MacBook Pro 17-inch unibody review

There's no point in going as in-depth on this model of MacBook Pro as we did on the 15-inch version. In terms of hardware, build quality, and general patchwork inside, this is the same computer (albeit somewhat more gigantic). The same unibody construction is used here, and Apple calls the laptop the "world's thinnest and lightest 17-inch notebook." We won't argue -- it compares favorably to the smaller entry in the family, and besides it's obviously larger footprint, we didn't feel it was excessively heavy for a device of this size (it actually weighs 6.6 pounds, just a little over a pound heavier than the 15-inch version).

All of the other details, like the glass trackpad and new keyboards are completely intact. Actually, if you saw one of these from a distance, it might not be immediately obvious that it was the 17-incher (save for how tiny the human using it would look in comparison).
Hardware
The version we received was the fully kitted out iteration of the laptop. The base configuration (a not-super-cheap $2,799) is outfitted with a 2.66GHz CPU, 4GB of RAM, a 320GB hard drive, and the switchable NVIDIA GeForce 9400M / 9600M GT GPUs. The version we have came fully loaded with a 2.93GHz CPU, 8GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD, and (yes) an anti-glare display. Needless to say, performance wasn't much of an issue -- but the final cost ($4,899) might be a little extreme for most.
In terms of day to day tasks, this computer is simply overkill. If you're working on even somewhat graphically intensive projects, you can probably get by just fine with one of the smaller models. It's not as if the GPU is more super-charged than any other system in the line. The real advantage here is the massive screen real estate, matte display, and the supposedly gargantuan battery life. The 17-inchers do seem suited to those working in the video or photography fields, and Apple clearly isn't too interested in trying to shill these to the mainstream. The company is actually touting features like a 60 percent greater color gamut in the display panel (which incidentally is the same in both the gloss and non-gloss versions).


Performance on our system was insanely fast, though. From cold boot to active desktop took roughly 30 seconds, which is blazing (at least to us). Jumping from app to app, dealing with huge images / editing, multiple tabs of CPU intensive websites, and having scores of projects open at once didn't faze the Pro. The biggest performance gains were in disk access, and obviously the SSD is a major player here, but even general UI elements seemed snappier and more responsive than on our other computers. Of course, none of that should come as a surprise, this is -- after all -- Apple's top of the line laptop.
So let's talk about that display for a moment. Our biggest gripe about the other new unibody Macs was the lack of a matte option for the screens. In our review, we noted that the glare on the new LED displays is so intense that it's actually quite distracting in anything other than a lowly lit room. Apple chose to solve the problem on the bigger versions by introducing an anti-glare option (for an additional $50, of course). Interestingly, the company prefers the term "anti-glare" to "matte," which is odd, since "anti-glare" quite obviously suggests the other option is, well... "glare."

MacBook Pro 15-inch vs. MacBook Pro 17-inch
Regardless, the new display is stunning. Not only is the thing massive in terms of resolution (going back to the 15-incher made us feel like we were working on an OLPC XO), but the color depth and contrast are stunning. Apple seems to have really honed the art of light sensing, and we found the display accurately adjusting itself to a room's light. When cranked up to full brightness, the screen beams -- it's crisp, clear, and colors pop. We're not designers, and we're not professional photographers, but as far as we can tell, this display would be pure win for folks in those lines of work.

As you likely know, the battery in the 17-incher is the non-removable type, much like the MacBook Air... with one major difference. Phil Schiller went on and on at Macworld this year about the lengths the company went to in developing a battery which is not only built into the system, but extends life far beyond that of a typical unit. The result was a The claim from Apple is that the 40 percent larger, lithium-polymer-based bricks they came up with can provide up to eight (yes, 8) hours of use on a single full charge, and can be re-juiced 1000 times before needing to be replaced. Once you need said replacement, the packs can be swapped out by Apple for a low, low fee of $179.
So, the claim: up to eight hours with the on-board graphics, and seven hours with the discrete GPU switched on -- how did they fare?

