Easy: buy whatever the cheapest laptop Apple sells, at any point in time. The 2ghz white Macbook is standard issue at our company; we use 'em like a chef uses a Global chef knife: software development, C code compilation, running Windows tools under VMWare, and running custom VM's for target software during analysis.

There's no feature of the Macbook Pro anyone on my team ever misses. The larger screen is a liability when traveling; at the office, you want a monitor anyways. You're almost never going to be CPU bound, and even if you were, the difference in processor performance is negligible.

Just get the cheapest Macbook and spend the rest of your money on more important things.

Pretty much.

Use the $$ you save to buy a big monitor, more ram (coastmemory.com is my fav for the last decade, don't buy from apple), or a better chair.

One caveat to this is that Apple frequently puts something at or near bottom of a range, particularly a new range, that is especially crippled. The first instance of this (Mac LC) is old enough to vote. Check out http://lowendmac.com/roadapples/worst.html to get a feel for it.

Things to look for in the order I personally prefer: maximum RAM capacity (prefer high), processor cache size (prefer large, generally), processor multiplier (prefer low), RAM speed (prefer high), processor clock speed (prefer high)

If you don't want to pour over Intel CPU specs, I'd just pick something in the 35th percentile of price and performance. Don't worry about amount of RAM pre-installed or any parameters of the hard drive. If the computer begins to run slow, pay a buddy to find a deal on Mac compatible ram and buy the largest amount your system will use. Keep regular backups. When the hard drive dies pay the same buddy to research the largest and fastest disk that uses less than or equal to the number of watts your current disk does (thermal issues make higher power/heat drives risky).

This is slightly simplified but should give you a system that has the most upgrade potential to protect your investment.

The Macbook and the Macbook Pro share the same microarchitecture. They have the same memory limits. It's hard to make a case between the two on "expandability".

> It's hard to make a case between the two on "expandability".

This would be true if you don't care about FireWire or ExpressCards.

I didn't care much much ExpressCards (that changed when I got a Lexar ExpressCard SSD), but I've never been able to live without FireWire.

The cheap one does not have VT support on the CPU which means that virtual machines run much slower than on the CPUs that do have VT where they run at native or near native speeds (depending on the VM software you use).

This becomes particularly important if you want to run a virtual Windows under heavy load or run many virtual machines.

Speaking as someone who has actually worked on a hypervisor on VT-x on a 1st-gen MB, I call totally unforeseeable bullshit on you. Sucks to be you! ;)

In fact, every Intel Mac runs at least Intel Core, and VT-x very slightly predates Core (you can get P4 parts that have it). It is in fact slightly easier to run a hypervisor on the original Core, and thus the first-gen Macbook, because the Core 2 Duo runs userland in 64 bit mode and the kernel in emulated 32 bit mode, and that's a gross oversimplification made as a small mercy.

In any case, every Macbook sold today --- even the cheapest one --- runs at least Core 2 Duo, which includes not only VT-x but also the advanced I/O stuff Intel did to make TLB flushes not kill performance.

Long story short: you can't buy a Macbook that doesn't do just fine with Parallels or VMWare Fusion.

If you are buying a new macbook today, you are right, it does not matter, they will all be fine.

I was thinking about a 13" white macbook my colleague used to use which I thought had a processor that did not have VT support (as not all Intels do http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/coreduo...) as there was an issue about it. But, frankly, it sounds like you are probably right and I have made a mistake or am confused (I won't be 100% sure until I can ask him on Monday, and Google is not doing much to help me other than to show how fast HN is being cached - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&#... returns this page as the top result minutes after these comments!).

So, good call :)

I'm pretty sure I'm right: I had to hunt for an original white Macbook in 2007 because the Core 2 in the new Macbooks broke Dino's Vitriol VT-x rootkit code.

CPU's a big help if you're compiling a lot. Then again most projects are small enough where it doesn't matter. But my MBP's a necessity when it comes to compiling Firefox.

Even compilation is mostly IO bound. I'd be interested in an off-the-shelf benchmark on compiling Firefox, MB vs. MBP. I haven't seen one. Regardless, you're paying a lot for what may be a nominal difference; you could spend that money better.

You've got like 3 choices, it's not that complicated.

But there's the stylish one, the other stylish one, and the other other stylish one.

There's 4 at the moment:

* The super thin, relatively expensive, stylish one that's limited and hard to expand. (Air)

* The super cheap, relatively unstylish white all-purpose machine. (Original Macbook)

* The cheap, flashy, glassy new one. (Macbook)

* The expensive, flashy, glassy new one with the big screen. (Macbook Pro).

