The Fastest Vista Notebook Tested This Year...is a Mac

[Spiderman]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...s/article.html

The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year is a Mac [Apple Macbook Pro]. Try that again: The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year--or for that matter, ever--is a Mac. Not a Dell, not a Toshiba, not even an Alienware. The $2419 (plus the price of a copy of Windows Vista, of course) MacBook Pro's PC WorldBench 6 Beta 2 score of 88 beats Gateway's E-265M by a single point, but the MacBook's score is far more impressive simply because Apple couldn't care less whether you run Windows.

Obviously they haven't tested every notebook under the sun, but an interesting result, nonetheless!

[Alejandro]

Because it sure is worth the extra 1500$ish US for the 1 point improvement and Mac Holier-than-though attitude. =/. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...s/article.html

Macbook Pro:
Equipped with a 2.4-GHz Core 2 Duo T7700 processor, the maximum 4GB of RAM, a 160GB hard drive, and a GeForce 8600M GT.

I'd be able to get an up to date Au price, but the apple store isn't loading. =/

Surely if you specced for the same thing with an XPS1730 you'd end up with a tonne of money left over and the same hardware?

Not even Alienware?

From the digg forums:

"And when we look at the specs on the computers they aren't even. Mind you the specs do not include hard drive speed which is an important factor of any performance test.
Macbook: 2.4-GHz Core 2 Duo T7700 / 4096 DDR2-667 SDRAM / 1900 x 1200 / nVidia GeForce 8600M GT 256MB
Alienware: 2.33-GHz Core 2 Duo T7600 / 2048 DDR2-667 SDRAM / 1920 x 1200 / ATI Mobility Radeon X1800 256MB

Then once you look at the actual performance tests, the reason why Alienware lost isn't because it was slower. They didn't even compare the same applications and versions, other than for the gaming tests.

And the final killer. When did the tests occur?
Macbook: 9/14/2007
Alienware: 3/7/2007"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...s/article.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...s/article.html

So really, the article doesn't tell us anything usefull or give any direct comparisons. All it does tell us is that pcworld.com is misleading and likes the ad revenue from hot topic headlines.

[Chris Judd]

Originally Posted by Alejandro

Because it sure is worth the extra 1500$ish US for the 1 point improvement and Mac Holier-than-though attitude. =/. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...s/article.html

Macbook Pro:
Equipped with a 2.4-GHz Core 2 Duo T7700 processor, the maximum 4GB of RAM, a 160GB hard drive, and a GeForce 8600M GT.

I'd be able to get an up to date Au price, but the apple store isn't loading. =/

Surely if you specced for the same thing with an XPS1730 you'd end up with a tonne of money left over and the same hardware?

XPS M1720 with same or better specs = $2569
Standard 17inch (hi res + glossy screen) Macbook pro = $4149

[ghettro]

no surprise really, i mean they are all basically very similar spec CPU, chipset etc. so really 80 points or 81 points is splitting hairs. I doubt there'd be any noticeable difference in the real world in performance. It sounds like just more sensationalist crap. The XPS1730 or equivalent alienware lappy would probably be faster in the real world because you can setup RAID or SLI. but they are heavier and much thicker. 17" macbook pro is 1" thick and 3.08kg, exterior is finished entirely of aluminium not plastic. The Macbook Pro 17" is $3999 in standard guise.
The other thing to consider is, it probably wouldn't bother most gamer kiddies but imagine turning up to a board meeting or anywhere outside a LAN party with this...

[Alejandro]

Just came to about the same conclusion. When you try and go apples for apples.

Macbook: T7700, 4gig Ram, 160gig hard drive, 8600M-GT, 1920x1200 17"
XPS17: T7700, 4gig Ram, 2x160gig hard drives, 2x8700M-GT Sli, 1920x1200 17"

Macbook: 5398.99$ AU
XPS17: 3576.10$ AU

Yes there is the design point of view. But we were talking about speed/power.
If you want a business looking inspiron for 3074.50$ you get:

T7700, 4gig Ram, 2x160gig hard drives(only 5400rpm), 8600M-GT, 1900x1200 17"

As for size, apple does win there.

Inspiron:
Weight: Starting at 7.62 lbs (3.45kg)
Width: 15.5" (394mm)
Height: 1.5" (39mm) front - 1.7" (44mm) back
Depth: 11.5" (293mm)

XPS17:
Weight: Starting at 10.6 lbs (4.81 kg)
Width: 16.0" (406 mm)
Height: <2.00" (50.7 mm)
Depth: 11.9" (302.6 mm)

Macbook:
Weight: 6.8 pounds (3.08 kg) with battery and optical drive installed
Width: 15.4 inches (39.2 cm)
Height: 1.0 inch (2.59 cm)
Depth: 10.4 inches (26.5 cm)

Draw your own conclusions about value for money and how much it's worth to remove some hardware then shrink and paint a laptop white. :P

I know there are many things I would do with 1800 or 2400 dollars.

[ghettro]

Yeah apples aren't as cheap won't deny that, but mind you most people know apple reams people for extra RAM and extra HDD. So when you leave it stock at 2GB RAM the gap is $1150 (including apple tax) with the XPS 1730 @ $2999. Still they are quite different markets as well, the kind of person buying an XPS would never buy a macbook pro. Probably better to compare with something like the precision line which would still be cheaper spec for spec.
Although it probably is less of an issue with 17" lappies seeing as they already are all quite cumbersome and heavy, you can't just ignore form factor on a lappy otherwise you might as well get a desktop and save even more money

[NSanity]

Originally Posted by ghettro

The XPS1730 or equivalent alienware lappy would probably be faster in the real world because you can setup RAID or SLI. but they are heavier and much thicker. 17" macbook pro is 1" thick and 3.08kg, exterior is finished entirely of aluminium not plastic. The Macbook Pro 17" is $3999 in standard guise.
The other thing to consider is, it probably wouldn't bother most gamer kiddies but imagine turning up to a board meeting or anywhere outside a LAN party with this...
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.en...xps-1730-2.jpg

maybe get a colour that isn't in your face?



Sure its still an inch thick and weighs a ton - But I bet it smokes the crap out of a MacBook Anything.

IMG tags removed. Please do not quote images, remove the IMG tags.

[ghettro]

hehe, look I'm sure it can beat a macbook pro in superpi and it's cheaper, I never denied that, but my point is that it is kind of pointless to compare laptops purely on processing power like that article has. I've never really liked any of dell's designs, they're usually quite garish. Although, it does look a lot more subtle in black.

[NIP007]

With the advancements in virtualisation with products such as VMWare Fusion available now, people are going to start considering Apple computers more and more.. I'd pick a Macbook over any of the others any day.

[blixpho]

Originally Posted by NIP007

With the advancements in virtualisation with products such as VMWare Fusion available now, people are going to start considering Apple computers more and more.. I'd pick a Macbook over any of the others any day.

im sure most of us would pic a mac as well. only that they are so freaken exspensive

[NIP007]

Originally Posted by blixpho

im sure most of us would pic a mac as well. only that they are so freaken exspensive

They're not so bad nowadays. Macbooks (13") and iMacs (20") can be bought for around $1600 now. The stock specs are pretty decent as well. Mac Pros are another story... so sweet though

[dazzyd]

http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np9261-...1c-p-1932.html

now this is sweet!!