MacBook and MacBook Pro review

Way back in the hazy salad days of 2001, Apple worked up a bold revamp of its flagship laptop line, the Powerbook. The company, in the pursuit of stronger, lighter, more attractive materials, moved from the black plastic casings it had used for its G3 computers to a sleek titanium shell. It was the onset of a new era in Macs. The basic look was clean and simple: squared edges, a roomy and functional layout, a matching pair of stereo speakers to either side of the keyboard, a consistent silver coloring throughout. In 2003, the company refined this design, replacing the titanium with lighter-weight aluminum and heralding in one of the most recognizable and persistent pieces of industrial design in the computer industry. The MacBook Pro (as it became known) has remained largely unchanged in the five years of its existence -- in fact, the look and feel of the laptop has become such a staple of the Apple lineup that it's almost as representative of the company as the Apple logo itself. But five years (or seven in the long view) is an awful long time to see one design, and the user outcry for significant updates has been nearly constant.

Those cries were answered last Tuesday, when the company announced the long-rumored (and badly leaked) refreshes for both the MacBook Pro and MacBook lines. As with most of the modern designs emanating from Cupertino, these are evolutionary -- not revolutionary -- steps, but they're drastic in comparison to the stale, familiar versions of our not-so-distant past. Beyond the spit and polish of the Air- and iMac-inspired casings, the company has re-upped the internals as well; new graphics chips, a completely new motherboard design, and some slashing and burning of familiar ports are part of the new packages. So did Apple deliver the goods on what is arguably the most anticipated laptop release in recent memory, or has it failed to meet the absurdly high expectations placed upon it... and is that even possible? Read on to find out.

Hardware

First and foremost, Apple's event was about design. Not just about the changes made cosmetically to these laptops, but the way in which the laptops are actually produced. It seems that with the introduction of the MacBook Air, there came a refinement (and improvement) in the way in which Apple manufactured its laptops. Instead of using complex, multi-part casings that require far more components, Jony Ive and company have streamlined the structure into a few simple pieces ballasted mainly by a single, machined slab of aluminum which encompasses the entire top and side layers of the laptop. The process has allowed them to produce stronger, more solid laptops with any number of improvements in efficiency of manufacturing, style, and strength.

The new MacBooks / Pros come off as the perfect storm of recent iMacs and the MacBook Air. The edges of the laptops are rounded, smooth metal, and the plastic joining pieces which once held the case together have been jettisoned for the nearly-seamless new design. The bodies of the laptops are laid out in essentially the same manner as older MacBook Pros, though the keyboard has been updated to the MacBook / Air "chicklet" style (resting in a slight depression), the trackpad is now missing its one button (more on that in a little bit), the speaker grilles (on the Pro) are a much finer and more evenly perforated pattern, and there are stylish nips and tucks pretty much everywhere else. Of course, the biggest and most noticeable change is in the displays; gone are the silver-lined LCDs of yesteryear -- they've been replaced with a high-gloss, black-matted glass screen bordered by a thin line of metal that's an open nod to the iPhone. We're going to discuss the displays in-depth, but it can't be overstated how incredibly polished and stunning these look at first glance -- they definitely kick that human instinct of attraction to shiny objects into overdrive.

Along the left side of the MacBook Pro you'll find a MagSafe connection, Ethernet, a Firewire 800 port (yes, 400 is gone), two USB ports, Apple's new Mini Display Port jack, audio in / out (multi-purpose analog and optical), an ExpressCard slot, and a small button and line of LEDs -- the now conveniently placed battery level indicator. The MacBook features all the same ports save for one: Firewire 800. Apple has decided to completely omit its own standard from this model, and the outcry from users has assuredly been heard at 1 Infinite Loop by now. We're not exactly surprised to see a move like this -- Apple has a history of abandoning technology when it sees fit -- though we definitely sympathize with with people who will likely have an entire drawer full of devices rendered useless if they spring for one of these new models. Along those same lines, the company is forcing users into a Mini Display Port jack, an all-but unheard of connector which will require that you spend at least another $30 on an adapter if you hope to use your existing monitor. Apple used to include a VGA-to-DVI adapter with older models, and it feels like a bit of a slight asking buyers to make an additional purchase here. In fact, we hoped to test the laptops out on with a second display, but Apple didn't get us our adapter in time.

On the right side is a standard SuperDrive (DVD±R DL / DVD±RW / CD-RW), nothing too exciting or wild like a "bag of hurt" Blu-ray drive. We would have liked to at least been given that option on the optical drive, but it's clear Apple doesn't have tons of confidence in the platform. Along the front we're seeing a merciful end to that annoying latch -- the laptops now open and close with ease by magnetically locking the base and screen together. It's a minor touch, but a welcome one nonetheless.

On the bottom of the machines there's now a wide, thin metal battery cover that comes up with a quick flip of a release latch (very much like desktop Macs). This gives you easy access to both the battery and hard drive -- a change that will come in handy only about once in the lifetime of a laptop (or less, we hope) -- though it's nice to see Apple's thinking about it. The RAM, however, is a little tougher to get to now; you'll have to remove the whole bottom panel. Still, nothing here is out of reach, and that's a good thing.

Weight wise, the 4.5lb MacBook loses half a pound over the previous generation, but the Pro clocks in just a tiny bit heavier compared with the last model (5.4lbs versus 5.5lbs for the new one). Still, the ingenious and magical designers at Apple have managed to squeeze it all into tighter packages, with the MacBook shrinking down to 0.95-inches from an earlier 1.08-inch frame, and the Pro at 0.95-inches (practically unnoticeable over the earlier 0.96-inch thickness). For those of you squeezing your Pro into a tight bag, you should know that the new version is slightly wider, so you may find things a little snugger than they used to be.

In your lap or on a desk the new laptops feel incredibly sturdy. Where the previous models had a kind of creaky, plasticky feel in parts, these are just like solid slabs. The new treatment on the aluminum is slightly cooler and more textured than older MacBook Pros, and in the right light you can actually see where the metal was cut away, giving them an industrial, sophisticated look. From a design standpoint alone, the MacBook and MacBook Pro definitely raise the bar in the industry -- but we wouldn't expect anything less from Apple.

