[loveanh]

Please help, the C2D or the CD?
1.8GHZ or 2.0 GHZ?

I use my laptop for office work (word, excel) pictures, music, surf and applications to modify my cell phone. I currently have an 1.8GHZ G5 iMac and a Sony Vaio which just crashed.

I keep all of my pictures and music now on the iMac and I use it to surf the web. I have Mac Office but excel is a little different and I have a hard time trying to view the sheets and just other things in general.

I don't want another Windows laptop, if I buy either of the macbooks and get parallels installed, will all or most of the windows applications work? On a scale of 1-10, how hard is it to install parallels and how difficult is it to install window apps? Pros and Cons of parallels.

Will parallels recognize external source such as a dvd burner, HD or a cell phone?

I love my iMac but I still need windows unfortunately.

Thanks for any feedback you can provide.

[hookem2oo7]

What about Boot Camp? Is that not a feasible solution for you? I don't have any 1st hand experience with it, but from what I've read, Parallels should run any application just fine.

I went with the 2.0 MacBook when they were Core Duos because the 1.83 model didn't have the SuperDrive. Now you get 1gb RAM, a larger HD, and a SuperDrive with the 2.0. My choice would definitely be the 2.0 C2D MacBook if I were buying one now.

[Bunit]

I don't know most of the technical stuff but if you have the money I'd get a 2.0 everything will run faster and it'll work better.

[loveanh]

I'm more concerned with being able to use XP without a hitch such as programs, apps and connecting external sources.

[hookem2oo7]

if you run windows under boot camp, it's basically the same thing as having a windows laptop except you have the luxury of booting OS X as well

[AppleEngineer]

Installing parallels is very easy, just bear in mind you must have Windows Xp service Pack 2 as well. You will be able to run all windows application fine, but do not think you can play any decent 3d games under parallels, it just won't do it.
If you get stuck with parallels you can leave me a message and i will explain in detail how to set it all up.
Once configured correctly you can use USB devices off parallels and even get files from OS X.
Also , bear in mind that running windows with OS X is very memory hungry, and i personally do not advise anyone to run parallels with a system of less than 1GB of ram.
And when running with windows also consider that windows is windows and as such you are prone to all viruses and spyware etc, so make sure you have windows compatable anti virus etc.
Hope this all helps.

Originally Posted by loveanh 

I'm more concerned with being able to use XP without a hitch such as programs, apps and connecting external sources.

[frankthetank966]

go with the 2.0. You will enjoy it in the long run.

[kikkoman]

I'd get a C2D unless you can find a CD at a really good discount.
Get the 2.0 over the 1.8 if you need a DVD burner. The speed difference is minimal.

[loveanh]

At first I was leaning towards the 1.8 but now I'll get the 2.0. Does it matter if I get the new C2D or the old 2.0 model?

I saw on macmall.com you can get parallels installed for an additional $10, is that a good value? Can you get parallels installed at the Apple store or is this a seperate purchase?

Thanks for all the feedback so far.

[ajprice]

Sorry to hijack but this is kind of related. My local PC World store here in the UK has black Core Duo 2GHz (not Core 2) MacBooks for �799 (�200 off). I'm considering it a lot, from what I have read, Core 2 Duo isn't a massive speed bump over Core Duo, so a blackbook for that price seems like a deal!

[analogika]

On the Core2 Duo, you also get a Double-Layer DVD burner (as opposed to a single-layer on the old one) and an (unadvertised) 802.11n draft wireless card. This card may or may NOT be compatible with the 802.11n standard once it gets approved (which is why it's not advertised as anything but an 802.11b/g chipset), but there is a chance that a driver upgrade may give the new C2Duo 'books n connectivity.

On the mid- and black model, you also get bigger hard drives than the Core Duo models had.

$10 for Parallels is a very good deal.

[ajprice]

OK, personally speaking, I've never used and hardly seen a double layer dvd disc. And what will be the advantage of wireless n spec over wireless g spec? I'm guessing n is faster, anything else?

I'd say $10 for Parallels was a good deal too!

[Gossamer]

Actually the Leopard Developer DVDs are on Dual Layer discs, and so is iLife '06. 802.11n should be about 10 times faster than 'g' and have an indoor range of around 50 meters as opposed to 'g's 30.

[amazing]

Rob Griffith just today discusses installing Parallels and Boot Camp on a Mac Pro--you'll get an idea of the installation process and the major differences. Parallels does NOT need XP SP2, since it will run any flavor of Windows (presumably your dead Vaio has a Windows install disk?) Boot Camp does require XP SP2, but both it and Parallels can share that license number (but you have to call Microsoft to tell them that you're re-installing the operating system on the same computer. You don't have to tell them that you're reinstalling on a Mac.)

Macworld: Feature: Hands on with the Mac Pro: Putting it to work, Page 3

Many people have had bad experiences with MacMall...

[ajprice]

Sorry Gossamer I meant writable DVD�R double layer discs, should have said that!

[HazMacFan]

DL DVD disks give you twice the capacity so if you want to backup your iPhoto and its more than 4.7 GB and want it to fit on one DVD the DL would be the way to go. The DL media is a lot more expensive than the Single Layer media. Most DVD Readers will read the DL drives though.

[loveanh]

I still have the disk for XP pro. How much faster is the 2.0 versus the 1.8? Is there a substantial difference?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ajprice 

OK, personally speaking, I've never used and hardly seen a double layer dvd disc. And what will be the advantage of wireless n spec over wireless g spec? I'm guessing n is faster, anything else?

it's TEN TIMES faster.

