Been working for a couple of years on a MBP Core 2 Duo 2.1GHz with 3GB RAM. It's OK but a little sluggish at times, and I'm running out of storage - external drives sprouting out all over the place. I do lots of web graphics stuff with Photoshop+Illustrator, as well as run Parallels for testing in Windows web browsers. I've realised that although it's nice to have the portability of a laptop, I hardly ever move it from the desk where it's plugged into my cinema display. I'm debating the idea of buying a new Mac Pro but having trouble justifying the cost. What puts me off is the fact that a top of the range 24" iMac with a 3.0GHz processor is £100 cheaper than the basic Mac Pro. Yet it comes with more RAM and a bigger hard drive and a full 24" screen. And from the benchmarking tests I've seen, in practice the iMac really isn't far behind the MP at all for the kind of stuff I do. The extra 2 cores not making a huge difference here. With that top iMac it almost feels like Apple is making it difficult for people to buy the MP. But of course it's not that simple. I hate the glossy screen on the iMac and I already have a perfectly fine 23" cinema display with a nice matte screen. So I'm still leaning towards the MP. But the fact it costs so much and apparently doesn't look like a great deal next to the top iMac makes me hesitate. I kind of assumed that a MP would beat an iMac hands down, but looking at the benchmarks on http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html I see that the 3.0GHz iMac is already faster than a Quad-core Woodcrest MP, and not too far behind the current ones. It trounces an old G5. Anyone else in this kind of situation?