any other alternatives to a mbp 17"

1.2f

1.2f

Messages
678
Edit My Images
Yes
been reading a lot of the posts on here about the pros and cons of an apple system as opposed to a windows system.

before i buy a mbp this week can anyone offer another alternative?

i require a laptop so a desktop is a non-starter. i wont be buying dell as i had a very bad experience with them some years back.
 
Any of the premium brands will offer alternatives (Sony, Lenovo, Toshiba, even a high end Acer). I'd think long and hard about a 17" over a full HD 15.6". The 17" are quite awkward to lug about - even in the house.
 
thanks andy. previously had a 17" laptop and so aware of how cumbersome they can be. looking at the F range of vaios a fully spec'd machine is coming in at just under 1300, thats with an i7 2ghx processor, 8gb ram and a 500gb 7200rpm hd. and it has a 16.4" screen.
 
Everyones tradeoff is different with laptops, but that's probably saving a wedge of cash over the MBP equivalent....
 
well i get an education discount but i will still save about 850 on a mbp. u think the following spec will easily handle lightroom 3, photoshop and some video editing? i will be saving all my work to external hd's so the internal laptop hd will basically stay free.

a Intel® CoreTM i7-2630QM 2 GHz
500 GB Serial ATA (7200 rpm)
8 GB 1333MHz DDR3-SDRAM
Blu-ray Disc(TM) writer
41.6 cm LCD, 1920x1080 Premium

the mbp has the following spec

2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Core i78GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
2x4GB 500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 RPM
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 17-inch Hi-Resolution Antiglare Widescreen Display
 
that spec shouldnt be a problem for LR3.

however wouldnt touch a sony vaio with a bargepole personally, too many people i know have had issues with them and theyre overpriced with cheap parts generally.
 
Pretty similar to our Dell (we went with 15.6" full HD screen). Same memory, 7200rpm disk, same processor. Handles LR/PS easily and plenty fast enough even for someone (i.e. me last month when we were on holiday in the USA and I was processing images) who is used to an overclocked i7-2600K desktop with 16G and an SSD. Yes, the desktop is quicker/more responsive, but I'd be happy with the laptop if it were my only PC.

The MBP will be a little quicker (slightly better processor), but not worth £850 IMHO....
 
my current machine is a vaio and has been great for the last 5yrs.
 
neil_g said:
fair dos, been a lot of hard drive failures and motherboard issues in my experience.
Click to expand...

i think its just luck sometimes on what you get and how long it lasts.

i was 100% committed to a mbp few months back then reading the posts on here by the likes of yourself and andy offering differing views made me rethink my decision.

im still dithering but looks like which ever choice i make it will at least serve my purposes.
 
I have an Acer Aspire 7736G that's been my desktop replacement for the last couple of years. Good keyboard, runs Lightroom, VueScan and Potatoshop happily and I've edited basic video using the Windows software.

The screen's a good size at 17.3" 16:9 widescreen but does suffer from quite bad contrast changes depending on your viewpoint. I find it best to set it up and then leave it in place.

Probably a little out of date now and can sometimes start thrashing the hard drive on big detailed scans or while processing large image files but overall I'm still happy with it.

Oh, and the keyboard survives coffee spillage quite well :)
 
At the end of the day, all the computer manufacturers use off the shelf components. There's only a handful of HDD providers and only a handful of memory makers.

HDD makers in particular, tend to produce disk systems which vary wrt reliance as they change designs. I.e. just 'cos WD had a great 500G drive doesn't mean they'll produce a great 750G drive (and vice versa). Also, design of the laptop may make one more or less susceptible to drive warming which might adversely affect lifetimes - although this article by Google: http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf makes interesting reading...
 
I have the new 17" macbook pro, its fantastic for image editing, runs lightroom lovely, there can't be another choice for reliability and sexyness in one package

All Apple gear is custom silicon, always has been, that's why it works, its not just off the shelf as another member put it.

Has the 8gb of ram and i put a SSD in there which i had already.

photo.jpg
 
Last edited:
1.2f said:
ric did you spec the upgraded processor as well?
Click to expand...

It's basic store spec, i put in the 8gb of ram (came with 4gb) and SSD myself.

its not the top of the range upgraded processor.

Boot time is seconds, sleep to ready is miliseconds with the SSD (the apple SSD is quite expensive perhaps retrofit this yourself.

You wont void warranty by fitting these things yourself (even apple has instructions on their site)
 
Carbonangel said:
It's basic store spec, i put in the 8gb of ram (came with 4gb) and SSD myself.

its not the top of the range upgraded processor.