The old 17-inch Macbook Pro is still available.

Did not know that. See? It is more complicated than Matt Maroon said.

You got me.

Lack of choices is simultaneously their biggest weakness and strength.

I'll tell you one thing: a white macbook is not a good laptop for travelling a lot. Mine is busted along the seams, the hard drive failed after 5 months, and the plastic above the hard drive has now turned yellow, I assume because of the heat. Also, the keyboard is missing a lot of standard keys for my language.

I wish I had gone for the IBM x series instead. They look like they can handle the travel much better.

Agreed. White does not travel well. I've learned there's a reason most travel gear is sold in black -- it hides the dirt and scratches!

To keep my white MacBook looking clean, I bought a ProTouch keyboard cover from iSkin, and a "PalmGuard" wristpad covers from Moshi -- and even then, I try to use an external keyboard and mouse as much as possible to reduce wear and tear on the laptop.

I'm glad Apple's brief flirtation with white laptop design is over.

the first ibook came out in '99, i would hardly call the last 9 years a brief flirtation.

I recommend a thin hardcase like the ones from Incase and Speck. The one I use is the clear one from Incase (they call it "frost"), and while it protects against the usual stains, scrapes, etc. it has the unexpected side effect of making the glowing Apple logo on the lid look absolutely amazing in the dark.

Mr. Clean Magic Eraser will return the yellow to white. My MB of 2 yrs still looks brand new.

As a Macbook owner I had to admit the Toshiba Protege latest ultraportable leaves it biting the dust. The current Macbooks look a decade older. Compare it with the Macbook Air: - Weight 1kg (vs 1.35kg) - Slim (even more) - 3G modem built in. - It has a DVD player. - Removable battery. Apple needs to catch up fast or they are going to loose on this one. Unless something changes, next year I'll be buying my first Toshiba. Apple can't charge prime and under-deliver.

Oh, and asking to pay full price on new OS version that came out only three months after laptop purchase didn't help. This is probably bye bye Mac for me, unless something major changes.

Apple's really far behind on ultra-portables because they tried too hard to make the Air thin. Nobody sticks a laptop in their pocket, and any bag is designed for a much thicker one than that, so there's really no use for it.

What there is use for is a spindle and multiple USB ports.

How do you not see paying for the next OS X coming? Each OS X release date is one of its year's most hyped computing events.

Buy the least expensive new Macbook. I am in love with this machine. It plays World of Warcraft at 40-60 FPS, I have 4 spaces at all times, it never lags on anything I do. With all my windows on full screen, 13 inches is enough space to do everything comfortably, including gaming. The aluminum casing is truly revolutionary, there are no screws at all on the entire case, it's incredibly sturdy and light.

I am currently developing on it on a daily basis, 12 hrs at a time (Ruby on Rails too). Macs are really good for Ruby on Rails because they have Ruby built in, and it's easy to use gem to get Rails and all those other goodies.

But if you want to keep yourself up-to-date, you should probably ditch the Ruby that comes with your Mac and use Macports to get the newest Ruby, some new programs are dependent on it, ie. Capistano.

Strongly advise rebuilding Ruby (or for that matter Python) yourself. You should be developing on a build of your runtime that you understand; for both Ruby and Python, I've run into incredibly annoying problems in the built-in versions.

Consider replacing the HD in one of the aluminum Macbooks with one of the new Intel SSDs (about $600 now for 64GB) which will speed up IO drastically. Or wait half a year and do it substantially more cheaply.

Here are two reviews of the X25-M SSD you're talking about:

http://paulstamatiou.com/2008/10/29/review-intel-x25-m-80gb-...

http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-i-got-one-of-...

I'm waiting a few months until the 160GB version is available (and costs about the same as the current 80MB version).

Developers are often seen with MacBook Pros. For example, RailsConf: http://flickr.com/photos/twylo/173895378/

With the new MacBook/Pros, it's basically whether you want a bigger screen or not, and if you want more GHz of processing power. There are 2.0 and 2.4GHz MacBooks available, $1300 and $1600, respectively, and MacBook Pros start at 2.4 up, starting at $2000.

To put things in perspective, here is what you're getting for $400 more in the MacBook Pro 2.4GHz than the MacBook 2.4GHz:

  - bigger screen
  - extra NVidia <strike>8600M</strike> 9600M GT graphics card
  - FireWire port and ExpressCard port
  - and of course, 2" more of real estate.

Or, you might be okay with the 2.0GHz MacBook, if all you are doing is Rails work, in which case you would save another $300.

So the question basically is, 1) do you want 2.0 or 2.4GHz (suggest 2.4), and 2) do you want the bigger screen, and if so, if that is worth $400 to you (along with the other stuff.)

