View Full Version : Macbook c2d for graphic design
Nov 30, 2006, 11:19 AM
I am getting a macbook c2d to replace my aging Pentium4 PC.
I use my PC for graphic design work. Mainly working on adobe CS2 Suite. Sometimes I have open indesign, photoshop, illustrator and bridge at the same time.
I am connecting my macbook to a separate 17" LCD monitor, keyboard and mouse to use it as a desktop. This is going to be my main computer as I am parting from my current home built PC.
I originally wanted to get a 20" imac, but I am deciding to go with a notebook form factor since it will be useful for presenting projects to clients (or make presentations to perspective ones). Also it will be great working almost anywhere.
I am getting the white 2.0Ghz C2D. How is the glossy screen when working with colors and how is the performance when working with graphics? Anyone out there that uses one for design?
Nov 30, 2006, 11:59 AM
I did a side by side comparison of MBP C2D with the MB C2D at my local Apple retailer. The MB C2D just crawled for the work I do.
Was trying to cost justify the MB C2D, but the integrated graphics of the MB just drag it down for doing any extensive graphics work. The MBP's graphics card markedly speeds up work in programs like Photoshop.
I ended up buying a MBP C2D to replace my PB 667Mhz as my road machine. (use a G5 tower Dual 2Ghz as my main machine). The time I save with the MBP will outweigh the extra cost.
Even though the dual monitor support is great with the MB's, I can't see getting one for graphic design. Just my opinion of course.
Best of luck shopping!
Nov 30, 2006, 02:28 PM
Mainly working on adobe CS2 Suite. Sometimes I have open indesign, photoshop, illustrator and bridge at the same time.
Just adding the now almost boilerplate caveat that the CS2 apps are not yet Univeral Binary apps and you'll be working with them in the Rosetta emulation envrionment, so expect to take at least a moderate performance hit. From everything I've heard, having at least 2 gigs of RAM takes a good bit of the sting out. I have one friend who's a photo editor working on a Mac Pro with four gigs and he's satisfied with the performance in Photoshop, but at the same time, I hear other people (with unknown configurations) calling work under Rosetta a chore.
It looks like spring of 2007 before Adobe delivers the goods, but once they do, the Intel Macs should fly.
Nov 30, 2006, 05:37 PM
Yup. Waiting and waiting for adobe to sort themselves out before I invest in a MBP. Been a good boy and resisted. So it's nice to see the rev's and speed hike passing by while I wait :rolleyes:
Although, it's a testament to how great the G4 Powerbooks were made, I'm still loving the experience of using a G4 PB. Mine is still plowing through work, and my powerbook feels as fast today as the day I first powered it up over 2 years ago. Great machine. But I am itching to make the jump up from 15" to 17" screen.
Dec 2, 2006, 06:51 PM
@digitaldean: What kind of work were you doing, and how big were the files you were working on, when you found those results?
99% of my design work is for the web, so many of the files I use in photoshop are pretty small. I am curious as to whether I would find the same results as you, with my work.
Also, (sorry to go offtopic a little), but I'm using a iBook with 32MB vid card. Would the MacBook's 64MB integrated video be faster with graphics than my iBook? Anyone know? Thanks.
Dec 2, 2006, 07:13 PM
Why would the graphics card drag down Photoshop? The only way that would happen is if you don't have enough RAM and the integrated graphics eat it up. These are all 2D apps. Graphics card shouldn't affect it much if at all.
Any core duo will be great for CS2 apps. Especially once they are universal.
Dec 3, 2006, 05:29 PM
Would the MacBook's 64MB integrated video be faster with graphics than my iBook? Anyone know? Thanks.
NOT in PS, or any other 2D app....... BUT the C2D processor sure will, as will having enough ram :)