Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ali-son · May 26, 2006, 05:17 AM

I'm about to upgrade my 1.5 ghz PBG4 for a new laptop, mostly to run Aperture, Photoshop, Word, and the built-in apps. I know that the MB is not officially supported to run Aperture, but Apple says it will run nonetheless. I'm really hesitating between the MBP and the MB, since the latter could save me a lot of $$$.

Here's what I gather to be the main advantages of the 15" MBP over the top-end black MB:
-processor up to 2.16 ghz
-better video card/performance
-backlit keyboard
-larger, non-glossy screen
-ExpressCard slot

Advantages of MB over MBP:
-beautiful design, magnetic closure, lovely keyboard
-more compact for travel
-much cheaper

What is missing from this list? As far as I'm concerned, hard drive and RAM are not really issues because the MB can be customized to have just as much, and *still*be way cheaper than the MBP.

Right now I guess my main concern is how Aperture would run on the MBP as opposed to the MB. If the difference is night and day, I'll go with the MBP. But if it's just a bit more sluggish on the MB, I think the price difference is not justified for me. Currently Aperture runs awfully slow on my 1.5 ghz/1.5GB PB. As long as the MB would be a significant improvement, I'd go for it.

Maflynn · May 26, 2006, 08:06 AM

I have both a 1.25Ghz 15" PB (its being sold to offset the cost of the MB) and a Macbook.

Here's my $.02
If your going run Aperture, I'd suggest using a MBP over a MB. Yes I've read reports that the MB can run Apeture and I haven't tried it yet (I was waiting to up my memory to a gig). I think the performance difference is dramatic enough with aperture and the MBP GPU vs. the MB GMA950 GPU.

the glossy screen, I'm a amatuer photographer and the glossy screen bothered me to a degree but since the MB isn't my main machine I can live with it, and I was pleasently surprised at how it doesn't sux

I've never had a use for the backlit keyboard, its one of those gee wizz type of things that was not really useful imho.

What sold me on the MB over the MBP is the price,
The case of the MB much more durable.
The compact size will help with travel.
Battery life is superior.
I'm also finding the magnetic closure to be pretty cool.

I don't play games and my aperture usage on the MB will be limited

Bottom line if graphic performance is part of your requirements (be it games or aperture) then I Suggest the MBP is a better fit.

The black MB is cool though, I bought the white one and now I'm kicking myself for not getting the black one. Of course that's 200 more and for that 200 I can get a 7200rpm 100gig drive.

While I am tempted to exchange the white one for the black, I'm nervious I'd get a defective mac.
My MB doesn't MOO (some MB's make a mooing sound)
It doesn't make a whiring sound (some also do that).
It doesn't run excessvly hot
the screen is perfect.
I don't want to shell out 200 dollars.

Regardless of which mac you choose, up the memory to at least a gig. The performance of the MB was horrid at 512meg, it now is perky with a gig under its hood.

Mike

ali-son · May 26, 2006, 08:24 AM

Thanks for your two cents. If and when you install Aperture on your MB I'd love to hear how the performance compares to your 1.25 ghz PB.

I know the MBP will give me better performance, but I can't help lusting after the black beauty. The MBP will basically be a clone of my current PB, looks-wise. I just can't get excited about that, and it will cost me about 2500 bucks to boot.

Eug Wanker · May 26, 2006, 03:34 PM

Aperture on my MacBook is noticeably faster than Aperture on my iMac G5 2.0 with Radeon 9600. The Radeon 9600 is faster than the Mobility Radeon 9600 in the iMac is the 15" 1.25 GHz PowerBook too, and of course the CPU is much faster in the iMac.

The big difference here though is the CPU. I'd guess the CPU in the MacBook 2.0 is roughly 3-4 times as fast as the PowerBook G4 1.25 for RAW conversions. It's probably twice as fast as my iMac G5 2.0 for RAW conversions anyway. And since RAW conversions are the first and most important step in Aperture for RAW pix, RAW conversions account a very large part of the "feel" of the app in terms of speed.

Edits are slow on the MacBook's GMA 950, but to do better you really need a MacBook Pro. Even with a top end GPU, the G4 PowerBooks simply aren't going to cut it because the CPU is way too slow.