Boot time is seconds, sleep to ready is miliseconds with the SSD (the apple SSD is quite expensive perhaps retrofit this yourself.

You wont void warranty by fitting these things yourself (even apple has instructions on their site)
Click to expand...

i'd be paranoid about retro fitting stuff like memory and upgraded hdd however, u do save a shed load on what apple charge u!!!!
 
i have a Vertex 2 256gb ssd in there, which is only sata2

The new mbp supports sata3, with one of those in it would be even faster! (250mb/s to 520mb/s) (its my next upgrade when i save a few quid)
 
is it true though that ssd are also prone to failures and that if an ssd drive fails the data cant be receovered like a normal hdd?
 
1.2f said:
i'd be paranoid about retro fitting stuff like memory and upgraded hdd however, u do save a shed load on what apple charge u!!!!
Click to expand...

Upgraded my 13" ram to 8 Gb last month. It couldnt be easier. Really isnt worth paying for the spec increase on Ram or Hdd when its cheaper and pretty easy to do it yourself.
 
1.2f said:
is it true though that ssd are also prone to failures and that if an ssd drive fails the data cant be receovered like a normal hdd?
Click to expand...

Yes and no, I've only had one SSD with a failure straight out the box, not had one fail on me mid use..

I suppose data retrieval would be a lot harder, but i keep all my light room catalogues on an external drive anyway.

The SSD is mainly for the speed of the OS and the programs
 
Carbonangel said:
I have the new 17" macbook pro, its fantastic for image editing, runs lightroom lovely, there can't be another choice for reliability and sexyness in one package
Click to expand...
Sexiness maybe, reliability - debatable.

Carbonangel said:
All Apple gear is custom silicon, always has been, that's why it works, its not just off the shelf as another member put it.
Click to expand...
No it isn't, it's a standard PC with standard OEM parts inside. The processor is standard Intel, the graphics is standard. The chipsets that go along side these are too difficult/expensive for Apple to build as custom...
 
arad85 said:
No it isn't, it's a standard PC with standard OEM parts inside. The processor is standard Intel, the graphics is standard. The chipsets that go along side these are too difficult/expensive for Apple to build as custom...
Click to expand...

quoted for truth.

maybe back in the old days of the powerpc chips, but now everything is standard intel.

and as for reliable, i wish. we've had issues with the new batch of i7 MBP out of the box and their network cards for example.
 
I've had my 17" macbook pro for 2 years now (2.8ghz Core 2 Duo for reference) and it runs like a dream. Just about to upgrade my RAM from 4GB to 8GB but it still handles day to day tasks smoothly and start-up, although inevitably slower than it was as new, is still under a minute unlike my previous windows gaming machine which slowed massively once the hard-drive began filling up. I'm the same as many apple converts, I'd never go back a windows machine because they just don't feel as effortless as Apple make things.
 
this is something which appears to affect windows or apple machines the gradual slowing down -why is this?
 
Isn't it funny how things are relative. My old PC was a C2D 3GHz machine which ran effortlessly and like a dream until I started to deal with raw 5D2 images. I upgraded to an overclocked current gen i7 which just laughed in the face of the old machine and leaves it for dust. BTW, the slowdown isn't due to the disk filling up, but not being careful about what gets installed into the boot path.

My old C2D is now a second media player (xbmc) come DVR system (running MythTV).
 
Last edited:
1.2f said:
this is something which appears to affect windows or apple machines the gradual slowing down -why is this?
Click to expand...
When you install programs/drivers, sometimes they drop small checking programs into the boot path - often to do things like check for updates. The more you add to the system, the more tends to get dropped in there.

To see what your PC runs at boot (and assuming Win7) do Start->run->msconfig and click the startup tab.
 
arad85 said:
When you install programs/drivers, sometimes they drop small checking programs into the boot path - often to do things like check for updates. The more you add to the system, the more tends to get dropped in there.

To see what your PC runs at boot (and assuming Win7) do Start->run->msconfig and click the startup tab.
Click to expand...

andy im running windows xp, but just done as you suggested and got a lot of crappy programs in there - all now happily disabled. thanks for the most helpful post on why this slow down occurs!
 
1.2f said:
andy im running windows xp, but just done as you suggested and got a lot of crappy programs in there - all now happily disabled. thanks for the most helpful post on why this slow down occurs!
Click to expand...
No probs :) Does it boot much quicker now?
 
