Macbook Air vs. Macbook Pro Forum

[Reinhardt]

I'm saying this as a die hard PC user. The Apple Tax on their low end laptops is pretty small (hence my recommendation to get a 13 inch). A $500 PC laptop just isn't that good, and a law school laptop is something most people will be spending a lot of time with.

[MKC]

I'm saying this as a die hard PC user. The Apple Tax on their low end laptops is pretty small (hence my recommendation to get a 13 inch). A $500 PC laptop just isn't that good, and a law school laptop is something most people will be spending a lot of time with.

$1,100 for the 13" Air? I paid $390 for my laptop three years ago and it's still fine. 500gb hard drive, i3 processor, dvd burner, 7-8 hour battery life. I could run it over with a car, buy a new one, and it would still be cheaper than a MBA.

[09042014]

Alternatively, buy a $500 pc laptop, and just buy a new one if you break it. Still cheaper than MBA/MBP even without Applecare. Apple makes cool looking shit, but I can't afford it. We're law students. Don't buy a Rolex if you can get buy with a Timex that tells time just as well.

I tell myself this is what I should do, but I can't bring myself to do it. I just like Macs too much.

This is why I haven't bought a laptop yet.

You don't need to buy a new laptop for law school. Use the mac you got now. If you don't have a mac, why do you like them so much.

[chem!]

Alternatively, buy a $500 pc laptop, and just buy a new one if you break it. Still cheaper than MBA/MBP even without Applecare. Apple makes cool looking shit, but I can't afford it. We're law students. Don't buy a Rolex if you can get buy with a Timex that tells time just as well.

I tell myself this is what I should do, but I can't bring myself to do it. I just like Macs too much.

This is why I haven't bought a laptop yet.

You don't need to buy a new laptop for law school. Use the mac you got now. If you don't have a mac, why do you like them so much.

I have an iMac. I've never had a laptop b/c I've never needed one.

[09042014]

I'm saying this as a die hard PC user. The Apple Tax on their low end laptops is pretty small (hence my recommendation to get a 13 inch). A $500 PC laptop just isn't that good, and a law school laptop is something most people will be spending a lot of time with.

A low end mac isn't that good either. They throw in a decent CPU but then bottleneck the shit out of it by using crappy intel on board graphics and low ram. A comparable speed PC can be 500 with a shit manufacturer (I wouldn't buy that) or about 700 from Asus or another legit manufacturer.

The only real difference between a 1200 MBP and a 500 Asus is that the Asus will look cheaper. The MBP will able to crunch numbers a bit faster, but nobody does that.

The air 13 probably have the least markup, it's not that great of a machine, but it's damn small.

[09042014]

Alternatively, buy a $500 pc laptop, and just buy a new one if you break it. Still cheaper than MBA/MBP even without Applecare. Apple makes cool looking shit, but I can't afford it. We're law students. Don't buy a Rolex if you can get buy with a Timex that tells time just as well.

I tell myself this is what I should do, but I can't bring myself to do it. I just like Macs too much.

This is why I haven't bought a laptop yet.

You don't need to buy a new laptop for law school. Use the mac you got now. If you don't have a mac, why do you like them so much.

I have an iMac. I've never had a laptop b/c I've never needed one.

Mac's are overpriced, but everyone spends money on some luxury goods. Just know that is what you are doing and don't go luxury on other areas. 400 bucks overpriced over 4 years isn't really enough to make a big deal over. Brewing your own coffee instead of getting it from a shop would probably save twice that.

If I wanted an ultralight, I'd consider an air, but I still don't like OSX.

[MKC]

Part of my bias towards PC laptops is that I don't give a shit about weight. I figure I'm going to be carrying 30 pounds worth of books/pens/binders/supplies in my backpack. Who gives a shit if my laptop weighs 3 extra pounds?

[Br3v]

Anyone with 13"s run into problems with the screen size when outlining etc when multiple screens are up together? I'd really rather have the portabiity of this size but am worried that I might need that 15" screen space.

