Buying a Mac for School...

NLichtmanNLichtman Spring Valley, CA
edited December 2009 in Hardware
I'm buying a Macintosh laptop for school. I need something fast and powerful. I need it to be able to run 3 CS4 programs without lagging out, so I'm thinking 2GB of RAM or larger. I'd like it to have a lot of Hard Drive space, as well. I was doing a little research and found refurbished one's for a bit cheaper than the new, but I wanted to get some opinions on what it best. Any input would be wonderful.
«1345

Comments

  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    What's your budget?
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    get a 13inch macbook aluminum for $999 refurb
  • NLichtmanNLichtman Spring Valley, CA
    edited September 2009
    What's your budget?

    There is no set budget, but I'm trying to get the best for the cheapest.
  • ObsidianObsidian Michigan Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    Is there a reason it has to be a Mac? I don't want to sound too much like the M$ fanboy that I am, but there are some MUCH better deals on windows laptops.
  • NLichtmanNLichtman Spring Valley, CA
    edited September 2009
    Obsidian wrote:
    Is there a reason it has to be a Mac? I don't want to sound too much like the M$ fanboy that I am, but there are some MUCH better deals on windows laptops.

    Macintosh, by default is set to display in CMYK on all of their monitors. That's the #1 reason.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    That's not true at all.........
  • jaredjared College Station, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    LOL ^ what Prime said...

    I'm a full time Mac user, but that is simply just wrong.
  • airbornflghtairbornflght Houston, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    http://www.rgbworld.com/color.html

    Like the others have said you will get much better price/performance value with a pc. And there are also some very attractive looking thin laptops out and windows 7 took away any desire I had for OSX. And btw I would get 4GB of ram, the cost isn't that much more.

    If you still really want a mac, then def get a refurb.

    A word to the wise though, the only material difference between the platforms is the OS and the design. Low level hardware is all the same excepting Apple only uses the intel platform and not AMD.
  • NLichtmanNLichtman Spring Valley, CA
    edited September 2009
    That's not true at all.........

    What? Brian Sauriol lied to me again. Dangflabbit!

    I do think it would be better to get a Mac, because I'm going to be working with them for the rest of my life and I'd like to get used to them on my own time instead of while I'm working.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    What makes a mac a mac? OSX and a shiny coat of marketing paint. The guts these days are the same. What premium does OSX demand? That is up to you, but realistically you could buy a windows laptop that is far more powerful and have some cash leftover for the cheapest used mac mini to learn OSX on.

    Honestly, once people see how much leaner and better Windows 7 is, I have to wonder if it won't become the standard for content creation professionals. I resent that Apple won't allow you to buy a copy of OSX and stick it on whatever hardware you wish. Fact is that Mac OSX has been around longer than Windows XP, will it be there when you start work in a couple of years? Hard to say.
  • NLichtmanNLichtman Spring Valley, CA
    edited September 2009
    These are all excellent points. If I were to go with a Windows, what would you suggest?
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    checkmate wrote:
    These are all excellent points. If I were to go with a Windows, what would you suggest?

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834157020

    This will smoke that bottom end macbook for $200 less. Unless OSX is an absolute must have, the money is much better spent on a windows PC.
  • NLichtmanNLichtman Spring Valley, CA
    edited September 2009
    I would like to avoid Vista, if that's possible.
  • ObsidianObsidian Michigan Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    It's really not, at this point. Unless you're buying a really low end PC it's going to come with Vista. A lot of places are offering free upgrades to Windows 7 when it comes out though. I'm not sure if Newegg is participating.
  • NLichtmanNLichtman Spring Valley, CA
    edited September 2009
    Okay, I will have to think about it.
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    It's possible if you wait a month or so.
  • edited September 2009
    Honestly, once people see how much leaner and better Windows 7 is, I have to wonder if it won't become the standard for content creation professionals.
    Windows 7 is leaner? Ummm, yeah only when you compare with Vista. You don't use MacOS X, right? I have very recently upgraded two of my notebooks (2007 Macbook and Dell Vostra 1500) to Snow Leopard and Windows 7. I can say that Windows 7 is the best Windows so far but I can not say it is leaner or better than Mac OS. Snow Leopard is the best OS X so far, too.
    Fact is that Mac OSX has been around longer than Windows XP, will it be there when you start work in a couple of years?
    Mac OS X is the name of operating system just like Windows. Trying hard to fit in your narrow Windows perspective, 2001 release of Mac OS X 10.0 can be compared with Windows 2000, and 10.6 release with Windows 7. All of the Windows releases since Windows NT is based on NT kernel, just like Mac OS X has been on Mach kernel, with evolutionary improvements of course. See a very good review including a brief history of Mac OS X releases at Ars. Apparently, you have no interest or experience in Mac OS but at least it can help your uninformed comments.

    About the suggested notebook above, I would not buy an AMD notebook because they have significantly less battery life compared to Intel.
  • ObsidianObsidian Michigan Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    mirage wrote:
    About the suggested notebook above, I would not buy an AMD notebook because they have significantly less battery life compared to Intel.
    Kind of funny how you base your opinions on one test and then criticize Cliff for being narrow minded. The test was obviously biased. The writer couldn't praise Intel more and tested an Intel CPU worth $100 more against an AMD platform with a more powerful GPU. Arguing that Intel CPU's use less power is valid but basing the statement on that article seems pretty shady.
  • jaredjared College Station, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    Thank you mirage, for saving me from typing up a long reply.

