37,000-machine study finds most reliable Windows PC is a Mac

[Jozi]

 

According to a report by PC management service Soluto, the best performing Windows laptop in a recent test was a MacBook Pro, created by Microsoft's arch-rival Apple.

 

It is a nice lump of irony that Apple fans are going to enjoy for a while: based on statistics gathered from 150,000 computers, Soluto found that the best performing Windows laptop was a 13" MacBook Pro.

Of course, Macintosh computers don't ever ship with Microsoft Windows installed. In order to use Windows on an Apple computer, users must install Apple's Boot Camp utility, and pay for a Windows license.

Second on the list below the MacBook was an Acer Aspire, followed by some Dells, another Acer, another MacBook, more Dells, and a Lenovo.

 

 

 

The immediate apparent implications of these results are, of course, that MacBooks tend to have superior hardware to average PCs. While this may be true, tech blogs are quick to point out that all non-Apple computers on Soluto's list came with an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) install of Windows, while any version of Windows installed on a MacBook had to be user installed and customized. This may serve as evidence for the old contention that fresh Windows installs usually perform better than OEMs shipped with a computer.

Among factors that affected laptops' rankings on Soluto's list were the number of program crashes, stop errors, and hangs experienced by a computer in a week. Apparently, the MacBook Pro statistically suffered the least.

Even so, it is hard to see many people buying MacBooks to use as Windows computers for both the hassle of configuring such a system, and for the expense. While Apple computers are notoriously expensive (as evident in Soluto's list), getting a Windows license to go with it sets the user behind another $100-$150 (on average), depending on the version of Windows he or she buys.

 

Personally I would chooce Acer Aspire E1-571 over that macbook just because of that price difference.

 

http://vr-zone.com/articles/the-best-windows-laptop-is-apparently-a-mac/19799.html

 

[EChondo]

And supposedly #6 is as well!

[Nick Paviour]

Never heard so much crap in all my life.

[Glenwing]

I don't think people understand -.-  Once you mess around the operating systems, they're just computers.  The one with the i7-3615QM, GT 650M, 8GB DDR3, and SSD will win if the others have worse hardware.  That's all there is to it.  There's nothing magical about Macs that would affect performance in Windows.  They're all just computers, the one with the fastest hardware wins.

[EChondo]

I don't think people understand -.-  Once you mess around the operating systems, they're just computers.  The one with the i7-3615QM, GT 650M, 8GB DDR3, and SSD will win if the others have worse hardware.  That's all there is to it.  There's nothing magical about Macs that would affect performance in Windows.  They're all just computers, the one with the fastest hardware wins.

But...the Mac has a Apple logo on it!  :P

[m0n5t3r]

Might have an Apple Logo, but you then know quality construction rather than plastic and other cheap material.

[Glenwing]

Plastic is a durable material.  If the durability of plastic vs aluminum is coming into play, you should probably just be handling your computer better in the first place.  It's a computer, for goodness sake.

[Lyons]

Why wouldn't they be the best? They have:

 

- great battery life

- the best build quality

- the best support

- the best trackpads

- the best keyboards (now that Thinkpads have changed to chiclet)

- the best screens (rMBP, and MBP is also 16:10)

- they can run OSX, linux, and Windows very easily (bootcamp) 

- they're easy as hell to use (esp. no need for drivers)

- OSX is a very, very good OS

- they network super easy with other macs and Apple products like iPads/iPhones/aTV, which a HELL of a lot of people have these days

 

No one in the real world cares about specs and gaming capability any more when it comes to laptops; notice how half of those 10 laptops are ultrabooks? As long as it can run office programs and web browsers, it's satisfactory, and OSX is arguably superior for these applications. It's faster and more stable, as the quoted OP states. Simple things are what laptops are used for these days. People WILL the spend money on them because they really do 'just work'. The fact that a lot of you wouldn't spend the money on a MBP doesn't mean the rest of the laptop using population won't, and anyone who thinks Macbooks aren't good laptops hasn't used one. I have a Macbook Pro and a Lenovo X220, don't try to tell me I'm wrong.

[precisys]

I don't think people understand -.-  Once you mess around the operating systems, they're just computers.  The one with the i7-3615QM, GT 650M, 8GB DDR3, and SSD will win if the others have worse hardware.  That's all there is to it.  There's nothing magical about Macs that would affect performance in Windows.  They're all just computers, the one with the fastest hardware wins.