This really sums up how neurotic TLS is. Just get the goddamn computer you like, they're all fine...No one is going to have an advantage over you just because their screen is 2 inches bigger...

He didn't say advantage dood. And he is right, side by side screens is very usefor for law related work.

I used it in class taking notes and surfing the web. I used it outlining--dragging notes from one screen the other. I used it on tests, having the outline on one side and the test on the other. I used it for journal work, having one side be the source and the other side be the work. I've used it writing papers, memos, or anything. One side is research, one side is the writing. Hell I use it just fucking around on the internet, or surfing the web while watching a tv show.

It's a very useful method of working on a laptop. I wouldn't dismiss it as law student neuroticism. Why the fuck is someone going to blow 1000 bucks on a computer, when you can get one that works just fine for 400 bucks if they don't want it to be perfect.

Though maybe with a 13 inch retina, the resolution is good enough to do side by side and get as much real estate as a regular 15 inch.

DF are you saying yo uuse a dual monitor set up at home? Like one monitor for writing one monitor for research? Or are you saying you split one screen, half writing, half research?

[09042014]

Anyone with 13"s run into problems with the screen size when outlining etc when multiple screens are up together? I'd really rather have the portabiity of this size but am worried that I might need that 15" screen space.

This really sums up how neurotic TLS is. Just get the goddamn computer you like, they're all fine...No one is going to have an advantage over you just because their screen is 2 inches bigger...

He didn't say advantage dood. And he is right, side by side screens is very usefor for law related work.

I used it in class taking notes and surfing the web. I used it outlining--dragging notes from one screen the other. I used it on tests, having the outline on one side and the test on the other. I used it for journal work, having one side be the source and the other side be the work. I've used it writing papers, memos, or anything. One side is research, one side is the writing. Hell I use it just fucking around on the internet, or surfing the web while watching a tv show.

It's a very useful method of working on a laptop. I wouldn't dismiss it as law student neuroticism. Why the fuck is someone going to blow 1000 bucks on a computer, when you can get one that works just fine for 400 bucks if they don't want it to be perfect.

Though maybe with a 13 inch retina, the resolution is good enough to do side by side and get as much real estate as a regular 15 inch.

DF are you saying yo uuse a dual monitor set up at home? Like one monitor for writing one monitor for research? Or are you saying you split one screen, half writing, half research?

Split on my laptop. I find it easier than even dual monitor because there isn't a weird gap in the viewing. I wish windows allowed you to separate the screens more than just dragging to right or dragging to left.

[ScottRiqui]

A low end mac isn't that good either. They throw in a decent CPU but then bottleneck the shit out of it by using crappy intel on board graphics and low ram. A comparable speed PC can be 500 with a shit manufacturer (I wouldn't buy that) or about 700 from Asus or another legit manufacturer.

I'm not sure if the bolded part really shows up in the perceived performance, though - both the hardware and the operating system make pretty efficient use of resources. I have a Macbook Pro that will be seven years old this fall, and I run the hell out of the latest versions of Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom and Office, with only a Core 2 Duo processor and 3 GB of RAM. It would probably fall on its face trying to run a modern 3D game, but I don't do any of that.

[09042014]

A low end mac isn't that good either. They throw in a decent CPU but then bottleneck the shit out of it by using crappy intel on board graphics and low ram. A comparable speed PC can be 500 with a shit manufacturer (I wouldn't buy that) or about 700 from Asus or another legit manufacturer.

I'm not sure if the bolded part really shows up in the perceived performance, though - both the hardware and the operating system make pretty efficient use of resources. I have a Macbook Pro that will be seven years old this fall, and I run the hell out of the latest versions of Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom and Office, with only a Core 2 Duo processor and 3 GB of RAM. It would probably fall on its face trying to run a modern 3D game, but I don't do any of that.

