Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macbook pro with retina - Don't shoot me
- Thread starter grungysquash
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My thought is that here is ZERO reason to go 100% Windows. The vast majority of tasks can be done exactly the same or better in Mac. Most of the ones that cannot could even be taken care of in VM or Parallels. Only a very small fraction requires a separate partition for Windows.
I'm not denying that there isn't use for Bootcamping Windows... but I just cannot fathom why you wouldn't rather get the most out of your machine for the 95% of the time Mac does the job, and does it well.
----------
Not giving him a hard time in the slightest. I just wanted to know his reasons, since I can't think of a single reason to ditch OSX 100%.
I'm not denying that there isn't use for Bootcamping Windows... but I just cannot fathom why you wouldn't rather get the most out of your machine for the 95% of the time Mac does the job, and does it well.
----------
Not giving him a hard time in the slightest. I just wanted to know his reasons, since I can't think of a single reason to ditch OSX 100%.
WWWWHHHHAATT??? Whyyy? Waste of money if you only install windows.
I believe that you have your own reason... but uhhm...
There is a saying : once you go OSX, you will never go back. If you say no, then you are too lazy to learn
If you need windows, I say you should buy Asus / hp spectre or something else.
Rocking 2880x1800 desktop sucks. Even with text set to 200% UI is terrible.
In OSX they're going to be optimized eventually. But for Windows I'm not sure any of the 3rd party apps will ever really be optimized.
I have a W7 partition for games and I can't help but cringe and squint everytime I need to do anything besides game.....
You should try the new Asus ultrabook 1920x1080 on a 13" will look pretty nice too.... Of course the UI problem will make it suck just as bad though.
In OSX they're going to be optimized eventually. But for Windows I'm not sure any of the 3rd party apps will ever really be optimized.
I have a W7 partition for games and I can't help but cringe and squint everytime I need to do anything besides game.....
You should try the new Asus ultrabook 1920x1080 on a 13" will look pretty nice too.... Of course the UI problem will make it suck just as bad though.
The problem with doing this is that Windows and most Windows apps are not (yet) optimized for this 2880 x 1800 Retina display. I have Win7 running in Bootcamp at the full native resolution and for the most part it looks good, but apps like Chrome have fuzzy text and don't look so good. In order to be able to view anything without eye strain, you have to increase the system DPI to 150% or greater which causes pixelation in a lot of apps (mostly with dialog boxes, menus, etc.). And decreasing the resolution below the native 2880 X 1800 in Windows will give you a fuzzy, blurry screen, so that isn't a viable alternative.
For me, it's not a big deal, because I don't use Windows very much on this machine. It's really only installed so I can access some work related proprietary software. Having said that, running OSX on this machine is phenomenal. The text and other aspects of the display are extremely sharp, similar to the iPad3. After using this display with OSX, it's really hard to ever go back to anything else.
I'm not so sure this would be the best hardware for you if it's going to be a Windows machine. However, the regular MBP's that you can get now with higher resolution might be a better choice and will probably look a lot better when running Windows.
My suggestion is to buy and try and return if it doesn't work for you.
For me, it's not a big deal, because I don't use Windows very much on this machine. It's really only installed so I can access some work related proprietary software. Having said that, running OSX on this machine is phenomenal. The text and other aspects of the display are extremely sharp, similar to the iPad3. After using this display with OSX, it's really hard to ever go back to anything else.
I'm not so sure this would be the best hardware for you if it's going to be a Windows machine. However, the regular MBP's that you can get now with higher resolution might be a better choice and will probably look a lot better when running Windows.
My suggestion is to buy and try and return if it doesn't work for you.
It's probably been said, so my apologies, but the core reason to leave OS X on there, even if in a minimal partition, is access to EFI updates and the like. Can those be delivered without OS X, or can they be delivered via a temporary boot device?
I am using the Canary build. The OSX version works just fine, but the Windows version is fuzzy.