Gallery: Glass and aluminum MacBook

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Gallery: Glass and aluminum MacBook Pro

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Displays

Both the MacBook and MacBook Pro sport that glass display we mentioned. We'll discuss each separately, as there seem to be noticeable differences between the two.

First, the Pro. The LED-backlit display is nothing short of stunning here; the blacks are black, the whites are extremely -- some might say excessively -- white, though the color temperature of the display seems to be warmer and more natural than previous iterations. The viewing angle is improved over earlier models as well, and the display actually tilts back and forward at a greater pitch, allowing you to find the right position without too much strain. Side by side with the previous generation, there's no comparison. The screen is classic, gorgeous Apple... save for one big problem. The company is only offering these laptops with the high-gloss displays, and they are outrageously, ridiculously reflective. Using the laptop in a brightly lit room is actually rather annoying; the reflections are so intense that they can sometimes obscure on-screen activity. If you're in a scenario where you don't have total control over lighting, this could potentially be a nightmare. In daytime use we found the reflection terrifically distracting, though at night (or in dark rooms) the results were extraordinarily good. The results were a bit Jekyll and Hyde. Apple insists that consumers overwhelmingly love this option, and we don't doubt that it's impressive in a showroom or controlled environment, but we take serious issue with the lack of a non-gloss option, and found it intrusive enough to consider it nearly a deal-breaker.

Original MacBook Pro on the left and new version on the right in the same, brightly lit room.

Let's just be clear here -- the screen quality is excellent. It's hampered only by the glass covering.

Now, the MacBooks are a slightly different story. At the outset, things seem to be the same. Same good, same bad -- but this display is different. We can't put our finger on it, but the panel just seems, for lack of a better word... crappier. The viewing angle is reduced considerably; looking even a little bit off to the side or up above can cause a nasty amount of polarization. The brightness levels also don't seem to be what they are on the Pro. Don't get us wrong, compared with the last generation MacBooks, these are stunning -- but compared to the Pros, they're just not as impressive. Again, the reflectivity is an issue here, though coupled with the diminished viewing angle and slightly dimmer backlighting, it left us wanting.

MacBook Pro, new MacBook Pro, MacBook, new MacBook, MacBook Air.


MacBook vs. MacBook (older, newer).

Gallery: MacBook and MacBook Pro comparison

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Trackpad

Apple has moved further towards that rumored Steve Jobs "no button" fetish with the new laptops. In addition to replacing the earlier trackpad material with a semi-shiny, smooth glass surface, the company has completely killed the button. The entire trackpad -- nearly entire, actually -- is now a button, which sounds unappealing at first, but comes off feeling remarkably like the previous generation's setup. We said that the whole thing was "nearly" a button, and that's accurate; as you move higher up on the pad, the resistance becomes greater. The design encourages you to keep your thumbs where you normally do, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

The pad supports multitouch and boasts a number of multi-finger gestures, including some new four finger moves to switch applications and access Exposé. Additionally, corners of the pad can be assigned to act as a right-click, giving you some semblance of a second button. After a week of use, we found the trackpad to be largely comfortable, though at the end of the day we would have preferred a physical button (or two) to this solution. It may be elegant, but it's less functional or natural.

Audio

Sound quality and volume is greatly improved in both of these models. While the MacBook hides its speakers somewhere deep in the guts, the levels are more than adequate. On the Pro, it's practically booming, and the definition between frequency ranges seems noticeably improved. This wasn't a dire situation on the older versions, but other laptops might get green with envy when they hear the new sets.

Internals

The MacBooks and MacBook Pros have totally redesigned guts in addition to revamped shells. The highlight of those changes come in the form of the NVIDIA 9400M and 9600M GT graphics chips. In the Pro, both are featured and can be switched manually (the process requires logging out and back in, however). The MacBook sports just the 9400M with 256MB of RAM, though that chip still delivers substantial improvements over the previous offerings. Under the hood of the MacBooks, the CPUs are now available in 2GHz or 2.4GHz Core 2 Duos, while the Pros run from 2.4GHz up to 2.8GHz. Memory on both computers is now DDR3 and expandable to 4GB on all of the models. We tested with a 2.4GHz / 2GB MacBook, and the middle-child 2.53GHz, 4GB MacBook Pro (with 256MB / 512MB VRAM). During heavy use, both computers seemed to get far less hot and seemed to be working far less hard to push data. During video playback, scenarios that would have kicked our old MacBook Pro fans into high gear (like full screen HD) didn't make the MacBook or Pro flinch.

Interestingly, you don't see a huge boost in graphics performance in benchmarking between the 9400M and 9600M GT -- though there are clear improvements, noticeably in the Open GL numbers. When gaming, however, the jolt of speed is obvious.

Hard drives are bumped to a minimum of 250GB for each of those, though they can be expanded to 320GB, or you can opt for a 128GB SSD (of course, that'll run you an extra $500). The fact that Apple has made the hard drives so accessible here should prevent anyone with smarts and a little tech know-how from paying the Apple Tax on a drive upgrade. It's easier than it's ever been to swap in your own drive, and it certainly opens up options in both pricing and capacity -- a welcome relief.

