The Ideal Law School Laptop Forum

[vut]

I am comparing the Lenovo T400 to the new 13" macbook ($1099 after price cut and student discount).

Thoughts?

Ultimately, it doesn't really justify to buy a Mac to run Windows when you can get the same specs at a much lower price with the T400. I matched the specs of the MacBook Pro (without discrete graphics, of course) with the T400 for less than $700.

Wow! Do you work writing Microsoft ads? It's ridiculous to compare Mac to PC on specs only. Performance on the Mac will blow a PC with equal specs out of the water.

No, I don't work for Microsoft. But I did build my T400 based on the MacBook Pro's specs. Plus, I only mentioned about the price difference and didn't say anything about performance.

You say Mac beats PC with equal specs out of the water? That is purely subjective unless you have hard data to prove it.

I run Windows, Mac, and Linux. I don't conceit one is better than the other because I know each one has its own limitations.

[enygma]

i have an old pc but a fairly new printer (HP). if i get a macbook will it be compatible with my HP printer?

Although Apple provides a lot of support for big band products, there's no way of knowing for sure if yours is Mac compatible if you don't provide the printer's model number.

i personally love the duke ellington printer

[jetlagz28]

Mostly because Vista is a resource hog. It's easier for a Mac to run OS X so your computer runs faster. And from what I hear and have read Windows 7 won't be any better. Add that to the fact that Apple's Snow Leopard will be even smaller and faster.

You sound like like a MAC advertisement yourself.

[UNC2009]

i have an old pc but a fairly new printer (HP). if i get a macbook will it be compatible with my HP printer?

Although Apple provides a lot of support for big band products, there's no way of knowing for sure if yours is Mac compatible if you don't provide the printer's model number.

i personally love the duke ellington printer

+1

[hoffb86]

but why is this the case? I guess i just dont understand how it all works. I hear this and say to myself, "ok, but why, and how?"

Mostly because Vista is a resource hog. It's easier for a Mac to run OS X so your computer runs faster. And from what I hear and have read Windows 7 won't be any better. Add that to the fact that Apple's Snow Leopard will be even smaller and faster.

Ok. So how much would I need to add to a PC to make them equal in performance? Sorry, I am really a novice to all this stuff. Everyone I know who has a mac swears by them, but I can't figure out how to really shop it or compare the PC's to the Mac's.

[vut]

Mostly because Vista is a resource hog. It's easier for a Mac to run OS X so your computer runs faster. And from what I hear and have read Windows 7 won't be any better. Add that to the fact that Apple's Snow Leopard will be even smaller and faster.

Open up the Mac's Activity Monitor and tell me how much resources it's using. Now open up Vista's Task Manager and tell me the same thing. Tell the result. One word for you: prefetch.

[enygma]

I am comparing the Lenovo T400 to the new 13" macbook ($1099 after price cut and student discount).

Thoughts?

Ultimately, it doesn't really justify to buy a Mac to run Windows when you can get the same specs at a much lower price with the T400. I matched the specs of the MacBook Pro (without discrete graphics, of course) with the T400 for less than $700.

Wow! Do you work writing Microsoft ads? It's ridiculous to compare Mac to PC on specs only. Performance on the Mac will blow a PC with equal specs out of the water.

but why is this the case? I guess i just dont understand how it all works. I hear this and say to myself, "ok, but why, and how?"

the reason is the operating system. if you drop unix on a PC it'll run a lot faster and more stable as well.

[deadatheist]

but why is this the case? I guess i just dont understand how it all works. I hear this and say to myself, "ok, but why, and how?"

Mostly because Vista is a resource hog. It's easier for a Mac to run OS X so your computer runs faster. And from what I hear and have read Windows 7 won't be any better. Add that to the fact that Apple's Snow Leopard will be even smaller and faster.

Ok. So how much would I need to add to a PC to make them equal in performance? Sorry, I am really a novice to all this stuff. Everyone I know who has a mac swears by them, but I can't figure out how to really shop it or compare the PC's to the Mac's.

