24" iMac vs. 15" MacBook Pro

[firstapple]

I love my 20" iMac but definitely wish I would have ponied up and just got the 24" right off the bat. I am dying for more screen space.

I think you should get the 24" iMac, and then just a cheap MacBook or a netbook for when you want to be portable around your house.

 

[christ3d]

i know the argument is that "he's a graphic designer, he needs more power" blah blah blah. and that might be true for his particular case, but in general, i think the real argument for most people is:

1. macbook pro 15 $2000-$2500

2. imac $1800-$2200

3. macbook + cinema display $2200

for my money, i think the macbook + cinema display is the way to go. i'm in a similar situation as a lot of people with an old powerbook, and at this point anything is going to be blazingly fast in comparison. i run photoshop on my powerbook, so i think the macbook will do just fine.

heres the other thing, the macbook pro and imac are really expensive computers, alot of people spend so much on them that they only upgrade them every 6 or so years. why not invest in a really good external monitor and buy a new macbooks again in like 2 to 3 years.

 

[TheHoff]

Christ, he makes sense.

 

[ARK]

Macbook would not be as good gaming though. I want to be able to play diablo 3 once it comes out. Macbook isn't going to happen. I must have PRO.

 

[ditzy]

To me it sounds as if you don't really need portability, it would just be a nice extra.
I think that the iMac better suits what you actually need. I think that you would be frustrated with the MBP until you bought the display to go with it. Which would take you way above the iMac price bracket.
Just a thought though you should probably dismiss this thought straight away.

2.4GHz MBP + LED Cinema display = $2896
2.8GHz iMac + 2.0GHz Alu macbook = $3098

If it was me though I'd get the 3.06GHz iMac.