MacBook Pro Dual-core Performance <-- Intel Processor

[aigomorla]

its directly on there web site. Im just wondering if u could now buy a Macbook and wipe Tiger X and install windows XP. The hardware config seems pretty dayam tight for 1999.00 :X 128megs X1600 u cant really go wrong there

 

[IlllI]

they look nice but seem kind of expensive. $1999 for 512mb ram, 80gb hd 1.67ghz proc

 

[UltraWide]

Can it run windows though?

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: UltraWide
Can it run windows though?

Personaly I haven't heard of a hack yet that makes it possible to load Windows but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

 

[aigomorla]

thats what im trying to figure out myself. The Stats on it isnt as bad as one would think. The only thing i can see that could come close to it would be the New Dell 9400 series. But even then, most of the other dual Core Yonah's i see only uses crappy integrated. This one u get a x1600 at 128 megs ram. Plus, u can always just drop in more ddr2 ram.

I dont know how the x1600 mobile stacks up to the 7800go. But im assuming it would be pretty close. And concidering most 7800go systems costs well over 2000 its not a bad price for dual core

 

[Wuzup101]

Check out www.macnn.com for more information about the new mac book. I'm sure there will be about 1000 threads about it by tonight. IIRC steve jobs said that apple wouldn't do anything to prevent you from installing Windows on the new mactells - then again they wont do anything to help you either. Personally, my advise is don't buy a first generation mac (as an owner of a 15" powerbook myself). My current powerbook is an awesome machine - and I'll probably be purchasing one of these new ones over summer when the second revision comes out. Truth be told, the powerbook is the best computer I've ever had the pleasure of using. Sure it has it's quarks, but I sure do love it. Also, consider actually using OSX, it's a damn good OS IMHO. I haven't missed windows one bit (that would be unless you're a gamer and than dual booting might be something to look into).

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Has anyone heard anything about a 64bit chip in the MacBook's future?

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: ValuedCustomer
Has anyone heard anything about a 64bit chip in the MacBook's future?

The 64bit version of the Pentium M isnt slated until the second half of this year. Its plausible they announce 64bit MacBooks during the summer, but I bet it wont be until next Jan.

 

[BladeVenom]

It's funny that Apple is saying it's performance is 4 to 5 times better than a g4. Makes all those Apple zealots, who said g4s were competitive, look like idiots.

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
I dont know how the x1600 mobile stacks up to the 7800go. But im assuming it would be pretty close. And concidering most 7800go systems costs well over 2000 its not a bad price for dual core

well considering how the desktop x1600 couldnt hold a candle to the desktop version of the 7800...i would say much less. but it would be ok for 'thin and light' notebooks since the x1600 uses a lot less juice than the 7800 mobile. you would never se a 7800 in a thin notebook such as the new macs since you need more cooling for the 7800.

right now, the dell website was offering a 9400 for 2000, which you could get for less with all those coupons floating around Text
has 1gb ram, larger lcd screen , 80gb hd, 7800go gpu, and 1.83ghx proc all standard.


the point i was trying to make earlier, is that if your only intention would be to buy it and install windows..well...it would be pretty expensive to do JUST that. the new macs start off at 2000. and in your example, you compared the 9400 to it, but the 9400 has much more 'bang for the buck' at that price. granted though, its not as thin as the mac, but the specs for the 9400 are better for the same price as the mac.
theoretically it should work though, as long as you could get the drivers for all the laptop components for the mac. that would be the biggest issure.

 

[thraxes]

Then again I wouldn't compare Dell's build quality with Apple Powerbooks (MacBooks) or Lenovo/IBM Thinkpads... the latter two are just in a different league and I would rather spend more for good on the road ruggedness than just raw "powaaaah".

The company I work for has given up on Dell and HP laptops since they were always worne out after a year of heavy use. On a whim we got a few R series Thinkpads a few years ago and now all laptops in the company are going to be Thinkpads... why? Well the R series machine we bought is still working and as rugged as ever before while the Dell that cost the same (but in fairness was better equiped) has since fallen apart - screen hinges have failed. Apple laptops are most definately in the same league as I use one for my work instead of one of the Thinkpads simply because I chose one to see how it would cope with the windows environment and to better support our occasional Apple clients. I got it to work with most of the Windows network (even active directory runs... no luck with exchange though but I have a Windows desktop machine for that in the office that I just connect to via RDC), it also is still as rugged as when I got it and I will be getting another one next year when an upgrade is due.

 

[Commodus]

I think the MacBook Pro is a good product overall. There are a few sacrifices: it only has a 4X DVD writer (this is because it's an extra-slim model), and there's no Firewire 800, but it's much, much faster than the old PowerBook.

I'd also say it's a better choice in a number of cases than the faster Dell. Obviously, a 15.4" screen is easier to manage than a 17", for one, but the MacBook is also considerably thinner and lighter. It has DVI out, so it's easier to hook up to an LCD display; it has a backlit keyboard, so it's better for low-light; it has a built in iSight that doesn't add extra bulk, so you can have video chats fairly easily. Also, it has a feature which is probably cooler than you think: that MagSafe power connector. If you've ever had someone trip on a laptop power cord, you'll appreciate this - if someone snags on the cord, they'll pull it out without also pulling the laptop or mangling the power connector.

So it might seem more expensive, but it's probably just better-built and has more features that a true mobile user would need. Unless I needed something Windows specific, I'd probably be looking at this very carefully.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
its directly on there web site. Im just wondering if u could now buy a Macbook and wipe Tiger X and install windows XP. The hardware config seems pretty dayam tight for 1999.00 :X 128megs X1600 u cant really go wrong there

Gateway is selling notebooks with similar hardware starting at $1399 I believe.

