Macbook Pro vs PC

[Richard]

A few observations:

• The HP's display has 1600 x 900 pixels. The MBP's display has 1920 x 1200 pixels. That is 60 percent more desktop area (or an opportunity to render text in more detail).

So, on a tiny little screen like 17 inch, 1080p is overkill for my eyes and most other people for laptop use. If you are going to edit photos at your desk, take the difference in price which is 1350 and buy an HP 25inch 1080p monitor for 279 and and buy a second HP laptop so you have stereo vision LOL

• The MBP has a backlit keyboard and a multi-touch trackpad. The HP has an "oversized clickpad" (HP's words).

OMG, that feature alone is worth way more than $1350 dollar difference. Very nice touch but not worth over 1k to me, buy hey what do I know.

• The MBP has unibody construction, and a MagSafe power connector to reduce the chance that your laptop will get damaged if someone stumbles over the power cord in a conference room. The HP Web site says that their notebook has a "cool-looking metal finish". Not quite the same thing.

OMG again, if someone trips over the power cord on the HP, you take the money you saved and buy another one and have 300 bucks left over to buy a netbook that someone will not trip over the cord LOL. If you watch Orange County choppers, they threw an HP laptop across the room and because of the HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection the unit was still operating. Not theory, not statements of it is built better, proof on TV, watch it for yourself.

• The MBP has FireWire 800 (powered) and an ExpressCard 34 slot. The HP has eSATA (fast, but presumably unpowered), a second drive bay, a memory card reader, and a fingerprint reader. Bluetooth is optional on the HP.

Ok, lets see, the HP has 6gb of ram to take advantage of 64bit OS, it also has 640gb 7200 rpm drive, the mac is 500gb at 5200rpm. Blue tooth costs $25 dollars. For $250 I can burn a Blue Ray disk of the HD 1080P footage I created with the new Canon t2i I bought from the money I saved buying the HP. I do not see a blue ray option for the Mac, or am I missing something, does it not do HD? How do you watch blue ray disks to take advantage of the 1080p screen? The HP is lighter at 6.86 lbs

• Macs come with system restore discs. HP charges you an extra $20 for those.

The recovery disk is on the hp hard drive, you just put a disk in the drive and it will automagicly create a recovery disk for you. If you don't want that, you can purchase one for $20.

But if you want to get nit picky, Apple charges you 39 for the vga port and 39 for DVi which the HP includes.

 

[Richard]

and lets not forget a software bundle that allows you to do just about anything right out of the box. No "trial versions" that nag you to buy. How much is that worth? My guess would be in the hundreds of dollars?

What does the HP offer?

What preinstalled software is that on the Mac?
I am one of those dumb masses people who read the Apple website.
It states for Iwork
None or preinstalled for 49 bucks
Aperture is none or preinstalled for $199

I am the dumb masses so maybe I am missing something, does the preinstalled software cost or not?

If you are talking about the Ilife stuff, that stuff is all freeware on the internet for PC.

There are tons of free PC photo editing programs too many to list without buy prompts.

Garage band well, look for Kristal and Reaper to do a better job and are free.

Also, do I really need these programs? Are they worth a Laptop costing more than double the price. I don't think so but if you do great, get the mac.

 

[Richard]

VALUE is beyond the dollar Apple lalptops
cost more I agree, but after sitting down and

using this POS Dell I can assure you that my choice will never be a pc regardless of cost simply because I've used them both and have actual experience guiding me through my choice. Most haters of Apple have never used the system and only comment from an uninformed position.

I have used mac and as I said it is not a bad computer.

And for some reason they go to the Mac forums to do it. You'll never find me in the PC forums because I have no need to bash that system to prove a point.

This is not the mac forum, this is open forum, the OP asked about SSD and Laptop, I stated a Mac or a single drive bay PC laptop is not a good choice for an SSD especially if a small drive and or use up most of the space, it wears the drive out. From this we get into a huge comparison.

I really couldn't care less what system the masses use and would be happy if Apple stayed at 10%. More growth = more chances for negative changes to please the stupid public.

You complain about Mac haters going into the mac forum and bashing the product. The OP chose to go with a Windows Laptop, yet you are the one calling him stupid. Saying he is the stupid masses and that anyone that wants to save some money and purchase a new camera or 2 laptops for the price of a Mac is stupid.

