MacBook vs. MacBook Pro - EVERYTHING the extra $500 gets you.

[Abstract]

Hmmm..... Oh, you mean graphics Pros, no? Otherwise I guess that the rest of us who use MB's for non-graphics, but professional (as in development, for example) uses in reality are amateurs.
/sarcasm

Until the MBP range increases the specs gap, I have a hard time taking the 'consumer' vs. 'pro' argument seriously. Powerbook/iBook, yeah, there was a real gap. MB/MBP, not so much.

Heh, unless the consumer/professional argument is only a cover for "The MBP looks cool" lust factor

If you really, really need the graphics card (really), then, of course, there is a valid spec difference. Otherwise it is just aesthetics.

Agreed.

The only part I disagree with is that there was a massive difference between the PowerBook and iBook. There really wasn't when you took a close look at them. Differences?
- Some vRAM (but the video card was still bad)
- Bigger harddisks, and then finally, faster HDs as well, although this option didn't always exist in the PB line, either. Even then, if you really needed the speed, why not an external HDD?
- Screen resolution and brightness (OK, the iBook easily loses here), the


But in terms of real world application, the iBooks weren't that disadvantaged:

- Neither laptop was fast enough to play games.
- Neither laptop was fast enough to run Final Cut or other video apps quickly (except the PBs had the necessary screen requirements).
- If you then take the 12" PowerBook into account, the difference becomes even smaller, because the 12" PowerBook ended up being an iBook, except with a processor that's one update ahead of the iBook. I'm an ex 12" PB owner, btw.


The MacBook Pros are in a better situation in that they're differentiated a bit more, but really, since the video card isn't going to benefit you unless you do video work (using decent apps) and gaming, there's no point unless you want the screen resolution. Actually, screen resolution is enough to make me want a 15" MBP rather than the MacBook that I currently own. I know I can buy an external LCD, but meh.

 

[nutts]

Over Christmas I moved from a Black CD MacBook to a 17" C2D MBP, and I have to say I'm really happy with it.

Things I've noticed between them:
1. 17" screen is much bigger than the 13.3" (duh!) and I *love* the extra resolution
2. The speakers on the MBP are very much louder than on the MacBook, so it's much better for watching movies
3. The magnetic latch-less case closure on the MacBook is a better solution
4. I think I found the MacBook screen to be brighter, although my MBP is a matte screen, so that might have something to do with it
5. On that subject, I prefer the non-reflectiveness of the matte screen. The glossy on the MacBook, although great for photos/movies, was not so practical for me, trying to avoid reflections all the time
6. Full-size DVI on the MBP is more useful, as is having an extra USB port and ports on both sides. I'm not fussed by Firewire800 and ExpressCard/34 yet
7. The MBP is quieter overall than the MacBook was. Although obviously you only hear them when the fans are going, when I ripped a DVD in Handbrake on my MacBook it was *so* loud. On the MBP, it isn't at all
8. The MBP seems to run much cooler than my MacBook
9. Overall the MBP feels a lot faster, although it is subjective and probably a lot to do with having double the RAM and a dedicated video card.

I'm guessing 7 and 8 are partly/mostly to do with the change from CD to C2D, as I remember reading that C2D runs cooler. So these may be different with the new C2D MacBooks.

I think that's it. The primary reason I upgraded was to have higher screen resolution, as I'm running the MBP as my main work and home machine (spanned to another screen using DVI). I also need the extra specs (RAM and hard disk mainly) to run Aperture and WinXP in Parallels (just for browser testing).

But I really liked the MacBook. Thought it was a huge improvement over my old iBook G4, and would have kept it if I just wanted a portable home machine. And for most other people too, I think it would be enough by far.

Final words: I love the MBP!

 

[PDE]

Over Christmas I moved from a Black CD MacBook to a 17" C2D MBP, and I have to say I'm really happy with it.