3GB of ram 7 years ago wasn't the lowest end MBP was it. They are selling some now that are only 4GB. I don't think Photoshop and aperture are that resource intensive compared to cpu advancements, anymore. Photoshop min. requirements are really low. Office isn't resource intensive at all.

But, the fact that you can use a 7 year old MBP with no problems supports my argument completely. Even a shitty i3 today (that would come in a cheap notebook) would be able to handle it easily since it'll be faster than a 7 year old chip. The computing cost of editing a photo isn't growing at nearly the same speed as processor speed. Which means even low end notebooks now can handle it. Which makes high end ones overkill.

I certainly wouldn't get a cheap ass PC if I was going to do professional work, since minor increases = actual money.

But for average users, PCs have sort of hit a diminishing returns level for average usage.

[ScottRiqui]

A low end mac isn't that good either. They throw in a decent CPU but then bottleneck the shit out of it by using crappy intel on board graphics and low ram. A comparable speed PC can be 500 with a shit manufacturer (I wouldn't buy that) or about 700 from Asus or another legit manufacturer.

I'm not sure if the bolded part really shows up in the perceived performance, though - both the hardware and the operating system make pretty efficient use of resources. I have a Macbook Pro that will be seven years old this fall, and I run the hell out of the latest versions of Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom and Office, with only a Core 2 Duo processor and 3 GB of RAM. It would probably fall on its face trying to run a modern 3D game, but I don't do any of that.

3GB of ram 7 years ago wasn't the lowest end MBP was it. They are selling some now that are only 4GB. I don't think Photoshop and aperture are that resource intensive compared to cpu advancements, anymore. Photoshop min. requirements are really low. Office isn't resource intensive at all.

But, the fact that you can use a 7 year old MBP with no problems supports my argument completely. Even a shitty i3 today (that would come in a cheap notebook) would be able to handle it easily since it'll be faster than a 7 year old chip.

Mine maxes out at 3 GB - it came with less. It was a solid machine in its day, but that doesn't change the fact that the hardware and OS are making damn good use of limited resources.

I don't think that a Windows 7 laptop with a 2.1 GHz Core 2 Duo, 3 GB of RAM, and an underclocked ATI X1600 video chip would do as well with the latest Windows versions of the same programs. And Photoshop and Lightroom can get pretty intensive when you're talking about large images, multiple layers, filters and transformations. That's why there's a market for $5000 professional-level machines for photographers who use them all day every day. I'm not a professional photographer, so saving a few seconds here or there wouldn't make me enough money to justify the upgrade.

But I agree with you that even a $500-700 laptop will do fine for what just about any law student would want to do. I just think that the low-end Mac laptops "fight above their weight class" in terms of performance and perceived responsiveness, so you're not getting the same performance out of a $500 laptop just because it has a comparable processor and RAM.

[09042014]

A low end mac isn't that good either. They throw in a decent CPU but then bottleneck the shit out of it by using crappy intel on board graphics and low ram. A comparable speed PC can be 500 with a shit manufacturer (I wouldn't buy that) or about 700 from Asus or another legit manufacturer.

I'm not sure if the bolded part really shows up in the perceived performance, though - both the hardware and the operating system make pretty efficient use of resources. I have a Macbook Pro that will be seven years old this fall, and I run the hell out of the latest versions of Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom and Office, with only a Core 2 Duo processor and 3 GB of RAM. It would probably fall on its face trying to run a modern 3D game, but I don't do any of that.

3GB of ram 7 years ago wasn't the lowest end MBP was it. They are selling some now that are only 4GB. I don't think Photoshop and aperture are that resource intensive compared to cpu advancements, anymore. Photoshop min. requirements are really low. Office isn't resource intensive at all.

But, the fact that you can use a 7 year old MBP with no problems supports my argument completely. Even a shitty i3 today (that would come in a cheap notebook) would be able to handle it easily since it'll be faster than a 7 year old chip.

