Apple Macbook Pro 17'' vs. Dell Studio XPS 16''

[Jimbo]

Oh really? Can you explain to me why the Mac OS is less susceptible to viruses? I'm a technical guy so I can understand.

Uhhh....OK.

1. Mac OS X uses background processes (daemons) with unique security contexts for each logged in user. Win XP uses "interactive services" with root access. This was addressed in Vista.

2. Poor File Housekeeing - With XP, important system files are strewn everywhere. System files are hidden, root directories/desktops aren't always root. Ooops...apps have to comply with 8.3 naming conventions so you have cryptic file names that could mean anything. I can navigate to the desktop on XP but then go no higher? Etc, etc. Simply put, it's very easy for someone to hide malicious files with all this mish-mash of confusing structure.

3. Concept of Least Privilege and Secondary sign-ons in Windows is bad news. Do a search on the hack MakeMeAdmin.

4. Unlike the Mac OS X (and unixes), creating a new process is expensive (i.e. system resources, time, memory, etc). so many developers use this thing called shared services to lump a whole bunch of processes together - and many times these processes should be separate. so the notion of cordoned-off protected areas of memory and unique address space is gone. Just look at svchost.exe and see how many services this one process can spawn. On OSX one daemon is one process. By the way, the latest Conficker worm gets in through svchost.exe.

5. Damn hard to run Windows with anything less than Admin privs - and thus malicious code always has a straight shot. I'm surprised how many Windows apps REQUIRE admin privs. In OS X when an install or important task needs it, you have to enter an admin pwd so it's clear. With Windows once you're running in admin you're never required to reenter pwds when performing root level stuff. And most Window users run under admin.

6. Clunky and annoying user interface design makes it so bothersome for end users, they get fed up with the constant notices, popups, etc, that they often bypass security updates, scans, etc.

The Mac isn't perfect and it's not 100% totally secure but it's really a misnomer that Macs don't get infected as much as Windows simply because of obscurity or a smaller population. MS has been tied to backward compatibility and chose not to go with a modern clean sheet of paper.

Apple took a huge architectural leap with NextStep and it along with Mach/Unix provided a robust architectural base for them to build upon. If MS was smart (IMHO) they should have did what Apple did a decade ago. Start fresh and with a proven kernel (Linux) and built a new version of Windows upon that. Too late now.

-J

 

[flaminio]

Name a specific job that the average user does that can't be done on a Mac. You keep saying "time to actually get some work done", what kind of work are you talking about? Both can do Office, emailing, video/photo/audio editing, web browsing, etc..

I'm not saying that the Mac can't do everything Windows can do (and vice versa). I'm just reporting on what my clients do. Every one of them runs Parallels (or some other virtualization/dual boot solution) and XP. Why? I don't know. But I do know that when we build a Mac, the very first thing we install is Parallels and XP. And then Office 2007.

The one thing that Windows beats Mac OS with is Outlook. Most businesses run Outlook, and Entourage just doesn't compare. But this is more Microsoft's fault than Apple's.

 

[flaminio]

Windows 7 still looks like Vista to me.

It *is* Vista. Just don't tell anybody, 'cause everyone knows Vista sucks, and Windows 7's gonna be awesome. :wink:

 

[KSXNSX]

Windows 7 still looks like Vista to me. It does seem to work better though. Meh, I'll be sticking with OSX, works for me. :smile:

+1

What has Msft been doing for the past 10 years? They put so much into R&D, but they seem to ignore user-interface improvements.

Just from what I've seen of Windows 7, it is just a fixed Vista.

They keep bragging about this Aero interface, but all that is, is semi-transparent windows?

The task bar shortcuts are neat--but guess what? I've been using that set-up in XP for over 4 years now. I do like the new hover-over previews (which reminds me a lot of cooliris), but it no way does that compare to the functionality of expose. I mean, just compare the functionality of expose on the mac to that 3-D thing where you scroll through all your windows open (and the taskbar preview thing) on windows and it is clear which company knows how to design a user-interface. Add in the multi-touch on the MBPs, and it is a no-contest.

I am not a msft hater, but I think they need to step up their R&D game and work more on GUI improvements.

I wonder why msft just doesn't straight-out copy mac on expose. I mean, if you are going to copy the "trash can" and call it the "recycle bin", you may as well copy expose and call it "reveal" or something to that effect.

