Im buying a Macbook Just for the Hardware And only use windows on it, good idea?

Hello Im about to buy a Macbook Black 13" with 1 gig ram and 100gb HD

The only reason im getting it is because of the portability, good hardware , and the looks. I am a total windows users so please dont try to convince me otherwise. I will be paying 1200$ Canadian (is this a good deal?) for this macbook and I was wondering if I could just install 1 main windows partition on it. I would like to hear your thoughts on this

some things Im wondering about:

- Could I get a system equal or faster to this while maintianing same battery life and portability?

- How well will windows run on this system (Drivers wise)

 

Side note: Don't the black MBs come with 120GB HD?

I plan on getting the white Macbook (see sig) but others have suggested the HP dv2000t which has the same (if not better specs) for a cheaper price (~$70). I'm also accounting for AR and student discounts.

Wish I could help you with the other questions but I am also curious about the questions you have asked.

 

You won't hear me criticizing you because I did exactly the same thing a few weeks ago. In fact, I started with the MB black and decided to switch to the MBP because of the larger screen.

I'm a Windows developer so I installed Parallels and WinXP. In my opinion, Windows runs better in this environment than it did on my Thinkpad.

This setup is a little more costly (you need to buy Parallels) than partitioning the hard drive and running Bootcamp, but switching from OSX to WinXP is much easier... no reboot required.

I use an external keyboard, mouse, and LCD with my MBP and have zero problems.

I think the MB and MBP offer the nicest looking laptop on the market. Not to mention the svelte size and light weight.

No, you're not unique. There are others out there just like you and me that decided to take the plunge and see what all the hype is all about. Turns out, it's not all hype.

 

Really it is up to you. The MacBook will run Windows just fine. Everything should be working in Boot Camp now. You will need to keep a minimum partition for OS X, I do not think you can totally get rid of it, but you can make it pretty small, probably 5-10GB. You will also need to purchase Leopard when it comes out because Apple will likely cease the free Boot Camp download. Then factor in the cost of a full Windows XP license. A normal PC would be cheaper. I see no reason to buy an Apple if you are not going to use OS X in some fashion besides as a host OS.

 

You shouldn't forget that the Macbook comes without several parts a normal PC would have, like a PC card reader, modem, memory card reader or VGA port. There are also no docking stations available for it, and the touchpad only has one button (tapping two fingers on the pad does simulate a right click, but I'm still not used to that).
If you don't mind all that, then get a Mac. Who knows, you might decide to switch to OS X after you discover how wonderful it is.

 

If you want a windows computer with macbook like features and asthetics, invest in a vaio c series.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't really go with a Mac if you plan to use it in windows all the time. I honestly won't use windows much at all now. I can develop all languages under OS X now. Though I will get a license for Parallels soon, after all I may need to use something like Rational Developer (booooo!).
So far, OS X has the best editor (Textmate) I've ever used.

 

Its your money do what you want with it.

 

Leo Leporte (podcaster of the year) owns and uses a Mac and perhaps said it best, "with Parallels, I can run both OS X and Windows". Why not take advantage of this and learn about OS X and continue to use Windows for your necessary apps of today.

 

terrible idea.
you can get much better hardware for a much lower price if you get a non apple machine. HP is the one you should look at.

 

I concur... HP makes fantastic laptops at a good value for only running Windows... the Macs look sexy, but they lack a couple of key features that a hardcore user will surely miss, docking station... integrated fingerprint reader and tpm...

 

If you're just going to run windows on it, then there's no point, no matter how cool the Macbook is. The right click thing is huge - you can also buy some machines that look pretty darn nice. The Macbook is great because it can run both OS's - not because it can run windows. The purpose of Bootcamp is so that switchers won't hesitate when buying Macs because they know they can run Windows for those things that the Mac can't do.

In my opinion, you should just get an HP or a Sony (unless you change your mind and want to experience OS X!)

 

OK.... I'm a mac user... and all I can say is TERRIBLE IDEA!!!

Windows on a mac should only be used in the extreme case. I mean, an app you dont have in mac.

Don't do it man... get an HP dv2000 or a XPS 1210 they both look "cool" too

 

Do not look at HP. Terrible customer service, worse hardware and even worse software. They come with a lot of bundled crap. Get like a sony viao FE series or something if you want the aesthetics and quality. I recommend Apple but if you want to use windows by itself and if you intend to not use OS don't get a macbook. You're much better off with a sony.

Sony and Apple are the only laptops worth their money. And I'm not kidding. Just remember when you look at that $800 dell vs. that $1200 sony that you get what you pay for.

 

As JJFCPA mentioned, Windows will run extremely well on a mac. I have a friend who is Windows developer, and even she admits that Vista actually runs better on macs than pc's due to the quality of apple's hardware. Therefore, I don't think it would be a waste if you were to run only windows on a mac.