It's not just the hardware that needs to be faster. If the fastest hardware in the world has crappy drivers it can't win against a slower hardware with awesome drivers.

[Glenwing]

It's not just the hardware that needs to be faster. If the fastest hardware in the world has crappy drivers it can't win against a slower hardware with awesome drivers.

 

True, but I don't think an Apple laptop with a GT 650M and Windows drivers will perform any differently than another laptop with a GT 650M and Windows drivers.  Again, they do use the same basic hardware as any other PC, except maybe the motherboard drivers I guess.  That being said the main motherboard components (NIC, I/O controllers) are things that are found on other PCs too.  So the drivers shouldn't much different if you're running Windows on it.

 

And uh oh, here comes Lyons again... No one said Apple makes bad computers here.  No one said you could get the same specs in a PC for a lower price, and therefore Macs suck.  No one said that.  No one was comparing OS X to Windows.  Are you just coming in trying to start a debate?  You should make your own thread for that.  You're responding to arguments and posts that don't exist, not in this thread anyway.

[Lyons]

True, but I don't think an Apple laptop with a GT 650M and Windows drivers will perform any differently than another laptop with a GT 650M and Windows drivers.  Again, they do use the same basic hardware as any other PC, except maybe the motherboard drivers I guess.  That being said the main motherboard components (NIC, I/O controllers) are things that are found on other PCs too.  So the drivers shouldn't much different if you're running Windows on it.

 

And uh oh, here comes Lyons again... No one said Apple makes bad computers here.  No one said you could get the same specs in a PC for a lower price, and therefore Macs suck.  No one said that.  No one was comparing OS X to Windows.  Are you just coming in trying to start a debate?  You should make your own thread for that.  You're responding to arguments and posts that don't exist, not in this thread anyway.

 

Not even in the slightest - why would I? The second response has already brought a negative reaction, and the general idealism around here makes more negative responses almost inevitable. I'm agreeing with the article, and to an extent explaining how the MBP's ranking is justified. Is that ok with you? We're in agreement, don't try to make something out of nothing, like you are claiming I am.

[Glenwing]

No one in the real world cares about specs and gaming capability any more when it comes to laptops; notice how half of those 10 laptops are ultrabooks? As long as it can run office programs and web browsers, it's satisfactory, and OSX is arguably superior for these applications. It's faster and more stable, as the quoted OP states. Simple things are what laptops are used for these days. People WILL the spend money on them because they really do 'just work'. The fact that a lot of you wouldn't spend the money on a MBP doesn't mean the rest of the laptop using population won't, and anyone who thinks Macbooks aren't good laptops hasn't used one. I have a Macbook Pro and a Lenovo X220, don't try to tell me I'm wrong.

 

This sounds almost like a cookie cutter response to anyone who says PCs are better that Macs.  You covered (1) Specs aren't everything (2) Laptops aren't just about gaming (3) OS X is a better OS (4) It's expensive but not overpriced, because it has things beyond specs (trackpad, keyboard, support, etc.).  These points are directed at no one.  I was never arguing that PCs are more powerful or better for gaming, or that Macs are overpriced, or that MacBooks are bad laptops, or any of the other things you addressed.  In fact no one in this thread said that.  What I did say, the only thing I said, was that the main hardware inside Apple computers (Intel CPU, NVIDIA GPU, etc) are all components that can also be found in PCs, which is true.  And once you install Windows on it and perform a test, which is what they did in the article, may the computer with the most powerful and stable hardware win.  That's all.  I said nothing about gaming performance, or the value/price of Macs, and wasn't putting them down.

[Lyons]

This sounds almost like a cookie cutter response to anyone who says PCs are better that Macs.  You covered (1) Specs aren't everything (2) Laptops aren't just about gaming (3) OS X is a better OS (4) It's expensive but not overpriced, because it has things beyond specs (trackpad, keyboard, support, etc.).  These points are directed at no one.  I was never arguing that PCs are more powerful or better for gaming, or that Macs are overpriced, or that MacBooks are bad laptops.  In fact no one in this thread said that.  What I did say, the only thing I said, was that the main hardware inside Apple computers (Intel CPU, NVIDIA GPU, etc) are all components that can also be found in PCs, which is true.  And once you install Windows on it and perform a test, which is what they did in the article, may the computer with the most powerful and stable hardware win.  That's all.  I said nothing about gaming performance, or the value/price of Macs, and wasn't putting them down.

