# MacBook vs. iMac



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

Before the update (Tuesday), I knew that the iMac was the better choice for me. But now that its been updated and its gotten cheaper, what would be better? I primarily use the computer for downloading some videos and watching them, burning the videos, homework (Word, Pages, PowerPoint), E-mail, MSN, and light web surfing. I saw that the MacBook caught my attention at the new specs.
iMac 24" 2.4GHz 320GB 3GB RAM
-$2000 (approx) (2GB ram seperately bought for approx 80)
MacBook 2.4GHz White 250GB 4GB RAM
-$1850 (approx)

So what would be the differences?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

The iMac will still outperform the MacBook in almost (if not all) aspects. More RAM (higher RAM capacity), dedicated video memory, faster/bigger hard drive. Which one you choose will depend on your need of portability. If you don't need the portability, get the iMac.


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

Well. I dont really need the hard drive. Im probably gonna get an external one anyway. Well, the portability doesn't matter because I dont need it. But the price does. THe only main differences to me are the price and the video/graphics card(s). And what do you mean the iMac will have more RAM? Both can support upto 4GB.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

In addition to what Lars said, you're also getting a massive, good quality, 24" monitor.

If price is an issue, get a 2.4" 20" iMac. Same specs, smaller screen... $1599 price point.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

I would not be as strenuous as Lars in stating that the iMac will outperform the MacBook. It is indeed a faster Mac, but for the uses you mention it seems unlikely you will notice much difference. Have a look at the links below - they allow you to compare speeds on some common applications. These tests are limited and are not defining, but they do offer some indications.

The price difference would allow you to get say, an external drive and keep the overall price low.

If you need more screen space, save up and get a nice external monitor and attach it to the MacBook - then you get a huge screen and portability.

My bottom line is that both offer outstanding value and power, and you won't regret either purchase.

Macworld | Mac Product Guide: 20-inch iMac Core 2 Duo/2GHz

Macworld | Mac Product Guide: 13-inch MacBook/2.2GHz (white)


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

I'm happy with my 20" iMac, but if I had to do it all over again, I'd go MacBook with third party monitor.

Mainly for portability and flexibility of monitor choices. For the type of usage you've mentioned, the speed difference really isn't that great. 

But ultimately, I think it boils down to whether or not you need the portability or not.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> The iMac will still outperform the MacBook in almost (if not all) aspects. More RAM (higher RAM capacity), dedicated video memory, faster/bigger hard drive. Which one you choose will depend on your need of portability. If you don't need the portability, get the iMac.



On the graphics side this in no longer true. When you compare a 20" iMac to the new Macbook Pro. The video memory is dedicated in both cases and you have a 512MB processor option with the Macbook Pro and the highest you can go with the 20" iMac is 256MB.

15-inch MacBook Pro

NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics processor with dual-link DVI support; 256MB of GDDR3 memory on 2.4GHz configuration; 512MB of GDDR3 memory on 2.5GHz and 2.6GHz configurations

20-inch model with 2.4GHz processor and 24-inch model

* ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO graphics processor
* 256MB of GDDR3 memory

Also not true with the processor on the 20" iMac, it maxs out at 2.4 GHz while Macbook Pro maxs out at 2.6

Also Max Ram is the same at 4GB, so all in all Lars you need to check out the latest specs on the new Macbook Pro.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> On the graphics side this in no longer true. When you compare a 20" iMac to the new Macbook Pro. The video memory is dedicated in both cases and you have a 512MB processor option with the Macbook Pro and the highest you can go with the 20" iMac is 256MB.
> 
> 15-inch MacBook Pro
> 
> ...


Except the machine in question isn't a MacBook Pro, but rather a white MacBook.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> Except the machine in question isn't a MacBook Pro, but rather a white MacBook.


Me bad, sorry! I misread, apologies to Lars!


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

screature said:


> On the graphics side this in no longer true. When you compare a 20" iMac to the new Macbook Pro. The video memory is dedicated in both cases and you have a 512MB processor option with the Macbook Pro and the highest you can go with the 20" iMac is 256MB.
> 
> 15-inch MacBook Pro
> 
> ...


I thought I mentioned the price factor. Somewhere under $2000 before taxes. I don't need the portability. So is the only difference between the 20" 2.4GHz (1599) and the 24" 2.4GHz (1899) is that its 300 more and 4" bigger screen?


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

FlaminWiz said:


> I thought I mentioned the price factor. Somewhere under $2000 before taxes. I don't need the portability. So is the only difference between the 20" 2.4GHz (1599) and the 24" 2.4GHz (1899) is that its 300 more and 4" bigger screen?


That, plus the upgraded video card and the ability to mount it on a wall.


----------



## phuviano (Sep 14, 2005)

FlaminWiz said:


> is that its 300 more and 4" bigger screen?


Have you seen the 24's in person. 20 inch vs. 24 inch is a pretty big difference imo. Because its 4 inches bigger diagonally. So not only is it a wider screen, but also taller screen. Also the 24" has a higher resolution screen. 

imo, the imac over the macbook since you don't need the portability. 20 or 24 inch?? well that's up to you to decide. I'd go with the imac though.


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

I didnt know you could mount the imac.

I guess the iMac is better. 

I only mainly need performance though. But a decent screen.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Plus, if you don't need portability, you can set-up a Firewire drive for your back-up routines.

Much safer then failing to do so on a lappy.


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

I don't need the portability, besides, that would mean upgrading my router, which I'm sure I could do. But, are there any spec differences between the 20" 2.4GHz 1599 and the 24" 2.4GHz 1899?


----------

