[Lord Kryn]

So here's what I'm after.

By the end of this year I'm hoping to buy a new Mac "Notebook". But I'm pondering between getting the most expensive MacBook, or for a few hundred dollars more, the cheapest MacBook Pro.

I'd like all votes to take in account Price vs. Features and possibly other factors.

I'd appreciate those who vote to leave a comment as well.

Thanks,

Kryn

[Simon]

You should really wait for another two weeks until you consider this. It's very likely that within that time Apple will have updated the entire portable line (rumors point to Oct 14).

Right now due to RAM limits and CPU options there is no substantial performance difference between the top end MB and low end MBP with the exception of graphics. If you rely heavily on graphics (games, Aperture, Motion, etc.) the MBP's dedicated GPU and VRAM offer a clear advantage.

Apart from performance there are considerable differences though. It's mainly a trade-off between resolution and size. The MBP offers a higher screen resolution, but it's bigger. Weight is similar. Also keep in mind that the MBP offers more expansion (FW800, E/34 slot). On the MBP you also have the choice between glossy and matte, something the MB doesn't let you chose.

Also, in order to decide if it's budget, resolution, or expansion that's most important to you, we'd need an idea of what you plan on doing with it. If you're a graphics guy, you will want the MBP's resolution. If you're a student on a tight budget looking for a netbook you'd be better off with the MB.

But as I already said, give it another two weeks and then you should start considering this again.

[Eug]

Neither. The best bang for the buck is a mid-priced MacBook.

But like Simon said, it depends on whether or not you need the GPU speed or screen size, and you should wait a couple of weeks anyway to see if anything new is released. In the very least, even the releases don't excite you, you will be able to get better deals on today's hardware.

[Maflynn]

There's really no right or wrong answer, it all depends on what configuration fits best for your needs and budget.

There's clearly too many variables to accurately gauge the low end MBP against the high end MB.
For instance, perhaps you need a more powerful GPU or FW800, that means the MB is not going to be a good choice for your needs. However perhaps the budget, size and the durability of the polycarbonate enclosure are important points then the MB would be a better choice.

[moep]

I hate to say it but… it really depends on what you use them for.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Lord Kryn 

By the end of this year I'm hoping to buy a new Mac...

Changes are due before the end of this year, so hold this discussion until new hardware is announced. And like others have said start with a thorough description of what you might use a new laptop for.

-Allen Wicks

[Maflynn]

Yes, October 14th is rumored to be the date that Apple updates its laptops.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Neither. The best bang for the buck is a mid-priced MacBook.

Absolutely. The top MacBook has you paying a LOT of money for a little bit of HD space and the black paint job.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Right now due to RAM limits and CPU options there is no substantial performance difference between the top end MB and low end MBP with the exception of graphics. If you rely heavily on graphics (games, Aperture, Motion, etc.) the MBP's dedicated GPU and VRAM offer a clear advantage.

FYI, Aperture runs OK on a MacBook for casual use. I run Aperture (normally on my Mac Pro), but it's totally usable on my base-model MacBook for travel.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by tooki 

FYI, Aperture runs OK on a MacBook for casual use. I run Aperture (normally on my Mac Pro), but it's totally usable on my base-model MacBook for travel.

I do not doubt that. The MBP with its dedicated GPU and VRAM still offers a clear advantage in this area though.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by tooki 

FYI, Aperture runs OK on a MacBook for casual use...

Yes, "runs," and "casual use" is indeed ok, but small screen real estate, limited pixel count and limiting FW400 connectivity make pro usage of such a pro app on MBs less than recommended. We are talking to a vacuum in any event because we know neither the OP's needs nor what next month's laptops will be.

-Allen Wicks

[tooki]

What I was getting at is that on the X3100-based MacBooks, Aperture runs pretty darned well, nowhere near the pitiful performance people sometimes expect. I'm used to running it on a decked-out Mac Pro, and when I got a MacBook for travel, its Aperture performance really pleasantly surprised me.

But yes, it is all kinda moot without knowing the user's needs.

[Lord Kryn]

Yeah sorry about that. I'm a student but I'm interested in video editing and potentially gaming.

