$3000 to spend...opinions?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Peyton, May 23, 2006.

  1. Peyton macrumors 68000

    Peyton

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    #1
    OK, so here's the deal, I really wanted a 17 inch MBP (and may still get it when merom comes out)

    But I also could go with a maxed out 20inch iMac, and a low end macbook for the same price.

    In the second option I get a 500Gb harddrive, plus the macbook's, 20+13.3 inches of display as opposed to 17, on and on and on.


    The clincher: I think the imac design is ok, never really cared for the lip at the bottom though. If they sold this in the ACD format I would have bought one by now. Also, the macbook would be white. :eek: smallish screen, I just don't know what to do.

    This problem isn't a matter of 'I need X amound of processing power' but a matter of coordination, as I don't know what I'd like better etc.

    Thoughts? People with 17mbp want to persuade? THANKS



    EDIT: if I were to get the two, could I connect them to use both cpus at once to render something etc? thanks
     
  2. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #2
    How important is portability? Would you carry the 17" around that much?

    That might be the clincher for me, since the 20" screen on the iMac is quite nice.

    D
     
  3. Peyton thread starter macrumors 68000

    Peyton

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    #3

    true, but I could in effect get a 30inch monitor and connect it to the 17 inch. Portability isn't the issue, bigger is better for me :) Having everything in one spot (harddrive) would probably be nicer but....:confused:
     
  4. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #4
    I'd lean way more to the iMac/MacBook option.

    The 13" MacBook is way more portable than the MBP 17". Its also *nearly* as powerful, being only 7.5% slower unless you need the graphics power. The iMac is also only 7.5% slower but has way more desktop real estate. Do you normally do your work at home, sitting at your desk? If yes then go for the 20" iMac.

    Also, if you are really worried that the iMac at 2.0Ghz will take much longer to render things than the 2.16Ghz MBP then you can always leave it rendering while you potter about on the MacBook.

    You really can't lose! The two computer combo has way more screen space, way more hard drive space, nearly twice the computing power... it just goes on and on!!
     
  5. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #5
    You can't say you'll get a 30", because that throws out the original question.

    For me, it's a no-brainer. iMac + MacBook. The 17" MBP is phenomenal, but you rarely need that kind of screen in a laptop unless you always need it (pro photog, developer, etc.). An iMac will have more disk space and, because it's always connected, could allow for a web server, etc. The MB will have better battery life, will be easier to carry, and will have bit more durable casing - and plus, if it's dropped, you'll lose less.
     
  6. iSaint macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #6
    $3,000 to spend?

    Prostitutes! Treat your friends! Then there will be a whole lot of rendering going on!

    ...or not.

    :eek: :p :D
     
  7. Peyton thread starter macrumors 68000

    Peyton

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    #7
    Great points, awe, I've just be in love with the 17inch since I saw it, looks just about perfect.

    anyone want to say, wait until the new towers come out, get the $2k version plus macbook?

    Thanks a lot
     
  8. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #8
    Then you still have to buy a screen.

    However, if you're considering waiting for a mac pro and you're going to be buying a macbook then, well you might as well get the macbook now!

    A MacPro+Screen will probably set you back about $3k anyway.

    Edit: If you have to buy right now then I'd say go for a MacBook and a 20" iMac, no questions asked. If you can afford to wait three months or so until the Mac Pros come out then by all means wait. Although, to be perfectly honest, if you could theoretically buy a 30" ACD to go with a 17" MBP and obviously money isn't as much of a worry (relatively speaking) then you could always do the MacBook, iMac combo now and then sell the iMac, buying a MacPro + Screen when they come out.
     
  9. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #9
    Won't fit into your $3K guideline, because it won't have a monitor, which'll add a fair bit. And the PM is going to be bigger and uglier than an iMac.
     
  10. Peyton thread starter macrumors 68000

    Peyton

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    #10

    Yup, I do have a screen now though. And JSW, I wouldn't get the 30 inch immediately, but as needed. ;)
     
  11. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #11
    Well, I loves me the PMs, but the iMac is my favorite Mac ever, and it's just the 17". Super quiet, fast, slim, attractive - and, believe me, I didn't like it in the store, but I love it here.
     
