On 4/24/06 10:28 PM, "TjL" wrote: > I may be getting a MacBookPro. I am wondering how well Entourage is working. > > I will be upgrading from a 15" Powerbook G4 (1.5Ghz) with 1gb RAM. I > would like to get the cheapest MacBookPro I can, mostly so I can run > XP in Parallels or via BootCamp or whatever comes in Mac OS X 10.5 > (I'd definitely be waiting until at least then if not longer). > > Anyway, I'd like to hear how others are finding it.
I upgraded from a 1.5GHz PowerBook G4 to a 1.83GHz MacBook Pro. Very little difference in performance for Entourage. Some things feel slightly faster, some slightly slower. Overall I'm quite pleased with the performance of Office 2004 under Rosetta. My one recommendation would be to get as much RAM as you can afford -- at least 1GB -- if you're going to be running a bunch of stuff in Rosetta. (Heck, with OS X, more RAM is better anyways ;-) ) For some quantitative data, MacTech benchmarked Office 2004 -- including Entourage -- on Intel Macs: <http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.22/22.05/Office2004Benchmark/> A relevant excerpt about Entourage: > Boot time was clearly slower - about double in fact. But in a game of seconds, > and for something that you generally only do a couple of times a day, it's not > particularly relevant. > > Entourage is clearly the best performer in the suite, presumably because > Entourage is the most modern code base of the Office 2004 suite, and because > it relies the most on Mac OS X technologies that have already been made > Universal. > > The end result is that, across the board, Entourage under Rosetta performed > terrifically. The MacBook Pro usually performed as good or better than the > PowerBook. The Intel iMac was faster in almost every test. -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