Note though that the larger screen real estate of a MBP really is nice for Aperture. It didn't bother me not to have that, because I don't use Aperture much on the road, and I don't like large laptops either. In fact, I find the 13" MacBook already a bit large for my tastes.

--

Another advantage of the MacBook is its ability to use two-finger clicking for the contextual menu.
Also the MacBook's hard drive is user-replaceable.

One disadvantage of the MacBook is the screen is glossy. I definitely prefer the MacBook Pro's matte screen.

ali-son · May 27, 2006, 10:48 AM

Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Wanker. When you say that edits/adjustments will be slow on a MacBook, I mean, HOW slow are we talking? Spinning beachball for 20 seconds when you select the crop tool? (that's about the performance I have on my PBG4.)

The smaller screen size of the MB as opposed to the MBP is not an issue, as I have a 23" ACD and I will almost never be using Aperture on the road. However (and this is a big however), I'd really like to know if hooking up the MB to the ACD will mean slow graphics performance in Aperture?

Eug Wanker · May 27, 2006, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by ali-son

Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Wanker. When you say that edits/adjustments will be slow on a MacBook, I mean, HOW slow are we talking? Spinning beachball for 20 seconds when you select the crop tool? (that's about the performance I have on my PBG4.)

Crop is fast, but I'm surprised it's that slow on your machine now, unless you're talking about cropping pictures already heavily edited using other functions or whatever. Correct me I'm wrong, but the crop function itself is 100% CPU.

What I suggest you do is burn one of your projects on CD, and then bring it to a Mac store. Hopefully, one of the local store will have Aperture installed on a MacBook or a Core Duo Mac mini.

The smaller screen size of the MB as opposed to the MBP is not an issue, as I have a 23" ACD and I will almost never be using Aperture on the road. However (and this is a big however), I'd really like to know if hooking up the MB to the ACD will mean slow graphics performance in Aperture?

I dunno, but if GMA 950 is permanently limited to 64 MB, it probably will be an issue.

amazing · May 27, 2006, 11:45 AM

MacWorld has an interesting chart comparing performance of MB, MBP, 12' and 15" AlPB. You should take a look at that and figure out how your mix of Photoshop and other software would benefit from the new laptops.

Personally, I'd be hanging onto the PB for a while longer until the QC stabilizes on the new laptops.

edit: here's the link:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/revi...main/index.php

ali-son · May 27, 2006, 12:21 PM

Thanks for that link, a very interesting and informative article. But I'm STILL undecided! I guess I just need to find somebody out there who's tried Aperture on a MB with an external screen and can tell me if the performance is acceptable or not.

I hear what you're saying about QC, but I live in France and only visit the States twice a year. I'm coming in June and plan to buy a new laptop then as they are way cheaper in the US. So I don't have the luxury of waiting a few months.

Eug: according to the MacWorld article, the RAM on the GMA 950 is borrowed from the system RAM. It uses 64 MB minimum for startup and more on a need basis. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

TerryJ · May 27, 2006, 01:32 PM

Hey everybody,

Well if my input is any help, here ya go.

I originally bought a MBP 1.83 and added 2GB of memory. The machine is great in every way, but I had been using a 12" PowerBook G4 and before that a 15" PowerBook 1.25 G4. For my work I travel quite a bit so the small PB was excellent in that respect. After carrying around the MBP for a couple weeks, I was starting to remember why I sold my older 15" 1.25 PB for the 12" a while back. So, I went out on a limb aand bought a MacBook last week - I got the mid level model, 2.0GHz and moved my 2GB of memory over from the MBP (and put 1GB back in the MBP). I can't say that I am sorry in the least. For most tasks, I have found the performance to be literally about the same, which is to say, quite a jump over the G4 PBs in every way that I can practically tell. I am feeling no slow downs with the GMA950 graphics and I even play a few games though nothing grueling and crushing. The screen is beautiful and the glossy screen next to the older matte screen is simply much more 'alive' and vivid looking.

I'm now in the position of which machine to keep for the long term and I'm lucky to have been able to have both in hand to use for a while to choose from. Ultimately, I believe I will end up keeping the MacBook and selling the MBP. The simple fact of the smaller size is just personally better suited for my needs and the higher powered graphics is something that I don't think I'll miss. This baby can do everything I need. and super fast at that!

