I would go with the MBP!! It's an *EXTREMELY* powerful portable, which can be used as a desktop as well, if you wish. The 17" screen has the same amount of workspace as the 20" cinema display. I think 1 computer would be a lot better for you, imo.😉
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.
Are Two Macs Better than One?
- Thread starter colgate13
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
DavidLeblond
macrumors 68020
Eidorian said:
I could see myself working on 4 hours or so of video while away from home for about a month. Burning this to DVD is a distinct possibility. I guess the key question is, does the DVD *need* to be more than 1 1/2 - 2 hours long? Probably not. Do I also need FireWire 800 over 400? Probably not.
Thanks. I think I just recognized the difference between 'want' and 'need'!
I don't think it makes sense to have two top of the line machines. If anything get a powerful Portable, which totally removes the purpose of a desktop machine.
Just get the laptop. A MBP or a MB (if you don't need the extra power). Seriously the new iMac isn't a huge leap of power like the old G5 was compared to most people's G4 laptops. An iMac isn't really needed if you have a MB or MBP. You'll end up using the laptop a ton more. For about 3 months I had two mac. I had a mac mini (my first mac which was about a year old) and then I got an iBook (a Christmas gift) and I used both systems for some time. I ended up using the ibook 90% of the time and I just used the mac mini to back up my homework or music. I broke down and an external hard drive and I gave the mini to my sister who needed a new computer. I personally recommend getting a laptop (a MBP or MB) over an iMac and MB. It just seems like a waste of money. I could understand justifying the purchase of a iMac and a laptop if they were leagues more powerful then their laptop counterparts (which they aren't anymore) or if you wanted the 20 incher for it's screen size. I'd personally just get a 17 inch MBP if you needed the screen's real estate and the extra power. That's a huge screen to look at and it would eliminate the need of an iMac. Or you can save some cash and just buy a MB which has plenty of power.
QCassidy352 said:
I'm working with the notion of about $3,100 when all is said and done with extras like wireless, external hard drive, etc. Of course, I am open to not spending that much if I don't have to!
I think the key thing is on at least one computer I want to be able to do video without hassles, and the shared video memory of the MacBook is what scares me away from using just that as my computer. Now, the idea of the $2000 MBP with a 20" cinema display for a total of $2800 is beginning to intrigue me.
I seriously think you're being a bit overkill here. Just buy a 17" MBP and be done with it. It has the same screen size I believe as an Apple Cinema Display.
Why are you talking about buying an iMac and then getting a MacBook, and discussing the need for power? Wouldn't it make more sense to combine the power of an iMac with the portability of a laptop.....
which, if I'm not mistaken, is the whole idea behind a Macbook Pro?
Why are you talking about buying an iMac and then getting a MacBook, and discussing the need for power? Wouldn't it make more sense to combine the power of an iMac with the portability of a laptop.....
which, if I'm not mistaken, is the whole idea behind a Macbook Pro?
colgate13 said:
.....for iMovie?
This is the same program that is sold as a consumer solution right?
So you're not even in the Final Cut ballpark for system requirements.
I don't understand why you think having iMovie running the CPU at near full capacity is a bad thing. It's not like as you go with a faster processor the hardware is going to devote less and less resources to a task. It's just going to do it faster.
I'll put a question out there. Who wants to run Final Cut on a Quad Powermac and only have it run at about 20% of system resources, when a Powerbook 667 TiBook that I own probably could do it at the same rate, albiet at 100% system resources?
SC68Cal said:
You're absolutely right. I guess the discussion centers on 'does one really need that power'. Perhaps that deserves a different thread.
There is at least on the surface an arguement that two computers might offer more options and flexibilty than just one. But maybe in reality (based on what some are saying), two computers can be more of a hassle than they're worth.
I've got 1-2 months (or more if something down the pipeline is worth it) to think about it. This has all been helpful.
BlizzardBomb
macrumors 68030
colgate13 said:
The MB + iMac have exactly the same processor and exactly the same RAM. Difference between the two in video editing would be slim.
Here's the proof:
http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd4.html
Note that MBP is pretty much the same as an iMac.
SC68Cal said:
Your comments are all very good at cutting to the heart of the arguement, thank you.
