MacBook and MacBook Pro review
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Oct 21st 2008 6:20PM
posted Oct 21st 2008 6:20PM
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.
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.
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.
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).
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] |
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...
I loved everything I saw when I first saw it except the black keyboard. But it's growing on me quickly. It's all a matter of personal taste.
I think the black colouring of the keyboard, aside from trying to tie the bottom half of the notebook to the display's black bezel, is also meant as a "retro" shout-out to the original TiBooks with their black keyboards. But I could be wrong. In any case, it looks like ass, and from what little experience I've had with the MacBook/Air, it types to match. I'm really going to miss this 2004 PowerBook's keyboard when I finally have to get a new machine in a couple years, because I don't doubt Apple will have finished outlawing the production of non-chicklet keyboards in any of their products by then.
Will:
I'm not a fan of Jobs, either, and his "what should we leave out this time?" abuse of minimalism to deprive the user of options in the name of a seamless user experience.
But I've learned not to judge the new iteration of an Apple device by pictures. Most people thought the first metal-bodied nano looked awful in early pictures and mock-ups. But seeing the thing in person proved a different experience for the time.
My initial reaction to the black was annoyance -- Apple appeared to have made the MB into a generic two-tone laptop. But then I remembered: with Ivers' work, it's best to reserve judgment until I see the object in person.
Even so, I'm not buying the new MacBook. Apple doesn't know how to implement USB hardware reliably, besides which, I'm a studio musician with a lot of audio I/O gear. Remove firewire from a laptop and you've lost me as a customer.
Good review, guys!
I sure wish laptop makers would focus on battery life more. I've been dealing with "around three hours" for as long as I can remember.
Dell is dealing with that. My two year old dell D620 goes for about 4.5 hours watching movies. The new ones are better now,
I am disappointed with the new MacBook Pro's battery too.
CNET's review get around 4 hours and 8 minute while using the 9400m.
3 hours of battery life with the Pro while using the 9600m GT.
Yet CNET's review got 4 hours and 2X minutes with the Early 2008 MacBook Pro (which use the 8600m GT)
(They use a DVD Playback test)
That means the new MacBook Pro is getting SHORTER battery even while using the integrated 9400m comparing to the old MacBook Pro that use the 8600m dedicated display chip.
I think the design looks quite good actually. The keyboard matches the screen bezel so it all ties in together unlike the Macbook Air which just has black keys that are out of place. It is also extremely solid and the trackpad is larger and therefore easier to use.
In all though, I do not like the new products because:
1) They do not have blu-ray.
2) SHARP EDGES. Everything is too goddam sharp, from the edges of the case to the edges of the keys. I get a feeling that someone at Apple has an irrational fear of rounded edges.
3) Too expensive.
Throw this whole firewire dilema in t here 2. The thing I like best about osx is the simplicity of iLife, and as I do a lot of mini-DV video editting, firewire is a must-have, The lack of FW400 is a pain, because I would have to carry around an adapter, but the entire omission of fire wire in the Macbooks seems just stupid, as it remains the industry standard for consumer-level camcorders, and Apple put so much pride into their iLife suite.
Low rank me because you don't agree with my opinion, how mature :)
no. low ranked for whining about being low ranked.
These are beautiful machines, no doubt about it. Just a huge step up in refinement from the older models. Carved from a block of aluminum with water and lasers? Oh, baby... It's hard to look at these and not want to touch them.
The lack of Firewire in the MacBook is a real kick to the crotch though. Dumb decision, Apple. Dumb.
And the outcry from the pro users over the glossy screens should have been anticipated - and squelched with a matte option. Seems Apple just can't bear to release anything without knowingly creating controversy. Shame, that.
Yeah, the new MacBook screens really blow. They're definitely much brighter than the old MacBooks due to the LED backlight, but me thinks that the brightness just shows off the inferiority and lack of color saturation of the 13" LCD panels that Apple is using. Coupled with the double glare of glossy screen+glass and severely limited viewing angles, it would be hard to swallow shelling out $1300 (or $1600) buckaroos for this baby.
This is a fair review.
It has massive (and mostly) advantage, but the Macbook does lack a Firewire port and the Macbook Pro does lack a Matte screen option.
I think the machine makes up for it, it's design is incredible and the power is fantastic...you deffo get your moneys worth.
