MacBooks. All they're cracked up to be?

[sallyseton]

I spend a lot of time on my laptop. I use it for remote working, studying, emailing, news, booking trains/planes, social networking, tv, films, music, photos... everything basically. I need it to be transportable. Have a feeling my current one will pack up in about a year or so.

Should i get a MacBook or spend the £900 on a different non-apple model? Will I get more for my money that way?

You'd perhaps do well to see if you can get some second hand Apple machine running 10.4 via Ebay) to run in parallel (and then flog again on Ebay) so you can see if all you want to do is handled by a Mac.

I feel sure there will be applications for everything you want to do, and there may even be a more 'standard' set of control keys than with a number of different Windows apps, but the real test is how well you get on with it.

Would be a steep learning curve to switch one to the other overnight, and while many Mac users may feel there's absolutely no question you'd do fine with a Mac, I think a low cost trial might help you decide better than taking the plunge and then finding niggles.

Similarly, if you are expecting a further year, from your existing PC, you'd have to go through some learning to switch to Windows 7 (from Vista? or XP) but at least you can check that the software you use is supported on Win 7.

I'm not completely 'sold' on Apple kit (I have one of the old G3 'all in one' iMac machines, but no iPod/ iPhone/ iPad) and generally think them too expensive, when I compare with new Win 7 laptops as low as 300 quid with 4 GB RAM, 160 GB HD and options to play a DVD to a big flat screen or projector via HDMI...

I am currently looking at getting another (as my iMac only has the 'blue gun' working, so not full colour!) but would never entertain full price unless I won a fortune.

From a non-techy point of view I would definitely recommend a mac book. They are just so much simpler than PCs. I've been a mac user for a few years but my mum has just converted to a macbook and she can't believe how much easier and more convenient it is than her old laptop.

One of the advantages for me is how you can just open/close it without having to shut down/reboot everytime. (Do PC's do this? maybe they do) So I can be on and off the macbook all day whilst moving around the house or whatever.

They are also really user friendly. Everything is intuitive or it does it for you. So for example, if the internet is down it will talk you through diagnosing what the problem is (in simple language) or if you're downloading software you hardly have to do anything. It just knows what to do!

I know nothing about the techy side of computers so having a machine that just gets on with it is worth it to me.

I think the principal reason for buying a Mac in practice is the complete absence of viruses- there are NONE for Mac OS X, whereas if you have a Windows PC you're forever updating your AV software, anti-malware stuff, software firewall and God knows what else, which in the end seems to make the whole thing grind to a halt. You can forget all that on a Mac and just use it, which is famously easy. Also they are nicer to look at, and I don't think this is a trivial point- if you're going to look at the thing for hundreds of hours, why buy an ugly one?

They are more expensive, but if you want a hassle-free computer life, it's worth it.

I've seen the argument that they are immune, but 2006 saw a problem for OSX, and it still only needs someone to install a trojan or other malware to be just as vulnerable...

Thing is, Windows is a really big target, a trophy for the script kiddies when they can hit millions of machines, and brag about it. One day, if Apple grows to be as big in market share as Windows, then it will be the same size target, and may not be so clearly 'immune'...

As for the 'ugly' comment, what are you looking at? I tend to be looking at 2x 19@ screens on one PC, or the laptop screen and a 17" screen plugged into it, not the laptop or PC, just what's on screen (and less often, the keyboard) !

gah - 2x 19" screens!

Exactly! I couldn't have put it better myself. In the whole history of Mac OS X there has been just one vulnerability (and it wasn't a virus), and unless you're one of those geeks who run multiple monitors off one computer, you're much better off with the superior aesthetics of the Apple product line.

Off to the Apple store now to buy MacBook Air- so ludicrously expensive, but so gorgeous...

I think it depends on

a) your budget - if it is limited you may be better spending the money on a higher spec PC than a lower spec Mac

b) what software you need to use and how affordable / available it is on Macs vs PCs

Yes Macs are a bit easier to get to grips with if you are computer illiterate, but most people manage to use PCs without too much trouble either.

I've used both Mac and PC laptops on pretty much a daily basis for the last few years and honestly can't say I have much preference.

I do think the Macs are sturdier and last longer than most PCs, but not sure that completely justifies the extra money as most machines get outdated pretty fast anyway.

Having said that there are aspects of Vista I don't like, especially the email programme (Windows Mail). Hopefully Windows 7 has ironed out some of the difficulties.

Ah, Vista was widely disliked - XP may have its niggles, but relatively few big buinesses switched to Vista, which is why Microsoft extended the period of support for XP, and if you hunt around, you can still buy machines with XP.

However, the 'sting in the tail' (entirely down to Microsoft money grabbing) and not to do with the pros and cons of Windows vs OSX, is that to 'downgrade' to XP Professional cost(s) anything from 70 to 140 pounds, unless you are lucky enough to have some Windows XP CDs (which were not as widely available here, compared with Windows 98/98 SE - again a Microsoft decision, not in favour of end users, intended to make piracy more difficult).

Outlook Express used to be 'bundled' with Internet Explorer v6, and seems a more stable product than Outlook (for e-mail, but didn't have the extras they added into Outlook, bundled with MS Office, and aimed at business users).

It was a shame that the company which used to make alternative hardware to run Apple's OS 9 and earlier was hit by a dispute with Apple. If there had been competition, the market share would have grown much faster for Apple users, and brought about cheaper software and other advantages of mass market situations.

Thinking back to when the IBM PC came out, and then later the IBM AT, I am very glad that alternatives came along, giving us lots of choice as consumers. Dell was one of the major cost cutters 15-20 (?) years ago or so. Not long ago, I threw out my 'original' IBM PC (with 192 kB of RAM and 20 MB hard drive, oh and a "Hercules" [mono] monitor... green text on black background).

Just checked Wiki and Dell were one of the first competitors dating back to 1984/85. I knew they were a big rival but didn't know they were one of the first (if not first)...