I assure you, I am not stupid, in fact quite logical, and really if you believe the stereotypes, only smart people can get a PC because they are more complicated to use according to Mac people. Again, I think I am smart and logical. Your position about trying to justifay a 17inch mac laptop that is double the price of the HP seems to stem from an emotional response. Could it be instead of the masses being stupid, that you were brainwashed into thinking a mac is worth double the price of a PC laptop? Could it be you have an emotional attachment to mac which blinds you to any other choice? Could it be because a logical part of your brain understand this that you lash out and call people stupid and the masses stupid because in some way you are trying to justify your purchase of an overpriced product? I have purchased overpriced products because I wanted them, I don't lash out at people because I am insecure. I own a japanese crotch rocket, I own a Harley which is junk by comparison as far as quality goes and way overpriced, I don't deny it or defend my choice. I just wanted it and that is good enough for me. If someone else thinks it is junk, thats fine they are entitle to their opinion but if they start with personal attacks it just makes me think they secretly want one but for some reason are unable to get one so they put it down.

 

[Richard]

Sounds like you are happy with your life. Great, I am happy with mine and find it fun to debate some of the finer details of cameras or computers. But in the end I think people should get what they want. When they ask for opinion, I will on occasion give mine, it does not take up all my time because I am busy, but it is fun on occasion to disuss things with a point of view different than your own.

I like nachos as well with cheese dip or salsa while watching the occasional race or game on TV.

Hi Richard, nice bike. I just play slow pitch now and bowl. Too old for other stuff. Otherwise, I go to bars and drink Dos Equis, watch sports and eat nachos with my amigos. Sometime we hop over to a pretty good strip club and get a lap dance.

 

[osu9400]

I have typically been agnostic and give the advice "find what you like for the best price." I have owned a MPB and various other computers (even run Linux sometimes). However, over the past couple of years I have found myself leaning towards Windows more and more. I have been running Win 7 for a year now and admit I am 100% pleased. I gave the MPD to my dad, he gave it back and I don’t use it often.

I still think Apple makes better hardware, but Windows 7 purrs along with fewer glitches than OSX. Someone asked me the other day if they should buy a Windows or Mac PC. I turned it around and had him tell me why he would want a a Mac. Here were some of his repsonses:

1. "OSX is more secure than Windows." This isn't really true. Win 7 is the most secure desktop OS available. Security firms that document vulnerabilities claim that OSX has more unptached holes than Windows. On the other hand, you could claim that there is more malware for Windows and that makes it a bigger risk.

2. "OSX is faster than Windows." Again, not really true. Both platforms use Intel and ATI. You will get similar performance on similar equipment.

3. "Windows has more bugs" - Mileage may vary, but my Snow Leopard computer has way more glitches than my Win 7 Home.

4. "Patching Windows is a pain" -- I disagree. Patches come out from Microsoft once per month on the second Tuesday. It's very predictible. Apple doesn't have a published release cycle.

5. "Apple updates their OS more often." This is true. It seems Apple relases a point release every 18 months where MS releases a new version every 36 months. Some may argue that the Apple releases are merely service packs -- Snow Leopard is a perfect example. I spent $39 upgrading my computer but it didn't really give me anything. This would have been free in MS world.

6. “You can’t buy a PC without vendor bloatware.” Mostly true but you can remove it. There is even a free tool called the decrapifier you use to clean it up.

7. “There is no ilife on Windows.” True, but I have been using the Free Windows Live Essentials 2011 since it was in beta. The photo management software has very limited editing options, but it is a superb photo manager. Superb!

8. “More people are using Macs all the time” – I think OSX marketshare peaked around 7% in 2008 in the Vista era. Since then it has very slowly declined. The last numbers I saw recebntly had OSX around 4.9%.

These weren’t exact quotes from my friend, but it was the general conversation. He also admitted that he got most of his info from the Mac vs PC ads.

So I ask you, why is that you are considering a Mac?

 

[osu9400]

SSD does not required two drive bays. You can swap an SSD drive in to a normal drive slot in your laptop at will.

Next, Windows 7 supports the TRIM operation to extend the performance of SSD. Look it up, but in a nutshell, TRIM keeps track of bad sectors and marks them as such. Typically this would kill performance, but with TRIM performance keeps level. Last time I looked at a new Mac, it did not support TRIM -- but that may have changed.