In our tests, under normal use (image editing, heavy web surfing, blogging all over the internet, YouTube / Viddler video watching, really serious AIM sessions), the laptop nabbed an average of 4:40 on a single charge with the low-power GPU, and, surprisingly, just under four hours (about 3:50) with the discrete chip. Those numbers fall right in line with other reviews we've seen of the laptop, and our feeling was that they're fairly consistent across the board. So, we're dealing almost four hours discrepancy with what Apple claims -- but what does that mean? According to the company, they tested a 2.66GHz model with the screen at half brightness while browsing the web over WiFi and editing a text document to achieve that eight hour number. We put the system to a more average and complete test, and frankly, we're impressed with the results. The new battery bests the typical lifespan of a MacBook Pro removable by almost double. Having seen what it's capable of, we could get comfortable with Apple adding batteries of this variety into other new laptops they produce, but let's revisit this again in a year or two -- we still have no idea what the long term experience would be like with one of these. Will it live up to the promise of a 1000 charges? We have our doubts.
Still, if we had to choose a swappable scenario over this, it would be hard to choose. From experience, being able to quickly swap to a new battery is a huge benefit when you're on the move and don't have a second to recharge. On the other hand, the huge stretches of time between charges we saw on the new 17-incher are extremely encouraging, and likely long enough to make the system viable for field use.
Wrap-up
Ultimately, the decision about whether to buy the bigger MacBook Pro is probably already made -- if you're a power user who needs the real estate, there's little to deter you from making this purchase. Apple has cleaned up the design in all the right ways, improved the display and guts considerably, and proved that it can milk a substantial amount of time from a non-removable battery. The cost may still be a major barrier here for most, but something tells us if you really need a computer of this size, you'll find a way to pay for it. Our actual gripe comes not in the form of problems with this particular system, but in Apple's methodology of rolling out options for their laptops. Unlike competitors such as Dell, if you want a 15-inch Apple laptop, you're stuck with one type of display (the same resolution and same obnoxious glossy finish), and your options for other components aren't much better. Apple: you've proven that you can turn in a beautiful, clear LED display without resorting to the reflective sheen of the current models -- why not extend that kindness to the rest of your users?




























Hey people at Engadget, Can I have it? please?
I kinda like it...
working for an Apple reseller means I get a nice hands on on all the new machines.
I think the new MacBook Pros are fairly vile... too consumery and too glossy.
I've never liked the spacious 17 but this new one does look good... only with the Matte (non glossy - fine!) screen...
why the hell anyone would buy a MacTop like this with a glossy screen is beyond me.
it's great for who it's aimed for.
for now, I'm happy with my 2.2 15" :D
plays L4D and runs Final Cut Pro very nicely and that's all I'm fussed about!
Shame about the rest of the range!
I want that wallpaper!! And the machine too, but the wallpaper will do for now :)
I'm assuming that there is no number pad because they wanted their ridiculously gigantic trackpad to be centered. If that's the case, it's totally inexcusable. Talk about sacrificing a huge amount of functionality for a rather trivial aesthetic decision.
Having a number pad on the keyboard is the number one advantage of having a 17" laptop, in my opinion.
@dsid
My home computer was bought in 2002. The only upgrades done to it was an additional internal hard drive & an OS upgrade. Used daily, by more than one person. My son uses it for video editing & animations, as well as garageband and several other apps. We have no issues with it, runs fine.
OK, seriously. I don't like Apple as a company with their whole propriety buy only my hardware, and I control what software you buy and run attitude. I'll admit that. However... a big However, I've always thought that they somehow kidnapped and are holding hostage in a secret underground lab somewhere the world's best hardware designers. Until now. Seriously this thing opened up is Fugly. Even an iSlave can see that. C'mon!
If there is one thing that I just can't stand about engadget.com is how biased they seem to be towards Apple products. I just don't get why people would want to read lies. It seems that some of that money that Apple is making from selling massive amounts or over-priced crap is being given under the table to our "friends" here at engadget.com. If you want real, unbiased news you should try cnet.com.
I am in the process of saving for one of these, but I'll probably wait until Snow Leopard is released...
I am a big fan of desktop-replacement laptops, and this seems like a really good one!
Has anyone seen a glossy and "anti-glare" screen side-by-side?
Actually I believe the design is excellent. I do not find it fat, nor ugly at all.
I would like to point there are some things people need to measure when they discuss Apple products.
Apple, does not share most PC manufacturers vision about how many options a person may want. They have a "portfolio", if the customer finds it is OK, he or she buys the product. Apple is not in the business of making every possible option a person wants. That's a typical Clone maker business, not Apple's. There is some customization, but it is very simple and straightforward. That business tactic makes today's Apple very agile when it comes to inventory reduction and costs.
