Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

driven · Oct 8, 2007, 01:40 AM

Folks,

I know this has been asked before, and I've read all the other threads, yet I still find myself sitting on this picket fence. I'm going to lay out my circumstances and needs and see if any of you have similar experiences to help shove me in the right direction.

Currently I use the following:
- PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0 with 1/2 terabyte of disk space (aprox)
(Used for video editing and general all-around use mostly.)

- PowerMac G4 (for non-work travel and XCode.)

- Dell Latitude D810 for work. (I'm a consultant that works and writes Windows software.. this machine makes heavy use of VMWare and Visual Studio ... I also use it for Half-Life 2 and Unreal Tournament 2003)

I want to replace these three machines down to 1.

I need a laptop. The MBP 15" with VMware Fusion seems to be the obvious choice here. For disk space on the G5 I could add external drives, no big deal.

I'm wondering if I could get away with a MB instead?

1) It's cheaper ... considerably
2) It opens nicer when flying in coach (for those times I don't get my upgrade)
3) The black color makes it stand out less in a Windows environment.

Of course I'd miss the backlit keyboard, but I'm not willing to pay a nearly $1000 premium just for that.

My question relates to (of course) the video card:

Can the video card handle the VMware stuff? I typically run 2 VMs at a time (Mostly Windows 2003 server). Also: Can it adequately handle UT2003 and Half Life 2? (In boot camp obviously.) How about Video Editing?

For me, is it worth the premium for the MBP? (I have a new baby on the way and I'm remodeling my house too ... so I don't want to nuts on the computer expenses.)

Thoughts? I sincerely appreciate the feedback.

Cold Warrior · Oct 8, 2007, 10:08 AM

Based on your work load, it looks like the MBP would be a better choice. It's FW 800 and ExpressCard slot could be a big deal for you now or in the future if you need very fast peripheral/data access.

MacosNerd · Oct 8, 2007, 10:15 AM

No question that based on your expectations and needs that the MBP is the better choice.

More ram, better GPU, larger screen, fw800, express card slot..

If you play games as you stated, then the integrated graphics that the MB has isn't really up to snuff.

driven · Oct 8, 2007, 11:14 AM

Hmm .... thanks for the feedback. The Apple store said as much too. (And of all things, they are usually better known for DOWNselling...)

I had forgotten about the FW800. That actually is helpful since I have an FW800 drive sitting here.

Thanks ... I'll have a little longer and get the better unit.

Another dumb question (being honest, didn't do much checking here yet, and this is probably the wrong forum) ... does anyone know if a new MBP is in the works soon? (curiosity mostly.)

Thanks again for the feedback.

~bash $ · Oct 8, 2007, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by driven

Another dumb question (being honest, didn't do much checking here yet, and this is probably the wrong forum) ... does anyone know if a new MBP is in the works soon? (curiosity mostly.)

Thanks again for the feedback.

Best guess is January-ish. But as always ... speculation.

butterfly0fdoom · Oct 8, 2007, 02:15 PM

The last MBP update was in June, so December at the earliest. Updates would include the Penryn Core 2 Duo chips, which would push back earliest possible release to January.

driven · Oct 8, 2007, 03:40 PM

Basically if I get the money before then I'll buy. If not I'll wait and see what happens. I want this to last a while so I don't want to skimp. (Although I think a 2.2 Ghz should be fine ...)

Simon · Oct 8, 2007, 04:13 PM

Get a MBP. Either you can buy right now or then wait for an announcement no earlier than MWSF. Of course it could be February till units then actually start shipping. 45nm Penryn with 6 MB L2 cache and up to 2.6 GHz will be released in 1Q08 and will likely find their way into the MBP immediately at the same price points as today.

mduell · Oct 8, 2007, 04:52 PM

The MB GPU is fine for VMware (no real graphics acceleration inside a virtual machine anyway), but the RAM ceiling would be horrible.

I'd definitely get the MBP. The MB is ok only if you still have a powerful desktop.

driven · Oct 8, 2007, 05:00 PM

What's the RAM ceiling on th MB? VMware runs very nicely on the Dell D810 with 2GB ... (I allocate 512MB to 1GB per VM). XP is the base OS. I dorked with Vista for about 30 days .. but that was too painful.

mduell · Oct 8, 2007, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by driven

What's the RAM ceiling on th MB? VMware runs very nicely on the Dell D810 with 2GB ... (I allocate 512MB to 1GB per VM). XP is the base OS. I dorked with Vista for about 30 days .. but that was too painful.

