macbook as a desktop replacement?

[Divian BE]

Hello,

I'm considering buying my first mac after years of playing with microsoft stuff.
The new Intel technology has opened my eyes for sure.

The question is: which mac will suit me?

The idea:
I was thinking of the 2.2GHZ macbook (and probably add an extra 2x2GB in it).This should be used as desktop and notebook. I would take the mini-DVI to VGA or DVI adapter with it and when home, adapt it to my external screen. (22" monitor).Therefore I will buy a mouse and keyboard.

Knowing I am a graphic designer, used to work on the macpro (2,66GHZ I think) at the office. The machine will suit as a replacement machine to take work to home. (Heavy CS3 stuff) and lots of other pleasant stuff to experience the mac area. It's not ment for playing games or anything...

Does anyone has remarks towards this?

The thought
All machines (mini , imac, macbook, MBP) should have the same cpu (except the macpro and powerpc) I was told. Would I really feel some pain compared to the office machine you guys think?

ps: I think the pricerange to the MBP is not worth the money. And an extra €150-200 for black is just stupid. The high-end macpro is a bit too expensive...

 

[lofight]

I wouldn't do it, a iMac would be better if you compare prices + macbook still can break easier..

 

[tersono]

It'll be slower than a Mac Pro or equivalent iMac - partly down to the slower hard drive, but it should be more than usable. I use a MBP as my primary computer, running InDesign, Photoshop and Illustrator without issues, and provided you can cope with the smaller built-in screen, I really don't see why you couldn't do the same with a MacBook....

 

[Thrawn]

If your taking home heavy CS3 stuff, then get a MBP. You won't regret it.

 

[Twe Foju]

MBP is the choice for you

but an iMac would be awesome too

well actually it depends on how often did you travel? if you do travel a lot, MBP is the one for you

or you work behind desk? if so, an iMAC

but, if you got the budget, go for iMAC, it can perform like twice better than MBP 2.2 IMO

 

[thejadedmonkey]

If your taking home heavy CS3 stuff, then get a MBP. You won't regret it.

Why? The only difference is the screen (and the MB has longer battery life, better WiFi reception, and is smaller/lighter). As long as it's hooked up to an external monitor, there's no difference that I can see at all..

 

[lil'homunculus]

MBP is hands down the best Laptop ever made, and perhaps one of the best computers, as well. I will fight you during recess, by the teeter-totter if you disagree with this statement!!!

 

[je1ani]

i heard 2.4 MBPs are snappier than 2.4 iMacs... Anyone have any personal expierence?

 

[Digital Skunk]

i heard 2.4 MBPs are snappier than 2.4 iMacs... Anyone have any personal expierence?

Yes, and the MBP is nice but the iMac (Dual 2.8) blows it away, as does the GFX card in that thing. It's still a toss up in the mainstream, but my personal experience has shown me that the iMac (although very very limited) is still a wonderful machine for those that don't mind the lack of internal expandability.

 

[maccompaq]

I really hate how laptops get so hot when you push them hard. Same thing for the iMac. Personally, I would never use a laptop as my main computer. But that is just me, I am not telling anyone else not to do it.

 

[MrXiro]

2.2 ghz SR MB is my home computer. I output to my 30 inch Samsung CRT (screw the environment jk ) HDTV. It works great. I'm loving it so far. I do a bit of photo shopping and I'll be doing some FCP video work in the future too. Haven't tried yet though just picked it up a few weeks ago and finally sold my iMac last weekend.

But I don't think you'd go wrong exporting off the MB. It's a very good machine. And since you might be doing some pro work with it. Upgrade to the 7200RPM Hitachi 200GB Drive. I didn't do it... but it's probably a good idea unless you don't care about HDD time when you're loading off or saving to.

 

[pjarvi]

I use a 2.0Ghz MacBook CoreDuo as my primary machine. Just a few days ago, I had a download going in iTunes, EyeTV tuned in to a TV station & displaying fullscreen, Mail running in the background, and Turbo.H264 encoding a movie, all at the same time with no visible hit to performance. The only thing I don't use my MacBook for are games.

 

[Divian BE]

Well, you guys have put some ideas rolling in making choices.
The HDD can be replaced over time with a larger model. But the main idea was to combine it with a Mybook or other HDD (probably using RAID).
So 120 GB looks fine for now (considering the extra cost).

Still the price difference between MB and MBP looks so high. It feels like the MB highest model will do pretty much the same as the MBP (lowest model).

Besides, we're still talking about a laptop after all...

Since MB, MBP, Imac and mini use the same cpu. Performance should be calculated by RAM and CPU.

The biggest difference between MB and MBP looks the screen to me.
You are not saying 2,4 GHZ makes a far better performance than the 2,2 GHZ?!(considering, we are not talking about games). The price difference looks like too overreacted in that way, not to say, not worth the investment.

MB looks great like living in 2 worlds. On the road (really portable) and once home, beautiful desktop replacment (adding extra screen, keyboard and mouse).

In other words, if I summarize:
If you like the best price/quality laptop > macbook 2,2GHZ + 2x2GB RAM
That would put me in between the 20" imac's performance range.

20" is too small and your fixed with your screen (for future use).
24" is just a bit too pricey and well worth considering to open the budget to go for the higher model or even mac pro.

Besides I don't think the macbook is misplaced to combine with a desktop later on...
The 24" basic model looks ideal to use for further work, but would put me on same average performance level like the macbook?