.  There is a whole thread about it, but I don't have time to sift through the threads with the search feature.

I've been in IT for 10 years now, 5 of which were spent mainly as hardware repair and end user support.  During that time, I serviced every major company, every brand of laptop, and a very broad range of users.   I've also owned a laptop from every major company as well.  

My opinion is very biased as I am not an average user and I have taken apart and repaired pretty much every laptop under the sun.  I don't really do many hardware repairs today, but I am pretty sure I could still very well easily do it.  It is like riding a bike in some aspects.

I think the best laptop made, is the Macbook Pro.  I have many reasons for this, and could go on and on about it.  It is light weight and slim for how powerful it is, and it can run any software and any OS.  This gives me the most flexibility and mobility out of one single device.

Now, if I were to buy a PC laptop I would buy the following:

Lenovo
Asus
HP Business class (not consumer models)

I would stay away from everything else.  I think that Sony makes a decent laptop but I used to service them, and getting parts from Sony is a huge pain and dealing with them on the warranty side was also a nightmare.  Their company in those regards suck big time.  Dell makes crap, that is just my opinion and you aren't going to change it.  HP/Compaq consumer stuff is cheaply made, and you can get a good deal but you are getting what you pay for.   Acers are the same thing.  I feel that they are a good deal but I also feel that their qualify is not as high as the three I mentioned above.

Alienware and Sager I think are a joke.  They don't perform all that much better than any other laptop and they cost sometimes over double.  What does a 6 second boot time really get you over say a 12 to 15 second?  Also, look at the power requirements and battery life on those.  They are hardly mobile machines.  I think if you want a gaming rig, build a desktop.  If you want a portable one, build a barebones shuttle gaming rig.  

All of my Apple laptops over the years (I've had about 5 different ones now) have in general performed better than any Windows laptop I have had.  When I had my HP business class laptop and desktop (at a previous job, we had 10,000 PCs to support) I ran Linux on them strictly, and they were fast and responsive and very solid.  I had an Asus for a short while which I liked a lot, but I sold it to buy something else which I can't recall at this time.  At my job now we also have a few Dell and Lenovo laptops floating around and I do like the Lenovo ones.  They are solid machines.

When I said earlier that my opinion is extremely biased, it is, and it is because I think a laptop is meant for mobility, not for gaming, or any other ridiculous configuration that some of the expensive laptops use.


----------



## realmike15

diduknowthat said:


> Personally I think Macs make the best laptops. If I had the money I would love to buy a Macbook pro and run window 7 on it.



I have the 13" MacBook Pro, the build quality is second to none.  There are some drawbacks though.  Overpriced but slowly coming down.  Not for gaming, the best card they offer is a 9600gt which is completely out of date and only offered in the $2000+ models.  No Express Card slot except in the most expensive model which almost every laptop has these days.  Lastly the aluminum enclosure although beautiful and extremely durable gets hot as shit on your lap.


----------



## tlarkin

mightymilk said:


> I have the 13" MacBook Pro, the build quality is second to none.  There are some drawbacks though.  Overpriced but slowly coming down.  Not for gaming, the best card they offer is a 9600gt which is completely out of date and only offered in the $2000+ models.  No Express Card slot except in the most expensive model which almost every laptop has these days.  Lastly the aluminum enclosure although beautiful and extremely durable gets hot as shit on your lap.



I wouldn't call them over priced per se, there are some subtle differences you are paying for.  It is just a different business model is all.


----------



## realmike15

tlarkin said:


> I wouldn't call them over priced per se, there are some subtle differences you are paying for.  It is just a different business model is all.



I think for what you get it's overpriced.  Don't get me wrong I'm not a Mac hater, I wouldn't own one if I was.  I think the MacBook's and MacBook Pro's, and iMac's are a far better deal than the Mac Pro which is the most outrageously overpriced computer i've ever seen.  You can build i7's for 1/2 that price that has better components.  I realize a lot of the price goes into the design (which Apple does amazingly well), but it's common knowledge that Apple products are typically a 50-60% markup instead of the usual 25-30%.  If you look at a tear down of most Apple products, it's an ASUS or Foxconn motherboard with generic Memory, Harddrives, Power Supply, and CD Drives.  Aside from the Motherboard, Processor, and Display... most of those components are not on par with what you should get based on what you're paying.


----------



## tlarkin

mightymilk said:


> I think for what you get it's overpriced.  Don't get me wrong I'm not a Mac hater, I wouldn't own one if I was.  I think the MacBook's and MacBook Pro's, and iMac's are a far better deal than the Mac Pro which is the most outrageously overpriced computer i've ever seen.  You can build i7's for 1/2 that price that has better components.  I realize a lot of the price goes into the design (which Apple does amazingly well), but it's common knowledge that Apple products are typically a 50-60% markup instead of the usual 25-30%.  If you look at a tear down of most Apple products, it's an ASUS or Foxconn motherboard with generic Memory, Harddrives, Power Supply, and CD Drives.  Aside from the Motherboard, Processor, and Display... most of those components are not on par with what you should get based on what you're paying.



See this is where you are completely wrong.  i7 != Xeon.  Xeons are far more expensive for a reason, and they are built for bigger purposes.  Plus you can't run dual i7's, but you can run dual Xeons.  You can't sit there an say you can build a better system for half the price, because that is just flat out wrong.  However, Apple doesn't have any middle ground, it goes Mac Mini, iMac then a Mac Pro.  Mac Pros are 10x overkill for 90%+ users out there.  It is a serious beast.

Other than that, feature for feature and part for part the Macs are very competitively priced.  For example, all their laptops have LED back lit LCD screens, which are more expensive.  You go build to order a Dell laptop and add that option it costs you more money.  Apple just uses premium parts and doesn't give the consumer a choice or a BTO (build to order) option.  

Maybe you don't quite understand how business works.  When you buy a prebuilt system, you are buying components from the lowest bidder.  There is competition amongst the part makers to allow for the giant computer companies to buy in bulk and buy from the best deal available.  Then you have Sun, which is just like Apple.  They design their systems from the ground up, they design the hardware, and they design and run their own OS (solaris), and they are a bit more expensive but their total cost to make is also higher.  They can't go around and get the lowest bid, they have to hire and maintain a work force to build everything in house.  

That costs more money because you have to pay them salaries and benefits, where when you buy in bulk from a parts company you just pay a flat sum of money, or possibly do contracting which is cheaper than salary and there are no benefits involved.  

So both Apple and Sun have to pay top dollar to keep their engineers there designing their hardware, their software, their applications, and getting their systems built, because they want to keep them on board. The total cost of doing business this way is more expensive.  However, you have greater quality control.  This is because you control every aspect from the ground up, from the transistors and resistors you use, to what chipset you want to put in there, to how many capacitors you put on the logic board.  Then factor in they design their OSes to run on that exact spec hardware, and that is where you get the it just works saying from.

See, both Apple and Sun both do this with their systems.  They are a closed platform system.  It is a different business model than your average Joe PC which is more of an open platform.  

