Macopinion

The Road Warrior Mailbag - September 4, 2007

MacBook vs iMac
Current iMac 20" User Report
New 20" iMac vs MacBook - A Value Comparison
iMac vs Macbook Optical Drives
New 20" iMac vs MacBook - Mac mini?
iMac review
New 20" iMac vs MacBook - Screen Resolutions
PowerBook 5300 Revisited



___

MacBook vs iMac

From Twig Gravely

I was pleased to come across your article, because I have often switched between new offerings of MacBooks and iMacs. I have a tough decision, in that I can't afford to have both. It either has to be a desktop or a laptop. And it always seems like I'm wishing I had one while in possession of the other.

My next to most recent machine was a loaded Core 2 Duo iMac, and I decided that it was the nicest Mac I'd ever had. But the itch came over me, and I decided I just had to have a notebook again, and the new MacBooks looked really nice. That's what I'm typing on right now, but already I'm looking at that beautiful aluminum and black iMac and wondering if I should flop yet again.

One thing, this MacBook doesn't seem to be near as snappy as my iMac was, and they had very close specs. I'm figuring that Leopard is going to want a little more out of the machine, that combined with the fantastic look of the new iMacs is really tempting me.

Another factor is the Applecare price difference between Apple's 'books and iMacs. To me the iMac is looking to be the better value, unless you absolutely have to have a notebook.

___

Hi Twig;

Thanks for your comment.

The primary reasons why your MacBook feels less lively than your erstwhile iMac is that it is.

The MacBook has that feebel Intel GMA 950 video support kludge as opposed to the iMac's real GPU with dedicated VRAM. The MacBook has a 5400 RPM HD, compared with 7200 RPM in the iMac. The new imacs also have an 800 Mhz friontside bus, although (I think) your former C2D imac had the same 667 frontside bus speed as the MacBook.

Power and value for money is the imac's advantage. It's disadvantage is the lack of battery-powered portability.

Charles

***

Current iMac 20" User Report

From Matthias Rönsberg

I was the first to buy the new iMac at my local Apple dealership, here in Madrid, Spain (Preordered, to be sure I wouldn´t miss out on the first batch - btw, excellent service, http://www.benotac.es delete the plug if it´s against your policy).

I bought the standard medium model (20", 2,4GHz) and will buy a 2GB SO-DIMM next. -thanks to menumeters, I can see how fast VM fills up, and accessing 2GB of swap files is a real drag.

Thats the family ´puter, replacing an aging (and too darn loud) eMac G4. My main workhorse is a G4 PowerBook, 1,25GHz.

The iMac´s glossy screen doesn´t bother me the least.

I didn´t find a downside yet (maybe aside from the remote not clinging to the side of the iMac.)

I simply love all aspects of the machine, it´s quiet, it´s fast (iPhoto with 2500 images is finally usable again), and I at least have a great screen, without reflections.

I´m not much of a road warrior (max two days per week travelling) and I guess, once the iPhone is available over here, I can do most stuff (i.e. email) with that little bugger, so I´ll probably hold off on any new laptop purchase - I might buy an iMac as my main office machine within a year though, keeping the laptop synchronzied for the ocasional roadtrip.

Thanks for your evaluation

Matt

___

Hi Matt;

Thanks for confirming my evaluation empirically. Glad to hear that it holds up.

I also agree about RAM and swapfiles. I have 1.5 GB in my G4 PowerBook and still wish I had more. Definitly minimum 2 GB in my next system.

Charles

***

New 20" iMac vs MacBook - A Value Comparison

From markomd

Funny, I just contemplated the same decision and decided on the mid-2007 2.16GB MacBook. Great little machine. You really can't go wrong either way.

Of course, it didn't hurt that I bought it refurbed from Apple and paid $1,099 + $169 for the three-year service plan. To tell you the truth, I own extra mice, extra keyboards, can place the laptop on a higher desk-shelf or plug in a larger monitor with no hassle at all. Best of all, it works wonderfully on battery and I can schlep it anywhere.

No complaints on my part. I already own 2 relatively recent iMacs (my daughters use them) and have the whole system linked in a high-speed wireless LAN with Airport.