The SSD must also have current firmware to support TRIM. Many ofthe samsungs shipped last year without TRIM. So, even if you are running Win 7, it wouldn't matter. The firmware can be upgraded but it will wipe your drive.

 

[Tom_N]

A few observations:

• The HP's display has 1600 x 900 pixels. The MBP's display has 1920 x 1200 pixels. That is 60 percent more desktop area (or an opportunity to render text in more detail).

So, on a tiny little screen like 17 inch, 1080p is overkill for my eyes and most other people for laptop use. If you are going to edit photos at your desk, take the difference in price which is 1350 and buy an HP 25inch 1080p monitor for 279 and and buy a second HP laptop so you have stereo vision LOL

(remainder snipped)

Your display "solution" is just like your battery "solution".

Let's see now, the 17" MBP buyer gets a 1920 x 1200 pixel screen and a battery that can run 8 to 9 hours on a charge, both included in the bulk and weight of the laptop. (Which, by the way, are slightly less than the bulk and weight of just the HP laptop.)

The 17" HP buyer gets to carry around an external battery (half of a pound?) and a "HP 25 inch monitor" (several pounds, and lots of bulk, and it will only work in places where an AC outlet is close at hand), all to satisfy your need to make the MBP look "overpriced".

There are higher-spec PCs, but of course, high-spec on the PC side costs money, the same as it does on the Mac side, and we can't possibly have THAT. (Well, Mac bashers can't. Computer buyers can. Even if you're only in the market for a Windows-based laptop, it's to your own interest to be honest in comparing the pros and cons of low-spec vs. high-spec machines, rather than just chasing the lowest price and assuming that nothing that costs money could matter.)

 

[Richard]

Your display "solution" is just like your battery "solution".

Let's see now, the 17" MBP buyer gets a 1920 x 1200 pixel screen and a battery that can run 8 to 9 hours on a charge, both included in the bulk and weight of the laptop. (Which, by the way, are slightly less than the bulk and weight of just the HP laptop.)

I would not suggest the person carry around a 25 inch monitor, when you need to do fine editing of details, you bring your laptop to the monitor. A laptop for most people is used in such a way it does not need 1080p, 720p is more than enough for a tiny 17 inch screen. If you need the higher resolution, there are PC laptops for slightly more money that will do the job, but again for most people, they do not need to spend over double for this feature.

As far as the battery goes, adding 2 more cels to the battery probably brings the HP up to the weight of the Mac. Again, do I need to spend double the price for longer battery life? No there are other alternatives out there. HP is just one company.

The 17" HP buyer gets to carry around an external battery (half of a pound?) and a "HP 25 inch monitor" (several pounds, and lots of bulk, and it will only work in places where an AC outlet is close at hand), all to satisfy your need to make the MBP look "overpriced".

Again, HP is not the only PC laptop company. I chose it because that was the one I looked at. Most people obviously do not need to pay double for 1080p screen and longer battery life.

There are higher-spec PCs, but of course, high-spec on the PC side costs money, the same as it does on the Mac side, and we can't possibly have THAT.

Sure but as we seen, still much less expensive than Mac. I am not going to web search to satify your curiosity. Any one with a brain can figure out Mac is overpriced themselves.

(Well, Mac bashers can't. Computer buyers can. Even if you're only in the market for a Windows-based laptop, it's to your own interest to be honest in comparing the pros and cons of low-spec vs. high-spec machines, rather than just chasing the lowest price and assuming that nothing that costs money could matter.)

The HP in question is not a low spec machine. It has the same processor, 2gb more memory, two drive bays, and a slew of features, it has a slightly less resolution monitor. Heck I was editing pictures on a 800 x600 laptop for a long time with great results. The HP laptop resolution is a bonus, do I really NEED the HP laptop resolution, No. but if you do, there are other models and brands that are priced at less than half the mac with the features I would want.

