New MBP for IT student...will this be enough?

Hello all,

I have been looking at getting the 2011 MBP 17, as I would really like to get a Mac. However, this would be my first Mac purchase ever, and as such, I have some questions and concerns that I am hoping you all can help me with.

1. First of all, I am going to be putting Windows on it. Can I add a third OS, such as a server OS?

2. I am extremely concerned about the fact that the biggest hard drive I can get is 500GB (and still 7200 rpm) and max RAM is 8GB. Will that be enough to be running VMs? Adding Windows will take up a bit of HD space, as will VM software, and I'm just worried that half my HD will be gone before I know it, which will also result in performance degradation. And unfortunately, an SSD isn't an option.

Other than that, I really want one. I will also be doing web development on it, and the 1920x1200 screen is very appealing to me. Of course, loading the entire Adobe Web Suite CS5 will take up even more space, not to mention loading Reason and Record and all my audio production software.. I know I can get an external drive, but it just sucks there is only room for one HD. Also, according to crucial.com, the new 2011 17" MBP doesn't support dual channel RAM, which kinda blows.

Anyway, please forgive my rambling. Any advice and comments would be greatly appreciated.

 

I did my IT schooling on a 13in with 4GB of RAM, 320GB HDD and 2 VM's. 1 XP, 1 Server 2003.

 

Was it enough for you? And fast? I know that Sandy Bridge will also help out a lot.

 

Worked fine for what I need. I had XP on 1 GB ram, Server on 1GB. and gave them both their own Spaces screen. I would probably have done better with a Quad core just so each OS could at least have it's own Core, but it worked well. Very little in the classes required high CPU usage, it more about how to configure then reconfigure.

My current Job in IT I use a 2.5GHz C2D MacBook pro(see sig) and it only have 4GB of Ram, I use a XP and Ubuntu VM's always open + a few remote windows using the Microsoft Remote Desktop client and Apples ARD. The app that puts the hardest strain on my system is that I have to use Lotus Notes.

 

First off for IT you don't nearly need the specs that a 17" pro provides.

Second, you can run multiple OS's as many as partitions you want to create, that being said, the only way Apple wants you to do it is only 1 Windows partition. Mostly people do Mac OS, Windows 7 bootcamp, and then use Virtual Box to run Linux. Personally I use Centos 5.2 since its free and close to enterprise grade.

For memory the newest ones are DDR1333, and can only support 8gb of RAM. That being said the new processors the 2.2 and 2.3 are the 2720 and 2820. Those can actually run DDR1600 by intel specs, but I have not tried it yet so don't think they will just work. (They will probably downclock but apple is picky.)

Not sure why you need that much RAM either. Most people are just fine with the bottom end MacBook Pro.

Also you can get 640gb drives in your MBP easily, but they can't be thicker then 10mn, also you can get something called the opti-bay.
MCE OptiBay Hard Drive and SSD Drive for MacBook Pro, MacBook, PowerBook G4, and Mac mini

I have seen them in action, and they are pretty sweet.

 

FWD, thanks for your input. In reality, I will need the specs that the 17 provides. First of all, I REALLY want the extra screen real estate that the 1920x1200 screen provides. I will be using the full web suite of Adobe CS5, so that screen is important. Also, I will be using VMs, Dreamweaver, SQL, and a bunch of other stuff at the same time, so I really do need stats upgraded as much as possible. Also, since I have a family, this will be the only time for two to three years that I can spend this kind of money, so I need to make it count.

As far as the DDR1600 goes, I have heard that you can only use 2x2GB sticks for it to be utilized as DDR3-1600. If you use more it will be 1333.

The OS's that I would use would be OSX, Win7, and possibly either Server 2008 or a Linux / UNIX server, if I could. I am just worried that all this stuff I am going to install will take up most of my hard drive right off the bat. Reason, Record, Refills (20GB of sound files), OSX, Win7, a Server OS, the Adobe Web Suite, Office Pro, VMs...it is just a lot of space. However, I am more concerned about performance, so if you all think that I can get away with my intended usage with specs maxed out on the MBP 17, then I'm good.

 

Haha yeah I could see why you need the specs if your doing graphic design

Thats a different ballpark. The only bad thing is it won't untilize the graphics card unless adobe gets its head out of its butt, and makes more cards compatible.

Maxxed out specs I could see for it, however, don't get the 2.3ghz processor, its just not worth the money, even with the 12mb cache.

Check out the opti-bay though, definitely good stuff

 

I believe the 2.3ghz processor (i7-2820qm) has 8MB cache, and yes, that is a lot of money for a pretty trivial increase in performance.

I will definitely check out the optibay too. And any other input would be appreciated, since this will be my first Mac purchase. Like, how is the VM software and what do you use? VMWare? How much does it cost?

