What is the difference between the "macbook" and the "macbook pro" other than the size?

I think I'm gonna get one for grad school but I can't figure out why the macbook pro is worth more money.

5/30/2006 12:51:08 AM

The Pros offer you more choice in processor speed, an option for a glossy screen or a none glossy screen, they are bigger and brushed aluminium instead of plastic.

5/30/2006 12:52:32 AM

The macbook pro's also have a decent graphics card with discrete vram as opposed to a crappy intel integrated graphics chipset with shared video memory.

5/30/2006 12:54:27 AM

I need it to be fairly good with photoshop software, in my major i'll be manipulating a lot of microscope pictures and graphs and stuff, so...

is it worth it to pay the 1600 for the macbook pro rather than 1100-1200 for the regular macbook?

5/30/2006 12:58:52 AM

if that's what you're going to use it for, do not get a macbook. get a highend T60 with 256mb graphics card or a macbook pro instead and consider dual booting with windows until the universal versions of photoshop come out next spring or so.

5/30/2006 1:00:32 AM

holy crap....i appreciate the advice but that was way beyond me

5/30/2006 1:25:09 AM

Right now the mac versions of the adobe products are not going to run nearly as fast as they could on the intel based macs. They'll run about 3 times as fast on a macbook pro running windows through bootcamp than they would in mac os.

Anyways, what I was saying was that you'd either want a macbook pro or a similarly spec'd pc laptop with a good video card instead of the basic macbook. If you go the route of buying the macbook pro you can install "bootcamp" and also install windows xp on it if you'd like.

5/30/2006 1:31:29 AM

gotcha....i appreciate it, and i will consider it

5/30/2006 1:37:26 AM

Dude, get a Dell.

5/30/2006 2:04:43 AM

does the keyboard still light up on the pros? that would be my buying decesion right there.

5/30/2006 6:51:12 AM

yes, the Pro has a backlit keyboard and ambient light sensor that adjusts the keyboard and screen backlights

5/30/2006 9:01:36 AM

Quote :

"Anyways, what I was saying was that you'd either want a macbook pro or a similarly spec'd pc laptop with a good video card instead of the basic macbook. If you go the route of buying the macbook pro you can install "bootcamp" and also install windows xp on it if you'd like."

he has absolutely no need for a 3d video card for photoshop. Photoshop is entirely CPU dependent. He'd be just as good off with a regular MacBook and dual booting with that. The intel 900 graphics chip is hardly "crappy" for non gamers.

5/30/2006 9:28:58 AM

^^ i admit it...those things are what make me WANT a mac...i feel dirty

5/30/2006 10:13:30 AM

the sweet spot is definitely at the low end this time

5/30/2006 11:11:54 AM

Quote :

"Right now the mac versions of the adobe products are not going to run nearly as fast as they could on the intel based macs. They'll run about 3 times as fast on a macbook pro running windows through bootcamp than they would in mac os. "

Cite?

6/3/2006 1:21:05 PM

f'n a it's true^

don't need a "cite"

but here it is

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/02/01/adobes.mac.commitment/

Quote :

"Adobe: Universal apps could be 1yr away Adobe today said it would not deliver native Intel versions of currently shipping professional products and that customers would have to wait until future major releases--which could be more than one year away--for native Intel Mac support."

6/3/2006 1:27:59 PM

Quote :

"he has absolutely no need for a 3d video card for photoshop. Photoshop is entirely CPU dependent. He'd be just as good off with a regular MacBook and dual booting with that. The intel 900 graphics chip is hardly "crappy" for non gamers."

The integrated graphics can't even run this simple mouse dressing program fully:
http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnidazzle/

6/3/2006 2:11:24 PM

Quote :

"Cite?"

Umm how about any review or benchmark preformed by sites like anandtech regarding the macbook pro... I'm not going to use google for you.

6/3/2006 2:19:05 PM

^^Because that really has anything to do with photoshop or any other productivity software. OH WAIT.

6/3/2006 3:05:41 PM

^ That was kind of a joke...

But it does go to show that you never know how/where GPU technology is going to be used. Photoshop now might not use the GPU any, but maybe another revision or 2 might.

6/3/2006 3:49:48 PM

It hasn't EVER. And it would make absolutely no sense for them to start.

