Macbook V Asus Zenbook Prime?

steerpike

I'm back with more interesting consumer laptop puzzlement.

Having done some research, I'm firmly turning away from Macbook's, but haven't ruled them out completely. It just makes more sense for me to stick with Windows and Windows 8 actually looks like a significant improvement on 7.

I'm looking at the following, but it's over £1k which is a lot for me to drop on an ultrabook, and had me again thinking that I'm getting back into Macbook Pro prices:
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/asus-ux31 ... l#longDesc
(I can actually get one for just over £1k so £1500 here is misleading)

It's a very well reviewed machine. I just have a niggling doubt that I'm going to be missing something (apart from OSX and a few more pixels) if I don't go for the Macbook Pro Retina 13.

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD212LL/A

fast as fupp

you can dual boot windows 7/8 on a macbook

i doubt you can install os x on the asus

tiredofwhiners

http://www.katu.com/news/va?vaid=1553dd ... 5893bfb13d

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/11 ... s_q4_2012/

Windows 8 is the new Vista.

It simply doesn't feel right using touchscreen on a laptop with a vertical screen. Its been said many times before - touchscreen is optimal for tablets and phones.

Windows 8 is a solution looking for a problem and realising there's no need fo it at all - stick to 7 or OSX.

steerpike

thanks both, good points.

Firstly, I have to say I don't want to have 2 operating systems so don't see the point in buying a Mac just so as I can run a sub-optimal windows partition where that's the OS I will use 90% of the time.

Re: Windows 8, I am getting mixed messages. I take the point that it's not worthwhile on a non-touch screen laptop. But I also keep hearing it boots much more quickly, is more stable, secure and less power hungry. Plus, if it does everything Win 7 does then I don't see the downsides.

I don't think you can say Windows 8 is the new Vista. Vista was a pile of crap full stop. Google 'Windows 8 Reviews' and see the number of 4 and 5/5 star reviews from relaible websites.

stinger53

i have win8 on my deskop and love it. yes its different to win7 but u still get the fan boys say 8 is rubbish. but you dont know until you try it if u like it or not. go to a pc shop that has win8 on the computers and have a play around on it the boot speed is much faster.
tbh i dont see the point in mac when u can get a £400 windows laptop for the same specs as a £1000 mac that can do the exact same thing. just paying extra for the 'name'.

fast as fupp

if you compare like with like i.e. macbook pro with an ultrabook theres pretty much a price equivalence.

danlikesbikes

Guess it depends on what you want to use it for.

I use my Mac Book Pro for photography & video work and simply would not go back to a laptop for this sort of work as I had to use a colleagues and it just didn't cut it.

steerpike

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Guess it depends on what you want to use it for.

I use my Mac Book Pro for photography & video work and simply would not go back to a laptop for this sort of work as I had to use a colleagues and it just didn't cut it.

If the last 2 weeks investigation is anything to go by, there seem to be an awful lot of people out there who 'need' Macs! Were the 2 machines of an equivalent spec? There seems to be a lot of parrot fashion championing of the Mac performance over the PC with supporting evidence rarely given (not saying that's the case with your post btw).

Hoopdriver

steerpike wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Guess it depends on what you want to use it for.

I use my Mac Book Pro for photography & video work and simply would not go back to a laptop for this sort of work as I had to use a colleagues and it just didn't cut it.

If the last 2 weeks investigation is anything to go by, there seem to be an awful lot of people out there who 'need' Macs! Were the 2 machines of an equivalent spec? There seems to be a lot of parrot fashion championing of the Mac performance over the PC with supporting evidence rarely given (not saying that's the case with your post btw).

For photo editing and video a Mac can't be beat. I work in that field and nobody I know or work with uses anything but Mac.

daviesee

Hoopdriver wrote:

For photo editing and video a Mac can't be beat. I work in that field and nobody I know or work with uses anything but Mac.

Sorry Hoopdriver. You can repeat it to infinity but some people look at published specs and won't listen.
Once you go Mac, you don't go back. Again, something that will be dismissed.

steerpike

daviesee wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

For photo editing and video a Mac can't be beat. I work in that field and nobody I know or work with uses anything but Mac.

