My laptop slipped off a table yesterday and landed on the power supply connector. The computer still works, if you stick a fresh battery in, but it cannot be charged up on its own. Rendering it mostly useless. The frame of the computer was dented in such a way that you can't really install a new power connector without getting a new frame.
The computer is a 3 year old Macbook Pro. I took it to the Apple store yesterday. They said it'd be about $150 ($100 + labor) for a new connector and another 150 for a new frame. But that if I went to an independent repair service I might be able to skimp on the new frame. Later I went to TekServe, where a friend of mine works, and he said A) they would definitely need to fix the frame, B) the whole price somehow came out to $500+, C) my computer made scary clicking sounds and excessive fan noise and basically could crap out at any time.
AppleCare also ran out, apparently in September. (Thought it was last week, actually, but apparently the school that gave me the laptop on opening day bought it two months earlier)
So.... I really don't know what to do here. I was anticipating getting another computer in another year or two, unless it crapped out on its own. The one I have works fine if I could just power it, but I'm not sure it's worth putting additional money into.
Basically, I am looking for a) some satisfying (hopefully but not necessarily logical) reason to commit to either fixing the current computer or getting a new one, and b) advice on what type of computer to get if I do get a new one).
If I'm getting a Mac, it's going to be the current 15" MacBook Pro for $1799 (possibly a used version, not sure how I feel about that).
For the first time in my life, I am actually open to the possibility of getting a PC. I'm aware of the advantages/disadvantages of PC vs Mac. If the price is equal, I prefer a Mac. But if someone can demonstrate that I can get a significantly cheaper PC with capabilities comparable to the MacBook Pro, I'd consider that. (I think my official coefficient of MacAwesomeNess benchmark is such that the PC would have to be $1200 or less).
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Well, what do you use the computer for, currently? What programs are you using the most?
Those two questions will help guide my advice, mostly.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm a casual gamer. Periodically I am sad that my computer can't run new games awesomely, but it's not usually relevant. (It'd be kinda cool if I could run StarCraft II at higher than the minimum graphics, which was pretty much what my old computer could handle).
The main programs I run are Photoshop, Maya (3D animation) and Unity (game engine, similar in scope to Unreal). They all ran fine on the old computer, although Maya could get a little slow. My primary use of my laptop for the next year, beyond internet and watching stuff online, will be working on a game.
All the programs I use work on both Mac and PC, with the exception of Final Cut Pro (which I use only very occasionally). I currently only own the Mac versions. I honestly wouldn't feel bad about "acquiring" windows versions through non-official channels, but I WOULD be annoyed at the hassle and since one of the issues with Windows IS security, esp. when dealing with those parts of the internet, I'm not sure I really want to.
I own Windows 7 and play most of my games via Boot Camp.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
This one exceeds the specs in your MacBook for $1,099. With its video card and Core i7 processor, it should run circles around the MacBook (and play about any game on the market). Aesthetically, it's pretty nice as well (with the best keyboard around).
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
You can get a nice PC laptop for under $1200. Obviously, you want to look for a laptop with a dual-core processor and plenty of memory, so Photoshop and Maya will run well. Just for performance reasons, I think you'll want a Core i5 or i7 processor and a minimum of 4GB of memory.
I'm not in touch with the laptop gaming market at the moment, so my advice just became less useful, for that perspective.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
This one exceeds the specs in your MacBook for $1,099. With its video card and Core i7 processor, it should run circles around the MacBook (and play about any game on the market). Aesthetically, it's pretty nice as well (with the best keyboard around).
Hmm. I'll ponder that. I have a techie friend coming home this weekend for Christmas who's going to take a look at it. He's heavily Mac biased (so's my whole family) but I feel like it's time to at least try owning a PC and see what it's like.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I'll throw out a recommendation for the HP Elitebook line. They're built better than the HP Pavilion consumer laptops. The only downside is...I don't know how they stack up on gaming graphics. They handle Photoshop just fine, though.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Photoshop's the least of my worries, honestly. Anything I get that can handle Maya and Unity should run Photoshop just fine. It's not a benchmark program, just something I use a lot.
I will also need some equivalent of Garage Band.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
If Mac is what you've always been comfortable with, and if it serves your needs just fine, then I see no compelling reason to change to PC - even if it comes down to saving a few hundred bucks. You'll be more satisfied in the long run.
