Paul Ferrara wrote:
The first thing I'd suggest is to ask yourself if you really need a laptop.  Most of the setups mentioned here are positively puny compared to most desktop machines.  With a laptop, you pay more and get less.  So consider.

Paul

This laptop I have, the top level Gateway Tablet is by no means puny in size or power.Not only that, I once dropped it one the edge of a curb one night and crushed the side of the body, plastic pieces everywhere, and it STILL runs like brand new.

David Scherer wrote:
. Replacement LCD = $500.00 Minimum.

Ouch, what laptop do you own? Mine was about the most expensive there was at the time and the monitor replacement would only cost me 75 bucks if I didnt have the warranty on it that covers literally everything. And I can write on my LCD and edit photos,etc.

bencook2 wrote:
One word.

Toshiba

Exactly

David Scherer wrote:
I can't stress it enough. Laptops get more wear and tear then desktops for good reason and parts are insanely priced. Replacement LCD = $500.00 Minimum. Replacement Battery = $300.00 Minimum. Replacement Optical Drive = $275.00 Minimum. You get the idea. A $200 - $300.00 investment in warranty services will save you major headaches.

WOW! I just want to let you know that you are being ripped off worse than anyone I've ever herad of before if you are paying those prices for those parts. The only one you even came close to a legitimate price on was the LCD. Trust me... if you pay $300 for a battery YOU ARE AN IDIOT! Sorry if that sounds harsh, but someone needs to let you know:)

Ama wrote:
whoever asked if i need one, I do. I am booked pretty much every day and only have a few cards for my digital so I have to come straight home and empty the cards onto my desktop then go back to the studio.. 20 minutes both ways. All of my professors have screamed Macs... which is why I posed the question since I mostly have used pcs. If I do buy one I'm going to do it right.. no bargain names... nothing under 1200 and it will have warranties, insurance etc. So basically I will custom order my own dell or get an ibook..

Last time I checked, a few CF cards were a lot less expensive than a laptop.   But if you're spending a lot of time at your bf's, that's one good reason for getting one.

Paul

C R Photography wrote:
I'd pick up a Mac G4 iBook.

Better imagery, better quality, better warranty, less viruses, better graphics and more "photographer friendly". 

I love mine and won’t look back.

thank you

Ama wrote:
thank you

Ama, I guess you have already made up your mind on the Mac before you came in here.  But in case you are interested in a strictly engineering point of view, I will give you a little.

Before Apple gave up on the PowerPC chip from IBM, their chip and accompanying chipsets are by far inferior than the Intel/AMD ones.  Those who think the G4 and G5 are even "equivalent" to the Intel chips are saying that based on no substantiating data, and mostly emotionally driven.  What Apple does well is software and human interface, and they made OS X a more efficient operating system than Windows (which is not very efficient in many ways).  With Linux on an Intel/AMD chip, performance-wise it will blow any Apple away.  Remember, I am talking strictly in engineering terms.

The components inside a laptop, Mac or PC based, share a lot in common.  Memory, harddrives, graphics chips, are all made by just a few manufacturers, so reliability is actually similar.  Any claim to superiority is heresay, based on research done on these machines.  If you take care of your possession, even the cheapest laptops can last a long time.

I don't know what evidence your professors based their suggestions on purchasing a Mac, other than because he/she grew up/learned with a Mac.  It is part of all computer/OS (particularly Microsoft and Apple) manufacturer's marketing scheme.  People like to stick to what they learned on, and resist change.  Do you really think that Dell donated all those computers to universities as a "good-will" gesture?  Even my students, ENGINEERING students, get disillusioned into believing that Dell makes "better" computers, knowing full well that the innards are similar to anything else.

Now back to your original question.  Laptop recommendation.

First you need to ask yourself: what are you going to use it for?  Before you can answer that question, no one can, or should, even give you what you should be looking for.  As a power user myself, I even run simulations on a laptop, and it is not "high-end" by any measure.  I just know very clearly what specifications I need, and bought what I needed with the least money required.  If you could kindly list what you plan on using this laptop for, maybe we can give you better recommendations.

Note that with laptops you are indeed paying more for less performance, especially with Photoshop, or any high memory usage software, use (because you only have one harddrive for both program and scratch-disk).  With Mac, you are even paying more for less performance because of the emotional factor and aesthetics.

Regarding extended warranty: it is not worth it.  Research has shown that the cost of such policies far outweighs the chance of one's need to really use that insurance/warranty.  This is based on strong statistical evidence.  But if you are really into it, by all means.  Your peace of mind can be worth a lot of money, I don't know.

Hope this helps you frame your purchase better.

lll wrote:

Now back to your original question.  Laptop recommendation.

First you need to ask yourself: what are you going to use it for?  Before you can answer that question, no one can, or should, even give you what you should be looking for.  As a power user myself, I even run simulations on a laptop, and it is not "high-end" by any measure.  I just know very clearly what specifications I need, and bought what I needed with the least money required.  If you could kindly list what you plan on using this laptop for, maybe we can give you better recommendations.

Hope this helps you frame your purchase better.

ok Leo I am also in the market for a laptop,

I need it for photo-editing, I can store images, I need it to run fast and have wireless and bluetooth, I am working on a regular basis with a photographer that has a Mac so  I also need to be able to connect to his Mac and my PC

lll wrote:

What Apple does well is software and human interface, and they made OS X a more efficient operating system than Windows (which is not very efficient in many ways).

You've summed up an important point.

On a mac, my experience is fluid, intuitive.  I'm thinking about what I'm doing, not about the computer.  That's because of an effective OS.