Sorry Hoopdriver. You can repeat it to infinity but some people look at published specs and won't listen.
Once you go Mac, you don't go back. Again, something that will be dismissed.

This is the kind of response I was referring to - the 'Mac is best' mantra with no reasoning other than 'everyone I know that does x y or z has one'. Why do I still get the impression people are being seduced rather than being rational? Why am I continually finding reviews for Ultrabooks that seem to trump Macbooks in most respects? I know, I know, I need to use a Macbook before I can really understand.

tiredofwhiners

steerpike wrote:

Why am I continually finding reviews for Ultrabooks that seem to trump Macbooks in most respects?

Because Intel have invested massively in Ultrabooks and have been flooding the markets with reviews saying how good they are ? The downside of the Ultrabook is only one thing really - it runs Windows and that means lots of virus's, crappy software that crashes, and of course, the manufacturers don't make much money on them. the last reason is why the range is collapsing slowly as more companies pull out of the high margin end of the market because Apple beats them hands down. At the lower end the Ultrabook wins hands down but thats the low margin market.

At the end of the day, they do the same thing, but after three years of careful use, you'll get almost zip for an Ultrabook because the software is bloatware and the computer becomes very slow, but you'll still get quite a few quid for an old Mac because the software is far less likely to grind to a halt.

There is no right and wrong, each to their own but the point about Mac users never go back to Windows is well made.

daviesee

steerpike wrote:

Why do I still get the impression people are being seduced rather than being rational? Why am I continually finding reviews for Ultrabooks that seem to trump Macbooks in most respects? I know, I know, I need to use a Macbook before I can really understand.

No seduction here. I have bought 3 out of my own pocket when I could have saved money and went Windows based.
Why?
Because I use Macs at home and PC at work. I know the difference and I know what I prefer. I am lucky that I have the luxury of choice but as long as I can afford it I won't spend money on Windows based machines.
I could (and would) use my MBP at work but the potential for an accident on the commute precludes that.

Yes. You really need to be hands on a Mac for a couple of months to appreciate it.

I am not in the market so I do not see the Ultrabook reviews so I have no idea how they are done but I would guess that they are based on using Windows based software which I have no need for.

I also use Nikon when most use Canon and Campag when most use Shimano. I have made my choices on handling and using the alternatives but each to their own and we all know how these debates end up.

stinger53

Hoopdriver wrote:

steerpike wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Guess it depends on what you want to use it for.

I use my Mac Book Pro for photography & video work and simply would not go back to a laptop for this sort of work as I had to use a colleagues and it just didn't cut it.

If the last 2 weeks investigation is anything to go by, there seem to be an awful lot of people out there who 'need' Macs! Were the 2 machines of an equivalent spec? There seems to be a lot of parrot fashion championing of the Mac performance over the PC with supporting evidence rarely given (not saying that's the case with your post btw).

For photo editing and video a Mac can't be beat. I work in that field and nobody I know or work with uses anything but Mac.

even tho the same software can be used on windows.

chrisaonabike

steerpike wrote:

Were the 2 machines of an equivalent spec?

Good point. It's not uncommon for people (I know of several personally) to have an old XP machine that has gradually become bloated with miscellaneous shite over years, and then when the exasperation builds up enough, they go out and buy a Mac.

And then surprise surprise, the shiny new Mac is a million times better than the naff old wheezing XP box.

One reason Macs can last longer than PCs is that they don't get get stuffed full of shite over time - simply because Apple doesn't let just any old shite anywhere near it. It's a perfectly legitimate strategy and contributes a lot to reliability.

I really am not knocking Macs - Apple has for a long time been the leader in the 'beautiful hardware' stakes, and if you want to pay the extra to be able to play in the safe Apple sandbox, and have no need to go inside the machine or install potentially unreliable software, Apple is a good way to go.

Equally, if you're a bit more strapped for cash, and you want a bit more freedom, and you have enough knowledge not to bugger things up, then Windows 7 or later is also a good way to go.

But the fact remains that the difference between Mac and PC in terms of usability and reliability is not what it once was. My Windows 7 machine gets rebooted once every fortnight or so and hasn't slowed down or crashed even once in the year I've had it. And it's a hard-worked development machine that is forever getting new stuff installed and uninstalled. I use it for games (Far Cry is my favourite FPS), software development (.NET and SQL Server) and photo editing (CS2 and up). Good luck doing all that lot on OSX.

