Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

jvtennis

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 24, 2009
2
0
I'm stuck between the new Alum MacBooks 2.0 and 2.4.

The most intensive app I am going to run is Elgato -- watch, record, burn TV programs -- some sports.

I'm not a gamer or photoshopper.

Will 2.4 provide any real advantages for my situation over 2.0?

Thanks in advance.
 
Unless you desire the illuminated keyboard, the 400 MHz difference is negligible. $300 for the cpu boost and 90GB more of HD space isnt worth it imo.

Go with the 2.0. you won't regret it unless you always opt for the best.
 
i use mine for email, safari, watching videos, and using the Office suite. and the 2.0 is plenty for me. never taxed the cpu doing any of this stuff. the reason most people opt for the 2.4 is the illuminated keyboard. that's ridiculous, in my opinion. the 2.0 cpu sounds like plenty for your needs. I think you'd be much better served to take about $200 of that $300 you're going to save, and upgrade your computer with this and this. That'll give you much more of a performance boost than the better cpu. or, if 500GB is more HDD than you need, get the 250GB version for about one hundred dollars less.
 
Get the 2.0GHz model, and spend the difference on AppleCare, more RAM, and/or a bigger HDD.
 
I'm stuck between the new Alum MacBooks 2.0 and 2.4.

The most intensive app I am going to run is Elgato -- watch, record, burn TV programs -- some sports.

I'm not a gamer or photoshopper.

Will 2.4 provide any real advantages for my situation over 2.0?

Thanks in advance.

I did the same exact thing. The key is the Core2Duo. Even the White MB can run the software.

I think you meant EyeTV application? Are you using the Elgato hyrbrid (that's what I ended up going with)? As a layman, it appears it is CPU/Software driven.

I just had to track down a good portable antenna.

If you have any questions, let me know.
 
I bought the 2.4GHz for the extra speed and hard drive. The illuminated keyboard was an added bonus, but not a major factor for me. To be honest, I very rarely find that it even comes on in my normal usage environment. It's really added fluff at this point.
 
The 2.0 will be more than enough. There's not a big difference between the 2.0 and 2.4. I have a 2.4 but the lit keypad was a must for me.
 
I bought the 2.0 MacBook and it's plenty fast for me. My wife was actually cool with me getting the 2.4 machine, but like others here, I told her that it wasn't worth spending another $300 for 90 GB, 400 MHz, and a keyboard that lights up. I spent a little over half of that difference in doubling my hard drive space to 320 GB and doubling the memory to 4 GB.
 
Is it pretty much for use in darkened areas?

No, it's for showing off to your friends. in the dark, the screen casts more than enough light to see the keys. and who looks at the keys when they type? I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you need to look at the keys when you type, save yourself $291.51 and buy this instead.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Do what I did: Refurbished macbook 2.4.

The illuminated keyboard is very very nice. It really is fantastic in low light/dimmed lights/meetings/at meetings.

Oh and to those who say it has no real value, I disagree. The backlight is one of the major reasons usability wise this is much nicer then most of the other notesbooks I've used especially in dim lighting.

Tim
 
The illuminated keyboard is the deal breaker for me.
You can always bump up the performance by adding more RAM and get a faster/bigger drive.
 
I am not saying that nobody needs the backlit keyboard. I'm just saying that I don't. I type without looking at the keys. I learned how to do that in elementary school. and like i said earlier, in the dark or near-dark, the screen casts plenty of light onto the keys.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.