Both have their pros and cons, but Apples are hardly over priced.  Try to build a PC, spec for spec like any of the Macs and you will find it is not over priced.


----------



## realmike15

tlarkin said:


> See this is where you are completely wrong.  i7 != Xeon.  Xeons are far more expensive for a reason, and they are built for bigger purposes.  Plus you can't run dual i7's, but you can run dual Xeons.  You can't sit there an say you can build a better system for half the price, because that is just flat out wrong.  However, Apple doesn't have any middle ground, it goes Mac Mini, iMac then a Mac Pro.  Mac Pros are 10x overkill for 90%+ users out there.  It is a serious beast.
> 
> Other than that, feature for feature and part for part the Macs are very competitively priced.  For example, all their laptops have LED back lit LCD screens, which are more expensive.  You go build to order a Dell laptop and add that option it costs you more money.  Apple just uses premium parts and doesn't give the consumer a choice or a BTO (build to order) option.
> 
> Maybe you don't quite understand how business works.  When you buy a prebuilt system, you are buying components from the lowest bidder.  There is competition amongst the part makers to allow for the giant computer companies to buy in bulk and buy from the best deal available.  Then you have Sun, which is just like Apple.  They design their systems from the ground up, they design the hardware, and they design and run their own OS (solaris), and they are a bit more expensive but their total cost to make is also higher.  They can't go around and get the lowest bid, they have to hire and maintain a work force to build everything in house.
> 
> That costs more money because you have to pay them salaries and benefits, where when you buy in bulk from a parts company you just pay a flat sum of money, or possibly do contracting which is cheaper than salary and there are no benefits involved.
> 
> So both Apple and Sun have to pay top dollar to keep their engineers there designing their hardware, their software, their applications, and getting their systems built, because they want to keep them on board. The total cost of doing business this way is more expensive.  However, you have greater quality control.  This is because you control every aspect from the ground up, from the transistors and resistors you use, to what chipset you want to put in there, to how many capacitors you put on the logic board.  Then factor in they design their OSes to run on that exact spec hardware, and that is where you get the it just works saying from.
> 
> See, both Apple and Sun both do this with their systems.  They are a closed platform system.  It is a different business model than your average Joe PC which is more of an open platform.
> 
> Both have their pros and cons, but Apples are hardly over priced.  Try to build a PC, spec for spec like any of the Macs and you will find it is not over priced.



It's well documented that the only real advantages to Xeon's over i7's are it's server features, which boast no benefit to a home or professional user (like a graphic design or video editor).  Dual i7's will be available soon enough, and if you don't think so then i'd argue you're not familiar with Intel's history.  An i7 will handle overclocking far more easily than a Xeon, who's only benefits are mostly stability and reliability.  You need to do more research because you're giving bad information that's completely untrue.

You cannot compare laptops, I specifically talked about building a computer which totally throws laptops out of the discussion.  I can build a desktop that has a better motherboard, memory, hard-drive, graphics card, and power supply than an iMac or Mac Pro... and in the case of the Mac Pro could do it for about half the price.  The only thing I can't replicate is the sleek design and compact size.  I would also argue if you don't believe me, then you don't know how to distinguish Good/Decent Hardware from Great/Highend Hardware.  Also, I got to tell ya most $800+ laptops are LED backlit now... it's not like they're using an IPS display, the thing that makes the MacBook Pro display so nice it's 300 nit display.

I understand business, I'm in a field where I constantly have to purchase items using multipliers and see the difference between retail and our pricing on a daily basis.  The majority of Apple's products is bogged down by design costs, which I even acknowledged is arguably very good compared to other companies.  However this doesn't excuse the fact that Apple's markup is generally 50% on most products, the documentation is out there, whether you choose to acknowledge it's existence is another story.

I've played around on Newegg building systems, they always came out cheaper and better than the information you can find online in a "Mac Tear Down".  I respect the fact that you like Apple (I do too), but just as you said they are a business.  They have a very loyal customer base and because they make better computers than 90% of the competition and include these packages in a very sleek and sexy design... they're able to rip their customers off a little with high mark ups.  But when it comes to DIY's they just can't compete, if you're statement held any sort of truth... than the DIY market would be very small and most people would just buy a Mac.

No offense, but I've been building computers since I was 12 years old, my knowledge is pretty strong in this area.  I suggest you head over to AnandTech.com and check out some hardware benchmarks, then Google "Mac Tear Down" and you will find the hardware that's available to the DIY computer builder is far superior or equal to what's in the Mac, and available at a cheaper price.


----------



## tlarkin

mightymilk said:


> It's well documented that the only real advantages to Xeon's over i7's are it's server features, which boast no benefit to a home or professional user (like a graphic design or video editor).  Dual i7's will be available soon enough, and if you don't think so then i'd argue you're not familiar with Intel's history.  An i7 will handle overclocking far more easily than a Xeon, who's only benefits are mostly stability and reliability.  You need to do more research because you're giving bad information that's completely untrue.



Wrong, they have more cache, and can address multiple memory controllers so technically they can access RAM faster.  Like I said, a Mac Pro is 10x over kill for your average user, I agree with you on that, but it being over priced for what it is, is false.  Xeons are also the only processors that support ECC memory, again not going to benefit your average user, but still that is why they are priced that way.  You argument is still invalid because I said, for the price, spec for spec they are not over priced.  Go look at a Sun Spark station with Xeons and look how they are priced.




> You cannot compare laptops, I specifically talked about building a computer which totally throws laptops out of the discussion.  I can build a desktop that has a better motherboard, memory, hard-drive, graphics card, and power supply than an iMac or Mac Pro... and in the case of the Mac Pro could do it for about half the price.  The only thing I can't replicate is the sleek design and compact size.  I would also argue if you don't believe me, then you don't know how to distinguish Good/Decent Hardware from Great/Highend Hardware.  Also, I got to tell ya most $800+ laptops are LED backlit now... it's not like they're using an IPS display, the thing that makes the MacBook Pro display so nice it's 300 nit display.



Again, you need to read what I said.  Spec for spec, what you get with an iMac and a Mac Pro is not over priced.  Go compare similar builds spec for spec.  Apple doesn't use low quality parts either.  Just the dual motherboard alone for a dual Xeon set up is gong to cost over $500 easily.



> I understand business, I'm in a field where I constantly have to purchase items using multipliers and see the difference between retail and our pricing on a daily basis.  The majority of Apple's products is bogged down by design costs, which I even acknowledged is arguably very good compared to other companies.  However this doesn't excuse the fact that Apple's markup is generally 50% on most products, the documentation is out there, whether you choose to acknowledge it's existence is another story.