Nice one Apple.
Is it even meaningful to say that it's "evolutionary -- not revolutionary"? I mean... if they had just made it a uni-body enclosure with the same aluminum around the screen then maybe I'd call it evolutionary, but the new black/aluminum is a pretty significant change.
Not saying it's a revolution, but maybe the description can live without the evolution/revolution cliche. What exactly would count as revolutionary?
This brings nothing new to the table.
Apple chose aluminum to form their cases. Others use carbon fiber to get the same rigidness and quality. Same difference there.
Apple included a decent graphics card to their MB (finally). Others have done it as well. Apple gives you a 9600GT, but knocks out an hour from its battery life in doing so. That gets rid of that advantage, considering the old MBP got that hour back with a similarly powered 8600GT. Also, having two graphics cards is great and looks good on a spec sheet, but when you cant use them together in some way (even using one to power another monitor while on a desk), or you have to shut down your apps and log out then back in to switch, it kind of gets rid of its usefulness. All that does is assure you will always sit on one chip, not hot swap based on what you plan to do. Not to mention, you get no option of changing the graphics card while in Windows.
Apple gives you a glass screen, while giving you extreme amounts of glare. Washes the glass screen aspect right off.
Apple gives you LED backlight screens. So do netbooks that cost 300 bucks. Not a big deal.
Apple finally supports the standard Display Port, but completely fucks it all up by using Mini-Display port, assuring you will always need to carry a dongle to hook it up into anything except the 24" Apple Display.
The only thing they have revolutionized is their innate capability of sacrificing at every step of the way just for their looks and designs.
wow you definitely went on a rant there...
Too bad you didn't actually read my comment and see that I wasn't even saying positive things about the macbooks. All I said is that I don't know how evolution vs. revolution is really meaningful here since:
Aesthetics of the computer are changed significantly => not evolutionary
Still doesn't read my mind => not revolutionary
I'm an evolutionary biologist so maybe I'll try to work out a phylogeny (others probably have)...
LUA (Last Universal Ancestor): Macintosh Classic
| | |
| | |-> Clear/Colored Plastic -> White/Black Plastic -| (extinct...?)
| |
| |-> Titanium/Plastic -| (extinct)
|
|-> Perforated Aluminum -> All Aluminum -> Aluminum/Glass
...so if anything the MBP is evolutionary; MB upgrade is like Fish -> Dolphins though, not really cladistically related
"I mean... if they had just made it a uni-body enclosure with the same aluminum around the screen then maybe I'd call it evolutionary, but the new black/aluminum is a pretty significant change."
I read that as you saying its more then an "evolution", but less than a "revolution".
I stated in my "rant" this is nothing more then status quo.
Express your thoughts more clearly, so myself and others wont misunderstand.
Sorry my comment was too logically or grammatically complex for you to understand. No one else seemed to have trouble with it.
I can see you don't really even understand your own comments... now you say it's "nothing more then status quo" when in reality your comment was the exact opposite: You pointed out all the ways it was different (hence not the same).
And your last sentence didn't even make sense, "The only thing they have revolutionized is their innate capability of sacrificing at every step of the way just for their looks and designs." ...So they have revolutionized an innate capability by demonstrating it? (See, that's where you actually should have used "status quo".)
Plus you also ranted about how the changes are bad or a rip-off or whatever, which was pretty much a non sequitur. This is why I rarely comment on websites.
"No one else seemed to have trouble with it."
yeah, except for the overwhelming majority who low-ranked your comment.
Josh somehow thinks that the lack of firewire 400 isn't a deal killer; he obviously hasn't been using a camcorder in a long time. I was actually considering the new MBP coupled with Final Cut Studio simply for the GPU acceleration, but without a way of dumping video from my HV20 to the MBP, it's a lost cause. I'll just drop Adobe CS4 onto my Vista laptop and borrow a hidden NVIDIA CUDA plugin for AfterEffects instead.
Lack of firewire 400 + glossy screen = bad for just about anyone wishing he/she could do mobile video editing.
Yeah, I'm not really convinced that's the reason for the low ranking to be honest. Perhaps some people take the time to actually read what I wrote, but I think a lot of the up/down-voting is "partisan" in nature--once Ruben responded with an anti-MB post people assume I'm defending Apple or whatever...