I guess another question is, does one purchase more than they need now in hopes that they buy another year or two of useful computer life or do they buy what can get the job done now for cheaper knowing that they'll want an upgrade sooner? (or, does one *always* want an upgrade and are we all forever doomed? 🙂 )
colgate13 said:
This is my current setup: I have a Powermac G4 and a TiBook. The Powermac G4 is very useful for my needs, and the TiBook is very useful for my needs. The problem is that my data is sometimes difficult to consolidate during the summer months since I travel quite a bit and rely on my TiBook to keep me going.
The problem I face right now is that my iPod nano I use as a removable drive for things I need, but the problem is that the iPod is linked to my Powermac G4 iTunes.
So if I clear out the iPod, I will have to wait a week or so to put music back on it.
Needless to say this could be alleviated if all of my data was on one system.
EDIT: As a fix, I'm eventually going to transfer my iTunes library and iPhoto library to my external hard drive which will make the problem a bit less evident, as long as I remember to take it with me.
FURTHER EDIT: In my experience with the "Power" line of Macintosh computers from nearly half a decade ago, since they are still useable today and the signs of age are barely noticeable (since I switched from Windows so anything seems faster anyway) I think it is wiser on the whole to spend a bit more money, to make your machine a bit more "future proof"
Yes, the $400 is a bit of a bummer. But if you figure it out, how many times do you buy a computer over how many years?
I figure if I buy a computer once every four years, it's a difference of $100 a year. If that additional money can continue the trend of buying once every four years compared to purchasing a cheaper computer but having to upgrade every two years, I think it's worth it
BlizzardBomb said:
Great resource, thank you!
I guess I was giving more weight to the video card than needed. I do not play nor plan on playing 3D games (Bejeweled or Mah Jong will be about the most I do!).
I will have to revisit this decision some more.
Electro Funk
macrumors 65816
x704
macrumors regular
I personally would get the macbook fist get the extra memory and use that for a week or two and if you think you need more/less/extra computing or storage then you can still take it back and get the MBP or keep it and get the iMac.
I have a iBook and am going to get a macmini or a iMac once we get broadband internet and after I get a car latter this summer. I will be hosting my own website but I need broadband first. Anyhow I cant see how more then one would be a problem but you might find that the macbook is enough for you and save all the extra money. If not then get the iMac and/or exchange the macbook for the macbook pro. What's the worst that can happen?
I have a iBook and am going to get a macmini or a iMac once we get broadband internet and after I get a car latter this summer. I will be hosting my own website but I need broadband first. Anyhow I cant see how more then one would be a problem but you might find that the macbook is enough for you and save all the extra money. If not then get the iMac and/or exchange the macbook for the macbook pro. What's the worst that can happen?
jsw
Moderator emeritus
I'm in the get-two-Macs camp. There are a few reasons for this.
First, as much as we don't like to think about it, computers occasionally have problems and even die. If you have two Macs, synched with .Mac and backup key data from one to the other, you're always going to have a Mac to use, and if one gets sick you won't end up putting off bringing it in because it's your only Mac. As a result, both Macs will tend to stay healthier because you'll bring them in when they need it. No "dear God, can I live without my Mac for a week? Maybe I should wait..." issues.
Second, as much as I love my laptops (I have a 12" PB and, through work, a 15" MBP), having a fixed system is nice - external drives are always there, you can use the web server, you'll have more power and/or disk space, etc. And, as much as I love my fixed systems (currently just have the 17" Intellimac and mini duo connected), often you'll want to surf on the couch or when traveling. So both have their strengths and weaknesses. By getting one of each, you have access to the strengths of both.
Third, using the built-in VNC server and Chicken of the VNC, you can always access one Mac from the other, meaning you can be burning a DVD on the iMac while, at the same time, surfing MR on the MB and checking on the iMac from time to time.
Fourth, the 17" MBP is, as others have said, just too damned big to use on a plane. And you're going to feel sick as soon as some airport security goon scratches it, whereas an MB can be fixed with various compounds.
But that's all just my opinion. I personally get a lot more use out of having both types of system around than I would having just the one type, and I don't feel that, for you, the 17" MBP is worth an entire iMac more than the MB.
First, as much as we don't like to think about it, computers occasionally have problems and even die. If you have two Macs, synched with .Mac and backup key data from one to the other, you're always going to have a Mac to use, and if one gets sick you won't end up putting off bringing it in because it's your only Mac. As a result, both Macs will tend to stay healthier because you'll bring them in when they need it. No "dear God, can I live without my Mac for a week? Maybe I should wait..." issues.