Sidenote: The touchpad for macs is remarkably easy to adjust to...I feel that the two finger scrolling is superior to having to run your finger down the right edge of the touchpad, and the two finger tap for right click would take no longer than a few days to get used to and is a nice improvement over having to press ctrl.

 

It aint that simple. Now, we can say mac its only the software. It has a core 2 duo and a Intel GMA 950 / Ati x1600 or whatever.... if you compare it to an extreme edition of a Core 2 duo with 4 cores and a 8800 GTX its not true. For shure. That friend of yours aint right.

 

My friend's comparison was meant to be interpreted for models with similar specs...ie a pc laptop with similar specs as the macbook or macbook pro. It wouldn't make sense to compare a macbook/macbook pro to your example...plus I am not even aware of the existence of a laptop with those specs...

 

I know but then, if it had similar specs, then there is no reason why Vista would run better on a Mac rather than a PC. Lets say a Macbook Pro and an Acer 8200. Both with the same processor, same memory ammount and type, same Video Card. I bet there won't be noticeable difference between both.

 

That's exactly what I told her...but she insisted that somehow it did run smoother on the mac. BTW yes she loves her Microsoft products, so she is by no means a huge Apple fan. Anyways, I didn't mean to start a debate over this, I just wanted to convey someone's experience with Windows on a Mac and to offer an opinion on whether or not I thought it would be a good idea. I definitely respect your opinion, and you do make a logical argument. Cheers

 

lol I have the feeling your friend is a secret Mac lover.... she just doesn't want to admit it lol jk

 

Not quite. The exact brand/model of the mobo (AFAIK Apple mobos are not available to other manufacturers), choice of components, etc, may make a difference. Heck, have you guys never seem benchmarks between say an ECS mobo and an ABIT, both with the same specs (CPU, mem and GPU) with considerably different performance? Well, I am not affirming Vista is better on Macs, I have never even installed XP in bootcamp. But it could be.

 

Wooky I know, I also trust apple a lot. Shure they do use quality componnets. But the difference in performance between Mobos, for example, its minimum. CPU and other componnets make the real difference.

Anyway, im shure there are also other compannies who use great componnents... i dunno, Sony, HP, Toshiba, Asus, < insert a laptop company here>

 

I was in a similar boat and after a lot of research and discussing with friends who own MBPs...I went with the Sony VAIO SZ-330P/B. I got it for ~$1700 afer rebates...spec highlights:
13.3 inch screen - 1280x800, C2D 7200 (2.0ghz), 2GB DDR2 RAM, 120GB HD, webcam, fingerprint, TPM, dvd burner, Nvidia 7400 graphics, etc etc.

THen came the weight. MB is over 5lbs, MBP over 6lbs. SZ is < 4lbs. Huge difference.

And the thing looks (IN MY OPINION) better than the Apple notebooks...I didn't even get the ones with carbon fiber which look better.

As much as I was tempted by Apple - Sony makes very nice looking laptops that are portable and powerful. Very happy with my purchase...BTW, the SZ series run Linux with Beryl/Compiz beautifully.

 

I must say that I've had two friends with Sony who have required repairs. Sony was terrible to them and a couple of service centres were less than flattering when describing what they thought of Sony.

 

I bought a loaded Sony SZ Premium about 6 months ago. Its an awesome package filled with some terrific hardware. I bought an Apple MacBook about a month ago because it was relatively inexpensive (about half the cost of the Sony) and I like to see how the other side is doing periodically.

Now I find myself using the MacBook all the time and will be seling my SZ. I miss the weight and some of the hardware in the Sony, but I don't miss the slow, unreliable, maintenance and upgrade intensive world of Windows.

There are those that think the Mac's gui is better, and there are things I like and dislike about it, but if it looked exactly like Windows I'd still take OS X hands down because of its speed, stability, low maintenance.

Look for an upcoming SZ vs MacBook review here on NotebookReview

 

Jim,

Most of the maintenance is automated and I still prefer Windows over OS X due to the much larger software library and support for gadgets/peripherals. Besides, I just bought a Sony SZ recently so I'll be getting a complimentary copy of Vista in the mail soon.

 

The MacBook Pro actually weighs 5.6lbs. making it probably the lightest 15" notebook available. It is also not a fair comparison between the MBP and SZ, the MBP is more powerful and has a larger screen. They are two different classes. I would agree though that the SZ is much more portable than a MacBook, but you pay for it.

 

cashmonee - Curious as to why you say the base MBP is more powerful than the SZ?

Also the SZ330 I got for $1700 is only $200 more than a Black Macbook but has much better specs (2GB DDR2 RAM, GeForce Go 7400 graphics, lighter, biometrics, etc.)

