[KBeat]

[quote name='Jason Snell']
>

KBeat said:

> So why does the MacBook have a "Good" expandability rating while the MacBook Pro gets a "Fair" expandability rating? Am I missing something?

The MacBook's hard drive is the most easily accessible drive in any Mac. So it's incredibly easy to swap drives (and install RAM).

However, the MacBook Pro has a card slot, so you may have caught us!

Jason,

It was the card slot that I had in mind when I wrote that comment, but that's a good point about the hard drive. Upgrading the hard drive in my MacBook Pro was a pain.

[iron_chef]

It entirely depends on what kind of "pro" you are.
Some Pros still rely on video codec cards, especially for HD video production and audio work. SATA RAID isn't possible on an iMac and the RAM expansion is paltry.
Arguably a graphic designer pro maybe content with an iMac for everyday production work. For a video pro...the workstation is still the expandable way to go.

[jawporta]

PRO users doesn't have to buy a Mac Pro? I have to dispute this and I wish I didn't have too. There's 3 main reasons why you should just buy the Mac Pro

1. iMac is fast enough but you are stuck with the crappy GLASS, GLOSSY screen. NO CHOICE! Thanks Apple.
2. Laptops last 3 years tops before Apple/Adobe updates their software which no longer works on your "Still in warranty" computer.
3. You will probably get 5 years out of the Mac Pro since you could add (7200) 750GB HD's to is, you could also speed up the Graphics card, two things you can't do in a laptop. So add two more years of life to the Mac Pro and then see if it's worth the extra cash.

I'll never buy a PowerBook/MacBook Pro again, Desktop all the way.

[jawporta]

True, but how can you work with a screen that is reflecting everything under the sun? I could see the over head lights, my face, glare, ext. It's the worst thing Apple has ever done, my choices for a computer is slim and expensive. They are almost forcing Pro to spend more money.

I never thought I be the one bashing Apple but I think they jumped the shark. To bad there's not an alternative. I'm starting to feel the pain of Apple controlling the OS and CPU. Maybe they'll get so big that there will be an anti trust suit agents them for Monopolizing OSX. One can only hope.

[lantzn]

Plus your "old" Mac Pro can become an external RAID device for your new iMac 24" You might also be able to use Apple's optical drive utility to "borrow" those MP super and CD drives (I wonder). :)

[trip1ex]

Just buy a 2nd monitor and put it in front of your alum iMac. :) You'll hardly notice. You'll even still be able to plug peripherals into the back.

I like my glossy screen. Reflections smections.

[lantzn]

@adobephile

Sounds like you and your wife ended up with a nice set of dual monitor workstations. By the way those are mini-DVI to DVI adapter.

I to own a 23" Cinema Display and 17" Studio Display with the clear plastic frames. The colors between them were off quite a bit. I bought a Spyder 2 Express (for dual monitors) to calibrate them and they now match perfectly! The devices software gives you reminders to calibrate again every few months. It was money well spent.

http://spyder.dataco...duct-mc-s2e.php
http://spyder.dataco...ct-mc-s3pro.php

[128k]

I agree- this was just a fluff piece. The Mac Pro is a lot more suited to general use than the article states. IMO it's the best all around desktop in the lineup. - In the real world unless you just check email and surf the web you need a mac pro. Even entry level and junior designers want to run several applications concurrently;laptops and their vertical brethren iMacs are limited by ram and storage options and are not "fast enough" by a long shot, unless of course you like to watch beach balls. The notion that the only reason to buy a mac pro is for card expansion is ludicrous. You need more than 4 gigs of ram, more along the lines of 8 as a minimum (though I think a 2 per core 16g works just dandy) with PS IL and DW open not to mention safari a mail client and office.

Secondly, anyone save a home email user that wants a decent display option needs a mac pro- The displays in the new imacs are junk. Just having the option is worth the price of entry. The notion that a slow laptop is "more than enough" since you can add peripherals is also luny- Even a firewire 800 or e-sata drive is not nearly as fast or stable as an internal drive and external peripherals are in my opinion far easier subjects for data loss and desktop accidents not to mention desktop clutter- You can add or swap up to 4 internal drives in minutes on the mac pro and that's just the vanilla non-raid configuration.

I have several recent and previous gen mac pros configured for junior designers, AD's and several "maxed out" with color edge displays for hard core production along with several current 15 and 17 macbook pros; they are very different beasts
with the macbook pros not even a close second in terms of performance. I've had to use
the macbook pro on long-term on client sites several times- It's painful...I now bite the bullet and ship a mac pro and display to sites when needed. Perhaps if they positioned the mac Pro down-market a bit and sold more Mac Pros, the need and justification for a decent mid range non AIO option would emerge...

[moose_n_squirrel]

128k said:

In the real world unless you just check email and surf the web you need a mac pro...Secondly, anyone save a home email user that wants a decent display option needs a mac pro...Just having the option is worth the price of entry.

Just having the option? Then in that case, can't you just get an iMac and stick a nice external display on it, since every Mac except the mini now supports at least one external display? Then you get a nicer two-monitor setup. To say that every user above your basic web-surfer/emailer needs a Mac Pro seems a little unrealistic. I get it about going above 4GB of RAM, but every Mac except the mini does have the option of attaching a different, better monitor. Unless you don't like the video card.

