Solved! Macbook Pro Specs for editing?

[enarchay]

I personally prefer to use desktops, but since I'm transferring to NYU this summer, I don't want to lug my desktop right away, and I also want a laptop for taking notes and the increased freedom and mobility.

However, I'm having a hard time deciding between the 15" and 17" models. I was originally planning to get the 15" for a balance between size and power, but a few people recommended I go for the 17" due to increased expandability and cheaper external HDD options (which will be a must). Even so, I'm not sure how crazy I should go when making the purchase. There are options for 2.0, 2.2, or 2.3 GHz; 4GB or 8GB RAM; 750GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm, 500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm, 128GB Solid State Drive, 256GB Solid State Drive, or 512GB Solid State Drive; glossy or antiglare screen; and so on.

I'm trying to stay as close to (or under) $2000 as possible (I should get a $200 student discount), and I'm not sure what specs to select.

I plan to use the laptop as my primary editing unit for Final Cut Pro, but again, I'm also looking for an all-around college laptop.

What would you guys recommend?

 

[enarchay]

idk if you saw the link that i posted but regardless that laptop will beat the MBP in processing and in gaming. basically anything you do it will be faster in or comparable to the MBP.

define "a better laptop"?

Wait, I don't see a link. I scrolled through the thread and didn't notice it. Am I missing the obvious?

 

[halcyon]

Also, maybe you guys could speak to the Thunderbolt capability? While the 17" screen is certainly a plus (for having more room to edit and getting a more accurate picture of video files), the main advantage of the 17" seems to be the expandability. But if Thunderbolt will change the landscape, maybe the 15" is a better option.

Really, unless someone recommends me a better laptop (because I know: I can build an amazing Desktop for cheap; I've done it before), it comes down to the 15" vs. the 17".

I think Thunderbolt has the potential to be a game changer but until we start really seeing some peripherals for it its all hype. ...and if I were dependent on high-speed external storage I'm not sure I'd lean on ThunderBolt...there's no drives for it. I'm sure there will be but its still an unknown.

Unless you're considering the 1680x1050 screen on the MBP 15" (which I'm using myself) the 17" screen is much nicer, IMHO. 1920x1200 is a great resolution with plenty, I mean plenty of screen real estate. The high ppi (pixels per inch) also make for a really nice looking screen on the 17" screen...really sharp text.

 

[halcyon]

Wait, I don't see a link. I scrolled through the thread and didn't notice it. Am I missing the obvious?

http/www.xoticpc.com/sager-np8150-clevo-p150hm-p-2972.html?wconfigure=yes

...there ya go.

 

[cbrunnem]

Wait, I don't see a link. I scrolled through the thread and didn't notice it. Am I missing the obvious?

no your not. i accidently pasted within a quoted post... but since your like the OSx then a MBP is prolly what you should get.

 

[Maziar]

By the way, Maziar, can you speak to the differences between the 15" and 17"? The main reason to get the 17" seems to be the options for external HDDs, but someone else told me Thunderbolt may make this unnecessary. Do you know anything about this?

Both 15" and 17" MBPs support external HDDs.The main difference between them is the screen resolution;furthermore,17" runs cooler

 

[enarchay]

Both 15" and 17" MBPs support external HDDs.The main difference between them is the screen resolution;furthermore,17" runs cooler

I heard that for video editing, it would be a bad idea to write to an external HDD connected by USB. Yet, I don't think the 15" allows for eSata connection. That's what I'm worried about primarily.

 

[Maziar]

Then get the 17" You also get more room to work with

 

[halcyon]

Then get the 17" You also get more room to work with

Agreed! Again, I've auditioned the latest 17"...both the 2.2Ghz Glossy and the 2.3Ghz anti-glare. The 2.2Ghz is all you need and the Express Card slot is going to give you those expansion choices...everything from USB 3.0 to eSATA. Given what the OP has written, I think this would fit nicely.

 

[r3xx3r]

I looked at the Sager again, ...after I configured it with a 2920XM, 500GB 7K RPM drive, it cost more than my MBP. It specs nicely though...but I'm not familiar with Sager and again, I'm preferring OS X right now...I run Windows when I miss/need it.

your wrong. the processor you chose for the sager is better than the processor in the macbook (at least as far as the website goes now). i spec'd both out,

I went with rhe 15" MBP just so the screen size would be the same, with the 17" MBP vs the 15.6" Sager there was a $700+ difference, which doesnt really account for an extra 1.4" but w/e)

2.3GHz Intel Core i7-2820QM

8GB DDR3 1333MHz

256GB SSD on the macbook / 250GB SSD on the Sager (as close as i could get, but basically the same)

and a Geforce GTX 580M on the Sager (just to prove a point)

and the Sager was $472 cheaper, and way faster (due to the video card)

 

[Jglitch]

OP im in the same position as you really trying to decide between the two either the 15" anti-glare hi-res or 17" inch anti-glare hi res. I really think the best thing I would do is go look at the models for yourself in the store. The 15" hi res is great, but for me I am 95% sure i will be going with the 17" for more screen real estate. Besides you have a return period window so I would purchase the either one and if you feel its too small or too big screen depending on which you purchase, go back and get the other one. I know everyone says to just install the extra 4 gigs of ram yourself, I myself will be paying the extra $200 just having a piece of mind if some rare thing did go wrong when adding more ram (yes i know its easy, i just don't feel like risking it on an expensive machine). As for the HD i am going to get the 500GB with the faster speed, and hopefully when SSD's go down in price replace it with one. Everyone seems to recommend sagers and asus' as great laptops which they are, but i think the issue for me at least comes down to battery life, neither of those two companies can compare in my opinion.

