5 ms·

Have you used OS X before? I pay the Mac premium for two reasons: (1) my laptop is supported by tons of Apple Stores across the country, and (2) OS X is awesom

Have you used OS X before? I pay the Mac premium for two reasons: (1) my laptop is supported by tons of Apple Stores across the country, and (2) OS X is awesome (and since it's Unix-based, I can work in the terminal without a problem). There's also a great reselling market for Macs. If (1) and (2) don't really matter to you, go with the Dell. I'll pay the extra price to get exactly what I want in my computer.

tomkarlo 16y ago
This... the cost of my computer hardware is basically inconsequential given that these days I'll often get 3-4 years out of it. If I'm using it for work, that's like $2 a day total cost over its lifetime. I'll happily pay an incremental $1 a day for a system that saves me 10 minutes of dicking around and forgo starbucks if that's what it takes. Justifying choice of your primary work system on the basis of even a $1,000 price difference is generally penny wise - pound foolish. I don't think that's a Mac/Win/Linux issue, just common sense when it comes to work tools.
- jasonkester 16y ago
  Well said. Though a cynical contractor could counter that having less productive tools means you get to bill more hours for a given task. Sort of a flip side of the old job creation parable: "Why are those men digging that ditch with shovels? Wouldn't it be more efficient to use a backhoe?" "Yes, but this way we create more jobs." "OK, but if that's the case, why not give them spoons instead?"
  - weaksauce 16y ago
    Ha. There is always paralells and win xp if you want to be slow. But for the rest of the time i am so fast on os x. I had to do some automation programming and that was the only way to do it.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  That assumes you save any time at all. I use a ThinkPad with Win7 and I think honestly say that I lose no additional time vs using a MBP. In fact I'd argue it saves me time as I generally like the keyboard more and I can't stand trackpads (I turn mine off and use the stickpoint -- which I actually even prefer over a mouse). My point... the $1000 savings for many comes with no penalty at all. With that said, I don't have a Unix environnemnt requirements, which would change the equation in a big way.
  - tomkarlo 16y ago
    I think if you find the Thinkpad / W7 more powerful, you should go that route. All I'm saying is that if you're planning to make on the order of $250-$300K off using a piece of equipment, $1,000 (or even $10,000, arguably) probably shouldn't be material to which one you choose.
    - nooneelse 16y ago
      But any dollar not spent on one part of a work setup can be spent on some other part of the work setup, so that kind of thinking can easily come out in the wash.
  - evilduck 16y ago
    Day to day tasks, I'm pretty equally efficient in any OS, but OSX's significant "lifetime of ownership" time savings for me has been system maintenance. I've never needed to reformat and reinstall a Mac, and when I've voluntarily done it (hackintoshing), restoring a complete system from Time Machine backups has been absolutely painless. Major OSX updates have never been a problem either (although I've read accounts of errors happening), I've carried one Macbook from 10.4 to 10.6 without ever reinstalling. I've been burned a couple times trying to do distribution upgrades with Ubuntu, I've never had a Windows install that didn't need an occasional refresh for some reason, and I wouldn't dare upgrade from XP->Vista->7. I've not owned Win 7 long enough yet to determine if that will still be the case, but Windows' history has me skeptical. Just my experience. The Mac price difference has paid for itself many times over for systems I depend on and family I support.
  - 16y ago
lean 16y ago
(1)That support, in the form of AppleCare costs money, something like $350 at time of purchase. (2)OSX will run on most PCs, it's not specific to hardware anymore. The additional price paid to Apple is ostensibly for attention to detail in hardware and software design.
- scott_s 16y ago
  And the assurance that it will actually work as advertised. I don't want to spend the time and effort to get OSX working on non-Apple hardware. Maybe it will take little time and effort. Maybe it won't. I'm willing to pay to not find out.
- achompas 16y ago
  (1) That support, for the first year of my laptop's life, is complimentary. The $350 is worth it when it extends the life of my 2006 MacBook to 5 years. (2) Are you seriously suggesting I buy a Windows laptop, screw around with it for hours/days, and install a buggy version of OS X so I can save $300? No thanks.
sandGorgon 16y ago
this is not a rhetorical question - would you say that a similarly priced Dell warranty cover (what we call CompleteCover in Asia: it includes accidental damage protection) is worse than a walk-in Apple Genius support ? Dell's coverage is usually next day onsite.
- colomon 16y ago
  Personally, I've found Dell's next day onsite service very impressive. BUT the laptop in question needed such service so often that I would never buy another Dell without evidence of a major change in their operations. (Not to mention that at one point their online service guys told me our harddrive was not salvageable and recommended reformatting it. I ignored them and less than 12 hours later had backed up the entire drive using a Linux Live CD.)
- achompas 16y ago
  Never owned a Dell, but support for my Compaq (I know, I know) was absolutely terrible. Others could probably answer this question better.
rmc 16y ago
As a Linux user I find it funny when OSX is compared to a Unix OS since it has a terminal. That's like saying Nextstep (what OSX is based on) is an acceptable OSX
- DrJokepu 16y ago
  OS X is a fully POSIX compliant operating system (as opposed to Linux, which is not fully compliant). It is officially branded as Unix. I don't understand what you mean?
  - whatusername 16y ago
    Aside from OSX -- I wonder how many people on HN actually have much dealings with a real UNIX (a Solaris or AIX etc). I would hazard a guess that *nix means Linux to a large % of the population.
  - rmc 16y ago
    POSIX is irrelevant, Linux is POSIX compliant, no-ones bothered to pay the money for the piece of paper the important thing is the tools. The main thing lacking from OSX is a package manager, in Linux its build in. On OSX you have to use 3rd party ones. Just look at mark pilgrims 'how to install mysql on ubuntu' for an example of how It Just Works on Linux and on OSX you have to tweak lots of config files.
    - scott_s 16y ago
      Then your complaint is not "It's not Unix." It's really "It's not Linux."
    - mapgrep 16y ago
      There is no package manager built into Linux. There are a variety package managers to choose from on Linux (apt, yum, portage) just as on Mac OS X (which has MacPorts, Homebrew, and Fink). Perhaps you are thinking of apt, a popular, slick, "best of breed" package manager that is native on exactly one of the many Linux distributions: Debian. It is technically "third party," though "built in," on other Linux distributions like Ubuntu, which is based on Debian but not the same thing as Debian. Anyway, packaging is a mess on both Linux and OS X. Even on Ubuntu and Debian you have to go outside the built in packager for a truly good experience in certain cases, e.g. Ruby via rvm; Rails and other ruby packages via gem; Perl modules via CPAN, etc. Yes, OS X would be better with a package manager other than the one built into the App Store, but a lack of one does not make it Not Unix.