Please show me where you get this mark up of 50%.  I used to work for a company years ago that did both private and business sales of computer equipment.  I was the lead tech of their service department for 6 years.  We were partners with Apple, HP, IBM, Compaq (before the merger), Sony, Dell, and so forth.  We did warranty repair on all of them.  I could look up the actual cost of parts versus the mark up all day every day as I had to price out of warranty repairs to clients.  I never saw a 50% mark up, even on service parts.  However, there is always a mark up, and that is how businesses out side of Apple stay in the black.  Every time you buy a part from anyone they mark it up, every time you get your computer serviced anywhere, parts have a mark up.  I still have access to several companies parts databases because I renewed my certs with those companies.  I could even make claims with them if I did any repairs or consulting on the side if I had my own business.



> I've played around on Newegg building systems, they always came out cheaper and better than the information you can find online in a "Mac Tear Down".  I respect the fact that you like Apple (I do too), but just as you said they are a business.  They have a very loyal customer base and because they make better computers than 90% of the competition and include these packages in a very sleek and sexy design... they're able to rip their customers off a little with high mark ups.  But when it comes to DIY's they just can't compete, if you're statement held any sort of truth... than the DIY market would be very small and most people would just buy a Mac.



You need to look at the total cost of ownership before you can compare anything, and then average it out for what you get against the basic level of a consumer.  Apple is far from over priced, you just can't see that.



> No offense, but I've been building computers since I was 12 years old, my knowledge is pretty strong in this area.  I suggest you head over to AnandTech.com and check out some hardware benchmarks, then Google "Mac Tear Down" and you will find the hardware that's available to the DIY computer builder is far superior or equal to what's in the Mac, and available at a cheaper price.



Oh, no offense taken.  I was building computers back when windows 3.11 was the main OS you can buy.  I remember building a Mac clone when you could.  I also have over a decade in the IT field and I have been published in CIO magazine, Mac World, and several other tech geared websites.  

I also, as my job, manage 8,000 Macs (6,000 laptops 2,000 desktops) and about 5,000 PCs running XP Pro SP3.  I manage 30+ Xserves on my own and help out when I can with the SuSe Enterprise linux boxes that run the Windows side.


----------



## realmike15

tlarkin said:


> Wrong, they have more cache, and can address multiple memory controllers so technically they can access RAM faster.  Like I said, a Mac Pro is 10x over kill for your average user, I agree with you on that, but it being over priced for what it is, is false.  Xeons are also the only processors that support ECC memory, again not going to benefit your average user, but still that is why they are priced that way.  You argument is still invalid because I said, for the price, spec for spec they are not over priced.  Go look at a Sun Spark station with Xeons and look how they are priced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you need to read what I said.  Spec for spec, what you get with an iMac and a Mac Pro is not over priced.  Go compare similar builds spec for spec.  Apple doesn't use low quality parts either.  Just the dual motherboard alone for a dual Xeon set up is gong to cost over $500 easily.
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me where you get this mark up of 50%.  I used to work for a company years ago that did both private and business sales of computer equipment.  I was the lead tech of their service department for 6 years.  We were partners with Apple, HP, IBM, Compaq (before the merger), Sony, Dell, and so forth.  We did warranty repair on all of them.  I could look up the actual cost of parts versus the mark up all day every day as I had to price out of warranty repairs to clients.  I never saw a 50% mark up, even on service parts.  However, there is always a mark up, and that is how businesses out side of Apple stay in the black.  Every time you buy a part from anyone they mark it up, every time you get your computer serviced anywhere, parts have a mark up.  I still have access to several companies parts databases because I renewed my certs with those companies.  I could even make claims with them if I did any repairs or consulting on the side if I had my own business.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to look at the total cost of ownership before you can compare anything, and then average it out for what you get against the basic level of a consumer.  Apple is far from over priced, you just can't see that.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no offense taken.  I was building computers back when windows 3.11 was the main OS you can buy.  I remember building a Mac clone when you could.  I also have over a decade in the IT field and I have been published in CIO magazine, Mac World, and several other tech geared websites.
> 
> I also, as my job, manage 8,000 Macs (6,000 laptops 2,000 desktops) and about 5,000 PCs running XP Pro SP3.  I manage 30+ Xserves on my own and help out when I can with the SuSe Enterprise linux boxes that run the Windows side.



I think I made my points very clear, I don't know you're sitting here saying I didn't read what you said, but you failed to address any of the counter points I made and mentioned things like ECC RAM, which offers no benefit except to a server and doesn't make the computer any faster... ECC is nothing but error correction and you being in an IT field know that.  Having multiple memory controllers doesn't mean anything, if the i7 can be OCed far more than the Xeon.

All the benefits you speak of are server only benefits, therefore putting them in a system that's intended to be used as a desktop computer doesn't make it over kill... it's poor design.  Furthermore I keep telling you I have put a system together for cheaper with better hardware.  Not to mention the fact that Apple buys this stuff for much less than any of us can find on Newegg... which just proves how high their markup actually is.

I think we should just agree to disagree on this one, still I respect you're opinion but I think your views on Apple's pricing points is a little skewed.  For the record I think you're still getting the idea that I'm saying Apple's hardware is cheap or low quality.  On the contrary my point was that for what you get in the box... the price should be lowered or... they should use better hardware to justify the price.  If you think Apple uses the best hardware available... not just the processor but the motherboard, ram, hd's, power supplies etc, then you're kidding yourself.  If you do have access to that many Mac Pro's in your field feel free to open one up some day... you will find quite generic RAM, HD's, Motherboards, and PSU's.  Point being, it's not the best of the best as Apple would have you believe.  They cut corners to save money just like any other company, and I think you're fooling yourself to think anything different.


----------



## tlarkin

mightymilk said:


> I think I made my points very clear, I don't know you're sitting here saying I didn't read what you said, but you failed to address any of the counter points I made and mentioned things like ECC RAM, which offers no benefit except to a server and doesn't make the computer any faster... ECC is nothing but error correction and you being in an IT field know that.  Having multiple memory controllers doesn't mean anything, if the i7 can be OCed far more than the Xeon.



Since you are so versed in hardware you should already know a few things.  First, clock speed does not mean performance, and since most processors can't clock past the 3Ghz mark with out getting serious over heating issues the processor manufacturers looked at adding other features.  Multiple cores, more cache, built in instruction sets and so forth.  ECC memory is ungodly expensive.  You again, are not reading what I am writing here.  I said, spec for spec for what a Mac Pro is, it is not over priced.  I don't have to address any of your counter points because they aren't even countering what I said to begin with.  I know what ECC is, and I know how much more expensive it is and how much more expensive the memory controllers are for the motherboard that supports ECC RAM.  So, a Mac Pro, being 2400ish dollars for what you get, spec for spec is not over priced.  It may be over kill for your average user, which I have no said 4 or 5 times, but it is not over priced.  Also a core i7 is not a faster or better computer for half the price. It may be better for your average user, but I have already said that.

Furthermore, Xeons are not limited to server only computers.  They are made for serious work.  You find them very commonly in the audio and video industry.  When you have to render, say a movie like Toy Story, you do it on Xeon work stations, with a render farm back bone.  



> All the benefits you speak of are server only benefits, therefore putting them in a system that's intended to be used as a desktop computer doesn't make it over kill... it's poor design.  Furthermore I keep telling you I have put a system together for cheaper with better hardware.  Not to mention the fact that Apple buys this stuff for much less than any of us can find on Newegg... which just proves how high their markup actually is.



