Using A Core2Duo Macbook in 2014?

[Ulton]

I currently have a Base 2012 11" Macbook air, but I'm looking at buying a used 15" Macbook to have a bigger screen for use around the house.
I'm still wanting a Laptop for the portability and not a desktop computer.

The 15" Macbook is a Mid 2009 with the following specs;

2.80 Core2Duo
4GB RAM
9400m + 9600M GT
128GB SSD

I'm only looking to do basic tasks such as Web, E-Mail, iTunes, 1080p YouTube, DVD playback and 1080p MKV files from my NAS.

Would there be any issues with a Core2Duo machine keeping up with the above usage?
Compared to my Macbook air would there be any noticeable speed difference?

Thanks

 

[simsaladimbamba]

Depending on which model you get, the normal resolution model or the high resolution model, you might not gain that much screen real estate.

1440 x 900 or 1680 x 1050 pixels will be the resolutions, the latter having of course more screen real estate and having more space for whatever you decide to do on.

Anyway, 1080p YouTube might be a bit problematic, 720p YT might work fine, especially if you use the HTML5 option or ClickToFlash.

You can also upgrade to 8 GB of 204-pin DDR3 SO-DIMM RAM.

I have that 2009 model, only in 17" and with 8 GB RAM and an optibay adapter. It is still a capable machine, but now it just gets used when I am not on my desktop Mac. It still can play 720p and 1080p MKV or MP4 content, if the data rate is not too small. YouTube is still not a pretty place using Flash, thus I use the ClickToFlash extension.

 

[gr8tfly]

I had an Early 2009 17" 2.66GHz 8GB RAM with a Crucial M4 512GB SSD running Mountain Lion - which ran just fine. I didn't do a lot of heavy duty tasks, but did use PS CS6, Aperture, and FCP-X periodically.

It was replaced last Feb. with a mid-2012 maxed out rMBP, which is awesome, but the 2009 still had some good life left in it, especially when it's still capable of running the latest OS.

 

[giffut]

If ...

... the seller is asking for around 4-500 US$, I would recommend searching for a used 2011 or 2012 Macbook Air or Macbook Pro 13 with i5 CPUs instead. They smoke the Core 2 Duo in terms of processor speed and are much more future proof y- for the same amount of money spent y – and you get a much more versatile machine to use.

 

[Steve121178]

Would there be any issues with a Core2Duo machine keeping up with the above usage?

None at all. That’s a more than capable spec.

 

[leman]

A 2012 or 2013 MBA 13" is a better computer overall and has the same real screen estate. Of course, the C2D is still absolutely adequate for those tasks. Just don't be surprised — it is slower than your Air 😉

 

[maflynn]

The 2009 machine will definitely handle those tasks. I have a 2009 Mac Mini that I use (its my kids but when I'm not near my laptop I use this). It handles most of those tasks you mentioned without any problem.

 

[Gav Mack]

I currently have a Base 2012 11" Macbook air, but I'm looking at buying a used 15" Macbook to have a bigger screen for use around the house.
I'm still wanting a Laptop for the portability and not a desktop computer.

The 15" Macbook is a Mid 2009 with the following specs;

2.80 Core2Duo
4GB RAM
9400m + 9600M GT
128GB SSD

I'm only looking to do basic tasks such as Web, E-Mail, iTunes, 1080p YouTube, DVD playback and 1080p MKV files from my NAS.

Would there be any issues with a Core2Duo machine keeping up with the above usage?
Compared to my Macbook air would there be any noticeable speed difference?

Thanks

Perfectly adequate and very usable with that much ram and the SSD. Can go to 8Gb. See how hot it gets on the left hand speaker side with a bit of use and the fans don't rev up too much. It will be slower than your gen of MBA but feels a lot snappier than the earlier models with the spinning disks as do any with an SSD upgrade.

 

[mneblett]

My late 2008 15" C2D, with 8GB RAM and an SSD, is doing those sorts of tasks today for my wife perfectly well.

If you do go with the 2009, an SSD makes a huge difference is "perceived speed" on everything other than purely CPU-intensive tasks -- which none of your use scenarios are.

On the screen size, while numerically perhaps not a huge difference, subjectively the difference between 13" and 15" is make-or-break for me -- the difference between "cramped" and satisfactory, while still being reasonably portable.

 

[KUguardgrl13]

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be able to do those things. I was doing similar tasks on my 2009 13" with a traditional HDD and 2gb RAM. If you can, I'd upgrade the RAM to 8gb just to be safe. That's the average amount for today's computing.