Why wouldn't you get a fully-loaded MBP?

[atari1356]

as for the 200gb hard drive, the lower rpm is enough of a reason not to.

If you use a lot of space on the hard drive, the lower RPM doesn't matter.

Barefeats did some testing and show that if you have 74GB of data on the drive (or more), that the 200GB drive is actually faster at reading from the disk, and very close to the same speed when writing to the disk:

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd7.html

So... I'd get the 200GB drive. I wouldn't spring for the 3GB RAM over the stock 2GB though since it doesn't seem like a good value to me (unless you really absolutely need that extra gig).

 

[Marlon_JBT]

Here's a reason why I wouldn't get a fully-loaded MBP. I simply don't have the money for it.

(even if I did, I wouldn't be able to justify all that $$$$.¢¢ for a laptop.)

 

[richard4339]

Here's a reason why I wouldn't get a fully-loaded MBP. I simply don't have the money for it.

(even if I did, I wouldn't be able to justify all that $$$$.¢¢ for a laptop.)

Exactly. I'd love 3 gigs of ram, the largest HDD, and the fastest processor, but I'm broke enough after my base model MBP from 6 months ago with the ADC discount...

 

[klb028]

Given that the most important tool I use, for twelve hours every day, is my notebook, I'm always inclined to max out the specs.

If you make your living from your machine, you owe it to yourself to get the best configuration you can afford. I hate the feeling of my hardware or software getting in the way of doing my work successfully, and happily -- life is too short.

Before I switched to Macs, I used to always get my PC notebook configured to the max because I wanted to know that I could get three years out of it. Oddly, since I've gone Mac, I do find that I turn over my hardware more frequently, but that's mostly because of want rather than need, and because of the recent Intel switchover.

The 3Gb capability was an absolute must-have feature for me. I can run multiple VMWare systems at once and still do work in my Mac apps.

Very nice response! Thanks for all of the detail. I can understand where you're coming from and why you went with the route you did.

Barefeats did some testing and show that if you have 74GB of data on the drive (or more), that the 200GB drive is actually faster at reading from the disk, and very close to the same speed when writing to the disk:

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd7.html

Thanks for the link and info!

 

[whateverandever]

If you use a lot of space on the hard drive, the lower RPM doesn't matter.

Barefeats did some testing and show that if you have 74GB of data on the drive (or more), that the 200GB drive is actually faster at reading from the disk, and very close to the same speed when writing to the disk:

That's if the 74GB of data is being consecutively read, which rarely ever happens in real situations. Don't go by test results that can easily be skewed. Anyone that actually uses 4200rpm drives is well aware of how sluggish they are in normal usage scenarios.

In response to some other thoughts on this thread...
3GB of RAM renders your dual-channel functionality crippled. You'll rarely be using a full 3GB, so your performance at the 2GB range would probably be better.

Installing the hard drive yourself CAN give Apple an excuse to void your warranty. So if you plan on keeping it in the case that one of many random Apple defects affects your system, you have to factor in the $80-ish charge to install it at an Apple-certified repair place. It may end up being cheaper just to get the BTO hard drive, sadly.