You are going to need to prove that, and Apple doesn't buy anything.  They design it, and have a manufacturer make it for them.  They aren't buying parts from any company.  They actually design the hardware then have some tech company and Asia manufacture it for them.  I have had this debate many times with many people on this forum.  When you compare a PC (custom built or not) feature to feature and spec to spec with a Mac, they are not really over priced.  You just have dogmatic thinking when it comes to that.



> I think we should just agree to disagree on this one, still I respect you're opinion but I think your views on Apple's pricing points is a little skewed.  For the record I think you're still getting the idea that I'm saying Apple's hardware is cheap or low quality.  On the contrary my point was that for what you get in the box... the price should be lowered or... they should use better hardware to justify the price.  If you think Apple uses the best hardware available... not just the processor but the motherboard, ram, hd's, power supplies etc, then you're kidding yourself.  If you do have access to that many Mac Pro's in your field feel free to open one up some day... you will find quite generic RAM, HD's, Motherboards, and PSU's.  Point being, it's not the best of the best as Apple would have you believe.  They cut corners to save money just like any other company, and I think you're fooling yourself to think anything different.



You can agree to disagree all you want.  I used to think just like you until I sat down one day and broke it down and actually looked at total cost of ownership, spec for spec, and feature for feature, plus look at life cycle.  Also, Apple doesn't buy any generic parts, they design them.  The PSU is an Apple designed PSU.  The RAM and the hard drives and the video cards are of course purchased from third party.  Their logic boards, chip sets, memory controllers, PSUs, and so forth are all designed by Apple and built for the spec of the Mac you are getting.

Like I said, it is a different business model.  It is a closed platform just like Sun and their desktops, which also run Xeon processors, and yes they are desktops!


----------



## realmike15

tlarkin said:


> Since you are so versed in hardware you should already know a few things.  First, clock speed does not mean performance, and since most processors can't clock past the 3Ghz mark with out getting serious over heating issues the processor manufacturers looked at adding other features.  Multiple cores, more cache, built in instruction sets and so forth.  ECC memory is ungodly expensive.  You again, are not reading what I am writing here.  I said, spec for spec for what a Mac Pro is, it is not over priced.  I don't have to address any of your counter points because they aren't even countering what I said to begin with.  I know what ECC is, and I know how much more expensive it is and how much more expensive the memory controllers are for the motherboard that supports ECC RAM.  So, a Mac Pro, being 2400ish dollars for what you get, spec for spec is not over priced.  It may be over kill for your average user, which I have no said 4 or 5 times, but it is not over priced.  Also a core i7 is not a faster or better computer for half the price. It may be better for your average user, but I have already said that.
> 
> Furthermore, Xeons are not limited to server only computers.  They are made for serious work.  You find them very commonly in the audio and video industry.  When you have to render, say a movie like Toy Story, you do it on Xeon work stations, with a render farm back bone.
> 
> 
> 
> You are going to need to prove that, and Apple doesn't buy anything.  They design it, and have a manufacturer make it for them.  They aren't buying parts from any company.  They actually design the hardware then have some tech company and Asia manufacture it for them.  I have had this debate many times with many people on this forum.  When you compare a PC (custom built or not) feature to feature and spec to spec with a Mac, they are not really over priced.  You just have dogmatic thinking when it comes to that.
> 
> 
> 
> You can agree to disagree all you want.  I used to think just like you until I sat down one day and broke it down and actually looked at total cost of ownership, spec for spec, and feature for feature, plus look at life cycle.  Also, Apple doesn't buy any generic parts, they design them.  The PSU is an Apple designed PSU.  The RAM and the hard drives and the video cards are of course purchased from third party.  Their logic boards, chip sets, memory controllers, PSUs, and so forth are all designed by Apple and built for the spec of the Mac you are getting.
> 
> Like I said, it is a different business model.  It is a closed platform just like Sun and their desktops, which also run Xeon processors, and yes they are desktops!



There are soooo many things wrong with what you said, starting with CPUs are capped at 3.0Ghz without having series overheating issues, or that all ECC ram is ungodly expensive, or that Apple designs all their parts (because asking ASUS to build something with certain specs does not equal designing parts)... but I really don't have the energy to continue this debate.  I don't know where you get your information but, this is going to turn into a Mac is Overpriced flamefest, something I have no interest in wasting my time with.


----------



## tlarkin

mightymilk said:


> There are soooo many things wrong with what you said, starting with CPUs are capped at 3.0Ghz without having series overheating issues, or that all ECC ram is ungodly expensive, or that Apple designs all their parts (because asking ASUS to build something with certain specs does not equal designing parts)... but I really don't have the energy to continue this debate.  I don't know where you get your information but, this is going to turn into a Mac is Overpriced flamefest, something I have no interest in wasting my time with.



Yeah, well if you can back up what you are saying then do it.  I am not flaming but simply disagreeing with you.  I never said they are capped at 3Ghz, I said pushing clock speeds past the 3Ghz mark has serious over heating issues, which is why if you want to OC you got to invest in after market (aka not supported by the manufacturer) cooling.  If clock speed were the end all be all, they would be focusing on faster clock speeds instead of multiple cores, multiple memory controllers, more cache, and more built in instruction sets.  Since pumping pu the clock speed that high tends to have over heating issues on a generalization, the processor companies took a different route.  You don't see a stock Intel or AMD come out of the box clocked at 5Ghz.  When they started pushing the 3Ghz spectrum they ran into lots of over heating issues, and found that processors lasted a lot shorter in their life span.

You can design parts, choose what specs and what goes where and have them built.  Not every company manufactures parts, only a hand full do.  When I say Apple designs them, I mean that literally.  They actually design them, then whoever makes them (LG in a lot of cases) makes them with their design.  They aren't just sending specs to a company and saying, here whip something up for us.  When you take apart an iMac you typically see the silk screen stamp of the company that manufactured the part.  I can tell you from my work experience Hitachi and LG manufacture parts for pretty much every major company.  They don't sit there and design the part for every company, they manufacture them based on the designs they are sent, with the specs specified by the company.  

You have yet to counter my main points.  I said spec for spec and feature for feature Apple computers are competitively priced. You simply said you could do this or you know for a _FACT_ that I am wrong, yet you haven't cited any references or even attempted to discredit what I stated.

ECC RAM is ungodly expensive, especially when you buy it at high end spec.  There are several levels of ECC RAM.  

The fact that you think the i7 is on par with the Xeon tells me you don't grasp the differences in the products.  Also, if that were true, then why in the hell would Intel still market and try to sell the Xeon at such a higher price?   

The bottom line is, when it comes price for price versus pound for pound, Apple makes a product that is very competitive.  I built my last PC last year and it cost me around 1100ish out of my pocket for everything, including a new 22" monitor.  Sure, it was slightly better hardware spec wise than an iMac, but I did not have all the features an iMac has standard.  Plus my desktop is not an all-in-one.  

