Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

which macbook should i get????

S

sbbklynrep

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 20, 2008
1
0
i am interested in buying the new aluminum macbook only problem is that i dont know which one.
is it worth to get the higher model for the .4GHz more and illuminated keyboard or just stick with the middle option.
any other difference between them other than the .4GHz more and illuminated keyboard?
 
It all depends on what you want to do with the computer but personally I see the 400MHz increase as being not worth the extra money. It's a huge step up in terms of price and you don't get much for it.
 
parallels and guest operating system has nothing to do with the cpu but mostly with the RAM and how much you provide to the guest os through parallels.
I am having a 1st gen blackbook with 2GB RAM, I run winxp through parallels with abt 768MB RAM dedicated to win and it all runs quite smootly
 
sbbklynrep said:
i am interested in buying the new aluminum macbook only problem is that i dont know which one.
is it worth to get the higher model for the .4GHz more and illuminated keyboard or just stick with the middle option.
any other difference between them other than the .4GHz more and illuminated keyboard?
Click to expand...

It is not .4GHz or only 400MHz, its double that. Remember the processor in these new Macs are composed by 2 cores each clocked at 2.4GHz.

In other words, you are paying for an extra 800MHz or .8GHz, which is almost 1GHz which translates to alot of juice.
 
jav6454 said:
It is not .4GHz or only 400MHz, its double that. Remember the processor in these new Macs is composed by 2 cores each clocked at 2.4GHz.

In other words, you are paying for an extra 800MHz or .8GHz, which is almost 1GHz which translates to alot of juice.
Click to expand...

Only if you have two concurrent processes which are requiring 100% CPU attention. The MacWorld Benchmarks show that the difference between the two systems is marginal.
 
lastochka said:
That is a terribly wrong way of putting it. Ever heard of Amdahl's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmdal's_Law ?
Click to expand...

Nice read, but I took it from the point of view of Snow Leo and its promised performance boost due to multiple cores.

Then again, you might want an article supporting that... I am sure I saw a post not long ago about that here, let me see if its still here.
 
If you even have to think twice about the 2.0 vs the 2.4, you probably don't want to spend the $1599 required for the higher model. If the price doesn't matter, get the 2.4. If it matters like it does to most of us, get the 2.0 and upgrade to 4 GB of RAM (RAM matters more these days than processor speed, unless you do a lot of CPU-intensive tasks and can't wait the extra 6-7 seconds to unzip a torrent). Or get the 2.0 and get a 16 GB iPod touch too. There's your extra $300. Best of both worlds.
 
The MHz difference truly is irrelevant. MacWorld's benchmarks show that the 2.4GHz model is this much faster:

18 seconds for a ~2 minute Compressor encode
6 seconds for a ~1 minute iMovie HD effect
3 seconds performing a ~1 minute Photoshop macro

Can anyone possibly say that this sort of performance increase is actually worth £200?
 
I would just like to chime in and say that I contemplated the 2.0, but got the 2.4 and am I ever glad. The keys on these things are black folks. Ever try to type on a black keyboard in dim lighting? The backlight is a pricey but welcome feature IMHO.
 
mcdj said:
I would just like to chime in and say that I contemplated the 2.0, but got the 2.4 and am I ever glad. The keys on these things are black folks. Ever try to type on a black keyboard in dim lighting? The backlight is a pricey but welcome feature IMHO.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've done it in a pitch black room and the massively bright LCD is more than enough to illuminate the keys.
 
neiltc13 said:
te Photoshop macro

Can anyone possibly say that this sort of performance increase is actually worth £200?
Click to expand...


ok ok ok we get it, you don't think the 2.4ghz is a good buy. you've posted your opinion in like 97 threads. get some air and the people who bought the 2.4 enjoy their computers.
 
neiltc13 said:
Yeah, I've done it in a pitch black room and the massively bright LCD is more than enough to illuminate the keys.
Click to expand...

Seems like a waste of battery life. I'd hate to have to turn up the brightness of my LCD screen in a pitch black room just so I can see the keys.
 
i bought the 2.4 ghz after having the 2.2 ghz macbook.
i can say that dont notice that much of a speed difference, but like someone was pointing out earlier the .2ghz is actually a bigger speed bump than our pc counterparts have.

in my situation, it didn't seem right buying a new computer that was listed as slower.

if you have to get a 2.0ghz than i highly recommend bumping up the ram. the difference between 2gb and 4gb of ram IS noticeable.
 
I like the backlit keyboard and had it on previous Macbook Pros, and the Macbook Air. I can't imagine having a computer without it. Since I fly twice a week, it's a lot easier to see the keyboard on the airplane.

In addition to the keyboard, you're also getting 90gb larger HD, and slightly faster processor. But the price difference is probably not worth it.
 