Mine maxes out at 3 GB - it came with less. It was a solid machine in its day, but that doesn't change the fact that the hardware and OS are making damn good use of limited resources.

I don't think that a Windows 7 laptop with a 2.1 GHz Core 2 Duo, 3 GB of RAM, and an underclocked ATI X1600 video chip would do as well with the latest Windows versions of the same programs. And Photoshop and Lightroom can get pretty intensive when you're talking about large images, multiple layers, filters and transformations. That's why there's a market for $5000 professional-level machines for photographers who use them all day every day. I'm not a professional photographer, so saving a few seconds here or there wouldn't make me enough money to justify the upgrade.

But I agree with you that even a $500-700 laptop will do fine for what just about any law student would want to do. I just think that the low-end Mac laptops "fight above their weight class" in terms of performance and perceived responsiveness, so you're not getting the same performance out of a $500 laptop just because it has a comparable processor and RAM.

Mac's don't use their resources better, at leas tin general. It's certainly possible that mac or windows versions of photoshop would behave differently, because they are different programs. But a quick google search seems like the consensus is a net draw with different benefits for each.

I've always heard OSX was better for photo editing, so maybe that is true but I thought that was more about color management or something. But, a WinXP (which is what a 7 year old PC would have) with those specs would run virtually the same as your set up. The differences between OS's just isn't that large.

The only reason you'll get a longer life out of a Mac is because they don't come with shitty CPUs. Some PCs have REALLY shitty cpus. But the same chip, won't really run all that differently.

[ScottRiqui]

Mac's don't use their resources better, at leas tin general. It's certainly possible that mac or windows versions of photoshop would behave differently, because they are different programs. But a quick google search seems like the consensus is a net draw with different benefits for each.

I've always heard OSX was better for photo editing, so maybe that is true but I thought that was more about color management or something. But, a WinXP (which is what a 7 year old PC would have) with those specs would run virtually the same as your set up. The differences between OS's just isn't that large.

The only reason you'll get a longer life out of a Mac is because they don't come with shitty CPUs. Some PCs have REALLY shitty cpus. But the same chip, won't really run all that differently.

I used Windows 7 for the comparison because I'm running OS X 10.7, which was released when Windows 7 was current. If anything, I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage in the comparison since 10.7 is two years newer. But I'm calling it a wash because most times, upgraded versions of OS X run as fast as their predecessor (if not faster).

And I still think that Apple computers feel more responsive compared to Windows computers with similar specs. The same thing happened when the iPad 2 was released. The internet collective were shitting all over the spec sheet because Apple's choices for processor class/speed, RAM and video hardware were deemed to be SPS compared to other manufacturers' tablets. But tablet users aren't doing 3D modeling and simulation, and when you used them side-by-side, for all the stuff that users actually cared about (scrolling, zooming, opening/closing apps, moving between pages on the home screen, etc), the iPad was actually "snappier" and more responsive. Published tablet comparisons largely quit harping on processor speeds and RAM shortly afterwards.

But yes, in synthetic benchmarks that isolate the CPU, GPU, RAM, or storage system, similar specs will probably give similar results, regardless of OS.

[J-e-L-L-o]

Mac's don't use their resources better, at leas tin general. It's certainly possible that mac or windows versions of photoshop would behave differently, because they are different programs. But a quick google search seems like the consensus is a net draw with different benefits for each.

I've always heard OSX was better for photo editing, so maybe that is true but I thought that was more about color management or something. But, a WinXP (which is what a 7 year old PC would have) with those specs would run virtually the same as your set up. The differences between OS's just isn't that large.

The only reason you'll get a longer life out of a Mac is because they don't come with shitty CPUs. Some PCs have REALLY shitty cpus. But the same chip, won't really run all that differently.

I used Windows 7 for the comparison because I'm running OS X 10.7, which was released when Windows 7 was current. If anything, I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage in the comparison since 10.7 is two years newer. But I'm calling it a wash because most times, upgraded versions of OS X run as fast as their predecessor (if not faster).

