Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
Mac Newsforums, a part of the
04-24-2013, 09:04 PM #1
IT Solutions Company Deems Apple's MacBook Pro "Best Performing Windows Laptop"
According to Soluto, a PC management services company, “in the field” testing has revealed that an Apple-built laptop is the number one performing Windows machine as of April 2013, despite the fact that it isn’t optimized for the operating system. In its first ever report, Soluto looked at long term analysis of a “huge number” of PCs, taking data from application crashes, freezes, long boot-ups and other general computing slow-downs in what it called “frustration analytics,” and found Apple’s 13-inch MacBook Pro to be the best Windows laptop available.
Along with taking the top spot, the 15-inch Retina display MacBook Pro came in at number six, behind PCs made by Acer and Dell. Acer’s $429 Aspire E1-571 came in second, while Dell’s XPS13 followed in third place. Soluto’s report mentioned the following:
The MacBook Pro is the most expensive PC among the top 3, but if you’re looking for top reliability - the data is clear. MacBook Pro is the best Windows PC on the market.
It should be noted that for its sample, the firm data used 150,000 laptops over a three month period, from January to April, analyzing "application crashes, application hangs, blue-screens-of-death, boot time and number of background processes" to generate a comparison that it says yields a "real user experience."
Source: Soluto via AppleInsider, CNET
04-24-2013, 09:52 PM #2
This is nonsense. It's very clear they did this with the intention of being provocative and giving these reviews. Windows on a mac has so many driver problems, not to mention you're paying 3X for the same specs a normal PC can give you. Would a $1200 macbook look nicer and appear more solid than something that is literally a third of the price? Well duh. Why don't we take a mercedes benz and put a honda civic engine in it while we're at it too.
04-24-2013, 10:09 PM #3
Ya not to mention Acer and Dell are the worst 2 PC companies out there.. And under half, even 3 times, the price of the MacBook Pro 13. Why not compare it to a 1200 dollar Asus??
04-24-2013, 10:30 PM #4
04-24-2013, 11:01 PM #5
Also the fact that I can dual boot back into Mac OS X ML is pretty amazing.
04-24-2013, 11:17 PM #6
04-24-2013, 11:41 PM #7
04-25-2013, 12:02 AM #8
So this article basically says that Macs run windows better.
The Following User Says Thank You to bigbaba For This Useful Post:
04-25-2013, 02:20 AM #9
Saying it's overpriced and spouting off specs that are similar, though not the same, and can be found in an 8 pound plastic notebook is meaningless. If specs are all you care about then buy an Android device and leave these forums. When you buy a Mac you are paying for quality. And in case you didn't notice, ultrabooks with similar specs from Samsung or Lenovo are within $100 of what Apple's asking for. Premium products command premium prices. It's not just specs. The materials, the craftsmanship, the weight, the customer service: these are all things that add value and can't be found in a notebook twice the weight and half the price. A BMW and a Chevy both have wheels, an engine, and can get you from point A to point B. That doesn't make them equal. Just ask a BMW or Macbook owner and they'll affirm what I've said. Think about it.They can have my jailbreak when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
04-25-2013, 05:20 AM #10Performance, reliability
FYI... You have to actually install the drivers that are on the disc included in the box... Forget about the price... the article is about performance and reliability... boy you really do seem to have a civic engine up in there.... The only driver issue I have come across while going through the procedure (over 250 times) is the keyboard were the function keys would not work. To my surprise 'cough cough', reinstalling the single drivers works like a charm... Never the less, the mac still boots windows faster then any other... No such thing as a reliable Asus nor Acer four that matter...
You want cheap, then buy cheap. The point of this article is that windows runs ''better'' on a mac then anything else, which is something I have been saying for years... This article aint news.
It should be noted that for its sample, the firm data used 150,000 laptops over a three month period,[...]
''Jaques Chirac n'était pas le Français... le plus vénéré''.
04-25-2013, 05:41 AM #11
does anyone still buy acer?
The Following User Says Thank You to LittleJob For This Useful Post:
04-25-2013, 06:18 AM #12
That "study"... Is that all the data they used? There was no actual analyzation of the causes of the "frustration" events? Was it really just an observation of logs without using proper scientific controls or even accounting for what processes were responsible for causing the events? Do these Soluto experts understand why 37,000 sources is inadequate in this study under these conditions?
Just to cite this now, to clarify why I'm using the number 37,000 instead of 150,000:
We started by choosing 150k PCs that 1) are of a laptop form-factor, including ultrabooks and netbooks; and 2) their OS was installed in the past 12 months (because we wanted to focus on laptops available for purchase on the market today).
We then removed every PC model that is either 1) not offered anymore for purchase or; 2) exists in insignificant amounts within our user base.
We were left with 37k laptops, spanning 49 models (“relevant models”). Vendors represented are (in descending order of how many models they have represented): HP, Lenovo, Dell, Samsung, Asus, Acer, Toshiba and Apple.