 

[Koing]

It will be very interestinf if you can install Windows on it!

That would be SERIOUSLY nice . TOO bad I don't have a need for a laptop anymore...my 4yr old Sony R600HEK is still doing well.

Koing

 

[Commodus]

You know, people may actually want to try using OS X first.

It's probably better-suited to the Core Duo, actually, since the OS is very well-multithreaded compared to XP. If you're the sort to run several apps at once it could affect responsiveness.

 

[vegetation]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
It's funny that Apple is saying it's performance is 4 to 5 times better than a g4. Makes all those Apple zealots, who said g4s were competitive, look like idiots.

LOL, at least now Apple is being honest with their hardware claims.

 

[IlllI]

look what i just found Text so looks like the chances are good

 

[Commodus]

Originally posted by: skunkbuster
look what i just found Text so looks like the chances are good

That's an agreement for Microsoft's OS X apps. It doesn't cover Windows at all, and Microsoft will probably never try to support Windows on OS X outside of VirtualPC.

Would people please start reading what's actually written rather than making wild speculation? :disgust:

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: Commodus


That's an agreement for Microsoft's OS X apps. It doesn't cover Windows at all, and Microsoft will probably never try to support Windows on OS X outside of VirtualPC.

Would people please start reading what's actually written rather than making wild speculation? :disgust:

umm...did you actually read the article? the first two paragraphs? maybe you should have before making yourself seem foolish.


"SEATTLE - Apple Computer Inc. won't thwart users from loading Microsoft's Windows operating system onto its new Intel-based Macintosh computers _ but don't expect Apple to start offering a Mac running Windows.

Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in an interview Tuesday that the company won't sell or support Windows itself, but also hasn't done anything to preclude people from loading Windows onto the machines themselves."

 

[BladeVenom]

The new Macs use an extensible firmware interface, so there's no putting XP on Macs at the moment. 64 bit XP supports it, but that won't work since the new Macs are 32 bit.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
The new Macs use an extensible firmware interface, so there's no putting XP on Macs at the moment. 64 bit XP supports it, but that won't work since the new Macs are 32 bit.

Well, thats probably going to change in the second half of the year when their desktops are released and Intel's next Pentium M revision is made.

 

[halfadder]

My next personal laptop will definitely be a MacBookPro, but I am waiting for two things first...

#1 usable Windows interface, either booting Windows (someone will make a hack soon enough) or DarWine/WineOSX to run Windows applications from right inside OS X (there are even rumors from the MacWorldExpo that Microsoft is going to make an updated VirtualPC for Intel Macs.. no emulation, so it'll be fast).

#2 Faster CPU. I'll either wait for the 1.8 GHz Core Duo to hit $1999 or I'll splurge and get the 2.0 GHz model when it becomes available. Yes, I know the MacBookPro has an X1600 GPU, fast ram, etc, and it's blahblahblah faster than a G4, but if you look at the benchmarks, there are some cases where the 1.67 GHz Core Duo is "only" 1.6x faster than the 1.67 GHz G4. If you look at the raw numbers and at the graph you can see they basiclly mean 60 % faster. Well, I should expect at least that much since the Core Duo is... well... dual core! The G4 was single core and had a slow FSB.

Yes, I know this third generation Pentium M is a very fast CPU, and it's dual core which Mac OS X loves, but I'm already seeing cases where it's only slightly faster than the laptop it replaced. I'm going to wait for a faster version of the Intel Core Duo before I plunk down the money.

(I find it funny that the same people who complained about the G4 benchmarks being unfair are now the same people quoting Apple that the Intel macs are "3x - 4x faster" without reading the fine print. Yeah, the new Intel Macs are nice (much faster GPUs, much faster RAM, dual core CPUs) but clock for clock they're not whoop-ass faster. Some apps, like Modo, are *much* faster under Intel, but many of Apple's existing apps, compiled as universal binaries for both IBM/Motorola PPC and Intel Core Duo, are not even twice as fast under these new Intel machines, which means the single PowerPC core is actually faster than one core from the new CPUs in those specific cases. Still, they're better than the Freescale vaporware and they are much faster than the previous generation PowerBook, and I can't wait to buy one).

 

[Commodus]

Originally posted by: skunkbuster

umm...did you actually read the article? the first two paragraphs? maybe you should have before making yourself seem foolish.

I did - and you're not helping your case either.

There's a big difference between "not stopping people" and actually being able to do it. In fact, you can't install Windows XP on an Intel Mac because it doesn't have EFI support (EFI being a newer replacement for a system BIOS). You'll have to wait for the release version of Windows Vista, or else a really clever hack of XP, to try and install Windows on an Intel-based Mac.

Besides, if you didn't want me to focus on the 5-year Microsoft deal at first, why didn't you actually specify as much? If you cite a source, you have to point out why it's useful.

 

[Mickey Eye]

I never thought I'd have buyers regret over purchasing my Acer Ferrari. I guess I'll switch next time...

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: Commodus

Originally posted by: skunkbuster

umm...did you actually read the article? the first two paragraphs? maybe you should have before making yourself seem foolish.

I did - and you're not helping your case either.

There's a big difference between "not stopping people" and actually being able to do it. In fact, you can't install Windows XP on an Intel Mac because it doesn't have EFI support (EFI being a newer replacement for a system BIOS). You'll have to wait for the release version of Windows Vista, or else a really clever hack of XP, to try and install Windows on an Intel-based Mac.

Besides, if you didn't want me to focus on the 5-year Microsoft deal at first, why didn't you actually specify as much? If you cite a source, you have to point out why it's useful.

1. where did i EVER say it could run xp?

2. where did i ever say that windows could run on it TODAY?

3. people who read the article may find it useful info -as in it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility