Macbook or Macbook Pro for virtualization

[bwhit132]

Hi there,
I am considering buying my first mac. I need to be able to use windows programs still, so I will be using Parallels or Fusion. I am wondering how well the macbook 2.4 handles virtualization(with 4 gb of ram of course). Does it lag at all? Is the pro any smoother?

The 17 inch Pro looks so nice, but the price difference between the two is too great. If the 2.4 doesn't handle what I need I will just have to get a Pro. I am also kindof stuck between portability vs screen size, but I will have to figure that one out on my own.

 

[Cboss]

I have a 2.2Ghz Blackbook with 4 GB RAM and Parallels runs very well. I don't use it for a lot, mostly some basic C++ programming. I've tried a few games but I usually use boot camp for my gaming needs.

You should be fine with a Macbook but it depends on your needs. What are you planning on using in Windows?

 

[bwhit132]

Well the applications I will be using will be more memory intensive than cpu intensive (Things like visual studio or borland developer studio), but I want to be able to use anything I throw at it really. I just want everything to run smoothly. Perhaps even games, even though macbook has an integrated card.

 

[eXan]

Is the pro any smoother?

No. Why would it be? Its the same computer, just with a dedicated graphics card.

 

[Abstract]

Does virtualisation take advantage of the 9600M, or will it only use the integrated 9400M graphics card? If it uses the 9600M, then I guess the MBP will be faster. Otherwise, it won't make a real-world difference since they're all pretty much using the same processors anyway.

 

[bwhit132]

No. Why would it be? Its the same computer, just with a dedicated graphics card.

Well I am referring to a Pro with a CPU speed greater than 2.4. I don't know how intensive virtualization is. All I know is on my current computer at 1.6, it can't handle it very well at all.

 

[eXan]

Does virtualisation take advantage of the 9600M, or will it only use the integrated 9400M graphics card? If it uses the 9600M, then I guess the MBP will be faster. Otherwise, it won't make a real-world difference since they're all pretty much using the same processors anyway.

For gaming, yes it uses whatever you have selected in system preferences, but:

1) OP didn't mention gaming at all (or anything graphics-intensive for that matter).
2) You shouldn't really be gaming in virtualization software.

Well I am referring to a Pro with a CPU speed greater than 2.4. I don't know how intensive virtualization is. All I know is on my current computer at 1.6, it can't handle it very well at all.

What is your current computer? What CPU and how much RAM?

Virtualization benefits far more from more RAM, then faster CPU.

 

[bwhit132]

My PC is a 1.6 Pentium M with 2Gb of Ram. Vista eats 500Mb of ram, so I have plenty to spare for virtualizing Ubuntu. I am fairly certain it is my CPU that is the bottleneck. I am just wondering if the 2.4 will run everything smoothly for me. I may do some gaming, obviously not any games too intensive.

 

[eXan]

My PC is a 1.6 Pentium M with 2Gb of Ram. Vista eats 500Mb of ram, so I have plenty to spare for virtualizing Ubuntu. I am fairly certain it is my CPU that is the bottleneck. I am just wondering if the 2.4 will run everything smoothly for me. I may do some gaming, obviously not any games too intensive.

I assume that Pentium M is single core - this and only 2 GB of RAM is defintely slowing down your virtualization. 2 GB is the bare minium for it, really. And a single-core CPU that is being used by both OSes at the same time is not ideal either.

The current Core 2 Duos are very fast and (as the name suggests) dual core, so your processing speed is doubled (not going into multithreaded details here).

I bet you will never notice if someone secretly replaces your 2.9 GHz CPU with 2.4, unless you are counting every FPS in Handbrake or waiting for your renders in Compressor or After Effects to finish.