Computers these days are not just about hardware specs, they are also about features and benefits you get from the product.


----------



## realmike15

tlarkin said:


> Yeah, well if you can back up what you are saying then do it.  I am not flaming but simply disagreeing with you.  I never said they are capped at 3Ghz, I said pushing clock speeds past the 3Ghz mark has serious over heating issues, which is why if you want to OC you got to invest in after market (aka not supported by the manufacturer) cooling.  If clock speed were the end all be all, they would be focusing on faster clock speeds instead of multiple cores, multiple memory controllers, more cache, and more built in instruction sets.  Since pumping pu the clock speed that high tends to have over heating issues on a generalization, the processor companies took a different route.  You don't see a stock Intel or AMD come out of the box clocked at 5Ghz.  When they started pushing the 3Ghz spectrum they ran into lots of over heating issues, and found that processors lasted a lot shorter in their life span.
> 
> You can design parts, choose what specs and what goes where and have them built.  Not every company manufactures parts, only a hand full do.  When I say Apple designs them, I mean that literally.  They actually design them, then whoever makes them (LG in a lot of cases) makes them with their design.  They aren't just sending specs to a company and saying, here whip something up for us.  When you take apart an iMac you typically see the silk screen stamp of the company that manufactured the part.  I can tell you from my work experience Hitachi and LG manufacture parts for pretty much every major company.  They don't sit there and design the part for every company, they manufacture them based on the designs they are sent, with the specs specified by the company.
> 
> You have yet to counter my main points.  I said spec for spec and feature for feature Apple computers are competitively priced. You simply said you could do this or you know for a _FACT_ that I am wrong, yet you haven't cited any references or even attempted to discredit what I stated.
> 
> ECC RAM is ungodly expensive, especially when you buy it at high end spec.  There are several levels of ECC RAM.
> 
> The fact that you think the i7 is on par with the Xeon tells me you don't grasp the differences in the products.  Also, if that were true, then why in the hell would Intel still market and try to sell the Xeon at such a higher price?
> 
> The bottom line is, when it comes price for price versus pound for pound, Apple makes a product that is very competitive.  I built my last PC last year and it cost me around 1100ish out of my pocket for everything, including a new 22" monitor.  Sure, it was slightly better hardware spec wise than an iMac, but I did not have all the features an iMac has standard.  Plus my desktop is not an all-in-one.
> 
> Computers these days are not just about hardware specs, they are also about features and benefits you get from the product.



Wow dude way to misquote me about a half-dozen times in your post.  I'm not going to keep re-explaining my points which I made very clear and backed up with facts.  If you wish to continue to make baseless claims or twist my words feel free, but my opinions on the matter are very clear.  Everything in this post I have already retorted with well known facts.  When you make statements like stock processors cannot be clocked past 3.0GHz without having serious overheating issues, it makes it impossible for me to take anything you say seriously.  I suggest you head over to an OCer's forum and tell give them your opinions, they will be more than happy to prove you worng... I however do not wish to argue with someone who is obviously incredibly thick headed.


----------



## tlarkin

mightymilk said:


> Wow dude way to misquote me about a half-dozen times in your post.  I'm not going to keep re-explaining my points which I made very clear and backed up with facts.  If you wish to continue to make baseless claims or twist my words feel free, but my opinions on the matter are very clear.  Everything in this post I have already retorted with well known facts.  When you make statements like stock processors cannot be clocked past 3.0GHz without having serious overheating issues, it makes it impossible for me to take anything you say seriously.  I suggest you head over to an OCer's forum and tell give them your opinions, they will be more than happy to prove you worng... I however do not wish to argue with someone who is obviously incredibly thick headed.



You still aren't reading what I write.  I simply said stock speeds, and you can't overclock a processor past the 3Ghz mark with out after market cooling for it to be stable.  If you email Intel and ask them what speed their processors should run at, they will flat out tell you that they should run at stock speeds.  Which not many are past the 3Ghz mark.  I never said you couldn't, I said they don't design them that way.  I have no need to go to an over clocking forum as I am well aware you can over clock them up to the 6Ghz mark.  However, that doesn't mean they are designed to operate at that level, and my whole original and main point of that is, they are designed to run at/around the 3Ghz mark for that reason.  

You also never used any facts, you just used your opinion.  I used to have the same opinion of you.  In fact I didn't like Macs for years. I took me about 5 or 6 years of supporting Macs to actually start to like them.  Around OS X 10.2 I started to get into them, mainly because I was into Linux and they had full blown Unix under the hood.  I never liked the classic OS and even though I was given my first mac in the 90s by my job so I could learn it at home, I hardly ever used it.  I used it to learn how to support Mac and that was about it.  My first boss made every IT guy both a PC and a Mac guy after our Mac guy quit one day.  He got fed up with having to hunt down a Mac guy to work with us, so he just made every learn both.  I am glad he did, but back then I wasn't too keen to the idea.

I also used to think you can always build a PC cheaper, and I thought it was double the computer for half the price.  However, over the years I realized I was wrong.  If you have to compare, you need to compare everything it does, every specification it has, all the benefits, the life cycle, and so forth.  You can't simply compare CPU, RAM and GPU and call it a day.  I am not even a fan boy either because I do not like how Apple does not have a mid range mid tower desktop.  Your choices are mini, iMac or Mac Pro, and a Mac Pro is extreme over kill for me as I don't do any work that would use a full blown quad core xeon, let alone dual xeons.  There are many differences in the product of a Xeon Vs an i7, and you are right that a Xeon is not really meant for your average user.  

I still own and operate and build my own PCs.  If I didn't like them I wouldn't spend my hard earned money on them every 2 to 3 years.  However, being around both platforms for such a long time I can clearly see you can't honestly compare the two, but when you do the bottom line is Apple is very competitively priced for what you get.  I could go into a dissertation and break it down, and give facts on each side.  In fact I wrote a whole thread dedicated to the differences of the platforms and why they are what they are price range wise, and listed the features and the benefits.  

http://www.computerforum.com/120762-macintosh-platform.html

If you read through that, I clearly outline why I think this way.   If you wish to counter any of it post your thoughts in that thread I just linked.  It is a long read as I have added a lot to it over the past year or two.


----------



## Mafian

Epic fail they are arguing over what best everyone has opinions... Asus is the best... mac isn't for a normal user.. macs are for people who do alot of graphics and are going to school for something..in my opinion a regular pc or laptop can do the same thing a mac does, its cheper and easier to use. Macs are hardly upgradable, and the only thing thats nice about them is their design...


----------



## aaronwilliams123

I think the best laptop would be the Apple MacBook Pro because of the era we are in. Ten years ago I would of said one of the IBM or Dell laptops because you didn't need the visual graphics that you do need today. The Apple laptops handle this area very well especially people who are online a lot doing web development, CAD programs, etc. Not only is the screen much clearer it processes the graphics much quicker than any other laptop out there.


