crunch time - 2.2 vs 2.4 mbp

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by mcmacmcmac, Oct 13, 2007.

  1. mcmacmcmac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    #1
    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!
     
  2. Nugget macrumors 65816

    Nugget

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Houston Texas USA
    #2
    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.
     
  3. mcmacmcmac thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    #3
    I believe it is possible with the Matrox DualHead2Go, though I do have to read more on that.

    Thanks for the advice, definitely what I'm leaning towards.
     
  4. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #4
    It is possible using the Matrox DualHead2Go Digital.

    It just makes both displays appear as one large one.
     
  5. Nugget macrumors 65816

    Nugget

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Houston Texas USA
    #5
    Interesting, thanks for the link. I had no idea that a device of that nature existed.
     
  6. mcmacmcmac thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    #6
    Just to confirm, parallels running on 4gb of RAM system will be smooooth???
     
  7. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #7
    Parallels is a RAM hungry application in order to avoid hitting the hard disk. It's smooth for me at 2 GB.
     
  8. mcmacmcmac thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    #8

    I'm not sure I get the difference between Analog and Digital editions (I'm not so great with screens). Are you familiar?
     
  9. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #9
    You get higher resolution support.
     
  10. Nugget macrumors 65816

    Nugget

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Houston Texas USA
    #10
    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.
     
  11. mcmacmcmac thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    #11
    Really :eek: That sounds awful
     
  12. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #12
    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.
     
  13. mcmacmcmac thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    #13

    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..
     

Share This Page