So, why not a numeric pad? The answer is obvious, Apple wants you to be in front of the computer. Most of 17 inch computers with numeric pads force the user to be typing shifted to the left. I have seen it and I have feel it. It is a unconscious twist.
Why the new keyboard? obviously, it is thinner. It keeps costs down, and it feels close enough to the old one.
Why you can find 17 inch laptop computers cheaper?, well, most PC makers show only the size in ads, not resolution, not technology. However, 17 inch, 1920x1200 LED screens are not cheap. No matter how hard you try to find it. And, if you do, as I have, the price difference is cut some where else.
It is common to see, for example, a gorgeous 17 inch 1920x1200 screens in high-end PC laptops with 3 MB backside cache. Apple places fairly expensive 6 MB cache processors. This is top of the line, people who want these machine, want the best they can buy. To cripple a top of the line display, with a cheap processor is what Apple calls trash hardware or ripping off a buyer.
Apple knows their computers are expensive. They provide the best you can get inside and outside and try to balance fairly. It is not about teasing buyers, but to show value, not bargains. If the user wants to sacrifice a processor to have a nice screen, then it is not the kind of customer Apple is after. People do not have to feel bad about it or trash the mark as most PC users do, just understand they are not Apple target. And that is something to bear in mind when talking about the unibody case. It is made to provide value to a customer who appreciates it. But not everyone is the same, some people do not care about flimsy cases, but it does not mean, everyone is the same.
And, Why not a quad core option? Actually , quad core mobile, even though they were announced, they need to be clocked about 2.0 Gz to keep heat under control. I think that will change in the near future, but right now, I assume Apple found the difference between a 2.93 Gz dual core vs 2.0 Gz vs heat vs price, not worth it. Quad Core Mobile is very expensive yet.
you can buy a 2.4ghz quad core for around $350...
excuse me, 2.66ghz.
BTW, I don't know where you get your info but apple uses the same parts that any PC OEM uses. You seem to be comparing a $900 dell low-end, not a high end $2000 Sony.
Sony makes very good computers.
However, at this moment, Sony AW, top of the line, starts with a 18.4 (1920x1080 resolution) inch screen and 8.2 lbs. This resolution is still short, Macbook Pro is 1920x1200 and density is lower on Sony, so the display is cheaper. Bigger size, lower resolution is easier to manufacture.
Also, it uses Intel Centrino, so it has a cheaper chipset, and slower than the Nvidia one. It cannot swith modes between integrated video card and discrete to save energy. Sony bus is 800 Mhz, Macbook Pro is 1066 Mhz, it uses older DDR2 RAM rather than the newer DDR3 Macbook has.
I configured a 2.66 Gz T9550 processor(6Mb), 4 Gb DDR2-800 (older), 320 SATA 7200 rpm, DVD burner, 1920x1080 (lower density), Windows vista Ultimate, extended batery, No extended warranties, or accessories, trying to get an exact machine like Apple's.... 2598.99 dollars.
It is almost as expensive as Apple 2799, and it uses older technology especially on the data bus and the screen. It is heavier 8.8 2 lbs vs 6.6 lbs (Macbook Pro 17).
It does not matter how you see it, Macbook Pro is newer and more expensive technology.
Of course, these days, you can find cheaper on dealers and specials, but economy and slow sells gives an advantage, Apple does not. But again, Apple is not selling yesterday technology. It is state of the art at very competitive prices.
US $ 2600 (Sony) vs US $ 2800 (Macbook Pro )..... 200 bucks difference.
And maybe, to you it is not important the almost extra 2 pounds, but for many people it is. And you can sacrifice this and that, but again, Apple offers this as it is.
I have one and I love it. I got the "base" 2.66GHz version with the only modification being the faster 7200 RPM drive for an extra $50. I don't know why everyone's so down on the glossy screen, I LOVE it and use it in all kinds of lighting conditions with no problem. Some people have said they have a hard time focusing on the screen when there are other reflections that distract their focal range, I suppose that makes sense but I have no problem with it at all.
I'm surprised to hear comments that it's not aesthetically pleasing to some people. Everyone who's seen it in person falls in love with it. The only thing they (and I) aren't smitten with is the price. Still though, for the money you won't find any other notebook with this quality screen and battery life. Admittedly you could afford to buy a few more batteries for the difference and keep them in your pack, but long life batteries are heavy and you're adding a couple of extra pounds for each battery you lug around with you.
