15"+external 23" vs 24"iMac+mb

[Beau10]

Yes yes the ACD is ultimately nicer but can you really tell the difference? I really can't. I have a Dell 2007FPW and all I can say is that it looks just as good as an iMac, maybe even better....as I have spent time in front of both.

Yes, I can _really_ tell a difference. I spend my Mon/Wed/Fri in front of a Dell 2005 and my Tues/Thurs in front of the ACD. All day long.

Remember I wasn't saying the Dell is as good as ACD but it sure is just as good as an iMac which is what we should compare this to since the OP was initially thinking iMac.

A 24" iMac is an **H-IPS** display. It's better than the ACD.

All I am saying is this. If you use education discount, here is what you get:

15" MBP - $1800
20" Dell - $250
=$2050! (By the way you also get ipod Touch and $100 printer free)!

For a little over $2000, this setup will match a 24" iMac/Macbook combo and is way way cheaper! I think this is a great way to go

Well without a doubt the edu purchase freebies are worth taking advantage of, but there's tax that also is factored in, yeah? And where's the mouse and keyboard? And a 24" H-IPS display != 20" S-IPS or craptastic TN panel (Dell uses both, and it's luck of the draw).

But regardless any options discussed in this thread absolutely slay what I had in college... which was a Powerbook Duo280c (33mhz 60040, 8.5 inch screen, 12 megs ram, 320 meg hd), a 15" NEC CRT, a Duo doc, and apple keyboard and mouse. Cost? Over $5k, considering inflation that was prolly more like $7-8k in today's $$.

 

[Kan-O-Z]

Yes, I can _really_ tell a difference. I spend my Mon/Wed/Fri in front of a Dell 2005 and my Tues/Thurs in front of the ACD. All day long.



A 24" iMac is an **H-IPS** display. It's better than the ACD.



Well without a doubt the edu purchase freebies are worth taking advantage of, but there's tax that also is factored in, yeah? And where's the mouse and keyboard? And a 24" H-IPS display != 20" S-IPS or craptastic TN panel (Dell uses both, and it's luck of the draw).

But regardless any options discussed in this thread absolutely slay what I had in college... which was a Powerbook Duo280c (33mhz 60040, 8.5 inch screen, 12 megs ram, 320 meg hd), a 15" NEC CRT, a Duo doc, and apple keyboard and mouse. Cost? Over $5k, considering inflation that was prolly more like $7-8k in today's $$.

We can talk about monitors all day long. The point is there are better alternatives when it comes to value per dollar than the ACD. I was just naming Dell as an example but there are a host of others from Viewsonic, Samsung, etc that will match the iMac or ACD for less money. Sorry to burst your bubble. Not everyone is ready to purchase a used ACD either. Brand new, ACDs are just way too expensive.

You have an older 2005 Dell, they have improved since then. I can tell you that my friend has an iMac and I have Dell 2007WFP and I prefer the Dell. It just looks better. Maybe part of that is that I don't care for glossy displays. You should know that all professional photographers also do not prefer glossy displays as they over colorize pictures to the point that they don't look so natural. That's why the ACD is matte, for professionals. iMac is consumer grade.

In anycase, monitors aside, my point is you can make a great computer out of a low end MBP and even a 20" external display (when coupled together with extended desktop, you will actually have more monitor real estate than a 24" iMac). It will also save a lot of space on your desk. In the end, you will save a ton of $$ along with all the pros I mentioned before.

Kan-O-Z

 

[Kan-O-Z]

Yes, I can _really_ tell a difference. I spend my Mon/Wed/Fri in front of a Dell 2005 and my Tues/Thurs in front of the ACD. All day long.

You also need to make sure you calibrate your Dell and MBP. It makes things a lot nicer. My Dell actually has a setting for Mac On top of that, I have calibrated my MBP for the Dell. Trust me, in my eyes I prefer it over iMac....but of course everyone is different.

Kan-O-Z

 

[bubble27]

I never said to buy a new MBP one every 18 months if you go low end. What makes you think the high end will last twice as long as the low end. Sorry to tell you this but when the old low end is way outdated, so will the old high end.

Think of it this way. Right now you pay a premium to go from 2.4GHz to 2.6. Three years from now, they might be up to 4.0GHz with 16GB RAM and 1TB HD! This high end machine that you're going to pay for now will be worthless in 3 years so why not just stick to low end. It really is a powerful machine even low end and will satisfy 99% of people out there. High end is for that 1% of people who are doing something so intensive right now that the low end doesn't cut it. I can't imagine what that might even be.

So about how long to you keep your MBP for then?

Not a bad plan actually! Just sick of having comp troubles to be honest.
With my current **** machine, i cant even browse the internet, download and listen to music without it skipping every 10secs!!

Never again....Want usuable things from now on

 

[robotica]

So about how long to you keep your MBP for then?

Not a bad plan actually! Just sick of having comp troubles to be honest.
With my current **** machine, i cant even browse the internet, download and listen to music without it skipping every 10secs!!

Never again....Want usuable things from now on

sounds like an xp/vista driver conflict

 

[GUILTIE]

So about how long to you keep your MBP for then?

Not a bad plan actually! Just sick of having comp troubles to be honest.
With my current **** machine, i cant even browse the internet, download and listen to music without it skipping every 10secs!!

Never again....Want usuable things from now on

sounds like an xp/vista driver conflict

I think it sounds like you don't have enough RAM.

