Macbook + 23" ACD or Macbook Pro?

[gazfocus]

Hey guys, just looking for some advice...

I am going to begin my total conversion to the Mac world. I've tried before but have now decided to gradually convert so that I will no longer rely on my Windows PC.

I currently do Web Development, basic Video Editing, some Graphics work with Photoshop CS3, etc and other normal computer tasks such as web browsing, email, word processing, finance management, etc, and I am to discover suitable apps for all these tasks over the next 4 months.

So....as this will be a progressional conversion over 4 months, I will still be using my windows PC for the bigger tasks but I want to get a Mac portable which I will start by using it for web browsing/email/etc and gradually (hopefully) start to use it for more and more tasks until I buy a Mac Pro in January/February.

So....would I be better off getting a Macbook with a 23" ACD or a Macbook Pro? (Obviously both of these will only be purchased once they've been updated), but when I get my Mac Pro, I want to have it with 2 x 23" ACD's so I can run OSX and Windows side by side to begin with, and I was thinking, with a Macbook, I could use it with an ACD to get over the problem of the small screen.

Please let me know your thoughts, or just say which option you would go with.

Thanks

 

[Manzana]

actually the answer is whatever is updated over the next few weeks. before i would not hesitate to always recommend the MBP especially for the type of work you are doing but...NVIDIA.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Welcome to the forum and to the world of Mac, whatever and whenever you decide to purchase. I'm a recent switcher myself, and the pretty happy owner of a splendid MBP.

The question you have to decide for yourself is which you favour, or need, more, namely power or portability. Admittedly, you'll have a bit of both with the MB and 23" ACD. Nonetheless, I'm a big fan of the MBP - it is my main, indeed, currently, my only - computer - and I rely on it to do everything. Granted, I am not into gaming, and graphics (as yet) don't hugely matter. However, it is a very impressive machine, fast, powerful, aesthetically attractive, great performance, has a superb screen, and comes with Apple's customer service (which was one of the reasons I initially switched). These days, laptops are designed to be able to do more or less everything - well - that desk-tops also do. The huge time-lag in performance no longer exists to the same extent. Others may advise differently, but I'd say go for the MBP. And I'd suggest putting it off until the breathlessly awaited updates have been issued, and any potential problems subsequently ironed out.
Cheers and good luck.

 

[Vulcan]

Voted for the 23" ACD and MB.

 

[gazfocus]

actually the answer is whatever is updated over the next few weeks. before i would not hesitate to always recommend the MBP especially for the type of work you are doing but...NVIDIA.

I believe the rumours are expecting an update to both the Macbook and Macbook Pro's at the same time...I guess the decision will be made easier if the Macbooks keep their current design/materials as I really do not like the current plastic and it has very sharp edges and is known to crack.

Welcome to the forum and to the world of Mac, whatever and whenever you decide to purchase. I'm a recent switcher myself, and the pretty happy owner of a splendid MBP.

The question you have to decide for yourself is which you favour, or need, more, namely power or portability. Admittedly, you'll have a bit of both with the MB and 23" ACD. Nonetheless, I'm a big fan of the MBP - it is my main, indeed, currently, my only - computer - and I rely on it to do everything. Granted, I am not into gaming, and graphics (as yet) don't hugely matter. However, it is a very impressive machine, fast, powerful, aesthetically attractive, great performance, has a superb screen, and comes with Apple's customer service (which was one of the reasons I initially switched). These days, laptops are designed to be able to do more or less everything - well - that desk-tops also do. The huge time-lag in performance no longer exists to the same extent. Others may advise differently, but I'd say go for the MBP. And I'd suggest putting it off until the breathlessly awaited updates have been issued, and any potential problems subsequently ironed out.
Cheers and good luck.

Thanks for your input - The reason for the thought behind the Macbook and 23" ACD option is because when I buy a Mac Pro (in Jan or Feb), I would ideally like 2 x 23" ACD's (I currently have one), and thought that in the meantime, I could have both side by side - one running windows and one running the Macbook.

I do agree to some extent, with the recommendation of a Macbook Pro because I have previously owned one and they are fantastic machines...I just want to try and achieve the best option for the money and I'm not convinced (even with basic video editing and image editing), that I will need the high performance graphics of a Macbook Pro - I think if the Macbooks adopt the Intel GMA X4500, the graphics in the Macbook could be very capable indeed.

Voted for the 23" ACD and MB.

Thanks

I would really appreciate it if you could keep the suggestions/thoughts coming as much as possible - I'm sure I'm not the only one trying to decide between a Macbook and a Pro.

 

[kabunaru]

Wait until the new MacBooks come and buy the MacBook then.

 

[skye12]

MB all the way. Most will never need the MBP and the extra $550-700
can be better spent elsewhere.

MB is more portable, more durable and just as fast for 95% of what most people do.

 

[neiltc13]

MacBook works with any monitor which has a DVI or VGA port. You do not need to buy an overpriced, under performing Apple monitor.

