MBP or MB and imac

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by belleville, Sep 30, 2006.

  1. belleville macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    #1
    I'm wondering if I should wait for the 17inch MBP.
    This is what makes me hesitate:
    I pay 3099$ for a MBP with 2 gig ram. For 3098$, I can get a 20inch iMac, same graphic card like the MBP, 500 Gig HD (1949$) and the cheapest MB with a 80 gig HD upgrade (1149$). I’d have a fast imac with a big HD to use Final Cut Pro, and a small MB to use on the road. What do you people think of this dilemma?
     
  2. ChickenSwartz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    #2
    I would go with the second option if the only thing you would need the MB for is to be portable, meaning you don't need the graphics on-the-go. The MB will be easier to move with than the 17'' MBP.
     
  3. 1dterbeest macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Location:
    Waupun, WI
    #3
    get the Macbook and iMac. Having two computers is wonderful!

    Instead of mega-upgrading the hard drive on the iMac, you could
    go with the 250gb and then buy an external firewire hard drive
    for moving files back and forth and for your extra storage.
     
  4. pianoman macrumors 68000

    pianoman

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    #4
    i agree. go with the iMac + MB combo. the MB is nice and small and easy to carry, while the 17" MBP is too bulky to carry around (IMO). i would also consider a 15" MBP (easier to transport) and an ACD, but i don't know how much power you need from your portable. if you think the MB is powerful enough for whatever you're doing on the road, then the iMac + MB combo is the way to go.
     
  5. ChickenSwartz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    #5
    That's a good idea, you could use the external for both the iMac and the MB making easy transfers between the two, might not even need to get the upgrade in the MB. Plus, it is always nice to split your storage up incase your internal goes bad you won't have lost everything.
     
  6. wPod macrumors 68000

    wPod

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #6
    right now the iMac is more powerful for using final cut because it has the core 2, while the 17" MBP has only the core. the core 2 is a much better chip and will last longer into the future. especially with leopard which will be 64 bit native and will run much better with the core 2, and future 64 bit releases of applications, such as final cut.

    getting the smaller HD with an external HD is not only a good idea for file sharing, but an even better idea b/c of time machine in leopard. time machine will make back up a breeze.

    the 17" MBP makes a good 'desktop replacement' when you want a 'moveable' desktop that you can hide out of the way, or store away, or ocasionaly move to a different location to use. it does not make a good protable (IMO!!!)
     
  7. belleville thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2006
    #7
    Thanks

    Hi everyone, thanks for your fast respond. I guess I'll go for the combo and an external HD. Sounds like a good idea. I don't really need a fast computer for the road. I'll be doing the normal stuff, which most people do, check mail... I guess the Imac will be good for Final Cut Pro. Do you asume that the merom MBP will be faster then the 2.16ghz imac?
     
  8. w8ing4intelmacs macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    East Coast, US
    #8
    Personally, I think it'd be a pain to maintain two computers. If you can wait a week or two, I'm sure you can buy a Merom MBP or possible even a Merom MB. Buy a smaller one (like a 15" MBP) and then spend $300 for a 20" LCD and $200 for a 500GB external drive (for video editing). That sounds a lot easier, at least imo.
     
  9. 1dterbeest macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Location:
    Waupun, WI
    #9
    Not much faster, probaby about the same speed, at least on initial release.
     
  10. plunar macrumors 6502

    plunar

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    #10
    no, no no no!

    i can't believe what i'm reading on this thread! if you buy two computers, i guarantee you will only use 1, 95% of the time. and it will probably be the macbook.

    two computers sounds good on paper, but it ends up just being a waste. you're imac will just sit there because you will be doing work, downloading files, etc onto the macbook. moving files back and and forth just becomes tedious, especially trying to keep iphoto/itunes libraries in sync; it's just a pain in the ass.

    maybe if apple releases some sort of hard drive sync software someday, things may get a bit better. but right now you're on your way to buying an expensive paperweight.
     
  11. dwd3885 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    #11
    That's a great point. I had a desktop and laptop (both PCs) and used the desktop 90% of the time for a few months. THen I used the laptop much of the time but not the desktop. And having all your files on one computer is a better idea. Unless you do heavy video editing or photography or audio of some kind where you need multiple computers, but at that point, the laptop is out of the question anyway.
     
  12. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #12
    Buying 2 computers at the same time is stupid. This means that you'll have 2 outdated computers instead of 1 in the not-so-distant future.

    Get the Macbook Pro, and maybe an external monitor if you really need the extra screen space. 17'' is plenty big though.
     

Share This Page