Forgot to mention that, as it is based on what I need it for.

[Eug]

What type of gaming? Cuz the GPU on the MacBook sucks, but for light gaming with older games, it should be fine.

[ghporter]

I prefer the MBP, not so much because of bang-for-buck, but because of the difference in display capabilities. The cheap MBP has a larger screen and higher screen resolution, more video RAM that's dedicated, not shared with system RAM, and supports a higher resolution external display.

I'm still going strong with a 2006-vintage, Core Duo (not C2D) MBP, taking advantage of the external display capabilities, and loving it. While in all truth the display resolution and size aren't that crucial, they sure have made it more fun for me.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I prefer the MBP, not so much because of bang-for-buck, but because of the difference in display capabilities. The cheap MBP has a larger screen and higher screen resolution, more video RAM that's dedicated, not shared with system RAM, and supports a higher resolution external display.

But in all fairness, for almost any application other than games and some pro apps, none of that makes any difference. The average user isn't going to buy a 30" Cinema Display, so that point is moot, and as long as the graphics perform adequately for whatever task they're doing, it's also irrelevant how its video RAM is implemented.

[aehaas]

You must also anticipate future needs. Will you possibly be taking a course that will require plugging in peripheral devices? Will somebody possibly send you an accessory you may need to interface? Will your skills increase and demand more hard drive space for larger projects of bigger programs? Will you need to buy then run more complex programs?

aehaas

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tooki 

But in all fairness, for almost any application other than games and some pro apps, none of that makes any difference. The average user isn't going to buy a 30" Cinema Display, so that point is moot, and as long as the graphics perform adequately for whatever task they're doing, it's also irrelevant how its video RAM is implemented.

Ideally, yes, the way the graphics system works should be irrelevant. But I've done some side-by-side comparisons between my first gen MBP and classmates' MacBooks, (usually when they have a problem...), and that ideal isn't reality in my experience.

I've seen issues on a MB with running PowerPoint through a simple VGA projector, and some weird window display priority-looking glitches with QuickTime that I haven't seen on my MBP. I'm pretty certain it was the software that was ultimately responsible, whether through not-so-great coding or hardware drivers that just weren't perfect. But while that sort of compromise in capability may not be a big deal to a lot of people, I'll spend the extra few hundred dollars to get an MBP and not run into them.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by tooki 

...and as long as the graphics perform adequately for whatever task they're doing, it's also irrelevant how its video RAM is implemented.

Absolutely. But that's beside the point. There is absolutely no doubt the MBP offers graphics performance advantages over the MB in certain areas. The important thing is to make sure people who plan on doing exactly those things don't get a MB which they later notice as inadequate. If somebody plans on playing CoD4 on his new Mac, a MB is a bad purchase. Plain and simple. Nobody is suggesting the MB is a bad Mac, but depending on what somebody plans to do (and how long he plans to keep the Mac) he should reconsider.

[tooki]

Well yes, but people generally vastly overestimate the number of apps that rely on (or even benefit from) the GPU. Other than games, the number of common apps can be counted off on one set of hands.

[Simon]

Sure. But even if it's just a few. If you use Aperture, Motion, or you plan on using CS4 you know right now you need a beefy GPU. IOW you know right away that you will benefit from a MBP. Aside from all the other things like higher resolution, expansion, etc.

[tooki]

I think we're both arguing the same point: that the right machine depends on what it's for. It's not about intrinsic feelings of "quality" or "luxury" but rather just needs, and making sure that a knowledgeable person can translate user needs into technical needs.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tooki 

I think we're both arguing the same point: that the right machine depends on what it's for. It's not about intrinsic feelings of "quality" or "luxury" but rather just needs, and making sure that a knowledgeable person can translate user needs into technical needs.

Preeeeee CISELY! For me, being able to drive a VGA display and do other video things at the same time is important, so that video system "edge" I see in the MBP is very important to me. On the other hand, my wife is very happy with her 800MHz G4 iBook.

[goMac]

You really won't know until next week. Rumor is the new MB's could see very significant GPU upgrades, along with price point changes. It makes any comparison now irrelevant.