 

Yes, I they are directed at no one, so they are not argumentative like you initially claimed. I didn't say anything about you or your opinion, you're not the only person on this forum, and just because my first post was just after yours doesn't mean I was responding to you. We agree. Stop making it sound like we don't.

[Glenwing]

Yes, I they are directed at no one, so they are not argumentative like you initially claimed. I didn't say anything about you or your opinion. We agree. Stop making it sound like we don't.

 

I didn't claim, I inquired.  You don't necessarily need to be responding to someone to start an argument, simply make a statement or two, which is what you did.  I'm just saying, you came into this thread guns blazing and I would hate to see this devolve into another Mac vs PC thread.

 

EDIT: You made a mention of no one caring about specs, and since I'm the only one who mentioned specs, I assumed it was, in part, a response to me.

[Dim]

Out of nowhere, a ninja janitor appears.

No, seriously gentlemen, ensure that you are following the fundamental rules of the CoC, otherwise I will lock this thread.

[h264]

True, but I don't think an Apple laptop with a GT 650M and Windows drivers will perform any differently than another laptop with a GT 650M and Windows drivers.  Again, they do use the same basic hardware as any other PC, except maybe the motherboard drivers I guess.  That being said the main motherboard components (NIC, I/O controllers) are things that are found on other PCs too.  So the drivers shouldn't much different if you're running Windows on it.

 

And uh oh, here comes Lyons again... No one said Apple makes bad computers here.  No one said you could get the same specs in a PC for a lower price, and therefore Macs suck.  No one said that.  No one was comparing OS X to Windows.  Are you just coming in trying to start a debate?  You should make your own thread for that.  You're responding to arguments and posts that don't exist, not in this thread anyway.

 

My main problem with these rankings is somehow the #1 is better than the #2 but twice the price.  It's like telling a Syrian rebel an AR-15 is better than an AK-47.

 

He'd go "Sure, but do you think we have any money for stinking AR-15s?  The AK works just fine."  It's out of his price range, and doesn't fit his requirements.  Why are all these machines in the same list?  They are all targeted to different use case senarios, but the review compares them all in the same way?  I'm lost.  How is a consumer supposed to make an informed decision from this list?

 

Apple's just another PC to me, as long as they don't charge more for the same hardware, who cares really?  I don't particularly like how they look, and it seems like every one of them I ever see at work is running windows, but w/e.

 

Lyons, now's the part where you tell them "u mad?"!

[Lyons]

I didn't claim, I inquired.  You don't necessarily need to be responding to someone to start an argument, simply make a statement or two, which is what you did.  I'm just saying, you came into this thread guns blazing and I would hate to see this devolve into another Mac vs PC thread.

 

Then you are misinterpreting my post, which is unfortunate. Oh well.

 

My main problem with these rankings is somehow the #1 is better than the #2 but twice the price.  It's like telling a Syrian rebel an AR-15 is better than an AK-47.

 

He'd go "Sure, but do you think we have any money for stinking AR-15s?  The AK works just fine."  It's out of his price range, and doesn't fit his requirements.  Why are all these machines in the same list?  They are all targeted to different use case senarios, but the review compares them all in the same way?  I'm lost.  How is a consumer supposed to make an informed decision from this list?

 

Apple's just another PC to me, as long as they don't charge more for the same hardware, who cares really?  I don't particularly like how they look, and it seems like every one of them I ever see at work is running windows, but w/e.

 

Lyons, now's the part where you tell them "u mad?"!

 

Heh,

 

> [refer to avatar]

 

(just kidding)

 

(...maybe)

[Wauthar]

But...the Mac has a Apple logo on it!  :P

And it costs 50% more than any other good Windows laptop :)

[Dieman566]

Have to agree with this,  I bought a MBP put a 256gb ssd in it, installed windows 8 and bam.  Great laptop.  Even if the specs are not as great as some other manufacturers laptops, its a laptop, I don't use it for gaming just school work and browsing. 

[Nort]

*Buys Acer with same* performance for $750 less.*

 

*Basically...

