Laptop vs PC

Marty_J

Those are all pretty intensive tasks though.

I do agree that people should generally get as much RAM as they can, but with regards to the OP, it's not simply a question of buying more RAM; the MacBook is almost twice as expensive as the Mac Mini. Whether that would be worth it for day-to-day vanilla computer use is really a matter for them to decide.

Scout

If you just want a new tower, go and find a local shop who will make you up what you want. I've just been into town as I need a new desktop and I can get a Dual core, 2gb, 250GB hard drive tower with a decent graphics and sound card for what I need, with the usual dvd rewriter, USB ports etc etc and Vista installed for £245 incl.

I need a new monitor etc so I will pay just over £400, which I think is OK, as having bought an off-the-shelf one from PC World previously, I'm never going down that route again!!

Leopard

Marty,

My point was that the Mac mini can address only 2 GB of RAM which is already looking somewhat parlous and this situation can only get worse.

A Macbook, however, can address 4 GB of RAM (and is also more powerful, more convenient and comes with a screen of its own). As such, it will remain viable for longer; so, although more expensive to buy it's a wiser investment in the relentless battle against computer obsolescence.

I was going to buy a Mac mini (Intel) myself, on eBay, to power a 23" monitor that is currently hosted by my beloved (1.2 GHz) Cube in a back bedroom. It wasn't the 2 GHz CPU that ultimately put me off that idea, though, it was the fact that a Mac mini can only address 2 GB of RAM.

So, it seemed wiser to go in search of a MacBook instead.

(In the end, I wound up with a second MacBook Pro, but that's another story - one you've read in another thread! )

The reason my 1 GHz Titanium Powerbook will shortly have to go back on eBay (where 5 years ago I originally found it) is not its CPU power but the fact it can only address 1 GB of RAM. It can, and indeed does, run OS 10.5.4 but only by deploying Virtual Memory to a degree that has become impractical.

My concern is that the OP does not invest in something that is cheaper but which proves to be a less economic investment in the long run.

Marty_J

You have some valid concerns, but don't forget the Mac Mini is long overdue for an update; I would be very surprised if the maximum amount of RAM it could address didn't increase in the next revision. And for the price one would pay for a MacBook, one could buy a Mac Mini now, and buy another one in a few years.

Surely that would be more "future proof"?

Leopard

Ultimately, it's going to come down to what type of computer - laptop or desktop - the OP prefers for his/her own situation and needs.

OP will likely buy a Windows machine anyway, so the Mac debate is probably academic.

What I hope we've all been able to do is answer the OP's original question posed as to whether a modern laptop is just as viable for most applications as a desktop - be it PC or Mac.

My arguments in regard to RAM are just as relevant to either platform, now that Apple has gone Intel.

My concern has only been that OP does not buy a computer that can't cut it in a couple of years' time because it can't address enough RAM.

I hope that all the various views expressed here by many people with different perspectives and philosophies on computers have helped OP decide which is the best way to go - personally and financially.

Millionaire

Leopard - I understand what you are saying and knew that anyway(worked in IT for years and also have a degree in it) but it is irrelevant to the OP as he's wants to use it for "Will be using for internet, a couple of downloads and photos"

You will hardly see any performance gains for this from 1gb to 4gb on a Mac. Maybe in Vista 2GB min ideal.

All your examples are for "i reserched this" are for intensive tasks which the OP will not be using it for.
A Mac with 1GB on OS X Leopard is nothing like driving a car in first gear.

My Mac flies through all the basic tasks the OP is going on about. Ive montiored ram usage on it as well and for basic tasks it just does not use it up. 600-700mb ram usage when in use.

Maybe you use more intensive programs than I thus the reason 1GB is not enough for you.

Sticking 3-4gb ram is only relevant currently for high end tasks. Total overkill.

If the OP said I want it for gaming or CS3 photoshop or other intensive tasks I would agree with what you are saying.

Millionaire

[quote=Leopard;12449027]

So, in point of fact - and in total contradiction of Millionaire's assertion that I was wrong and that there's no point in upgrading from 2 GB of 3 GB of RAM - it's currently the step up from 2GB to 3GB of RAM that gives the most spectacular improvement in performance.[/quote]

You are wrong. You dont need or will see huge performance gains with 3gb Ram to browse the internet and do downloads or store photos/view photos.

rancid-a

Getting back to Ashleyrossuk's thread..

