+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: MacBook vs MacBook Pro (/showthread.php?tid=31608)
Re: MacBook vs MacBook Pro - jdc - 04-16-2007
a refurb MBP might be a great idea for you too look into
buddy got the 2.33, 120, 2 gig, 15" MBP for $1999
nothing else to buy -- plenty of ram and plenty of storage right out of the box
Re: MacBook vs MacBook Pro - incognegro - 04-16-2007
MacMall, out of stock but call 'em & see when they might get another
http://www.macmall.com/macmall/shop/detail.asp?dpno=7087955
(amazing price, so don't get your hopes up)
the link is a slow loader, give it time.
Re: MacBook vs MacBook Pro - modelamac - 04-16-2007
I whole-heartily agree with chas_m. I do video quite a bit on my MB, and am quite happy with its performance. My video work is limited to home movies, and I usually just work on them once a month or so. If I were doing this professionally, I would get the MBP for the video card, the slot, etc.
M A V I C's chart is real, but really only makes a difference to a pro. The average user will be quite happy with the MB performance.
Re: MacBook vs MacBook Pro - sunfalcon - 04-16-2007
I have to have the backlit keyboard and bigger screen so the MBP works great for me!
Re: MacBook vs MacBook Pro - MikeF - 04-16-2007
It just seems that the extra $500 seems hard to justify since it is not intended to be used for professional video work. Although the bigger screen would be nice... I'm not sure any of the expansion capabilities would be used either...
Re: MacBook vs MacBook Pro - chas_m - 04-16-2007
[quote M A V I C]By now you must have reached the same assessment as us: The 13" MacBook *IS* a "slouch" when it comes to [...] Tiger Core Image effects.
Now ya know.
Well, not really.
I don't do Core Image effects on video routinely -- that's not what I understand most people mean when they say they want to "do video." I understand them to mean that they want to run iMovie and perhaps FCE and do some basic playback, editing and the occasional effect in video. The BlackBook handles that stuff just fine.
If you compare it to greater, later, more expensive machines, then yes the results are humbling. But I only compare mine to what I had *before* it -- and it does a MUCH better job with video than my previous machine (a G4 iBook).
If I was doing this professionally, I wouldn't even be looking at a BlackBook, so the point is moot. My point was that doing video on a BlackBook is a) possible and b) works fine despite the limitation of no indepedent video card. I continue to stand by those remarks. I did not mean to suggest that there weren't MUCH better choices if video is your focus, and OF COURSE a machine with its own independent video card is going to do a better job for you IN THAT AREA. That is implicit in my comments.
IOW, what jdc and modelamac said. A refurb MBP might be a much better option, but the BlackBook won't kill ya.
PS. As I write this I am converting a bunch of AVI files into MP4 which I will then open and edit in iMovie, then throw into iDVD and make DVDs out of. That's my idea of "doing video," and it works great.
Re: MacBook vs MacBook Pro - M A V I C - 04-16-2007
[quote modelamac]M A V I C's chart is real, but really only makes a difference to a pro. The average user will be quite happy with the MB performance.
[quote chas_m]I don't do Core Image effects on video routinely -- that's not what I understand most people mean when they say they want to "do video." I understand them to mean that they want to run iMovie and perhaps FCE and do some basic playback, editing and the occasional effect in video. The BlackBook handles that stuff just fine.
Do non-pros use:
Tiger
QuickTime
iPhoto
iMovie...
Because if non-pros do use any of those, the weak video on the MB will make a difference. Can the MacBooks even run Panther? I don't think so.
Re: MacBook vs MacBook Pro - Lew Zealand - 04-16-2007
I don't have a MacBook Pro to compare to but I use those 3 apps & OS on my MacBook 1.5GB and they all run nice and smoothly for me.
MAVIC, have you done the side by side and can you quantitate the differences for us? That one graph from BareFeats on an app have exceedingly few users will ever use isn't enough to convince the average user to shell out another $500.
Re: MacBook vs MacBook Pro - M A V I C - 04-16-2007
[quote Lew Zealand]MAVIC, have you done the side by side and can you quantitate the differences for us?
There's no real need to do side-by-side tests. It's sort of like asking if a 2.13GHz C2D will outperform a 500MHz G3.
That one graph from BareFeats on an app have exceedingly few users will ever use isn't enough to convince the average user to shell out another $500.
The app only advantage of Core Image. It's just a benchmark to see how well each machine performs doing Core Image tests. I provided a list of apps, including Tiger, which also utilize Core Image. If a person uses any of those, they would also see a performance increase.
Re: MacBook vs MacBook Pro - Lew Zealand - 04-16-2007
[quote M A V I C][quote Lew Zealand]MAVIC, have you done the side by side and can you quantitate the differences for us?
There's no real need to do side-by-side tests. It's sort of like asking if a 2.13GHz C2D will outperform a 500MHz G3. Of course one will outperform the other, the question is: by how much in typical use? And is that difference worth $500?
The MacBook Pro will outperform the MacBook on Tiger, QuickTime, iPhoto, iMovie by a far, far narrower margin than the difference between a 2.13GHz C2D and a G3/500.