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

crunch time - 2.2 vs 2.4 mbp

M

mcmacmcmac

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 2, 2007
86
0
So with leopard fast approaching it's time to make a final decision here. I have known for a while that I want the MBP and naturally assumed I would get the high end 15". But taking a closer look at the low end, is the difference just a slightly faster processor and video card, and a bit bigger HD?

I will not be using the machine much for graphics intensive stuff at the moment, but I still want a good graphics card to keep the possibility open. I will be hooking it up to a 22" external monitor, and will be adding a 2nd 22" in the near future. The monitors are 1680x1050. I am just curious, will the resolution be significantly better on the monitors compared to the high end MB and at all inferior to the high end MBP?

I'm also convinced I should upgrade to the 160gb 7200 RPM HD. Is it reasonable to go about this through Apple instead of doing this myself. I know more RAM is always best 3rd party but in terms of the HD I get the impression it's not so bad value wise. Reason I would go through Apple is I'd much prefer not to void the warranty.

I will definitely be installing XP and have running a few programs through parallels much of the time (i.e. Full Tilt Poker). Given I plan on using Parallels heavily is it clear that I should go ahead and upgrade to 4gb of RAM? It's very important to me that the programs run fast and I'm most worried about the performance of Parallels.

Any and all thoughts appreciated!
 
Go with the slower CPU and put as much money as you can afford into RAM. This is particularly true if you're planning to run Parallels or VMWare a lot. Going third party for the RAM can make it affordable to just max it out at the full 4GB.

Also, if you aren't intimidated by screwdrivers, you can put a 200GB 7200RPM drive into your machine for about the same price Apple charges for the 160GB upgrade.

I'm not sure I understand your plan for adding a second monitor later. The MBP cannot drive two external displays.
 
Eidorian said:
It is possible using the Matrox DualHead2Go Digital.

It just makes both displays appear as one large one.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I get the difference between Analog and Digital editions (I'm not so great with screens). Are you familiar?
 
Sounds like that Matrox box would be great if you're using to to merge two external displays to serve as your second and third screens. I'm not sure how well it would work in OS X if you weren't planning to use it alongside the built-in display.

While it will surely work technically, you'll end up having to move your dock to the side edge of a screen (the default bottom/center positioning will give you half of the dock on each monitor). Even if you move the dock, the menu bar will still stretch across both monitors, which would be awkward.

You'll also be forever fighting apps which want to go full screen (games, or DVD player, etc...) which will end up spanning both monitors.

In a "proper" multi-head OS X configuration the dock and menu bar are isolated to just one display.
 
Nugget said:
Sounds like that Matrox box would be great if you're using to to merge two external displays to serve as your second and third screens. I'm not sure how well it would work in OS X if you weren't planning to use it alongside the built-in display.

While it will surely work technically, you'll end up having to move your dock to the side edge of a screen (the default bottom/center positioning will give you half of the dock on each monitor). Even if you move the dock, the menu bar will still stretch across both monitors, which would be awkward.

You'll also be forever fighting apps which want to go full screen (games, or DVD player, etc...) which will end up spanning both monitors.

In a "proper" multi-head OS X configuration the dock and menu bar are isolated to just one display.
Click to expand...

Really :eek: That sounds awful
 
Eidorian said:
You didn't know that's what it did?

I mentioned it earlier. In Windows the Matrox software does improve window behavior across the spanned monitors. It's still not that pretty.
Click to expand...


I knew it simply stretches across two monitors. But I thought it was possible to have 2 docks (1 on each display) like a friend of mine has but with a pc desktop.

And I was not aware of annoyances with going full screen - i assumed it was possible to full screen on a single display.. wishful thinking i guess..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back