Only last week I had a hard disk die (it was several years old and had come from another computer). So I bought a 3TB drive for 100 quid and swapped it over - took ten minutes. Again, good luck doing that on a Mac unless it's a Mac Pro and you've spent 2-3k on it. Now I realise that this is a bit off-topic since the OP was asking about laptops - I only say this since it really is horses for courses - what is best for you depends on what you want the thing for.

But there are quite a few Windows laptops that are really nice too now. I got a Samsung Chronos series 7 recently and it's very nearly as beautiful as a MacBook.

stinger53

one thing i hate about people saying mac are soo much better because they dont get viruses... thats because compared to windows its a relivetively new operating system so not as many viruses are made for it yet (but viruses for mac are soo easy to make) also that they can do certain jobs better when u can get the same software for windows.
not having a gripe at apple or anything. the only thing i dont like about apple themselves is the extortionate prices they charge for a laptop that has 400 pounds worth of parts and they charge 1300 where a windows pc with the same parts costs 600
just to add off topic just so u dont think i hate apple.
i dont buy any pc's from shops. i buy the parts i want and build the system i want n it gives me the opportunity to put on any operating sytems i want. i choose windows because im used to it. and prefer it. but at OP go for which ever system you prefer

metronome

stinger53 wrote:

one thing i hate about people saying mac are soo much better because they dont get viruses... thats because compared to windows its a relivetively new operating system

Both operating systems are of a similar age - early 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS

stinger53

metronome wrote:

stinger53 wrote:

one thing i hate about people saying mac are soo much better because they dont get viruses... thats because compared to windows its a relivetively new operating system

Both operating systems are of a similar age - early 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS

yeh but hardly used. its rly just only come into the major market. sorry didnt word it that well

tiredofwhiners

stinger53 wrote:

one thing i hate about people saying mac are soo much better because they dont get viruses... thats because compared to windows its a relivetively new operating system so not as many viruses are made for it yet (but viruses for mac are soo easy to make) also that they can do certain jobs better when u can get the same software for windows.

In a nutshell, you have no idea what you are talking about. The reason that OSX virus's are so hard to write is that the core OS is so well written that 99.9% of the routes available to virus writers are simply not available to them. A Unix core (albeit an old one), well written, few exploits, coupled with sandboxing make any virus practically impossible to make effective. The core of OSX is as old as Windows - mid 1980's - much older than W7 by about 20 years.

Virus's on OSX come from ....... non-OSX sources such as Java exploits. Whereas most people over the age of 25 who actually were alive when the core of Windows systems were written know that Windows is sloppy code, with too many mistakes, shoddy API's and too many variables to be safe. They may have rewritten W7 from the ground up but many of the same folks are writing the same old code all over again.

Its a choice between a reliable proven core engine which has never been exploited or crashed big time vs something written by kiddies to be exciting, but for which they cannot be bothered to write properly. If you cannot remember how rubbish Windows could be just remember UAC and how Redmond thought that was a professional job.

It took XP about 10 years to achieve a level of reliability that OSX gained in less than a year.

And as to your suggestion that OSX 'has only just come to market' its been released for a decade. The Unix core for an earlier decade with billions of machine hours.

metronome

ouch

steerpike

Thanks for all the replies folks. I kinda knew this would become a Shimano v Campag type ding dong!

More reasons for sticking with Windows: iTunes is shite and Steve Jobs was a bell-end. There. You can't say I'm not a reasonable and measured individual.

stinger53

tiredofwhiners wrote:

stinger53 wrote:

one thing i hate about people saying mac are soo much better because they dont get viruses... thats because compared to windows its a relivetively new operating system so not as many viruses are made for it yet (but viruses for mac are soo easy to make) also that they can do certain jobs better when u can get the same software for windows.

In a nutshell, you have no idea what you are talking about. The reason that OSX virus's are so hard to write is that the core OS is so well written that 99.9% of the routes available to virus writers are simply not available to them. .

yes i do. virses for macs are p**s easy to write lol

but i anit going to get into a petti argument.

let the OP choose which he prefers as its his choice and not ours.

