Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Got a 17" at local Apple Retail Today

B

bbadalucco

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 4, 2009
459
0
So, I just dropped into the local apple store to get something and they ended up having a 17" MBP in stock.

I decided that I'd take it as I didn't want to wait a few weeks by ordering one.

The specs are as follows:
2.66
4gb
5400 hdd
Glossy

Here is my question:
I wanted a 2.93 processor but went with the 2.66 as i thought it would be more than enough, what are your thoughts given the following apps that I use.

ical
iwork
safari
Microsoft Vista via VM Fusion - will a 2.66 suffice for this?

I plan on getting the G Skill Titan SSD

Let me know...thanks
 
bbadalucco said:
So, I just dropped into the local apple store to get something and they ended up having a 17" MBP in stock.

I decided that I'd take it as I didn't want to wait a few weeks by ordering one.

The specs are as follows:
2.66
4gb
5400 hdd
Glossy

Here is my question:
I wanted a 2.93 processor but went with the 2.66 as i thought it would be more than enough, what are your thoughts given the following apps that I use.

ical
iwork
safari
Microsoft Vista via VM Fusion - will a 2.66 suffice for this?

I plan on getting the G Skill Titan SSD

Let me know...thanks
Click to expand...

So it's safe to say they didn't have a 2.93 in stock at your store. If you don't mind me asking, what state/country did you visit the apple store.
 
I live in Omaha, Nebraska. They didn't have any on display. I asked someone if they had any in becuase I was curious to see the GL vs Matte displays, a manager overheard me and said they had one which had just came in. It was the stock version.
 
You dont even need a Macbook Pro, a standard Macbook or Macbook Air will do more than fine for you, even they would be overkill. However if you like the 17" screen its up to you, i guess its your money. Id rather have a Macbook Air and 40" external display if i was in your position.
 
I like the 17" for the size and resolution, which is why i decided on this one. I just want VM Fusion to run as smooth as possible for school...so thats why I was wondering.

Thanks
 
I bought one at the San Francisco Apple Store (Stockton Street) about an hour ago.
About to unbox it in the next ten minutes... exciting!
 
bbadalucco said:
I like the 17" for the size and resolution, which is why i decided on this one. I just want VM Fusion to run as smooth as possible for school...so thats why I was wondering.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Not entirely a valid reason. I run VMWare Fusion just the same on my MacBook as I do on my MacBook Pro. Same settings, same resolution. If fact, the Vista on my MacBook runs faster then the one in my MacBook Pro for some reason.
 
ayeying said:
Not entirely a valid reason. I run VMWare Fusion just the same on my MacBook as I do on my MacBook Pro. Same settings, same resolution. If fact, the Vista on my MacBook runs faster then the one in my MacBook Pro for some reason.
Click to expand...

You can run a normal Macbook in 1920 x 1200 i.e. 17" Unibody Full HD? like the OP is talking about in his post?
 
Next Tuesday said:
Are the retail stores going to carry the 2.93 version?
Click to expand...

No. I found out the hard way. Local store told me over the phone that they had them in stock. Cancelled my online order, went to store, and was told they will never carry the 2.9. Now I have to reorder from scratch.
 
kastenbrust said:
You can run a normal Macbook in 1920 x 1200 i.e. 17" Unibody Full HD? like the OP is talking about in his post?
Click to expand...

you need vmware running a virtual machine at 1920x1200? lol.. I normally run vmware in windowed mode, especially on my 17" because i have a lot of room. I run full screen on the macbook due to the lack of room. 1280x800 for both.
 
Who cares whether the OP's reasons are "valid." It's not your money.

Suggestion: VM software is such a hog. From experience, I find bootcamp to be a more logical solution and less system intensive, that is, if you formatted it in FAT32. If you didn't, stick with your VM. If it is in FAT32, just use your OSX to transfer files in between your partition, and boot into Windows whenever you need it for school. How many times do you need both OSs at once?
 
I've gone to extremes to get VMs running smoothly

I don't know why -- but VMs are just horrible (of course the fact that I stream audio and run 10-15 of application @ a time, Guest and Host together, could have something to do with it), so I understand the OP. My rig currently consists of an X25-E boot drive, 4 (yes 4) 320GB WD Scorpio Black(s) -- striped (they are in 2 Addonics Dual Portable Raid enclosures, software striped and interfaced through a Sonnet Sata Tempo Pro expresscard/34 which maxes out at 200 read and write). The Scorpio Blacks are formatted in ZFS and are fast -- but still not fast enough. The sequential is there but the iops aren't mind-blowing.

I sold my 17" 4,1 2.6 for what I paid for it and I'm impatiently waiting for my 2.93 (8GB). Everyone's expectations differ and if you (the OP) are like me, fast is never fast enough. If Mac Pro(s) were portable (or affordable enough) to have 2 -- and no my current set up is not as expensive as 2 Mac Pro(s) -- I'd have a Mac Pro @ the office and 1 @ home. Good luck OP.
 
percival504 said:
My rig currently consists of an X25-E boot drive, 4 (yes 4) 320GB WD Scorpio Black(s) -- striped (they are in 2 Addonics Dual Portable Raid enclosures, software striped and interfaced through a Sonnet Sata Tempo Pro expresscard/34 which maxes out at 200 read and write).
Click to expand...

You are my hero. :D
 
Repo said:
Who cares whether the OP's reasons are "valid." It's not your money.

Suggestion: VM software is such a hog. From experience, I find bootcamp to be a more logical solution and less system intensive, that is, if you formatted it in FAT32. If you didn't, stick with your VM. If it is in FAT32, just use your OSX to transfer files in between your partition, and boot into Windows whenever you need it for school. How many times do you need both OSs at once?
Click to expand...

Having a virtual machine isn't a transfer of files issue. Its more of applications/programs issue. I run a virtual machine of my boot camp because of the software I use for school. I also have a linux and a 2nd windows virtual machine for work/testing purposes.
 
ayeying said:
Having a virtual machine isn't a transfer of files issue. Its more of applications/programs issue. I run a virtual machine of my boot camp because of the software I use for school. I also have a linux and a 2nd windows virtual machine for work/testing purposes.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have a very unique working situation.

For me, all I do is boot into Windows, use the program I need, then boot back into OSX, and transfer the files I made (if I even need to).

The reason I point this out is to enlighten those who don't know, that you can transfer files between OSs, and it isn't a requirement to get a VM, for that sole purpose.
 
Repo said:
Who cares whether the OP's reasons are "valid." It's not your money.

Suggestion: VM software is such a hog. From experience, I find bootcamp to be a more logical solution and less system intensive, that is, if you formatted it in FAT32. If you didn't, stick with your VM. If it is in FAT32, just use your OSX to transfer files in between your partition, and boot into Windows whenever you need it for school. How many times do you need both OSs at once?
Click to expand...

I need both OS' at once all day long. I use Outlook and the other various Office apps in VM, and everything else in OSX. I don't think that is terribly unusual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back