If I were chasing the low end, I would get this 17inch HP laptop at $599.
Components
• charcoal
• Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
• Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-370M Dual Core processor (2.40GHz, 3MB L3 Cache)
• Intel(R) HD Graphics [HDMI, VGA]
• FREE Upgrade to 4GB DDR3 System Memory (1 Dimm)
• FREE Upgrade to 320GB 5400RPM Hard Drive
• No Additional Office Software
• No additional security software
• 6 Cell Lithium Ion Battery (standard) - Up to 5.0 hours of battery life +++
• 17.3" diagonal HD+ HP BrightView LED Display (1600 x 900)
• SuperMulti 8X DVD+ -R/RW with Double Layer Support
• Webcam and 5-in-1 integrated Digital Media Reader
• 802.11b/g/n WLAN
• Standard Keyboard

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/computer_can_series.do?storeName=computer_store&category=notebooks&a1=Category&v1=Everyday+computing&series_name=G72t_series&jumpid=in_R329_prodexp/hhoslp/psg/notebooks/Everyday_computing/G72t_series

This computer would be bottom of the line, the closest thing mac has to it is a mac book at 999 with half the memory, smaller display, smaller hard drive. Sure, the mac is lighter and has longer battery life but it also has a smaller screen. For the price difference, I could buy a netbook for when I really need portability and long battery life.

You see, this paints a picture for the average consumer, they see value in PC windows. Something you don't get in price gouging overpriced Mac. You may see it differently but 90 percent of the computer buying public does not agree with you.

 

[Richard]

Trim sets a dirty write that has been deleted to a clean write. That increases performance. But if you fill a drive up and keep writing to the same section of a near full disk, it will wear it out, Trim cannot stop it. sorry. Trim does not fix

Read wiki, wear leveling helps extend life but if you don't have enough disk left to wear level the same block get writen over and over again. Look it up for yourself.

"Flash-memory drives have limited lifetimes and will often wear out after 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 P/E cycles (1,000 to 10,000 per cell) for MLC, and up to 5,000,000 P/E cycles (100,000 per cell) for SLC.[44][45][46][47] Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate this problem by spreading writes over the entire device, called wear leveling.[24][48] However, effective write cycles can be much less, because when a write request is made to a particular memory block, all data in the block is overwritten even when only part of the memory is altered. The write amplification, as referred by Intel, can be reduced using write memory buffer.[49] In combination with wear leveling, over-provisioning SSD flash drives with spared memory capacity also delays the loss of user-accessible memory capacity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

SSD does not required two drive bays. You can swap an SSD drive in to a normal drive slot in your laptop at will.

It is not required, read my other posts, you can reduce wearing out your SSD by making sure it is large enough, also if you move page files and temp files to a disk drive this reduces premature wear. The worst thing you can do is have a single bay drive at 60gb and have if filled to 59 gb and keep writing over the same 1gb with temp files.

Again, look it up for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM

Next, Windows 7 supports the TRIM operation to extend the performance of SSD. Look it up, but in a nutshell, TRIM keeps track of bad sectors and marks them as such. Typically this would kill performance, but with TRIM performance keeps level. Last time I looked at a new Mac, it did not support TRIM -- but that may have changed.

You keep talking performance, I agree, trim marks dirty write open space to clean, but as the article states above. It does nothing for wear leveling or wearing out the disk.

The SSD must also have current firmware to support TRIM. Many ofthe samsungs shipped last year without TRIM. So, even if you are running Win 7, it

 

[osu9400]

It is probably one of the best mobile workstations available. Very nice but it is heavy and the power supply is huge! I refuse to call this thing a laptop. The 17" screen is superb and the i7 processor makes this thing fly with Windows 7. You can get an orange too!! The m6500 will cost you though.

 

[CriticalI]

so I did a need analysis.

Something portable for shoots and trips, as well as an office workhorse for my "other" job as a consultant.

But also big screen, lots of memory and a good graphics card, backup drives and a tablet for photo editing.

I also wanted a really big internal drive (500GB min) because unless you use an eSATA connection, external drives are quite slow to work from, plus I tend to need storage on the move. Even the largest SSD was not big enough. I tried one out, and apart from the initial boot up times for apps, I did not notice a huge difference.

I have a 2TB external eSATA/Firewire enclosure and 21" ViewSonic display which works fine in 1600X1400 mode. No need to upgrade yet.

First option I looked at was a MacBook pro running Windows in dual boot mode so I could use MS Office natively. Great except that even the 13" MacBook was not really as portable as I wanted and the cost was pretty high one I specced it out. Also, I wanted to buy Mac versions of some apps otherwise there was no point in having a Mac, which added to the cost. I eventually totted up about £1800 for the Mac plus about £400 for software.