Surprisingly, IE9 looks fantastic in Windows with the display at full resolution (comparable to what Safari looks like in OSX) - go figure!
As much as I dislike IE, I kinda have to use it in Windows until Chrome gets optimized.
This isn't 2001 anymore. There are many more options for windows laptops now besides the "plastic junk" ones.
Everyone here vastly vastly vastly vastly overestimates the effect that switchable graphics has on battery life. There are many much more significant things that go into the battery life, such as power supply efficiency, fan efficiency, mobo efficiency etc, which Apple has practically maximized. Most PC manufacturers however just throw the cheapest least efficient components into a laptop which has a substantially more significant effect on battery life.
Even without switchable graphics you will get 2-5.5 hours of battery life. For a windows system running an i7 processor, that's actually above average.
I have an HP Envy 15 with an i7 processor and I'm lucky to get 1.5-3 hours of battery life with switchable graphics due to other generaly inefficiently designed cheap parts in the system.
Here's a write up PCmagazine did on the battery life of the Envy 15 with the i5 processor (which is substantially more efficient than my i7)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399564,00.asp
4 hours of battery life, 73 watt hour battery.
Here's another PC magazine write up of the Macbook Pro 15 with the i7 processor, running the exact same battery test with bootcamp through windows 7:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395429,00.asp
5.5 hours of battery life. 77 watt hour battery.
The macbook pro 15 actually acheives better battery life with a less efficient processor and virtually the same capacity battery.
The Macbook Pro Retina has a 93 watt hour battery, which is 20% larger than the regular Macbook Pro's. Even if the retina display made it only 45% as efficient as the regular macbook pro, it would STILL have better battery life than an Envy 15 with identical specs (you can actually spec them to have virtually the same SSD, graphics card and processor).
So in conclusion:
Even without switchable graphics Macbooks running windows have better battery life than your typical cheaply designed PC's running windows.
Even without switchable graphics you will get 2-5.5 hours of battery life. For a windows system running an i7 processor, that's actually above average.
I have an HP Envy 15 with an i7 processor and I'm lucky to get 1.5-3 hours of battery life with switchable graphics due to other generaly inefficiently designed cheap parts in the system.
Here's a write up PCmagazine did on the battery life of the Envy 15 with the i5 processor (which is substantially more efficient than my i7)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399564,00.asp
4 hours of battery life, 73 watt hour battery.
Here's another PC magazine write up of the Macbook Pro 15 with the i7 processor, running the exact same battery test with bootcamp through windows 7:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395429,00.asp
5.5 hours of battery life. 77 watt hour battery.
The macbook pro 15 actually acheives better battery life with a less efficient processor and virtually the same capacity battery.
The Macbook Pro Retina has a 93 watt hour battery, which is 20% larger than the regular Macbook Pro's. Even if the retina display made it only 45% as efficient as the regular macbook pro, it would STILL have better battery life than an Envy 15 with identical specs (you can actually spec them to have virtually the same SSD, graphics card and processor).
So in conclusion:
Even without switchable graphics Macbooks running windows have better battery life than your typical cheaply designed PC's running windows.
Last edited:
Hardcore Apple fan here but just had to chime in. In many cases this is flat out false, nowhere more apparent than in regards to the GPU. I've owned a MBP ever since Apple switched back to Intel and ever since Bootcamp was released I've had a Windows partition for gaming with NEW(er) direct drivers installed.
Even development shops like Blizzard have a hard time keeping their game performance up to par under Mac OS mostly due to ancient drivers.
I love Mac. I love Windows. I use both of them (as laptops, desktops, and servers) in my home for personal and for business use.
My advice? Don't buy a MacBook just for Windows. It just won't work as well as a machine designed for Windows.
Why? Mainly the drivers. Apple gives Windows half-ass drivers that are rarely upgraded. They don't get the full benefit that OS X has, mainly because Apple WANTS you to like OS X better than Windows.