Things I've noticed between them:
1. 17" screen is much bigger than the 13.3" (duh!) and I *love* the extra resolution
2. The speakers on the MBP are very much louder than on the MacBook, so it's much better for watching movies
3. The magnetic latch-less case closure on the MacBook is a better solution
4. I think I found the MacBook screen to be brighter, although my MBP is a matte screen, so that might have something to do with it
5. On that subject, I prefer the non-reflectiveness of the matte screen. The glossy on the MacBook, although great for photos/movies, was not so practical for me, trying to avoid reflections all the time
6. Full-size DVI on the MBP is more useful, as is having an extra USB port and ports on both sides. I'm not fussed by Firewire800 and ExpressCard/34 yet
7. The MBP is quieter overall than the MacBook was. Although obviously you only hear them when the fans are going, when I ripped a DVD in Handbrake on my MacBook it was *so* loud. On the MBP, it isn't at all
8. The MBP seems to run much cooler than my MacBook
9. Overall the MBP feels a lot faster, although it is subjective and probably a lot to do with having double the RAM and a dedicated video card.

I'm guessing 7 and 8 are partly/mostly to do with the change from CD to C2D, as I remember reading that C2D runs cooler. So these may be different with the new C2D MacBooks.

I think that's it. The primary reason I upgraded was to have higher screen resolution, as I'm running the MBP as my main work and home machine (spanned to another screen using DVI). I also need the extra specs (RAM and hard disk mainly) to run Aperture and WinXP in Parallels (just for browser testing).

But I really liked the MacBook. Thought it was a huge improvement over my old iBook G4, and would have kept it if I just wanted a portable home machine. And for most other people too, I think it would be enough by far.

Final words: I love the MBP!

Your experience corresponds with mine though I think my 17" is about the same brightness as my girlfriend's macbook. Just curious

- how is your display in terms of uneven illumination? When you put a medium gray background, do you notice any difference in illumination between various parts of the display ? If possible, could you post a photo?


Enjoy!

Thanks

 

[jobbi]

"On that subject, I prefer the non-reflectiveness of the matte screen. The glossy on the MacBook, although great for photos/movies, was not so practical for me, trying to avoid reflections all the time"

hi,

I am just about to buy a macbook or a 15"pro.
I am really hesitate to make my decision because of the glossy display. How reflecting is it? I saw that the glossy one is more saturated and has a brighter contrast, but I am working on photos, retouching, converting...as a photographer usually does. Which one would be a better choice?

 

[jhande]

So, essentially, this entire debate would be moot if the P in MBP actually stood for 'Plus' instead of 'Pro'?

Is the beef really with Apple's nomenclature rather than the hardware?

Professionals/consumers/whatever - buy based on what you actually want in a computer, rather than the name stuck under the screen.

What a silly little war this is

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with buying because of aesthetics - hell, we all do that, all the time. Why did I buy the BlackBook and pay the premium? Because I like it.

It's just pure maslow: once the basic needs are covered, emotions become the decider.... also wrt computers (cars, clothes).

We computer users have an immense urge to justify our purchase for rational reasons, even though we know damn well that tech-lust powers a lot of us. "Honey, I've cancelled the vacation because I really, really need to have 3 gb on my MBP for work (ahem WoW, surfing, etc..)"

 

[PDE]

"On that subject, I prefer the non-reflectiveness of the matte screen. The glossy on the MacBook, although great for photos/movies, was not so practical for me, trying to avoid reflections all the time"

hi,

I am just about to buy a macbook or a 15"pro.
I am really hesitate to make my decision because of the glossy display. How reflecting is it? I saw that the glossy one is more saturated and has a brighter contrast, but I am working on photos, retouching, converting...as a photographer usually does. Which one would be a better choice?

Although in store lighting, the glossy looks better, I really think that when working in normal lighting, they're not THAT different. The glossy enhances contrast and makes colors pop out, but for photo editing AND for your comfort, I still think matte is more appropriate. Although the backlighting of the 17" I have is uneven, it's still a VERY pleasant screen for my eyes. I can work on it for hours without getting eye fatigue. When i was using the MBP 15" glossy my eyes got tired quickly. There IS reflection no matter what people say. You get used to it, but that doesn't mean it's not there and doesn't affect your eyes.

For these reasons, I say go for the matte.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I would like to run Aperture on a Laptop. Apparently IT NEEDS the better GPU to run better.