In 2008, does anything use the ExpressCard port that you care about? Isn't it basically obsolete?

You'd say the same about Firewire --- except:

* Losing Firewire also costs you "target disk mode", which lets you mount another Mac as an otherwise inert external hard drive, which is hugely helpful for backing up and restoring machines.

* Firewire is the standard remote debugging interface for the Windows kernel, and is an all-around great debugging interface (Firewire itself is basically nothing but a network protocol hooked directly up to a DMA engine); there's no perfect replacement for it that I know of.

ExpressCard is obsolete, and I don't care about it. That's just a list of the differences between MB and MBP.

It's only useful if you have an old EVDO/3G card that relies on ExpressCard.

To be picky, whether or not you want/need the bigger screen with you all the time. I have only a MacBook and I use it with a 20" lcd at home, which is where I do the majority of my work. (I also have more than one desktop, so if the laptop is going to be a sole machine, yet another thing to take into consideration.)

I couldn't justify the additional cost, size/weight and fragility of a MBP over a regular MB, having owned one previously. My productivity doesn't suffer with Spaces and Expose on the 13" widescreen (although this is personal preference), and the external display is a cherry on top of the cake.

Of course, you could also do the same thing with a MBP, but assuming that budget may be a limiting factor and all..

Not 8600M, but 9600M GT.

Also, the screen is not only bigger, but much much higher quality in the MBP.

No one is mentioning the MBA?

I recommend the one I just bought, the previous generation 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro. Was $2500 a few weeks ago, now selling on Amazon for $1650:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0013FLTNS/

In many ways it's better than the new version. IMO it's the best laptop ever made.

I also upgraded it with this RAM from Newegg for $55:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231...

Not only is it 4 GB, but it's lower latency than the stock RAM so it's a little bit faster.

I've been meaning to say the same about my 17" (hires video, 7200 rpm drive).

Go for the refurb's from the apple store... cheaper and through more testing than your normal mac

Anything with an Intel core duo or up. G4 powerbooks are slow, always thrashing the hard drive. Also would avoid 1st gen MB pros, from early 2006, they were blazingly hot, and you'd get just a few months apple care right now. avoid Airs, i don't think they've solved core shutdown problem:

http://paulstamatiou.com/2008/10/26/hopping-on-the-new-macbo...

for inbox specials, refurbs, look at apple store. Also

http://www.smalldog.com/

http://www.powermax.com/

Apple doesn't sell a laptop with anything less than a Core 2 Duo at this point. Having burned through at least 4 Macbooks in the last couple years, I wouldn't buy one used or refurbed.

I have a 17" MBP, refurbed, and a macmini, refurbed. Never had a problem. I used to have a 15" MBP, bought new through work, nothing but problems.

Are you using a Lenovo now?

I can't afford a Ferrari, but I can get the best laptop on the market. And that's the Macbook Pro. You may be able to find a better value, but you won't be able to find a better machine. If you have the money, get one.

I still have my first gen Macbook Pro (Core Duo 1.83Ghz) and its still running great for me.

Although I play WoW on it so I wish it was a little faster, and Photoshop takes its time to open, its great for web development! :)

Screen size is what you should be looking for, I wouldn't want the Macbooks screen — so you have 2 choices, the new Macbook Pro 15", or the old Macbook Pro 17". :)

I'd say the new MacBook, if you've never got one before and don't need graphics. It means you have the advantage of the newest design - I disliked the older MacBooks a lot, personally - and you're not paying for the MBP, which is double the price and offers a lot of things you don't exactly need. Then you can customize it with whatever RAM and graphics updates and hard drives you need.

The answer depends on your budget :) Personally, I would go for the 2.4Ghz MBP and buy my own extra memory for it. Saying that though the cheaper 2.4Ghz MB also looks like a good machine. Question is if you really need a laptop. I really wanted one, but ended up getting an iMac instead. Looking back I'm very happy I got a desktop rather then a laptop.

Thanks for the tips. Why are you happy about the desktop?

It really depends on your price point. I do ruby dev work (merb, postgres, nginx) on Mac Air and absolutely _love_ it. Its by far the best laptop experience I've ever had.

I have not run into any problem with performance for my dev work or for testing using VMWare Fusion running Windows XP and Ubuntu server.

I have my eyes on the 13" 2.0GHz Macbook w/ 4GB Ram and SSD. The price adds up to be a little more than entry-level MBP. What do you guys think?

Get a maxed out 13-inch macbook pro! it will run for years with no problems. And you won't get pissed off ;P

MacBook