MacBook vs MacBook Pro for software development

Robby91

I'm looking around for a new laptop for my course next year (this course, to be specific) and have been looking at the MacBook and 13" MacBook Pro since I won't be able to afford an extra €600 for a 15" MacBook Pro unless I wait for an extra few months.

I'm just wondering if the MacBook would be sufficient for handling IDE's and multitasking with Adobe applications (I'm looking at getting this in addition), or is it likely to struggle? Would it be desirable to have the dedicated graphics that the MacBook offers for the Adobe stuff? Or am I better off spending that extra €200 to ensure that things will run more smoothly (whether it's a big improvement or otherwise).

Aside from the above, I'd be using the laptop for browsing, watching movies and listening to music - nothing too intensive, tbh.

If there's any more information that I should add that'd be of use, please let me know

Sad Professor

The Pro is only 200 more than the Plasticbook, so I would generally recommend that you go for that regardless. More RAM (which you are probably going to have to get eventually anyway), larger hard disk, better enclosure, firewire port, etc. It's just better value.

Good question about the graphics though. I'm not sure. Probably not. The Plasticbook is due a refresh soon in which it will go integrated Intel graphics as well. The Intel chipset doesn't allow for a discrete graphics card unfortunately, forcing Apple to abandon NVIDIA.

Robby91

Thanks for the response

I did a bit more looking around on any possible advantage that a dedicated graphics card would have for Photoshop usage (it might take a while to find answers for the other applications, but I would imagine that I would get similar answers) - from what I can gather, it seems that the benefit is mainly to smooth out animation for zooming, rotating and that sort of thing.

Someone did mention this

If you plan to do much more complicated things with Photoshop you may want to get a better video card with it.

but, to be perfectly honest, I don't even know what "complicated things" would consist of when it comes to Photoshop so, based on what I've looked at so far, a dedicated graphics card wouldn't be essential nor would it make up for the benefits that the MacBook Pro offers. Then again, if I'm badly stuck for doing "complicated things", I can do it on my desktop or college computers

Bleh, the thought of taking the plunge and considering is somewhat unnerving (given the cost, that is :P) but, if it could last me through college, then I'd be damn glad of it.

!MAVERICK!

Sad Professor wrote: »

The Intel chipset doesn't allow for a discrete graphics card unfortunately, forcing Apple to abandon NVIDIA.

It makes the refreshed macbooks lighter and less prone to hardware failure though. So for reliably its a good thing, but for gaming I dont know. When my 13 inch comes ill let you know how the Intel HD 3000 copes.

K.O.Kiki

Software developer friend of mine is getting a 13" Macbook Pro, and says a few others in his office swear by them too.

Sad Professor

!MAVERICK! wrote: »

It makes the refreshed macbooks lighter and less prone to hardware failure though.

No it doesn't. I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

!MAVERICK!

Sad Professor wrote: »

No it doesn't. I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

I actually got that idea from common sense, How couldnt it? if you actually think about the concept for a minute, By depriving a newer macbook pro from a heavy graphics card such as a 256mb nvidea. And by integrating a newer micro sized one such as the Intel HD 3000 built into the chipset. Which has on par performance with the previous gen. Thats almost - 500g - 1 kg less in overall weight.

And less movable parts such as fans on seperate GPU'S that are prone to hardware failure reduces the risk of damage. Plus it reduces the average temperature of the casing and increased battery performance from less power consumption.

Hence the less weight and further reliability.

I dont think Apple would abandon the separate graphics cards for no reason. Their mission is to make macbooks lighter more reliable and to increase performance. And they have achieved that every time there is a refresh in their macbook range.

K.O.Kiki

There are no fans ON the GPU; you're thinking of a desktop system.
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Unibody-Teardown/590/2

Additionally, a single fan weighs 170-200g, NOT 500-1000g.

!MAVERICK!

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

There are no fans ON the GPU; you're thinking of a desktop system.
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Unibody-Teardown/590/2

Additionally, a single fan weighs 170-200g, NOT 500-1000g.

Still the GPU alone adds .5 -1 pound in total to the laptop. And Graphics card can weight up to 3.5 pounds. Im not talking about single fans.

Sad Professor

Well, actually I should clarify that the 13-inch never had a separate graphics card, rather it an integrated chipset made by NVIDIA. i.e. the Intel processor and NVIDIA's own graphics chip on the same card. Then Intel sued NVIDIA and put an end to this. This effectively forced Apple to abandon NVIDIA on the 13-inch models in the short term because the machines in their current form aren't big enough and cool enough to take a separate graphics chip like the 15/17-inch models.

So there wasn't any weight loss or greater reliability gained as a result of losing NVIDIA, the 13-inch just got stuck with an inferior graphics chip. The hassle of having to redesign the 13-inch to accommodate the size and heat of a separate gpu card is actually the main reason Apple went along with Intel. Afaik Intel and NVIDIA have since settled their dispute but I'm not sure what the resolution was. I think NVIDIA are still barred from making chipsets for Intel's processors though, which means Apple may redesign the 13-inch next time to take a separate graphics card. They weren't happy about having to go with Intel graphics which is why the 13-inch only went Sandy Bridge on the last refresh.

!MAVERICK!

Sad Professor wrote: »

the 13-inch just got stuck with an inferior graphics chip.

No it didnt. and the new 2011 refresh is alot lighter ive compared them!

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-HD-Graphics-3000-graphics-solution.43710.0.html

Enough said goodnight!

Sad Professor

Okay okay they are not that bad. But as I before (and that link acknowledges) drivers are an issue with them which can cause issues. This will improve with time though.

Personally, if I was buying a new 13-inch Macbook Pro tomorrow I wouldn't have a problem with the Intel graphics as I don't do any gaming. But I would still infinitely prefer NVIDIA to Intel.

Anyway, don't worry, Maverick, I'm sure you'll love your Mac (Intel graphics and all) when it arrives.

!MAVERICK!

Sad Professor wrote: »

Okay okay they are not that bad. But as I before (and that link acknowledges) drivers are an issue with them which can cause issues. This will improve with time though.

Personally, if I was buying a new 13-inch Macbook Pro tomorrow I wouldn't have a problem with the Intel graphics as I don't do any gaming. But I would still infinitely prefer NVIDIA to Intel.

Anyway, don't worry, Maverick, I'm sure you'll love your Mac (Intel graphics and all) when it arrives.

I would prefer one also, I couldnt comprehend on why they converted to intel? But you seem to of explained it adequately. I just want it to at least run my flight simulator smoothly on windows or xplane on mac.

I wont be using it for chart games such as the likes of GTA or COD.

But thanks for the info anyway professor!

Later!