Second option I looked at was a custom build W7 pro 64bit i7 quad core PC desktop with a 1TB drive, 8GB RAM and a decent 1GB ATI 5700 graphics card.

This is pretty much a Mac Pro except the latter only has 3GB RAM for £1999, whereas my PC cost a princely £1055. It also happily munches through photoshop jobs that had my old PC paging itself to death. Its fun and AFAIC, a bargain.

That meant I had change for a small 11" Packard Bell Celeron based mini-laptop with 256GB HDD and 4GB RAM running W7 home premium for £350. Both attach to my external drive bay and are networked anyway, so I can share printers and files. I dont do much photo editing on it, but I do have a copy of PS elements with ACR so I can review and edit files if I need to.

Software cost nothing because I didnt need to buy any, so I ended up actually saving £800 and getting two machines which suited my needs far better.

I have nothing against Macs, except their frothing fanbase, but then I have nothing against W7 either. Its now very stable and pretty nice to use an quite fast. I use Macs as well as many of my friends have them, but about the only preference is the lack of virus checkers, otherwise there is nothing much in it any more from a usability POV, it depends what you are used to.

Snow Leopard does not seem any more stable than W7 either and I am using W7 64 bit which was reckoned to be far more flakey than 16bit home premium versions. So far the only issue experienced was a flakey graphics card driver.

Now of course if you were to go looking for a high end laptop to do both jobs, then you are getting into serious money, plus if you dont have or need to run any Windows software then thats fine. You dont have to factor in the transfer cost.

A MacBook will cost a bit more probably, but the difference wont be as huge. High end laptops which are also decently portable are still quite pricey.

However for me, it made absolutely no sense at all.

I am considering purchasing a new laptop for my photos. Many websites highly recommend the 15 in. Macbook Pro with 8 GB RAM and 500 GB harddrive. I was thinking going with 128 solid state drive (I already have external drives to backup).

Does anyone recommend a suitable PC laptop? Would 13 in. screen be adequate or do I really need 15 in. in order to be more efficient when it comes to edit photos?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

--
Regards,
Steve

 

[Tom_N]

Second option I looked at was a custom build W7 pro 64bit i7 quad core PC desktop with a 1TB drive, 8GB RAM and a decent 1GB ATI 5700 graphics card.

This is pretty much a Mac Pro except the latter only has 3GB RAM for £1999, whereas my PC cost a princely £1055.

Not really. A Mac Pro is a Xeon-based workstation with a very nice case. Although a quad-core Core i7 now has very similar performance to a single quad-core Xeon, I believe that Intel charges system vendors more for Xeon CPUs. Go price out a Dell Precision Workstation that uses Xeons, and I think you'll find that it also costs more than a custom-build Core i7 "consumer" minitower.

 

[billzilla2000]

Good GOD.

Aside: The Lost in Space remake was a blast.

 

[Ron Poelman]

netbook can be had for $199 with a 9" screen.
Throw in your maps and internet access and it's a no-brainer.
--

 

[Jon Rty]

Xeons do cost much more, but in a single CPU set-up you gain nothing from it. The single fastest i7, the 980, is specced exactly like the single fastest Xeon. And the difference is that Windows desktops are available in i7 configurations while Mac Pros arent, so you're stuck paying the premium for Xeon even if you're only looking for a single CPU system. And the Windows system also supports much, much faster GPUs. Now, of course if you're looking at a dual CPU system, then the Mac Pros are quite comparable to offerings from Dell for instance, outside of the GPU of course.

As for the case, it's good, but there are enough comparable cases available. On another note, 1000 pounds seems like an awful lot to be paying for a i7 system without a display. If you're not using the much more expensive Xeon socket, then the fastest i7 costs around 350USD, and your case, GPU, RAM, motherboard and HDD around 100USD each.

Not really. A Mac Pro is a Xeon-based workstation with a very nice case. Although a quad-core Core i7 now has very similar performance to a single quad-core Xeon, I believe that Intel charges system vendors more for Xeon CPUs. Go price out a Dell Precision Workstation that uses Xeons, and I think you'll find that it also costs more than a custom-build Core i7 "consumer" minitower.

