My Last iMac?--How the MacBook Pro Changes Things
Apple announced yesterday that they are shipping the MacBook Pro this week, and the computers will be shipping with faster CPU’s than expected. After looking at the machine’s specifications, I finally got clear about what my future Mac roadmap looks like, and it is “iMac-less”. As much as I love it, my current G5 iMac may be the last iMac I buy.
The MacBook Pro looks like it’s just as powerful as the 2.0 GHz Intel iMac, and the Build-To-Order 2.16 GHz version may be even faster. The MacBook Pro uses the same CPU, has the same bus speed, and uses the same graphics set as its Intel powered big brother. Like the iMac, it has two USB 2.0 and one Firewire 400 ports and also like the iMac, unfortunately, it will support only 2GB of RAM. Available hard disk sizes are finally at a point where I can load up all my stuff and still have some breathing room, i.e., 100 and 120 GB; and you can get a 7200 RPM hard drive that will just about match desktop hard drive performance. So, the MacBook Pro can easily be thought of, for the first time in Apple’s history, as an iMac in portable form. It’s both magic and sad that either one of them will ultimately prove to be as powerful as my dual 2.0 GHz G5 PowerMac.
This means that buying a MacBook Pro and using it as my everyday machine becomes imminently practical. I will still keep a PowerMac in the house to work video and really heavy graphics work, and I’d hook them up via a KVM switch to at least a 20 inch Apple monitor, an Apple keyboard, and—more than likely--a Logitech mouse.
For me, the advantages of such a set-up are great. I currently have three machines, but most software agreements let you run their packages on two, a desktop and a portable, so I have to choose which one is not going to have a package or spend the extra money to equip it. I also would be able to load all my data on just one machine (the MacBook Pro) vice having it loaded on one machine and off-loading to the second only what I need to work on. That would eliminate transporting files from one machine to another on a routine basis. Thirdly, any kind of monitor upgrades would improve usability on both machines. That’s maximum bang for my buck.
There are disadvantages, too. Twice a day I would have to plug and unplug my Macbook Pro (someone will come up with a docking port, I hope). The machine is expensive, almost as expensive as a refurbished Quad 2.5 GHz PowerMac, which is quite a machine. To make it work the way I want, if I needed an extra or new display, then the monetary savings of not buying a 3rd machine would vanish. Though much better than they used to be, a MacBook Pro’s hard disk is still a bit small for this era. A 160GB hard drive would be better but also drive up the cost by several hundred dollars. (Seagate just released the first 160GB notebook hard drive. I’m hoping it becomes an option by the time I’m ready to shell out the cash for the MBP.)
Still, there’s a high probability that my next Apple computer purchase will be at least a 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro.
I would not have guessed that Apple’s shift in this direction would have caused me to rethink how I want to work.
The MacBook Pro looks like it’s just as powerful as the 2.0 GHz Intel iMac, and the Build-To-Order 2.16 GHz version may be even faster. The MacBook Pro uses the same CPU, has the same bus speed, and uses the same graphics set as its Intel powered big brother. Like the iMac, it has two USB 2.0 and one Firewire 400 ports and also like the iMac, unfortunately, it will support only 2GB of RAM. Available hard disk sizes are finally at a point where I can load up all my stuff and still have some breathing room, i.e., 100 and 120 GB; and you can get a 7200 RPM hard drive that will just about match desktop hard drive performance. So, the MacBook Pro can easily be thought of, for the first time in Apple’s history, as an iMac in portable form. It’s both magic and sad that either one of them will ultimately prove to be as powerful as my dual 2.0 GHz G5 PowerMac.
This means that buying a MacBook Pro and using it as my everyday machine becomes imminently practical. I will still keep a PowerMac in the house to work video and really heavy graphics work, and I’d hook them up via a KVM switch to at least a 20 inch Apple monitor, an Apple keyboard, and—more than likely--a Logitech mouse.
For me, the advantages of such a set-up are great. I currently have three machines, but most software agreements let you run their packages on two, a desktop and a portable, so I have to choose which one is not going to have a package or spend the extra money to equip it. I also would be able to load all my data on just one machine (the MacBook Pro) vice having it loaded on one machine and off-loading to the second only what I need to work on. That would eliminate transporting files from one machine to another on a routine basis. Thirdly, any kind of monitor upgrades would improve usability on both machines. That’s maximum bang for my buck.
There are disadvantages, too. Twice a day I would have to plug and unplug my Macbook Pro (someone will come up with a docking port, I hope). The machine is expensive, almost as expensive as a refurbished Quad 2.5 GHz PowerMac, which is quite a machine. To make it work the way I want, if I needed an extra or new display, then the monetary savings of not buying a 3rd machine would vanish. Though much better than they used to be, a MacBook Pro’s hard disk is still a bit small for this era. A 160GB hard drive would be better but also drive up the cost by several hundred dollars. (Seagate just released the first 160GB notebook hard drive. I’m hoping it becomes an option by the time I’m ready to shell out the cash for the MBP.)
Still, there’s a high probability that my next Apple computer purchase will be at least a 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro.
I would not have guessed that Apple’s shift in this direction would have caused me to rethink how I want to work.
posted by Andy Foster at
8:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home