However, most configurations will be topping $2000 especially if you buy apple care

 

[halcyon]

your wrong. the processor you chose for the sager is better than the processor in the macbook (at least as far as the website goes now). i spec'd both out,

I went with rhe 15" MBP just so the screen size would be the same, with the 17" MBP vs the 15.6" Sager there was a $700+ difference, which doesnt really account for an extra 1.4" but w/e)

2.3GHz Intel Core i7-2820QM

8GB DDR3 1333MHz

256GB SSD on the macbook / 250GB SSD on the Sager (as close as i could get, but basically the same)

and a Geforce GTX 580M on the Sager (just to prove a point)

and the Sager was $472 cheaper, and way faster (due to the video card)

I had spec'd the higher end processor intentionally as part of an earlier discussion. When I spec'd the Sager similiarly with mine (as purchased, not as upgraded) the sager is cheaper and the graphics card in it is faster. The way I spec'd the Sager it came out to $2,309. ...and it has 2x the RAM as the MBP. I'm not a gamer so I'm not sure what the faster graphics card would do for me. Heck, the Sager may even have 2x the battery life, be thinner, and be 1lb lighter and have a LCD that is more accurate. Its clearly the hands down better machine. Next time...maybe I'll get one.

...but I'm not arguing that you can't get a cheaper Windows machine that performs the same or better than a Mac. ...and if you want something even more economical you can get Ubunto.

 

[halcyon]

OP im in the same position as you really trying to decide between the two either the 15" anti-glare hi-res or 17" inch anti-glare hi res. I really think the best thing I would do is go look at the models for yourself in the store. The 15" hi res is great, but for me I am 95% sure i will be going with the 17" for more screen real estate. Besides you have a return period window so I would purchase the either one and if you feel its too small or too big screen depending on which you purchase, go back and get the other one. I know everyone says to just install the extra 4 gigs of ram yourself, I myself will be paying the extra $200 just having a piece of mind if some rare thing did go wrong when adding more ram (yes i know its easy, i just don't feel like risking it on an expensive machine). As for the HD i am going to get the 500GB with the faster speed, and hopefully when SSD's go down in price replace it with one. Everyone seems to recommend sagers and asus' as great laptops which they are, but i think the issue for me at least comes down to battery life, neither of those two companies can compare in my opinion.

However, most configurations will be topping $2000 especially if you buy apple care

Please don't buy the RAM from Apple. If you want to throw away $200 send it to me. Send me a PM and we'll work out payment (I do have a PayPal acct.) Other World Computing's RAM is well tested and I've purchased 3 kits for 3 different Macs and have never had any issues.

 

[r3xx3r]

Please don't buy the RAM from Apple. If you want to throw away $200 send it to me. Send me a PM and we'll work out payment (I do have a PayPal acct.) Other World Computing's RAM is well tested and I've purchased 3 kits for 3 different Macs and have never had any issues.

dont even bother with that site. just go to newegg and buy this apple kit:

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226167

you save $20 and shipping is free

 

[enarchay]

I had spec'd the higher end processor intentionally as part of an earlier discussion. When I spec'd the Sager similiarly with mine (as purchased, not as upgraded) the sager is cheaper and the graphics card in it is faster. The way I spec'd the Sager it came out to $2,309. ...and it has 2x the RAM as the MBP. I'm not a gamer so I'm not sure what the faster graphics card would do for me. Heck, the Sager may even have 2x the battery life, be thinner, and be 1lb lighter and have a LCD that is more accurate. Its clearly the hands down better machine. Next time...maybe I'll get one.

...but I'm not arguing that you can't get a cheaper Windows machine that performs the same or better than a Mac. ...and if you want something even more economical you can get Ubunto.

Does anyone have any links to reviews or info on this alternative laptop? I've never heard of it, and I don't feel comfortable buying a brand I've never heard of.

 

[r3xx3r]

no, and i wouldnt buy that one. i would buy the asus g series of laptops. they are great, come in both 15" and 17" laptops.

 

[cbrunnem]

yeah mac is a little behind with USB 3.0 it seems.

regarding battery life. i can stretch five hours out of my 15 inch i7 2630qm nvidia gt 540m while browsing the internet. it only has a 48wh battery compared to the MBP 17 in 98wh battery. something is fishy there since macs are supposedly the best on batteries? maybe its just cause they shove huge batteries in them. my laptop gets more time from 1wh then the MBP(5 minutes per to 4.375 minutes per). just dug that up doing a little research and was very surprised

 

[cbrunnem]

the 15 inch has a 78wh battery too

 

[Jglitch]

In all honesty I'd rather pay the premium of having the ram installed by apple, to save myself a little time and so my machine is ready to go as soon as i get it without having to do anything. Basically i just consider it a convenience fee added on top of the price the ram would actually cost.

 

[cbrunnem]

the sager? its a highly respected custom laptop dealer. their customer support is said to be one of the best in the country. i dont know that first hand but that is what everyone on here says. if you were to buy from them, you would not face anymore problems then you would with a MBP

 

[r3xx3r]

a $120 convenience fee. that is pretty ridiculous.