Hoopdriver

stinger53 wrote:

tiredofwhiners wrote:

stinger53 wrote:

one thing i hate about people saying mac are soo much better because they dont get viruses... thats because compared to windows its a relivetively new operating system so not as many viruses are made for it yet (but viruses for mac are soo easy to make) also that they can do certain jobs better when u can get the same software for windows.

In a nutshell, you have no idea what you are talking about. The reason that OSX virus's are so hard to write is that the core OS is so well written that 99.9% of the routes available to virus writers are simply not available to them. .

yes i do. virses for macs are p**s easy to write lol

but i anit going to get into a petti argument.

let the OP choose which he prefers as its his choice and not ours.

You don't seem to be able to write a sentence. I find it hard to believe you can easily write viruses for Macs

steerpike

stinger53 wrote:

tiredofwhiners wrote:

stinger53 wrote:

one thing i hate about people saying mac are soo much better because they dont get viruses... thats because compared to windows its a relivetively new operating system so not as many viruses are made for it yet (but viruses for mac are soo easy to make) also that they can do certain jobs better when u can get the same software for windows.

In a nutshell, you have no idea what you are talking about. The reason that OSX virus's are so hard to write is that the core OS is so well written that 99.9% of the routes available to virus writers are simply not available to them. .

yes i do. virses for macs are p**s easy to write lol

but i anit going to get into a petti argument.

let the OP choose which he prefers as its his choice and not ours.

Well, that's him told!

stinger53

. back on topic what do you want to use the laptop for? u may fine that u dont have to spend as much.

chrisaonabike

steerpike wrote:

More reasons for sticking with Windows: iTunes is shite and Steve Jobs was a bell-end. There. You can't say I'm not a reasonable and measured individual.

Doh! No pot-stirring smiley....

For that kind of shocking outburst, Hoopy will be along in a minute to tell you that all professional video and image editors use Macs.

stinger53

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

steerpike wrote:

More reasons for sticking with Windows: iTunes is shite and Steve Jobs was a bell-end. There. You can't say I'm not a reasonable and measured individual.

Doh! No pot-stirring smiley....

For that kind of shocking outburst, Hoopy will be along in a minute to tell you that all professional video and image editors use Macs.

so do a lot of architects. which I am training to be so will prob at some stage install the OSX or which ever is out at the time onto my desktop. n dual boot

dynamicbrick

It's all subjective, at the end of the cliche.

On the desk in front of me I have the following; Window Phone 7.5 and 8, latest iPad, a Linux Mint Samsung NC-10, some PoS HP Elitebook on Win7, and an aging 11" MacBook Air I've borrowed for the week. Just given back an evaluation Surface RT. There's all manner of Android and BlackBerry stuff in the drawer.

I'm not a fan of Apple, it must be said, but then I'm even less of a fan of Microsoft. The long and the short of it is thus; if you want to be compatible with just about everything, get Win7. If you want something that just works out of the crate, and is a wonderful piece of design, get an Apple. If you're a perennial tightwad just after surfing, email, and stuff, build a Linux machine (it is the best OS of the three).

However, everything at the church of the shining fruit costs more, Win7 is a pile of cack to use, Win8 has compatibility questions, and Linux marks you out as a special sort of geek... possibly a LARPer.

As I said, I hate the Windows machine (although Windows Phone is actually quite pleasant, probably the best phone OS out there at the moment). The Apple I can never overcome the nagging feeling of paying too much. The MacBook gets the nod because 99% of computer usage it makes no odds whether you're on Win, OSX, or Linux - and the Air is a lovely thing to use, handle, and generally feel nice about.

tiredofwhiners

stinger53 wrote:

yes i do. virses for macs are p**s easy to write lol

You will not get them to run. Your spelling and diction clearly marks you out as someone who is never going to be able to code anything functional. Shouldn't you be in school anyway

symo

Looked at building a hackintosh?

For me I hate having to use windows at work, even now I am watching outlook go through it's "mailbox was not closed properly please wait 25 minutes while it repairs"

Oh and boot times for same apps are well short on the windows machines. (brand new high spec windows 8 for the engineering work I do on the PC side, my MacBook Pro is 5 years old and excel is still faster on it despite the lower processor speed and less ram.).

Not convinced Microsoft have written lean software in their entire existence.