Anyway, I hope this sheds a little light and if anybody is interested in a nice MBP...........

NateEssex · May 27, 2006, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by TerryJ

Hey everybody,

Well if my input is any help, here ya go.

I originally bought a MBP 1.83 and added 2GB of memory. The machine is great in every way, but I had been using a 12" PowerBook G4 and before that a 15" PowerBook 1.25 G4. For my work I travel quite a bit so the small PB was excellent in that respect. After carrying around the MBP for a couple weeks, I was starting to remember why I sold my older 15" 1.25 PB for the 12" a while back. So, I went out on a limb aand bought a MacBook last week - I got the mid level model, 2.0GHz and moved my 2GB of memory over from the MBP (and put 1GB back in the MBP). I can't say that I am sorry in the least. For most tasks, I have found the performance to be literally about the same, which is to say, quite a jump over the G4 PBs in every way that I can practically tell. I am feeling no slow downs with the GMA950 graphics and I even play a few games though nothing grueling and crushing. The screen is beautiful and the glossy screen next to the older matte screen is simply much more 'alive' and vivid looking.

I'm now in the position of which machine to keep for the long term and I'm lucky to have been able to have both in hand to use for a while to choose from. Ultimately, I believe I will end up keeping the MacBook and selling the MBP. The simple fact of the smaller size is just personally better suited for my needs and the higher powered graphics is something that I don't think I'll miss. This baby can do everything I need. and super fast at that!

Anyway, I hope this sheds a little light and if anybody is interested in a nice MBP...........

Wow, great post.

I, alas, fall in the category that would love to be able to play 3D games on a smaller portable than a 15". I saw the Blackbook in the Apple store a few days ago and it was beautiful. I'm going to hold out for a while and see if apple sells a premier Blackbook with the real video card.

Thanks again for the great post.

Simon · May 28, 2006, 07:29 AM

Since you're discussing MBP vs. MB performance I can add that I was quite underwhelmed by the superior GPU of my MBP when I compared it to my MB. I was expecting much more improvement, but actually in xBench it only turned out to be +58%. If you want to see the details, I posted them here: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...09#post2995209

I think right now, if I could only buy one, I'd rather take the MB. It's more portable, has a beautiful black case, feels less hot, it's certainly more quiet and I'd spend $1200 less.

amazing · May 28, 2006, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by ali-son

I hear what you're saying about QC, but I live in France and only visit the States twice a year. I'm coming in June and plan to buy a new laptop then as they are way cheaper in the US. So I don't have the luxury of waiting a few months.

ahh--yes, the TVA! People used to come over from Europe to buy Jeans for themselves and friends, which would pay for their plane ticket, given the price difference...

Anyway, the main thing that turned me off on the MB was the glossy screen. From just reading the reports, I thought I'd be OK with it--but when I saw it in person, in 2 different stores, with 2 different lighting schemes, I knew I couldn't live with all the reflections. Perhaps I'm more sensitive about eye fatigue than most...

So: Have you been able to see the glossy screen for comparison's sake in stores in France?

harrisjamieh · May 28, 2006, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

Since you're discussing MBP vs. MB performance I can add that I was quite underwhelmed by the superior GPU of my MBP when I compared it to my MB. I was expecting much more improvement, but actually in xBench it only turned out to be +58%. If you want to see the details, I posted them here: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...09#post2995209

I think right now, if I could only buy one, I'd rather take the MB. It's more portable, has a beautiful black case, feels less hot, it's certainly more quiet and I'd spend $1200 less.

IIRC, this is because the GPU in the MBPs are not running at full speed - Apple underclocked them to try and keep the MBPs from melting from too much heat

Simon · May 28, 2006, 09:06 AM

Even if they did, we're probably not looking at a factor 2 or more. I find that somewhat disappointing if you consider the X1600 is considered quite ok and the GMA 950 is considered really crap. Of course, xBench might just be the wrong tool to properly compare the GPU performance.

Eug Wanker · May 28, 2006, 10:36 AM

Xbench is completely useless for this purpose. In fact, it's not very useful for most purposes, as you know.