On a pc (at the office), because I do things not typical of the population at large, I'm constantly frustrated by Windows.  Thus, the pc experience is not fun for me, or for many other creative types.  I'm sure it's fine for many who do more predictable work patterns... but some software engineer simply anticipated workflow patterns that are very unlike what I do.  It's the OS that makes that difference, much more than the hardware.

lll wrote:

Ama, I guess you have already made up your mind on the Mac before you came in here.  But in case you are interested in a strictly engineering point of view, I will give you a little.

Before Apple gave up on the PowerPC chip from IBM, their chip and accompanying chipsets are by far inferior than the Intel/AMD ones.  Those who think the G4 and G5 are even "equivalent" to the Intel chips are saying that based on no substantiating data, and mostly emotionally driven.  What Apple does well is software and human interface, and they made OS X a more efficient operating system than Windows (which is not very efficient in many ways).  With Linux on an Intel/AMD chip, performance-wise it will blow any Apple away.  Remember, I am talking strictly in engineering terms.

The components inside a laptop, Mac or PC based, share a lot in common.  Memory, harddrives, graphics chips, are all made by just a few manufacturers, so reliability is actually similar.  Any claim to superiority is heresay, based on research done on these machines.  If you take care of your possession, even the cheapest laptops can last a long time.

I don't know what evidence your professors based their suggestions on purchasing a Mac, other than because he/she grew up/learned with a Mac.  It is part of all computer/OS (particularly Microsoft and Apple) manufacturer's marketing scheme.  People like to stick to what they learned on, and resist change.  Do you really think that Dell donated all those computers to universities as a "good-will" gesture?  Even my students, ENGINEERING students, get disillusioned into believing that Dell makes "better" computers, knowing full well that the innards are similar to anything else.

Now back to your original question.  Laptop recommendation.

First you need to ask yourself: what are you going to use it for?  Before you can answer that question, no one can, or should, even give you what you should be looking for.  As a power user myself, I even run simulations on a laptop, and it is not "high-end" by any measure.  I just know very clearly what specifications I need, and bought what I needed with the least money required.  If you could kindly list what you plan on using this laptop for, maybe we can give you better recommendations.

Note that with laptops you are indeed paying more for less performance, especially with Photoshop, or any high memory usage software, use (because you only have one harddrive for both program and scratch-disk).  With Mac, you are even paying more for less performance because of the emotional factor and aesthetics.

Regarding extended warranty: it is not worth it.  Research has shown that the cost of such policies far outweighs the chance of one's need to really use that insurance/warranty.  This is based on strong statistical evidence.  But if you are really into it, by all means.  Your peace of mind can be worth a lot of money, I don't know.

Hope this helps you frame your purchase better.

you may be right about paying more for a mac for less performance.  i wouldn't know.  the 'mac vs. pc' debate is as old (and futile) as 'nikon vs. canon'.  most people will go with what they started with.  i have always used macs, and have never seen a pc outside a modeling agency.  at least in los angeles, 'creatives' use macs.  go to any advertising agency, photographer's studio or photography set.  you will not see a pc on the camera assistant's cart.  if the original poster is buying a mac, i would urge them to spend a little extra for the powerbook over the ibook.  powerbooks are more durable, and have a better keyboard.  also, i opted not to purchase applecare for my most recent laptop, but at $50. per call to customer care (once the warranty wears out), it might be worth it.  it certainly was worth it for my ipod.  after a year of troublesome 40GBs, apple sent me a 60GB video ipod gratis.  i heart apple, and am not ashamed to be a shill for them.  one more thing, regarding leo's posting: "What Apple does well is software and human interface, and they made OS X a more efficient operating system than Windows (which is not very efficient in many ways)."  well said.  buy a mac.  you will be very pleased.

craig wrote:
you may be right about paying more for a mac for less performance.  i wouldn't know.  the 'mac vs. pc' debate is as old (and futile) as 'nikon vs. canon'.  most people will go with what they started with.  i have always used macs, and have never seen a pc outside a modeling agency.  at least in los angeles, 'creatives' use macs.  go to any advertising agency, photographer's studio or photography set.  you will not see a pc on the camera assistant's cart.  if the original poster is buying a mac, i would urge them to spend a little extra for the powerbook over the ibook.  powerbooks are more durable, and have a better keyboard.  also, i opted not to purchase applecare for my most recent laptop, but at $50. per call to customer care (once the warranty wears out), it might be worth it.  it certainly was worth it for my ipod.  after a year of troublesome 40GBs, apple sent me a 60GB video ipod gratis.  i heart apple, and am not ashamed to be a shill for them.  one more thing, regarding leo's posting: "What Apple does well is software and human interface, and they made OS X a more efficient operating system than Windows (which is not very efficient in many ways)."  well said.  buy a mac.  you will be very pleased.

Craig, thank you, you totally got my post.  Notice that I did not advocate for either one or the other because the debate is silly.  In engineering terms, processing power-wise, Intel/AMD wins hands down (there is no debate in that, I am talking about data and quantitative numbers and facts).  But a computer/laptop requires both software and hardware to run, which means the full experience is not hardware based only, and Apple scores big on the OS; and indeed there is a level of emotional involvement.  The "creative" people use Mac, again, out of what they learned on, and Apple has been extremely successful in cornering that market.  The measuring dimension in that field is not performance.

With the new MacBook (sorry, still hate that name), the field is more level in terms of performance, and is now a different ballgame.  However, that "four-times" gain is absolutely fictitious.  Tests already run showed otherwise, although a significant gain in speed has been observed (more close two times, on average, depending on software).  I am not going into the "emulation" problems etc etc.  That's too geeky for a modeling site.

If you are getting a Mac now, get the Intel/Mac, forget the Gs.  They are so history now.

Disclaimer: Combining my labs, office and home I run about 12 computers, of all sorts, Mac, PC (all AMD-based), Linux, Unix (simulation server) and Windows.    Bias-free and I have no financial interest in any of these companies.