Dell, Samsung, HP or Acer will be able to help you out and will cut you a much better deal than Apple.

 

[noodle654]

Get a MBP after the revision or whatever you want to do. The MacBook (IMO sucks) and the current ACD is a bit....expensive and out of date, wait for a ACD revision.

 

[kabunaru]

The MacBook (IMO sucks)

Why does the MacBook suck?

 

[194567]

I think you should go for the macbook but you have to wait for the updates otherwise you feel very screwed. If you are going to buy a mac pro for the very extensive tasks I think you will be good on the mb.

 

[BrokenE]

MacBook works with any monitor which has a DVI or VGA port. You do not need to buy an overpriced, under performing Apple monitor.

Dell, Samsung, HP or Acer will be able to help you out and will cut you a much better deal than Apple.

In terms of quality, the ACD is still up there, isn't it? From what I understand it has very accurate colors. For video where refresh rate comes into play, the ACD's are outdated. So for photo editing, the Apple is still as good, if not better, in terms of quality to the Dells and HPs, plus it has that ACD nice polished finish that the others haven't matched. On the other hand, If the main app will be video, definitely do not consider a current gen ACD. You may want to wait for the new ACD or shop Dell, HP, etc. Tons of posts have been done on monitor types, etc. Just search and you will get plenty of opinions.

 

[QCassidy352]

well, I can't see why you'd need the macbook with all that extra screen real estate, given that you still have a desktop (and will soon have a mac pro as a desktop). I mean, I used to use my macbook with an external display, but now that I have a desktop (imac), I would rather just use the macbook purely as a portable.

BUT, since you want to eventually go 2x23" anyway, I guess there's no harm in going for the MB+display now, and then just switching the display to the mac pro when you get it.

If the only reason you're considering the MBP is for the screen size then I'd go MB + display. But if other things about the mbp are important to you (matte screen, dedicated graphics, backlit keys, express card slot?) then maybe I'd consider the pro. But if it's just screen size, that's a lot more money for a slightly bigger screen.

 

[macindork]

In terms of quality, the ACD is still up there, isn't it? From what I understand it has very accurate colors. For video where refresh rate comes into play, the ACD's are outdated. So for photo editing, the Apple is still as good, if not better, in terms of quality to the Dells and HPs, plus it has that ACD nice polished finish that the others haven't matched. On the other hand, If the main app will be video, definitely do not consider a current gen ACD. You may want to wait for the new ACD or shop Dell, HP, etc. Tons of posts have been done on monitor types, etc. Just search and you will get plenty of opinions.

It's still up there in price too, isn't it?

I'd recommend a Dell Monitor
This one looks pretty good (as a matter of fact, I plan on buying it soon)
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-7345

 

[gazfocus]

It's still up there in price too, isn't it?

I'd recommend a Dell Monitor
This one looks pretty good (as a matter of fact, I plan on buying it soon)
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-7345

For the type of panel that's used in the ACD, the prices are actually very reasonable...The dell you suggest looks like it uses a TN panel which is the lowest quality panel available but other than that, it's not available in the UK.

 

[Digital Skunk]

For those that seem to not know much about monitors, the ACDs aren't overpriced or underperforming.

Check your specs and sources, stop making uneducated guesses, and check the forums since many that say such things have been proven wrong.

To the OP, if you don't need color accuracy, or you are more into gaming, then the cheaper panels will be best for you. The MacBook only sucks if you are into gaming or 3D animation, other than that you are fine.

p.s. Google H-IPS, PVA, and TN panels.

 

[neiltc13]

In terms of quality, the ACD is still up there, isn't it? From what I understand it has very accurate colors. For video where refresh rate comes into play, the ACD's are outdated. So for photo editing, the Apple is still as good, if not better, in terms of quality to the Dells and HPs, plus it has that ACD nice polished finish that the others haven't matched. On the other hand, If the main app will be video, definitely do not consider a current gen ACD. You may want to wait for the new ACD or shop Dell, HP, etc. Tons of posts have been done on monitor types, etc. Just search and you will get plenty of opinions.

I never said anything about quality. I was talking about performance. For me a good response time is much more important than colour accuracy, so with Apple still selling monitors with a 16ms response for the price they do then they are looking decidedly overpriced indeed.

 

[Jak3]

Well ACDs should be updated soon anyway, and if ANY of you are listening to the OP he said he'll be buying said products after their respective refreshes...

so really, by then the ACD should be updated with better response times, so he's in the clear either way.

Yes, 16ms sucks, but limited colours suck just as much if you're into gfx design, and the OP said he'd by using CS3, for what, I don't know, but chances are good a colour rep is a must when using Photoshop?

Anyway, start helping him with his needs and not yours.

