macbook pro as a windows pc ?

November 3, 2006 2:09 PM

macbook pro as a windows pc ?

im thinking of buying a macbook pro ( 17") as a web development pc, running bootcamp and windows xp / vista.

I keep reading via digg articles etc. how value for money / build quality the macbook pro is, exceeding similar priced pcs e.g. dell / hp.

the main use for the laptop would be visual studio / fireworks / DW etc. having the ability to run osx to test website is a bonus but utimately i would only use it 2% of the time.

so my question really is, for the money is a macboook pro a good alternative to buying a dell / sony / hp etc for running windows?

posted by toocan to computers & internet (31 comments total)

Yes. They are really nice. And has been pointed out numerous times on the web, they are quite cost-effective. Also, I find that most people I know that bought macs with the intention of using Windows most of the time never actually end up doing so.
posted by chunking express at 2:15 PM on November 3, 2006

In my opinion, yes. The virtualization solutions coming out are also nice if you'd like both OS X and Windows running at the same time.

With the just-released Core 2 Duo models, you've also hit the perfect time to buy one. :)
posted by trevyn at 2:15 PM on November 3, 2006

I think the MacBook Pro is an excellent machine, however I don't think you should purchase one to use almost exclusively as a Windows machine. Apple's Intel machines use the newer firmware interface called EFIduring startup. Almost all PCs use an older firmware interface called BIOS. Currently Windows does not support EFI, only BIOS.

Apple provides a software tool, called Boot Camp, that sits on top of EFI and emulates BIOS, permitting Windows to boot on an Intel Mac. Unfortunately, this emulation does not come for free – it isn't as fast as having native BIOS firmware. While Microsoft had originally planned to support EFI in Vista, this is no longer the case. According to Wikipedia:

In March 2006, Microsoft revealed that it will not support EFI for Windows Vista at launch, and will never support EFI booting on 32-bit CPUs due to lack of support from PC manufacturers and vendors. EFI support for x64 versions of Windows Vista will be included in a later service pack. However, for testing purposes, the beta 2 and RC1 releases of Windows Vista indeed support EFI and Windows Vista beta 2 or RC1 can even be installed on a Macintosh computer without using BootCamp. Unfortunately, EFI support will be removed in the final release, according to Microsoft.

posted by RichardP at 2:27 PM on November 3, 2006

RichardP wrote...
Unfortunately, this emulation does not come for free – it isn't as fast as having native BIOS firmware.

Is this an issue after bootup?
posted by tkolar at 2:38 PM on November 3, 2006

On the other hand, the systems are as fast as they are making laptop right now, and I've had mine since Monday. I love it (first mac) and while I haven't gotten to dual booting windows yet, I'm positive it'll handle it beautifully.

On the other hand, I was also purchased a new work laptop running windows, it is a sony something that has the Core2Duo (slightly lower Mhz though) and 2 gigs of ram. That guy is also damn fast, and cost $1000 less than my MBP cost me.

If you really want a pure windows box, buy a sony or toshiba or whatever, if you think you'd enjoy the mac side of things for personal stuff, buy the MBP.

Even though the MBP as specced costs the same or less than a dell, you really don't need most of the features (ie Firewire, bluetooth, magnetic power cable, camera...) all those fancy toys add to the price, and you can't just configure them away.

I love mine, if you buy it, you'll love it too. Just be sure you get what you really need.
posted by cschneid at 2:38 PM on November 3, 2006

Asus manufactures the Macbook Pro models. If OSX is not important to you, you could always get one of the Asus multimedia Core 2 Duos. They are pretty fast and cheap, and more compatible with Windows than the Apple variants.
posted by meehawl at 2:45 PM on November 3, 2006

that sits on top of EFI and emulates BIOS, permitting Windows to boot on an Intel Mac. Unfortunately, this emulation does not come for free – it isn't as fast as having native BIOS firmware.

That's a pretty misleading way to describe it. It's not really emulation in the traditional sense of the word, and Intel Macs do pretty well in benchmarks, so I'm not sure what you're saying is slow.
posted by cillit bang at 2:49 PM on November 3, 2006

Apple provides a software tool, called Boot Camp, that sits on top of EFI and emulates BIOS, permitting Windows to boot on an Intel Mac.