Barefeats has some real 3D gaming and Core Image benches, and the MacBook's GMA 950 gets utterly destroyed, compared to the MBP's X1600. Not even in the same league. See this thread.

icruise · May 28, 2006, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by ali-son

Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Wanker.

Heh heh.

Originally Posted by Simon

Since you're discussing MBP vs. MB performance I can add that I was quite underwhelmed by the superior GPU of my MBP when I compared it to my MB. I was expecting much more improvement, but actually in xBench it only turned out to be +58%.

I don't know why everyone keeps using Xbench. I've never found it to be a reliable indicator of *anything*. Just try playing a modern 3D game on each machine and you'll see that the difference is huge.

ali-son · May 30, 2006, 10:31 AM

Aaarrrrrggghhh you guys are confusing me!! I don't wanna play games, just use Aperture on my 23" Cinema Display. And I wanna know how performance on the MB would compare to my 1.5 ghz 15" PB. Anyone have real world experience with a MB, Aperture, and an external screen?

brokenjago · May 30, 2006, 04:05 PM

I'd doubt it, since the MacBook has been out for - oh, a good two weeks now? Exactly. You'll have to give people more time to snap them up, I suppose.

ali-son · May 30, 2006, 05:28 PM

BTW I just checked the Barefeats website and it says:

"We temporarily pulled our results for the 3D Game and Core Image test results.

We are convinced we have an "under achieving" 13" MacBook. Our remote mad scientists with MacBooks are reporting significantly higher frame rates than we got.

Whatever the cause for the slower performance, we are in the process of re-running all the 3D Games and iMaginator on a different 13" MacBook."

Simon · May 31, 2006, 02:57 AM

Hehe, BareFeats just put up the test page again and admitted that the first benchmarks were screwed up because they had a supposedly faulty unit.

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd4.html

Interestingly, now their results are much more in line with what xBench suggested - apart from the GPU/OpenGL tests where xBench really seems to be fubar. It looks as if for general work, the MBP and MB show similar performance. Again of course, not GPU related things. Actually this should come as no surprise: They both use the same chipset (minus the GPU of course) and they are both clocked at 2GHz.

Eug Wanker · May 31, 2006, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by ali-son

BTW I just checked the Barefeats website and it says:

"We temporarily pulled our results for the 3D Game and Core Image test results.

We are convinced we have an "under achieving" 13" MacBook. Our remote mad scientists with MacBooks are reporting significantly higher frame rates than we got.

Whatever the cause for the slower performance, we are in the process of re-running all the 3D Games and iMaginator on a different 13" MacBook."

The page is back up:

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

And yes the MacBook still performs terribly on 3D benches.

ali-son · May 31, 2006, 05:39 AM

Bugger. I guess not only am I bummed to pay almost $1000 more for the MBP, but I lust after the blackness and the lovely keyboard of the MB, whereas the MBP looks just like my current PB. Boooooooring. La de dah. But I need the speed.

sieb · May 31, 2006, 10:38 AM

You can get a refurbed 1.8Ghz MBP for the same price as the Black MB. I call that a deal (sacrafice the extra 167Mhz for the x1600 and 15" screen), or, wait a month or two for the 2.0 Refurbs to sell for the same price. Expect cheaper come the end of summer when the Core 2 Duos show up.

ali-son · May 31, 2006, 10:44 AM

Hmmm. Core 2 Duos... do you think they will bring new design features to the MBP at that time? Like perhaps a keyboard like the MB's? But I don't know why I'm torturing myself, I have to buy in June/July when I'm visiting the States.

olegww · May 31, 2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by ali-son

Hmmm. Core 2 Duos... do you think they will bring new design features to the MBP at that time? Like perhaps a keyboard like the MB's? But I don't know why I'm torturing myself, I have to buy in June/July when I'm visiting the States.

My guess is it will be identical with the exception of a different processor in place of the Core Duo. After all, the Core 2s are supposedly socket-switchable with the Core Duos, so the change will be a no-brainer for Apple.

sieb · 05:25 AM

I would hope they upgrade the MBs to all 965 chipset including GMA965, but, seeing as how it can be a drop in solution (drop one in your mac mini) and as new as the MB is, I doubt it, which would be a bummer.