Actually, looking more closely at the two links, it may be that the adapter in the Amazon link plugs directly into the cooler. If that's the case, then that would be the one to get. But you won't know for sure until you get the cooler.

I'm toying with the idea of buying a MacBook Pro to replace my G5.

There's a $500 difference between the 2 15" models and all I see on the specs is a .1 increase in speed and 50GB more memory. Since I'm up to my ears in external hard drives (and for $500 I could do *way* better than 50GB!), is there something I'm missing that makes the $2499 version worth it? I can't imagine the difference in speed between 2.4 and 2.5gHz is really all that noticeable.

[edit: Oh, and it also has a better graphics card. Hm.]

Daniel, Jon, you guys are confusing me.

1) Use the included DC car adapter and then convert back to 120v AC using another adapter (the one you and the guy on the page linked to).

Or 2) Buy the cooler and, once you get it, see if you can figure out what sort of AC adapter/power supply will work. The face that the "provided power supply is NOT hardwired in" is encouraging. That means there's a good chance one of the standard Radio Shack type AC adapters might plug in.

What is the difference between these two adapter choices?

Actually, looking more closely at the two links, it may be that the adapter in the Amazon link plugs directly into the cooler. If that's the case, then that would be the one to get.

That's what I have been assuming, based on the guy's comment. And unfortunately, this is a gift, so I have to figure out what the best adapter to get is without seeing the thing for myself.

edit: Oh, and it also has a better graphics card. Hm.

Yeah, I think the graphics card is the biggest difference, Jess.

I paid $200 extra for my Hi-Res screen, and feel it was well worth it. I did not pay for an extra 0.2 GHz processing speed, and don't think I'll miss it.

$500 is certainly more than $200, and I'm not sure I'd have made the better graphics choice in your position, but you probably will notice a difference for your extra $500.

I paid $200 extra for my Hi-Res screen

This is the glossy one? I need to go to the Apple store and actually look at them to see if I think that's worth it.

Since I want to use this machine for vidding, I'm thinking the higher end graphics card will be nice to have. (This is assuming that I also develop superpowers that will allow me to have time to vid, of course. But I assume superpowers come standard with new Macs, right?)

What is the difference between these two adapter choices?

Using only one adapter is less messy than using two.

And unfortunately, this is a gift, so I have to figure out what the best adapter to get is without seeing the thing for myself.

Then get the adapter that you linked to! Unless you can see it, a random comment on a product site is about as reliable as you're going to get.

Since I want to use this machine for vidding, I'm thinking the higher end graphics card will be nice to have.

I dunno, there is a pretty low bar of diminishing returns if you don't need 3D performance.

This is the glossy one? I need to go to the Apple store and actually look at them to see if I think that's worth it.

I did get the glossy screen, which is an option on all Macbooks now (I think). The extra $200 was for Hi-Res, 1920 x 1200 max res instead of 1680 x 1050.

As far as matte v. glossy, I like my glossy screen, but it may not be everybody's thing. Definitely check each one out firsthand to see how you like it.

And yeah, if you're planning on vidding, the better graphics card is going to be worth it, I think.

But I assume superpowers come standard with new Macs, right?

But of course.

Using only one adapter is less messy than using two.

Oooh, I think I see what you're saying.

What are things to look for in an AC/DC adapter? It looks like some are 4 amps and some are 5 amps, and I don't know if any particular brands are better than others. Amazon reviews appear to be mixed for all of them.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says the company could extend the shelf life for Windows XP based on customer input.

Vista really is the New Coke. Maybe they should just rename Windows XP to Windows Classic and be done with it.

I use Vista and have to admit it has worked just fine for me.