+1. i mean, i know my own comps inside and out, but some of the people on this thread really really know their shit. i need a "how to really really know your shit about comparing laptops and optimizing your laptop for dummies"

[vut]

i personally love the duke ellington printer

You got me! I love his jungle stuff.

Ok. So how much would I need to add to a PC to make them equal in performance? Sorry, I am really a novice to all this stuff. Everyone I know who has a mac swears by them, but I can't figure out how to really shop it or compare the PC's to the Mac's.

That's because he's just flaming. The reason why Vista takes up more resources than previous versions is because it uses those resources to cache your most popular programs so they load up faster. When the system needs more RAM, the operating system will automatically release it for use. You'd do more than fine with the specifications of the T400 in this case. I'm not dissing the Mac, I'm just dissing the price. I own a Mac and I know.

if you drop unix on a PC it'll run a lot faster and more stable as well.

If by Unix you mean the Mac OS, then that's illegal. Unless you work for corporate, Unix today more or less serves as technical specifications for its variants like BSD and Linux for "consumers" (by that I mean, geeks). If you run any of the variants, forget about Microsoft Office or exam software because they won't be compatible. You're entering geeks' world. I speak from personal experience as a Computer Science and Math major.

[enygma]

if you drop unix on a PC it'll run a lot faster and more stable as well.

If by Unix you mean the Mac OS, then that's illegal. Unix today more or less serves as technical specifications for its variants like BSD and Linux. If you run any of the variants, forget about Microsoft Office or exam software because they won't be compatible. You're entering geeks' world. I speak from personal experience as a Computer Science and Math major.

i work for a company who makes high-end enterprise firewalls that run on a variant of BSD. I know what I said. I was just saying that the entire difference in performance is the OS, and that unix in any of its variants is going to run better than windows on the same hardware.

[vut]

...the entire difference in performance is the OS, and that unix in any of its variants is going to run better than windows on the same hardware.

I'm honestly not claiming Windows superiority (currently typing on an HP running Fedora 11 RC), nor am I trying to discredit you, but I would like to know, what makes so you sure about that absolute claim?

[sheltron5000]

I have to tell you, as a netbook user who switched from ubuntu to windows 7, so far my experience with windows has been better. I miss the customizability of linux, but in return I get a system that feels snappier, is more compatable, and actually hangs LESS than ubuntu.

I have also used leopard on a macbook, and while I liked the experience, I felt it was a little too locked in to mac software. The user experience with mac is great, everything is clean, runs well, and is designed with real world use in mind. But for the kind of work I do on a computer (internet, movies, music, light gaming, etc.) Windows 7 takes care of all my needs for a much better price.

I hated vista. It's resource hogging was just unacceptable, and initially at leas,t it wasn't very stable. But microsoft has really pulled it's head out of that dark, moist, place and done a GREAT job with windows 7, for the first time, I think I can be as happy with a windows system as I was with my mac (if you include the initial price in that calculation).

[enygma]

...the entire difference in performance is the OS, and that unix in any of its variants is going to run better than windows on the same hardware.

I'm honestly not claiming Windows superiority (I'm currently typing this on an HP running Fedora 11 RC), nor I'm trying to discredit you, but I would like to know what makes so you sure about that absolute claim?.

mostly it's just from personal experience. but unix environments tend to just be way less resource-intensive. and i'm not talking about pre-fetching. the windows shell is ridiculously bloated, especially compared to gnome or KDE.

Probably the most important thing is memory utilization. unix just uses its memory far more efficiently. even the pre-fetching isn't all right. unix uses almost all the available memory both for programs and disk caching, requiring far lower usage of the swap space.

bear in mind i'm not a huge OS guru by any means, but this has been my experience and generally is supported by what i've read.

[sheltron5000]

...the entire difference in performance is the OS, and that unix in any of its variants is going to run better than windows on the same hardware.

