

MacBook Pro declared 'best performing' Windows laptop - thetabyte
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57581290-37/macbook-pro-declared-best-performing-windows-laptop/

======
fmavituna
There are couple of reasons, one stated in the article, but second is a little
bit more subtle, only advanced users will buy Mac and then install Windows on
it. Those users generally don't execute everything they see on the web, free
or crapware etc.

Another one from the article: "A main factor in this machine's metrics is the
fact that every Windows installation on it is clean. With PC manufacturers
loading so much crapware on new laptops, this is a bit of an unfair
competition. But, on the other hand, PC makers should look at this data and
aspire to ship PCs that perform just as well as a cleanly installed MacBook
Pro."

------
freehunter
Dell features many machines on the top 10. Lenovo only has one, at the bottom
of the list, and it's their ultrabook. It's a commonly believed statement that
Lenovos are some of the most reliable laptops, and Dells are closer to the
bottom.

Does this result disprove that? Or does common knowledge show these results
are based on inaccurate information? Or is it just that Thinkpad users are
less likely to install Soluto?

------
misterbwong
The ranking is a bit disingenious. FTA

 _A main factor in this machine's metrics is the fact that every Windows
installation on it is clean. With PC manufacturers loading so much crapware on
new laptops, this is a bit of an unfair competition. But, on the other hand,
PC makers should look at this data and aspire to ship PCs that perform just as
well as a cleanly installed MacBook Pro._

~~~
0x0
Still, that's a very real problem with buying laptops these days, especially
for non-techies. Sounds quite fair to me!

------
dwyer
What's really interesting here is not that a $1199 Macbook Pro outperformed a
bunch of sub-$1000 PC laptops, but that the $429 Acer outperformed the rest of
them, including the $2199 Macbook Pro.

~~~
astrodust
The benchmark here is crazy subjective.

The Retina screens are probably going to get lower scores due to the way
Windows handles them. It'd be nice if they give a more detailed breakdown of
how those seemingly random numbers were calculated.

------
jiggy2011
If you are measuring "crashes per week" rather than "crashes per hour of
runtime" you are going to get results that favour laptops which are not used
much.

------
heironimus
They test things like Windows crashes, hangs, and BSOD's per week. I assume
Macs have much lower occurrences of these because most of the time spent on
them is in OSX rather than Windows.

My personal Mac is better than any of these. I has 0 Windows errors per week
because I don't run Windows on it.

Not exactly an objective measure.

------
ebbv
According to a "Soluto Score" so it's as meaningful as how much you trust
whoever those guys are.

I get so tired of these rankings that purport to be objective. The only
opinion that matters when _you_ are buying a computer for _you_ to use is
_yours_. Insert biggest "Duh." in history here.

~~~
illuminate
Ah, I imagine it's a reported score among users who run their brand of
"continuous optimization" software? Those reports are nearly as useless as
Alexa rankings.