 

[Laurentiu Todie]

…and have a brain : ), you edit photos in Photoshop on a Mac.

That's what the clients require, the advertising agencies, and they pay big bucks; just check the help wanted sites.

Besides, one of my archiving methods is to shelf the hard drives and buy new ones.

(one who double guesses the motives of others is either a genius or a moron)

 

[CriticalI]

Fortunately I don't live in New York and I am obviously stupid because I always thought that Photoshop on a Mac produces the same output and photoshop on a PC.

Since I am not trying to get a job in NY as a graphic designer or media editor, why should it influence my choice of machine?

Callling people stupid for not owning a Mac is, er, incredibly stupid.

…and have a brain : ), you edit photos in Photoshop on a Mac.

That's what the clients require, the advertising agencies, and they pay big bucks; just check the help wanted sites.

Besides, one of my archiving methods is to shelf the hard drives and buy new ones.

(one who double guesses the motives of others is either a genius or a moron)

--
Regards,
Steve

 

[Laurentiu Todie]

Keep your regards and sarcasm.

If you were not a certified illiterate, I'd explain the difference between Mac and PC Photoshop files in ways that you're not capable of understanding anyway since you cannot read English.

I didn't call anyone "stupid". I just poked fun at the moron who used "brain" multiple times without presenting any evidence of knowing what the word means.

 

[osu9400]

I Drive my big screen with media center and love it. What about you?

 

[photog7320]

Other than that, Macs are more expensive and you get less.

How Macs fair in a price/feature comparison depends entirely on release cycles. Typically when you compare at a favorable part of the cycle (i.e. not right before Apple is about to release upgrades) and compare truly equal hardware from reputable manufacturers Apple's MacBooks compare very well, from slightly more expensive to slightly cheaper.

As for getting less, that's BS. It's only a willingness to settle for less in a PC that enables Mac vs. PC comparisons where the PC is dramatically cheaper. When I bought my MacBook Pro 13" I could have gotten a PC notebook with similar CPU, HD, and RAM for less $$$. But I wasn't willing to give up the GPU, the fast RAM or motherboard, the aluminum case, glass trackpad, small size and weight, LED backlit display, compact power supply, battery life, etc, etc, etc. I looked hard for a comparable PC notebook and could not configure one with all the same features at the same price. The PC's always ended up being more expensive yet were still missing on some point.

You do get the mac OS which runs limited software.

LOL! One of the reasons I wanted a MacBook was so that I could support my clients regardless of their platform since a Mac can run Mac OS, UNIX/X Windows, Windows, and Linux software side by side.

Because Adobe has been so expensive and I am on a budget, I use Corel Draw/photopaint suite which included video editing, photo editiing, raw editing, flash creation, website building all that software for less than CS5 by itself. And guess what, does not run on a Mac.

Guess what? It most certainly does via Boot Camp, VMWare Fusion, or Parallels.

In my experience Windows runs better in a VM, and is certainly more secure. I can recover from any piece of malware or any OS error by simply reverting to a snapshot or copying my most recent VM file backup.

The only exception to this is games. If you're a hardcore PC gamer a VM is not going to satisfy you. But then you're probably not looking at notebooks any way.

Mac is near double the price for OS and Laptop for the same
thing.

No, it's not, not if you're really comparing the same thing.

Mac does not run a lot of software.

Mac runs the most software of any platform because it can literally run all the platforms side by side.

For me it is a logical choice, but not all people are logical and use emotion to buy stuff,

Yeah, it was emotion that drove me to buy a 4.5 pound notebook that could let me run any OS or any piece of software I need to support my clients.

But in the end the choice is yours. Everyone has an opiion and there are mac people here that will try to justify. Saying you can run windows OS on mac (sure but why would you spend the extra money on a mac),

• So I can run Mac software.
• So I have the safety, security, and stability of a VM when running Windows OSes.
• So that I can run UNIX software directly.
• Because no PC notebook offers the same combination of aluminum case, LED backlit screen, glass trackpad, weight, battery life, etc. (Yes, those all add up. Now when I touch a PC notebook my mind automatically thinks "cheap junk".)

Sorry, I wouldn't trade Mac OS X or Apple's industrial design. It would be like going from a top of the line, new BMW to an old, used Ford Taurus. No thanks.