It's totally up to you. I would personally go with the 2.0GHz one, because you can actually get the same performance of the 2.4GHz by just upgrading the RAM to 4GB DDR3, but DDR3 is a new technology so it's a little more expensive than DDR2. You can upgrade the RAM easily and it also depends what you plan to do with it. If you are working on Adobe, Logic Studio, Final Cut Express/Studio, you can still live with both of them. If you go with the 2.0GHz and wish to run Final Cut and Logic, go for 4GB. I don't see why the backlit keyboard is that useful. Just turn on the lights! I heard it's bad for you just look at a screen that's bright while the lights are off.
 
neiltc13 said:
The MHz difference truly is irrelevant. MacWorld's benchmarks show that the 2.4GHz model is this much faster:

18 seconds for a ~2 minute Compressor encode
6 seconds for a ~1 minute iMovie HD effect
3 seconds performing a ~1 minute Photoshop macro

Can anyone possibly say that this sort of performance increase is actually worth £200?
Click to expand...

Well, I understand your viewpoint perfectly; however, I have a quite different case than many people here.

My current computer is an HP dv1660se which has a 1.66GHz Core Duo. The keys on the thing are black and the LCD is not that bright without having to distort the coloring of the screen. So I am a person who is going from Winhell to Mac OS X and person who would like to see more processing power [I find a 8.GHz difference alot of change from where I'm comming, specially now with Snow Leopard nearing every day].

Also, I have experimented typing with my black keys at night, at the airport, in the plane and even at dawn/dusk. It is hell having to position the LCD in a way that allows me to see the keys but not see well the screen itself, so yeah, Backlit is a nice thing to have now.

Hard drive wise, my current Hard Drive is 80GB (as advertised in that time), the actual thing is only 72GB with the disk being partitioned from factory into the main partition for Windows being 64GB and the other partition for "recovery reasons". Currently my disk is full and have only 1GB free [just about free enough to manage my day to day computing]. So yeah, 250GB is welcomed by me with open arms.

Now price wise. My current HP costed me $1200 when I bought it [it had the Vista Capable sticker which made it more expensive (although I bought the machine since it was on sale, not because of the sticker), now I'm crossing my fingers that the lawsuit against M$ hold and I get a nice check from them or HP]. So going from $1200 to $1500 is not much of a difference. I say $1500 since I can use my student discount ;).

Now, upgrades, my parents are not paying for my new Mac, I am; however, the upgrades are going to be a gift from my parents as a happy 21st birthday for me, so 320GB and 4GB Ram for the win!! (I'm buying the Mac on my birthday btw)

So, yeah, I'm pretty excited and having saved alot of $$ from work sure does pay off now...

Well so that's my story for wanting the 2.4GHz model... what's yours??
 
mcdj said:
I would just like to chime in and say that I contemplated the 2.0, but got the 2.4 and am I ever glad. The keys on these things are black folks. Ever try to type on a black keyboard in dim lighting? The backlight is a pricey but welcome feature IMHO.
Click to expand...

The keys are black? I never noticed that (sarcasm). =)

They are black but are outlined by aluminum which is enough contrast to discern between each key. And on airplanes, there is enough ambient light to be able to use the computer on the plane. And also last time I checked, there were lights on the plane so its a complete non issue.

My keys on my current Gateway laptop are black on black and I can use it in low lighting situations. I'm sure many can manage.

People who leverage paying more money for a backlit keyboard are forgetting that life did exist before the invention of the feature.
 
mcdj said:
I would just like to chime in and say that I contemplated the 2.0, but got the 2.4 and am I ever glad. The keys on these things are black folks. Ever try to type on a black keyboard in dim lighting? The backlight is a pricey but welcome feature IMHO.
Click to expand...

I would like to chime in and say have you ever tried to type with your eyes closed?
 
I am in the same boat. I am having a hard time deciding which machine to buy.
I am leaning towards the 2.0 model, simply because I could do a lot with the $300 I would save.
I think the backlit keys would be cool, but since I have never had them, (and I don't stare at the keys too often) I won't know what I am missing.
With the macbook, there will be times I'll be using multiple adobe programs at once-which has me considering the 2.4- but I work on an iMac now that has 2.0 ghz, and only 1gb RAM. I have never had any issues with the iMac, so I am guessing I will be really pleased with the 2.0 macbook.

If I had money to throw around, and I didn't have to think about it- I would go for the 2.4 model, but that isn't the case. :eek:
 
neiltc13 said:
The MHz difference truly is irrelevant. MacWorld's benchmarks show that the 2.4GHz model is this much faster:

18 seconds for a ~2 minute Compressor encode
6 seconds for a ~1 minute iMovie HD effect
3 seconds performing a ~1 minute Photoshop macro

Can anyone possibly say that this sort of performance increase is actually worth £200?
Click to expand...


Actually if you do tasks that are like these often throughout your day at home or at work, the price is easily justifiable for me.

That is quite a big difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back