I'm a mac noobie and I just got a 2.0 ghz model with a loose battery door... they basically just fixed the door for me in the store when I brought it in within 14 days.
But I'll comment on a few things from a PC user standpoint as well.
So it boils down to 2.0 vs 2.4 ghz between the 2 computers (I know HD is different but that is irrelevant as I will explain later)
Cost is 300$ difference. Here's how I made the decision
1. No backlit keyboard. Sure it looks cool and is a neat feature
A. I don't plan on using my macbook in the dark quite that often.
B. I touch type.
C. Lighting something takes power and the battery is the same on both laptops, I like my battery life as long as possible
2. 2.0 ghz vs 2.4 ghz. Now if they had the 6mb cache version vs 3 mb cache version I would have leaned for the 2.4ghz, but with the same level of cache, the system bottlenecks are honestly elsewhere. There will be a few things that might be faster (ie long CPU intensive applications like video encoding etc), but honestly we're probably talking maybe real world 1-3% difference in regular use. If you are concerned about such applications, the macbook pro refurbished or educationally discounted should be your platform of choice with the better video etc as well.
3. HD. the first thing I did was to buy a seagate momentus 7200.3 320gb from dell for 80 bux shipped. My macbook is significantly faster now (one of the bottlenecks for laptops) And according to some detailed reviews at tom's Hardware. This drive is as power efficient, if not more so than most 5400 rpm drives. (don't have any noise or vibrational issues personally, just lightning fast drive)
My next upgrade will be ram. So I would rather spend 80+100 for drive and ram and end up with a over all much faster machine for daily use. If your concern is highest perfromance, ability to brag to friends etc (hey some people care about this), honestly you should be looking at a MBP.
I am currently running win 7 on bootcamp and it's super fast and smooth. The limiting factor is not the 2.0 ghz CPU, it's the GFX, HD, and memory.
My windows 7 experience index is 4.4, the CPU is 5.4, memory is 5.5, graphics is 5.2, gaming graphics is 4.4 and HD is 5.9 (which is far better than it was with the hitachi at 3.0)
The best buy right now is actually the new whitebook. The specs are virtually the same as aluminum for 999 (and less with educational discount) Don't believe what they say about DD2 vs DDR3, it's not really different at this point. DDR3 really shows difference at higher frequencies due to it's increased latency. 1066 is kinda slow and doesn't really improve performance.
And if you consider you'll be upgrading the HD to something much better anyways most likely, it's a steal (from a mac pricepoint). In fact I'd hazard to say it would match anything specwise from dell/sony at that pricepoint.
But I'll comment on a few things from a PC user standpoint as well.
So it boils down to 2.0 vs 2.4 ghz between the 2 computers (I know HD is different but that is irrelevant as I will explain later)
Cost is 300$ difference. Here's how I made the decision
1. No backlit keyboard. Sure it looks cool and is a neat feature
A. I don't plan on using my macbook in the dark quite that often.
B. I touch type.
C. Lighting something takes power and the battery is the same on both laptops, I like my battery life as long as possible
2. 2.0 ghz vs 2.4 ghz. Now if they had the 6mb cache version vs 3 mb cache version I would have leaned for the 2.4ghz, but with the same level of cache, the system bottlenecks are honestly elsewhere. There will be a few things that might be faster (ie long CPU intensive applications like video encoding etc), but honestly we're probably talking maybe real world 1-3% difference in regular use. If you are concerned about such applications, the macbook pro refurbished or educationally discounted should be your platform of choice with the better video etc as well.
3. HD. the first thing I did was to buy a seagate momentus 7200.3 320gb from dell for 80 bux shipped. My macbook is significantly faster now (one of the bottlenecks for laptops) And according to some detailed reviews at tom's Hardware. This drive is as power efficient, if not more so than most 5400 rpm drives. (don't have any noise or vibrational issues personally, just lightning fast drive)
My next upgrade will be ram. So I would rather spend 80+100 for drive and ram and end up with a over all much faster machine for daily use. If your concern is highest perfromance, ability to brag to friends etc (hey some people care about this), honestly you should be looking at a MBP.
I am currently running win 7 on bootcamp and it's super fast and smooth. The limiting factor is not the 2.0 ghz CPU, it's the GFX, HD, and memory.
My windows 7 experience index is 4.4, the CPU is 5.4, memory is 5.5, graphics is 5.2, gaming graphics is 4.4 and HD is 5.9 (which is far better than it was with the hitachi at 3.0)
The best buy right now is actually the new whitebook. The specs are virtually the same as aluminum for 999 (and less with educational discount) Don't believe what they say about DD2 vs DDR3, it's not really different at this point. DDR3 really shows difference at higher frequencies due to it's increased latency. 1066 is kinda slow and doesn't really improve performance.
And if you consider you'll be upgrading the HD to something much better anyways most likely, it's a steal (from a mac pricepoint). In fact I'd hazard to say it would match anything specwise from dell/sony at that pricepoint.
