iMac/MBP Dilemma

[louismgrafix]

I've been following this site daily now since just before the MacWorld conference awaiting a new iMac or MBP.

I own a G4 17" iMac (will be 6 years old in August). I've never had a problem with it but I am a graphic designer-movie editor-3d/2d animator, so it's just not cutting it anymore. Not to mention I have my M.F.A. 3d animation thesis that needs to be finished in May, which I want my new Mac to handle the editing in Final Cut Pro and compositing in After Effects.

So I'm so back and forth as to whether to get the MBP (15" 2.4ghz) or the iMac (not sure which). I love having a laptop (I have a HP 17" laptop), especially a mac one (it's kind of embarrassing sometimes having this HP / I would not be as cool as I could be if I didn't have a MBP to play with in Starbucks). In all seriousness, if I do get the MBP, I'd have to get a bigger monitor for at home use considering the work that I do. Now would I be able to do a dual monitor setup for a MBP?

What are the differences in the 24" iMac processors? Is the extra .4ghz that classifies it has "extreme" and the 2.4 ghz is just a "core 2 duo"?

I'm holding out a little longer on my purchase, but I don't know how much longer I can take it. HELP!!!

 

[louismgrafix]

I forgot to mention the graphics card differences. I'm assuming the NVIDIA in the MBPs are better than the ATI Radeon's in the iMac. Is that correct?

And if I do get an iMac, I will definitely be getting this to go with it.

 

[shoulin333]

if you don't need portability get the iMac


cheaper, plus you wont have to spend hundreds more getting a good LCD..

and yes the MBP 8600m GT is better than the ATI 2600Pro by a bit, but unless you play games, you wont notice at all, and even then the fps isnt that much different

 

[cy88]

The processor is not classified as an extreme because of the .4Ghz, it's the actual architecture of the processor. I went for the 24" iMac because I personally think that they "extreme" and the .4Ghz won't make a huge boost for me. On the other hand, the extra money spend on upgrading the ram will be.

I am not sure how demanding you are in terms of graphics (since you were able to work with the G4 17" iMac for 6 years), but you can actually consider a 24" iMac + macbook combination, then you have the best in both world at the same price of 17" MBP.

However, if i were to choose one only, I will take the 17" MBP over the 24" iMac, just because it's mobile and you will have more option (also replace your HP 17"). Then you can leave the 17" iMac at home as your home machine.

 

[ribbonthecat]

The iMac is essentially a very large laptop computer, without a battery. Apart from the HD, it uses the same components as a laptop. The fact that it, even with such a large screen, is so much cheaper, shows how much of a killing Apple makes on its MBPs.

 

[MacinDoc]

The processor is not classified as an extreme because of the .4Ghz, it's the actual architecture of the processor.

Really? What exactly is the difference between the C2D and the C2D extreme used in the current iMac, aside from clock speed?

To the OP: Yes, you can do dual monitors with the MBP. Personally, I like having a combo of iMac and MacBook instead of a MBP, but then again, I have 5 computer users in my family.

 

[louismgrafix]

I am not sure how demanding you are in terms of graphics (since you were able to work with the G4 17" iMac for 6 years), but you can actually consider a 24" iMac + macbook combination, then you have the best in both world at the same price of 17" MBP.

My g4 iMac has been out of my graphics workflow for the past 18 months or so since I've had the HP laptop. My HP handles Autodesk Maya nicely and as far as I know PCs are still the standard choice for 3D applications.

But I'm a Mac person at heart and a brand new one will help me get my thesis animation done quicker when I get to the After Effects and Final Cut Pro work.