My MacBook Pro Sucks
September 10th, 2006 Filed in: Reviews, Mac Jump to commentsI recently bought a new MacBook Pro (my first Apple computer). Yes, I am one of the switchers. I have been a PC user for a while until Apple introduced Intel-based Mac notebook. I was tempted by the MacBook Pro and brought a 15.4-inch display, 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo, with 2GB of RAM (upgraded from 1GB). After couple hours of fun playing around with the Mac OS X, I installed Adobe CS2 and did couple test runs. I was so disappointed on its performance. It even runs slower than my old PC laptop (1.5GHz Centrino with 1GB RAM). That is impossible since the new MacBook has 2.16GHz CPU with 2GB of RAM. I thought it could be my Adobe software issue. So I went to install Macromedia Studio 8 to see how it perform. Same result - slow.
I got frustrated and did a quick search on Google. I found this review from MacWorld. Apparently, neither Adobe CS2 nor Macromedia Studio 8 supports Intel-based Macs (running on Rosetta) yet. Fortunately, Adobe has announced that they will fix this issue to support Intel-based Mac computers in the next versions. So, if you are planning to get a MacBook Pro as your work computer, you’ll be better off waiting until Adobe release the next version of Creative Suite.
Note: Universal application like Safari, iLife and Mail are running fine and smoothy on my MacBook.
Update
June 6, 2007
I’m now using Adobe CS3 on my MacBook and they run very nice. However, I still have problem with the heat issues (extremely hot when charging). I heard the second generation released in Oct 2006 is faster than my first generation and the heat issue is resolved.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I was just going to buy Mac pro these days! but after reading your review I changed my mind!
Can you advice me on a better laptop?
thanks for the review
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 am
Macs run faster than PCs. The reason is because CS 2 is running on emulation on macs. Try CS3 which runs natively. You should get blazing speeds.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Kansaibear, you remind me of someone who believes in creationism and how obviously the world is only a few thousand years old. I can assure the passing reader that the facts present by Mr. Bear are heavily and unfairly swayed similarly as to the loss of a man’s pet dog.
The Intel architecture as inefficient as it once was in the days when x68 was really the full extent of the CPU’s command set, has come leaps and bounds and far excels that of the now deceased processors iBear so sorely misses. In fact, the obvious error in the argument relates to clock speeds, one might notice that Core 2 Duo is actually slower than the now antiquated P4’s and M’s. The Dual core element is not the sole reason either, it is in fact simply better design teamed with equally better fabrication processes.
The reality being, since Apple have started to use Intel kit, the Mac is suddenly more appealing to the average Joe, and you know why - it’s not the promise of a ‘more productive’ OS, it’s because they want the build quality and sexy design. Underneath the bonnet of what was once a whole different world lies essentially A PC!
Some food for thought, please digest.
Ben
September 19th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I too am so incredibly disappointed in my macbook pro. It is slow as a turtle. It struggles and agonizes over the simplest tasks. I returned to mac after a pc hiatus of several years due to work specs. Deciding it was time to get all new gear, I read glowing reviews, and spent the dough. Silly me, it wasn’t until I had bought it and installed all the expensive new programs I had been longing for that I realized it was the blogs I should have been reading, and not the reviews. The blogs tell the true sad tale. CS2 is maddening and the Auto FX programs that are supposed to work as photoshop plugins crash. The only program that works well and quickly on my macbook pro is filemaker pro.
September 16th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I bought a G5 last year. I’m very satisfied and impressed with its performance. The only drawback is that it doesn’t run Windows in native speed & it sometimes crashes when using web browsers such as FireFox. But it sure runs Photoshop, Final Cut and all the other native OS X apps smoothly. While I could have gotten an Intel Mac at the time, somehow I didn’t think they were quite up to snuff yet. My bet is that future Macs will be considerably different from the current ‘generation’. The next ones probably won’t even have Plain Jane Intel chips but ones with souped up graphics capabilities separating them apart from their Wintel PC cousins. As for the G5, it’s still out there and very much coveted. Despite being discontinued, more than a few people are still buying them. Probably graphic artists. I suspect this may have something to do with the somewhat buggy and sluggish performance of their Intel cousins. I know if you look on eBay, the quad core G5 is still a hot item for graphics professionals. Even though I don’t have one, lots of people are looking for that model.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Well, I m a designer designing grafix since 7-8 yrs.I have always used PC. And have always desired an Apple. But due to the prices reason i always end up buying another Pc. As i cn get much bettr Pc specs. thn an apple of the same range!
I m still confused wat is goign to b my next PICk!
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
kansaibear: Thanks for the explanation. We now have an argument to explain what we knew blindly all along. Flash is however slower on a Mac compared to PC that I know from personal experience. Whether that is a hardware issue or a software issue from adobe/macromedia I don’t know…
Nate
August 21st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
what an interesting bunch of comments here
first off, Nick La, you rock.
no two ways around it, a rock star has been born.
now, to these computer noobies…
The RISC Power PC architecture and chip was developed by a partnership of apple, motorola and IBM to replace the previous motorola chips that powered the mac.
It is/was manufactured by motorola, IBM and Freescale.
PC architecture is not faster, in fact it is inherently slower when compared by clock cycles.
the reason that mac switched is because motorola and IBM did not continue to upgrade the chips that supported the mac protocols.
eventually, though the intel chips are less efficient, they managed to produce chips with enough cycles at a manageable temperature so that the advantages, and projected development schedule made them attractive enough to switch.
the fact is that when the G3 came out, probably when most of you were still in high school, it was so fast that the US gov. classified it as armaments because it was the first pc to fall under the guidelines of a SUPER COMPUTER.
it was not allowed to be exported, until the law was amended.
there has never been a intel desktop that has been so advanced for its time.
Macs were used primarily in graphics primarily not only because mac was pretty and easy to use, it was because the chip design and especially the altivec addition made calculation based functions much faster.
after all, digital graphics is just number crunching..
If you read the tech specs on the intel chips you will see that the error rate is higher than the G4 or G5, they are simply not as stable of a chip.
that being said, they were smart, give them credit, they understood that heat and performance per watt were going to be the driving factor and designed with that in mind.
Steve had no choice but to adopt the intel chips because the product map was going where apple needed to go.
personally, I mourn the passing of our G4/G5 machines.
but life is as it is so we will embrace intel.
and thank apple for giving us the best that technology has to offer at the time and change accordingly.
who knows what the future may bring?
we may see a G6 chip at sometime in the future if IBM gets off the stick.
remember, universal applications are just that intel/ppc
for now, our G4s serve us just fine for coding, web development (dreamweaver8), and as servers.
and I will admit, I lust after a macbook pro… anybody feeling philanthropic? : )
August 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Thanks for clearing that up John. I’m on the designer side of computers not on the engineering or technical side so I appreciate the comment. Isn’t IBM the company that created the first pc? was that a motorola chip then?
August 20th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Nate,
The term “IBM PC” and “PC architecture” refers to the Intel-based computers starting with the 8088 which ultimately led to the x86 chip family. IBM did not use an in-house chip for the “IBM PC” architecture, they used Intel just like they didn’t use an in-house OS, they used a CP/M ripoff called MS-DOS. The Mac’s that used IBM chips were the PowerPC based architecture which was a joint Motorola/IBM venture that is *not* analogous to the “IBM PC”. Mac’s have never been based upon the descendent of the original IBM PC architecture (until SteveJ switched to Intel chips last year).