I'm honestly not claiming Windows superiority (I'm currently typing this on an HP running Fedora 11 RC), nor I'm trying to discredit you, but I would like to know what makes so you sure about that absolute claim?.

mostly it's just from personal experience. but unix environments tend to just be way less resource-intensive. and i'm not talking about pre-fetching. the windows shell is ridiculously bloated, especially compared to gnome or KDE.

Probably the most important thing is memory utilization. unix just uses its memory far more efficiently. even the pre-fetching isn't all right. unix uses almost all the available memory both for programs and disk caching, requiring far lower usage of the swap space.

bear in mind i'm not a huge OS guru by any means, but this has been my experience and generally is supported by what i've read.

I agree with this 100%, windows vista was a resource hogging piece of junk that with 3gb of ram could barely run as well as my macbook loaded with 1gb.

BUT, microsoft has significantly revamped their memory utilization process (not necessarily the architecture, but how the user percieves the useage) so that windows 7 SEEMS as fast or faster than a unix system. Granted, depending on how you are using the computer, memory intensive processes will probably run better in unix, but the end user experience seems very good on windows 7.

[enygma]

...the entire difference in performance is the OS, and that unix in any of its variants is going to run better than windows on the same hardware.

I'm honestly not claiming Windows superiority (I'm currently typing this on an HP running Fedora 11 RC), nor I'm trying to discredit you, but I would like to know what makes so you sure about that absolute claim?.

mostly it's just from personal experience. but unix environments tend to just be way less resource-intensive. and i'm not talking about pre-fetching. the windows shell is ridiculously bloated, especially compared to gnome or KDE.

Probably the most important thing is memory utilization. unix just uses its memory far more efficiently. even the pre-fetching isn't all right. unix uses almost all the available memory both for programs and disk caching, requiring far lower usage of the swap space.

bear in mind i'm not a huge OS guru by any means, but this has been my experience and generally is supported by what i've read.

I agree with this 100%, windows vista was a resource hogging piece of junk that with 3gb of ram could barely run as well as my macbook loaded with 1gb.

BUT, microsoft has significantly revamped their memory utilization process (not necessarily the architecture, but how the user percieves the useage) so that windows 7 SEEMS as fast or faster than a unix system. Granted, depending on how you are using the computer, memory intensive processes will probably run better in unix, but the end user experience seems very good on windows 7.

yeah, i haven't had a chance to try out windows 7 or really read anything detailed about it. so i can't really comment on that.

[Handle]

It strikes me that a lot of this conversation about $/performance slightly misses the point, especially since gaming is generally not an issue. Stability, battery life, ease of use, physical user interface, and time required for general upkeep are all just as important as raw speed, especially when dealing with Mac minimum specs vs. comparable PCs.

In my eight months as a unibody Macbook user, my operating system has never crashed. I have never lost data in an Office document. If an application quits (which generally occurs when I'm running 30+ tabs in Safari, as I only have 2gb ram), it does so painlessly. My machine sleeps and wakes within seconds and without error. I consistently get at least four hours of battery life unless I am streaming video. The multi-touch track pad is such a joy to use that I no longer use an external mouse.

The biggest problem I've ever had involved my HP printer drivers keeping a printing process running in the background, which slightly decreased my battery life and was easily solved by manually closing the process in the activity monitor. By Windows standards, that hardly even qualifies as a problem.

Most importantly, my computer still runs as well as it did on day one, without my ever having to deal with oddly named startup processes and other quirks of Windows systems.

I'd spend an extra few hundred bucks on a new Mac in a heartbeat, unless I was faced with some sort of dire compatibility issue.

(As an afterthought, I've noticed that the Windows advocates generally refer to price-for-performance, and the Mac advocates usually talk about a bunch of unquantifiable "quality" issues. Most of the Mac people seem to have lots of experience with PCs, and many of the PC people appear to have little experience with newer Macs. Then again, I haven't tried out Windows 7, which may bring the Windows experience up to par with Apple.)