----------



## tlarkin

Mafian said:


> Epic fail they are arguing over what best everyone has opinions... Asus is the best... mac isn't for a normal user.. macs are for people who do alot of graphics and are going to school for something..in my opinion a regular pc or laptop can do the same thing a mac does, its cheper and easier to use. Macs are hardly upgradable, and the only thing thats nice about them is their design...



What in the heck are you talking about?  Laptops aren't upgradeable really period, so that is a moot point.

Unix > Windows, that is pretty much a fact.


----------



## Drenlin

tlarkin said:


> What in the heck are you talking about?  Laptops aren't upgradeable really period, so that is a moot point.



What in the heck are _you_ talking about? Laptops allow upgrades to most any component that a desktop does, plus the battery, screen, and miniPCIe cards. Many don't allow a graphics card upgrade, but that's about it, and you can get around that with a Mobo upgrade. Someone as experienced as you should know this, lol.

edit: That's a heck of a first post...bringing back a 3-day old conversation by getting on a VIP's case.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> What in the heck are _you_ talking about? Laptops allow upgrades to most any component that a desktop does, plus the battery, screen, and miniPCIe cards. Many don't allow a graphics card upgrade, but that's about it, and you can get around that with a Mobo upgrade. Someone as experienced as you should know this, lol.
> 
> edit: That's a heck of a first post...bringing back a 3-day old conversation by getting on a VIP's case.



You can't upgrade a laptop.  There are many reasons why but I will list a few:

*Laptop parts are so expensive you are better off just buying a new one rather than upgrade anything.

* you can upgrade RAM and HD but that is about it

*  good luck finding a laptop motherboard that isn't over $500 with a warranty that is using current technology

* you cannot upgrade the integrated systems in a laptop, it is all one piece under the hood for the most part.

* parts availability is tough, as most laptop manufacturers do not allow consumers to buy laptops parts directly from them.  You have to buy from third party, or get it from a authorized warranty provider.  Third party will mark up the price, and/or sell you used or refurbished parts.

My last point is, laptops are designed to be mobile machines. They are geared to use low power consumption.  In some cases the processor will be soldered to the motherboard in some laptops and in other cases it will be a straight socket.  If it is the latter and you can change out the processor and you decide to upgrade it, you can cause damage to your laptop or reduce functionality as it was designed to use that processor at that power level.

Otherwise unless you want to enlighten me, you really can't upgrade or build a laptop.


----------



## Drenlin

I never said it was easy, and I agree that it's more expensive..smaller and more specified things generally are. That's just a money issue, though. The RAM and hard drive are definitely not the only things that are upgradable. True, some don't allow graphics cards or processors to be upgraded. The simple solution there is to not buy one of those if you plan to upgrade it. Other than that, as long as you upgrade to a part that is specified to be ok for your system, I don't see the problem. For example, I know that to upgrade the processor in me XPS M1210 from a T7200 to a T7400, I'd need to swap to the NR230 board because mine only supports a 2 gig processor. 

Actually, I really _am_ going to swap the board, because that one has a dedicated graphics card. (and I've fried my integrated one, lol) I'm also going to add a webcam at some point, which is actually a fairly cheap mod, and probably modify the heat sink when I get the new board because these have problems making contact with the GPU. I even thought about a touchscreen kit at one point but they don't make them in 12.1", or at least not for a 1280x800 screen.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> I never said it was easy, and I agree that it's more expensive..smaller and more specified things generally are. That's just a money issue, though. The RAM and hard drive are definitely not the only things that are upgradable. *editing*



Well, then prove it.  Provide links with companies that allow you to buy a new upgraded motherboard and processor for your laptop.  It really is not possible, and definitely 100% not practical.


----------



## Drenlin

Edited that post.

Who says the board has to be from the manufacturer? Assuming you don't need a new motherboard for the processor, which I think would generally be the case, you could just buy the processor from an Intel/AMD retailer.

As far as the graphics card goes, mini pcie cards like these look pretty upgradable to me.

Even if the CPU and GPU are soldered on, you can still upgrade various other components.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> Edited that post.
> 
> Who says the board has to be from the manufacturer? Assuming you don't need a new motherboard for the processor, which I think would generally be the case, you could just buy the processor from an Intel/AMD retailer.
> 
> As far as the graphics card goes, mini pcie cards like these look pretty upgradable to me.
> 
> Even if the CPU and GPU are soldered on, you can still upgrade various other components.



So, there are third party companies that make motherboards that fit into each model of laptop's chasis?  You have to buy it from the manufacturer because there is no standard like ATX or BTX that laptops follow.  They put screw holes and mount points where ever they feel is necessary.


Besides RAM and HD, can you give me specific examples of where I could upgrade my laptop?


----------



## Langers2k7

Drenlin said:


> . That's just a money issue, though.



Just a money issue? Isn't that part of the point of building/maintaining your own PC, to save money? 

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Tlark, there's no point whatsoever in upgrading a laptop, besides RAM upgrades.


----------



## Drenlin

^ No, I agree...many times it isn't very practical to do something big. But not always. And unless I missed something we're not talking about building, we're talking about modifying an existing system. The point there is to get better performance, correct?



tlarkin said:


> So, there are third party companies that make motherboards that fit into each model of laptop's chasis?  You have to buy it from the manufacturer because there is no standard like ATX or BTX that laptops follow.  They put screw holes and mount points where ever they feel is necessary.
> 
> 
> Besides RAM and HD, can you give me specific examples of where I could upgrade my laptop?



I meant that, for example, even though I need a Dell M1210 mobo, I don't have to buy it from Dell.

Laptops usually do have mini PCIe slots. Mine has 2. I have a bluetooth/WLAN card in one, and could get a WWAN or SSD card to go in the other. I could also upgrade my current card to a wireless N one. 

Sometimes it depends on the laptop, as well. For example, I didn't buy mine with a camera. I can swap out the top part of my case for one with a camera, for not a lot of cash.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> ^ No, I agree...many times it isn't very practical to do something big. But not always. And unless I missed something we're not talking about building, we're talking about modifying an existing system. The point there is to get better performance, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> I meant that, for example, even though I need a Dell M1210 mobo, I don't have to buy it from Dell.
> 
> Laptops usually do have mini PCIe slots. Mine has 2. I have a bluetooth/WLAN card in one, and could get a WWAN or SSD card to go in the other. I could also upgrade my current card to a wireless N one.
> 
> Sometimes it depends on the laptop, as well. For example, I didn't buy mine with a camera. I can swap out the top part of my case for one with a camera, for not a lot of cash.




The only way you can really upgrade a laptop is by purchasing external peripherals.  If you upgrade your processor, and it is same socket but a faster bus speed, it is pointless unless you upgrade the motherboard and the RAM to match that increased bus speed.

Plus you are probably going to consume more power which can cause both damage and lessen functionality.

Next try to fix an after market motherboard in your laptop.  Since there are no standards and everyone designs their laptops different, they don't exist.  You have to buy the motherboard from the manufacturer.