tomkarlo 16y ago

This... the cost of my computer hardware is basically inconsequential given that these days I'll often get 3-4 years out of it. If I'm using it for work, that's like $2 a day total cost over its lifetime. I'll happily pay an incremental $1 a day for a system that saves me 10 minutes of dicking around and forgo starbucks if that's what it takes. Justifying choice of your primary work system on the basis of even a $1,000 price difference is generally penny wise - pound foolish. I don't think that's a Mac/Win/Linux issue, just common sense when it comes to work tools.

jasonkester 16y ago
Well said. Though a cynical contractor could counter that having less productive tools means you get to bill more hours for a given task. Sort of a flip side of the old job creation parable: "Why are those men digging that ditch with shovels? Wouldn't it be more efficient to use a backhoe?" "Yes, but this way we create more jobs." "OK, but if that's the case, why not give them spoons instead?"
- weaksauce 16y ago
  Ha. There is always paralells and win xp if you want to be slow. But for the rest of the time i am so fast on os x. I had to do some automation programming and that was the only way to do it.
kenjackson 16y ago
That assumes you save any time at all. I use a ThinkPad with Win7 and I think honestly say that I lose no additional time vs using a MBP. In fact I'd argue it saves me time as I generally like the keyboard more and I can't stand trackpads (I turn mine off and use the stickpoint -- which I actually even prefer over a mouse). My point... the $1000 savings for many comes with no penalty at all. With that said, I don't have a Unix environnemnt requirements, which would change the equation in a big way.
- tomkarlo 16y ago
  I think if you find the Thinkpad / W7 more powerful, you should go that route. All I'm saying is that if you're planning to make on the order of $250-$300K off using a piece of equipment, $1,000 (or even $10,000, arguably) probably shouldn't be material to which one you choose.
  - nooneelse 16y ago
    But any dollar not spent on one part of a work setup can be spent on some other part of the work setup, so that kind of thinking can easily come out in the wash.
- evilduck 16y ago
  Day to day tasks, I'm pretty equally efficient in any OS, but OSX's significant "lifetime of ownership" time savings for me has been system maintenance. I've never needed to reformat and reinstall a Mac, and when I've voluntarily done it (hackintoshing), restoring a complete system from Time Machine backups has been absolutely painless. Major OSX updates have never been a problem either (although I've read accounts of errors happening), I've carried one Macbook from 10.4 to 10.6 without ever reinstalling. I've been burned a couple times trying to do distribution upgrades with Ubuntu, I've never had a Windows install that didn't need an occasional refresh for some reason, and I wouldn't dare upgrade from XP->Vista->7. I've not owned Win 7 long enough yet to determine if that will still be the case, but Windows' history has me skeptical. Just my experience. The Mac price difference has paid for itself many times over for systems I depend on and family I support.
- 16y ago