I haven't tried the search on the mac yet, but I think both companies could learn a lesson from Mozilla and/or Google on search. Have any of you tried to find an email in Thunderbird? Best search I've ever used before.

When is google going to get into the game of operating systems? Google platform + 3rd party web developers = greatness.

 

[lrsudog]

I'm not saying that the Mac can't do everything Windows can do (and vice versa). I'm just reporting on what my clients do. Every one of them runs Parallels (or some other virtualization/dual boot solution) and XP. Why? I don't know. But I do know that when we build a Mac, the very first thing we install is Parallels and XP. And then Office 2007.

The one thing that Windows beats Mac OS with is Outlook. Most businesses run Outlook, and Entourage just doesn't compare. But this is more Microsoft's fault than Apple's.

I work in an industry where the actual work essentially requires a Mac.

It is the ancillary business and personal software needs that require Windows, either because an analogous application is not available for the Mac OS (My Polar watch running software, Homeworld, Halo), or because it is not as well designed for the Mac OS (Quicken), or because it is just far cheaper in Windows (Punch home design).


The solution used to be to have a Mac and a cheap desktop PC, but now I can have it all in one box.

Oddly, given that I have both Entourage and Outlook available on my Macbook Pro, I still prefer Entourage, and that is what we use. Perhaps simply because the nature of my project management needs dovetails better with Entourage's strengths.

 

[NSXrebel]

Another reason why people may still load Windows on their Macs is because it's hard to let go of something you're so used to using for years/decade. My first move to OSX was with a PowerPC Mac mini. My notebook at the time was a Sony VAIO. I didn't fully go with Mac OSX until 2006, when I purchased an Intel MacBook. By then I was very familiar with OSX and didn't have a need for Windows anymore.

I haven't had a need for any Windows specific application. I have found a Mac version or equivalent of any application I have ever used. I used to use SoundForge back when it was Sonic Foundry before Sony acquired it, now I have GarageBand or Pro Tools. For home videos, Windows Movie Maker has nothing on iMovie & iDVD/Toast

I don't consider myself a fanboy, but I am a fan of just about everything Apple. I'm a US Marine(in other words poor ), mostly conservative, straight, woman-loving, beer-drinking(wine/cognac too), sportscar loving, crotch rocket riding, red-meat-eating, red-blooded American. I do like Starbucks, but I don't go there often or much less spend time there using my MacBook, so I don't quite fit the stereotypical bill of an Apple user. :wink::biggrin:

 

[KSXNSX]

I think I'm over 95% Apple Macbook Pro now. The questions that remain are:

15'' vs. 17'' (leaning more towards 17'' at this point)
If 17'', glossy vs. anti-glare screen
256Gb SSD vs. 320 Gb HDD

I went to the Mac store and went to check out the screens. It's stupid that they didn't put the glossy and anti-glare screens side-by-side. They were back-to-back, so I had to shuffle things around on the table.

The glossy screen is definitely more attractive. The colors look better; black looks blacker; white looks whiter; all the colors are more vivid and pop out. It is like watching HD TV. It's very appealing.

The only problem is that the glare is very bad. I mean, you could see reflections of everything in the room. The lights overhead were very bright in the reflections.

The anti-glare screen really does resolve the problem (I was amazed by the difference) but you lose that HD TV experience. It looks like any other computer screen out there. It really does take away from the experience imo. And as a minor cosmetic issue, the aluminum bezel doesn't look nearly as good as the black surrounding on the glossy screen.

Not really sure what to do on this one. Get the anti-glare for utility/function, or the glossy screen for looks/eye candy?

They didn't have any SSDs in the macbook pros, but I tried one on a macbook air. The computer itself was much, much, much slower, but i don't know if it was the SSD or the other components (much weaker than a macbook pro).

 

[NSXrebel]

.... But I do know that when we build a Mac, the very first thing we install is Parallels and XP. And then Office 2007.

The one thing that Windows beats Mac OS with is Outlook. Most businesses run Outlook, and Entourage just doesn't compare. But this is more Microsoft's fault than Apple's.

I didn't know you (or anyone besides Apple) were in the business of building Macs(hackintosh?)

I think I'm over 95% Apple Macbook Pro now. The questions that remain are:

15'' vs. 17'' (leaning more towards 17'' at this point)
If 17'', glossy vs. anti-glare screen
256Gb SSD vs. 320 Gb HDD

I went to the Mac store and went to check out the screens. It's stupid that they didn't put the glossy and anti-glare screens side-by-side. They were back-to-back, so I had to shuffle things around on the table.