Or for people scanning the posts, maybe I had too many mac references in my comment without the obligatory "GLOSSY SCREEN SUX", so I'm an Apple apologist...?
My comment dealt with the use of "revolutionary vs evolutionary" to describe every new product or update. I think it's a pretty meaningless cliche (What counts as evolution of a product or revolution of a product?), and I'm tired of hearing it, that's all.
You are all busy arguing with people like Josh (?) about whether the changes are good or not (which is fine), but your replies have nothing to do with my actual comment.
I like the effort of trying to lose the apple bias. You've definitely improved.
I don't know if it's to do with the management shift at Engadget, or the fact that Apple's just really stumbling a lot lately.
The new MacBooks are lack basic features of the previous models (and actually raise the barrier of entry for would-be switchers). The iPhone 2.x firmware is STILL a buggy piece of garbage, and also still lacks basic features. The relaunch of .Mac as MobileMe was completely botched.
They've even been screwy in the iPod department. Apple usually has a very focused, linear direction. In two years, they've gone from long, thin nano, to the Fatty, and back to the long, thin design. Apple usually doesn't completely reverse directions like that. When they ditched the "desk-lamp" iMac for the "laptop-in-a-monitor" iMac, they didn't switch back a year later.
Even if you're a total Apple fanboy, you have to admit that they've really been screwing up a lot recently. For people who thought Apple could do no wrong, they're proving to be very fallible. If the economy continues to decline, their decision to abandon the Mini, and set such high price-points for the new MacBooks, will almost certainly hurt Apple's growth.
That sure is a cool table. Lowes would be proud
I think its funny that for the graphics test the old MBP's beat the new MBP's WITH the better graphics card.
So much for 5x Stevie....
What is this? Wikipedia?
No, I think you'll find it's a review. You kind of have to tell people about a product before you review it :D
I like these redesigns a lot, i dont care for the glossy screens, i actually like them compared to the dimmer non-glossy kind, the glossy kind make the screen more clear, vivid.
To be honest, I'm a little sad about this refresh. The only really new thing is the fact that the case is made out of mainly one piece. I need a new laptop and would have considered the macbook, but the screen's inferiority to the pro turns me off. And the fact that it's glossy and there's glass to create even more reflections really makes me reconsider wanting one.
I don't know about apple anymore. I find that for the most part, their products are really great, but they all have at least one glaring issue that you have to put up with.
I would agree. Apple loves taking their products to the next level but then, for whatever reason, make one thing that is worse than the cheapest version of the product. The iPhone, which I think is far and away the best phone on the market, still can't get media messages where my old $15 phone could. Now, they have clearly set a new bar for laptops, but in performance and looks, but force you into a screen that could be a deal breaker (say a office with a wall of windows behind the desk). Even some of the cheapest laptops give you the option of gloss or matte finish.
Not sure why Steve does this...maybe he thinks that way people will buy them more often when they fix that one thing, only to create a new 'one' thing that will force them to eventually upgrade again.
Did anyone think that maybe they've switched to this glass screen, all be it glossy so that they can easily slip in the same touchscreen technology used on the iPhone which also has a very similar glossy glass screen?
There have been rumors of a mac tablet for years, in reality though, a tablet with a pen is really only used by very niche consumer markets, artists, designers, etc. and by some commercial markets but all in all its an aging technology with not a very good aesthetic value. By making the monitor glass though, it lets them bring in a touchscreen by finger like the iPhone, and because of the iPhone they already have the tech. I'm thinking thats too big of a coincidence as there really is no other reason for a glass screen cover other than to let the people who buy this version become the guinea pigs for testing if a glass screen on a laptop would survive and be tolerated.
"but they all have at least one glaring issue that you have to put up with."
Glaring.....
Hey! I see what you did there!
@Dylan
I think you're taking a bit of a leap there. I don't see them putting in a touch screen, but rather they want to continue to update new products according to the new design standards they have.
That comparison was with the integrated graphics, and that was a MacBook comparison, not the MacBook Pro you're referring to.
Dumbass.
The MacBook's screen has always been inferior to the MacBook Pro's.
There's nothing new here at all. Also, it was always glossy. In terms of screen, the new MacBook is probably better than the older plastic models because of the brightness of the screen alone. I don't think the MacBook's screen just "became" bad. It was never great to begin with.