You'll also have more memory free now too :). Glad it made a difference - it's the only real reason PCs slow (and why you don't need to do a reinstall periodically either!).
 
arad85 said:
Isn't it funny how things are relative. My old PC was a C2D 3GHz machine whicBTW, the slowdown isn't due to the disk filling up, but not being careful about what gets installed into the boot path..
Click to expand...

I stand corrected about it being a hard-drive trait. Regardless, my windows xp pc slowed down dramatically more quickly and excessively (by the end i was waiting >5 minutes for it to start) than my mac under similar sorts of use - if anything I've installed and removed more on my mac than I ever did on my old PC - and I did make the effort on my PC to remove startup items I thought to be unnecessary (although the names of the files were hardly helpful in many cases and often items i'd removed such as MSN and printers would add themselves again of their own accord) so I still believe it true that Mac requires far less maintenance to keep performance to a satisfactory level.

I'm far more competent with computers than most people but don't profess to have anywhere near the knowledge of professionals; despite my ability I HATE having to constantly tinker with my computer to make it run as I'd like it. That's why I love OSX more than any other operating system I've because the only changing of settings is to customise preferences to my liking.
 
sorry but macs do slow down over time, believe me, ive had to rebuild enough of them. that drag to trash method of removing programs is horrible.

W7 doesnt really need any maintenance, defrag is taken care of automatically if needed (not that NTFS fragments as much as the old FAT file systems, and if you have SSD its disabled anyway). havent run a manual one since XP and that was years ago. reg cleaners, again arent really necessary.

havent tinkered (read: maintenance) with any of my W7 builds since install in fact.
 
My laptop is Win7 and I do check it for start-up routines and memory-resident programs occasionally, mainly because it winds me up no end that when I install a program, it insists on putting up a desktop icon, task bar quick launch icon, start menu and applies the "recommended" settings for checking for updates every five b****y minutes. :bang:

I've installed you, now just sit there quietly until I call you for something. And when I click the red cross, that means go away. Not hide in the background, not check the interweb for updates, not post 'likes' on FriendFace or anything else.

User friendly software, my a**e. :razz:
 
usually if its not an option while installing there is a preference within the application to specify loading to system tray and update frequency.

not sure i get the gripe about desktop shortcuts thought, thats what the delete key is for (if again it wasnt an option at install) ;)
 
There is another issue with Win PCs in that you can buy them underspec'd - especially bordering on not enough memory. When that happens (typically with older machines) you end up spending all your time moving memory from to disk and back again which is many thousands of times slower. A startup of 5 minutes seems excessive and that's where I'd be looking (particularly if it were say a 1G machine that has shared graphics - the graphics memory comes out of the 1G area and depending on machine and settings may be quite a bit!).
 
neil_g said:
not sure i get the gripe about desktop shortcuts thought, thats what the delete key is for
Click to expand...
Essentially, the gripe is that it's my computer, I'll decide what goes on it and what it does. I don't need my hand holding by what some company deems to be user friendly. :nono:

For instance; I run Chrome on my netbook because it's a small install. Chrome's recently started raising a lot of issues with Kaspersky (my anti-virus) whenever I'm using it. Turns out that Google have decreed that Kaspersky is no longer allowed to scan SSL transactions within Chrome, so Kaspersky has been terminating the connections. My browser software no longer wants to work with my anti-virus ... yeah, that's a good idea. If only there'd been an option for that in the preferences. :thinking:

And breath .........
 
neil_g said:
sorry but macs do slow down over time, believe me, ive had to rebuild enough of them. that drag to trash method of removing programs is horrible.
Click to expand...

Never said they didn't, just observed that this is slowing down far less than my previous Windows PC. I use appcleaner on my mac rather than dragging to trash so maybe that's part of the answer.

arad85 said:
There is another issue with Win PCs in that you can buy them underspec'd - especially bordering on not enough memory. When that happens (typically with older machines) you end up spending all your time moving memory from to disk and back again which is many thousands of times slower. A startup of 5 minutes seems excessive and that's where I'd be looking (particularly if it were say a 1G machine that has shared graphics - the graphics memory comes out of the 1G area and depending on machine and settings may be quite a bit!).
Click to expand...

My old PC was a gaming laptop, can't remember the spec exactly but it had the top of the line mobile graphics card available at the time...Nvidia 7950 GTX sounds familiar...and had similar high end CPU and RAM specs so memory wasn't the issue I don't imagine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top