Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.0 or 2.4 MacBook
- Thread starter kim6ball
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, just slower (minimal) and with less light off the keyboard.
Also have a look here: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=011016...e:forums.macrumors.com&hl=en&as_qdr=all&meta=
Also have a look here: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=011016...e:forums.macrumors.com&hl=en&as_qdr=all&meta=
the 2.4 is well worth it. you can't upgrade the processor but, you can the harddrive and ram. also, the backlight really does come in handy and you wonder why you did without it in the past.
I agree. If the proc is soldered in,then get the most powerful one you can.The ram/hdd can be changed out later for bigger.
also, the 2.4 is comparable to the 2.4 15" mbp as well. only major difference is the integrated graphics card/firewire.
backlight is so worth it
And for a marginal .4 Ghz and fancy lights you gladly pay $300 extra? It's got nothing at all to do with you being able to say you have the "best" MacBook? Hah... I would say Apple got to you there!
I've never used that on any of my portables, Mac or PC's and I've had at least several...
Most folks seem to want every feature available because they can't decide on what they really need. In the end this translates to more money for Apple and wasted money for you.
In short, there's nothing the 2.0 can't handle that the 2.4 can. 2.0 has the best value. A MBP is almost double that of an 2.0. Do you really need that tiny extra for big bucks, for what you're going to use it for? or could the money perhaps be used for something else giving you an even better feeling/experience?
Employ some green thinking, literally!
I would have agreed with the poster above but I bought a 2.0 ghz unibody. And while I LOVE it. I'm finding it a bit sluggish for some of the things I do.
Call me ridiculous but I like ot have finder, mail, safari, adium, and itunes running while running a virtual machine on the side.
Also I never thought I'd miss a lit keyboard but its happened many a times that I've been in a dimly lit room and not found the keys. I'm not talking about home row keys either! The mac has so many keys for spaces, and short cuts that I often need to look down.
I am considering switching to a 2.53 ghz macbook if they get updated in WWDC.
Call me ridiculous but I like ot have finder, mail, safari, adium, and itunes running while running a virtual machine on the side.
Also I never thought I'd miss a lit keyboard but its happened many a times that I've been in a dimly lit room and not found the keys. I'm not talking about home row keys either! The mac has so many keys for spaces, and short cuts that I often need to look down.
I am considering switching to a 2.53 ghz macbook if they get updated in WWDC.
I can run all of those apps (replace Safari with Firefox), AND Photoshop and Bridge without my machine breaking a sweat...
My virtual machine is Windows 7. Are you using Vista?
Then get yourself some more RAM. Cost-related a mere speed bump won't do as much as you may think if you do not have enough RAM.
While there may be some rare uses for keyboard backlighting you can get a lot of extra lamps for those $300 you save. Besides there are also ergonomic reasons to have a proper light source contrasting the screen in addition to the cozy feeling a nice lamp creates.
It's best to get the 2.4. The 2.0 is the bare minimum requirements to run full HD video. It's well worth the extra 300. I've seen a few threads on people asking about changing out the keyboard on their 2.0 for the backlit keyboard which is already on the 2.4. The larger HDD, backlit keyboard and faster CPU are worth it. Also, if you even have to ask, then you should go for the 2.4.
And for a marginal .4 Ghz and fancy lights you gladly pay $300 extra? It's got nothing at all to do with you being able to say you have the "best" MacBook? Hah... I would say Apple got to you there!
I've never used that on any of my portables, Mac or PC's and I've had at least several...
Most folks seem to want every feature available because they can't decide on what they really need. In the end this translates to more money for Apple and wasted money for you.
In short, there's nothing the 2.0 can't handle that the 2.4 can. 2.0 has the best value. A MBP is almost double that of an 2.0. Do you really need that tiny extra for big bucks, for what you're going to use it for? or could the money perhaps be used for something else giving you an even better feeling/experience?
Employ some green thinking, literally!
Not everyone has the same situation as you. A MacBook Pro's ExpressCard slot is extremely fast for camera card downloads, the 9400M is absolute crap compared to the MacBook Pro's video card. I know, I'm testing this on an external monitor right now. It eats processor power in addition to precious RAM suckage. For professional photography or anything graphics or video-related, I would opt for the Pro.
either get the 999 white one and upgrade ram and hard drive, or get the 2.4 unibody. The 1200 2.0 unibody is a terrible value. the white one has better specs. personally, i dont know how i could possibly live without a backlit keyboard. its also worth it because the resale value will be SIGNIFICANTLY higher
