New HP Envy laptops: MacBook Pro sexiness but higher price??

[Darren Addy]

HP has introduced their new sexy (borrowing from the MacBook Pro) 13" and 15" laptops and the tech sites are drooling all over themselves.

While they look nice, I don't quite understand the price tags. Apple is always bashed for being too expensive, but when a company like HP tries to match 'em their prices are even higher (but no corresponding complaints on their prices). The HP Envy 13 is supposed to sell for $1699 (the 13" MacBook Pro is starts at $1199 and gives you the option of running OS X and Windows). The HP Envy 15 is supposed to sell for $1699 (the 15" MacBook Pro starts at $1699 and runs both operating systems).

 

[Jerry Prsha]

HP has introduced their new sexy (borrowing from the MacBook Pro) 13" and 15" laptops and the tech sites are drooling all over themselves.

While they look nice, I don't quite understand the price tags. Apple is always bashed for being too expensive, but when a company like HP tries to match 'em their prices are even higher (but no corresponding complaints on their prices). The HP Envy 13 is supposed to sell for $1699 (the 13" MacBook Pro is starts at $1199 and gives you the option of running OS X and Windows). The HP Envy 15 is supposed to sell for $1699 (the 15" MacBook Pro starts at $1699 and runs both operating systems).

It's OK Darren.. We "Mac-People" are used to non-logic... heheh

 

[Jason Foster]

Because Apple computers just aren't good business machines, don't hold up well, and over and over and over again, I keep hearing of people going back to PC after MACs. I'll get a mac when I'm forced to go with final Cut Pro for editing...otherwise no sale here!

 

[Darren Addy]

Because Apple computers just aren't good business machines, don't hold up well, and over and over and over again, I keep hearing of people going back to PC after MACs.

I'll get a mac when I'm forced to go with final Cut Pro for editing...otherwise no sale here!

OK, I'll bite. What's/who's going to force you?

 

[Jerry Prsha]

Because Apple computers just aren't good business machines, don't hold up well, and over and over and over again, I keep hearing of people going back to PC after MACs. I'll get a mac when I'm forced to go with final Cut Pro for editing...otherwise no sale here!

That's really a load of crap. My job for the past few years has been to convert people over from Windows to the Mac. There's no one going back the other way. Not sure where you read that but they certainly haven't done any research on the subject.

I can expect about 3-4 years from a Windows based machine where I still have people using Macs from @ 2000. No reloading Windows over and over, no viruses. The machines have been built rock solid for years. I have a few hard drives die every once in a while but certainly Apple doesn't get blamed for that?

Sorry.. One of those "Urban Legends" that sticks in my craw...

 

[D. Hayes]

Riddle me this...

You can install Leopard on the PC. Does that make it mac? I hate how Apple plays the Mac vs PC game when it should be Mac vs Windows. People using Linux also have PC hardware and they can easily play the offensive on what's better.

On topic though...

That 13 is nice looking but after reading the article I'll stick with a standard laptop. Really it just sits on my ram mount so I don't care how thin it is long as it can handle the bumps.

 

[Scott Hammel]

I'm a mac guy I fully admit. For chasing I've had no problems whatsoever. I boot XP when I'm out chasing to use GR3, and then jump back over to Mac OS to edit my video. And I'm using just a regular $1000 Mac Book, no "Pro" needed. Works perfectly for me and it didn't cost me a fortune.

 

[Jerry Prsha]

Riddle me this...

You can install Leopard on the PC. Does that make it mac? I hate how Apple plays the Mac vs PC game when it should be Mac vs Windows. People using Linux also have PC hardware and they can easily play the offensive on what's better.

I can understand this. In one way, I don't like Apple having complete control over what you purchase to run their OS on. But on the other hand, that's why they run so well. No worries about what driver to install, etc and the owness is on Apple to get things right. There's a "buck stops here" kind of mentality.

The HP does look a lot like the new MacBook Pros and I'm sure that they would be a great purchase for long term use.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Mac's aren't immune to virus. There just aren't enough Macs out there for someone to bother to write one for them yet. If they become more popular and more people buy them - then you can expect it to happen to them as well.

They are overpriced, hardware isn't as good as PC's/laptops, and there are far fewer programs/apps written for them - still. The PC platform is still far more economical and plentiful by a great margin. If you like your Mac for doing photos - I can understand that. But for a majority that still likes having a platform with so many versatile uses (as well as photo work) - I'll make mine a PC any time; any day...

 

[Darren Addy]

Mac's aren't immune to virus. There just aren't enough Macs out there for someone to bother to write one for them yet. If they become more popular and more people buy them - then you can expect it to happen to them as well.

Ah, the "market share" myth.

Macs account for roughly 10% of the world's personal computer users — (some say as much as 16%) — so the first half of the myth doesn't even stand up to scrutiny. Macs aren't "obscure" at all. Therefore, the Apple Mac platform's ironclad security simply cannot logically be attributed to obscurity.

There are zero-percent (0%) of viruses for the Mac OS X platform that should, logically, have some 10-16% of the world's viruses if platforms' install bases dictate the numbers of viruses. The fact that Mac OS X has zero (0) viruses totally discounts "security via obscurity." There should be at least some Mac OS X viruses. There are none. The reason for this fact is not attributable solely to "obscurity," it's attributable to superior security design.

Still not convinced? Try this one on for size: according to Apple CEO Steve Jobs yesterday at WWDC, there are "19 million Mac OS X users" in the world and there are still zero (0) viruses. According to CNET, the Windows Vista Beta was released "to about 10,000 testers" at the time the first Windows Vista virus arrived. So much for the security via obscurity myth.