Benchmarks (and exponentially expanding product names)

	MBP (2.5GHz Penryn)	Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo)	MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo)	MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo)	2008 MacBook (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo)	2008 MBP (2.53GHz Core 2 Duo) 9400M	2008 MBP (2.53GHz Core 2 Duo) 9600M GT
CPU	169.23	79.98	112.93	126.66	147.97	147.73	140.57
GCD Loop	15.33 Mops/s	9.67 Mops/s	13.17 Mops/s	13.43 Mops/s	14.79 Mops/s	14.43 Mops/s	12.89 Mops/s
Floating Point Basic	3.37 Gflop/s	2.03 Gflop/s	2.96 Gflop/s	2.95 Gflop/s	2.90 Gflop/s	2.95 Gflop/s	2.76 Gflop/s
vecLib FFT	3.93 Gflop/s	1.71 Gflop/s	2.98 Gflop/s	3.36 Gflop/s	3.22 Gflop/s	3.22 Gflop/s	3.21 Gflop/s
Floating Point Library	36.64 Mops/s	12.82 Mops/s	14.15 Mops/s	17.80 Mops/s	34.63 Mops/s	34.06 Mops/s	31.79 Mops/s
Thread Test	275.13	148.81	219.18	186.4	228.89	288.67	328.72
Computation	6.93 Mops/s	2.77 Mops/s	4.04 Mops/s	3.58 Mops/s	8.54 Mops/s	6.13 Mops/s	8.21 Mops/s
Lock Contention	9.90 Mlocks/s	7.04 Mlocks/s	10.47 Mlocks/s	8.48 Mlocks/s	6.76 Mlocks/s	11.87 Mlocks/s	11.89 Mlocks/s
	MBP (2.5GHz Penryn)	Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo)	MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger)	MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo)	2008 MacBook (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo)	2008 MBP (2.53GHz Core 2 Duo) 9400M	2008 MBP (2.53GHz Core 2 Duo) 9600M GT
Memory Test	168.11	140.42	137.1	150.23	180.94	181.52	184.05
System	183.01	143.51	126.92	158.95	207.63	204.56	209.12
Allocate	922.99 Kalloc/s	718.86 Kalloc/s	401.22 Kalloc/s	856.78 Kalloc/s	910.38 Kalloc/s	993.12 Kalloc/s	992.49 Kalloc/s
Fill	7424.09 MB/se	5770.30 MB/s	6490.47 MB/s	6480.99 MB/s	8520.83 MB/s	8135.30 MB/s	8458.71 MB/s
Copy	3522.10 MB/s	2802.78 MB/s	2954.03 MB/s	2914.92 MB/s	4386.65 MB/s	4138.21 MB/s	4217.58 MB/s
Stream	155.45	137.46	149.05	142.41	160.33	163.15	164.35
Copy	3059.86 MB/s	2621.64 MB/s	2923.94 MB/s	2799.64 MB/s	3177.13 MB/s	3170.82 MB/s	3175.85 MB/s
Scale	3008.89 MB/s	2602.03 MB/s	2918.16 MB/s	2797.66 MB/s	3149.02 MB/s	3261.27 MB/s	3285.38 MB/s
Add	3525.00 MB/s	3230.58 MB/s	3359.19 MB/s	3196.17 MB/s	3588.52 MB/s	3652.38 MB/s	3720.07 MB/s
Triad	3523.21 MB/s	3199.37 MB/s	3368.41 MB/s	3211.97 MB/s	3594.99 MB/s	3665.55 MB/s	3675.92 MB/s
	MBP (2.5GHz Penryn)	Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo)	MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger)	MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo)	2008 MacBook (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo)	2008 MBP (2.53GHz Core 2 Duo) 9400M	2008 MBP (2.53GHz Core 2 Duo) 9600M GT
Quartz Graphics Test	198.29	96.89	141.5	154.32	169.95	181.76	184.82
Line	12.43 Klines/s	6.94 Klines/s	9.23 Klines/s	9.69 Klines/s	10.71 Klines/s	11.68 Klines/s	11.84 Klines/s
Rectangle	70.01 Krects/s	32.23 Krects/s	51.59 Krects/s	51.66 Krects/s	60.89 Krects/s	63.91 Krects/s	65.22 Krects/s
Circle	15.29 Kcircles/s	7.22 Kcircles/s	13.30 Kcircles/s	11.54 Kcircles/s	13.40 Kcircles/s	14.17 Kcircles/s	14.34 Kcircles/s
Bezier	4.92 Kbeziers/s	2.49 Kbeziers/s	3.71 Kbeziers/s	3.79 Kbeziers/s	4.14 Kbeziers/s	4.31 Kbeziers/s	4.43 Kbeziers/s
Text	12.17 Kchars/s	5.53 Kchars/s	6.65 Kchars/s	10.39 Kchars/s	10.21 Kchars/s	11.29 Kchars/s	11.44 Kchars/s
OpenGL Graphics Test	165.99	17.26	129.88	23.36	145.67	174.24	169.39
Spinning Squares	210.57 frames/s	21.89 frames/s	164.76 frames/s	29.64 frames/s	184.79 frames/s	221.03 frames/s	214.88 frames/s
User Interface Test	326.63	105.81	303.98	244.28	272.06	296.46	302.37
Elements	1.50 Krefresh/s	485.60 refresh/s	1.40 Krefresh/s	1.12 Krefresh/s	1.25 Krefresh/s	1.36 Krefresh/s	1.39 Krefresh/s
	MBP (2.5GHz Penryn)	Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo)	MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger)	MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo)	2008 MacBook (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo)	2008 MBP (2.53GHz Core 2 Duo) 9400M	2008 MBP (2.53GHz Core 2 Duo) 9600M GT
Disk Test	33.08	24.05	38.13	39.64	42.90	41.21	42.75
Sequential	60.60	42.21	59.81	66.07	75.33	73.73	79.31
Uncached Write	52.17 MB/s [4K blocks]	30.96 MB/s [4K blocks]	42.60 MB/s [4K blocks]	53.34 MB/s [4K blocks]	52.84 MB/s [4K blocks]	66.02 MB/s [4K blocks]	66.05 MB/s [4K blocks]
Uncached Write	47.88 MB/s [256K blocks]	31.19 MB/s [256K blocks]	39.19 MB/s [256K blocks]	47.63 MB/s [256K blocks]	48.54 MB/s [256K blocks]	45.33 MB/s [256K blocks]	58.39 MB/s [256K blocks]
Uncached Read	9.89 MB/s [4K blocks]	7.27 MB/s [4K blocks]	11.59 MB/s [4K blocks]	10.83 MB/s [4K blocks]	14.19 MB/s [4K blocks]	12.09 MB/s [4K blocks]	12.64 MB/s [4K blocks]
Uncached Read	39.17 MB/s [256K blocks]	30.42 MB/s [256K blocks]	39.37 MB/s [256K blocks]	49.62 MB/s [256K blocks]	54.67 MB/s [256K blocks]	60.83 MB/s [256K blocks]	60.59 MB/s [256K blocks]
Random	22.75	16.81	27.99	28.31	29.99	28.60	29.26
Uncached Write	0.81 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.57 MB/s [4K blocks]	1.08 MB/s [4K blocks]	1.03 MB/s [4K blocks]	1.09 MB/s [4K blocks]	1.04 MB/s [4K blocks]	1.07 MB/s [4K blocks]
Uncached Write	18.56 MB/s [256K blocks]	18.35 MB/s [256K blocks]	19.24 MB/s [256K blocks]	22.73 MB/s [256K blocks]	26.51 MB/s [256K blocks]	23.03 MB/s [256K blocks]	23.44 MB/s [256K blocks]
Uncached Read	0.41 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.35 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.41 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.48 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.46 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.47 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.46 MB/s [4K blocks]
Uncached Read	18.44 MB/s [256K blocks]	13.28 MB/s [256K blocks]	16.33 MB/s [256K blocks]	19.31 MB/s [256K blocks]	20.84 MB/s [256K blocks]	20.75 MB/s [256K blocks]	20.56 MB/s [256K blocks]