Look at this thread... people complaining about graphics acceleration, trackpad issues, etc on Windows. Plus you don't get to use the FULL SSD because you have to partition to use BootCamp.
It's just not worth your money.
If you want a real gaming laptop with Windows on it, get something else. Wait until some other company comes out with retina on a laptop in about a year and a half.
My advice? Don't buy a MacBook just for Windows. It just won't work as well as a machine designed for Windows.
Why? Mainly the drivers. Apple gives Windows half-ass drivers that are rarely upgraded. They don't get the full benefit that OS X has, mainly because Apple WANTS you to like OS X better than Windows.
Look at this thread... people complaining about graphics acceleration, trackpad issues, etc on Windows. Plus you don't get to use the FULL SSD because you have to partition to use BootCamp.
It's just not worth your money.
If you want a real gaming laptop with Windows on it, get something else. Wait until some other company comes out with retina on a laptop in about a year and a half.
OP is not the one with "problems"....
Given apple has bootcamp as a feature and will continue optimising it, what's the problem!!
I run a PC has a hackintosh , without the PC fanboys getting their knickers in a twist
just saying....----------
This is good advice. Though windows 7 does run on a mbp it's far from optimised.
closing off
OK - now please understand I'm not dissing OSX - my wife loves OSX is doing a design course and thinks the best thing I ever did was get her the 13 inch apple air. Because - everything pretty much works. I can't run OSX for work, simply not possible and seeing as SSD's are not cheap I did not want to waste space with an OS I would not be able to utilize.
Me OSX is just another tool, like linux which I also use it's an OS - I know the mackbook is optimized for OSX but the components are common across operating systems and hence the question.
There is no doubt the hardware is fantastic I would not have asked this question otherwise. The design and hardware is very high spec and I'm simply asking can I run win 7 with optimums, clearly swappable graphic's will give me improved battery life and a reduction in heat generation. If you can't simply install Nvidia drivers to get the switchable system working then I can live with that.
I was hoping bootcamp drivers would allow switchable capability within windows 7 under a clean installation. I will not run this under full resolution - but I have run Dell 1900x1200 in a 17inch form factor and love this for working on dual spreadsheets is just so easy, the higher pixel density should make the finer text easier to read (no not at full resolution but lower acceptable to see resolution)
OK - now please understand I'm not dissing OSX - my wife loves OSX is doing a design course and thinks the best thing I ever did was get her the 13 inch apple air. Because - everything pretty much works. I can't run OSX for work, simply not possible and seeing as SSD's are not cheap I did not want to waste space with an OS I would not be able to utilize.
Me OSX is just another tool, like linux which I also use it's an OS - I know the mackbook is optimized for OSX but the components are common across operating systems and hence the question.
There is no doubt the hardware is fantastic I would not have asked this question otherwise. The design and hardware is very high spec and I'm simply asking can I run win 7 with optimums, clearly swappable graphic's will give me improved battery life and a reduction in heat generation. If you can't simply install Nvidia drivers to get the switchable system working then I can live with that.
I was hoping bootcamp drivers would allow switchable capability within windows 7 under a clean installation. I will not run this under full resolution - but I have run Dell 1900x1200 in a 17inch form factor and love this for working on dual spreadsheets is just so easy, the higher pixel density should make the finer text easier to read (no not at full resolution but lower acceptable to see resolution)
There are decent Windows laptops too. Some of you are so biased
.You may see bootcamp better optimized later. Whenever it's a major change, it always takes some time for things to be fully updated, although I wouldn't expect much from any specific third party apps. Bootcamp optimizations always seem to be more of an afterthought. The gpu performance is supposedly decent under bootcamp. They probably pay some amount of attention to that given that a lot of people game under bootcamp.
Running just windows on a Mac is a massive waste of money. You can get a quicker PC for less cash. Bootcamp is very good but still not as good as running windows natively on a PC.