[sheltron5000]

It strikes me that a lot of this conversation about $/performance slightly misses the point, especially since gaming is generally not an issue. Stability, battery life, ease of use, physical user interface, and time required for general upkeep are all just as important as raw speed, especially when dealing with Mac minimum specs vs. comparable PCs.

In my eight months as a unibody Macbook user, my operating system has never crashed. I have never lost data in an Office document. If an application quits (which generally occurs when I'm running 30+ tabs in Safari, as I only have 2gb ram), it does so painlessly. My machine sleeps and wakes within seconds and without error. I consistently get at least four hours of battery life unless I am streaming video. The multi-touch track pad is such a joy to use that I no longer use an external mouse.

The biggest problem I've ever had involved my HP printer drivers keeping a printing process running in the background, which slightly decreased my battery life and was easily solved by manually closing the process in the activity monitor. By Windows standards, that hardly even qualifies as a problem.

Most importantly, my computer still runs as well as it did on day one, without my ever having to deal with oddly named startup processes and other quirks of Windows systems.

I'd spend an extra few hundred bucks on a new Mac in a heartbeat, unless I was faced with some sort of dire compatibility issue.

(As an afterthought, I've noticed that the Windows advocates generally refer to price-for-performance, and the Mac advocates usually talk about a bunch of unquantifiable "quality" issues. Most of the Mac people seem to have lots of experience with PCs, and many of the PC people appear to have little experience with newer Macs. Then again, I haven't tried out Windows 7, which may bring the Windows experience up to par with Apple.)

You bring up some very good points, and again i agreed with you right up until I installed windows 7. I haven't restarted my netbook, except for the anti-virus install, since I installed win7. One thing I will note, my experience with the wireless networking is BETTER with windows 7 than it was with leopard. as soon as I login from sleep I'm connected, literally, the second I login. I have NO idea how this works, but I love it.

Stability wise, I have had a few programs crash, but windows 7 just closed them, put up a notice telling me what was happening, and everything else was fine. I have yet to have a forced shutdown, or bsod.

As for physical interface, I agree macs excell in this area, and I will be using a mac keyboard with my dell desktop this fall, but I'll be using a logitech mouse

I really think windows 7 is a game changer, and I recommend everyone thinking about buying a new computer try it (it's a free trial after all). Leaked pricing memo's suggest that if you buy your vista PC in between late july and the october release, the windows 7 license will be free, so...

[Objection]

Am I crazy for considering a 17" MBP for law school? Yeah, it's not the most portable of the lineup, but 6.6 lbs is hardly unportable (the 15" is 5.5...13" is 4.5 but the 13" is a tad too small for my tastes), and it's the only Macbook with a matte option (which is a big deal when you plan to move it around, meaning you have no control over the lightsource).

I currently have a 15" MBP that's only 2 years old, but since I'm going almost $250k into debt, another $3k won't be a huge deal Might as well start LS with a clean comp.

[sheltron5000]

Am I crazy for considering a 17" MBP for law school? Yeah, it's not the most portable of the lineup, but 6.6 lbs is hardly unportable (the 15" is 5.5...13" is 4.5 but the 13" is a tad too small for my tastes), and it's the only Macbook with a matte option (which is a big deal when you plan to move it around, meaning you have no control over the lightsource).

I currently have a 15" MBP that's only 2 years old, but since I'm going almost $250k into debt, another $3k won't be a huge deal Might as well start LS with a clean comp.

Don't forget to add interest

You can also buy matte screen covers to make your glossy MBP easier on your eyes. Just make sure to do your research since some covers can limit viewing angles.

Also, I know you don't think 6.6lbs is a lot, but add that to the casebooks, supplements, printed notes, pens, hand outs, food/water, and you start thinking that it might be really nice to shave 2 lbs off... I had a 5.5lbs macbook, and it was still too much.