Besides, you can always install Windows on a Mac. You can't (legally) do it the other way around.
Oh, and this is coming from a lifetime PC user.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: I'll throw out a recommendation for the HP Elitebook line. They're built better than the HP Pavilion consumer laptops. The only downside is...I don't know how they stack up on gaming graphics. They handle Photoshop just fine, though.
According to PC World's annual report, HP computers are bottom of the pile in both reliability and customer service:
ASUS is tops, up there with Apple it seems. Here's a sweet ASUS for $799. It has a nice graphics card and Core i7. Unlike the Sony, however, no Blu-ray.
According to my experience at work, HP is perfectly fine. Their reliability (on their business line) is every bit as good as anything else that wanders into the office. And, we hardly ever have trouble getting service.
Personally, my experience with Sony leads me to want to stay far away from their computers. (I sold them for a couple of years and I've worked on a few of their laptops and desktops in my time.) I wasn't going to say anything, but ... Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Customer service is definitely something I'm concerned about, if I'm trying out a new computer system.
I've used windows a lot at work, but I've never been responsible for my own technical issues, I just call up our office tech guy.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'd prefer studies to anecdotes, honestly. For every person who says X is terrible, I can find someone else who claims Y is worse.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: ASUS is tops, up there with Apple it seems.
i highly recommended ASUS as well. their products are of high quality and are reliable. this is anecdotal but ive repaired countless HP and dell machines but ive yet to see an ASUS. i have my own speculations (well, some arent speculations) as to why that is but i dont know of any studies besides consumer reviews.
newegg allows you to compare costs as well as specs of models and manufacturers and they have a large selection of ASUS laptops. with PCs you always get more, performance wise, for your dollar. allegedly, theres a reason the same hardware specs cost a lot more in macs but this thread isnt a place for such a debate; in the end it really comes down to what the customer wants.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
What's the non-Mac equivalent of GarageBand? I'm just starting to think about getting some software and I thought I might as well start here since Raymond brought it up.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
This is actually occurring to me as a potential problem: I have some music files that I'll be continuing to work on for my game, and I'd prefer to not have to rebuild them from scratch in another program.
It's not $800 worth of inconvenience, but it is an inconvenience.
@Capax: I do believe that Mac Hardware is genuinely better. But again, not necessarily $800 worth of better. (Oh, btw, does anyone know how the price difference scales? If you can get a $1000 PC with similar specs to a $1800 Mac, is a $2000 PC the equivalent of a $2800 Mac or a $3600, or some random point in between?)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I do believe that Mac Hardware is genuinely better.
Out of curiosity, which hardware components do you think are better? I'm honestly not trying to start a Mac vs. PC debate, but I wonder what Mac fans have in mind when they say that Macs have better hardware. The major components are all the same as you could find in a PC.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I've been coveting Alienware's m11x, myself, if screen real-estate isn't a huge sticking point. They've been getting fantastic reviews in just about every periodical that's featured them.
At the low end, Apple hardware is generally pretty competitive, at least right after a refresh. That's MacBooks and iMacs, though the longer since a refresh, the less competitive they get (I'd say it often gets to a $150 to $300 premium, depending on how much you value certain features of the low end macs). At the high end, Apple hardware is less competitive (a markup of hundreds of dollars, because people buying Mac Pros and MacBook Pros are generally people who prefer a Mac enough that the price doesn't matter), though it often has touches (such as body construction quality, and ease of access in Mac Pros) that are not available until you get to a similar price range.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I agree with Jon Boy. Yes, the Mac hardware is the same. I agree that it's well selected for quality, but Mac doesn't manufacture any of it themselves. The problem I have with it, is that you're paying a significant premium for the name -- the actual guts of their computers are usually moderately outdated and overpriced (by PC standards).
I mean, an $1,800 + PC that only has a Core i5? Core i7 is almost universal above the $1,000 price point for PC laptops.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I have heard from a few people whose technical expertise I trust that there are legitimate architectural differences. (One that I can recall offhand had to do with the way the graphics card is integrated into a Mac is different than a PC).
Beyond that, while you could choose the individual parts that are high quality, Mac makes sure that all the parts they use work correctly with the operating system. PCs have lots of options for what hardware to select, which is great for the options, but it means its harder to make sure Windows works correctly with every single one. Apple designs a specific OS for specific hardware, minimizing compatibility issues. Presumably if you know what you're doing with a PC, you can just buy the right parts and save the money, but most people don't know what they're doing, so the extra money IS going towards know-how that they wouldn't personally have.