This is just what I wanted. Fast, light, great resolution and the battery lasts a crazy long time compared to every other notebook I've used. It's not uncommon for me to leave a 1.5 hour meeting and still have 85% battery life.
Ugly as compared to what? Aesthetically it is one of the most beautiful machines in existence as compared to a Porsche Carrera as there simply is not a laptop to compare it with other than another Mac. There is no question that Apple dominates in terms of pure aesthetics and now they use the latest from the top CPU and GPU makers - receiving the latest a few months after at least or a few weeks ahead at best - as they all run on the same architecture.
So what is the real discussion here? How great PCs are at everything or the reality that Apple continues to dominate in terms of design and innovation? The only computer that would be more beautiful? The one that you build that fits in that aluminum uni-body case?
Hi: I am a fan boy. No Excuses.
But I did notice that at the airport yesterday virtually all the proper laptops for sale were macbooks of some flavor. Victory to the Fan Boys !
I do not get the Glossy problem. I have iMACs and MACbook airs with glossy screens and have no problems under pretty demanding conditions (in the bath, beside the pool, at the hairdressers, or processing confocal images in 3D).
Apple keep delivering, thank God (Jobs?)
Death before DELL.
Cheers
The Captain
So there's about 50% Apple tax on this. Grats for the diehard OSX zealots, enjoy your $5,000.00 notebook with 4 hours of battery life, lol
I don't get the anti-gloss sentiment. I spend a fair amount of my day editing photos near a window and the glossy screen is so much better for showing me what a photo really looks like.
Wow, I think you raised some pretty good points dude!
RT
www.privacy.at.tc
Does anyone know if this shiny beauty is plagued by the same horrible MiniDisplay Port to Dual-Link DVI problems (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1836042&tstart=0) as the 15-ers are when hooked to a 30" external monitor?
I'm guessing yes, but would love to know if Apple quietly changed some hardware/NVIDIA-innards in releasing it.
Like many, many other devout Apple users out here in the world, I've been waiting patiently to upgrade my aging MBP to a unibody since late '08, but won't be doing so until that issue is resolved.
Engadget, how about running an article that tests how this model and the 15-incher perform when hooked up to a variety of different dual-link DVI 30" monitors (from Apple, Samsung, Dell, etc.) via Apple's infamous $99 adapter (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB571Z/A?fnode=MTY1NDA3Ng&mco=MjE0ODQ2Nw).
There's a lot of us out here on the purchasing fence who would LOVE what you find.
"Up to 1000 charges" sounds wonderful. But I should suggest it would be much better if Apple actually stood behind their designs; wouldn't guaranteeing a minimum number of charge cycles be a REAL claim.
Internal battery...1000 charges...eight hours life.... Call me a sceptic, but since my MBpro 2.4 C2duo battery faulted, shutting down my laptop without warning with 50+ percent charge left, I think having a built in battery an iffy proposition. Then again, when Apple declined to replace the battery even tho it was well within the 300 charge cycles they cited for replacement because the machine is 18 months old (256 cycles), I was told it's still safe to use. And, what should happen when I did continuing using the battery? A swollen, warped battery that nearly warped my computer when it went "crack" one afternoon (still 256 charge cycles). Luckily, it was removable. Should it have been built in, I shudder to think of the consequences. And thanks Apple for telling me that "this type of damage issue will not be under Apple warranty coverage." Hmmm...so I guess Apple designs batteries to warp, with potential damage to the machine. Excellent. A bargain at any price.
What's funny about this issue is that I've found NUMEROUS discussion threads indicating lots of other owners are having the same problem. So, I ask you dear potential consumers, are you really willing to pony up 5k USD for a laptop when Apple clearly has a battery design issue that it refuses to acknowledge for the older version of the MBpro?? Are you really silly enough to gamble 5k USD for the "just out of warranty" experience that I and so many others have had?
As they say, one rotten apple spoils the whole bushel. Not sure about that, but it certainly spoiled my love of APPLE.
For god's sake, could you take a picture of someone sitting at it, or just hands resting on it, so I can get some scale of how big the 17 inch is.
