Is getting a MBA to use it with Windows 7 worth it?

Title.

Currently have a massive desktop replacement laptop (sager clevo 7200) that I never intended on using on battery (use it like a mobile a desktop).

So what I'm really looking for is a new laptop that I can use for leisure (e.g. on the bus, in the car, while watching TV, etc.).

Would like something that is reliable, looks beautiful and that I can whip out easily like a tablet.

MBA seemed to the best thing that came to mind (Asus and Acer's MBA clones just don't cut it in my mind).

I've haven't used a mac since I was a kid so I'm not familiar with mac keyboards or mac touchpads.

But basically...I would like to use Windows 7 on it.

If I were to get a MBA, it would be the 13" one with core i7 (basically top of the line).

What I really want to know is whether Windows 7 would work well on the MBA and whether the keyboard is hard to use...(for an avid windows user)...and basically whether you think I'd run into any problems (productivity wise) by installing Windows 7 on a MBA.

Thx.

 

No, it's not worth it. Once you add in the price of Windows 7, you're paying 50% more than you would for an Asus Zenbook. Is the hardware better? A bit. Not nearly 50% better.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/21/asus-zenbook-ux31-review/

Edit: it looks like you've seen one in person and didn't like it? Look at an MBA in person and see if you like it. If you do, there's your answer.

 

Random suggestion if you don't like the Asus Zenbook: for the price of a 13" MacBook Air and Windows 7 and an external optical drive, you're about at the price of a Vaio Z, and its price includes Windows 7 and an external optical drive (and external GPU). Heck, if you get the 256 GB MBA because you need the extra hard drive space for two partitions with two OSes, the Vaio Z is actually cheaper once you factor in the cost of Windows. And it's some NICE hardware.

Go to a Sony store and an Apple store and check out each, see what you like.

 

just went to the apple store.

MBA was really nice. surprisingly I was able to use the keyboard with ease (fingers knew where stuff was). some
keys might take getting used to, but for most part it was nice.

price really isn't an obstacle for me (I spent $6K on my current desktop replacement laptop).

I'd have no problem buying w7 also.

so now the only question is...does windows 7 run well on the MBA? (with i7)

keep in mind...not using the laptop to play games or do any graphics intensive tasks

 

I find it too quirky for running long periods on 7, others dont find it too bad its going to be a personal preferences war. if certain drivers and power management were improved and windows wasnt forced to use IDE mode instead of AHCI it would be alot nicer.

 

If price is not an issue and you're going to be running Windows 7 full time, I'd recommend the Vaio Z. I think everyone here agrees that Windows 7 on Boot Camp works well for occasional use, but not primary use. Apple just doesn't really emphasize it and support it. It took them half a year to release a driver for the buttonless trackpad for Windows XP that would make the trackpad actually work (it was basically unusable for a while when I first installed Windows on my MBP); they still don't support switchable graphics for MBP machines; etc. While these are not the direct issues you'll run into, they're evidence that "making Apple hardware run Windows OS well" has never been Apple's emphasis.

Is there a Sony store near you?

 

yep there's a Sony store near me and I can definitely check one out.

the problem for me though with Sony laptops is that I've felt that from a distance they look nice, however as soon as you get up and close with one, you see that the build quality is really cheap (plasticky) and just doesn't look as sleek as I once thought when seeing pictures.

is the vaio z's build quality really that good? and how is the battery life?

can you link me to the Sony model you are referring to? there seems to be 2 models on the Sony site.

edit: if I recall correctly...the z model is that model with the external gfx
card option...I don't remember reading good reviews about it...and it looked plasticky

 

I'm talking about the Z2, the 2011 Z. There's also the Z1, the 2010 Z, and there's reviews of that around too. Here are reviews of the Vaio Z2, the Z I'm talking about.

Review Sony Vaio VPC-Z21Q9E/B Subnotebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

Sony VAIO Z review (2011) -- Engadget

As for "plasticky," the Z2 is a mix of aluminum and carbon fiber. It's Sony's flagship model, so even if there's some noticeably cheap materials on, say, a Vaio E (which is to be expected from a $500 laptop), you're not going to run into that on the Z2.

Edit: as for battery life, notebookcheck.net (very reliable) recorded six hours of wi-fi surfing, or nine hours of idle. There's a sheet battery if you need more.

Edit: and you asked for the link to it on Sony's page: http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/st...0151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644570897

 

The Z series is carbon fibre...

It's "plasticky" but it's much more of a premium material than aluminium, steel and plastic.

Put it this way. Two supercars.

A Corvette has a plastic/metal body. A Ferrari has a carbon fibre body.

