Which macbook 2.0 + 3 gb RAM/7200 HD or 2.16 + 3 gb RAM

[bmat]

I'm looking to get a white macbook, and am torn between the lowend 2.0 version with 3 gb or RAM and a 160 GB 7200 RPM harddrive

or

the mid-range 2.16 with a superdrive, the stock harddrive, and 3 gb or RAM.

I don't use the superdrive on my PB, or even that much on my Mac Pro, but it's always nice to have....

I'm leaning toward the 2.0.

 

[paddy]

As far as I know the MB's RAM limit is 2GB not 3. And yeah if you don't use the superdrive definitely go for the low end.

 

[bmat]

Yeah, my post was not clear.

The two configurations come out to the same price:

Macbook 2.0 with 3 gb or RAM and 160 gb 7200 harddrive

or

Macbook 2.16 with 3 gb or RAM and 120 gb 5400 harddrive and a superdrive

My understanding is that the new macbooks can take 3 gbs of RAM.

 

[Igantius]

My understanding is that the new macbooks can take 3 gbs of RAM.

You're quite right - and there's a few threads about the relative merits. For the record, a MB can take 2x2GB sticks, but the machine will only be able to access 3.3GB.

Just to check, you are going to buy 3rd-party RAM and install it yourself aren't you?

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much the hard drive as they're very easy to install yourself... if you're not too bothered about the DVD burner and the (very) modest processor difference, I would go for the 2.0GHz model.

 

[wgkealey]

If you don't even want the option t use the super drive, te 2.0 is a much better deal IMO.

 

[bmat]

I was planning on third party ram (on both) and a third party harddrive.

But both configurations came out to about $1381 with a rebate (including the 3rd party stuff), which made me confused about whether the extra haarddrive space and 7200 was worth giving up a superdrive and the extra 0.16.