 

[iSpoody 1243]

i voted for mbp (as long as the gpu doesnt screw up lololol)
just because it is cheaper and better than the mb + acd 23", also i personally think the acd is to expensive for general consumers,you can buy a 27" dell for 200$ less and a dell 24" for like half the price. but the gpus in the mbp are defective now soooo

 

[Digital Skunk]

I never said anything about quality. I was talking about performance. For me a good response time is much more important than colour accuracy, so with Apple still selling monitors with a 16ms response for the price they do then they are looking decidedly overpriced indeed.

Not when compared to the other monitors in it's class. The other panels that directly compete with it have the newer H-IPS panels and hence faster response times and wider gamuts, but they also carry a steeper price tag. The Dell 30" that costs $2000 is a good example.

Most other panels that have faster response times and less accurate colors are best for the general public, and use TN or PVA panels which are cheaper to manufacture. And remember that Apple doesn't make the panels, just the cases. So we are really hoping Apple grabs some of the newer H-IPS panels from LG, Samsung, and Phillips, and pairs them with either the same case, or one fitted with more FW400 or FW800 ports.

The only thing Apple has as a negative to the ACD is the panel tech. The price is quite nice when compared to other displays.

Now that I have fully read the OP's post, he should grab the MBP and get a more accurate display later.

And never buy 27" panels unless you are not worried about color or quality what so ever. They tend to be displays that have 23"/24" resolutions stretched out to 27" leading to softer viewing. They really aren't worth the cash you pay for them.

 

[gazfocus]

I never said anything about quality. I was talking about performance. For me a good response time is much more important than colour accuracy, so with Apple still selling monitors with a 16ms response for the price they do then they are looking decidedly overpriced indeed.

Thanks, and I do appreciate your comments, however, for me the colour accuracy is the most important aspect of the display. Because I do alot of work that goes to print, I need to be careful and I am sometimes over cautious due to one time agreeing a design with a graphics designer (after seeing it on screen), sending it to print, and when I received the finished product from the printers, the blue parts came out pink - I know this is an extreme and down to far more than a rubbish display, but it has made me realise more than ever how different things can look when they are printed to what they do on screen.

Well ACDs should be updated soon anyway, and if ANY of you are listening to the OP he said he'll be buying said products after their respective refreshes...

so really, by then the ACD should be updated with better response times, so he's in the clear either way.

Yes, 16ms sucks, but limited colours suck just as much if you're into gfx design, and the OP said he'd by using CS3, for what, I don't know, but chances are good a colour rep is a must when using Photoshop?

Anyway, start helping him with his needs and not yours.

Thanks for your comments - I will be using Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, etc, to aid my web development. I will also be using Photoshop to create CD covers for my church recordings so sometimes files can be quite large. And yes, colour accuracy is quite important but more so because I am so fussy about my computers/technology that I don't want to see the horrible yellow shadowing around greens that occurs so often on TN panels.

i voted for mbp (as long as the gpu doesnt screw up lololol)
just because it is cheaper and better than the mb + acd 23", also i personally think the acd is to expensive for general consumers,you can buy a 27" dell for 200$ less and a dell 24" for like half the price. but the gpus in the mbp are defective now soooo

In the UK, the 24" Dells are about £100 cheaper than the Higher Education price of the 23" ACD so prices are obviously alot less in the US.

What do you mean about the defective GPU's in the MBP's? Again, I will be buying either option after the upcoming refresh so current models aren't necessarily important but still curious as to what you mean about the GPU's.

Not when compared to the other monitors in it's class. The other panels that directly compete with it have the newer H-IPS panels and hence faster response times and wider gamuts, but they also carry a steeper price tag. The Dell 30" that costs $2000 is a good example.

Most other panels that have faster response times and less accurate colors are best for the general public, and use TN or PVA panels which are cheaper to manufacture.

The only thing Apple has as a negative to the ACD is the panel tech. The price is quite nice when compared to other displays.

As I have been using a late 2005 23" ACD for about 6 months, I am satisfied with the quality and the current ACD's are better than the one I have - also, if they are updated, they will be even further improved.

While I appreciate the suggestions about displays, at the moment, the debate isn't about choosing between an ACD or another make, because I love the ACD's and love the design of them, so if I go for a portable and a display, it will be an ACD.

 

[iSpoody 1243]

okay the graphics cards in the current mbp with the 8600m gt are defective, they overheat and break

 

[Digital Skunk]

okay the graphics cards in the current mbp with the 8600m gt are defective, they overheat and break

Does this occur in the 15" model or 17" model? I am notorious for destroying machines and this book has been the only one that has been able to keep up with me and my crazy 50 layer motion projects and Sim City 4 under Rosetta.

 

[obibobi]

If I already had a 23" ACD like you do I definitely would go for the MacBook Pro.
I cannot see the benefit of having 2 ACD's compared to the difference between the MB and the MBP.

 

[gazfocus]

If I already had a 23" ACD like you do I definitely would go for the MacBook Pro.
I cannot see the benefit of having 2 ACD's compared to the difference between the MB and the MBP.

The reason behind buying the 2nd ACD would be more for when I buy my Mac Pro in Jan/Feb '09 because at that point, I would want 2 ACD's.