Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > I need some advice on a purchase

I need some advice on a purchase
Thread Tools
b1NARY73
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kennewick, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2008, 01:14 AM
 
My trusty 17" powerbook is about to find a new home, and I have a couple of options for a new purchase.

I do alot of photoshop / illustrator work, flash and dreamweaver as well. My files never exceed 150-200MB.
My 17" Powerbook G4 1.67 with 1.5GB RAM has been chewing through it nicely, but I am feeling it is time to move on to a new machine.

I have two configurations I can go with:

17" Macbook Pro high resolution 2.4ghz C2DUO 2GB RAM 160GB 7200 rpm drive

or

13" Macbook C2DUO 2.4ghz, 250GB HD, 2GB RAM and a 23" ACD HD

Cost is relatively the same.

What would you do?
 Macbook Pro 17" / 2.5GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo / 4GB Ram / 350GB
 Macbook Pro 17" / 2.16GHZ Intel Core Duo / 2GB Ram / 120GB
 Macbook Black / 2.4GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo / 4GB Ram / 350GB
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2008, 01:20 AM
 
Do you use an external monitor? Seems like screen size would be a huge issue for you?

Edit
Oops - just read your post.
Seems like the 23 inch would be a huge improvement. You should test out the speed though for the kinds of things you actually do. I'd get the sweet monitor, although perhaps not the Apple one - there are better value monitors out there. The actual laptop will last you less time - keep the monitor through your next two laptops.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2008, 10:46 AM
 
Do you need to do serious work on the road? If yes, MBP. If no, MB+ACD.
     
b1NARY73  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kennewick, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2008, 06:00 PM
 
I do a little, but mainly just edits and quick flyers and brochures. So to update, I ordered the following:

VID ADPT MINI-DVI TO DVI ADAPTER-GEN
INCASE -HARDCASE FOR MACBOOK 13' BLK-US
REFURB APPLE CIN DISPLAY 20" FLAT PA-USA
APPLE KEYBOARD-USA
MB 13.3/2.4/2X1GB/250/SD-DL:BLACK-USA

I bought a 20" ACD refurb, and am going to keep my 24" iMac...
 Macbook Pro 17" / 2.5GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo / 4GB Ram / 350GB
 Macbook Pro 17" / 2.16GHZ Intel Core Duo / 2GB Ram / 120GB
 Macbook Black / 2.4GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo / 4GB Ram / 350GB
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2008, 07:31 AM
 
I'm confused which is easy - you bought a 17" MBP and a 20" monitor?

Why not go for a 15" mbp or a 24" monitor. For the price you're not getting that much more screen real estate then what the 17" MBP already offers. Just me though.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2008, 09:41 AM
 
No he bought a 13" MacBook.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Do you need to do serious work on the road? If yes, MBP. If no, MB+ACD.
By 'serious work', I assume you mean 'things that tax the graphics chip'?
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
No he bought a 13" MacBook.
Gotcha, it helps if I read his post throughly
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by b1NARY73 View Post
...I do alot of photoshop / illustrator work, flash and dreamweaver as well. My files never exceed 150-200MB....
Since you chose MB max out RAM, go to great pains to keep your hard drive less than 70% full and avoid exterior hard drive usage for anything but backup because no FW800 or eSATA is available to you. Use FW400, never USB2. Performance will be much better than your G4 provided (I went from 1.67 GHz PB and G4 tower to 17" MBP and a Mac Pro) as long as you have upgraded to CS3, and provided constant external hard drive access can be avoided.

A MB is not my preference, because overall operation of heavy graphics is about much more than just CPU. Also I prefer much, much more screen real estate in the field and I do not like the display adding contrast and saturation to my images like the glossy-only MB display does.

-Allen Wicks
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Apr 7, 2008 at 01:37 PM. )
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
By 'serious work', I assume you mean 'things that tax the graphics chip'?
Regarding how serious work may be taxing in the world of graphics usage:

• IMO serious graphics work taxes the overall architecture. Adobe's 2007 apps generally (except for 3D and Bridge) fail to take advantage of advanced graphics, making the GPU not all that limiting for Adobe today (until one adds an external display...). Hopefully Adobe's early 2009 apps will take advantage of advanced graphics support, which would make that aspect of MBs limiting a year from now.

• Folks doing graphics professionally typically quickly exceed 50% of the capacity of a MB drive, and also typically are constantly moving substantially sized file batches around. The lack of FW800 and eSATA connectivity is a very substantial limiter, as are the generally smaller sizes of MB drives. The OP did get the larger drive option, which is good, but a total of 70% x 250GB = ~175 GB usable is not all that much in the graphics world.

• The whole reason for a laptop is for portability, so any laptop primarily must first excel at usage in the field. The small display of MBs (17" MBPs have 70%-100% more pixels and much more real estate) is limiting to serious graphics work in the field, as is (IMO) the glossy display. Used as a desktop box with an ACD attached the screen real estate and added contrast/saturation of glossy become irrelevant but the limiting integrated graphics becomes more relevant, as do the hard drive connectivity issues.