  12. Peyton thread starter macrumors 68000

    Peyton

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    #12
    OK, new option. The 23" ACD, mac mini (duo) plus macbook.

    Not the specs of an imac, but upgradable...
     
  13. Thidranki macrumors member

    Thidranki

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia
    #13
    I can tell, you just love spending other peoples money. :cool: Don't we all...
     
  14. AvSRoCkCO1067 macrumors 65816

    AvSRoCkCO1067

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #14
    There's a huge overlap between the mac mini and the macbook. I'm a bit confused as to why you need two computers...especially two that are so similar, as the MacBook can support a 23" ACD just fine.

    The scenario involving the iMac and the Macbook makes a bit more sense, as one has a larger screen and a dedicated graphics card, and the other could just be used for simple functions and portability...

    Have you considered just purchasing the 1999 MacBook Pro and an external Dell or even Apple monitor? That combines screen real estate, power, portability, dedicated graphics, and 'sexiness' (lol) into one.

    Whatever you do, if you do purchase two seperate computers, make sure they complement one another - avoid overlaps (like the mac mini + macbook setup), as you'll end up using one a lot more than the other...
     
  15. Peyton thread starter macrumors 68000

    Peyton

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    #15

    Good point. And the reason I was even thinking about 2, was because the maxxed out 17 inch MBP costs as much as a maxed iMac +macbook.

    So the sensical side was kicking in, but I love having everything in one place...
     
  16. Heb1228 macrumors 68020

    Heb1228

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, VA
    #16
    Sorry guys, my internet is acting up. I would report myself, but it won't let me.
     
  17. Thidranki macrumors member

    Thidranki

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia
    #18
    sorry for the sextuple (word?) post. I think there was a problem with MacRumors (yes, that was it!) It wouldn't submit, so I kept clicking submit reply, and this is what you get. Oh well...
     
  18. devilot Moderator emeritus

    devilot

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    #19
    :shrug: I'm biased. I <3 the lower end lappy + iMac. I've got the iMac G5 rev. B and an iBook G4. I love having the ease and choice of using a comfortable and gorgeous display/desktop but having a relatively compact and sturdy little laptop for gentle on-the-go computing.

    The whole syncing thing has never really bothered me because anything of "importance" is quite likely already on the iMac and anything that might be important work on the iBook would just be simple documents (which I do email to myself), so it all works out. :D
     
  19. Thidranki macrumors member

    Thidranki

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia
  20. Thidranki macrumors member

    Thidranki

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia
  21. devilot Moderator emeritus

    devilot

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    #22
    :shrug: I'm biased. I <3 the lower end lappy + iMac. I've got the iMac G5 rev. B and an iBook G4. I love having the ease and choice of using a comfortable and gorgeous display/desktop but having a relatively compact and sturdy little laptop for gentle on-the-go computing.

    The whole syncing thing has never really bothered me because anything of "importance" is quite likely already on the iMac and anything that might be important work on the iBook would just be simple documents (which I do email to myself), so it all works out. :D
     
  22. Thidranki macrumors member

    Thidranki

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia
  23. Heb1228 macrumors 68020

    Heb1228

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, VA
    #24
    Since getting my iMac, I've realized the frustration that can come along with having two machines and trying to keep everything you need on BOTH of them at the same time. Syncing is a major question I think you should consider.

    For email: you need either an email service that offers IMAP or just relegate youself to using web-based email.

    For bookmarks/address book/calendars: plan on subscribing to .Mac, there isn't another easy way to do it.

    For home directory: plan on frustration. There's no good way short of just sharing it over the network.

    For iTunes library: you can share it over your network, but which one is your host machine and what happens if your host computer is asleep when you want to listen to music on the other machine, or away form your house?

    For iPhoto library: no good answer. See last month's MacWorld magazines for 3 possible solutions, none of which are good.

    I think keeping everything on one machine is much better. Maybe Leopard will make a lot of this stuff easier, but as it stands right now, having one machine is ideal IMO.
     
  24. Thidranki macrumors member

    Thidranki

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Virginia
    #25
    sorry #5 here we go, last one dead in its tracks. Looks like I'm not the only one w/ this problem. Just sorry it had to be YOUR thread...
     

Share This Page