    I love how anytime we get someone around here even remotely interested in buying a Mac the thread just gets shit on.

    I realize some of you think Macs are a rip-off, since apparently all we are playing for is OSX and a shiny coat of paint, but since you obviously don't use a Mac full time (or at all) please stick to talking about Windows.

    And if you really do want a Windows machine, almost all Dells purchased now come with a free Windows 7 upgrade next month....
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    If I did not play games, I would run OSX over Win7.

    If the guy wants a Mac, give advice on what Mac to get. Simple. Awesome. Carry On.
  • NLichtmanNLichtman Spring Valley, CA
    edited September 2009
    fatcat wrote:
    If I did not play games, I would run OSX over Win7.

    If the guy wants a Mac, give advice on what Mac to get. Simple. Awesome. Carry On.

    Thanks, fatcat. I like that. So, who knows mac and windows?
  • jaredjared College Station, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    I was a PC technician for over 6 years (and a big XP advocate) and then switched to Mac OSX full time over two years ago.

    I use OSX at work and my time at home is split between OSX and Windows 7.

    Myself, Fatcat, Buddy J, and some others are ones who actually have heavy hands on experience with both operating systems.

    It's always funny because people who use both OSes usually don't get caught up in this e-peen battle. Why? It's because we know its a matter of preference. Anyone who tells you differently is stupid.

    So, with that said, if you have any specific OSX questions don't hesitate to ask.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    I run a Hackintosh, so my experience may be different from others, but I agree - it's good for some things, just like Windows is good for some things. If it does what you want, who cares what brand is on it?

    I naturally won't be able to help with Mac hardware, but I and several others around here can help answer questions about OSX and 7.
  • NLichtmanNLichtman Spring Valley, CA
    edited September 2009
    jared wrote:
    I was a PC technician for over 6 years (and a big XP advocate) and then switched to Mac OSX full time over two years ago.

    I use OSX at work and my time at home is split between OSX and Windows 7.

    Myself, Fatcat, Buddy J, and some others are ones who actually have heavy hands on experience with both operating systems.

    It's always funny because people who use both OSes usually don't get caught up in this e-peen battle. Why? It's because we know its a matter of preference. Anyone who tells you differently is stupid.

    So, with that said, if you have any specific OSX questions don't hesitate to ask.

    Okay, thanks. My teacher told me that Mac is better because of the relation between the graphics card and the motherboard doesn't work the same way as a PC. He said that it inputs directly from the graphics card to the monitor. Is that true?
  • jaredjared College Station, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    Regretfully, your teacher is incorrect.

    Today's generation of Macs (Intel Macs) have virtually the same hardware/parts as PCs.

    This is why you can put Windows on the new Macs and (with some work) put OSX on a PC.
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    or OSX on a Netbook ;)

    are you wanting a iMac or macbook(pro)?

    4GB is minimum, since RAM is cheap

    avoid glossy screens

    apple refurb section is a great place to look

    Apple Refurbs
  • NiGHTSNiGHTS San Diego Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    FWIW, glossy screen is just as much a preference as Mac/PC, IMO. I tend to lean towards glossy simply because of the deeper and more vibrant colors they give off. I have a laptop and a desktop monitor with glossy screens and much prefer them over their matte counterparts.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited September 2009
    Obsidian wrote:
    Kind of funny how you base your opinions on one test and then criticize Cliff for being narrow minded. The test was obviously biased. The writer couldn't praise Intel more and tested an Intel CPU worth $100 more against an AMD platform with a more powerful GPU. Arguing that Intel CPU's use less power is valid but basing the statement on that article seems pretty shady.

    Exactly, comparing two different platforms with totally different GPU's, its not an apples to apples comparison.

    I have to think a content creation professional will want something with a decent discrete graphics card and he might trade some battery life to obtain it.

    Mirage, lets not flame here. Absolutely no need to call anyone here "uninformed". I've used OSX, I understand how it has been positioned as the OS of choice for the content creation pro, but I honestly don't think that will hold up past the release of Windows 7. The 7 advantage, better, more powerful hardware configurations for less cash. You can't say Apple isn't restrictive on how they box you in on hardware then command a serious premium for less hardware because they claim a position that their OS is just that much better. Windows 7 has done allot to close the gap on OSX and I think content creation professionals will start to migrate once they figure out they can buy more hardware for less and still have an operating environment that is totally stable for their demands.
  • NLichtmanNLichtman Spring Valley, CA
    edited September 2009
    Maybe I could just be win and Get an Alienware with awesome! Kidding, of course.
    So, what would I be giving up in terms of being able to do things with one or the other? What would I gain? Pros and cons sort of thing.
  • edited September 2009
    Exactly, comparing two different platforms with totally different GPU's, its not an apples to apples comparison.

    Not apples to apples for sure. AMD Turion mobile CPU is a 65 nm archaic architecture, while Intel mobile Core2 CPUs are 2 generations later architecture, 45nm. AMD Turion is a 65 nm mobile Athlon 64 which was trying to compete with Pentium M, later Core Duo, finally Core 2 Duo. And, you claim energy consumption is solely due to GPU difference? You know, people can get a Core 2 mobile notebook with a discrete GPU as well, including ATI. And, that is I would do and recommend.
Sign In or Register to comment.