Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd May 2006 16:03 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y CNet compares Acer's TravelMate 8200 to apple's MacBook Pro, and concludes the Acer wins; but only by a small margin. "The Acer pulled ahead with ample features and superior performance and battery life, then sealed the deal with its lower sticker price. If you're looking for the most connectivity and fastest performance for your dollar, the TravelMate 8200 is the laptop to buy. The MacBook Pro's strengths clearly lie in aesthetics, from its lightweight, eye-pleasing design to its graphics-friendly display to its elegant operating system. And Apple's superior software package could be said to offset the price differential between the MacBook Pro and the TravelMate 8200."
Thread beginning with comment 120565
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by yorch on Wed 3rd May 2006 16:21 UTC
Member since:

The value in an Apple computer is not in the hardware, it's in OSX and the extra software that is included.

CNET's review fails on this because the OS is not just "another" component and therefore cannot be valued in the same way, IMHO.

Reply Score: 2

by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 3rd May 2006 16:24 in reply to "OSX"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Why don't you read for a change. CNet clearly states (and I even put it in the teaser):

"And Apple's superior software package could be said to offset the price differential between the MacBook Pro and the TravelMate 8200."

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: OSX
by nstuart on Wed 3rd May 2006 16:37 in reply to "RE: OSX"
nstuart Member since:

So, with that being said, why didn't they count it? I saw that on the software round, but on the price round it was completly ignored. *shrug*

The only other thing I didn't agree with was the 'performance' testing of Photoshop and the video encoding (both going through Rosetta). There are other ways to test performance of the 2 platforms. This is really the only category that just really doesn't fly in my book.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: OSX
by yorch on Wed 3rd May 2006 17:01 in reply to "RE: OSX"
yorch Member since:

Thom, I have read the article and it's true they point out the software difference into the text.

Nevertheless, as someone has posted just after me, they do not take that difference into account when they compare side by side in numbers.

That is exactly what I was trying to say in my "horrible" English ;)

(BTW, why don't you try to be a just a little bit more polite in your replies, for a change...)

Reply Parent Score: 3

by Wintermute on Wed 3rd May 2006 16:45 in reply to "OSX"
Wintermute Member since:

We all know, that Apple does nothing new with its hardware. We also know that OS X isn't objectively better than it's alternatives. An Apple fan might believe OS X to be worth $100, but that doesn't apply to everyone else. You guys are treating OS X (and its software) as if it's another processor or something. It's not!

Get over the fanboyism! Just because Apple's computers come with OS X, that doesn't mean that's a good justification for the Apple price tag.

Just agree, that you will never accept a non apple product being better than your precious.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: OSX
by Ben2040 on Wed 3rd May 2006 19:08 in reply to "RE: OSX"
Ben2040 Member since:

"Get over the fanboyism! Just because Apple's computers come with OS X, that doesn't mean that's a good justification for the Apple price tag."

Doesn't mean it's not either...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: OSX
by Bastian on Wed 3rd May 2006 19:54 in reply to "RE: OSX"
Bastian Member since:

Nor is it objectively equal to other operating systems. For someone who does get a benefit from OS X over other operating systems, it may well be worth the extra cost.

It's not that I won't accept a non-apple product as being better than my precious. I agree, Windows is a better platform for some purposes. Me, I have three different computers running four different operating systems at home. However, my Mac is the one that I use the most. This is the case for a multitude of reasons, most of which I consider very practical, not for mere fanboyism. And even though I'm perfectly comfortable on a few other platforms that are a whole lot cheaper, and even though there are plenty of situations where I prefer to work with other platforms, to me being able to run OS X is worth the extra $400.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: OSX
by protagonist on Wed 3rd May 2006 23:31 in reply to "RE: OSX"
protagonist Member since:

"Get over the fanboyism! Just because Apple's computers come with OS X, that doesn't mean that's a good justification for the Apple price tag."

it is not about being a fanboy. If you take an objective look, (and objective is the key word here), you will find that you will have to spend at least several hundred dollars on software for the XP laptop to get it up to the same level as the included software with the Apple laptop. The iLife suite alone runs circles around anything that comes standard with Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: OSX
by snowbender on Thu 4th May 2006 08:20 in reply to "RE: OSX"
snowbender Member since:

Did you ever check the price of Microsoft Windows Xp Professional? Even an OEM version? That is a lot higher than the 100 dollar (even though I believe it's more like 125 dollar) for OSX. I don't like to compare with Windows Xp Home version, since that's a purposely cut down version of the professional version.

I believe that OSX is "objectively" better than its alternatives, keeping in mind a certain user group of course. Have you ever actually used OSX? Tiger has several features that are not available in Windows Xp (at least not without installing extra third-party applications), even though several are features that Microsoft intends to provide in Vista. But still, look at the time between the release of Tiger and the release of Vista.

I also believe that "objectively" (even though one could argue about this), OSX is much better from a user friendliness point of view. With this, I always keep in mind a not computer savvy person who needs to do something. For example, installing an application: in OSX, drag your application into the "Applications" folder and that's it. Uninstalling? Drag your application into the trashcan. Now, compare that to Windows. This may seem something stupid, but for some users this is not so evident. And it's not just installing applications, it's all of little things. For example, there's a firewall, but you can also activate an ftp-server or an ssh-server easily and when you activate those, Tiger will make sure that the firewall let's them go through. Also for example the fact that starting an ftp-server to transfer files is so very easy to do (only check a check box), is something I like about it. Sharing files over windows networks? Just check a check box in a clear control panel.

For example, I also like their printer management. You can store a certain set of printer settings (say, high quality settings for printing photos) in a profile, so that it's easily accessible when you print certain content. I don't know whether one can do this in Windows Xp, since I didn't actually use Xp a whole lot, I've used it for a limited time, but later got back to Windows 2000, since I like that one more.

I think you can say that Windows Xp is better than OSX Tiger for one thing, and that's memory usage. Tiger eats ram, it really needs a lot of memory to run good (it runs with 512mb ram, but not comfortable, it begs for more). I think Windows Xp is happy with a lot less.

I've used OSX for several months and I believe it's a very good operating system for users who are not that handy with computers, but it is definitely also interesting for more advanced users (who can come to like it). Personally, I like linux a lot more than OSX (both because of environments like Gnome and E17, and the "easier" availability of programs like emacs, latex, and probably also because Linux has been my main platform for years and I'm used to it), but I still think it's a very good operating system and I definitely prefer OSX above Windows. OSX is just more advanced.

You'll probably shoot me down as another "fanboy", but I suspect you haven't even seen OSX in action, let alone spend a considerable amount of time working with it.

Also.. I can't believe that people _still_ come with their "the Apple price tag". Check the Apple prices... really go check them. Then compare them with the prices of similar hardware from another high-quality brand which gives you similar quality of customer service, then come back and tell me how much "the Apple tax" really is.

Instead of always calling Apple users "fan boys", give some real arguments. The price difference might be there, but for some people the price difference is nothing compared to the added value that the whole Apple "package" gives them. I know that is subjective and maybe for you, you see no added value. That does not mean that an Apple user is a fan boy.

Reply Parent Score: 0