Sure, I could do it on the Macbook - but in 3 years i'll HATE myself for buying low end AGAIN. 3 years ago I bought a 12" iBook. It won't run Aperture - even slow.

I'm not repeating that - i need to buy a machine that will last me AT LEAST 3 years, what I have hasn't.

Am I a "Pro" photographer? Nope. Just a pro-sumer with a great camera and over 150gb of pictures to catalog and deal with. I use CS2 NOW, so the iPhoto/Elements combo doesn't work for me.

I wish i could let myself get "just" a Macbook - probably would get it sooner. But I can't..... and the screens may be crap - but they are WAY better than the 2 I have access to now - the iBook and a Sony R505.

What if you upgraded every 1.5 years, it would cost the same, and it would keep you more or less up to date.

 

[nutts]

how is your display in terms of uneven illumination? When you put a medium gray background, do you notice any difference in illumination between various parts of the display ?

If I sit (too) close to the display, there are slight dark areas at the bottom-left and bottom-right sides of the screen, but sitting at a normal distance in daily use I don't notice. They could have done better on the screens admittedly, but it doesn't worry me. It's still a great machine, and the best I've had.

Regarding the difference between glossy and matte screens, I agree with PDE in that I found the glossy screen on the MacBook more tiring. But the glossy is a great-looking screen with photos and movies.

I'm glad I went for the matte on the MBP though; no regrets on that score

 

[recordprod]

I was so close to getting the 2.3GHz MBP but after trying a few friends MB's and MBP's decided that there really wasn't that much in it for my needs so got 2 MB's, one for me and one for wifey. I plug mine in to the big screen if needed and that's great. With the deal I got it cost about the same as the MBP.

Both really happy though I admit a MBP would have been nicer

 

[furcalchick]

i personally like it that my ports are on one side with the macbook, makes it alot less clutter for me to organize my wires instead of wondering what side each one is and creating a bit more clutter. that's just me though.

and yes, the speakers on the macbook are pretty low, but if i'm in a situation where i need to hear, i'll use one of my several headphones and listen that way.

i personally think that people assuming that macbooks are for just web surfing and word processing really puts them down in a way where it's almost to par to the pro models. i really get annoyed when everyone gets hassled to buy the twice as expensive pro model, especially if it's more power, just because they will be doing some stuff outside of the web surfing realm. i want people to know that the macbooks are a very good choice as well as the pros and you don't have to have a pro to have a true mac.

 

[displaced]

Regarding glossy vs. matte (which, I know, is opening a giant can o' worms):

The glossy screen on our MB does look superb colour and contrast-wise. However, it is over-bright. Towards the bottom of the screen, dock icons look washed out compared to further up the screen. This actually bothers me quite a bit - the solution was two-part: crank the screen's brightness down, and perform a ColorSync calibration. [edit: this might just be something peculiar to my MB!]

Reflections from other light sources is a problem. Of course, all LCD's are pretty horrific under direct sunlight, but this is different. If you're working with directional lights that happen to be at the wrong angle, you'll see a clear-as-day reflection of the lamp in your screen. It's possible to blink and focus past it, but it's annoying. If you like working under or near a lamp, you might have to rejig things.

The one thing I've noticed with the glossy coating which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is this: you need to keep it absolutely pristinely clean. Its reflectivity accentuates every smear, print, splodge or bit of grub the screen's accumulated. The matte screens don't show this anywhere near as much - it's usually only when my MPB's screen is off that I notice if it needs cleaning.

Like many things it's a trade-off - there's no such thing as the perfect LCD display yet.

 

[cwk1234]

"On that subject, I prefer the non-reflectiveness of the matte screen. The glossy on the MacBook, although great for photos/movies, was not so practical for me, trying to avoid reflections all the time"

hi,

I am just about to buy a macbook or a 15"pro.
I am really hesitate to make my decision because of the glossy display. How reflecting is it? I saw that the glossy one is more saturated and has a brighter contrast, but I am working on photos, retouching, converting...as a photographer usually does. Which one would be a better choice?

hey are you from http://jobbi.com?