I WANT to switch to a Mac but...

[Vots]

Well I want to switch to a Mac, I'm a Microsoft fanboy but just getting tired of Windows and its errors.

The problem I'm having is I want a computer that can handle video editing very well. I've been directed to a MacBook Pro. But the cheapest model which is the 15 inch, 2.2 GHz model is $2000 (plus an extra $300 to add Final Cut into it) is around $2350.

This is a problem for me, because I don't get how the cheapest model for MacBook Pro costs as much a high end PC and has lesser specs then one.

It's got a dual core processor only running at 2.2 GHz compared to my cheap PC which has a dual core running at 3.2 GHz. And my PC was some cheap $800 Dell. This MacBook Pro though does have 2 GB of RAM (1GB more then my PC) and an 8600 graphics card compared to my PC's 6400. But is 1 more GB of RAM and a better graphics card worth $1500 more then what my current PC costed? I don't think so.

Am I missing something here?

PS - I'm new to the Mac world, feel free to correct me.

 

[D3v1L80Y]

You simply cannot compare a Macintosh hardware setup with a Windows hardware setup.
Even if the components were exactly the same, the machines would still operate completely different.
A Mac running OS X can utilize lesser specs and still run efficiently and in some cases outperform a 'better' equipped Windows machine at certain tasks.

Don't worry about hardware specs. Instead, get your hands on a machine and actually try one out if you can. That is the only way to truly compare machines running Windows and Mac OS.

 

[Title27GT]

Well I want to switch to a Mac, I'm a Microsoft fanboy but just getting tired of Windows and its errors.

The problem I'm having is I want a computer that can handle video editing very well. I've been directed to a MacBook Pro. But the cheapest model which is the 15 inch, 2.2 GHz model is $2000 (plus an extra $300 to add Final Cut into it) is around $2350.

This is a problem for me, because I don't get how the cheapest model for MacBook Pro costs as much a high end PC and has lesser specs then one.

It's got a dual core processor only running at 2.2 GHz compared to my cheap PC which has a dual core running at 3.2 GHz. And my PC was some cheap $800 Dell. This MacBook Pro though does have 2 GB of RAM (1GB more then my PC) and an 8600 graphics card compared to my PC's 6400. But is 1 more GB of RAM and a better graphics card worth $1500 more then what my current PC costed? I don't think so.

Am I missing something here?

PS - I'm new to the Mac world, feel free to correct me.

If you're worried about price and your computer is still doing what you need it to do for much less than a MBP than maybe it's not quite time to switch. Perhaps try and get some more mileage out of your PC.

 

[elephantattack]

first, you're not comparing apples to apples... Your 800 dollar dell was a desktop... Otherwise you couldn't get 3.2ghz out of it for 800 bucks! the MBP is a LAPTOP. That's pretty normal. Laptops are more expensive than desktops... usually... There's always the REALLY killer systems like the MacPro that cost $2,400 or more. But do you REALLY need that? Doubtful.
One thing to know about the MacPro though is... The BASE model is a quad core! The high end one is EIGHT!
THEN if you're a student like me, you get a discount about 10% so that would knock your final MBP price down $235 ($2,120)
Basically, if you want to go INSANELY fast you can, it will cost you about 2800 (including final cut), that's for the MacPro BTW.

 

[dtravis7]

3.2 Ghz? Sounds like the old P4 Dual Core. The new Lower Clocked Intel Core Dual and Core 2 Duo blows down any of the older P4 type CPU's. They are not even close. Also you can't compare a desktop to a laptop. A Pro laptop costs way more.

 

[baggss]

3.2 Ghz? Sounds like the old P4 Dual Core. The new Lower Clocked Intel Core Dual and Core 2 Duo blows down any of the older P4 type CPU's. They are not even close. Also you can't compare a desktop to a laptop. A Pro laptop costs way more.

Thanks dtravis7, I was wondering when the C2D broke 3Ghz, especially in a an $800 Dell! The OP may be another victim of Intels ad campaigns...

 

[Village Idiot]

Thanks dtravis7, I was wondering when the C2D broke 3Ghz, especially in a an $800 Dell! The OP may be another victim of Intels ad campaigns...

This can probably be over clocked to 3.2ghz.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2341566&CatId=2399

Then again, it cost more than $250 more than his cheap $800 Dell

I'd rather like to think he is a victim of something else as the only thing Intel has been marketing for the past year (guesstimated) is the new C2D chips that have just got to being around 2.2ghz for most basic computer setups.

 

[Zoolook]

Am I missing something here?

PS - I'm new to the Mac world, feel free to correct me.

Yes, you're comparing a top end Notebook to a desktop, I think. There is no way Dell sells 3.2ghz Core2Duos in notebooks for $800.

 

[christm]

i agree with 'D3v1L80Y'

it doesnt matter which had more power its how the computer software uses the power and how efficient it is and how much power is wasted.

trust me. try a mbp and you will fall in love (hopefully). but the best way to pursuade yourself is to try it and not look at facts and figures. i.e specs.

enjoy.

 

[Stretch]

but the best way to pursuade yourself is to try it and not look at facts and figures. i.e specs.

enjoy.