 

[Kan-O-Z]

So about how long to you keep your MBP for then?

Not a bad plan actually! Just sick of having comp troubles to be honest.
With my current **** machine, i cant even browse the internet, download and listen to music without it skipping every 10secs!!

Never again....Want usuable things from now on

Honestly I don't want to put an exact timeframe for how long I would keep my MBP. I would say when you feel that it's to outdated to accomodate your needs. Either it's too slow for the latest and greatest applications or doesn't have enough HD or memory or graphics, etc. It would also depend on if it's working reliably (no hardware issues). Another factor that would sway me is what is Apple putting out in the latest MBP. If there are exciting new technologies that would make me buy a new one quicker.

All that said, I am planning on keeping mine for at least 4 years. I bought a low end one in 2007 (2.2GHz, 160HD, 2MB Memory). It runs Leopard great after being now almost 1 year old! I am really happy with it. I had a slight battery problem(wasn't holding charge) and Apple replaced the battery under warranty so I am happy!

In my opinion a low end MBP is a powerful machine sufficient for 99% of the people out there. Again I love computers but at the rate they advance it just isn't a good idea to get the best of the best unless you absolutely need it or unless you are just well off financially.

Kan-O-Z

 

[Kan-O-Z]

I think it sounds like you don't have enough RAM.

You can never have enough RAM for Vista

Kan-O-Z

 

[Beau10]

You also need to make sure you calibrate your Dell and MBP. It makes things a lot nicer. My Dell actually has a setting for Mac On top of that, I have calibrated my MBP for the Dell. Trust me, in my eyes I prefer it over iMac....but of course everyone is different.

Kan-O-Z

Well you have a 20" Dell, and as I stated earlier, it can be either a IPS or a TN panel. It's a crapshoot. You may indeed have a panel that is technologically on par with the ACD.

But the 24" Dell is different technology, and again, what I quoted earlier

http://monitortest.blogspot.com/

Scroll down to the text "Let’s go step by step." Look at all the anomalies that are produced by a PVA display. Things that show up correctly on my ACD. This stuff is obvious on my 2405. Better color saturation, lack of color shifting, more detail, etc. Sure, the 2408 improves and is a nice monitor for the money, but there is no calibrating away the difference in technology. The used market prices the ACDs to just a bit more than half their retail cost, and I was able to buy a as-new 23" ACD for less than a new 2408. Total no-brainer.

I'm not sure what you looked at as far as iMac since you don't specify, but if it's a newer 20" it's a TN panel, which is bottom end. The 24" one is actually a bargain as standalone 24" H-IPS displays go well north of $1k. The OP specified the 24". He also specified the 23" ACD. Clearly he's interested in a WUXGA screen for desktop use. I'm a bit confused how a 20" monitor entered this discussion.

 

[Kan-O-Z]

The OP specified the 24". He also specified the 23" ACD. Clearly he's interested in a WUXGA screen for desktop use. I'm a bit confused how a 20" monitor entered this discussion.

The 20" entered this discussion because when you run extended desktop mode on a MBP + 20", the total screen real estate is actually bigger than a 23" ACD or 24" iMac. I was trying to point out that in extended desktop mode, you only need a 20" to match a 24" iMac. Personally I love extended desktop mode since you can really have two applications(opened to a good size) up side by side. That's even hard to do on a 24" (Note I am not saying you can't, just that you will have to make the applications a bit narrower to fit). MBP + 20" gets you a wider screen where as a 24" gets you a taller screen. 20" monitors are very cheap and when paired with a low end MBP, you get a nice setup for just a hair above $2000.

Kan-O-Z

 

[CWallace]

I went from a 24" iMac and MacBook to a 15" MacBook Pro and a 24" Dell monitor. The MBP seems about as snappy as the iMac and is much more powerful as a portable then my MB.

 

[bubble27]

In my opinion a low end MBP is a powerful machine sufficient for 99% of the people out there. Again I love computers but at the rate they advance it just isn't a good idea to get the best of the best unless you absolutely need it or unless you are just well off financially.

Kan-O-Z

Do you ever game?

Multi task?

Wont your computer run under stress if you have like 5 downloads at a time with orbit.....with like 50 buffering. Perhaps iTunes open, Mozilla, Msn and extracting files with winrar.

Just doing this my computer will shut down! hahah
Lame....Not that im gona do that all the time but multi tasking is standard.

I think it sounds like you don't have enough RAM.

1gb Ram....nah no where near that problem! running at about 350-400mb all the time.

 

[Kan-O-Z]

Do you ever game?

Multi task?

Wont your computer run under stress if you have like 5 downloads at a time with orbit.....with like 50 buffering. Perhaps iTunes open, Mozilla, Msn and extracting files with winrar.

Just doing this my computer will shut down! hahah
Lame....Not that im gona do that all the time but multi tasking is standard.

Are u serious? That's all it takes to bring your computer down? You must be running Vista

Any mac, even the little mini, will multitask fairly well. Serious gaming will require iMac or MBP simply because the need for a video card.

Yes I have had iPhoto open, iTunes open, iMovie open, Safari downloading, Front Row playing movies....and guess what....my wife was also logged into her account simultaneously and was running safari, mail, chat and a few other things! I have a 1 year old low end MBP. It wasn't even struggling

Kan-O-Z