 

VMWare is nice, I have set it up on a bunch of computers for around $80 for the software. I only suggested VirtualBox because its free!

Other then that, the only cautionary about the optibay is that some corporate locations will say it voids your warranty, so be careful. However, don't lose hope because most Resellers will still work on the machine. I usually just reinstall the optical when I bring it in for service, cause lets face it, they can't tell.

 

If HD space is the major concern, the optibay is probably the answer you were hoping for.

I know many users around here have it and use it daily with great success. That will definitely be the route I go when I get around to upgrading. HD space is always handy, whereas I might find myself needing an optical drive once a month or less.

As far as max Ram is concerned, 8gb will be plenty in my opinion. Most programs won't utilize more than that, however your scenario with VM's will cause it to have a higher appetite. Even still, I think 8gb should more than cover what your intents are, and leave you with room to spare even. You're really looking at some of the more ram-intensive functions a computer can serve, and everyday programs will have a hard time catching up to that by the time this computer has served its purposes.

 

Fair enough. I figured it would be enough, but it never hurts to hear it from someone else.

VMware fusion is the program that you guys use instead of parallels?

 

Yes.

Same as VirtualBox which is free from Sun Microsystems.

 

well it's now from Oracle (the evil empire).

 

@FWD: + rep. You're being very helpful, and I do appreciate it. Thanks.

@yuio: Yeah, that company is a freakin monster.

On a side note, I have read a couple of reviews that say that parallels is faster than fusion with windows 7. Have any of you used both programs, and if so, what are your impressions between the two? Thanks all.

 

I've installed both, but unfortunately I can't point you in the right direction I just haven't product tested them long enough to stand behind either one.

Thanks for the rep

 

No problem, you really help a lot. I would consider parallels if the performance increase is true, but I've always liked VMWare, and would hate to defect to another company.

 

Haha yeah, they have been very neck in neck in recent years. Good thing for mac users! Great end products in that respect

 

I agree completely.

So, bottom line...You think that with a maxed out MBP 17 I will be able to tackle any IT / programming / networking issues and hands on homework that I may come across? In other words, no reason that I would need to go with a non Mac alternative?

 

I just got the 13" I5 and stuck a 256g SSD in the HD slot and a 750g 7200rpm drive in the optical slot.
It looks like you can get 2 1tb drives in there if needed?

I run Fusion with several different flavors of Windows and they can all be open at the same time with 8g of Ram for me.

The machine is so much faster than the last version and with SSD it is amazing.

I also have a 17" 2.6 and it is fast with just 4g of ram but the 13 now seems to smoke it.

Ed

 

I have the 2008 Penryn MacBook Pro 17 inches with 260 GB HDD and a Wintec Filemate ExpressCard 48 GB SSD. I run VirtualBox and Ubuntu on the system and performance is fine. The system only has 4 GB of RAM. Wintec Filemates also come in 96 GB so that may be an option if you want more space and much more speed.

I've installed VirtualBox on 3 systems with Linux and it's a pretty nice solution on the cheap.

I know that the listed max is 8 GB of RAM but I wonder if anyone has tried to put 8 GB DIMMs in one - the older MBPs rated at max of 4 could take 6. It would be a rather expensive test.

 

That sounds like a good idea. If I understand correctly, I could install win 7 with fusion and some flavor of Linux with virtual box and have them both accessible in real time? That would be awesome for testing against multiple OS's. And I would install two 8gb modules in a heartbeat if it would work.

 

I don't see why you couldn't. Technically you should be able to run two Fusions if you have them installed twice under different names.

 

why not just run 2 VMs all in Fusion...?

 

Even better.

 

For years I ran a MBP with a dual core and 4 gigs of ram with 4-5 VM's running just fine. Also did this in Windows XP and 7.
I have close to 25 VM's I run (not all at once) and the biggest HD i have ever used is a 500 gig. It is enough as the system only takes as much space as it needs up to the aloted size you set.

My Sony in my Sig run 3 VM's at once, and it is only a 256 gig SSD, with 8 gigs of Ram.

1 Windows 7
1 Windows 2008 (SQL)
1 Windows 2008 R2 (Domain for testing policies on the windows 7 VM)

No problems 1 gig of Ram on the servers 2 gigs on Windows 7.


On my CF-52 and M6500 i run a full VSphere environment inside VMware Workstation (i copy them from one to the other) with 6 guest, 2 hosts and dedicated 100 gigs, 6 gigs of Ram to the VSphere hosts.
no issues.

 

Virtual Box is a lot slower in their latest versions than VMWare workstation is. At least in Windows.

 

I'm running Linux in VirtualBox on Windows 7 right now. It feels like I'm running natively. The CPU is a Core i5-2500K. I have VirtualBox running on three systems and it runs Linux quite well with good performance. It's definitely good enough for being free.