MacBook vs MacBook Pro

Ok I'm thinking of buying a Mac laptop (in before mac sucks, I have a custom desktop PC anyway) but I'm not sure if there is a considerable difference when choosing between the MacBook and the Pro. After customizing my order using the Apple Store, the difference in price between the two is about 1000 dollars. So I is there a considerable difference in terms of performance (I plan to use it for college work/graphic design)? Thank you in advance.

If you have the money, go for a MacBook Pro.

It has more iFeatures, so it's more of a iRipoff.

>>1
You can save yourself all that money by installing photoshop on your PC. Thats all macs are used for anyways.

>>4
No. They're used for iTunes.

I have an iMac (same specs as MBP) and MacBook, and I upgraded from a Powerbook, so I kind of have experience with all this.

Basically, it comes down to the graphics. The CPU in the MacBooks is plenty fast but the GMA950 is only adequate for low-spec gaming and probably won't suit you at all if you do 3D work. If you don't think you'll need high-end graphics, the MacBook will do you just fine. The added features of the MBP are cool but as you said, $1000 difference is a bit much.

Also, the 13" glossy screen is pretty good, people who complain about the gloss tend to not actually have used one. Do keep in mind that the viewing angle is pretty poor, though.

Too many mac questions on this forum. Buy a chalkboard instead.

13"? Glossy? Poor viewing angle? Lol what kind of crap is that? That's an iScam.

P.S.: Enjoy your DRM.

You should probably not buy a MacBook right now. If you do then don't come complaining when Apple release a new model a few days after you bought it.

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

I wouldn't expect a MacBook update too soon (try Macworld, early Jan) but the MBP is a pretty sure bet for Core 2 Duo in a week or three.

>>8
It's a pretty good screen, it's bright and clear and is not a retardedly high or low resolution. The gloss is only really a bother because of the dust it collects, but if you're not OCD like me it won't bother you. The MacBook is a generally pretty good computer - you'd be hard pressed to find a comparably specced computer that's as thin, with bluetooth, high quality webcam, durable, etc that costs much less. It's hardly perfect  but it's pretty stupid to call it a scam.

And why do you keep saying enjoy your DRM? Are you Corey Doctorow or something? A TPM chip means shit to me or any other Mac user, not my fault it's stopping you from running a decent OS on your PC.

>>10 retardedly high resolution is a bad thing

sage

>>10
With conventional TFT coating, you occassionally see blurry hilites and reflections. With glossy TFTs, reflections see you. It's the worst idea ever, it's exactly what you don't want to see in a monitor. 13" is more suitable for a PDA than a full-fledged personal computer, but then again (cheap troll coming), are Macs full-fledged personal computers? I only agree in that retardedly high (or low) resolutions are a bad thing.

As for your DRM, enjoy it. I'm free of it

As a Macbook owner, I can honestly say that 95% of the time, the glossy display poses no problems for a few different reasons.  First, it's a widescreen, and because it's not very tall you don't have to angle it back quite as much for comfortable viewing.  Subsequently, a steeper angle catches less glare.  Second, the screen can be set to "bright as all fuck", and in those occasional situations with glare the screen overpowers the glare anyway.  The only time I ever have trouble with it is when I would've had trouble with any old laptop, i.e. outside or right next to a window.  The glossy screen also keeps everything looking sharper, clearer, and brighter (since it's not scattering the light).  Also, I don't know about those complaining about the small screen, but who the hell wants to carry a 10 pound, 17" widescreen notebook around all day?

So far as the computer itself, it's fast as hell with an upgrade to at least 1gb of RAM, which can be had from Newegg for about 60-70 dollars.  XP is more responsive on it than 2000 is on my Athlon 2500+, and it beats the hell out of my Mini while running OS X (although that's no big feat.)

And so far as this DRM shit people keep mentioning, that's only there to allow OS X to run on Macs, but prevent it from working on generic PC's.  And we all know how well that worked...

>>13
I mostly concur, I've had a MacBook for a while too. I still say I'd prefer a matte screen but the gloss is nowhere near as people make it out to be - Apple say they used a newer style of coating that makes it less shiny but also less reflective, and it appears to show based on my recollection of what older PC laptops with gloss looked like.

