17" Macbook Pro (2007) vs. Macbook Pro (2009)

[LostJohn]

I'm basically going to pick up a used / refurbished laptop to use strictly for design work on the go. I have a Mid-2011 iMac 27" and would like something that wouldn't be too much of a departure from that.

The dilemma is: should I get a 2007 Macbook Pro 17" and risk it being too slow to run InDesign, Photoshop, etc. on OS X Mavericks with its max of 4gb RAM.

Or, should I get a 2009 model with a smaller screen, but with higher max ram of 8gb and more support for future os updates down the road?

The big screen would be great to have, but I don't want to buy something that I can't install anything on, obviously. Are the 17" MB Pros made in 2007 still worth buying used, or no?

 

[dspsbl]

Take '09. '07's screen will be WAY MORE dull and less saturated. Keep in mind you'd better spend another couple of bills on a fresher MBP. The later model you get the better screen you'll have. And you can always invest into SSD upgrade later (this is most effective upgrade possible).

 

[BrettApple]

Is the 2009 model a 13" or a 15"?

Either way, if the size is important the 17" isn't that bad depending on the condition it is in. However, you may want to beware the Nvidia 8600m GT that the 2007 model has, it is known to fail.

I have a Late 2008 MacBook (similar enough to the 2009 13" Pro) and I use the Apps listed on it on a regular basis. I have 8GB of RAM and an SSD in it, works great. But I have found myself wanting in the screen real estate area. Not a big deal with an external monitor, but for on the go it can be.

I also just purchased a 15" 2007 MacBook Pro off Amazon for about $330 in good condition to use as my secondary machine and to take to school with me so I don't risk damaging/loosing my main Mac. I put in 4GB RAM and a 120GB SSD into it. So there were upgrade costs involved, but it was so worth it, it runs beautifully and I envy the screen and size every time I use it.

Along with that I changed out the stock 6yr old thermal paste for some new Arctic Silver 5 to help keep things cool, and hopefully extend the life a little, don't want that 8600m dying on me.

Both of them have the same speed CPU (2.4GHz C2D), and SSD's. I've installed Mavericks on both and have done some comparisons myself. Both perform almost identically but in my case the '07 is a little faster with anything graphical (8600m GT is faster than the 9400m), but everything else is similar. Having the extra RAM in the 13" helps a bit when editing lots of RAW images, esp. Panorama's. But with the SSD it is still perfectly do-able on the '07.

So I really can't help a whole lot here other than giving you my experiences. If the 2009 is a 15", then I would go with that 100%. If it's the 13" then it's a little less clear, if you need the space. Otherwise, I'd go for the newer one for longevity.

 

[KUguardgrl13]

If the 2009 is a 13", be careful. I've burned through 5 or 6 SATA cables over the last two years. I also have an issue where it often won't respond when I try to wake it up unless I hard restart. I'm not sure if this is somehow isolated to mine or if it's a more common issue. Apple has only ever replaced the cable and sometimes the hard drive instead of looking into the real issue.

 

[AlexMaximus]

No 07'

I would advice against the 07' because of the high risk nvidia 8600. Try to find a 2009 17' MBP And you will be very happy. However, the best 17' ever was the 2011 version.

 

[Quu]

EDIT:// Nevermind I thought the Op was considering 17" vs 17" not 17" vs 15"/13"