And I still think that Apple computers feel more responsive compared to Windows computers with similar specs. The same thing happened when the iPad 2 was released. The internet collective were shitting all over the spec sheet because Apple's choices for processor class/speed, RAM and video hardware were deemed to be SPS compared to other manufacturers' tablets. But tablet users aren't doing 3D modeling and simulation, and when you used them side-by-side, for all the stuff that users actually cared about (scrolling, zooming, opening/closing apps, moving between pages on the home screen, etc), the iPad was actually "snappier" and more responsive. Published tablet comparisons largely quit harping on processor speeds and RAM shortly afterwards.

But yes, in synthetic benchmarks that isolate the CPU, GPU, RAM, or storage system, similar specs will probably give similar results, regardless of OS.

thats because you dnt have antivirus and network security software slowing down yur clock cycles. Programs you don't need on OS X since it handles it natively and runs off a linux variant BSD that is inherently more secure. I have had 2 MBP's in 7 years and only because I sold my old one to get my new one. They are great machines. They last. It doesn't do shit like you delete a file and you lose all your settings or blue screens. If you are not doing professional work w/ graphics or number crunching (i.e. law students) it really doesn't matter though. I would pay a $500 premium knowing that I can keep my computer on for weeks at a time without shutdown and lasting for years with no problems.

[09042014]

Mac's don't use their resources better, at leas tin general. It's certainly possible that mac or windows versions of photoshop would behave differently, because they are different programs. But a quick google search seems like the consensus is a net draw with different benefits for each.

I've always heard OSX was better for photo editing, so maybe that is true but I thought that was more about color management or something. But, a WinXP (which is what a 7 year old PC would have) with those specs would run virtually the same as your set up. The differences between OS's just isn't that large.

The only reason you'll get a longer life out of a Mac is because they don't come with shitty CPUs. Some PCs have REALLY shitty cpus. But the same chip, won't really run all that differently.

I used Windows 7 for the comparison because I'm running OS X 10.7, which was released when Windows 7 was current. If anything, I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage in the comparison since 10.7 is two years newer. But I'm calling it a wash because most times, upgraded versions of OS X run as fast as their predecessor (if not faster).

And I still think that Apple computers feel more responsive compared to Windows computers with similar specs. The same thing happened when the iPad 2 was released. The internet collective were shitting all over the spec sheet because Apple's choices for processor class/speed, RAM and video hardware were deemed to be SPS compared to other manufacturers' tablets. But tablet users aren't doing 3D modeling and simulation, and when you used them side-by-side, for all the stuff that users actually cared about (scrolling, zooming, opening/closing apps, moving between pages on the home screen, etc), the iPad was actually "snappier" and more responsive. Published tablet comparisons largely quit harping on processor speeds and RAM shortly afterwards.

But yes, in synthetic benchmarks that isolate the CPU, GPU, RAM, or storage system, similar specs will probably give similar results, regardless of OS.

thats because you dnt have antivirus and network security software slowing down yur clock cycles. Programs you don't need on OS X since it handles it natively and runs off a linux variant BSD that is inherently more secure. I have had 2 MBP's in 7 years and only because I sold my old one to get my new one. They are great machines. They last. It doesn't do shit like you delete a file and you lose all your settings or blue screens. If you are not doing professional work w/ graphics or number crunching (i.e. law students) it really doesn't matter though. I would pay a $500 premium knowing that I can keep my computer on for weeks at a time without shutdown and lasting for years with no problems.

You clearly haven't run a PC since Win98. First, OSX does have some viruses now that it's popular. Microsoft Security Essentials is extremely efficient. There is a reason why most professionals use windows. Second, if you delete critical OSX files it won't work either. Third, windows PCs don't need to restarted any more than OSx. I never restart my computer.

Your 500 dollar premium is extra profit margins.