And this BIOS layer will also boot the final release of Vista, EFI support or not.

I'm not up on the details, but I can tell you that there is no real-world noticeable performance penalty from the EFI/BIOS thing.

Asus manufactures the Macbook Pro models.

They also manufactured the iPod mini, and various other Apple products. They're just a contract manufacturer. Macbooks are a 100% Apple design.

That guy is also damn fast, and cost $1000 less than my MBP cost me.

I encourage everyone to do their own price comparisons; Apple is very competitive if you want something they offer. Certain configurations (e.g. large screen with slower onboard video and slower processor speed) aren't offered in the Apple lineup.
posted by trevyn at 2:54 PM on November 3, 2006

tkolar: Is this an issue after bootup?

It can be. Unless there has been a recent fix, under Boot Camp plus Windows the hard disk performance of an Intel Mac is considerably slower than it is under Mac OS X (or when compared to similar BIOS-based PC). This won't be a problem if you primarily do processor intensive, as opposed to disk-intensive, operations.

cillit bang: That's a pretty misleading way to describe it. It's not really emulation in the traditional sense of the word, and Intel Macs do pretty well in benchmarks, so I'm not sure what you're saying is slow.

It certainly isn't CPU architecture emulation, I agree, but believe me, Boot Camp's "firmware interface shim" emulates BIOS. I also agree that the new Mac Book Pro's are screaming fast laptops. I've looked around and I can't find any Boot Camp benchmarks for the new Mac Book Pro machines that compare Boot Camp to a similar PC. Where did you see them cillit bang?
posted by RichardP at 3:29 PM on November 3, 2006

Argh... That HD link should go here.
posted by RichardP at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

from reading the articles posted by RichardP the "Compatibility Support Module" used in bootcamp 2 months ago means the hard disk access speeds are crippled... does anyone know if this has been fixed in bootcamp over the past 10 weeks ?
posted by toocan at 3:51 PM on November 3, 2006

"Crippled" is a massive geek-type overstatement. I don't think it's been fixed yet, but it's still early days (Boot Camp is still officially beta until Leopard comes out in spring).
posted by cillit bang at 4:02 PM on November 3, 2006

Macbooks are a 100% Apple design.

Yes, Apple did design the notebook case. And the firewire port. Is there anything I've left out?
posted by meehawl at 4:10 PM on November 3, 2006

cillit bang, I've been poking around with Google, and various users are reporting that Apple has fixed the problem in recent firmware updates. I haven't, however, been able to find anything official or even reasonably definitive.
posted by RichardP at 4:10 PM on November 3, 2006

so am i going to be ok purchasing a macbook pro for running windows ?
posted by toocan at 4:17 PM on November 3, 2006

yes, I have to run windows on mine everyday to dial into a pc online VPN environment, it's the best PC I've ever owned.

(seriously though you may find you use the osx side of it more then 2%)

One thing to consider in price though -- you may have to buy a copy of XP, it doesn't come bundled with the computer like it would if you bought a sony or hp.
posted by visual mechanic at 4:26 PM on November 3, 2006

The problem being discussed in the past few comments was about the Mac Pro, not MacBook Pro.

Doing a search, it looks like wireless was a problem, but was subsequently fixed in the latest boot camp release.
posted by easyasy3k at 4:33 PM on November 3, 2006

I've heard they are comparible in price, but going to Dell's website and trying to configure an Inspiron 6400 (here, though the configuration doesn't stick) to the same specs as the cheapest Macbook pro results in a price of $1303 (vs. $1999 for Apple). Granted, it's a Radeon 1400x instead of a 1600x, and the ram comes as two sticks instead of one, but the other specs are the same.

I'm sure someone will point out what crucial option I missed, but it seems like a pretty big difference to me.
posted by alexei at 5:47 PM on November 3, 2006

comparable, that is
posted by alexei at 5:48 PM on November 3, 2006

I would highly recommend the Mac, even if you do plan on using it as a PC. You can see benchmarks here of someone who tested out stuff like Cinebench, Doom 3, UT 2004 on Windows XP native vs Bootcamp and found very little difference. Anandtech also did their own Parallells vs Bootcamp benchmarking.

I would not be swayed by naysayers who try to scare you with talk of EFI layer inefficiency, I've run Bootcamp to play modern PC games on my Mac, and I am pretty sure you will not have any problems with Dreamweaver, Visual Studio, etc. That being said I am not the first person to find themselves booting up less and less in Windows.
posted by sophist at 6:11 PM on November 3, 2006

Forgot to mention, this question has been asked and answered at least once before on AskMe.
posted by sophist at 6:13 PM on November 3, 2006

I bought a macbook pro back in april when bootcamp first came out. reason I bought it was I'm still tied to my photo processing software on the windows side.

hands down this is the best machine i've ever had. oh and it beats the freaking jesus out of my roommate's (brand new) VAIO, even tho they're similar processor speeds / memory.

as far as what you're using it for? I can't tell you that because I use mine for heavy photoshop / photoprocessing / graphics usage, not web testing and video stuff like it sounds like you will.

prior to this I'd only used Macs in passing for random graphics intensive projects, certainly never as my primary home PC. let me just state for the record that i'm never going back to a Windows box, ever, unless mac really falls down on the job. XP runs better and seems far more stable on my macbook than it is on my work PC, tho this is likely due to network issues on the work PC.

I can't speak to the geek benchmarks. i've never experienced any lag on mine tho.
posted by lonefrontranger at 7:11 PM on November 3, 2006

What about XP under Parallels? I just ordered a MBP Core 2 Duo and I need windows support... but I don't want to have to reboot to get it. Does Parallels have acceptable performance?
posted by aberrant at 8:50 PM on November 3, 2006

In my above post i linked to the Anandtech "parallels vs bootcamp" benchmarks. Parallels performs very well.
posted by sophist at 9:22 PM on November 3, 2006

yup, sophist - I missed it first time 'round. Thank you.
posted by aberrant at 10:03 PM on November 3, 2006

Piggyback: I'm thinking of doing the same thing. My one questions is -- has anyone encountered ANY problems that you wouldn't normally have, if you had a regular PC. I don't mean slower/faster performance issues; I mean drivers or peripherals not working -- or some standard piece of software not running. Is there a site that discusses this sort of thing? Before I buy a Macbook, I want to be SURE that all my PC hardware and software will still work. I know it's an intel machine, but I want to be really sure.
posted by grumblebee at 6:11 AM on November 4, 2006

I've been using laptops as my primary (actually sole) machines for a decade. Apple, Sony & Dell brands. I can say without any qualification that the MBP is the best-built, most intelligently designed and most problem-free laptop I've used.
posted by allterrainbrain at 6:26 AM on November 4, 2006

I want to be SURE that all my PC hardware and software will still work

Nobody can give any guarantees that *all* "PC" hardware and software will work with Windows on a specifically Windows-designed machine. Never mind a Mac running what Steve Jobs, in a former life, might have termed a "hostile port" of the Windows OS ("hostile port" is how Jobs referred to Macintosh emulators running on Amiga hardware many years ago).

It's really only useful to define what hardware and software you have, or expect to get, and then check if that is known to have any problems.
posted by meehawl at 8:16 AM on November 4, 2006

One thing to watch out for: The Vista License explictly states that Vista may not be run under an emulator, so running Vista under Parallels might be verboten. Boot camp should still be ok. Before you ask: No, I don't know if Vista will be able to detect that it is running under Parallels.
posted by chairface at 8:29 AM on November 4, 2006

I know that there's no guarantee that all software will run, but I'm hoping there's a forum somewhere where this sort of thing is discussed.
posted by grumblebee at 8:41 AM on November 4, 2006

The Vista License explictly states that Vista may not be run under an emulator

This is only true of Home licenses. Ultimate licenses allow this. More here.
posted by kindall at 10:39 AM on November 4, 2006