Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MacPro desktop vs. a MacBookPro laptop ???  (Read 6110 times)
bellimages
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 309


WWW
« on: July 20, 2008, 04:52:18 PM »
ReplyReply

This is the first time that I have bothered you with a question .... so please take the time to give me some good information.

I have been an avid Mac user for the past 15 years. I have always used a desktop Mac for my Photoshop work in my studio, and a laptop for "on the road."

I currently have a Powerbook G4 laptop and a G4 desktop computer. And it's time to replace the G4 desktop computer. I am using some state of the art Quad core desktop Macs at work, so I know how fast they are.

My options are a Mac Pro desktop computer with a 23" Apple display, or a 17" MacBook Pro with a 23" screen. The desktop computer would have two 2.8Ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon chips. The laptop would have one 2.5GHz core duo chip.

Which configuration would you choose?

Email me at  bellimages@mac.com
Logged

Jan Bell, Owner/Photographer, Bell Images
www.bellimages.com

"Making the simple complicated is commonplace, Making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity."    Charles Mingus
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2008, 05:23:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is the first time that I have bothered you with a question .... so please take the time to give me some good information.

I have been an avid Mac user for the past 15 years. I have always used a desktop Mac for my Photoshop work in my studio, and a laptop for "on the road."

I currently have a Powerbook G4 laptop and a G4 desktop computer. And it's time to replace the G4 desktop computer. I am using some state of the art Quad core desktop Macs at work, so I know how fast they are.

My options are a Mac Pro desktop computer with a 23" Apple display, or a 17" MacBook Pro with a 23" screen. The desktop computer would have two 2.8Ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon chips. The laptop would have one 2.5GHz core duo chip.

Which configuration would you choose?

Email me at  bellimages@mac.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have both..From the way you now work, I would go with the Mac Pro upgrade.  Get the entry level config except add the airport card for $50.  You will save a lot of money buying after-market RAM.  Research the display choices, an NEC may be a better choice.  (I have the Apple 30" and really like it, even if it is "old" tech).  IMO, the major advantage of the Mac Pro is the amount of RAM that can added.

Steve
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7647


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2008, 05:41:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

One thing to consider is that notebook disks are not very fast. On a Mac Pro you can use several disks and I think you can use different RAID configurations. On a portable computer you are limited to external USB or Firewire disks.

BTW RAID is a way to connect up several disks to improve speed or safety or both. RAID 0 is fast RAID 1 secure and RAID 5 both. You need backups even if you have RAID.

Best regards
Erik

Quote
This is the first time that I have bothered you with a question .... so please take the time to give me some good information.

I have been an avid Mac user for the past 15 years. I have always used a desktop Mac for my Photoshop work in my studio, and a laptop for "on the road."

I currently have a Powerbook G4 laptop and a G4 desktop computer. And it's time to replace the G4 desktop computer. I am using some state of the art Quad core desktop Macs at work, so I know how fast they are.

My options are a Mac Pro desktop computer with a 23" Apple display, or a 17" MacBook Pro with a 23" screen. The desktop computer would have two 2.8Ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon chips. The laptop would have one 2.5GHz core duo chip.

Which configuration would you choose?

Email me at  bellimages@mac.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2008, 09:21:03 PM »
ReplyReply

If you don't need the portability, you are paying for something you won't use, AND take disadvantages for it.

You give the impression that you actually know what you want and have enough knowledge to decide, and just want to hear what others are doing.

I'd say the key thing is to have a good display.

And, as for me, I'd want a desktop computer as my main workstation.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7647


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2008, 10:32:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Having a good screen is very important, I agree on that.

Erik


Quote
If you don't need the portability, you are paying for something you won't use, AND take disadvantages for it.

You give the impression that you actually know what you want and have enough knowledge to decide, and just want to hear what others are doing.

I'd say the key thing is to have a good display.