[Klerris]

I realize that this thread has devolved a little..... But the new Haswell MBA has insane battery life. Which, to me, seems like the most important thing. I'd pay a premium for never having to worry about plugging in.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7085/the- ... w-13inch/6

[stillwater]

get that macbook BRO

[CR2012]

So, I am thinking of copping a new MacAir(Jordan). I will also be purchasing the new TimeCapsule to use for backup/a router.

Will the new(?) 802.11ac wireless signal from the TimeCapsule make my internet faster on the Air, as the new Air supports this signal?

Thanks in advance, I am so ignorant about computer related things.

[Lasers]

would get a MBA is i could tolerate the OS.

instead, i just got a samsung series 9.

[CR2012]

would get a MBA is i could tolerate the OS.

instead, i just got a samsung series 9.

From a cursory glance at the specs of the Samsung series 9, it doesn't seem to be very novel. What makes the price so high relative to other pc laptops?

[Toby Ziegler]

would get a MBA is i could tolerate the OS.

instead, i just got a samsung series 9.

From a cursory glance at the specs of the Samsung series 9, it doesn't seem to be very novel. What makes the price so high relative to other pc laptops?

The series 9 is an ultra book, it's not a "cheap model" computer. It is comparable to the Macbook pro. Just like with anything you get what you pay for.

[ScottRiqui]

So, I am thinking of copping a new MacAir(Jordan). I will also be purchasing the new TimeCapsule to use for backup/a router.

Will the new(?) 802.11ac wireless signal from the TimeCapsule make my internet faster on the Air, as the new Air supports this signal?

Thanks in advance, I am so ignorant about computer related things.

No, it won't make the internet seem any faster, since even the older iterations of 802.11 (like 802.11n) have more than enough throughput to handle the traffic to/from your ISP (assuming you don't have something crazy-fast, like Gigabit Google Fiber). For example, my internet package from Cox is 35 Mbps download, and about 8 Mbps upload. Pretty much any wireless network protocol can pass that much data (and more), so upgrading to 802.11ac wouldn't make my browsing any faster, or allow me to download large files from the internet any faster.

Where it will make a difference is transfers *within* your local wireless network. Backing up files to your Time Capsule over 802.11ac will probably be faster than over 802.11n or 802.11b/g.

[Toby Ziegler]

So, I am thinking of copping a new MacAir(Jordan). I will also be purchasing the new TimeCapsule to use for backup/a router.

Will the new(?) 802.11ac wireless signal from the TimeCapsule make my internet faster on the Air, as the new Air supports this signal?

Thanks in advance, I am so ignorant about computer related things.

No, it won't make the internet seem any faster, since even the older iterations of 802.11 (like 802.11n) have more than enough throughput to handle the traffic to/from your ISP (assuming you don't have something crazy-fast, like Gigabit Google Fiber). For example, my internet package from Cox is 35 Mbps download, and about 8 Mbps upload. Pretty much any wireless network protocol can pass that much data (and more), so upgrading to 802.11ac wouldn't make my browsing any faster, or allow me to download large files from the internet any faster.

Where it will make a difference is transfers *within* your local wireless network. Backing up files to your Time Capsule over 802.11ac will probably be faster than over 802.11n or 802.11b/g.

This exactly. If you set up a home network and use Apple TV or a comparable streamer, and you have it linked to some device that stores media which you wish to access over these other devices it will make the transfer speed faster.

But just as Scott said, most network routers are fully capable of handling all internet speeds (except the new 1G Google fiber optic internet) most newer ones are capacitated for up to 300 MBPS.

[Lasers]

would get a MBA is i could tolerate the OS.

instead, i just got a samsung series 9.

From a cursory glance at the specs of the Samsung series 9, it doesn't seem to be very novel. What makes the price so high relative to other pc laptops?

it's ultra light and ultra thin. it's basically an equivalent to a MBA. build quality is great and it looks sexy. got it for around $850 on amazon.