• I just spent 6 months using my 17" MBP as a field + desktop box and while it does very well in the field and for a laptop is powerful enough for Adobe apps, the desktop usage is a PITA going back and forth from field to office setup as regards drives/files. IMO a MB with slow connectivity would be substantially worse.

-Allen Wicks
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Apr 7, 2008 at 02:21 PM. )
     
b1NARY73  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kennewick, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Since you chose MB max out RAM, go to great pains to keep your hard drive less than 70% full and avoid exterior hard drive usage for anything but backup because no FW800 or eSATA is available to you. Use FW400, never USB2. Performance will be much better than your G4 provided (I went from 1.67 GHz PB and G4 tower to 17" MBP and a Mac Pro) as long as you have upgraded to CS3, and provided constant external hard drive access can be avoided.

A MB is not my preference, because overall operation of heavy graphics is about much more than just CPU. Also I prefer much, much more screen real estate in the field and I do not like the display adding contrast and saturation to my images like the glossy-only MB display does.

-Allen Wicks
Allen,

Thanks for the insightful replies. I chose the Macbook because of it's portability. I think if I am finding that I can not handle the Macbook's Screen for the work I do on the road, then I will probably watch for a decent deal on apple's refurbished units for a 17" MBP, I just find myself needing to work on the road little to non existent... and after lugging around the 17" Powerbook, I am looking forward to the small size and reduced weight. I only use my external drive, which is Apple Time Capsule for nightly back-Ups of my Notebook and iMac, I have also utilized back to my mac, so my work Tower can be updated as well, I just copy to the iMac at home, and voila! everything is backed up and synchronized.

I am still using Adobe CS2, but looking to update to CS3 when I get my Tax Return
 Macbook Pro 17" / 2.5GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo / 4GB Ram / 350GB
 Macbook Pro 17" / 2.16GHZ Intel Core Duo / 2GB Ram / 120GB
 Macbook Black / 2.4GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo / 4GB Ram / 350GB
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by b1NARY73 View Post
...I am still using Adobe CS2, but looking to update to CS3 when I get my Tax Return
Not all CS upgrades are worthy, but CS3 is well worth the cost, esp. as regards performance improvements on MacIntel boxes. If you like CS2 you will love CS3. There are a few incompatibilities with OS 10.5.2 but overall they are reported as manageable. I am keeping my MBP on 10.4.11 but am moving the 2006 MP to 10.5.2 so that I can use the 2008 HD 2600 XT graphics card for Aperture.

-Allen Wicks
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2008, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
By 'serious work', I assume you mean 'things that tax the graphics chip'?
No, none of the apps the OP mentioned really use the graphics chip.

By serious work I meant times where a 1280x800 screen would be a pain.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 05:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
No, none of the apps the OP mentioned really use the graphics chip.
By serious work I meant times where a 1280x800 screen would be a pain.
This is an important point. When it comes to Adobe the GPU is pretty much irrelevant. So basically if you get a MB with the same CPU/clock as a MBP the most important differences are the screen size and FW800 - not performance!. You can install the same HDDs in both and you can also put 4 GB RAM in both.

This used to be different. But with the latest updates Apple has (again apart form the GPU) closed the performance gap between the MB and the MBP. A 2.4 GHz MBP does not offer any better performance than a 2.4 GHz MB. And ironically the previous generation 2.4 GHz MBP (Merom) offered better performance than the current 2.4 GHz MBP (Penryn) due to its larger L2 cache. Granted that was the $2499 high-end MBP and now it's the low-end $1999 model.

To make it short: If you want to get a $1999 2.4 GHz MBP you should get it for the larger/better screen, for the GPU (if you're a gamer or you use apps like Aperture or Motion), or for the additional connectivity (FW800, EC/34). But don't get it because you expect it to perform better than the $1299 2.4 GHz MBP. If you need more performance than what the MB offers for Adobe apps you need to really step it up and go for the 2.5/2.6 GHz MBP for $2499 and $2749 respectively.
     
tridentinecanon
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: BIrmingham, AL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 8, 2008, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
If you need more performance than what the MB offers for Adobe apps you need to really step it up and go for the 2.5/2.6 GHz MBP for $2499 and $2749 respectively.
I've read that the benchmarks on the 2.6 are't that much better than the 2.4.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2008, 02:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by tridentinecanon View Post
I've read that the benchmarks on the 2.6 are't that much better than the 2.4.
The 2.5/2.6 GHz Penryns offer twice the L2 cache of the 2.4 GHz Penryn (6 MB vs. 3 MB) so that helps. OTOH the 2.4 GHz Merom came with 4 MB L2 cache so the 2.5/2.6 GHz Penryns show higher gains compared to the 2.4 GHz Penryn than the Merom.

Again this very much depends on what you do. Many people aren't bottlenecked by their CPU because they're waiting for their disk or they're swapping out, etc. But some jobs are actually CPU limited and will scale with available CPU power. So if getting a 10% faster CPU means getting your render job done 10 minutes earlier, well there's an additional coffee break right there.

It really depends a lot on what you do. For most regular consumers the additional cost of the faster Penryns is not justified by the perceived gain. OTOH there are professional users that will gladly pay $250 for time savings.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:09 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,