Sorry, but I'm not impressed in the least. All of that extra space around the keyboard may have a couple reasons (extra air intakes and keeping the keyboard in the center), but I'd gladly have my keyboard a little to the side for a desktop replacement with a numpad.
The other problem is definitely the price. Starting at $2,799 isn't absurd for an enthusiast/gaming laptop, and the base configuration isn't a horrible deal (though there are cheaper laptops with the same or better specs out there), but if the upgrades bring it just a Benjamin short of $5,000 and you only get a pretty small improvement. It's not a challenge to get something for $1,000+ less with better specs... And multiple removable batteries to make up for any battery difference.
Some of you may love it, but I for one do not. Oh well, to each his own.
Cool wallpaper, where did you find it?
Looks like what you'd have if Atari still made computers
Not surprised by the life, but it's still good. I also like the $179 replacement, which is comparable to another battery anyway. And if you really think you need to swap... the power brick isn't much bigger than a battery, and I certainly don't believe you'll be away from an outlet for four hours while you need to use your laptop.
I keep reading similar threads on the internet lately and I still don't understand why some Mac users are trying to convince PC user that the Mac is a better machine . It's obvious that the best thing is the one you have . No one is going to say "Yes , I have a PC (or Mac) and it sucks" . Everybody loves the stuff they have . Or at least they like it . It's an ego thing .
But since I'm here , and I've had both PCs and Macs, I just decided to say a few words , so here's some things about my experience with computers and how they changed my life .
I must say from the very start that I'm not what people call a "power user" . This means I know enough about computers to be able to solve pretty much any average software issue might arise (even if that means going to "extreme" solutions like going back to factory settings or just simply reinstalling the whole system again) , enough to keep everything well organized , clean , and to the best possible performances (according to my standards) . I'm also pretty fast at putting together a PC if you gave me a bunch of components . But I have no clue about deeper things like Unix language , registry editing in Windows , working with DOS , advanced networking , etc .
So considering this information as what I think it might be the average computer knowledge for an average IQ individual , here's what I want to share to both PC and Mac users .
I started playing on PCs at the time Windows 3.1.1 was still around . Didn't even have a clue that there were other OS's around . At the time , I had to learn Norton Commander which I thought it was pretty cool . By the time XP was on the market , I was working 16 hrs / day at a professional recording studio on PCs that had some of the most expensive configurations at that time . SCSI devices and controllers were still a pain in the ass to configure , but performance was worthwhile the hassle nevertheless . Thanks to them SCSI things I came across a bunch of issues so often that I became a master in reinstalling XP and all the software back to 5 computers that we had in there in less than 4 hours . Bottom line ... I was spending more time reinstalling , researching troubleshooting , configuring , backing up , cleaning up , that I was actually producing material that could bring me some cash .
A few years later I decided to quit that job - just because computer issues rendered it highly unproductive - and work somewhere else .
One day I saw a guy with a silver , slim laptop who was transferring some pictures from a camera to the hard drive and instantly making some amazing adjustments to them as it was the easyest thing in the world . It had a nice (almost hypnotic ) glowing white apple on the back of the display lid and I was just fascinated about the zooming ... thing at the bottom of the screen . I've heard about Macs before , but nothing really good (you know...like , they're really slow, can't find any software, etc), and I never saw one before . But I just instantly thought to myself "I must have a Mac" .
I'm pretty sure there's quite a few among you, reading this, who got at least once obsessed with something you just HAD TO HAVE . So the price didn't scare me (although it was scary enough for any normal person) , and after about a month of reading the Apple forums I ordered my first Mac , a BTO (128 VRAM) 15" G4 1.5 Ghz PowerBook , for not less than $2850 .
It took me about 2 weeks to get used to the new system , and I do confess that it was very annoying at the beginning . But I always do my homework , so I have read all I could read about using a Mac , tips and tricks , shortcuts , etc. For the PC users , I will honestly admit that overall performance was a bit slower than I expected , at least compared to a slightly older HP laptop (a 2.4 AMD ) that I had before the Mac .
I did notice that there are a few things that are better at laptop PCs . For instance wireless network ranges are better . My newest Mac can't "see" as far as a PC with a similar wireless card and not as many networks . My bluetooth mouse connects faster with the laptop when I run Windows than when I run OS X . A $1200 laptop PC is likely to have a true , better HD display resolution than my latest $2300 MacBook Pro (although the LED technology in the MBP looks way better than the latest LCD) . Any laptop PC with similar specs would score more at any (cross platform) benchmark . And these are just a few things I have noticed . There might be a lot more .