And, as for me, I'd want a desktop computer as my main workstation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1463


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2008, 09:08:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Is portability your *primary* concern? If not, your choice is obvious -- get the Mac Pro. Your current Powerbook G4 should be fine for very basic location work, and you'll have a screaming fast workstation back at the studio for real photo work.

The Macbook Pro is a very nice, powerful, fast laptop -- I'm typing on one now -- but it pales in comparison to the Mac Pro for raw power and speed.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4056



« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2008, 09:12:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is portability your *primary* concern? If not, your choice is obvious -- get the Mac Pro. Your current Powerbook G4 should be fine for very basic location work, and you'll have a screaming fast workstation back at the studio for real photo work.

The Macbook Pro is a very nice, powerful, fast laptop -- I'm typing on one now -- but it pales in comparison to the Mac Pro for raw power and speed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree entirely. Bear in mind also the difference in the maximum RAM available in the two machines - 4GB in the MacBook compared with 32GB in the Mac Pro. The difference in speed when I upgraded my Pro from the factory-supplied 2GB to 10GB was astonishing.

Jeremy
Logged
DavidB
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2008, 04:42:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bear in mind also the difference in the maximum RAM available in the two machines - 4GB in the MacBook compared with 32GB in the Mac Pro. The difference in speed when I upgraded my Pro from the factory-supplied 2GB to 10GB was astonishing.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Apple doesn't always tell you the _actual_ limit of the machine, just the "supported configurations".

For instance, they don't tell you that the "2GB-only" MacBook Core 2 machines can actually have 3GB (just like the official configurations of the last white iMacs and some of the MacBook Pros).  See [a href=\"http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Memory_Benchmark/Apple_MacBook/]this page[/url] for details.  My own 2.16 GHz MacBook is running 3GB quite happily.
I'm told (but haven't had opportunity to test yet) that the current MacBook Pros will support up to 8GB.  The major stumbling block seems to be the astronomical price of 4GB modules.  I suspect the next incarnation of the MBP will officially support 8GB, but that's purely guesswork.
Logged

peteh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2008, 07:28:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Apple doesn't always tell you the _actual_ limit of the machine, just the "supported configurations".

For instance, they don't tell you that the "2GB-only" MacBook Core 2 machines can actually have 3GB (just like the official configurations of the last white iMacs and some of the MacBook Pros).  See this page for details.  My own 2.16 GHz MacBook is running 3GB quite happily.
I'm told (but haven't had opportunity to test yet) that the current MacBook Pros will support up to 8GB.  The major stumbling block seems to be the astronomical price of 4GB modules.  I suspect the next incarnation of the MBP will officially support 8GB, but that's purely guesswork.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Get the MAC PRO and don't buy the RAM from Apple.I got mine here.
[a href=\"http://www.transintl.com/store/category.cfm?Category=2646&CFID=884740&CFTOKEN=66217273&RequestTimeOut=500]http://www.transintl.com/store/category.cf...uestTimeOut=500[/url]
I bought 4 gigs for my 2x 2.66 dual core for less than 150 bucks.I'm not sure if it's good ram as I have it in for 1 week.Also buy a NEC 2690WUXi monitor with spectraview 2.OR bigger or smaller.You might need to buy a X-Rite or Gretag Eye 1 display 2 colorometer.My sys has 12 gigs of ram and works GREAT!
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2008, 08:13:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I would get the Mac Pro. Make things a lot more pleasant when working with lots of (big) images.
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4056



« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2008, 03:00:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Get the MAC PRO and don't buy the RAM from Apple.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bear in mind also that if you buy the basic 2Gb configuration from Apple, you have six empty slots to play with. If you want to add 8Gb, there's no need to buy two very expensive 4Gb cards: instead, buy four much cheaper (that is, much less than half the price) 2Gb cards. It has some implications for future increases in RAM, of course.

Jeremy
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6873


« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2008, 03:03:37 AM »
ReplyReply

My vote also goes to a Mac Pro. Compared to a MacBook Pro, everything is faster and easier to upgrade.
Logged

Francois
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad