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

Summary: Get a MBP to solely run windows?

A

archdelux

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 12, 2008
332
2
I am leaning towards getting a 13" MBP when they come out (hopefully this tuesday) with the plan to solely (or mostly) run windows 7.

I understand that there have been a number of issues in the past including keyboard backlight constantly on, sensitive trackpad, battery life issues, etc.

It seems that a lot of these issues have been resolved via driver updates--is this the case? Has the trackpad issue been resolved? Overall, would you recommend getting a MBP to run windows?
 
^^way to keep it mature...


I'd suggest going for one of the Sony i3/5 machines. Theres a few threads about Sony's new line up and everyone seems pretty impressed with them. You'll likely get better performance for less money.
 
While my late '09 MBP is still my favorite all around box under both OSes, I am currently awaiting delivery of a 13" Dell Vostro 3300 i5-520M box for work. It was still over $1K, so I'm still not seeing the huge "Mac Tax" some of the other posters are referring to, and would have bought another Mac if I wanted to run OS x/iLife on it (and the i3/i5/i7 MacBook Pros were out.)

B
 
thanks for the input. It seems that I can't rely on Windows drivers to be reliable and thus can't rely on using bootcamp with MBP.

What do you think about running VM Fusion or Parallels natively so that I can access and use windows as well as Mac features and programs? Is this a sound idea in terms of buying a MBP for that intent? Does it slow down the computer (such that I would be paying significantly more for a computer that effectively runs slower/etc due to running both OSs)?

Thanks for the input
 
miles01110 said:
If you're just going to use Windows the drastically reduced battery life alone should be reason enough not to get a MBP.
Click to expand...

Is that really the case? When I talk about the reduced battery life it is in comparison to the battery life under OS X. If I compare to another similarly specced PC like my wife's ThinkPad, the battery life seems about on par.

So shouldn't it be that the drastically enhanced battery life under OS X shoudl be reason enough to run OS X on your Mac?

B
 
archdelux said:
Does it slow down the computer (such that I would be paying more for a computer that effectively runs slower/etc due to running both OSs)?
Click to expand...

Of course.. no laptop on the planet won't take a performance hit when running multiple OSs simultaneously.

You need to identify WHY you want a Mac, IF you're willing to make the effort the change your computing behavior (Mac OS X =! Windows), HOW OFTEN you're going to run Windows.

Running Mac OS X and Windows 7 simultaneously is great and doable and functional etc.. but if you find that you're going to be doing more then 65% of your work in Windows, then there's no point in spending more money on a Mac. Windows should really only be for applications that you simply cannot run in Mac OS X, otherwise, why use a Mac at all?
 
I am interested in doing this as well -- but more so to take advantage of certain Mac software. However, I foresee myself using Windows 7 a great deal of the time.

Is there a consensus list of issues out there?
 
balamw said:
Is that really the case? When I talk about the reduced battery life it is in comparison to the battery life under OS X. If I compare to another similarly specced PC like my wife's ThinkPad, the battery life seems about on par.
Click to expand...

Right, but your similarily specced PC probably doesn't cost as much. Why pay more for the same thing?

So shouldn't it be that the drastically enhanced battery life under OS X shoudl be reason enough to run OS X on your Mac?
Click to expand...

No, but I don't use OS X because I get better battery life on my machine with it. To each their own, though.
 
cobalt79 said:
Photoshop? Civ 4?
Click to expand...

I'd prefer Photoshop in Mac OS X. But Civ4? Heh, not a challenge. I can run "Dawn Of War II" in Parallels.. not on the best settings, but it runs and runs good enough to play.

If you're serious about playing games, then use Boot Camp to play games and use your Boot Camp disk as a Parallels VM for work.
 
yellow said:
Of course.. no laptop on the planet won't take a performance hit when running multiple OSs simultaneously.
Click to expand...

So then would you say that it is a substantial loss in performance? I understand that every laptop will take a hit, but I am wondering just how substantial that hit is.


yellow said:
Running Mac OS X and Windows 7 simultaneously is great and doable and functional etc.. but if you find that you're going to be doing more then 65% of your work in Windows, then there's no point in spending more money on a Mac. Windows should really only be for applications that you simply cannot run in Mac OS X, otherwise, why use a Mac at all?
Click to expand...

Well, as it stands I am willing to spend that extra X dollars on a MBP given certain stats. However, I am unsure how significantly the performance will suffer. I do understand what you are trying to say, however, and so the question is what is the equivalent stats for a system running FUsion.

So say you are running a MBP with, (hopefully) Corei5, 2.53ghz, 4GB ram, etc (but this MBP is running Fusion). This is essentially equivalent to what stats on a PC only running windows? (this is just another way to phrase the question above)
 
archdelux said:
So then would you say that it is a substantial loss in performance? I understand that every laptop will take a hit, but I am wondering just how substantial that hit is.
Click to expand...

I don't really know how to quantify that... What is my measuring stick? What am I running in each OS? Your laptop only has 2 cores, so each one will be dedicated to a particular OS. THe more RAM you have, the better your life will be. Running 2 OSes is not make both unusable, just slower, assuming you haven't short-changed yourself on RAM.

archdelux said:
So say you are running a MBP with, (hopefully) Corei5, 2.53ghz, 4GB ram, etc (but this MBP is running Fusion). This is essentially equivalent to what stats on a PC only running windows? (this is just another way to phrase the question above)
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of anyone having that particular information. Best guess, a PC with an integrated graphics chip running a single core processor at ~2GHz or 2.33GHz with 2GB of RAM? If you're serious about running a lot in Windows, you should consider more RAM in your Mac.

Mac Pro:
2.8GHz Quad-Core Xeon, 8GB RAM, Mac OS X Server 10.5.8

Windows VM via Parallels 5:
2.8GHz single Xeon CPU, 2GB RAM, Windows 7 Enterprise .x64, Windows Experience Index is 4.6

I could probably get a better index score if I quit some apps on both sides of the fence, but I've got **** to do. :)
 
yellow said:
I'm not aware of anyone having that particular information.
Click to expand...
Partially because it'll depend very heavily on what you intend to do in each OS, and how much (RAM/CPU) you set aside for the VM. Your mileage may vary.

I fully agree with your point. More RAM. 4 GB should be seen as a bare minimum if you want to smoothly run both OS X and W7 64 bit.

B
 
you can rely on Windows in Bootcamp, just download the correct Windows drivers. To be fair to Apple most of the ones they provide tend to be fine, it's just the GPU ones that I see as vital to get from the manufacturers site.
 
Rodus said:
you can rely on Windows in Bootcamp, just download the correct Windows drivers. To be fair to Apple most of the ones they provide tend to be fine, it's just the GPU ones that I see as vital to get from the manufacturers site.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the battery life issues and the trackpad issues have been resolved by the drivers?
 
Following up after the Apple update: So the MBP 13s are Core2Duo, not i5.

Say I get a C2D 2.4Ghz with 8GB RAM...do you think that will be sufficient to do essentially anything (other than gaming/etc) smoothly using Fusion/Parallels?
Alternatively, would 4GB suffice for standard use (the most 'intense' thing I do is watching streaming TV shows full-screen).

Will the 2.4ghz vs. 2.66ghz make a noticeable difference for my use?
 
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