- source

You don't have to know much about computer science (or Googling) to understand that Windows has been (and continues to be) the most inherently insecure operating system out there. Love or hate Apple, their OS is based upon the BSD version of Unix which is one of the most inherently secure operating systems out there.

Nobody is claiming that Mac's are immune to viruses. As a Mac user since about 1998, I know that. My Mac got a virus in 1998. I believe that was OS 7.5. Haven't had one since. Haven't ever bought anti-virus software. Don't use freeware anti-virus software. Don't have spyware problems.

You don't think that there are plenty of hackers that wouldn't love to make their "mark" by writing the first big-problem virus for the OS X Mac community? If you really think they just haven't tried yet and are waiting for the Mac to gain more market share, I've got some land in the Everglades I'd like to offer you.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Well Darrin, I don't know where to quite begin...
For a kickoff, I live ~3 miles from Apple HQ in Cupertino. It's just straight down the street from me. Several of the local Hams that I talk to on 2m radios are engineers that work for Apple - including some of the software writers for Snow Leopard. Another one is a close friend of mine that also operates on CB/11m radio, and he writes apps for iPod - this is his job. He agrees with me about what I've written. And yes; this is an appeal to authority for my argument. But it is also straght out of the horses mouth - too.

I'm not down on you - or Macs - so please don't misunderstand me. Nothing personal whatsoever. I just hate to think that someone might get the idea that Macs are trouble-free. This just isn't so. They can have hardware failures as easily as a PC can/does. In fact, my friend had a failure of his Macbook just last week and had to return it. He was pained about it because it is set up to work with the company's servers and that failure cost the company valuable time. He spent countless hours on company time - just to reload all of the apps in order to get things going once again. If it weren't for the bad rep that Vista has created for PC's and Mcrosoft, Macs wouldn't have thrived over the last three years or so as they have. Microsoft's failure became Macs opportunity.

If one has the 'extra money' to spend on a Mac; then that is fine - enjoy it. But for bang for buck for a new or seasoned chaser alike - a PC based laptop for the money spent is still very hard to beat. Even laptops that are ~2 years old can be upgraded with faster/more RAM and getting a copy of Windows 7. The difference between a new Mac and a PC-based laptop that has been upgraded is almost a $1000! Unless one has that kind of money to throw around - a PC-based laptop is a better value.

 

[Brett Roberts]

Mac's aren't immune to virus. There just aren't enough Macs out there for someone to bother to write one for them yet. If they become more popular and more people buy them - then you can expect it to happen to them as well.

They are overpriced, hardware isn't as good as PC's/laptops, and there are far fewer programs/apps written for them - still. The PC platform is still far more economical and plentiful by a great margin. If you like your Mac for doing photos - I can understand that. But for a majority that still likes having a platform with so many versatile uses (as well as photo work) - I'll make mine a PC any time; any day...

Security concerns notwithstanding, I completely agree about the comparative value of Apple products vs. their PC counterparts.

It's not that Macs are bad machines; in fact, I think their notebooks are quite nice and are better-built than 95% of PC laptops. However, I think even the hardcore Apple fans can admit this: the Apple brand name has become something of a status symbol (for lack of a better term) in recent years and there's a significant "bandwagon effect" going on, at least among the college-age people I know. The result is a price premium that has nothing to do with the actual quality of the product, and everything to do with the "hip factor." To reiterate, I'm not claiming that Macs aren't high-quality products or that they aren't worth any price premium over comparable PC's; I'm simply saying that given their huge surge in popularity, many customers are willing to pay more than the products are worth on their merits just to "join the club," so to speak. And if customers are willing to pay an excessive premium, heaven knows Apple is willing to charge it (they've been quite adept at that for as long as I can remember).

This is anecdotal, but I've been running Vista (and more recently Windows 7) on various machines for several years with no problems whatsoever. No viruses, no antivirus software. No blue screens of death. No crashes. What I've seen a lot of with my friends and classmates lately is that they'll make very poor choices WRT sites they visit and files they open on their PC's, then use the ensuing problems as an excuse to switch over to Apple (despite that being a poor budgetary choice for most students). It may be true that OS X is more resistant to viruses and security breaches than Vista/7, but in most of these cases, the owner could have solved 100% of his/her problems simply by reformatting, reinstalling Windows, and using a shred of common sense thereafter.

All that said, I think the upcoming HP models references in the original post are a joke. I bought a new laptop this past winter and went with a nice Dell Latitude for $800 (rather than a MacBook or MBP) because budget is a factor for me. But if budget wasn't a factor, there's no question I'd choose a MBP over any HP model any day of the week. One of the strongest selling points of the Apple notebooks is their ability to run both OS X (without hacks) and Windows natively; plus, their build quality and sleek design are hard to top. I'm not sure what would drive someone to spend an equal or greater amount on this knock-off HP model.

 

[Jerry Prsha]

If one has the 'extra money' to spend on a Mac; then that is fine - enjoy it. But for bang for buck for a new or seasoned chaser alike - a PC based laptop for the money spent is still very hard to beat. Even laptops that are ~2 years old can be upgraded with faster/more RAM and getting a copy of Windows 7. The difference between a new Mac and a PC-based laptop that has been upgraded is almost a $1000! Unless one has that kind of money to throw around - a PC-based laptop is a better value.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/148032/mac_vs_windows_laptops.html

Add antivirus and your time fixing things.. The Mac ends up being cheaper.

I thought I'd add even more fuel...

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=242801,00.asp