Second, as much as I love my laptops (I have a 12" PB and, through work, a 15" MBP), having a fixed system is nice - external drives are always there, you can use the web server, you'll have more power and/or disk space, etc. And, as much as I love my fixed systems (currently just have the 17" Intellimac and mini duo connected), often you'll want to surf on the couch or when traveling. So both have their strengths and weaknesses. By getting one of each, you have access to the strengths of both.
Third, using the built-in VNC server and Chicken of the VNC, you can always access one Mac from the other, meaning you can be burning a DVD on the iMac while, at the same time, surfing MR on the MB and checking on the iMac from time to time.
Fourth, the 17" MBP is, as others have said, just too damned big to use on a plane. And you're going to feel sick as soon as some airport security goon scratches it, whereas an MB can be fixed with various compounds.
But that's all just my opinion. I personally get a lot more use out of having both types of system around than I would having just the one type, and I don't feel that, for you, the 17" MBP is worth an entire iMac more than the MB.
BlizzardBomb
macrumors 68030
colgate13 said:
Seeing as you don't need a powerful graphics card, ever considered a MacBook + External Display? You'll save yourself a bundle rather then buying a MacBook Pro. You could even get a 23" Apple Cinema Display and still have enough to buy an external combination HD and dual-layer DVD writer.
My reflex based on the title was to say "Always!"
But based on your particular situation I'm still with the "2 Macs" crowd. It all comes down to your mention that portability is important.
I have a Tower for my "big storage/heavy lifting" needs, and I just got a 17" MBP to basically replace all of its functionality because I'm largely bedridden. I also recently set up an iMac and MB for others, so I've handled both in comparsion.
And I can say this: The 17" MBP makes an awesome desktop replacement--very fast, screen with the same resolution as the 20" widescreen on my desk, all the ports and power you could ask for. It's also HUGE. Were I frequently moving it around, I simply wouldn't have bought the 17"--I would have gotten the 15" at max, and would have much more likely just gone with the MB for portability and left the heavy lifting to my desktop.
So I'd say, based on your situation, that a MB for toss-and-go would be perfect--they're great, durable little machines and will comfortably handle almost anything you throw at them short of 3D gaming. Then get a desktop at home for your larger monitor needs, a large, fast hard drive, and the relative ease of tacking on extra storage via Firewire if you need more for video editing.
The MBPs are actually a little more flexible with external high-speed storage--the 17" has FW800, and both have an Expresscard slot for an eSATA card, my preferred solution--but I'd still go with the portability and power combo. Heck, if I REALLY needed bulk high speed storage for mass video editing, I'd get a used G5 tower.
But based on your particular situation I'm still with the "2 Macs" crowd. It all comes down to your mention that portability is important.
I have a Tower for my "big storage/heavy lifting" needs, and I just got a 17" MBP to basically replace all of its functionality because I'm largely bedridden. I also recently set up an iMac and MB for others, so I've handled both in comparsion.
And I can say this: The 17" MBP makes an awesome desktop replacement--very fast, screen with the same resolution as the 20" widescreen on my desk, all the ports and power you could ask for. It's also HUGE. Were I frequently moving it around, I simply wouldn't have bought the 17"--I would have gotten the 15" at max, and would have much more likely just gone with the MB for portability and left the heavy lifting to my desktop.
So I'd say, based on your situation, that a MB for toss-and-go would be perfect--they're great, durable little machines and will comfortably handle almost anything you throw at them short of 3D gaming. Then get a desktop at home for your larger monitor needs, a large, fast hard drive, and the relative ease of tacking on extra storage via Firewire if you need more for video editing.
The MBPs are actually a little more flexible with external high-speed storage--the 17" has FW800, and both have an Expresscard slot for an eSATA card, my preferred solution--but I'd still go with the portability and power combo. Heck, if I REALLY needed bulk high speed storage for mass video editing, I'd get a used G5 tower.
Macky-Mac
macrumors 601
BlizzardBomb said:
I think the idea of notebook and an external display is a good suggestion
I've used two computers and it can be a chore to keep files synced, especially email which really do need to be synced if they're business/work correspondence
maybe you could get a mini as a second computer to leave at home with the music and as an emergency computer
QCassidy352
macrumors G5
Eidorian said:
I wonder how the macbook would do driving a 23" ACD. I used to have a 1 Ghz 12" powerbook driving a 20" ACD, and even things like exposé made it struggle a bit. Clearly the macbook is a lot more powerful, but I still would worry about a shared GPU driving a 23" display. Perhaps there's an intel mini owner out there who could comment?