So far as using a MacBook Pro for my primary computer is concerned, I consider the benefit/cost ratio unfavorable compared to the arrangement I already have. About the only other thing I may do is buy a 20" iMac refurbed or at academic cost (I'm a physician, my wife is a professor) and then I'll own the entire shebang for less than the cost of the top-end MacBook Pro.

Have fun either way.

___

Hi;

I'm in harmony with your reasoning. Love those refurbs, of which the PowerBook I'm typing on is one.

It's a tough decision, but as you say, pretty hard to go wrong either way.

Charles

***

iMac vs Macbook Optical Drives

From James Mol

Since you missed it at The Apple Store: all iMacs have the SuperDrive. Even the base model.

Jim

___

Hi Jim;

When you're right, you're right.

Don't know where ever I got the idea that the base Alu-Glass iMac had a combo drive.

Must have crossed wires checking spec. sheets of the previous model.

Thanks for the heads-up. I've corrected the article.

Charles

***

New 20" iMac vs MacBook - Mac mini?

Located at:
http://www.macopinion.com/index.php/site/comments/new_20_imac_vs_macbook_a_value_comparison/

From ncbill

I think you missed a third option - the new Mac Mini.

With a Core 2 Duo revision and upgrade to a more usable (under 10.4) 1GB RAM standard, the Mac Mini has become the "headless MacBook"

I've been very happy with my C2D MacBook, which runs circles around my old 1.33GHz Powerbook G4.

The new Mini is the bargain at the low end for those looking to replace an aging G3 or G4 system.

It allows us to recycle keyboard, mouse, monitor, and any external peripherals we are currently using (e.g. hard drives, DVD burner)

I know when the time comes to replace my second generation eMac G4 the C2D Mac Mini will be my choice.

___

Hi ncbill,

Good point. I didn't miss it. The thought occurred to me back when the mini was first introduced as a G4 unit that it might be a viable alternative for folks who use their laptops mainly as desktop substitute computers.

However, he Mac mini actually has a lot more in common with the MacBook than with its desktop Mac stablemates, being not so much a "headless iMac," as a stripped-down notebook without a display or battery. For instance, the mini shares with the MacBook a 667 MHz frontside bus in contrast to the iMac's 800 MHz bus, has laptop-type 5400 RPM 2.5" hard drive, a typical laptop array of I/O ports (only more of them), a laptop-style optical drive, and the mini CPU weighs a pound and a half less than the lightest notebook Apple ever made.

The problem, as I see it, is value. An 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo Mac mini starts at $599, and an Apple aluminum keyboard and Mighty Mouse sets you back $98, and Apple's least expensive Cinema Display (20") a whopping $599 - the same price as the base mini itself, so you're up to $1,296, nearly $200 more than the base MacBook which has a faster Core 2 Duo processor, pretty much the same other internal specs., plus a battery, but of course a smaller 13/3" display. But a mini rig with Apple peripherals also costs $96 more than even the base 20" iMac, which also has a 20" display and comes with a faster processor, a larger capaciity faster hard drive, a real ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics processor unit with 128MB of dedicated video RAM, FireWire 800, and a SuperDrive. To get a SuperDrive with a mini, you have to go with the $799 2 GHz Core 2 Duo unit. True, you can do better than those prices by shopping around for a third-party keyboard, mouse, and display, but I'll stick with comparing Apples to Apples for now.

Personally, I find it hard to make an economic case for buying a mini compared with a low-end iMac or even a MacBook unless you already have a good monitor and input devices and just want it for a CPU module upgrade, which is of course what you;re suggesting.

Charles

***


iMac review

From David

The new iMacs strike as superb values. It seems that the screen itself has substantial value. But what if with that particular form factor, the screen could be used-just by itself-as a monitor for other computers. Now, Apple would be using its imagination and sell many more iMacs.

Sincerely,
David Stein

___

Hi David;

There is display-sharing software available. Perhaps Apple will make a freestanding Cinema Display model with the glass-covered glossy screen.

Charles

***

New 20" iMac vs MacBook - Screen Resolutions

From David C

My next computer will likely be an iMac 24", simply because I've come to appreciate the value of large screen real estate at a reasonable pixel size. The MacBook Pro 17" hi-res packs as many pixels as the iMac 24", but on-screen type looks positively tiny in comparison. While I can adapt to a small screen and tiny type, I think that exacts a productivity compromise that I'm no longer willing to endure. Also, I intend on using the iMac as a living room Mac, where its large screen will be great for watching DVDs, high def video and slideshows from my latest photo forays.

