Still thinking of getting a Mac. One of my big issues has been laptop (convenience) vs Imac (more bang for the buck).
The only real need for a laptop is for about 3 weeks a year when I go on vacation, but I'd really hate to give that up. On the other hand, I kinda think I'd like the separate graphics and, for a laptop, that means the Pro and if that were my choice, I might be tempted to go with the middle level ($2500).
Well, the guy at the store gave me an idea I hadn't thought about before and I thought I'd get other opinions on it. He suggested that instead of getting the $2500 macbook pro that I should get the cheapest macbook and the cheapest imac. The total cost would be $2300 (save $200) and I'd have two computers! Also means I'd have my important stuff on both for another backup. Depending on exactly when I did the purchasing, I could also benefit from getting better stuff on one.
That is, if I bought shortly after my next vacation, I'd probably buy the Imac then, almost a year later in time for my next vacation, I could get the laptop with whatever improvements they made in that time.
If the timing was such that I'd need the laptop first, I'd probably get the middle level macbook (have to have the ability to write DVDs - I miss that on my PC laptop).
So, what are your opinions and, other than portability, would the middle level macbook pro have over the bottom imac? How about compared to the next best imac (I may be tempted to go for the faster processor and better graphics even though it would bring the total to $2600 for both computers).
Also, since this is all still in the planning stage, have there been any rumors about Mac laptops or desktops coming with blue-ray read/write drives or any other notable improvements I should watch for? Right now I'm guessing I'll want to buy something within the next 12 months.
You are facing a common dilema...and it is not just for Macs. Desktop computers ALWAYS have more bang for the buck than laptops. It is just a fact of life. Desktop components cost less that laptop components...it is more expensive to cram all that stuff into a smaller, portable package than it is into the more spacious room of a desktop computer. Not to mention you can have larger screens when you don't have to lug stuff around.
As to your general question, it is a perfectly viable option to consider. It is the path that many people take...have a desktop as the "primary" computer but then get a laptop as a second computer. That is to some degree how I operate. My laptop is kind of like my secondary computer for travel (I also use it to take into the office as I largely work from home).
As to your specific question about the mid level MacBook Pro vs. the bottom level iMac, the main thing the MacBook Pro would have over the iMac is portability and a battery. The battery means that it will operate (for a while at least) if your power goes out. Of course, you could get an APS to use with the iMac that would somewhat "level" that playing field (note completely, but somewhat). It will also have more video memory as the bottom line iMac only has 128 MB of VRAM while the mid-level MBP has 256 MB. Depending on what you will do with it, it may not really matter. The mid-level MBP also has a faster processor, but unless your doing a lot of video encoding or such, you likely will not really notice it. The definite advantage of the iMac is the bigger screen and the ability to get a much larger hard drive (if you build to order...other wise it is the same size).
As to rumors and forthcoming improvements, don't bother. Apple is EXTREMELY secretive about their upcoming products. Any rumor that you might hear is likely to have a 50% or more chance of being incorrect. If you do want to use this type of speculative thing, then feel free to check out the
MacRumors.com Buyer's Guide. It give recommendations on wait/buy based upon when updates to Apple products were last done. At the moment, there are saying "wait" on an iMac since it was last updated last August and "buy" on the MacBook as it was just updated in the last month or so.
One thing to factor in is the added hassle and potential items that you might have to get in order to keep data synced between the two computers. I am not saying that it cannot be done, nor that it will necessarily be hard. I am merely making sure that you keep in mind and factor it into your decision. If you want it to be easy, then it will cost some addition money (you could use a .Mac account for example). If you want it cheap, then it might be a little bit more of a pain in the rear (i.e. the brute force method of just copying data across an ethernet cable between the two or by Firewire target disk mode...not hard, but then not really "automated" either). And don't forget that you might be forced to buy two licenses of some software if you want to use them on both computers (something like Office, you can get the Home & Student edition which allows you to install on up to three computers, but others won't be as flexible and might even have activation that would physically prevent you from installing on a second computer even if you wanted to try).
Overall, I don't see an issue with going the two computer route. Just make sure that you factor in all that costs...both actual and non-monetary.
[soapbox] Backup good...no backup bad!! [/soap box]