3GB on the Core 2 Duo MacBooks.

pjosborne · 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

3GB on the Core 2 Duo MacBooks.

Really? I have one of these and I was sure the limit was 2GB. The early C2D MBPs had a 3GB (though this is now 4GB in the SR machines). I'd really like 3GB in my MB, so would be very happy if this is indeed the case. Can you point to a reference? Apple's site definitely says 2GB max.

Simon · Oct 9, 2007, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by pjosborne

I'd really like 3GB in my MB, so would be very happy if this is indeed the case. Can you point to a reference? Apple's site definitely says 2GB max.

mduell is right - the current C2D MBs support 3 GB. Here are some links:
http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/Fr...kcore23gb.html
http://www.macuser.com/hardware/pump...php?lsrc=murss

The general consensus is that Apple doesn't advertise it because there's a certain speed penalty associated with using unmatched SO-DIMM pairs. Normally it's no big deal (especially not when people are suffering from lots of i/o wait due to page-outs), but for GPU-dependent apps it can become a problem because the MB's GMA 950 uses RAM instead of a dedicated VRAM and therefore needs to use the memory bus to access the data stored in the "VRAM". Using unmatched pairs reduces the actual memory bandwidth and hence this becomes a performance issue on systems with integrated graphics.

butterfly0fdoom · Oct 9, 2007, 02:14 AM

I don't suggest 3GB of RAM; 2GB will work much better.

Simon · Oct 9, 2007, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom

I don't suggest 3GB of RAM; 2GB will work much better.

That depends very much on what you do. A PS user with a MB, 2 GB RAM, and a ton of page-outs will be better off with 3 GB. A gamer with 2 GB likely won't.

Here's what ars had to say: "While they do admit that the matched pairs are better for some tests, they find that for the most part, 3GB of RAM is more beneficial. So it seems that the new conventional wisdom that matched pairs are better only holds true in some cases, and that the old conventional wisdom might be new again.".

And OWC did a lot of benchmarking. Check those numbers to see which is more beneficial for your kind of work.

mduell · Oct 9, 2007, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by pjosborne

Really? I have one of these and I was sure the limit was 2GB. The early C2D MBPs had a 3GB (though this is now 4GB in the SR machines). I'd really like 3GB in my MB, so would be very happy if this is indeed the case. Can you point to a reference? Apple's site definitely says 2GB max.

Apple clearly says 3GB: two SO-DIMM slots support up to 3GB

Simon · 02:48 AM

Umm, that link points to the MBP specs.

On the MB specs (here and here) Apple claims 2 GB is the max. That's wrong, but unfortunatly that's what they're advertising.

mduell · Oct 10, 2007, 05:29 PM

Indeed...

What's with Apple understating the maximum RAM capacity in many Macs? They've been doing it for years.

Simon · 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

What's with Apple understating the maximum RAM capacity in many Macs? They've been doing it for years.

Yeah, they have.

In the 'old days' they used to specify the maximum capacity as the number of slots multiplied with the largest available DIMM size at the time of release. That led to quite some confusion because often the chipset could actually address more memory, but even when larger modules became available a lot of people hesitated to buy them simply because Apple understated the max capacity.

Nowadays (what's that — the 'Intel aera' maybe?) it seems somewhat different. On the MB I see two explanations: one is simply marketing (increase upsale to the MBP by insinuating that its chipset supports a full 4 GB rather than the MB's measly two); the other's the issue with integrated graphics performance with unmatched DIMMs as I detailed above. If the latter's really the reason, I would rather see them specify the actual max capacity and indicate in a footnote that best graphics performance is reached with matched pairs (i.e. 2x512 MB or 2x1GB).

tycheung · Oct 18, 2007, 12:53 PM

has anyone tried stuffing 4gb into a macbook?

(and i highly doubt half life 2 will run well...)

mduell · Oct 18, 2007, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by tycheung

has anyone tried stuffing 4gb into a macbook?

(and i highly doubt half life 2 will run well...)

You can stuff 4GB into any MacBook. In a Core Duo Macbook you'll be able to use 2GB of it, and in a Core 2 Duo Macbook you'll be able to use 3GB of it.

HL2 will run at lower resolutions, but not 'well'.

Veltliner · Oct 19, 2007, 02:12 AM

I would not underestimate the great backlit display of the MBP.