Just don't compare them to computers that are using different series components. I have a G5 that is a 2.1Ghz, which is a fast computer, but it doesn't compare to a 2.0Ghz Core Duo.

 

[Alexis]

The old megahertz myth.

A 3.0Ghz Pentium 4 is not as fast as a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo.

Also remember that Dell stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap. They're just utility boxes. You do pay more for an Apple, but you get a custom designed, high quality machine with style. It's why people pay more for a BMW than a Ford, even for the same sized engine. It's why people pay more for Nike trainers than a supermarket brand.

 

[smurfy]

The old megahertz myth.

Shouldn't it be called the gigahertz myth nowadays? It made sense when Steve said it, but now it should probably be renamed.

 

[Vots]

Ok, so from what I understand, since it's a different operating system, it doesn't need as much processing power to run fast?

Somebody told me that a dual core at 2.2 GHz running on a Mac is the equivalent of a high end PC using Windows processing power. They also told me that 2 GB of RAM on a Mac, is also the equivalent of 4 GB on a high end PC.

I wasn't aware that the Mac OS required much less hardware specs, if this stuff is true then I wouldn't have any worries dropping $2500 on a Mac Book Pro.

 

[baggss]

The Core Duo running on a Mac is the same as a Core Duo running on a Dell. They come from the same maker. Comparing how much "power" OSX required to run Apps is hard to do since it is a completely different system than Windows and does things completely differently. I wouldn't run OSX without at least 1Gb or RAM, but you have been mislead on the 2Gb vs 4Gb issue. In some areas OSX may use memory better, in some areas worse. Much of the performance of an App will depend on if it has been written to run on the Intel chip or is still a PPC App being emulated.

 

[todd51]

Couldn't you consider an iMac for video editing instead of a MBP?

 

[Title27GT]

Well I want to switch to a Mac, I'm a Microsoft fanboy but just getting tired of Windows and its errors.

The problem I'm having is I want a computer that can handle video editing very well. I've been directed to a MacBook Pro. But the cheapest model which is the 15 inch, 2.2 GHz model is $2000 (plus an extra $300 to add Final Cut into it) is around $2350.

This is a problem for me, because I don't get how the cheapest model for MacBook Pro costs as much a high end PC and has lesser specs then one.

It's got a dual core processor only running at 2.2 GHz compared to my cheap PC which has a dual core running at 3.2 GHz. And my PC was some cheap $800 Dell. This MacBook Pro though does have 2 GB of RAM (1GB more then my PC) and an 8600 graphics card compared to my PC's 6400. But is 1 more GB of RAM and a better graphics card worth $1500 more then what my current PC costed? I don't think so.

Am I missing something here?

PS - I'm new to the Mac world, feel free to correct me.

Do you seriously need portability?
If not, a 24" iMac would suit your needs VERY well.

 

[bobtomay]

The old megahertz myth.

A 3.0Ghz Pentium 4 is not as fast as a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo.

Don't know about this part of it. My P4 single core 3.4 GHz will re-encode a video using DVD Shrink in half the time of my MBP 2.2 C2D using the same program running under Boot Camp. My old desktop also has a slower rated optical drive.

I have yet to find a single item in my own real world timing tests, that this 2.2 C2D has been able to best my old P4 3.4 (particularly when I've got it clocked up to prox 3.9 and now 3 1/2 yrs old).

Now, multi-tasking is another matter all together. The 2.2 blows away my 3.4 in that regard.

But, everyone is correct, you cannot compare notebook specs and pricing to desktop specs and pricing. They are two totally different animals.
You will find as I and others have found - when I purchased my MBP - spec to spec vs Dell - the MBP I purchased was $700 cheaper than the smilarly equipped Dell notebook (qualification - the Dell had a 17" screen, they did not offer the processor I wanted in a 15" model)

 

[cheez]

You simply cannot compare a Macintosh hardware setup with a Windows hardware setup.
Even if the components were exactly the same, the machines would still operate completely different.
A Mac running OS X can utilize lesser specs and still run efficiently and in some cases outperform a 'better' equipped Windows machine at certain tasks.

Don't worry about hardware specs. Instead, get your hands on a machine and actually try one out if you can. That is the only way to truly compare machines running Windows and Mac OS.

I think this is the reason that Macs are just better than PCs.

 

[Vots]

Couldn't you consider an iMac for video editing instead of a MBP?

No, I need a portable. I do a lot of video editing, but I also do a lot of moving around and want my computer with me as well.

 

[baggss]

Don't know about this part of it. My P4 single core 3.4 GHz will re-encode a video using DVD Shrink in half the time of my MBP 2.2 C2D using the same program running under Boot Camp. My old desktop also has a slower rated optical drive.

Some of that may have to do as to whether the App is optimized to take advantage of both processors. Many still are not. If it's not, then it really is only a single 2.2Ghz processor vs a single 3.4 (3.9) Ghz processor.

For example, some of the older Mac versions of Handbrake did not take advantage of the multiple cores, and as such it would only use 1/4 of the power of all 4 on my cores at once, for a total of 100% (out of 400%). Once the dev team tweaked it, it now pulls 95% of all 4 cores and I have seen a nice boost in speed. The Windows version still has not had this implemented, so it only uses one Core on a multi-core machine. I suspect this is still fairly prevalent in the Windows world.