Battery life

We didn't put the laptops through a litany of hardcore battery benchmarks -- we'll leave that to the more minutiae-obsessed critics. Instead, we wanted to see what these performed like in real-world scenarios, say, a day editing Engadget, or scrambling some brains in a deathmatch. On the MacBook, we found we could get around 3 hours of solid use before we needed to plug in again. Those numbers were diminished when gaming or watching video, though the hit wasn't as bad as we thought it would be (then again, these are new batteries). The Pro fared similarly, though there's a palpable increase in drain when you're using the 9600M (did you expect other results?). As our good friend Ryan Block noted, the new batteries sport a 20 percent lower energy rating, (60Wh to 50Wh for the Pro, 55Wh to 45Wh for the MacBook), though there's speculation that the difference is made up by utilizing the integrated GPUs more effectively. Compared to previous models, these seem to get good -- if slightly diminished -- battery life out of the box. Of course, nothing lasts forever, and just like old versions, you'll see those numbers decrease over time.

Wrap up

Apple is offering the MacBooks starting at a base configuration for $1299, or $1599 for the 2.4GHz model with a larger drive. The MacBook Pros start at $1999 and move up from there -- fully kitted out you'll be pushing $3000 or more. These are in no way the cheapest laptops you could buy, but you get quite a lot for your money.

Ultimately, however, you have a call to make if you're due for a laptop purchase and you're looking at Macs. Apple has drawn lines in the sand with these models, and they're asking you to accept a couple of hard facts when you put down your credit card. Though the company has axed the familiar and oft-used Firewire 400 port and you're forced into buying an adapter if you want to use an old monitor (not a huge expense, but a minor annoyance), neither one of those is reason enough to hold off here. The problem lies with the choice (or lack of choice) on the glossy display. Some users will find the glass screens distracting -- we did -- and that's more than a minor niggle when you're talking about something you'll use for years that costs $2000. If you can tolerate (or prefer) those screens, and / or you're a user without a real attachment to older standards or peripherals, these are terrific choices -- not only from an industrial design standpoint, but in specs as well. They're smart, tough, handsome laptops that more than get the job done and look pretty stunning while doing it.

Now Apple, about a matte display option...

[Hasnain Syed @ Nov 26th 2008 6:45PM]

Thats actually a good point! Never thought of that. I wonder what users who've bought the new laptops have to say about it. I've played with the new laptops at the Apple Store - but left in disgust after all the reflections on the screen from all the lights around me.

[yok @ Nov 28th 2008 1:30PM]

actually, there is an option that you can let go of the pad and the item are still selected so u can place your finger on the pad again and continue dragging.

[Blondie @ Oct 21st 2008 6:27PM]

So, if you're a Mac guy you will want one, and if you are a PC guy you aren't going to convert for one. In other words, "big deal." This is the least exciting refresh ever.

[John Wang @ Oct 21st 2008 6:39PM]

What makes you say PC users won't convert for one? I did. And I'm sure there were plenty of other PC users just waiting for the refresh to switch so they wouldn't get the older model. Granted, some users are disappointed with new screens and whatnot, but some of those are still switching to the "old" model as it's available at a cheaper price.

[Matthew Hilario @ Oct 21st 2008 6:46PM]

whoopty do. it's liken when nintendo went from ds to ds lite. this thing still can't play those mini cds.

[Will @ Oct 21st 2008 6:55PM]

You have mini cds? I've only ever gotten one of those, and it was advertising trash that they were handing out to everyone who passed by from a "OMG OUR UNIVERSITY IS SO AWESOME!" table. Is this what we've degraded to now that the "It still can't run Windows" argument is gone?

[moo083 @ Oct 21st 2008 7:03PM]

I have 3 cousins who are all brothers. Up until now they have been all windows. One even had an AIM icon of an apple and a thumbs down and an xp icon and a thumbs up.

Fast forward 3 or 4 years, and one of them just messaged me to tell me that two of them were considering Macbooks and the third a Macbook Pro. If this machine isn't converting PC users, I don't know what is.

[Ash @ Oct 21st 2008 7:13PM]

I planed to switch from PC as soon as the new laptops were announced, (if only just to do iPhone coding,) but after seeing these models I'm disappointed. I really can't deal with the glossy screen so they have lost at least one potential convert.

[TMM @ Oct 21st 2008 7:20PM]

I love how almost the whole industry has shifted to glossy screens.
And now Apple does it's a huge deal and even a deal breaker.

Even if it is not a cheap coating anymore, but REAL FRIGGIN' GLASS on a Notebook.

These machines are the best designed computers ever. Period.
And all of them are a great deal, for the quality you get. Period.

[Ryan @ Oct 21st 2008 7:23PM]

@John Wang, I'm right there with you. I've used PC's my whole life and have been waiting for this mac refresh for months, mainly so i wouldn't get stuck with the older model MBP. This computer definitely is the most solidly built laptop on the market. Sure it might cost more than an equivalently spec'd PC, but i think its worth it for the OS and solid build. Just bought one online yesterday and haven't received it yet so I still have to see how good or bad the oh-so-dreaded glossy screen really is.