Also, think about how much space that takes up on your table, will you have room to put out everything else you'll need on the desk with you? I doubt it.

If I were buying a mac I'd buy the air, which they updated today with a price drop.

[Objection]

Am I crazy for considering a 17" MBP for law school? Yeah, it's not the most portable of the lineup, but 6.6 lbs is hardly unportable (the 15" is 5.5...13" is 4.5 but the 13" is a tad too small for my tastes), and it's the only Macbook with a matte option (which is a big deal when you plan to move it around, meaning you have no control over the lightsource).

I currently have a 15" MBP that's only 2 years old, but since I'm going almost $250k into debt, another $3k won't be a huge deal Might as well start LS with a clean comp.

Don't forget to add interest

You can also buy matte screen covers to make your glossy MBP easier on your eyes. Just make sure to do your research since some covers can limit viewing angles.

Also, I know you don't think 6.6lbs is a lot, but add that to the casebooks, supplements, printed notes, pens, hand outs, food/water, and you start thinking that it might be really nice to shave 2 lbs off... I had a 5.5lbs macbook, and it was still too much.

Also, think about how much space that takes up on your table, will you have room to put out everything else you'll need on the desk with you? I doubt it.

If I were buying a mac I'd buy the air, which they updated today with a price drop.

My freshman year laptop was 10 lbs. Dell XPS2. Talk about heavy.

You're right about desk space. Didn't think of that. Probably rules out the 17"

I love the weight and size of my current macbook. It's perfect.

My concern with the 13" is that, well, the screen just feels so small. I've done side by side usage in comparisons in Apple stores and I don't know if I could get used to the tininess of the 13"...but maybe I could with time.

Macbook air feels lacking in features for the price to me. Portability is nice, but is it that much more portable than a 13" MBP to justify losing so many features?

[vut]

(As an afterthought, I've noticed that the Windows advocates generally refer to price-for-performance, and the Mac advocates usually talk about a bunch of unquantifiable "quality" issues. Most of the Mac people seem to have lots of experience with PCs, and many of the PC people appear to have little experience with newer Macs. Then again, I haven't tried out Windows 7, which may bring the Windows experience up to par with Apple.)

Not so much "price-for-performance," but an advocation for getting the same hardware at lower prices.

Personally, I have been running Vista (with Aero) since last July without mods on a 1.8Ghz Turion64, 1GB RAM, and ATI 200M chip system without a single crash (honest). Just like the Mac, my system wakes up as soon as I open the lid. We're talking about a model that came out at least 3 or 4 years ago. I think partly the reason is because I avoid the "tits-tubes" websites. They certainly are not serving your pleasure for free.

[sheltron5000]

Am I crazy for considering a 17" MBP for law school? Yeah, it's not the most portable of the lineup, but 6.6 lbs is hardly unportable (the 15" is 5.5...13" is 4.5 but the 13" is a tad too small for my tastes), and it's the only Macbook with a matte option (which is a big deal when you plan to move it around, meaning you have no control over the lightsource).

I currently have a 15" MBP that's only 2 years old, but since I'm going almost $250k into debt, another $3k won't be a huge deal Might as well start LS with a clean comp.

Don't forget to add interest

You can also buy matte screen covers to make your glossy MBP easier on your eyes. Just make sure to do your research since some covers can limit viewing angles.

Also, I know you don't think 6.6lbs is a lot, but add that to the casebooks, supplements, printed notes, pens, hand outs, food/water, and you start thinking that it might be really nice to shave 2 lbs off... I had a 5.5lbs macbook, and it was still too much.

Also, think about how much space that takes up on your table, will you have room to put out everything else you'll need on the desk with you? I doubt it.

If I were buying a mac I'd buy the air, which they updated today with a price drop.

My freshman year laptop was 10 lbs. Dell XPS2. Talk about heavy.

You're right about desk space. Didn't think of that. Probably rules out the 17"

I love the weight and size of my current macbook. It's perfect.