 

Having previoiusly owned a 2010 Z, I can say that the fit and finish on it was quite good.

 

Vaio Z is a good machine, though you can easily mark it but since the carbon body is dark, it is not like the scratches on the aluminum MBPs of 2006 / 2007. The only downside to sony is their customer service (avoid their foreign call centers) which is what I don't get with Sony that they can build a good product, but ruin the customer service experience with their call centers.

 

If you look back a page or two, there's a big long thread about using Win 7 as the primary OS on a MBA. The short answer is that it will work fine once you've made a few adjustments (e.g. keyboard, 2 finger right click). It's stable, all the hardware works, and battery life is good. I use OS X more than Windows on my MBA, but when I do boot into Windows for MS Office or games, it works well enough that I tend to stay in Windows until I need to reboot.

Have you seen the Asus clone in person? I haven't, since it's not out here yet, but from what I read I think it would be my first choice if I were looking to run Windows exclusively. The reviews noted some issues with the trackpad that mostly went away with a driver update, but it still had some quirks. That sounds just like what you'll get with the MBA trackpad in Bootcamp. Otherwise, there were no real complaints and the battery life was better than the MBA in Windows and the Asus has USB 3.0.

The build quality on the VAIO Z is top notch. It's a premium product and it's a lot more powerful and versatile than the MBA. It's a bit like getting a MBA 13 but being able to plug it into a little box that gives it the power and connectivity of a MBP 15. But it's more expensive, starting at $2049 with a 256GB drive. And it's probably overkill for your intended usage.

Speaking of which, if you want something you can use in the car or on the bus and whip out like a tablet, why not go for the MBA 11 or Asus UX21 instead?

 

The Vaio Z current generation is kind of ruined. The old one was a lot better. It included the GPU on the computer, and the CD drive on the computer. The old generation Vaio Z was as powerful as the 15" MBP. The current generation is not even as powerful as the 15" MBP when plugged into its box, let alone when it is without the discrete GPU while you are going around. I think the vaio Z should have kept the dedicated GPU in the computer or used a desktop class GPU for the little external box.

If you already have a desktop you don't really get anything out of the current Vaio Z. The old one would give you a GPU + CD Drive on the go at 3 pounds. The current one gives you a better processor and that is about it. Hopefully they kept the blazing fast Raid 0 SSDs though.

OSX isn't a terrible OS. I would check it out more, I was like you I liked Mac hardware I wasn't sure about OSX. OSX works great for many things. To me its quite a good OS. Its biggest problem is compatability. What are you going to be doing on your computer on the go?

 

So Vaio Z doesn't have the switchable graphics anymore with the loss of a dedicated option?

 

The Z2 has twice the battery life of the Z1, reduced thickness by 33%, and now offers 1080p in addition to 900p. It's a more innovative, more distinctive niche product, and a better option for highly-mobile people, though as you point out, not nearly as well-rounded as the Z1. But that broader market the Z1 served is now being served in part by the Vaio SA (only 13" machine with a 900p screen and a decent GPU on the market) and SE (high-quality 1080p 15.5" screen and only 4.4 lbs).

It's got an external GPU and optical drive through an Intel Light Peak hookup. When it's not hooked up to the dock, it's integrated graphics only. When it is hooked up to the dock, it's dedicated graphics only, but the heat from the GPU isn't building up inside the main laptop.

 

The Vaio Z1 had a 1080p screen, I know my friend has one. The extended battery life on the Z1 is quite long.

I disagree, I mean if your going to have an external GPU it ought to be more powerful then a 6650m, that is weaker then the MBP 15 GPU. The original Vaio Z was an engineering marvel, it weighed 3 pounds, had the specs of the MBP 15 and a CD drive. Maybe they could have dropped the CD drive, but no dGPU and it suddenly loses the whole appeal of "super powerful and super portable". I don't think highly mobile people want to carry around a dock as well as their computer when they want to do anything that requires a GPU.

At least they should have put in like a GTX 560, then at least the reason for a dock would make sense. Or put the 6650m on the computer and taken out the CD drive. In its current state I would definitely not recommend it for someone with a desktop unless the fact that you get a GPU when plugged into the dock appeals to you.

 

main uses would be:
- video
- music
- browsing websites
- some document editing (eg word/excel/ppt) - not heavy amounts though
- msn chatting

pretty much non-intensive stuff

using it like I would tablet but little bit more because of keyboard

already have a good laptop for intensive tasks and gaming so don't want something that is too powerful (Sony z2 seems like overkill for my needs even though I could afford it)

I could use OSX - would just take getting used to. I mean I currently use ubuntu on my older dying latitude laptop.