BUT !!! Here's the part that PC users never get , mostly because they never worked on Mac long enough or not at all :
After I got my Mac , all of a sudden I didn't have to do ANYTHING anymore to keep the damn thing up and running . This means , I didn't have to worry about viruses , trojans and any other bugs anymore . I didn't have to worry about making a second partition to save all my data "just in case" , but I'm not ashamed to say that that was exactly the first thing I learned how to do and did it as soon as I could . Later on , when I realized it was not necessary , I reverted to a single partition . Next , I didn't have to constantly defragment the hard drive , I didn't have to worry about registry cleaning , virtual and non-virtual memory "optimization" , performance tweaks and tricks (this part I couldn't do on the Mac even if I wanted to)...More than that , every time I launched an application , or just issue a command , ...... whenever I "told" the computer to do something , it would just freakin' do it....no questions asked , no errors , no freezes , no blue screens......It ... just worked . I know someone who has his own "benchmark" for any kind of computer : he just starts opening application after application until the entire applications list is exhausted . A Mac never chokes on this , most PCs do . It's true , the "specialist" is only 3 years old , but I couldn't help noticing the "brilliance" of the test :) .
I just could not believe all the time I had wasted working on PC . And yes , I will say this again :
A Mac IS slower than a PC with the same specs .
Yes ! Macs are way more expensive than PCs .
PEACE OF MIND IS PRICELESS !
I've had that PowerBook for almost 5 years , until february this year when I decided to get a 15" from the second generation of MacBook Pros , just because the new graphics looked stunning compared to the old one . Now I can run Windows too ... just in case I decide to waste a weekend playing Counter Strike with my friends or if I need to use DVD Shrink (the fastest DVD re-authoring software I came across yet). Other than that , I can't think of any possible reasons to run Windows . I already had to reinstall XP twice on the Mac because I was crazy enough to go online without antivirus protection . Of course I got a bunch of trojans in no time , applications started quitting for no reason or just hanged for ever , until the good old blue screen came on . It made me smile then , and it makes me smile now ... I just restarted and deleted the Windows partition for good....Bad memories belong to the past . I'm free now ! With about $2000 less in the pocket .....but with billions of precious neurons still safe and sound , still enjoying the simplicity of a system "built for stupid people" (as a PC guy said to me once) , built to just do what it's told , without "bitchin about" anything.....
Isn't this what a computer is supposed to do in the first place ?
Hey....and I do have a question for the PC lovers :
How come you never see a Mac user switching to PC ? Or maybe you have....
Actually I know a guy who had a Mac for six months , and it pissed him off pretty bad , he sold it , and went back to PC because he was too dumb to remember that in OS X , "Enter/Return" is used for "Rename" , not for launching applications or opening files . So , I guess Macs are not for everybody after all ...
Could engadget use pro applications on the Macbook Pro and tell us whether they see the over-heating graphical errors that people are reporting all over the internet........
Have you tried plugging this thing into an External monitor??
Apparently on ANY monitor (even Apple's ultra expensive ones) the display blinks out every about every 60 seconds.
I called about the issue -- and Apple knows -- they are suppose to be working on this issue.
I was completely bummed out!
I don't know what the whole ugly thing is about... I think it's absolutely stunning. Me want.
Did anyone think that second picture was a DS phat at first glance?
In the Engadget site - Vaio screenshot, what application is running up the left side of the screen ? And which application notification is in the bottom left ?
That's the ugliest background image I've ever seen on a computer before.
I would go with Dell XPS m1330 then this,
What is apple doing, new macbook.. new macbook pro.. what new?
what do u give us.. unibody? It makes it harder.
"Being a FanBoy is costing me a lot of money and stupidity"
I just bought one and at first I did not like the glare but then I brightened up the screen to about 75% and now the glare is not a bother...looks great.
The look does not bother me (looks better in person then in a picture) although the black keys pick up dirt and oil which sucks if you are as picky as I am about such things.
At home I use a wireless external but at work I use the unibody keyboard.
So far, so good...battery life is around 5 hours under normal conditions.
I will max out the ram eventually from OWC to make this a real screamer.
Personally I think these look ugly and the space around the body and keyboard makes it look cheap.
http://www.cheap-macbooks.com