Just curious... because in the back of my mind I feel like I should have bought the 2.4 GHz just so I know I have "the best" model. The keyboard makes no difference to me, neither does the HD & RAM since I plan to upgrade.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aluminum Macbook users: Did you buy 2.0 or 2.4 GHz?
- Thread starter hierobryan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yea you should have gotten the 2.4ghz. price difference is about 400$ i think, youre computer technically is already outdated.
There is always going to be something better and faster. Just enjoy what you have.
I bought the 2.4GHz model just because I already had purchased the Blackbook for $1,499. I just took that back and threw another $100 towards it to get what I've got.
I'm glad I did. I really enjoy the back-lit keyboard. I'm used to it since I've been using a Logitech G15 on my desktop for a few years now.
I bought the 2.4GHz model just because I already had purchased the Blackbook for $1,499. I just took that back and threw another $100 towards it to get what I've got.
I'm glad I did. I really enjoy the back-lit keyboard. I'm used to it since I've been using a Logitech G15 on my desktop for a few years now.
With any computer, always buy the most computer you can afford. It will be useful and relevant that much longer. This is especially true for Macs as their resale value is higher than any other computer...the more you spend now, the more you get back when you sell it.
I'm not going to get the 2.4, even with Hawaii's lack of restocking fee. I just want to know who bought what.
My parents just bought me the 2.4ghz model today. It was a High School graduation gift, I decided to wait until they were updated until I got one.
I felt that the 2.4ghz model was the best deal, because for $250 more (seemingly small compared to the $1250). The processor is notably faster (20%) and the hard drive is larger, and the backlit keyboard is bada$$.
I felt that the 2.4ghz model was the best deal, because for $250 more (seemingly small compared to the $1250). The processor is notably faster (20%) and the hard drive is larger, and the backlit keyboard is bada$$.
I've have owned numerous PB's and a couple MBP's, so I've always had the ambient light sensor. In all honesty, I never use it and keep it turned off since the computer is in my bedroom. The extra horsepower and hard drive space are inconsequential for what I'm using the MB for.
I bought to 2.4 for a lot of reasons. I was coming from a mid 2007 MBP which was 2.2 Ghz so I wanted to guarantee an upgrade. I also do a lot of software development work and run windows inside parallels for this so the extra speed is necessary. Also this is my main computer and I'm hoping it will last me 3-4 years.
I took the 2.0 because the difference in processor performance is slim to none...Especially if your not gonna go rendering, mp3 encode or other 100% CPU dependant stuff.
http://www.macworld.com/article/136214/2008/10/macbookbenchmarks.html?lsrc=top_1
http://www.macworld.com/article/136214/2008/10/macbookbenchmarks.html?lsrc=top_1
I bought 2.0 for the same reasons. People arguing about the extra 400MHz being relevant in a few years really haven't thought this through. You're paying an extra £200 for the marginal speed increase - it's not like they are different chip families, it's the same processor just clocked ever so slightly higher.
That £200 you save now will come in handy in a couple of years when you want to buy a new machine. I'm assuming no one here is shallow enough to want to spend £200 on some lights beneath the keys, especially when the display is so bright that the keyboard is easily illuminated by it in a dark room.
Alternatively you could spend that £200 on a Time Capsule or an iPod or something which is vastly more functional than the marginal upgrades you get on the higher MacBook model.
PS: My 2.0 MacBook feels just as fast as my 2.4GHz iMac
I bought 2.0 for the same reasons. People arguing about the extra 400MHz being relevant in a few years really haven't thought this through. You're paying an extra £200 for the marginal speed increase - it's not like they are different chip families, it's the same processor just clocked ever so slightly higher.
That £200 you save now will come in handy in a couple of years when you want to buy a new machine. I'm assuming no one here is shallow enough to want to spend £200 on some lights beneath the keys, especially when the display is so bright that the keyboard is easily illuminated by it in a dark room.
Alternatively you could spend that £200 on a Time Capsule or an iPod or something which is vastly more functional than the marginal upgrades you get on the higher MacBook model.
PS: My 2.0 MacBook feels just as fast as my 2.4GHz iMac
Exactly, another important point is. You will most likely lose less money while selling the cheaper one then while selling the 2.4 one. Losses are usualy calculated by percentage, and on top of that many buyers have no idea what the difference between 2.4 and 2.0 is. If they see alot of cheaper 2.0 on the market it will be harder to not lose more money while selling a 2.4. Not saying it would be impossible, just harder.
I bought 2.0 for the same reasons. People arguing about the extra 400MHz being relevant in a few years really haven't thought this through. You're paying an extra £200 for the marginal speed increase - it's not like they are different chip families, it's the same processor just clocked ever so slightly higher.
That £200 you save now will come in handy in a couple of years when you want to buy a new machine. I'm assuming no one here is shallow enough to want to spend £200 on some lights beneath the keys, especially when the display is so bright that the keyboard is easily illuminated by it in a dark room.
Alternatively you could spend that £200 on a Time Capsule or an iPod or something which is vastly more functional than the marginal upgrades you get on the higher MacBook model.
PS: My 2.0 MacBook feels just as fast as my 2.4GHz iMac
What's $250 over a period of three years (average time people keep their computers)? That's a little less than $7 a month - hardly enough to make people go into the poor house. If we're just going to buy based on price alone, we might as well be buying Windows computers. For the most part, the two OS can do the same thing. You can save a bunch of money there.
Some people want the backlighting and don't care about the extra cost. If $250 more is a BIG obstacle in getting the computer you want, you probably can't afford the computer in the first place. You're coming off as a hater, whining about what others are buying. It's entirely possible that those purchasing the 2.4 are also purchasing Time Capsules and AppleCare.
Enjoy your 2.0 and let those who have the 2.4 enjoy theirs.
I think the cost diff vs the added features was reasonable.
back lighted key board
bigger HD capacity
faster processor
But for me the back lit keyboard sealed the deal.
Gary
back lighted key board
bigger HD capacity
faster processor
But for me the back lit keyboard sealed the deal.
Gary
In no way interested in upping to 2.4, for what I'm going to be doing, and for that matter what 80% of people will be doing, does it really matter?
I don't notice a great deal of difference in my desktop for example when I went up from dual 2.4 to quad 3.2
Backlit keyboard WOULD be nice however, wish it was perhaps a $80 option or something, I'd pay the small extra.
I don't notice a great deal of difference in my desktop for example when I went up from dual 2.4 to quad 3.2
Backlit keyboard WOULD be nice however, wish it was perhaps a $80 option or something, I'd pay the small extra.