 

Go to a Sony store and see if you like the Vaio Z2's keyboard and screen. If you do, and you can afford it, who cares if the upper limit of its performance is higher than you need?

But I would also agree with xfiregrunt that, for the sort of use you're describing, either OSX or Windows 7 would be perfectly adequate. If you're willing to be flexible on OS, a MacBook Air 13 would be a great choice. I have quite a few friends with MBAs, and they all love 'em. Really nice hardware.

tl;dr version: if you want Win 7, get a Vaio Z2. If you're flexible on OS, get a MacBook Air 13.

 

I'm flexible, so MBA 13 seems like the way to go for me.

 

If you like being challenged then go for it.

 

For all of those uses OSX works pretty well, and is pretty much no learning curve. iTunes in OSX is a lot better then iTunes on Windows. But for all of those uses OSX has pretty much no learning curve.

If you use Ubuntu and understand terminal yowill like the terminal feature in OSX. It is pretty awesome if you understand programming and stuff like that.

As someone who had never used OSX before I bought an MBP 15, I would say the most annoying things about OSX are compatibility with the software I use (which you shouldn't have a problem with) and some of the under the hood stuff like mouse acceleration and stuff. I still like Windows Explorer better then Finder, but that is probably just because I'm more used to Windows navigation. For some reason Finder navigation confused me for a while, it just seemed harder to find the stuff I was looking for.

If your used to Ubuntu OSX is pretty similar just with more GUI and customization options taken away. I mean the whole point of the OS is to make it easy to use, so it doesn't really take that long to figure it out.

 

So that deck must be option I guess? I can understand the heat issue, as the fans run on high if you open firefox / chrome with couple of tabs even under quiet settings.

 

Nope, dock comes standard with every Z2.

 

Keep in mind that GTX 560 desktop cards are big, dual-slot width cards. A GTX 560 needs a big honking heat sink, a good size fan, and something like 150W or 200W of power. The dock might end up looking like a small form factor desktop computer.

I agree the 6650m is a bit disappointing, but I think a higher end notebook GPU would have been a better choice. Sony's dock is roughly the size of a typical external optical drive and uses a standard laptop power brick, so it's still reasonably portable. I could easily see myself packing the dock to take with me on longer trips.

 

I would have gone with a 555M, myself (same GPU as the Alienware M14x). Powerful yet portable GPU.

 

I guess that is true, but I mean I don't know if they really intend for you to carry the dock around. You could fit it into a reasonably small enclosure, it would need its own power supply.

Something like the 6970m or 6990m would have been better as well. I don't know about the GT 555m, that is also meant for "portable" but when you have a dock you should go for something that is powerful, like the 6970m or 6990m.

 

Have you checked the Lenovo X1?

 

Apple didn't intend for people to carry Mac Minis around, yet they still went out of their way to make them small. Right or wrong, I think this was another case of form factor over utility.

 

Isn't the purpose of mac minis that you have a portable CPU that can be hooked up to a monitor, keyboard and mouse anyplace at anytime?

 

I thought it was just small form factor for the sake of small form factor. I mean, who on earth routinely stumbles upon monitors, keyboards, and mice just sitting around in need of a CPU? Is "I've got all the elements of a desktop computer except the computer itself" a common problem people face?

 

Jobs was famous for making people buy stuff they think they didn't need.

 

But I know tons of people who now own tablets (primarily iPads) and love 'em, even though a tablet is arguably the definition of an answer to a question nobody asked. Not that there's anything wrong with that...there's very little in our lives that we really "need" in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word (I'll stop now before I start sounding like Tyler Durden).

But I don't know a single person who carries around a Mac Mini with them and uses different monitor/screen/keyboard setups they've left at various locations. Not one.

 

Going back to the topic's title:
What would be your advice if the question is changed to:
"Is getting a MBA to use with Windows and a Linux/Unix in parallel worth it?"

To elaborate on the question, I need to run Windows and some flavor of Linux (or MacOSX, all my development tools are also available there). Usage would be about 50%/50% averaged over a longer time. No constant switching between both operating systems would be involved.
I was actually leaning towards the Asus UX31 but then I realized that it would probably suffer from the same driver problems that the X220 at work still has even under Ubuntu 11.10, as it basically has the same chipset. With an MBA I would have a great working Linux/Unix OS and a good working Windows OS on one machine. With the UX31, it would probably the other way round, but I'm not sure whether Windows on MBA runs smoother than Ubuntu on the UX31.
Also in regards of the price, both systems would be the same for since we get subsidized Apple and Microsoft products but no discount on Asus products.