The glossy screen is definitely more attractive. The colors look better; black looks blacker; white looks whiter; all the colors are more vivid and pop out. It is like watching HD TV. It's very appealing.

The only problem is that the glare is very bad. I mean, you could see reflections of everything in the room. The lights overhead were very bright in the reflections.

The anti-glare screen really does resolve the problem (I was amazed by the difference) but you lose that HD TV experience. It looks like any other computer screen out there. It really does take away from the experience imo. And as a minor cosmetic issue, the aluminum bezel doesn't look nearly as good as the black surrounding on the glossy screen.

Not really sure what to do on this one. Get the anti-glare for utility/function, or the glossy screen for looks/eye candy?

They didn't have any SSDs in the macbook pros, but I tried one on a macbook air. The computer itself was much, much, much slower, but i don't know if it was the SSD or the other components (much weaker than a macbook pro).

So did you get the MacBook Pro yet? I was thinking about upgrading to a 15" MacBook Pro, but I think I'm gonna go with the 13.3" MacBook with illuminated keyboard. I don't need the extra processing power.

 

[flaminio]

I didn't know you (or anyone besides Apple) were in the business of building Macs(hackintosh?)

You know what I mean. I can't deliver a new Mac out of the box to a client. I need to install all the apps, transfer all the data, make sure all the connectivity and peripherals work the way he expects it, and so forth. AKA "build".

It'd be nice to be able to just drop a computer on a client's desk and walk away, but whether it's a Windows or Mac OS machine, that ain't gonna happen. Both require similar levels of configuration; indeed, the Mac requires more, 'cause I have to install Parallels and XP as well and basically configure everything twice.

 

[socalx]

i was the first to respond.. here are the answers to your latest 3 questions

a) glossy versus matte. we have owned both, and currently have the glossy as with the new unibody 15" mac pro you no longer have the choice. the reality is matte is better a)doesn't show finger prints, b) doesn't show lint, c) and you don't see your own reflection which can be annoying.

b) 15 vs 17. that is a tougher one. the 17" can be had with the better matte screen, however we did not like how the 17" battery was non-removeable. (for extreme battery life the battery in the 17" is integrated , it actually is in 3 seperate places (extra space) inside the notebook, thus not user replaceable. the pro to this design is extreme battery life, and apple says that the battery will last (in terms of cycles) a very long time. I just don't like items where consumables cannot be user replaced.

c)hard drive versus solid state. this is an area that i know alote about. to many the concept of a computer with a non moving hard drive (solid state memory) is attractive. understand that depending on the way you use the devise a hard drive may or may not be more reliable then solid state. solid state drives are better at reading then writing, so if your applications write to the drive very often then a hard drive may be more reliable. each generation of solid state memory, pcmcia, to compact flash, to solid state getts better in terms of reliability and ability to not wear out as data is written, but one thing a hard drive does well is spreading the writes all over the disc and therefore not wearing out. a new solid state drive simulates this by using alogorithums to spread the load.

i would probably prefer solid state all things being equal, but would back up either with apples good time machine software.

 

[NSXrebel]

The best thing about MAC is the advertising. They do a great job of making you think you want one.

http://9to5mac.com/apple-ad-pc-hunters

 

[NetViper]

http://9to5mac.com/apple-ad-pc-hunters

The latest ads are great. Like I said, the best thing about mac's are the ads.

One day someone will make a virus to destroy all these "virus-free computers". Then MAC commercials will have to think of something else to talk about.

 

[ryans]

I think both macs and pc's are over rated. If i'm going to run some special app that requires on os over the other then I'll use that one. But what I do is run Linux. Most people just use the internet, office apps and email. Linux runs fine doing these and you don't even need great hardware. I've got an old HP notebook with 2GB ram and it flys. I don't have to worry about viruses etc becase linux does not get virus's. The same reason macs don't get viruses because they're using Linux BSD as their OS with their own custom gui. Then they charge you 3 grand for something you could get away with for $400.

 

[flaminio]

I don't have to worry about viruses etc becase linux does not get virus's.

O RLY?

Linux doesn't get viruses for the same reason Macs don't: security through obscurity. If either platform achieved a meaningful market share, it'd be hacked up just as much as Windows is.