@Browser
You think they want to continue to update the product according to their new design standards that put them in a place where they alienate themselves from their main customer base who were proud of their high end matte screens... Or in a new manufacturing process that costs them more because they're using glass instead of plastic? I'm an industrial designer myself, there is zero reason financially they'd have this glass screen get through their accounting guys unless there was a specific reason for it other than the marketing of having a glass screen. Apple may rely on emotional design to attract customers but its far from the main attraction and only a distraction from whats actually going on.
The last MacBooks had glossy displays too. All I know is that on the plastic MacBook the screen looked better than the (similarly glossy and sized) Sony Vaio CR that my wife has.
And being a bit circumspect about the screen because it's not as good as the Pro is like me being upset with my car because it's not an Audi R8. But then it only cost half as much...
Laptops are a very personal thing. I have a Thinkpad X series at work which I feel has a great keyboard, so-so screen, and rubbish red-pointy nubbin thing. I know plenty of people who love the nubbin. Horses for courses. I think you really have to try a laptop before passing judgement. Which is why I won't be passing judgement on the new screens, chassis, or anything else on the new Macs until I see them.
Disclaimer: I own no Firewire devices, so have no axe to grind. All my peripherals are attached to my home network (or should this be called a home cloud now?)
Yet another overpriced piece of shit from Apple.
Yay!
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Yay! Another couple Apple hating trolls with their heads up their asses! Yay!
Yay! Another "Apple hating" hating troll with his head up his ass! Yay!
Yet another stupid ass comment, save your bandwidth unless you have something constructive to say. In my OPINION I love the new mac pros, so much that I've already bought 1. Its not perfect but they are going in a great direction. The new keyboard layout feels more solid and comfortable than the mushy feeling in the last model. Its not the prettiest looking thing but my OPINION it a step in the right direction. If you don't like what they're doing what you don't go make your own computers?
Don't you also forget how recyclable this new laptop is???
Bad new Saad - Putting quotation marks on "apple hating" does not make your comment look original.
In my opinion, paying $500 more just for having an Apple logo engraved on your laptop is completely stupid. Sony and Dell are making good notebooks for almost half the price but Engadget doesn't seem to give a shit about other companies.
The only problem with these, they are still Macs!
I have owned my 17" Macbook Pro for just shy of a year now.. I made sure to get the "ultimate" version of it ($3600 after student discount). Which has the 2.6 c2d, 1920x1200 HD screen w/ matte finish, and I added an extra 2gb ram for a total of 4. There is almost nothing about the new version of the MBP that makes me want it compared to my existing MBP. The only thing that caught my eye was the new nvidia chipset and graphics cards they put in. Otherwise, it's the same damn thing as mine. If they added a BluRay drive to it, that would have sealed the deal, considering the obvious.
Let me think of the ways I can't use the new MBP:
In the passenger seat during daylight in a car
Next to a window at any venue during the day
Outside during the day
In areas where there is a light source behind me
Geez....I might as well call it a MacBook Pro Vampire. I can only use it when IT is the light source! I was dying to convert, but now I'm dying for a Dell Precision.
Holy crap these anti-glossy people are killing me.
You guys act like the moment there is a single light bulb in the vicinity the screen turns invisible.
I've had a glossy-screened MBP for about 2 years now and HAVE, in fact, been able to use it:
-in the passenger seat of a car
-next to a window during the day
-outside during the day
-in areas with a light source behind me
In fact, outside during the day is so much easier with a glossy screen because matte produces one huge blurred hotspot which makes the screen practically unreadable outside.
If you've never actually used a laptop with a glossy screen in any of those situations for more time than it takes to do a passing glance, don't criticize because you're just adding to the FUD.
I have been primarily a PC user up until this point and the time is coming to retire my 2-year-old Lenovo T-61. I have seen the glossy screens in person and yes, they are really that bad. However, they are not something that can't be fixed with an aftermarket product. NuShield makes pre-cut or cut-your-own matte and anti-glare screen protectors at very reasonable prices.
Remember 10 years ago when we all used glass screens, on those big grey boxes called CRTs. I used to have Sony 17" CRT in a bright room and don't remember glare being a problem.
Jeez. Pay $10 for an anti-glare screen protector and shut up already.