Despite my defense of the iMac, I don't like the iMac, have never bought one, and prefer my Mac Pro. But it just isn't true that having an iMac locks you out of display options.

[128k]

I hear ya on the display and agree that I was a bit hyperbolic on the user level.. But I've tried them and they just don't cut it. As far as the display goes to me that's sort of like buying a cheaper new car with a weak engine when you know you need more power to tow something, then spending extra money on a new engine; when you could have ordered a car with the engine you need from the factory for a bit more from the onset; but, I'm just kind of a stickler when it comes to mismatched dual displays (glossy and matt i.e.) and the imac graphic chips are historically weak and limited in resolution to the native screen- I've always like the notion of a really souped up mini- something really fast with a really small footprint and small form factor graphics daughter card and a e-sata connector

[technolawyer]

Thank you for the article, but I'd like to point out an inconsistency. Early in the article you say that the iMac has fewer cables than a Mac Pro. But then a few paragraphs later, you say that you can expand an iMac through external peripherals. Sure, but then you end up with more cables than a Mac Pro!
CPTKiller said what needed to be said -- Apple has 3 laptop models, but only 2 desktop models. There is a hole in its product lineup.
I agree that most people don't need extra video cards, eSata ports, and the like. But just think about all the people who do buy external hard drives. And all those USB or Firewire cables. I think most people would prefer to have those extra hard drives inside the computer. No messy cables. No noisy fans.
Forget the mini tower. Apple could use the existing Mac Pro case with a lesser processor and sell it for $1,500.

[Jon Seff]

technolawyer said:

Thank you for the article, but I'd like to point out an inconsistency. Early in the article you say that the iMac has fewer cables than a Mac Pro. But then a few paragraphs later, you say that you can expand an iMac through external peripherals. Sure, but then you end up with more cables than a Mac Pro!

CPTKiller said what needed to be said -- Apple has 3 laptop models, but only 2 desktop models. There is a hole in its product lineup.

I agree that most people don't need extra video cards, eSata ports, and the like. But just think about all the people who do buy external hard drives. And all those USB or Firewire cables. I think most people would prefer to have those extra hard drives inside the computer. No messy cables. No noisy fans.

Forget the mini tower. Apple could use the existing Mac Pro case with a lesser processor and sell it for $1,500.

Not having to have a cable to the display and a power cord connect to it is fewer cables. Even Mac Pro users use external storage. I don't see that as an inconsistency.

And Apple has three desktop models, not two.

[n8mac]

hayesk said:

I don't buy that at all. Sure there is a group that want a mini tower, but let's face it, it's a very small group. Too small for even Apple to pursue. People who post on MacWorld and other forums are a self-selecting group of keen power users that aren't necessarily representative of the Mac-buying public at large.

I also think it's funny that you think Apple should "THINK DIFFERENT" and produce a mini tower - isn't that's what every PC manufacturer does - sell minitowers?

Think about what you are saying. You stated that those who want a mini tower are a small group. You then state that that's what every other PC manufacturer sells. Have you seen the sales numbers of those other manufacturer's vs. Apples?

Should we all just give up on a tried and true formula just because we are Mac users? I bet you many a PC user wanting to switch to OS X has stopped in their tracks when they found they couldn't purchase a computer like they already owned.

Besides, just because a mini tower would contain 1 processor, 4 ram slots, 2 PCI slots, and 2 HD slots, doesn't mean it would look just like all those wintel machines. Ives can do anything he wants. Use your imagination.

Regarding using an iMac/Macbook Pro for two screens vs. a Mac Pro. Remember that when using two screens on a AIO both screens share the same non-replaceable graphics card, very limiting especially down the road. Using a tower means each monitor gets it's own card.

[technolawyer]

Jon Seff said:

And Apple has three desktop models, not two.

I need a better word for desktop I guess. The iMac is an all-in-one and really a category unto itself. I was referring to computers without an integrated monitor.

Anyway, we're talking about the average consumer here. I can't think of a scenario in which the average consumer needs more than 4 hard drives, especially with today's capacities. So let's see -- an iMac with an external drive adds two cables (power cord and USB). A Mac Pro needs a monitor with two cables (power and DVI). When the iMac user needs a second external hard drive, he pulls ahead of the Mac Pro user in terms of the number of cables cluttering his workspace.

Also, some cables cause more clutter than other cables. External hard dives are some of the worst, especially the ones with power bricks. By contrast, monitor cables don't really get in the way.

Since 1999, I have used a PowerBook as my home and work computer. So that's where I'm coming from. But I've changed my mind of late. While it's great to have all your stuff on one computer, it's a pain to take it back and forth every day. Between synchronization services and file servers, two computers can almost seem like one nowadays. I just can't figure out which two I want. For years, it was easy -- new PowerBook every two years. Now I'm in a quandary so my November 2005 PowerBook continues to chug along while I ponder my options. Ideally, I'd like an iMac with matte screen at work and a cheap Mac Pro (or beefed up Mac mini or Mac mini tower) at home, but none of these products exist.