 

[NSXrebel]

O RLY?

Linux doesn't get viruses for the same reason Macs don't: security through obscurity. If either platform achieved a meaningful market share, it'd be hacked up just as much as Windows is.

I doubt anything would be hacked as much as Windows.
I don't doubt if Macs/Linux gained a bigger market share there would be viruses made for those OS', but as many as Windows? Please...

 

[flaminio]

I don't doubt if Macs/Linux gained a bigger market share there would be viruses made for those OS', but as many as Windows? Please...

Remind me again which was the first computer to be hacked at CanSecWest?

 

[Jimbo]

O RLY?

Linux doesn't get viruses for the same reason Macs don't: security through obscurity. If either platform achieved a meaningful market share, it'd be hacked up just as much as Windows is.

You're just wrong here. There would be so much in the way of bragging rites if someone could write a virus that really crippled (in the real world, not some bogus scenario) Mac OS X. Many have tried to write viruses and they've been stymied. It has nothing to do with market share.

I've already responded with the technical reasons why it's very difficult for anyone to write a viable Mac OS X virus. The closest that anyone has come in the real world is the iWork virus that was loaded onto a pirated version of iWork that was posted on BitTorrent. People who downloaded this questionable and known stolen app knowingly installed this by providing username and password. Nothing will stop this kind of attack when you have the administrator knowingly providing a login and pwd.

Ask 100 Mac OS X users and 100 Windows users if they've ever been infected and compromised with a virus.

 

[NSXrebel]

Remind me again which was the first computer to be hacked at CanSecWest?

Charlie Miller said he came to the CanSecWest security conference with a plan to hack into Safari and had tested the exploit carefully to ensure “it worked the first time.”

right... he already knew the exploit before hand. It's not like he showed up and magically out of the blue came up with a hack within seconds. Not only that, but the attack was on Safari 4, which is in beta right now.

maybe you can keep your Windows machine virus free and may not even run an antivirus, but all those poor people out there stuck with Windows are SOL. OSX and Linux are safer than Windows wether you like it or not.

 

[Jimbo]

Regarding the tired argument of "security through obscurity"...

Prior to Mac OS X, the Macintosh did indeed suffer from viruses. Way back in the late 80s and 90s, with System 6, 7, 8, the Mac did indeed get viruses. And Macs back then were less common than today. Why did this happen?

Because the OS design and architecture, that's why.

Kind of blows away this notion of security through obscurity doesn't it?

 

[Malibu Rapper]

You're just wrong here. There would be so much in the way of bragging rites if someone could write a virus that really crippled (in the real world, not some bogus scenario) Mac OS X. Many have tried to write viruses and they've been stymied. It has nothing to do with market share.

I've already responded with the technical reasons why it's very difficult for anyone to write a viable Mac OS X virus. The closest that anyone has come in the real world is the iWork virus that was loaded onto a pirated version of iWork that was posted on BitTorrent. People who downloaded this questionable and known stolen app knowingly installed this by providing username and password. Nothing will stop this kind of attack when you have the administrator knowingly providing a login and pwd.

Ask 100 Mac OS X users and 100 Windows users if they've ever been infected and compromised with a virus.

It has a lot to do with market share. I saw your post about the technical reasons and they really don't make the Mac any less susceptible to an exploit or virus than a Vista box. There seems to be a comparison of OS X to XP which isn't fair.

Security by obscurity, I can guarantee you if you're running OS2 right now you're probably extremely safe from viruses. Ubuntu had many exploits but who really wants to attack it?

maybe you can keep your Windows machine virus free and may not even run an antivirus, but all those poor people out there stuck with Windows are SOL. OSX and Linux are safer than Windows wether you like it or not.

Again, this is XP. OS X is susceptible to viruses, it was pwned at CanSecWest and it will be pwned if it's lucrative enough. It's not as if virus authors are destined for fame, the very best scenario is that they get a job as a security advisor but now they get busted and jailtime.

 

[flaminio]

Security by obscurity, I can guarantee you if you're running OS2 right now you're probably extremely safe from viruses.

My CP/M machine never gets a virus, and I don't run any kind of antivirus software at all. It must be super secure, right?

 

[NSXrebel]

so did you get the MBP yet?

 

[KSXNSX]

so did you get the MBP yet?