 

If 900P in a 13" is important then really your only choices are 13" Sony Z1/Z2, MBA, Asus UX31, Sony SA and 14" Toshiba R840 and Samsung Series-7. If you live with 720P then could add 12.5" Lenovo X220 and HP 2560P, Asus U36SD (GT520M) and 14" MSI X460DX (GT540M) to the list. The last three having socketed cpus so can be upgraded to i7-quads, with significantly more performance than a ULV MBA/ultrabook.

See the thin-and-light link in my sig for a comparison by weight of these and more.

 

If you are going to just operate in Windows, put me in the not worth it camp. I had sort of thought about doing that myself, but my MBP struggles in Windows, runs hotter, less battery life, mouse issues, etc. And in truth, I have gone fond of the MAC OS. The big advantage of it compared to Windows is the lack of code rot. Depending on how anal you are, you can avoid a Windows slow down, but commonly you have to do a periodic reload of the OS. Not true on a MAC. Also, with MAC you get great hardware and customer support. So I tend to stay mostly on the MAC side. The big downside to the MAC is that a lot of software is not written for it. Video clips I shoot on my Pentax camera have to be loaded on the Windows side and be converted before they can run on the MAC side.

 

Given that Windows and OS X are going to be run 50/50, I don't think it is a bad decision though you are paying a higher premium for Apple designed hardware and software. Like any other Mac consumer, you will need to ask yourself if that premium is worth it. I thought it was so I pounced on a 13" MBP when Apple updated them to Sandy Bridge earlier in the year. I had alway wanted a Mac, I was growing tired of Windows, and I was almost completely in Apple's universe anyway so I decided to plunge further.

I would actually boot into Windows 7 quite a bit to run some MATLAB code (both xlsread and xlswrite work only in Windows with Office installed and I use those on a constant basis) so that at work, I would mainly run Windows and then switch to OS X when I was home or on campus. It worked for a while but, as previously pointed out, Apple's Windows drivers are rather bad. The trackpad isn't anywhere near the same experience as it is under OS X, Windows can't fully use SSD as Apple forces Windows to use IDE mode for any SSD/hard drive in a Mac, battery life is decreased even on units without dedicated GPUs, Macs tend to run a little hotter under Windows, and there are a few other things.

That is why I went the virtual machine/parallels route. I ended up installing Parallels 7, installing a Windows 7 virtual machine, and I access Windows that way. I haven't really noticed any in hat, the trackpad is a lot better, Windows runs almost as if I had directly booted to it (mainly because I am not gaming), and I can easily switch OS's without having to reboot. That is what I recommend if you aren't going to perform too many demanding tasks in Windows. Running code won't be a problem but gaming can take a hit. Then again, you should not buy a MBA if gaming is a concern.

 

OS X does get a rut, though it may not be as severe as windows though windows 7 is pretty good. I have had issues with safari, that got fixed mostly by fixing the disk permissions, which is sort of analogous to disk defragmenter in windows even if they are totally different in what they do for you.

 

That's quite a broad statement and it may have been true 10 years back. Today, OS X runs about 95% of the same software that runs on Windows, plus there is a lot of Mac-only software. Gaming doesn't really count because that's a smaller minority that is interested in gaming, plus gaming consoles are still the majority of what people game on. I'm talking about standard software for productivity and to perform tasks. You'd be hard pressed to find a much Windows software that's not the same on Mac or has Mac equivalents. Windows is no longer ahead much in software.

 

It depends a lot on which industry you're in. In the legal field, there's a LOT of software that's Windows-only, from the industry-standard court reporting transcript reader (For the Record) to timekeeping and calendaring software that your office is likely to be using (the fact that an OSX equivalent exists doesn't really help if you can't be using the same program as the rest of the office). On the other hand, in the creative multimedia fields, OSX > Win 7.

And gaming counts! I know a lot more gamers (PC gamers, not console gamers) than I know people who write code, and people are always talking about how 16:10 is better for coding. No, not everyone games, but you just can't completely ignore the issue when talking about software compatibility.

 

based on the current laptop u have now, M11x would be a good price erformance and has native Win7 support

 

Actually, there really isn't anything in a MBP that works specifically only under OS X (you know what I mean). The Intel processor and chipset in a MBP is the same as what Dell, HP, and others offer. The IGP/GPU is the same, the wi-fi chip can be the same, the bluetooth chip can be the same, the hard drives aren't any different, etc. There is technically nothing in a MBP to stop it from working with Windows. It is the poor driver implementation on Apple's part that makes the experience negative. I can't say that I blame them either since they want people to run their software on their systems. It is similar to Dell offering up Ubuntu drivers for some of their systems yet performance isn't the same as it would be under Windows.