[That Norwegian Guy]

Why wouldn't they be the best? They have:

 

- great battery life

- the best build quality

- the best support

- the best trackpads

- the best keyboards (now that Thinkpads have changed to chiclet)

- the best screens (rMBP, and MBP is also 16:10)

- they can run OSX, linux, and Windows very easily (bootcamp) 

- they're easy as hell to use (esp. no need for drivers)

- OSX is a very, very good OS

- they network super easy with other macs and Apple products like iPads/iPhones/aTV, which a HELL of a lot of people have these days

 

No one in the real world cares about specs and gaming capability any more when it comes to laptops; notice how half of those 10 laptops are ultrabooks? As long as it can run office programs and web browsers, it's satisfactory, and OSX is arguably superior for these applications. It's faster and more stable, as the quoted OP states. Simple things are what laptops are used for these days. People WILL the spend money on them because they really do 'just work'. The fact that a lot of you wouldn't spend the money on a MBP doesn't mean the rest of the laptop using population won't, and anyone who thinks Macbooks aren't good laptops hasn't used one. I have a Macbook Pro and a Lenovo X220, don't try to tell me I'm wrong.

 

Finally someone makes a modicum of sense and has a sliver of insight on these Mac threads, as much as I love LTT forums, the general ignorance on macs is really grating. Thanks for being among us.

[MdX MaxX]

It's clear that this was exclusively a software study, so it really has nothing to do with the power under the hood or the actual physical formfactor of the device.

 

This isn't a very scientific study, though; who knows what crap people have installed on their computers?  Most crashes and hangs are caused by rogue applications, not by the operating system itself.
 

And of course OEM installations of Windows will be more bloated than user installations.  So clearly laptops for which you have to install Windows fresh will score higher.

 

Looking at the methodology of the study, it seems like there was plenty of guesswork and subjectivity involved with the scoring.  It's a semi-interesting study, but to be taken with a huge grain of salt.  It's certainly nothing for anyone to get worked up about, regardless of the what the top choice is.

[ShiverMePenguins]

Why wouldn't they be the best? They have:

 

- great battery life

- the best build quality

- the best support

- the best trackpads

- the best keyboards (now that Thinkpads have changed to chiclet)

- the best screens (rMBP, and MBP is also 16:10)

- they can run OSX, linux, and Windows very easily (bootcamp) 

- they're easy as hell to use (esp. no need for drivers)

- OSX is a very, very good OS

- they network super easy with other macs and Apple products like iPads/iPhones/aTV, which a HELL of a lot of people have these days

 

No one in the real world cares about specs and gaming capability any more when it comes to laptops; notice how half of those 10 laptops are ultrabooks? As long as it can run office programs and web browsers, it's satisfactory, and OSX is arguably superior for these applications. It's faster and more stable, as the quoted OP states. Simple things are what laptops are used for these days. People WILL the spend money on them because they really do 'just work'. The fact that a lot of you wouldn't spend the money on a MBP doesn't mean the rest of the laptop using population won't, and anyone who thinks Macbooks aren't good laptops hasn't used one. I have a Macbook Pro and a Lenovo X220, don't try to tell me I'm wrong.

you DO know solutos test was nothing more than them running multiple benchmarks, seeing which crashed earliest, how abusing could bsod, and how quick it boots right?

 

just going by that, since to run windows with apple you have to customize it right off the bat, and if you run in bootcamp or another emulator its simply starting a program and not booting up. they don't even publish their methodology.

 

fanboy moar plz.

 

 

edit: also forgot, background processes :O

so wait, all that bloatware on brick and mortor computers wasn't removed? yet it was non existant for apple users when running a custom install of windows? wait, does that mean there are less bg processes by default? does that mean that this test and report is invalid and not indicative of anything?

pretty much.

you LOVE apple, we understand that, but don't try to force buying an apple down others throats. go look at the 1400$ ultrabook markets and you'll learn there are options for overpriced luxury items there too. kthnxbai

[xAcid9]

*Buys Acer with same* performance for $750 less.*

 

*Basically...

This.

[Lyons]

Good work putting words in my mouth, I've already said in another thread that I don't like Apple, and I also never told anyone to buy a Mac. The only thing I'm shoving down people's throats are facts. How are people so close minded? It's not a good trait to have in life.