Not yet. I am waiting until after WWDC (~June 7-12?) to see if they will announce when Snow Leopard will be released. I won't need the computer until August, so I have some time to see what's up.

I'm also waiting for the back-to-school specials, which should be sometime in mid-summer if I am not mistaken.

In the mean time, I am testing out a Dell Studio XPS 16.

So far, it is a decent computer. The only flaws I have found so far are:

1. The keyboard has some substantial flex in the middle. It is solid at the two sides, but the center 1/3 of the keyboard flexes downwards when you are just typing normally. I would say it is a 2-5mm downward flex. It is slightly annoying. Definitely not something I would expect on their high-end line of computers.

2. The placement of the plug for the power adapter is on the right, near the screen hinge. Incidentally, the plug sticks out to just where my hand would be comfortable for mouse movement. I have found myself hitting the plug while just performing normal mouse gestures. This is slightly annoying too. It is easily avoidable by just moving your hand over a little, but my hand is just so used to that placement.

3. Trackpad. This thing is terrible. The coefficient of friction is a little too high for me, but then again, I have sweaty hands [but I am sure many of you will also have sweaty hands while using this thing since the palm rests are so HOT]. It looks like they just sprayed some cheap coating on the panel to make it smoother, but they failed for my taste.

4. Glare on the screen. This applies more generally to all screens, but if there is any sunlight coming in from behind you, you will not be a happy camper. The screen is gorgeous at night though. No glare with just a floor lamp placed laterally. I will really have to think about the anti-glare option on the macbook pro.

That's it for now. The computer has been absolutely silent. It runs hot under the palms and closer towards the end-user, so I have been feeling hot all day long. Trackpad does not compare to the macbook Pro at all.

Vista is not bad at all, but I haven't used any hardware with it. Pretty responsive system. A few lags here and there while downloading a large file and doing a lot of other stuff in the background.

4Gb DDR3
2.4 Ghz Intel
500 Gb 7200 RPM HDD

Screenshot:

 

[NetViper]

1. The keyboard has some substantial flex in the middle. It is solid at the two sides, but the center 1/3 of the keyboard flexes downwards when you are just typing normally. I would say it is a 2-5mm downward flex. It is slightly annoying. Definitely not something I would expect on their high-end line of computers.

I have an XPS1330 (13.3 inch screen) and the keyboard is fine. Something is wrong with that one.

2. The placement of the plug for the power adapter is on the right, near the screen hinge. Incidentally, the plug sticks out to just where my hand would be comfortable for mouse movement. I have found myself hitting the plug while just performing normal mouse gestures. This is slightly annoying too. It is easily avoidable by just moving your hand over a little, but my hand is just so used to that placement.

Mine is on the left. No real issues.

3. Trackpad. This thing is terrible. The coefficient of friction is a little too high for me, but then again, I have sweaty hands [but I am sure many of you will also have sweaty hands while using this thing since the palm rests are so HOT]. It looks like they just sprayed some cheap coating on the panel to make it smoother, but they failed for my taste.

Hmm... mine is really nice. Works very well and the sliders on it are great. I really did like how the thinkpad mouse worked. The position of my trackpad is a little low and can sometime be a pain.

4. Glare on the screen. This applies more generally to all screens, but if there is any sunlight coming in from behind you, you will not be a happy camper. The screen is gorgeous at night though. No glare with just a floor lamp placed laterally. I will really have to think about the anti-glare option on the macbook pro.

The glossy screen looks amazing, but you are right about the glare. In the sun it sucks! If you use it a lot outside, get the anti-glare.

My only complaints are the unit does get very hot. It can be uncomfortable for a long period of time on your lap and it occasionally makes a lot of fan noise.

I like your OSX like toolbar. Did it come like that? Mine has one, but it looks nothing like that.

 

[KSXNSX]

I have an XPS1330 (13.3 inch screen) and the keyboard is fine. Something is wrong with that one.

I think it is just common to the design on the computer. I've seen online reviews that claim the exact same thing. Soft in the middle, but ok on the sides.


Windows 7 is nothing special. I don't get what the hype is all about. It is almost exactly the same as Vista.

Overall it is a decent computer--and especially with the huge price difference I will have to think twice about the Macbook Pro. I can get 8 Gb of DDr3 Ram, a 2.93 Ghz processor, and a 256 Gb SSD for about $1000.00 less than a MacbookPro with lesser hardware/specs.