Bottom line:  Laptops are not really upgradeable, unless you add tons of external devices.

See my comment about purchasing it from third party, I already covered that.


----------



## Jet

mightymilk said:


> Lastly the aluminum enclosure although beautiful and extremely durable gets hot as shit on your lap.



Read this: (best $10 I've spent on my 13" MBP)

http://www.computerforum.com/164193-review-coolbook-os-x-undervolting-program.html


----------



## Drenlin

tlarkin said:


> Bottom line:  Laptops are not really upgradeable, unless you add tons of external devices.



Other than the fact that you've completely overlooked the PCIe cards, I think this has boiled down to differing opinions. Shall we move on?

I do like the build quality of Macbooks, but I really dislike Mac as a company. They tend to charge way too much for the name, banking on the fact that either people are elitist about them, or that they genuinely think that the larger price and big brand name gets them more than a logo. They are good computers, but I really would not consider them to be the best.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> Other than the fact that you've completely overlooked the PCIe cards, I think this has boiled down to differing opinions. Shall we move on?
> 
> I do like the build quality of Macbooks, but I really dislike Mac as a company. They tend to charge way too much for the name, banking on the fact that either people are elitist about them, or that they genuinely think that the larger price and big brand name gets them more than a logo. They are good computers, but I really would not consider them to be the best.



That is hardly an upgrade, because you can buy most of that stuff in external form via FW or USB2.  Plus even the mini PCI slots in laptops do not follow standards.  I have had issues with them supplying enough power to add on cards in the past.  Not to mention the limited amount of hardware that comes in that form as well.


----------



## Jet

Drenlin said:


> I do like the build quality of Macbooks, but I really dislike Mac as a company. They tend to charge way too much for the name, banking on the fact that either people are elitist about them, or that they genuinely think that the larger price and big brand name gets them more than a logo. They are good computers, but I really would not consider them to be the best.



Quality costs money. Once you experience quality, you truly are spoiled rotten and have a very hard time accepting so-so products.


----------



## Ramodkk

Do not get ACER laptops.

/random


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> I do like the build quality of Macbooks, but I really dislike Mac as a company. They tend to charge way too much for the name, banking on the fact that either people are elitist about them, or that they genuinely think that the larger price and big brand name gets them more than a logo. They are good computers, but I really would not consider them to be the best.



You are contradicting yourself here.  You call them quality builds, but then say Apple just flaunts their name and charges a premium for their name stamp on the product.

let me explain it to you this way.  You can go out and buy a KIA, and the KIA will be comparable to a Honda spec for spec.  The Honda will be of sightly higher quality.  They will both go 80MPH, and they will both get you from point A to point B every day.  However, it is a no contest that the Honda is just a higher quality car.  The Honda will cost a lot more than the KIA and the Honda will also have a higher resell value.  This is because of Honda's business model.  They build up their product slowly and surely and they test it over and over again which is why Hondas as a car run forever.  Just like a Mac.

Look at total cost of ownership.  I have a 5 year old G5 at home with dual 2.5Ghz PPC processors, 3 or 4 Gigs of RAM (I can't recall off the top of my head) and like I dunno, 500 to 700 gigs of HD space.  It also has a nvidia 6800 DDL video card in it.  If Apple had not dropped PPC support I guarantee that Mac would still run Snow Leopard, and run it well.  What 5 to 6 year old PC can run Vista or Windows 7, and at a decent rate?


----------



## Drenlin

I did say I disliked mac as a company, not macbooks. I'm fine with those for the most part, however expensive they may be...but I just don't like the way Apple does business, so I'll probably stay away. i mean come on...have you looked at the prices of iPod's lately? Here's a regular mp3 player, compared to a similarly prices iPod....and they're pretty much all like that, from what I can see.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10980527
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10980527

And don't even get me started on their software...


----------



## tlarkin

If you think that crappy MP3 player can compete toe to toe with an iPod you are smoking crack.  I have owned an iRiver, a Zune , a Diamond Rio, and three iPods, oh and a creative zen.  The iPod whoops all of them in functionality, quality and now that they are ipod touches, you can forget about anything else.


----------



## Drenlin

Oh crap, I messed up the links  The second one was supposed to be a shuffle. I think the "crap" one wins hands down. Double the memory, a video player, a _screen_...

You can't seriously be trying to deny that apple stuff is a bit overpriced.


----------



## Hsv_Man

Yeah Hey a while back we bought an Asus laptop with high end specs no problems to this date the best thing about Asus is you get a 24 month worldwide warranty so you can be anywhere in the world and if some hardware breaks down or whatever they will replace it free of charge can't get much better than that.


----------



## Drenlin

^ Worldwide? That's pretty impressive, actually.


----------



## tlarkin

Hsv_Man said:


> Yeah Hey a while back we bought an Asus laptop with high end specs no problems to this date the best thing about Asus is you get a 24 month worldwide warranty so you can be anywhere in the world and if some hardware breaks down or whatever they will replace it free of charge can't get much better than that.



That is one reason why I keep buying Asus products.  Their product is of good quality and their company takes care of their customers.


----------



## tlarkin

Drenlin said:


> Oh crap, I messed up the links  The second one was supposed to be a shuffle. I think the "crap" one wins hands down. Double the memory, a video player, a _screen_...
> 
> You can't seriously be trying to deny that apple stuff is a bit overpriced.



Not really, after owning several hand held MP3 players and now an iPod touch and 2 iPods before that, they are the best that is out there.   I liked my zen for about a month or two, then I got my first iPod and it blew the zen out of the water.

I do admit iTunes is not my favorite media player, but hey Apple is smart to make it work with iTunes so any level of computer user can use it.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> If you think that crappy MP3 player can compete toe to toe with an iPod you are smoking crack.  I have owned an iRiver, a Zune , a Diamond Rio, and three iPods, oh and a creative zen.  The iPod whoops all of them in functionality, quality and now that they are ipod touches, you can forget about anything else.



Huh, what?  Do you base any of that on sound quality?  You know, the thing that pretty much defines how good a MUSIC player is.  The ipods have terrible sound, especially when you use better headphones.  And you can't even compensate for that because, NO custom EQ whatsoever.  Ever.  On any ipod.  While my shiny ipod nano 16gb is nice looking and has a nice interface, and works great for my alarm clock, it's my crappy little 2gb creative zen that's the one that gets used everywhere, because it has a 5 band equalizer, and it's not tuned to blast out the higher frequencies causing headache inducing music sessions. Not to mention that crazy battery life on the ipod*.  While you can charge it and right away listen to it for hours and hours, try charging it and leaving it for 3 or 4 days and then try getting hours out of it.  The Zen battery life wins hands down, for 100-0% runtime and long term residual drain.


*Not on all ipods, the newer ipod Nano's have the AWESOME feature of not being able to turn off, only the ability to sleep.