[amazing]

802.11n won't make wireless internet access any faster, since that's limited by the DSL or Cable modem. It will make your home network faster, if you have one--and if you don't have a home network, you'll see little change in your wireless life. The 11n standard may have better wireless range or may not, because we really won't know what kind of implementation Apple will have.

[redhot_nyc]

Wireless N = iTV

[analogika]

exactly.

[wataru]

Originally Posted by loveanh 

I still have the disk for XP pro. How much faster is the 2.0 versus the 1.8? Is there a substantial difference?

Welllll.... (2.0 - 1.8) / 1.8 = 11%.

2.0GHz is exactly 11% faster than 1.8GHz.

[analogika]

Not quite.

The 2GHz Core 2 Duo has 4MB of cache, as opposed to 2MB cache for the 1.83 and the Core Duo 'books.

This will make a difference, especially for media applications.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by amazing 

802.11n won't make wireless internet access any faster, since that's limited by the DSL or Cable modem. It will make your home network faster, if you have one--and if you don't have a home network, you'll see little change in your wireless life. The 11n standard may have better wireless range or may not, because we really won't know what kind of implementation Apple will have.

i dunno. i kept wondering why my home wireless was slow (1MB down and about 1MB up). when i ditched my old 'b' router and direct connect to the internet via ethernet and to the cable modem, my speeds jumped to 4MB down and about 1.6MB up.

[ajprice]

I've decided I'm going to wait. The G4 is still going, and I'd only pay out on the �200 I'd save by getting Leopard and iLife 07 next year anyway, and then I'd have a Core Duo and not C2D Mac. So there wasn't really any saving after I thought about it. So its back to looking forward to a Mac with 10.5 next year.

[houstonmacbro]

i'm with you. i am gonna hang onto my powerbook awhile longer and see what happens with 10.5 on it.

i figure apple store (refurb) will have some sweet deals by the summer ('07) anyhow.

[amazing]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro 

i dunno. i kept wondering why my home wireless was slow (1MB down and about 1MB up). when i ditched my old 'b' router and direct connect to the internet via ethernet and to the cable modem, my speeds jumped to 4MB down and about 1.6MB up.

wireless access speeds are one of those moving targets: there's so many variables to fine tune, you can get real headaches trying to figure them out.

It all starts with what laptop model you have. For example, the Ti had an absolutely miserable antenna hidden by all the metal (when I used a wireless pc-card in my Ti, the range was equal to the iBook.) The Aluminum PB was slightly better (which isn't saying much--afaik even macintouch.com wasn't enthused by the range) but the gold standard was the plastic case and antenna implementation in the iBook.

Next, it's about which brand of wireless access point (WAP) you have. Long time ago, MacWorld mag tested the wireless range of various brands of WAPs and Apple's AE didn't fare well at all, mostly because of the lack of external antennas (curse that design sense which dictates that "looks" are better than wireless range!) So, I've got a Buffalo AirStation that was rated highest by some PC mag (beating out a whole bunch of name brand WAPS)--and it indeed has better range. Why don't the Mac magazines carry out such evaluations any more?

Lastly, it's location and how crowded your wireless neighborhood is. As your reception range falls off, speeds go down. Moving 5 feet either direction might clear things up, or changing channels on the WAP, or moving the WAP around to get clear of obstructions between it and your favorite armchair.

Overall, even if you're sitting right next to your WAP, your wireless access isn't going to be as fast as ethernet because of latency and the above factors.

[amazing]

MacWorld has a pretty definitive testing of the various incarnations and speeds of MB C2D vs MB CD:

Macworld: First Look: Benchmarks: MacBooks see a modest Core 2 Duo boost

It makes for interesting reading. You'll notice that the difference btw 1.83 and 2.0 C2D is only 3 seconds here, another 12 seconds there. Hardly noticeable, mostly. Even the improvement going from 2.0 CD to C2D is only 24 sec in Photoshop, 8 secs in iPhoto, 20 secs in iTunes. Gives you enough time to take another sip of coffee?

What you're paying for when you buy a 2.0 rather than a 1.83 C2D is the additional RAM and the additional HD space.

If you're planning on upgrading the RAM to 2 GB, meaning that you're planning on taking out the 2 x 512 RAM chips, there goes half your advantage of having bought the 2.0 over the 1.83. What I'm trying to say, if that if you're on a budget, get the 1.83, trash the RAM in favor of 3rd party 2 GB upgrade, and upgrade to a larger HD somewhere down the line when HD prices come down.

[loveanh]

Thanks for posting your opinions and advices. Today I bought the 2.0GHZ C2D and Parallels. I installed Parallels and Windows XP and I'm using Windows now. I have a question, when I inserted a CD I can't seem to run it. What am I doing wrong?

[mec31]

Earlier poster 'appleEngineer' is not correct. You do not need XP SP2 for parallels. You do need XP SP2 for Boot Camp.

I successfully installed XP SP1 on parallels, and then laboriously updated it to current status via Windows Update.

I got the middle flavor of the C2D Macbook. Before the new introductions, I had planned on getting the base model and upgrading to 2G ram. I have been pleasantly surprised in that parallels has been working well for me with 1 G ram.

[Z4cane]

Anyone have experiences with Vista and Parallels? I am going to get my copy of Parallels next week, and I already have Vista. It says on the box that it will work.