[Chris @ Oct 21st 2008 7:37PM]

Wrong! I've been a PC guy for 20 years and I converted. It took using one
for a day to get me to switch but I did. I still use some windows only apps
(Mainly Solid Works) via Parallels but for everything else I use the mac apps.

[Andrew Fong @ Oct 21st 2008 7:50PM]

Are people switching because the new design is awesome or because they've been wantingto switch to a Mac in general (e.g. because of OS X) and have just been waiting for the latest version?

Personally, the new design is disappointing in terms of substance. There's the already mentioned screen issue but the battery life is disappointing too. The new Intel chipset is supposed to be amazingly energy efficient. We have Dells, HPs, and Thinkpads getting 8 hours plus of battery life (and even more with expanded batteries) -- it'd be nice if Macbooks got a bump as well. When I was a student, I would occasionally need my PowerBook to last through 5 hours worth of class in classrooms with only a handful of outlets. Not fun.

[Kamokazi @ Oct 21st 2008 7:57PM]

@TMM

First, put down the Kool-Aid. It's distoring your view of the imperfections in these new models.

Yes, glossy screens are common, but thanks to the hundreds, if not thousands of laptop varieties, Windows/Linux users can easily choose one without a glossy screen. If you want OS X, you're stuck with glossy. THAT is why there is outcry. There are people that use their laptops in places where a glossy screen will be a major hindrance to them.

And REAL FRIGGIN GLASS is also REAL FRIGGIN HEAVY. I really don't see any benefit to the glass...probably more marketing ploy than actual function. Those 'cheap plastic coatings' were designed for LCD screens, because they work well for reading them. CRTs were made of real glass too...you know what they did? Coated them with 'cheap' plastic to reduce glare.

Best-designed? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, moron. I've typically liked Apple's designs, but I really disklike the black bezel on this and the iMacs. It seems out of place to me. It is impossible to declare something is the best in a criteria that is based primarily on personal opinion.

Great value for the quality? They made the casing a little bit better (And it is very likely cheaper for them to produce the parts and assemble that way). You can still buy comparable PCs for a couple hundred cheaper. They aren't overpriced, but calling them a value is way off-base.

[TMM @ Oct 21st 2008 8:26PM]

"There are people that use their laptops in places where a glossy screen will be a major hindrance to them."

A major hindrance. Haha.

"And REAL FRIGGIN GLASS is also REAL FRIGGIN HEAVY"

No. It's not.

"Best-designed? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, moron."

Taste is aquired through education. Thanks for the personal attack, btw.
Show me one computer where the industrial design is ANYTHING near that of the current Macs.

"Great value for the quality? They made the casing a little bit better (And it is very likely cheaper for them to produce the parts and assemble that way). You can still buy comparable PCs for a couple hundred cheaper. They aren't overpriced, but calling them a value is way off-base."

Obiously your're one of those guys that think hardware spec sheets are THE base for comparision for computers.
No, they aren't.
And this wide spread point of view is of no use for the user, in fact, it's bad.

The quality I mean, is of course the case design and all the improvements, which aren't little, but MAJOR improvements to consumer notebooks. There's no Notebook in those price ranges on the PC market, especially of the 1299 MacBook that comes even close to this.

BUT, to pick of where I left:
The quality is of course not only in the hardware features list.

But you get:
SOFTWARE, SOFTWARE,SOFTWARE THROUGH THE BEST USER INTERFACE OUT THERE!
The software infrastructure on Macs and Apple's other devices is simply the best on the market.
And I won't argue with you about the usability of Mac OS, because there's nothing to argue about.

(In addition: Market's lowest failure rates. Market's best service.)

Computers are about Software. And Mac gives you the BEST INTERFACE TO SOFTWARE!.
And that's why I converted to MAC.

Nobody EVER TAKES that into the review:
USABILITY!

That costs Apple to: to develope this kind of great software.
And you pay for that, too.

And you pointing to Linux as a viable option for any "user" is so banana. Banana, banana.
Oh, man.

[Jr @ Oct 21st 2008 8:56PM]

I don't think what make people switch over is Macbooks or iMacs, most switch because of Windows (Vista is awfull). I don't like Vista and don't like Mac OS either, Linux almost crash my Laptop once, I whish we had another big software company making OS. Even though I hate Microsoft, I'm still a PC user cause I've been using Windows for a long time and in "my opinion" Vaio is the best computer I have ever used. Before anyone ask, yes, I worked with Macbook Pro 2 years ago.

[happy_penguin @ Oct 21st 2008 9:27PM]

"Kamokazi @ Oct 21st 2008 7:57PM

-- If you want OS X, you're stuck with glossy. THAT is why there is outcry. There are people that use their laptops in places where a glossy screen will be a major hindrance to them."

Exactly. I would hope that Apple will go back to offering a choice and I suspect they may given how many people are upset about it. But I also suspect that some aftermarket accessory company will offer some kind of anti-glare screen cover for devout Macbook users who really need anti-glare.

--"I really don't see any benefit to the glass"

Scratch resistance and structural rigidity for such a thin screen.

-- "Best-designed? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, moron. I've typically liked Apple's designs, but I really disklike the black bezel on this and the iMacs. It seems out of place to me. It is impossible to declare something is the best in a criteria that is based primarily on personal opinion."

The unibody is a damn good design from a structural standpoint and I think it's beautiful but I agree that most of what you touch is subjective, so declaring "best designed" is perhaps over the top. I do love the look but I can't make that choice for you or anyone else. If you don't dig it, you don't dig it.

-- "Great value for the quality? They made the casing a little bit better (And it is very likely cheaper for them to produce the parts and assemble that way). You can still buy comparable PCs for a couple hundred cheaper. They aren't overpriced, but calling them a value is way off-base."

