[Matsu]

Alright, I'm spending the bosses' money, but habits die hard, and I don't like to spend more than I have to, that said. I have approx $2K canadian to spend.

It's down to a MB or a MBP.

I know the pros and cons of each. MBP is more portable, but lacks a powerful GPu and expresscard. MB is larger, but has shorter battery life, and is a little less portable.

Here's what I'll be doing:

Windows. Yes. Just has to be there. Our inter-office system relies on Outlook and VPN, as does a web based client tracking database. And my voice recorder and transcription does too.

iLife. I take lots of photos, and need to manage them. Also taking on some website production and video duties, so this is a nice "for idiot" package (for me )

MS Office for Windows, after outlook, excell and Access see a lot of use.
MS Office for Mac -- why do Windows when not neccessary?

CS2 for Windows. Anyone tried this in lieu of an Intel native Mac version?
CS3 for Mac. Again, why do Windows if you don't have to. Anyone forsee problems with MB GPU?

That's it and that's all folks.

Do I then go with the 1999 MBP (no upgrades) 1Gb RAM, 120GB HDD

or

the 1299 MB with max RAM and HDD, 2GB RAM and 200GB HDD

Essentially the same price.

RAM upgrades for the MB might as well come from Apple as there are no savings by going third party, but if the HDD is user serviceable, is it worth it to buy that seperately?

Recommendations?

[Yonzie]

MB.
No point in going for the discrete graphics since you won't use it for anything.

Resons to choose the MBP anyway:
Bigger screen
Lighted keys
Better keyboard
In a word: Comfort. Like flying 1st class.

[turtle]

I'd go MBP myself.

Well worth it for the dollars spent.

[PKIDelirium]

What the hell is I'm Stupid Office?

[Yonzie]

M-dollarsign: M$

[turtle]

CS3 isn't out yet is it?

[adamb]

Originally Posted by Matsu I know the pros and cons of each. MBP is more portable, but lacks a powerful GPu and expresscard. MB is larger, but has shorter battery life, and is a little less portable.

By the way you have got the models the wrong way around there.

[Matsu]

oops

[Matsu]

How worthwhile do you all feel the HDD upgrades are?

I'm very tempted to go for the 200GB HDD, and 2Gb RAM on the white MB. The RAM is as good a deal as you can get since going 3rd party would require two 1GB dimms anyway

[Fahrenheit]

Get a dell. Lolz.


But seriously, Id go for the MBP. Its not your money, and its like flying first class, as thingy said. Although you may be able to get a higher spec MB, you'll always wish you had the nicer computer, in general.

[Matsu]

Well, keep in mind that I have about 2000 Canadian to spend. The low spec MBP costs 2199 plus tax here, so about 2500 all in. Which, to be honest, they would pay for anyway. I need it more for field work, so battery life and portability count. However, I try to lead by example: If we're going to pay for higher spec machines, I'd rather buy them for the creative dept. I could probably swing a 1999 price (through a smaller non-apple shop)...

I think I'd like the higher spec machine too. I more concerned with how it will do with upcoming CS3, and whether it's worth it to bump up the HDD on either of the machines, same too with the RAM.

Anyone running Windoze Adobe CS2 in parallels?

[torifile]

Anyone running Windoze Adobe CS2 in parallels?

How badly do you want to know? I can give it a go on my MB and my iMac (as a proxy for an MBP) if you really want to know what it's like.

edit: I just realized that it would be a pointless test because both the MB and MBP have moved to Core 2 Duos and I'm stuck at lowly Core Duos. Ah, the world of fast processor upgrades. It's going to take some getting used to.

[Matsu]

I have a bit of a burgeoning interest in digital photgraphy. I will probably buy myself an entry level DSLR and a couple of used primes to get started. I have a copy of CS2 (windows) and have watched a couple of our more serious artists struggle with CS2 (PPC) under Rosetta. Just damn slow it seems. I hope CS3 will work
well when it arrives. That's my primary temptation towards getting the Pro model instead -- as an extra measure of future proofing against Adobe's first dual binary release next year... For now, the windows version may be the better bet, as it is "more native" after a fashion...

I imagine that the MBP (even Core Duo) will be faster with a dedicated GPU, but I wonder if I could get by in parallels for all my windows uses. I will have to try both boot camp and parallels of course...

[Yonzie]

I don't see CS3 being faster on the MBP. Aperture will, though.
Why? Because Adobe makes one program for windows+mac. Therefore, probably no Core Graphics and all that jazz. Unless they turn MS and have separate PC and Mac versions.
While your artists might have problems on waiting on rosetta, you probably won't, since you're not a Photoshop pro.

[turtle]

To me it sounds like parallels will do everything you need it to. There isn't one app you've listed that I haven't worked with in Parallels on my wife's 2GHz CD. I am running with 2 GB of RAM though. Keep CS2 in Mac rather than Parallels. You'll never need Boot Camp based on what you have listed out so far.

[Koodari]

Macbook of course. There isn't anything you do that requires a good GPU. The processors are almost the same. What you want, what makes a difference, is as much as memory as possible. And you get better portability. You don't mention external displays, maybe there is an improvement opportunity there. If not, you could get a little speed improvement by installing a 7200rpm HD yourself. No point getting the slow 200GB anyway.

[turtle]

I still have to say MBP due to screen size. The MB screen is way to cramped for heavy photo work. So unless you're going to be hooked to an external monitor most of the time you'll want the screen real estate.

[Matsu]

Originally Posted by Koodari Macbook of course. There isn't anything you do that requires a good GPU. The processors are almost the same. What you want, what makes a difference, is as much as memory as possible. And you get better portability. You don't mention external displays, maybe there is an improvement opportunity there.

I think you (and others) are right about getting the MB. I can always get a better desktop if/when needs warrant it. Our staff photog actually uses a white iBook G4, but she has little use for Windows and client stuff...

If not, you could get a little speed improvement by installing a 7200rpm HD yourself. No point getting the slow 200GB anyway.

I read somewhere on this forum iTHink? that this is wrong, actually. It went something like this: Given the data density of the 4200rpm drive, it should in general be faster than all the 5400rpm devices, save the 160GB. Seems to compare pretty evenly with lower density, higher rpm notebook drives.

Compare:

5400 rpm x 160 GB = 864000
7200 rpm x 120 GB = 864000
4200 rpm x 200 GB = 840000
5400 rpm x 120 GB = 648000

Essentially, the argument goes that because the read/write head is flying over more bits per area square on a 200GB drive than a 100GB drive, then the 100GB units needs to spin twice as fast to move the same throughput as a 200GB of the same proportions. But that could be wrong, iDunno, sounds reasonable though..

Whats the retail on 3rd party 2.5" 160 and 200GB drives right now?