lean 16y ago

(1)That support, in the form of AppleCare costs money, something like $350 at time of purchase. (2)OSX will run on most PCs, it's not specific to hardware anymore. The additional price paid to Apple is ostensibly for attention to detail in hardware and software design.

scott_s 16y ago
And the assurance that it will actually work as advertised. I don't want to spend the time and effort to get OSX working on non-Apple hardware. Maybe it will take little time and effort. Maybe it won't. I'm willing to pay to not find out.
achompas 16y ago
(1) That support, for the first year of my laptop's life, is complimentary. The $350 is worth it when it extends the life of my 2006 MacBook to 5 years. (2) Are you seriously suggesting I buy a Windows laptop, screw around with it for hours/days, and install a buggy version of OS X so I can save $300? No thanks.

sandGorgon 16y ago

this is not a rhetorical question - would you say that a similarly priced Dell warranty cover (what we call CompleteCover in Asia: it includes accidental damage protection) is worse than a walk-in Apple Genius support ? Dell's coverage is usually next day onsite.

colomon 16y ago
Personally, I've found Dell's next day onsite service very impressive. BUT the laptop in question needed such service so often that I would never buy another Dell without evidence of a major change in their operations. (Not to mention that at one point their online service guys told me our harddrive was not salvageable and recommended reformatting it. I ignored them and less than 12 hours later had backed up the entire drive using a Linux Live CD.)
achompas 16y ago
Never owned a Dell, but support for my Compaq (I know, I know) was absolutely terrible. Others could probably answer this question better.

rmc 16y ago

As a Linux user I find it funny when OSX is compared to a Unix OS since it has a terminal. That's like saying Nextstep (what OSX is based on) is an acceptable OSX

DrJokepu 16y ago
OS X is a fully POSIX compliant operating system (as opposed to Linux, which is not fully compliant). It is officially branded as Unix. I don't understand what you mean?
- whatusername 16y ago
  Aside from OSX -- I wonder how many people on HN actually have much dealings with a real UNIX (a Solaris or AIX etc). I would hazard a guess that *nix means Linux to a large % of the population.
- rmc 16y ago
  POSIX is irrelevant, Linux is POSIX compliant, no-ones bothered to pay the money for the piece of paper the important thing is the tools. The main thing lacking from OSX is a package manager, in Linux its build in. On OSX you have to use 3rd party ones. Just look at mark pilgrims 'how to install mysql on ubuntu' for an example of how It Just Works on Linux and on OSX you have to tweak lots of config files.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    Then your complaint is not "It's not Unix." It's really "It's not Linux."
  - mapgrep 16y ago
    There is no package manager built into Linux. There are a variety package managers to choose from on Linux (apt, yum, portage) just as on Mac OS X (which has MacPorts, Homebrew, and Fink). Perhaps you are thinking of apt, a popular, slick, "best of breed" package manager that is native on exactly one of the many Linux distributions: Debian. It is technically "third party," though "built in," on other Linux distributions like Ubuntu, which is based on Debian but not the same thing as Debian. Anyway, packaging is a mess on both Linux and OS X. Even on Ubuntu and Debian you have to go outside the built in packager for a truly good experience in certain cases, e.g. Ruby via rvm; Rails and other ruby packages via gem; Perl modules via CPAN, etc. Yes, OS X would be better with a package manager other than the one built into the App Store, but a lack of one does not make it Not Unix.