I went back to the Apple store, and they gave me the same $270 quote they gave before, with the caveat that if it turns out they can't fix it in house, they'd have to send it out where the price would be around $600. Basically if they can fix in house I'll just keep it till it runs into the ground, if not I'll get a new computer, probably a PC, for experimental purposes if nothing else.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I have heard from a few people whose technical expertise I trust that there are legitimate architectural differences. (One that I can recall offhand had to do with the way the graphics card is integrated into a Mac is different than a PC).
This is not true at the moment. There was a time it was sort of true in the past, and it might be briefly true again in the future, when Apple moves to a new internal bus (the move should be coming in the next couple of years).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Is that referring to the graphics card part or the architectural differences in general?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
With the Core i processors, everyone is on the same "bus". There's no distinction.
There used to be architecture differences, but the parts are all the same now -- except for screens, keyboards, cases, and trackpads.
Yes, Apple spends a lot of effort on software / hardware compatibility, but it's required because they write the software. A PC manufacturer, on the other hand, is selecting hardware that works best with the existing OS. This might have meant a much higher quality disparity in the past, but nearly every industry analyst believes that Windows 7 levels the playing field (much as Android has).
With a good laptop manufacturer, you can have an equivalent experience at this point with either Apple or Windows. Apple users pay a premium for design, branding, and a integrated "experience" (which are indeed powerful factors). PC users have a competitive market driving down prices and a much larger software selection.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Honestly, I just bought a used (but perfectly functional) three-year-old Macbook Pro for $350. If they're quoting you $270 to -maybe- fix it, I'd just take that money and buy a used computer. It'll last a year or two, and then you can figure out what you want to spend on a new one.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Huh. My impression (possibly wrong, but I'm hopeful) is that if it turns out to be more than $270, or that they can't fix it in house, I'll get a call asking about what to do with it). But you may be right, that getting a used computer is the best option anyway.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Is that referring to the graphics card part or the architectural differences in general?
They're pretty much identical internally, in terms of how the architecture works. In terms of how the inside is laid out, apple's internals are better laid out than anyone's at a lower price point, and generally better than even ones at a comparable price point. The thing is, that matters very little for consumers, except people who have Mac Pros (or who prioritize really thin laptops or small computers).
There are rumors apple will be replacing some of their internal bus with a light peak-based one. If they do that, they'll have better internals for a little bit. Intel has already demonstrated an optical bus based on light peak for graphics cards, many of their light peak demonstrations have been on OS X, and it is known that Apple has had a lot of input into the development process, so the idea isn't especially outrageous.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The Apple Store ended up fixing it for the $270, which I expect to last about another year or two. But from what I've read here it's looking like my next computer will be Windows, and I appreciate the advice. Thanks all. Merry Christmas.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: I'll throw out a recommendation for the HP Elitebook line. They're built better than the HP Pavilion consumer laptops. The only downside is...I don't know how they stack up on gaming graphics. They handle Photoshop just fine, though.
According to PC World's annual report, HP computers are bottom of the pile in both reliability and customer service:
ASUS is tops, up there with Apple it seems. Here's a sweet ASUS for $799. It has a nice graphics card and Core i7. Unlike the Sony, however, no Blu-ray.
Well that's pretty disappointing considering I just decided to buy an HP. I've been looking at ASUS lately, but they don't sell direct, and I don't like any of the models I've seen. On the other hand, HP and Dell seem to rate relatively the same, despite being at the bottom of the barrel, and I've never really been unhappy with them on the whole. The laptop I'm on right now is a Dell, eight years old, and all the problems it has had were fixed pretty quickly and in a satisfactory manner. The motherboard, fan, heat sink and screen all died at once about three years ago, and they fixed it all, in-home, in like two days. Ran like a champ after that for a couple years.
I'm still feeling okay about it.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
Anecdotal, but being a gamer and having owned both HP and ASUS laptops I'm firmly in the ASUS camp. It does so much more for less money and reliably too. I had to send my HP in for repairs at least twice a year in the 3 years I owned it before the harddrive died. My ASUS is still chugging happily with no problems after a year and a half. You can get reasonably priced gaming laptops including ASUS machines here.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)