Which Option?

Glenn Wolsey

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Nov 24, 2005
1,231
0
New Zealand
I'm trying to get a clearer picture in my head of what setup I will purchase for myself late this year. At the moment, which setup would you choose?

- iMac 20" - MacBook 2Ghz White

- MacBook Pro 15" + 23" ACD

- iMac 20" + MacBook Pro 15"
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,239
1
London, England
MacBook Pro 15" + 23".

Working across two machines is never easy, keeping data in synch etc. One powerful laptop with a nice external screen at home is the way I would go.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,744
4,276
Republic of Ukistan
Of course, having two separate computers would give you a real backup option. A bit of a pain keeping them synched, however, as e says.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
1
Randy's House
edesignuk said:
MacBook Pro 15" + 23".

Working across two machines is never easy, keeping data in synch etc. One powerful laptop with a nice external screen at home is the way I would go.
I agree with the British fellow.
 

nospleen

macrumors 68020
Dec 8, 2002
2,358
711
Texas
I would get the 20" imac and the MB. I think it is good to have a backup machine. Just in case.....right iGary?!:eek:
 

MRU

Suspended
Aug 23, 2005
25,318
8,813
Other
I've got the 20" imac core duo and 13.3" macbook option myself.

There are benefits to having two computers rather than 1. What if A - has to be repaired etc.. Also means if your doing a shed load of downloading or printing, you can leave 1 computer to do that, whilst the other is free to be exploited to its full load.

A 23" screen isn't as great a value as a 20" entire computer, even if it does have more pixels.

A macbook rather than a macbook pro simply because the extra grunt the graphic card your missing from a macbook is in your imac, so its not really missing it at all. Apart from on board graphics there's nothing on the macbookpro I couldnt do on a macbook.... Plus your saving $400 more money which you could always put towards a 20" 2005fpw dell monitor too and have either you macbook or your imac connected to it when needed......
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
1
Randy's House
nospleen said:
I would get the 20" imac and the MB. I think it is good to have a backup machine. Just in case.....right iGary?!:eek:
You're as bad as me with machines...didn't you just get a Mac...Christ, I've lost track of what you had last.
 

MRU

Suspended
Aug 23, 2005
25,318
8,813
Other
iGary said:
You're as bad as me with machines...didn't you just get a Mac...Christ, I've lost track of what you had last.
LOL theres definetly a mac addiction, I should have added on my post that I already have a dual powermac G5, and ibook, a macmini and a G4 20" imac..... :rolleyes: OK I really need the extra backup computers :D :D :D
 

quidire

macrumors 6502
I know it is not a popular opinion, but .Mac really does make backup easy.

I don't actually mean using Backup 3 (although it isn't bad, I can't vouch for it because I've never had to recover from an archive), but rather simply keeping one's important documents on one's iDisk.

I know that option is also available w/ one computer (and then you can download the files onto someone else's computer if you really need them post-hard-drive-crash) but...

Its not just backup; .Mac, in allowing seamless sync'ing of your bookmarks, keychain, etc etc, really does make using multiple machines a pleasure.
 

imacintel

macrumors 68000
Mar 12, 2006
1,581
0
Definitely White MacBook 2GHZ and 20inch iMAc. They will lok aesome together!:) Also, you actually may have one computer withoutproblems!:)
 

nospleen

macrumors 68020
Dec 8, 2002
2,358
711
Texas
iGary said:
You're as bad as me with machines...didn't you just get a Mac...Christ, I've lost track of what you had last.
There is something about that new mac smell... My name is Brandon and I am a macaholic.;)
 

celebrian23

macrumors 65816
Mar 12, 2006
1,186
0
Under the sun
An imac and a mbp are pretty pointless. They´re pretty much the portable and non portable versions of the same machine. I´d go for the mbp and acd. It makes the most sense.
 

balamw

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 16, 2005
19,368
978
New England
Well the iMac does offer a larger faster & HDD than any of the portables and since it is not a portable (has no battery or charging circuitry) and is bigger it can run quite a bit cooler and so you might be able to run it a bit harder than an otherwise equivalent MBP. You can also get a DL Superdrive in the iMac.

Plus, the MBP just doesn't seem like a good value compared to the middle MacBook, unless you absolutely need the graphics or an expresscard slot for any particular reason.

I'd probably go for the iMac and 13" MacBook.

What do you intend to do with the machines?

B
 

Glenn Wolsey

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Nov 24, 2005
1,231
0
New Zealand
balamw said:
What do you intend to do with the machines?
The usual tasks: Safari, Mail, iTunes, iCal, iChat.

And then the other stuff: Aperture, Dreamweaver 8, Photoshop CS, GarageBand.

I spend an hour in GarageBand a day with my work and around another hour (min) with Aperture.
 

Peyton

macrumors 68000
Feb 2, 2006
1,616
0
I say go with the mbp, its so nice to have everything on one computer. If you are waiting until late this year, there is no telling what the new ones will be like, (assuming you'll get something new) but seriously, it really is annoying having files you need on one or the other, go for the mbp.
 

monke

macrumors 65816
May 30, 2005
1,438
2
I would go with the MBP and the ACD.

As much as two computers is nice, the ease of only having one computer is nicer.
 

balamw

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 16, 2005
19,368
978
New England
Peyton said:
there is no telling what the new ones will be like
Definitely true, 6 months from now at the very least Merom should be in the MBP and iMacs and we should get the expected 20% performance boost.

Maybe by then they'll develop a DL superdrive that'll fit in the small MacBook/MBPs.

Somehow spending $700 more for the MBP than the middle MacBook seems way out of whack unless you explicitly need one of the features that's not in the MacBook.

B
 

Glenn Wolsey

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Nov 24, 2005
1,231
0
New Zealand
Peyton said:
I say go with the mbp, its so nice to have everything on one computer. If you are waiting until late this year, there is no telling what the new ones will be like, (assuming you'll get something new) but seriously, it really is annoying having files you need on one or the other, go for the mbp.
If I go for the MBP I will order the day its 64bit and has Leopard on it. I want to save myself some money on 10.5.
 

Glenn Wolsey

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Nov 24, 2005
1,231
0
New Zealand
balamw said:
Definitely true, 6 months from now at the very least Merom should be in the MBP and iMacs and we should get the expected 20% performance boost.

Maybe by then they'll develop a DL superdrive that'll fit in the small MacBook/MBPs.

Somehow spending $700 more for the MBP than the middle MacBook seems way out of whack unless you explicitly need one of the features that's not in the MacBook.

B
To tell the truth, yes I could manage on a MacBook instead of the MBP, but I love the aluminium look and I want the matte screen, plus the video card for Aperture.
 

balamw

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 16, 2005
19,368
978
New England
Glenn Wolsey said:
To tell the truth, yes I could manage on a MacBook instead of the MBP, but I love the aluminium look and I want the matte screen, plus the video card for Aperture.
The matte screen and video card are features that aren't (currently) available on the MacBook, so that tips the balance. Waiting for Leopard and Merom definitely sounds like a good idea.

B