Though I like being able to pack a computer with me, it's also nice to have the computer tied to my workspace; so that coffee shops, dinner tables, bedrooms and camping trips don't get turned into geekspace. Still, in the best of worlds, I'd have a portable for when I need that and a large screen desktop for production work (or a large monitor to plug into the MacBook Pro?s DVI port.) But, it all comes down to price for me, and for the screen resolution that I want (1920 x 1200), going portable is an $1100 premium. Not a price I'm willing to pay and, a smaller screen to boot. I could, of course, go with a MacBook and hang an external monitor off of it, which is not a bad option, but that diminishes the all-in-one elegance of both the iMac and Macbooks.

As for the MacBook vs iMac, in addition to the comparisons you make, the MacBook has a 2GB memory maximum vs the iMac's 4GB and, besides a couple more USB ports, the iMac has a FireWire 800 port as well. Given the specs of the iMac, it compares more closely to the MacBook Pro than the MacBook, as regards both graphics card and available screen resolutions. The MacBook Pro has the edge with its dual link DVI port and the iMac counters with a larger, faster hard drive, so it's a wash features wise.

Since the iMac went LCD, I think it's been a very compelling option as an elegant, all-in-one desktop. While the iMac isn't truly portable, it lends itself well to schlepping around the home, particularly when the nifty safe sleep feature is employed. Safe sleep, available on all the Intel machines and some Powerbooks, will write RAM to disk, greatly speeding up booting after power down and restoring all applications, windows, etc. to their previous state.

___

Hi David;

I'm pretty much in agreement with your observations, although I think I could very happily get along with the 20" display iMac. After years of working on PowerBooks and iBooks, and adapting my work habits accordingly, even the modest resolution 1440 by 900 display in this older 17" G4 PowerBook seems huge to me.

You're right that performance-wise the iMac is more closely parallel with the MacBook Pro than the MacBook, but price-wise it's in the MacBook ballpark, making it a super-value (for somewhat different reasons) compared with either notebook, save for the fact it's not a notebook. I do cherish easy portability and battery power.

I did note the different memory ceilings in the specs. comparison section.

Charles

***

PowerBook 5300 Revisited

From: Abe Jellinek

Hi,

As the ex-owner of a PowerBook 190cs, I enjoyed your writings on the 5300. Those were dark days, though the laptops remained best-of-breed.

Anyway, I do not think the 5300 was the most expensive Apple laptop ever. The Mac Portable was more expensive, adjusted for inflation. It is actually pricier at an unadjusted MSRP if you checked the box for a hard disk. Perhaps "the 5300 was, and will now be, forever, the most expensive PowerBook."

I don't mean to quibble needlessly. I enjoyed looking up the Portable price. I had a shot at one a few years ago, but the hospital wouldn't let it out the door with "patient data." (1MB from 1983...ugh.)

Abe J

___

Hi Abe;

I think I was aware that the Mac Portable sold for the same nominal dollar value as the 5300ce, but the key qualifier in my statement was "laptop." Do you really consider the hulking 16 pound Mac Portable to be a laptop computer?

For the record, the most expensive Macs of all time were:

Mac IIfx - $9,870
Mac IIx - $9,300
Quadra 950 - $8,800
Mac IIci - $8,800
Quadra 900 - $8,500
Twentieth Anniversary Mac - $7,500
PowerBook 5300ce - $6,500
Mac SE/30 $6,500
Mac Portable - $6,500

And as you note, the optional hard drive would push the Portable's price up even more.

Charles



***



cmoore@macopinion.com


Provisionally, you can access The Road Warrior Archive to Jan. 16, 2006 by clicking here.

Note: Letters to The Road Warrior may or may not be published in The Road Warrior Mailbag at the editor's discretion. Correspondents' email addresses will NOT be published unless the correspondent specifically requests publication. Letters may be edited for length and/or context.

If you would prefer that your message not appear in The Road Warrior Mailbag, we would still like to hear from you. Just clearly mark your message "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," and it will not be published.

CM