My concern with the 13" is that, well, the screen just feels so small. I've done side by side usage in comparisons in Apple stores and I don't know if I could get used to the tininess of the 13"...but maybe I could with time.

Macbook air feels lacking in features for the price to me. Portability is nice, but is it that much more portable than a 13" MBP to justify losing so many features?

Or just buy an external monitor for your MBP, make it a desktop, buy a netbook, hackintosh it, and have the best of all worlds

I got used to the 13" just fine, but yeah, you are missing out on some viewing space. If you think you need that extra space for what you do on the computer, the 15" might be a better choice, but for me, I need extreme portability just to get me to take it with me. There's no reason to pay for a laptop if you're going to leave it at home...

[vut]

Am I crazy for considering a 17" MBP for law school? Yeah, it's not the most portable of the lineup, but 6.6 lbs is hardly unportable (the 15" is 5.5...13" is 4.5 but the 13" is a tad too small for my tastes), and it's the only Macbook with a matte option (which is a big deal when you plan to move it around, meaning you have no control over the lightsource).

I currently have a 15" MBP that's only 2 years old, but since I'm going almost $250k into debt, another $3k won't be a huge deal Might as well start LS with a clean comp.

What about choosing the 15-inch and buy an anti-glare screen protector for around $20? It seems to work for a lot of people.

[Objection]

Am I crazy for considering a 17" MBP for law school? Yeah, it's not the most portable of the lineup, but 6.6 lbs is hardly unportable (the 15" is 5.5...13" is 4.5 but the 13" is a tad too small for my tastes), and it's the only Macbook with a matte option (which is a big deal when you plan to move it around, meaning you have no control over the lightsource).

I currently have a 15" MBP that's only 2 years old, but since I'm going almost $250k into debt, another $3k won't be a huge deal Might as well start LS with a clean comp.

What about choosing the 15-inch and buy an anti-glare screen protector for around $20? It seems to work for a lot of people.

Didn't know they made an anti-glare screen protector until sheltron mentioned it. I'll look into it. At this point I'm leaning towards the 3.06 ghz mbp with 4 gigs of ram with 320 gb hdd for $2324.

Honestly, I wouldn't be so inclined to upgrade if I didn't hate the pre-unibody MBP keyboards so much. The ones with the keys that aren't really spaced out and not clicky at all. Maybe it's completely mental, but it just feels so sluggish. I hate it.



Makes me wanna vomit. I bought an external keyboard just so I don't have to use this one.

[sheltron5000]

Am I crazy for considering a 17" MBP for law school? Yeah, it's not the most portable of the lineup, but 6.6 lbs is hardly unportable (the 15" is 5.5...13" is 4.5 but the 13" is a tad too small for my tastes), and it's the only Macbook with a matte option (which is a big deal when you plan to move it around, meaning you have no control over the lightsource).

I currently have a 15" MBP that's only 2 years old, but since I'm going almost $250k into debt, another $3k won't be a huge deal Might as well start LS with a clean comp.

What about choosing the 15-inch and buy an anti-glare screen protector for around $20? It seems to work for a lot of people.

Didn't know they made an anti-glare screen protector until sheltron mentioned it. I'll look into it. At this point I'm leaning towards the 3.06 ghz mbp with 4 gigs of ram with 320 gb hdd for $2324.

Honestly, I wouldn't be so inclined to upgrade if I didn't hate the pre-unibody MBP keyboards so much. The ones with the keys that aren't really spaced out and not clicky at all. Maybe it's completely mental, but it just feels so sluggish. I hate it.



Makes me wanna vomit. I bought an external keyboard just so I don't have to use this one.

I thought the new mac keyboards would be weird when i got my macbook, and loved it. I got an external mac keyboard to use with my netbook at my desk, even. But if you liked that, check out the eepc keyboard... (I swear I'm not pushing the netbooks, not even a little I can't wait for a mac netbook...