Actually I take that back. There is one filter that was shipped with CS that uses 3d. I'm pretty sure it's software rendering though, and it's a pretty useless filter.

[Edited on June 3, 2006 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/3/2006 4:20:22 PM

Quote :

"he has absolutely no need for a 3d video card for photoshop. Photoshop is entirely CPU dependent. He'd be just as good off with a regular MacBook and dual booting with that. The intel 900 graphics chip is hardly "crappy" for non gamers."

I wasn't advocating the graphics chipset as much as the discrete video ram. Photoshop is a memory hog and will use almost as much ram as you can throw at it.

Also, if he plans plans on using the notebook for ANYTHING entertainment related, having a decent video chipset won't hurt. Now unlinke a lot past generations of intel integrated graphics chipsets, dvd playback with this one's supposed to be pretty good, but as far as supporting those high definition apple monitors (and handling it well) I'd push something with a real graphics card and discrete video ram. I mean sure photoshop barely uses the graphics card, but a lot of the default graphics effects in OSX and the slowly but eventually arriving Vista are somewhat graphics card and video ram intensive.

[Edited on June 3, 2006 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ]

6/3/2006 8:53:28 PM

1) OSX is built around the Intel 9xx series graphics. Everything works 100% smooth out of the box with it.

2) The intel chip is made to handle non-3d amazingly well. For anything EXCEPT 3d, it's absolutely as good as any high end card.

3)

Quote :

"I wasn't advocating the graphics chipset as much as the discrete video ram. Photoshop is a memory hog and will use almost as much ram as you can throw at it."

He can put 2gb in either of them. So the Macbook will use 128mb of it as shared vram. That's not going to make any noticeable difference at at all. If he is hitting that much ram usage in Photoshop, the file is going to be fucking enormous.

4)

Quote :

"but as far as supporting those high definition apple monitors (and handling it well) I'd push something with a real graphics card and discrete video ram"

He isn't going to be purchasing a 30" cinema display. And the Macbook has DVI out, so it can run any non dual-link display without any issue.

This is just another case of trying to upsell someone on a computer they don't need.

6/3/2006 11:38:09 PM

Eh, I was actually advocating the highend T60 as well, and that's really what I'd suggest anyways instead. I mean if you're going to pay an extra 100 or so for a legit OEM copy of xp, why not just get something that already has XP. if you want a second non-windows OS, linux usually runs pretty well on thinkpads (in terms of driver support.)

It's also not JUST the graphics card that I don't really like about the macbooks. There's also that 13" screen. In photoshop you really appreciate more workspace and multiple desktops do put a load on your graphics card. 13" is fine for most productivity, but photoshop workspaces get cluttered really fast. Sure he's probably not going to use a 30" apple screen, but he might like the option to connect it to an ultra-high definition screen of some sort (possibly his or possibly in a lab.) I'm not sure how much photoshop you've dealt with, but being able to fill an extrememly large screen with a high-res image of a 5-6 megapixel photo and put pallets and toolbars on the other screen is pretty nice. Also remember that with the macbook you need to buy an adapter because it has a "mini" dvi port and not a full sized dvi port. Yes, that's correct, apple does screw you on what they consider "accessories" at every turn, even when it's something that you can't even freaking use the dvi port without having.

And I'm not trying to upsell him, I'm just saying he'll probably be happier with something larger and more powerful. Sure the high end macbooks aren't worth it if you're looking just at price, but I'd really suggest almost anyone who plans on using a machine very often buy the best machine they can comfortably afford. If it were a question about just buying what you need, he'd be getting a used mac on ebay or maybe a slickdeal coupon discounted dell.

And to the question:

Quote :

"is it worth it to pay the 1600 for the macbook pro rather than 1100-1200 for the regular macbook?"

Yes, I think the 400 dollar price difference is worth it for the larger screen in the laptop, no dongles for the dvi connection, and a vastly superior graphics solution. If you do anything 3d, want to use the new toys that vista should ship with, branch into video editing, or want the option to even use a 30 inch apple monitor (or other dual-link monitor) then the macbook is going to fall short. Consider PC laptops too though, unless you're dying to use those ilife tools and apple programs like final cut. Thinkpads and many dell laptops can offer you more bang for your buck in terms of hardware, and adobe products are going to run faster on a comparable windows machine than in OSX for a while now at least.

6/4/2006 3:32:36 AM