To be on topic, I like Acer's I guess.  Excellent price and the nicer ones are built really well.  Love mine, even though it went through hell and back before I got it.  Doesn't show it at all (after a new keyboard and a cleanup)


----------



## tlarkin

I hook my ipod up to a stereo receiver and blasted it through some nicer speakers and it was pretty good quality.  My Zen was no way better, maybe on par as far as sound goes, but the iPod UI is just better.


----------



## bomberboysk

tlarkin said:


> That is one reason why I keep buying Asus products.  Their product is of good quality and their company takes care of their customers.


Yeah, asus laptops are great. However as much as i like asus, id have to say that the sager/clevo notebooks and the aluminum macbooks are built better, the sager/clevo notebooks are solid as a rock and the macbooks are also really great as far as build quality.



And for the record, Xeon's and the Core i7 are the same exact cpu(physically speaking), just the xeon is binned to run at lower voltages, and the ECC memory controller is enabled on the Xeon vs laser cut on the core i7's.


----------



## tlarkin

bomberboysk said:


> Yeah, asus laptops are great. However as much as i like asus, id have to say that the sager/clevo notebooks and the aluminum macbooks are built better, the sager/clevo notebooks are solid as a rock and the macbooks are also really great as far as build quality.
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, Xeon's and the Core i7 are the same exact cpu(physically speaking), just the xeon is binned to run at lower voltages, and the ECC memory controller is enabled on the Xeon vs laser cut on the core i7's.



There are a few other features it offers, otherwise it would not make sense for Intel to keep selling them, and not make the i7 the exact same thing.  It would save Intel money if they could make and sell one processor for everything.


----------



## G25r8cer

tlarkin said:


> If you think that crappy MP3 player can compete toe to toe with an iPod you are smoking crack.  I have owned an iRiver, a Zune , a Diamond Rio, and three iPods, oh and a creative zen.  The iPod whoops all of them in functionality, quality and now that they are ipod touches, you can forget about anything else.



Yeah there is def no competition with the crappy mp3 players and an ipod

Ipod's are great but, the Zune HD dominates the Ipod touch 

Esp once the app's are up


----------



## bomberboysk

G25r8cer said:


> Yeah there is def no competition with the crappy mp3 players and an ipod
> 
> Ipod's are great but, the Zune HD dominates the Ipod touch
> 
> Esp once the app's are up


Yeah, the tegra chip in that thing is great, and the OLED display is amazing.



tlarkin said:


> There are a few other features it offers, otherwise it would not make sense for Intel to keep selling them, and not make the i7 the exact same thing. It would save Intel money if they could make and sell one processor for everything.


The physical processor is the exact same, just features are enabled on one and disabled on the other.


----------



## tlarkin

bomberboysk said:


> Yeah, the tegra chip in that thing is great, and the OLED display is amazing.
> 
> 
> The physical processor is the exact same, just features are enabled on one and disabled on the other.



Then that hardly makes them the same.  There are other differences, go to Intel's web page and read up on them.  They aren't night and day differences but Intel needs to keep the Xeon processor in a certain market and the i7 in another, otherwise they would be wasting their money making both processors.  

Xeons can also access multiple memory controllers on a board, where I believe an i7 can not.  Does this matter to anyone on this forum?  Nope, not an end user technology really.



> Ipod's are great but, the Zune HD dominates the Ipod touch



Microsoft's best product is the Xbox, the Zune is crap in my opinion, and apps, you want to talk about apps?  A jailbroken iPhone can runs 10s of thousands of apps.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> I hook my ipod up to a stereo receiver and blasted it through some nicer speakers and it was pretty good quality.  My Zen was no way better, maybe on par as far as sound goes, but the iPod UI is just better.



I still stand by it. Ok, maybe terrible was a bit too harsh, except for the high frequencies the sound on the ipods is very even, bringing out nice lows and mids.  But try listening to a song near full volume, every "s" they pronounce rings in my head and causes headaches.  This is definitely not as noticeable when you have it hooked up to a stereo, as the speakers aren't right in your ears.  I use my ipod in my car sometimes and it's definitely not near as bad.  But damn, when I slap in the earbuds it's unbearable.  

As you said, the User interface is great.  User input however (on the touch wheels) leaves a lot to be desired.  It seems to be hit or miss whether or not it works properly.  Also a customizable shortcut button would be nice.  It's annoying to go rifling through menus to get to shuffle, especially while driving.  And no, the shake to shuffle is annoying as hell.

I've had this on 2 ipod touch's (1st and 2nd gen) and my ipod nano (5th gen). I don't get this from any other branded mp3 player with those headphones, be it the zen or my sony cell phone.

On Topic:
I forgot to mention Asus..they usually make good laptops, with the odd ones being crap.  My friend's has serious heat issues.  His idles about 30 degrees higher than my Acer, which has the same GPU and a better processor.  My Asus EEE and some other ones I've seen are top notch though.

Macbooks are great build quality and have some nice features built in.  However, I wouldn't want to use one while on my lap.  The Macbook Pro I set up for my friend was too hot to touch on the bottom after some use.  She's told me she's scared she'll burn herself on it, lol.


----------



## tlarkin

Speedy,

In all honesty though, what do you expect from a hand held digital output device with only stereo as an output?  I mean it is not like it has RCA or optical out?  I am sure if you wanted audiophile quality there is a hand held out there that trumps all the consumer ones.

Though, to be fair, I haven't owned a zen since the first Zen micro (their nano) came out.  So, I can't say much about it.  I don't like Zunes subscription services, and if I want a song I want to pay 99 cents for it and be done with it.  Apple also makes it pretty easy to strip DRM off of it, and they offer DRM free songs.  That is something that I support more than anything.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> Speedy,
> 
> In all honesty though, what do you expect from a hand held digital output device with only stereo as an output?  I mean it is not like it has RCA or optical out?  I am sure if you wanted audiophile quality there is a hand held out there that trumps all the consumer ones.
> 
> Though, to be fair, I haven't owned a zen since the first Zen micro (their nano) came out.  So, I can't say much about it.  I don't like Zunes subscription services, and if I want a song I want to pay 99 cents for it and be done with it.  Apple also makes it pretty easy to strip DRM off of it, and they offer DRM free songs.  That is something that I support more than anything.



I'm not expecting optical out like sound quality, i'm expecting it to not urge me to take the headphones out because it makes my ears literally feel like they want to bleed.  Sad thing is it's a total 100% honest statement.  Good thing is it doesn't happen with the regular ipod earbuds and lots of other headphones, as they have a lower frequency range and different types of speakers.

A custom EQ would completely fix it...


----------



## ganzey

umm, this is a "who makes the best laptop" thread, not why the zune beats the crap out of an ipod touch.


----------



## TrainTrackHack

I've been hearing good things about Dell and ordered me a Studio 17 just yesterday, we'll see how it turns out.


----------



## speedyink

ganzey said:


> umm, this is a "who makes the best laptop" thread, not why the zune beats the crap out of an ipod touch.



Lol, I know, I apologize.

I've also had good experiences with Dell laptops.  That is, if you don't have to deal with their customer service, which is very poor.  Otherwise, most of the time you get a solid laptop that lasts.


----------