I think they're a great value, if you like OS X and if you want a thin beautiful design and appreciate what Apple offers. And I think the casing is a LOT better than the last generation Macbooks. But I totally agree that you can get an arguably better value from a PC machine. The most compelling reason to own any Apple computer is OSX. If you don't like that, it doesn't have much to offer you.

[solarbuddy @ Oct 21st 2008 9:33PM]

Junior, you are so wrong about Vista. If it would run on this laptop I would consider getting one.

[Teh @ Oct 21st 2008 9:37PM]

@ TMM:

Wow. Your comments are becoming more and more unrealistic. Just remember that there is more the computer industry than Apple, its computers, and its software.

"And REAL FRIGGIN GLASS is also REAL FRIGGIN HEAVY"

No. It's not.

For computers and laptops especially, glass is HEAVY. However, for the MPB and MB I don't think this will be a problem because they are still quite light - I'll credit Apple for that design cue. However, glass merely adds to the glare, and it seems like it was just added on to make the spec sheet look good - there really is no difference between plastic and glass for screens, except matte plastic has NO GLARE.


"Best-designed? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, moron."

Taste is aquired through education. Show me one computer where the industrial design is ANYTHING near that of the current Macs.

You obviously have not ACQUIRED (not aquired) much education in terms of notebook design. Remember, there are people in the world that are not Apple fanboys. Some people think the black screens are great, some don't; I, for one, think the black screen on the Macs are good but they look fugly on the Macbooks. The previous all silver was WAY better looking.

And best-designed? In terms of DESIGN, not looks, check up Lenovo. Their X200 and X300 have some of the best build quality on the market. What about the Envy 133? There's also Toshiba's Portege A605, which is lighter than the MBA and INCLUDES a DVD drive. The VAIO TT's even smexier.

"The quality I mean, is of course the case design and all the improvements, which aren't little, but MAJOR improvements to consumer notebooks. There's no Notebook in those price ranges on the PC market, especially of the 1299 MacBook that comes even close to this."

You call a glass screen MAJOR improvement? I have to admit, the multi-touch keypad is pretty cool, but that's just a followup to what the MBA already has. For 1299, you can buy a pretty heavily equipped 12.1" to 15.4", with up to a Core 2 Duo P9600, 4GB RAM, 250-320GB hard drive, a BLU-RAY DRIVE (sometimes), dedicated GPUs (like NVIDEA's 9600m), the works. Just go on any good website that sells computers (Tigerdirect, Neweggs, Amazon, eBay etc.) and you will find it.
The funniest thing you wrote, though, is that Macbooks are price-competitive. What is the MAJOR issue about Apple's stuff is that you almost always pay a premium compared to the competition. I have to admit, Macbooks have really good quality, but they're definitely not worth the amount of money we're handing to Stevie.

"Nobody EVER TAKES that into the review:
USABILITY!"

Obviously people take that into account. What's the point of having a laptop if its not very usable. Again, Lenovos are unquestionably the best in terms of usability. Macbooks (at least, the former Macbooks, though the new ones should be still pretty usable, other than the glossy screen) are good because they are good-looking (the new ones aren't really, though) and they are pretty usable, but Lenovo beats the competition, hands down.

Although Macbooks are good, they're not as good as you say they are - that's why Apple doesn't exactly dominate the market. Just keep that in mind. I'd say that the only thing that changed for the better for the new Macbooks is that they're made from less slabs of metal now, and they have the multitouch keypad. The screen is very lacking, though.

[engadget @ Oct 21st 2008 9:49PM]

@TMM

Respect different opinions, but do have a different experience with my Apple products. For me, their quality has been below industry average.

All my hardware, and software problems have been with Apple products. I purchased the original MacBook Pro to replace an iBook that failed 1 month after AppleCare ran out. Had to install OS to get MacBook Pro to boot for first time, and don't use the MacBook Pro (at least first version) on your lap unless you don't want children. Talk about running hot!

My iMac G5 is the most problem prone machine I have ever owned from day one. A waste of $2500 in retrospect. The most common graphic on the iMac G5 - the spinning beachball. Just did a clean OS reinstall, and that helped some, but still see too many freeezes, and spinning beachballs. I have owned as many Windows machines as Macs, and have never needed an OS reinstall on any Windows machines. The iMac G5 is terrible on Flash intensive sites, you are just asking for a prolonged spinning beachball. I frequently shut down the iMac , and use a five year old Sony laptop with motherboard graphics to surf the same Flash sites with CPU cycles to spare.

Concerning design - that of course is a personal thing. I would never insult anyone for their person design preference, but I do respectfully disagree with your opinion, which you kind of stated like it was a fact. I purchased the iMac G4 because it was the first iMac with a flat panel display. At first, I fooled myself into thinking it was just different. After about 2 months of looking at it daily,I realized it was ugly, and after 4 months, realized it was fugly. I maintained the fugly opinion until the day it was recycled. The iMac G4 was replaced with the problem prone (for me) iMac G5 because I wanted a 20" screen, and alleged performance improvement of the G5 chip. I never did like the design of the iMac G5. Big chins may look fine on some celebrities, but i don't want one on my computer. I like the looks of my original MacBook Pro better than the new MacBooks/Pro. Don't like the black bezel from an aesthetic pov. I did not like the chicklet style keys on my 1980 Radio Shack Color computer, and I don't like that style key on the new MacBooks/Pro. I have tried typing on the Air, and stand-alone Apple keyboards with chicklet style keys at Best Buy, and just don't like the feel.

I don't have anything against Apple or OS X, but my Windows XP, and Vista machines are just as stable. and reliable as my Apple machines. I fortunately don't get the grey or blue screens of death often, but I am more apt to get a grey kernel panic on the Mac's than a BSOD on Windows. With Leopard on the iMac G5, and Tiger before the OS reinstall, I have to shut the machine off via holding power button frequently because it is totally frozen, with no response to keyboard or mouse input.

Similar to design, the overall feel of an OS is a personal preference. Again, nothing against OS X. but I prefer Vista.

Maybe I was unlucky, and all my Apple machines were made on a Monday;) My personal experience with Apple products has been rather negative from a quality, and reliability pov.