Also, I often use this laptop outdoors and I find the glossy screen actually makes things a lot easier to read than on a matte one - I can use this MacBook on no backlight mode more comfortably than I ever could with my Powerbook, which flies in the face of "OMG IT REFLECTS THE WHOLE WORLD AROUND YOU!!!" claims made by people who haven't actually used one of these computers.

And 13" is a wonderful screen size. It's small and compact, but you can run damn near anything comfortably on it besides the Apple pro apps. Added mobility means a lot.

TPM = 1984
SOFTWARE COMPANIES SHOULD NOT DICTATE WHAT SOFTWARE YOU CAN RUN ON HARDWARE YOU OWN
DEATH TO DRM, DEATH TO TPM, LINUX HACKERS NEED TO GET TOGETHER AND BUILD THEIR OWN ARCHITECTURES.

>>13
it's a widescreen
So you got only a portion of your screen?

because it's not very tall you don't have to angle it back quite as much for comfortable viewing
Worst excuse ever; yeah, without a car there's no risk for car accidents.

a steeper angle catches less glare
But still catches glare which is avoided or reduced to a minimum with proper coating.

bright as all fuck
Nevermind there's the black color which still catches glare. By making black gray, you're losing all the contrast glossy screens are supposed to give.

17" widescreen
17" widescreen is still crippledscreen. All I ask for is 15" real-screen.

>>16

Well, regardless of whatever you think, I thought a widescreen monitor was a dumb idea, but now that I've used it I don't find any problem with it.  Further, the blacks on the macbook's display stay black when the brightness is turned all the way up.  This isn't 1992, and it isn't a passive-matrix display.

Widescreen is nice. In fact, ever since I got one, I've found it feel more natural, somehow.

>>15
What the fuck. Go run your operating system on an abacus or some shit. DID YOU KNOW ALL GENERAL PURPOSE CPUS TODAY ARE BASED ON PROPRIETARY IDEAS, A COMPLEX ARRAY OF PATENTS AND CLOSED SOURCE LOW-LEVEL SOFTWARE AND COMPILERS ETC? If the Illuminati wanted to take the world over with our computers, they already could. Let the fucking TPM thing go.

>>16
You're the same type of regressive idiot that would have been all "I WILL NEVER SWITCH FROM DOS TO BLOATED WIN95 SHIT!!" ten years ago. Apple are leading the way in widescreen monitors and you'll notice pretty much all PC manufacturers are making the same transition. Widescreen is more natural for way the human eyes work (go look up the fundamentals of cinematography) and it works especially well in MacOS, where the paradigm of stacked windows is adhered to better than on Windows and any Linux-which-tries-to-be-windows. Get with the future, shitbag, anyone who uses widescreen prefers it.

>>15
I'm not worried about the Illuminati taking over the world with my computer.  I'm worried about the Illuminati taking over MY COMPUTER.  The world can die, but I want my data to survive.  And not be raped by external entites with DRM-agendas.

>>19 sucks Bill gates cock and enjoys it

>>21
interesting that he is sucking Bill Gates off when he is telling you you're stupid for xenophobing out at Captain Crunch's hardware

>>19
I especially love when I play my video games that aren't made for widescreen on a widescreen monitor. I mean, it's just totally awesome how they get stretched out.

>>23

I have a widescreen laptop and I play 1024x786 games on it all the time. It doesnt stretch them out at all. If its a Mac you have, it must be a mac problem, cuz my Acer doesn't do it. And besides, all the newer games are starting to integrate widescreen support. So stop your bitchin.

>>20
Intriguingly, TPM has nothing to do with your data, it's just a quick hardware check when OS X boots. I suppose you could make the argument HFS+ is a proprietary filesystem, FileVault is based on proprietary .dmg format, but man what the fuck? Who cares? Go write your 4chan posts on stone tablets or something.

>>23\24
It is true that some old PC games enforce 4:3, and this is truer of OS X ports of such games for some reason. Nowadays this doesn't matter much - apart from Starcraft or something there's nothing worth playing I can think of that isn't happy with widescreen. And the shit OS X ports mean nothing anymore as you can use Boot Camp to get full DirectX performance and no Rosetta bullshit etc. Intel Macs > all.

Graphics! Fuck you all.  MDA FTW.