You mentioned saving a bit of space, perhaps consider a Shuttle PC
example website:
http://www.ambros.co.uk/builds/1196/shuttle-sn68ptg5-amd-am2-system.html

A few customisable options, nothing too complex.. choice of monitor, extras etc..

Personally, I couldn't recommend a laptop, I bought one six weeks back for Photoshop/retouching work, regretted it and had to flog it via Amazon. It's 18" TFT was laughably small and totally unsuitable for design/photo work.

Leopard

rancid-a wrote: »

Personally, I couldn't recommend a laptop, I bought one six weeks back for Photoshop/retouching work, regretted it and had to flog it via Amazon. It's 18" TFT was laughably small and totally unsuitable for design/photo work.[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]

You miss the point. A decent laptop can not only support a 23" (or even 30") external monitor but its own display can, in addition, provide a screen upon which to display the working palette for the image upon which you wish to work on the large external screen.

Millionaire wrote: »

Leopard - I understand what you are saying and knew that anyway(worked in IT for years and also have a degree in it) but it is irrelevant to the OP as he's wants to use it for "Will be using for internet, a couple of downloads and photos"

You will hardly see any performance gains for this from 1gb to 4gb on a Mac. Maybe in Vista 2GB min ideal.

All your examples are for "i reserched this" are for intensive tasks which the OP will not be using it for.
A Mac with 1GB on OS X Leopard is nothing like driving a car in first gear.

My Mac flies through all the basic tasks the OP is going on about. Ive montiored ram usage on it as well and for basic tasks it just does not use it up. 600-700mb ram usage when in use.

Maybe you use more intensive programs than I thus the reason 1GB is not enough for you.

Sticking 3-4gb ram is only relevant currently for high end tasks. Total overkill.

If the OP said I want it for gaming or CS3 photoshop or other intensive tasks I would agree with what you are saying.

Millionaire wrote: »

You are wrong. You dont need or will see huge performance gains with 3gb Ram to browse the internet and do downloads or store photos/view photos.

Whatever organisation you may have found which issues degrees to chronic illiterates will not alter the blunt fact that an Apple MacBook Pro will use most of 2 GB of RAM just to run OS 10.5.4 plus Safari, Mail and an RSS browser. If you then wish to run iPhoto and/or Aperture and/or Photoshop, Word and/or Pages, Excel and/or Numbers - plus MobileMe synching, Time Machine and iTunes in the background, you'll use up most of 4 GB of RAM.

Yes, you can do all that on 2 GB of RAM; but only by means of Virtual Memory - which slows things down, runs the hard drive, generates heat and runs the fan. If you're doing that on battery power it greatly shortens the operating time before it runs out of juice.

I don't need an ill-informed lecture on it. I have two, identical, 2.4 GHz MacBook Pros of the same generation. One has 4 GB of RAM in it; the other came to me with 1 GB of RAM and now (until I upgrade that to 4 GB as well, next week) has 2 GB of RAM in it.

I have run exactly the same tasks with 1 GB, 2 GB and 4 GB of RAM. I know what I have seen with my own eyes.

With 4 GB of RAM things run fast, cool and quiet. With 2 GB of RAM they run slower, hotter and busier. With 1 GB of RAM the thing works its heart out.

You can assert whatever you like, but 4 GB of RAM will be going into my second MacBook Pro next week at the very modest cost of £68 from Kingston.

If you wish to handicap yourself and your Mac by running it on 2 GB of RAM in order to avoid spending £68 until you're finally forced to, that is your privilege.

Most "Millionaire's" aren't so parsimonious. I'm not (yet) a millionaire myself but I know what is money well spent and what is self-defeating miserliness.

Millionaire

Leopard wrote: »

Whatever organisation you may have found which issues degrees to chronic illiterates

:rotfl:Making personal attacks tells me more about you and your inability to respectfully have someone disagree with you.

Leopard wrote: »

I don't need an ill-informed lecture on it.

Coming from someone who's last 3 posts have lectured me on technicalities that I already understand and I was just pointing out from your 1st lecture, I do understand what your saying as I have experience in the field, but it is not relevant for the OP in this case. Obviously that is my opinion:rolleyes:.

Leopard wrote: »

Most "Millionaire's" aren't so parsimonious. I'm not (yet) a millionaire myself but I know what is money well spent and what is self-defeating miserliness.

Again another pointless little personal attack. Don't throw the dummy out this is a forum for discussion and opinions whether they agree or disagree with yours.

I disagree, as I don't think its relevant for the OP and what they require it for. The OP can make his/her own choice. Ciao!