Now, Apple's software is designed to fully work with the hardware in each compatible Mac so there is some level of hardware+software integration but, going back to technicalities, there also isn't anything special inside of a MBP/MBA.

 

I'm not sure if I've already contributed, but I can help with a short answer:

No.

 

Why not use a virtual machine?

 

The opposite question makes more sense to me. Why bother using a virtual machine?

 

if the majority of your software is running on Mac OS X, and only a couple of titles on Windows, then a virtual machine is often better, since you can multitask between all the apps. If you only want to run Windows and no Mac OS X, then a virtual machine is too poor of performance.

If you want to use mainly Mac OS X, you could also try to port those few Windows titles yourself with Wineskin, or try to run them through Crossover... but you're more likely to get software to work easily by using Windows in a virtual machine.

 

Yes, and it's better to eat 5 small meals a day than 2, but I thought the question was whether or not it was a good idea to get a MBA to use with windows 7?

 

Right, is a virtual machine not a Windows 7 solution as well? Virtual machines still allow people to run Windows 7 often with a better experience (not to be confused with performance) than going the bootcamp route. For example, I can easily drag-and-drop files between each OS in a virtual machine. My trackpad also performs much better under Parallels 7 than with Apple's drivers and, for the most part, I am not doing anything that would require 100% of my system resources. Even MATLAB and complex n-way analysis (with n -> infinity) doesn't really slowdown under a virtual machine.

Either way, if someone just want to run a few non-system intensive programs, I see no reason why they should have to keep rebooting their system to do so when a virtual machine would provide more than adequate results. Many believe that virtual machines died whenever Apple released their bootcamp solution. Although I can see why, it is something that I disagree with mainly because virtual machines still have their place. More powerful hardware out now allows for rather smooth virtual machine performance. For example, I can have Parallels take one whole core, 3GB of RAM, and 256MB for the IGP Intel HD 3000. That still leaves me another core for running OS X (which it does fine with) and 4.75GB of RAM. I can easily switch between Windows and OS X programs without a large level of performance decrease.

Either way, I think the real question is this: If someone is just going to run basic to moderate (but not severe) Windows programs, why should they ache to restart their computer a couple of times a day to do so?

 

I strongly disagree with trying to use windows 7 as your primary OS on a macbook air virtualized. The performance would be bad enough to impede the experience significantly. It would also kill the battery.

If you want to use windows 7 (not mac OS X), here are the options as I see them:

best: get a notebook that is similar to the macbook air that comes with windows


reasons: cost effective, highest performance, experience is exactly as you would expect with windows 7

mediocre: get a macbook air and install and boot windows

reasons: high cost, decent performance, you'll need to have 2 partitions and boot into OS X occasionally for firmware updates, and you have very limited space as-is. The mba trackpad is tolerable but not amazing in windows. Windows performance will at least be as you would expect it to be, battery life will be okay, but not amazing

poor: get a macbook air and run windows virtualized in mac os x

reasons: high cost, poor performance, watching videos may be problematic if HD, any games will be problematic, including indie games from steam or via flash on the web, etc. This would be a good solution if you had a different set of goals (running both operating systems at the same time), but the worst solution for your set of goals (running windows 7)

----

Wine and crossover etc didn't seem to be of interest to the OP, he wants to interact with windows.

 

Nobody said anything about Windows being the primary OS on a MBA. I also think you are short selling Windows 7 running through a virtual machine. I can watch full 1080p HD videos without issue, I can run Portal 1 (though I have to allocate more graphical RAM), Flash is fine (including 1080p YouTube playback), and my battery life running Windows 7 under Parallels 7 isn't any different than it was booting straight into Windows.

The OP stated that they are mainly going to program in Windows. Unless that is some type of complex 3D programming (which even a MBA booting directly into Windows would not be capable of), they should be fine going through a virtual machine.

 

I have a different experience than you with the latest macbook air and flash, source games, etc. Also, the OP said he wanted to use windows 7, not mac os x. He was pretty specific in the original post.

Portal performance on macbook air based on my experience:

First place: windows (works fine)
Second place: mac os x w/ crossover/wine (mediocre / okay)
Close third: native in mac os x using steam normally (mediocre)
Distant fourth: windows in Virtual Machine (poor)

Flash games and videos are variable, but the trend is the same. Highest performance in windows, decent performance in OS X, and distant last place is the VM.

This is my experience. I'm happy to "disagree" (I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just coming to a different result based on my different experience. If I had the same experience as you are posting, I would have come to your conclusion)