Source: Soluto | PC Purchasing Guide
If you took the software responsible for a crash and installed it on any other PC or Mac running Windows, the chances for a crash occurring would often be the same as on the original machine, with the exception of some things like hardware driver conflicts. But we aren't shown the causes of the frustration events in the study on the Soluto website, so we can't know what percentage of the events may be relevant.
Without conducting the study in a controlled environment, the results have no frame of reference. How many and which brands experienced physical damage during the study? How many had viruses? Which viruses were they and what do their functions do? What list of installed programs did each of the 37,000 computers have, what are the known conflicts between each computer's installed programs, and why do the conflicts occur? What known hardware and driver issues exist for each of the components in the pool of 37,000 computers, and which drivers conflict with which of each computer's installed programs? What is the state of each computer's registry, and are there any conflicts originating from the registry, and if so, what values are conflicting with what software and why is the conflict occurring? Do the frustration events coincide with high CPU load, high memory usage, high temperatures, power surges / outages, etc? Are cats chewing on the wires? How consistent is each frustration event and its underlying cause across each brand and model of computer? Are there exceptions in the consistencies of the causes of those frustration events? What hardware components were changed or modified on each computer? Are boot options set the same on each of the 37,000 computers, and was boot data offset appropriately for computers using modified boot settings?
Why was average background processes used as a scoring category? Programs like Chrome differ greatly in this way as opposed to Firefox; Chrome creates a new process for each tab, while Firefox uses one process total for all tabs. Was this data used to offset the "background processes" calculations?
Were any of these things used to offset the results? This isn't a study. This is an event log with no causal data. They don't even disclose how many computers of each brand were monitored. "25 more processes equivalent to one additional crash every week"... Explain this reasoning in fine technical detail please, citing the OS algorithms from which this logic has been derived, and how it takes into account the irrelevance of 25 open notepad documents.
I came here because I was interested in reading a technical examination of what would make a Mac run Windows better than a PC. It's disappointing to find no comprehensive data at all, even in the study cited by the article. Soluto touts its use of uncontrolled testing environments as "real people under real conditions", but they don't have the ability to gather the data relevant to the "real world" conditions that may have affected the scores.
It puzzles me. With access to such a large number of subjects, why do such a shallow study? It's a waste. I guess maybe Soluto's servers don't receive detailed enough crash and system information from the PCs connected to their network?
04-25-2013, 07:12 AM #13
This makes sense. We have plenty of faculty members that prefer to have a MacBook Pro running Windows rather than buying an actual PC, they don't have nearly as many problems. Also I would hope that someone smart would format their new PC so they don't have any crapware...then put Windows on it. You definitely get what you pay!
04-25-2013, 08:18 AM #14
As I was reading all I could think was these complainers have never used or owned a Mac book pro or they would understand what's up. I owned pc's for years, did all the work on them myself (formats etc) and my family's and friends too. (No I'm not an IT. I'm self taught. Easy for PC's)
Then after getting so tired if having to fix them I finally saved up for my Mac book pro 13in. I have never had to repair format anything!! Just bought Mac Keeper and I'm good to go. The money I'd spent on pc's since 1998 I could have at least 7 Mac books. So say what you want about Mercedes - Honda, whatever, but think about it which would you REALLY rather drive.
04-25-2013, 08:25 AM #15
[sarcasm] Good point on three times the price...except only one of the others is 1/3 the price. Since they are comparing performance, welllll, the article mentioning who performed well and at what cost (≈$1,200) seems ... ok'ish.
Apparently their testing did not indicate the problems you have had with driver problems, maybe you're running different programs. But then again, based upon your earlier comments of appearance (which have no relevance) and comment of prices (only one of the top five fits your math, one is half'ish, one is comparable) I am left not feeling your credibility.
All that being said, I rarely trust anyone's reviews or articles for accuracy anymore w/o a strong history.
Last edited by GeoffS4; 04-25-2013 at 08:30 AM.
04-25-2013, 10:33 AM #16
For $1200 you can build an amazing PC. This comparison is horrible. Low end machines vs a MBP? GTFO..>>
04-25-2013, 10:39 AM #17
04-25-2013, 11:12 AM #18
Proving once again that Microsoft is right for moving to create their on hardware products. The crap OEMs have given windows a bad name with all of their preloaded bloatware and substandard build quality not to mention all of the driver update nightmares that windows users have endured. Let them squawk and complain all they want, MICROSOFT IS RIGHT TO BE APPLE'ESQUE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE MINDED FOR THE FUTURE!!
Last edited by Lohand; 04-25-2013 at 11:14 AM.
04-25-2013, 11:28 AM #19
The big deference between a Mac and a OEM PC is the internal components. If you open up a Mac, everything inside is name brand and not something sourced out to the lowest Chinese no name bidder. The quality of the components inside is what makes them last longer and run without issues. The drivers available for the components inside are much better written and updated more often.
Last edited by slim.jim; 04-25-2013 at 11:39 AM.
04-25-2013, 02:41 PM #20