Macbook Pro 17" vs IMac 24" & Refurbished Macbook

[masterslacker]

I was surfing the current Macbook refurbished prices and noticed you can get one for around $999 or so. I've been currently feverishly debating MBP 15" 2.8ghz vs. the new MBP 17" 2.63ghz over the previous week. I know I will be hooking the laptop up to an external display for all the serious work but it would also be nice to have some portability. The thing leading me towards the 17" is having 1900x1200 native screen.

Video editing will be the most intensive thing done with whatever Mac I end up with.

Then I was thinking how about 24" IMac 3gz and the 8800 video card + a refurbished Macbook for some portability. Sure I would only be able to do real video editing on the IMac but that might be okay and I'd still have nice Mac portability.

This is my first post and this would be my first Mac purchase as I've had it with XP so I'm making the switch.

Thoughts?

 

[jbstew32]

I've actually been having a very similar debate. I currently own a late 2006 white MacBook (2.0GHz C2D w/2.5GB RAM).

I've been having the debate as to whether I should get a new 24" iMac to pair with it, or just ebay my MacBook (it's still under warranty for another year and is in very good condition) and put that money with my iMac money to get a MacBook Pro.

I like having portability, but I need a more powerful machine. I currently use my MacBook for everything, and sometimes I wish I had better video capability. GMA950 isn't the greatest! haha


my third option is whether I should build a PC that's better than the iMac for cheaper, but that's neither here nor there! I think I like the iMac form factor and screen too much to do that


I was about to start a new thread when I saw your post, so that's a great question to ask! haha I will be very interested to read the replies.

 

[alphaod]

If I may suggest, another combination would be the 15" MacBook Pro with the LED Cinema display; this combination gives you the screen real estate of the 17" with much better color and quality combine with an option to have 2 displays should you choose to use your integrated display. In addition, you could come home and "dock" your computer, keep you AC adapter in your bag. Furthermore, just "undock" and you can bring a powerful machine for on the go. Should you need it, you could purchase additional batteries (something you can't do on the 17") for extended time unplugged.

 

[masterslacker]

If I may suggest, another combination would be the 15" MacBook Pro with the LED Cinema display; this combination gives you the screen real estate of the 17" with much better color and quality combine with an option to have 2 displays should you choose to use your integrated display. In addition, you could come home and "dock" your computer, keep you AC adapter in your bag. Furthermore, just "undock" and you can bring a powerful machine for on the go. Should you need it, you could purchase additional batteries (something you can't do on the 17") for extended time unplugged.

Thanks for the suggestion but from a cost standpoint, I would have to go base 2.4 Ghz 15" w/ Apple 24" display and it would still be $100 more than the base 17" MBP and just $100 less than the top 24" IMac w/ refurbed MB 2.2Ghz. The base MBP would struggle in the video editing department I believe do to having only 256 video ram vs. the more souped up'd version with 512.

 

[Scottsdale]

I think a one Mac solution is the way to go. Transferring files and always trying to make sure have most recent files with you is a pain. The new 17" MBP is an amazing Mac. Display size looks incredible, the battery life is awesome, the unibody construction and less than an inch thick makes portability easy for such a large display, and lastly the 8 GB memory option is excellent. You could use the 4 GB standard memory for a year, then update to 8 GB memory for a fraction of the price the memory costs now.

I would go one Mac solution if it were me.

Congrats whichever route you go. These Macs are all great! All comes down to preference.