[krx]

Just picked up a 13" Macbook 2.4 GHz for $1200 which sold a few months ago for $1600. Thought I got a great deal but now I'm second guessing and wondering if I should have got the newer 13" MBP 2.26 MHz for $1100 (both prices w/educ discount).

The salient differences, as far as I can tell, are these: the older 2.4 GHz comes w/more HD (250 GB vs 160 GB) has the 5 hour replaceable battery (vs 7 hr non-replaceable) has no Firewire port or SD card slot.

Would be great to get some opinions on which is preferable, and why...

Thanks!

[Cold Warrior]

The 13" MBP is available right now as a refurb for $100 less than with your edu discount.

Get the MBP. Many unibody Macbooks have poorer-quality screens. MBP gives you FW 800 and SD. The difference in CPU MHz is negligible. RAM and HDD will make more of a performance difference than that amount of CPU.

[krx]

Apart from the GHz difference (as you say negligible) the MB also comes with 90 GB more HDD. I don't use but about 35 GB currently so that's not important for me. But I wasn't aware more HDD also increased performance... Will I see much of a difference between 160 GB and 250 GB in that regard?

Both come with 2 GB RAM which I will max out. The MBP takes 8 GB total. The MB officially takes 4 but I read it will hold 6 and maybe 8 w/a firmware update. So that's pretty much a wash...

What about the new built-in batteries? I usually have to replace the battery a couple times during the life of a laptop so not sure what to make of this "improvement"... ?? The 2.4 GHz MB still has the replaceable battery.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by krx 

Apart from the GHz difference (as you say negligible) the MB also comes with 90 GB more HDD. I don't use but about 35 GB currently so that's not important for me. But I wasn't aware more HDD also increased performance... Will I see much of a difference between 160 GB and 250 GB in that regard?

With only 35GBs used there will be no noticeable difference. But if you put 120 GB on a 160 GB and a 250 GB drive there will be a significant difference.

What about the new built-in batteries? I usually have to replace the battery a couple times during the life of a laptop so not sure what to make of this "improvement"... ?? The 2.4 GHz MB still has the replaceable battery.

But Apple guarantees 1000 cycles on the new battery vs. 300 on the old. If you used to replace the battery three times during its life before, you'll now only do it once. At best. Keep in mind the new battery also offers more capacity so you'll be doing fewer cycles too.

IMHO Cold Warrior is absolutely right. You would be better off with a new 2.26 GHz MBP for $1000 (refurb) than with the older 2.4 GHz model for $1200. The CPU and HDD difference are negligible (a 250 GB HDD costs $55, a 160 GB model $45). But on the new MBP the battery is way better, you get FW800, and a potentially better screen. On top you save $200.

[SierraDragon]

The MBP is far superior. FW 800 alone makes it a far better choice and the MBP battery is way better (and yes, replaceable). Engineered for more RAM is IMO a big deal too. The SD slot is pretty irrelevant.

-Allen Wicks

[krx]

Thanks for all the feedback - much appreciated! You've convinced me to get the MBP. Can't do the refurb because my wife wants the free ipod touch that comes with the new one (which I guess means the touch will cost me $100...).

I've been thinking tho that I may be better now w/a 15" screen. I've had the 13" for so long I didn't even consider it. But I anticipate making use of the spaces app for improved multi-tasking which would probably be easier with the larger screen (plus my near vision is going south).

Compared to the 13" the 15" MBP comes with 2.53 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 250 GB HDD, and 1440 x 900 pixels, Otherwise the same, apart from screen size. Any thoughts on whether it's worth the additional $500?