My first preference was the MB but the integrated Intel 950 graphics turned me off that and the MBP looked fantastic but didn't need a 15" screen and a notebook that big. That's why the SZ fit perfectly - portable but powerful.

 

it run smoother because better hardware in mac book,

in mt experience, HP sucks. worse than dell
IBM laptop's quality is good but the design is ugly

apple > IBM > Fujitsu > asus > dell > Toshiba > Sony > Acer > Benq > HP/Compac

apple has the best quality and HP is crappy

that's my experience, i never try LG or NEC or panassonic

 

The frequent and sizeable Windows, Anti Virus, and Anti Spyware updates required by XP can indeed be downloaded or downloaded and installed in an automated fashion. Unfortunately the interruptions, bandwidth use, side effects and investigation and recovery create a significant impairment to real work. Reboots, Recoveries, Un-Corruptions, Optimizations, Upgrades and re installations required also create a significant imparemnet. I just have other things I would prefer to be doing the several hours each week this requires for the systems I maintain.

I'm a bit of a dinosaur but something requiring the number, size, and frequency of updates XP does, is clearly not ready for release and should never have gotten out of QA.

You have a definite point on the variety of software and hardware available for the PC where the Mac side is much more limited. I was able so find acceptable substitutes for everything I needed but that is clearly not the case for everyone.

As to Vista, I'll reserve final judgment until after official release, but given what I've seen from friends participating in Beta and currently running "final" I predict it will not differ significantly from XP with respect to reliability, stability, and maintenance.

 

it's funny how people seem to praise Macs for their build quality when it's actually the only thing that is putting me off of buying one. Seriously what's up with their grainy 15" matte screen?

 

Uhh.. grainy? The glossy and matte screens are the best in laptops. Of the dozen or so other laptops I've seen (not including the ones at best buy and such) none come close.

Want a grainy screen? See Dell, Gateway, HP, and Lenovo.

 

Now now children, no fighting. Its just brands, opinions are their own.

 

you can get a sz with the 2.33 core 2 duo, get 2 gigs of ram all stock. so what the mbp has a more powerful gpu (if you get the 256 one), but then you're paying way way more than a sony.

if you're gonna use windows, stick with pc.

 

I meant no disrespect nor did I try to offend you mate.
I'm just stating the fact.
I'm wanting a mac really bad, but the quality check is definitely not good enough for the price we pay.

this isn't the grainy screen but it still is a defect:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YOn_zhY4tgU

I'm not bashing Apple, I'm just taking precautions before buying a MBP, and I want those screens to be fixed!

I'm prob just going to buy one and hope for a good built laptop to come to me.

 

stating the fact when you don't have one to make this claim?

We have a good case of ignorance here...

 

I'm not taking offense, I just don't see how anyone can say they're grainy.

Have you actually used the glossy and matte units?

His 17" in that video has a simple case of light leakage. Apple probably replaced the panel, but the problem is more likely in the chassis. I see that on a ton of laptops.

It's a lemon. I doubt many units have that problem.

 

Zentox In my country you can actually go to stores and check out the products before you buy them. I went to the two resellers in my area only one had MBPs; a 15", and 17" matte on display. The 15" was grainy and the 17" was beautiful. When I asked the manager he didn't seem to mind but he "acknowledged" the screen to be of sub quality to other he's seen.
Some people don't mind grainy screen. I'm unfortunately not one of those.

 

Oh, I thikn I know what your talking about. I actually see that as being normal amongst non glossy screens. At least ones with accurate colors. I'm wondering if the 17" was actually glossy. The 15" and 17" matte screens I've seen on the MBP were pretty much identical to me.
I'm not a pro level graphic designer, but I know those panels are considered pretty much top of the line for any real artistic work. But for normal users, they aren't the best. Glossy's are better for watching movies, writing, surfing the web, and viewing pics. But they don't allow the user to see colors as accurate as a pro level designer needs.

 

The MacBook Pro's have a brighter screen than the older powerbooks that can attribute to the amount of light leakeage shown in the video. I haven't noticed this in my c2d matte screen mbp nor has the "grainy" screen bothered or distracted me from my work. I owned a vaio sz non premium that had a bad case of this grainy effect and sony, to my knowledge, has not issued out a fix. If apple finds that the screens are defective I may consider replacing it, but until then I will enjoy my experience with the mbp.

 

Maybe you can give me a link. I see the 2.33GHz with 2 gigs of RAM and a 120GB drive coming in at just under $3000 on sonystyle. Maybe I am looking at the wrong one, but you can get the 2.33 MBP with those same exact features plus a larger screen and MUCH better video card for $500 less. Understand, the SZ is kind of in a class by itself, it is very difficult to compare it to other notebooks.

 

Can't the graininess issue be because of the graphics card? Graininess is an acknowledged issue with x1600's. The computer municipal was looking at might have been one of those that apple hadn't fixed or something.