[john @ Oct 21st 2008 10:02PM]

If i had the cash, i would totally buy one of these and then dump OSX.

The hardware is the sexy part

[happy_penguin @ Oct 22nd 2008 1:59AM]

Wow Engadget.

My experience has been pretty much the opposite of yours. But I can't blame you after going through all that. Yikes.

While I haven't tried Vista yet I have had some ugly problems with Windows which became more rare as I moved from Win98 to Win2000 and a bit more common with XP although nothing was the horror that WinMe was. *shudder*

I have had to reinstall Windows on many machines to repair serious system level issues which I didn't know any other way to fix, even on XP machines but nothing like Win95/98/Me. I haven't had to do that on a Mac. Still, I use Windows and for the most part I do like XP. I've just had better luck with OSX and my iMac G5 has run pretty much flawlessly since I bought it back in '05.

[Lachlan Roy @ Oct 22nd 2008 9:25AM]

The thing I've noticed about Macs is that there tends to be a large amount of problems with the older hardware (e.g. iBook G4s, iMac G4/5s, that sort of time frame) which leads up until around 3 years ago now, although potentially from beforehand. While there have of course been problems with more recent hardware (the original MacBook, the early Intel iMacs) this seems to be far fewer problems than with old hardware. This might be because the old hardware has... well... been around for longer, but it could also be the change to different designs (the chicklet keyboards for example) and internals (much higher powered Intel processors and RAM instead of PowerPC processors) over the last couple of years that have caused fewer problems. Take this one step further with the new unibody enclosures, and redesigned logic boards, new graphics hardware, LED backlighting, the new trackpad etc. for the new macbook/pros, and the difference between these and the old hardware is even greater. I personally don't see how people can judge the reliability current hardware quality on the current Macs (including desktops, too) based on hardware which was significantly different. Surely it's better to wait a few months and wait for any problems with the new hardware to come up (if there are any) instead of basing conclusions on yesteryear's hardware. Hell, that applies to all manufacturers, not just Apple (maybe I should finally get rid of those stereotypes about Dell and its crappy quality...)

As far as the comment about the iMac G5 having trouble running flash-intensive websites is concerned, I would put that down to the old PowerPC CPU, although that might be absolute rubbish (I'm not a flash or CPU expert), even though I've seen relatively current computers running really, REALLY slow on a flash website.

As engadget said, design is a very personal thing - I personally think the new hardware is very pretty, and I know plenty of people who hate it. That's for each person to make their own minds up about.

The lack of FireWire doesn't particularly affect me, although I think Apple have kinda shot themselves in the foot by getting rid of it as far as 'pro' users, graphics designers and musicians are concerned, especially considering as this was the market they have been aiming at for practically since the beginning. The same goes for the glossy-only screen.

[Christy McGrory @ Oct 22nd 2008 11:02AM]

tl; dr

[ZeroCorpse @ Oct 22nd 2008 11:29AM]

And as a Mac guy, I've no interest in swapping my Dec 2007 MacBook for the new model. I like FireWire, I like the display not being glaringly bright, I've already upgraded to 500GB hard drive and 4GB RAM, and I have no need for an advanced GPU. I have a 2.2GHz MacBook, and it looks to me like the MacBook in the same price category this year takes DROP in the CPU category.

Oh, and I don't need the fancy trackpad, since I prefer a wireless mouse anyway.

There's literally nothing I want to do on the Mac that requires an upgrade at this point, and in my book, they've made several DOWNgrades on this model. If I want to play heavy-duty 3D games, I'll use my PS3 or PSP. The Intel GMA does what I need in terms of video and PC games.

Aside from all that, I've had this MacBook for a year, and I'm pretty sure it has no hardware bugs or flaws at this point. I'm not eager to jump in and try version 1.0 of anything, thanks.

I'll buy a new Mac when they get out a reasonably-priced desktop with a decent video card.

[bioadam @ Oct 22nd 2008 12:23PM]

Forget about Windows, we should be debating the merits of Linux versus MacOS. Seriously, have you counted the clicks it takes just to update the clock on Vista? There are some great PC laptops that can be loaded with Ubuntu, but the updated graphics in the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros are literally game changers. I've been a PC for 17 years, linux for a year, and I will be a Mac as soon as Apple can ship me the new MacBook.

[Blondie @ Oct 22nd 2008 7:20PM]

I love the symphony of bullshit here on Engadget from the commenter Mac kids.

"I HAVE 9 FRIENDZ WHO ALL LOVE PC AND NOW THEY ALL BOUGHT 3 MACS AND AN IPHONE!!"

Yeah. Sure they dud.

[Paulin BKK @ Oct 22nd 2008 8:50PM]

I'm running a 2.2 Macbook Pro and was thinking of a new one so I could give mine to my girl-friend.
Can't though because of the lack of the 400 port on the new model whcih I use for my audio interfacing. Makes me appreciate my matte screen too cause glossy screens are a pain in cafe's, hotspots etc.

So I have a newly rekindled love my my machine and will save for a new 250gig SSD drive.

[lolism @ Oct 23rd 2008 11:12AM]

@TEH " "Best-designed? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, moron."

Taste is aquired through education. Show me one computer where the industrial design is ANYTHING near that of the current Macs."

Kant would argue that beauty is apriori. Which means that it is a Universal Subject, or that everyone finds objects of beauty beautiful.

Just putting my $0.02 in there.

[ZeroCorpse @ Nov 8th 2008 12:53PM]

Well, I'll admit I was wrong. The boost in power is worth it. I went ahead and upgraded to this model after all. What was the selling point? The GPU.

Basically, if I want to run VMWare Fusion, this model makes it run better, and that's a good thing. If I want to jump over to a boot camp partition, it will be capable of playing some decent games.

So yeah, after playing around with it, I leanred that I was wrong. This model is a significant upgrade.

[waiownsyou @ Oct 21st 2008 6:28PM]

Wow. I wonder how Apple is going to top this design a few years from now...

[Engadgetier @ Oct 21st 2008 6:34PM]

easy, by turning the screen into a mirror.........

