Mac Book Pro vs Dell E1505

if the x1300 will get u by, i think u know which to go with. price-wise u need to compare with another system having a 128MB x1600. if u plan to game at all i'd go with the mac, as they are dual booting with windows now and it's just a matter of time b4 the video drivers are straightened out. if however u don't plan on gaming and need to save $ then the dell is more of an option. i guess it also depends on user experience as well. i can't tell u how much help i give to my "dell friends" on almost a weekly basis w/ stuff that crops up on their systems. the 1st gen macbookpro apparently has some issues too so buy accordingly. the customer support for apple has far surpassed dell for the last few years. then again, w/ some workarounds u will likely be able to install OS X on the dell.

Well, off the top of my head:

The ATI x1300 is not in the same performance class as the x1600, so the MacBook Pro will have much better graphical abilities (regardless of whether you went with the 128 or 256 versions). In fact, the x1300 is not that big a step up from the GMA950 integrated. It only has 64MB onboard, and has to share system RAM for anything over that. So, you need to go above 512RAM simply to account for that, or suffer performance hits.

Build quality is another place where Apple has it all over Dell. Plastic case and chassis (Dell) versus Aluminum (Apple). Name brand componens (Apple) versus proprietary (Dell), and so on.

Also, the Dell software image is a mess (massive amounts of crapware) that sludges the system. And they now do not provide a clean XP OS disc for restore, it always brings you back to sludgeworld. So, either you need to spend a good amount of time removing programs (and be careful there because this sometimes breaks things - see reviews of Dell's XPS line) or spring for a boxed copy of XP so you can do a clean reinstall.

What else? The Apple has better wireless and bluetooth implementations, and Apple has a very good service plan.

Finally the display. Dell has always had good displays, but now Apple does too. Also the backlit keyboard is a nice feature of the MacBook Pro.

Final note: All this might make me sound like a Mac addict, but I am actually a Windows person (at this time). I just think that, right now, the MacBook Pro is pretty close to the gold standard for laptop computers.

Don't forget about the camera in the MBP

just to clarify, component-wise there isn't a difference between apple and dell on most parts, even less so since the intel switch. the difference is mainly in GPUs and purchase strategies. dell often has custom GPU interfaces for their high end systems. i'm not sure however that this affects anything. alienware has done this for a while and is well known for their systems. purchase strategies are different however. dell has kind of a walmart approach it seems w/ re: to getting their components from where ever they can for as cheap as they can. apple on the other hand likes their supply chain to be pretty homogeneous (the same). for instance apple basically uses panasonic combo or super/multi drives for all of their systems across the board, and on occasion has used pioneer. hard drives have largely been toshiba. crack open a dell and u may see a lite-on, LG, toshiba, etc. optical drive for instance. but, component-wise, apple's are just brand name products with an apple sticker or emblem printed onto a sticker, slapped onto a device.

Hi Triadone,

Dell's practice is indeed to go whereever the part is cheapest, then to rebrand the part as "dell". This has in the past resulted in Dell machines not getting the same performance for the same specifications as machines from other vendors.

On the other hand, vendors like Alienware (hopefully still true after getting bought by Dell) are pretty consistent on who they use for their parts. They use the manufacturer who provides the best performance. And it seems Apple has gone that route as well with the Intel Macs.

Also, the construction of the MacBook is worlds better than a Dell. Aluminum versus plastic, and much higher standards of fit and finish.

I was looking at the same comparison recently. One thing I noticed was that the Macbook Pro comes with a DVI port to an external monitor, but the E1505 does not, nor does the E1505 have a docking station with a DVI port. The DVI is important to me, as I plan to buy a high-end LCD monitor and run the video via DVI. To me, that was a dealbreaker and tossed out the E1505 from contention.

The 1505 is just not in the same class as the MBP. They are also not close in price which tells you something. An Acer would be a more appropriate comparison.

-mx

x1600 is quite a bit more powerful than X1300, we are talking about 12 pipeline design Vs. 4, difference is huge. I feel dell's monitor resolution is bit too high, 15'' wide at 1680x1080, I have a 20'' wide screen monitor at the same. For me, I'd prefer things not too small.

Most other components (wireless, Blue tooth) should be similar since they're all based on Intel's centrino platform, but apple definitely has the cool factor with its thing design and aluminum chassis.

I guess in the end, it all comes down to how much you're willing to spend.

Here's my problem:

I ordered an E1505 and it's still in production phase. Bought it because of the price (took advantage of the -750 coupon). I always wanted to buy a MBP and still do-this is simply because my profession is a graphic designer and lookin for my very first laptop so I can work outside. The problem is, at home I have a PC desktop, so all my graphic software I own are PC based. On the other hand, at work I use a dual G5 desktop.

I wouldn't mind purchasing Mac version of CS2 for the Macbookpro, but ADOBE/MACROMEDIA NOT SUPPORTING INTELMACS sucked big time. So it beats the purpose of buying a 'fast' macbook when the main applications I'd use will not run natively. I also like to game occasionally, so even tho MBP has a nice X1600, I don't see it getting used so much because of the few game support for Mac (I could be wrong). Then comes the XP on Mactel story, which got me very very excited, since I'll be able (assumed) to use my PC graphic apps and run it with XP. But having read that there are current driver issues makes it a big problem for me again. Plus, being my first laptop (and expensive one at that) I'd be nervous to be messing around with it just to have XP run.

So now I'm back to step 1

So as of now, since I really need a laptop badly, I had no choice but to take advantage of Dell's coupon and had to order myself E1505. But because of the delay and current production status, I still can't stop thinking about Macbook Pro, or updates of XP running in it.

If any of you mactel pros know anything I don't, please let me know. Because if I can run XP with my PC apps in Mactel right this moment with no hassles, then I'd buy me a MBP now!

If it means anything, CS3 will be universal binary. It is the universal binary update of CS2 that is in delay.

There are no plans for universal binary versions of the CS 2 apps.

Thanks, Kakaze. I just found the reference that says Adobe is not planning Universal Binary till CS3.

apple is a great computer, and has an awsome operating system. even if you havn't used MAC you will find an app for everything you need and you will find it a pro os. also i have a powerbook and it is awsome so i expect the macbookpro to be nothing less...anyway you don't get a free isight and ilife with a dell

to close i have had dells and macs both are nice but the Mac has never got second in my mind

Actually Josiah there is a weakness in the Apple application lineup, and that is the utter lack of anything even comparable to MS Access. As a result, us database pros are out of luck on the Mac.

Filemaker Pro?

Hi Kakaze,

I also thought Filemaker Pro could fill the bill. After trying it and after detailed discussion with a Mac Guru at the Apple Store, I am forced to conclude it is not even in the same ballpark.

While it is a "database" program of sorts, in that you can store and retrieve data in filemaker files, it is not a RDBMS. Access is, and this is the big reason why folks have screamed for years for Mac Office to get Access.

I don't understand why Access was never ported along with the rest of Office.

Seems to me they're losing a lot of potential money because of it.

Since MacOS is unix under the hood, I know that it can run MySQL or Postgres.

OS X comes with SQL installed, IIRC. Or is it just the server version? Either way I know there is an installer for it.