[lowdef @ Oct 21st 2008 6:38PM]

Its gonna be oval shaped and in all the colors of the rainbow so you can finally get that purple laptop youve always dreamed of...

[Quix @ Oct 21st 2008 6:40PM]

Seems Apple is getting really close to the point where they can sit back and stick with this design for years, a la the Mac Pro (or the ThinkPad). "Timeless," as they say. Cosmetically, I can't imagine it getting too much better than this. Not for a long while anyway.

[beryl @ Nov 2nd 2008 1:10AM]

easier, by making successively smaller versions of it until you can't see it anymore

[Ellianth @ Oct 21st 2008 7:03PM]

Top? This thing is so ugly once opened.

[Wormbolt @ Oct 21st 2008 7:38PM]

@Quix

Timeless? I've seen very few more computer designs that were more obnoxious. Apple's aesthetics are mannered and gimmick-filled as their style book is basically retro-sci-fi kitch. It seems they design everything after watching DVD's of Star Wars and The Jetsons.

It is time for a new term to hit the tech industry: Design Bloat.

[Wormbolt @ Oct 21st 2008 7:38PM]

@Quix

Timeless? I've seen very few computer designs that were more obnoxious. Apple's aesthetics are mannered and gimmick-filled as their style book is basically retro-sci-fi kitch. It seems they design everything after watching DVD's of Star Wars and The Jetsons.

It is time for a new term to hit the tech industry: Design Bloat.

[Fanfoot @ Oct 21st 2008 8:18PM]

Dude, that's easy.

The hard disks will get replaced by Flash SSDs. And those will move to a smaller form factor, like 1.8". This will help with performance and battery life. And the move to a smaller size will allow the whole device to be even thinner.

They'll change the colors. Aluminum to white to black to multiple colors and back again.

They'll round off the edges next time, then square them off again. Repeat.

They'll move to higher speed Intel CPUs. They'll move to higher end graphics.

They'll move to a different battery technology.

They'll change the surface texture. Multiple times.

They'll provide customizable lazer etching on the outside.

They'll narrow the bezel around the display so its really thin, shrinking the size of the laptop very slightly.

They'll add five finger gestures. And more 2-4 finger gestures.

They'll add video encoding or decoding chips to the motherboard.

And on and on it will go...

[Ryan Karolak @ Oct 22nd 2008 12:29AM]

@Engadgetier

Such as those cell phones who's screens are mirrors until you turn on the display?

That would be interesting. The laptop would be an entire mirror... top and bottom until you turn it on and you get a touch screen on the bottom (see outline of keys and keypad which can change according to the computer) and the top would appear as well.

[Frastoglegnia @ Oct 24th 2008 1:37PM]

To lowdef: "Its gonna be oval shaped and in all the colors of the rainbow so you can finally get that purple laptop youve always dreamed of..."

Actually, that sounds more like a description of Dell. They even offer a purple laptop option .

[Will @ Oct 21st 2008 6:29PM]

In all honesty, I think the black and silver looks horrid compared to the previous versions. While my MacBook Pro is hardly perfect (bezel is too wide above screen to make room for the camera, the security lock hole is way up toward the front of the right side), it looks a hell of a lot better than these. The keyboard and screen look like mismatched replacements ripped our of a different computer. Eew.

Wouldn't mind one of those trackpads though. I rarely use the button on mine.

[Will @ Oct 21st 2008 6:33PM]

That should say out, nor our. Editable comments please?

[BowserUSC @ Oct 21st 2008 6:42PM]

Why don't you learn to proof read? It takes all of 10 seconds.

[Mark Anderson @ Oct 21st 2008 6:43PM]

I agree. I think it looks fuck ugly.

Sorry, personal taste and all that - the Pro is a beast as far as specs go but it just leaves me cold in the looks department.

[Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Oct 21st 2008 6:45PM]

I agree, I don't care about the design of the unibody construction that allows for a new type of keyboard. The silver keys on my late 2006 MBPro look superior and even feel superior (I played around with a new MBPro at Best Buy.)

I opted for a glossy screen when ordering mine almost two years ago, but I have a friend who swears by his matte screen. Boy, is he pissed with Apple over the lack of a matte option.

[rawhead @ Oct 21st 2008 6:52PM]

I won't get into an argument about aesthetics because that's subjective, but purely from a functional point of view, the black bezel, I've found, is fantastic because it seriously lets you focus on the screen. bright white, or even aluminum bezels tend to distract that gaze, and as I look at the screen of my iMac, even that 8mm sliver around the black contributes to distracting my gaze; however, with the new Macbook, the silver is almost non-existent, and if the background is neutral, or even better, dark, there's nothing getting in the way and I can really focus on what I'm doing on the screen.


I used to think some of the black bezels I saw on laptops (a lot of them in Japan) were kind of silly, and I was skeptical about this move with the new laptops, but I am now a complete convert. I love it.

[Will @ Oct 21st 2008 6:51PM]

I swear by my matte screen too. Glossy can look nice in the right conditions, like when you only have one light source, but I find myself using my laptop a lot in places where the ceiling is covered with fluorescent tubes. I've used glossies on occasion, and it's damn hard to not have lights all over the mirror.

Left that out of the original post because I figured it'd get be branded as a moron fanboy who thinks only my opinions about which is better are important.

[: D @ Oct 21st 2008 7:18PM]

WTF? C'mon, it's Apple- i.e, it has features that aren't immediately preferable but rather take some time and use to appreciate. If i'm using it in a dark room, I would want to see the keyboard ( aluminium ) but would want a black surround to the monitor when watching movies.
What is it that you want?

Modern Design - see Oscar Wilde's (not a Scottish or French designer, but had input as a critic) take on it, or others of his period.

[Will @ Oct 21st 2008 7:44PM]

Actually, when in a dark room the backlit keyboard works pretty well regardless of what color they are. But I still think the black/silver mix looks bad.

[Dan @ Oct 21st 2008 8:14PM]

For the reflective screen, it's probably possible to find an anti-glare film to stick on the screen just like the ones that are sold for the iPhones. It's not convenient, but that's probably the best anyone could do.