Apple's Redesigned MacBook and MacBook Pro: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 22, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Final Words
In terms of aesthetics and build quality, the new MacBook and MacBook Pro are absolutely excellent. When Apple introduced the iPhone I called it a phone that looked like it was made in 2007, and the same is true about the new notebooks.
Apple walks a fine line between balancing form and function and with this latest update it seems have to gone further on the form side. The glossy screens look great but will be problematic for those who use their notebooks outdoors a lot without shade or other shelter from the ultra bouncy rays of light from the sun. And the new trackpads offer a bit more functionality but are far too tempermental for me to be too happy about them.
Despite the hardware updates to the new machines they are no faster than the ones they are replacing. The GeForce 9400M is a nice change from the Intel integrated graphics in the older MacBook and hopefully it will send a clear message to Intel: the days of delivering mediocre integrated graphics are over. But in terms of actual performance, if you've already got a Penryn based MacBook or MacBook Pro, there's no reason to upgrade. You'd be much better off waiting until Apple adopts Nehalem in these things a year from now.
The winner of the group is the new MacBook, which finally closed the gap between it and its Pro sibling. I've said it throughout this article but the new $1299 MacBook is finally good enough for me to be happy recommending. It's not to say that the MacBook Pro isn't a good solution, it's just a bit pricey. Let me also take this time to once again point out that Apple needs to move to 4GB memory configurations, at least on the MacBook Pro, by default. The competition is offering more for less and memory isn't exactly very expensive.
It's a difficult conclusion to make because I genuinely enjoy the improvements in build quality Apple introduced with these new notebooks, but the quirks (ahem, trackpad) are too much for me to make a glowing recommendation here. If you need an Apple notebook today and aren't upgrading from an existing Intel MacBook or MacBook Pro obviously these two are fine, but go in knowing that you're being an early adopter of a platform that already has some issues.
I hate making this recommendation because the notebooks are probably at least 9 months away, but the Nehalem versions will have all of the build quality improvements of these notebooks, probably offer affordable SSD options (and maybe even one standard), and be significantly faster as a whole. In other words, buy the 2009 model year.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
View All Comments
joey2264 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
Uhm, Apple charges $150 to upgrade from 2 to 4 GB. A 2 GB 1066 DDR3 notebook dimm is about $60 on Newegg. What are you smoking??strikeback03 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
He didn't mention how many slots are populated in the standard configuration. If standard is a pair of 1GB sticks, then you need a pair of those $60 2GB sticks to get 4GB.joey2264 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
It doesn't matter. 2 GB of memory (2 Dimms) cost about $80, and 4 GB cost about $120, as stated in the article. But Apple is charging $150 to upgrade from one to the other, when it only costs $40 more.Thanks for correcting me, because Apple is raping their customers even more than I thought.
strikeback03 - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Might be true, but as you can't choose zero RAM as a shipping configuration, from the customer perspective (assuming 2 2GB sticks are needed) you either pay $120 to Newegg and do the work yourself or pay $150 to Apple.Also, I highly doubt Apple is paying Newegg prices for components, so even more profit. But RAM upgrades seem to always be something the manufacturers have raped customers on.
Brucmack - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
It'd be nice to provide a couple of extra data points...- Macbook battery life on XP
- Lenovo battery life on XP & Linux
wolf550e - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
Anand, please perform same test on Ubuntu 8.10 and tell us whether it's closer to OS X or Vista.R3MF - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
but i live in hope of a response:Is this integrated nvidia chipset the same as was rumoured to work with the Via Nano CPU?
Kind regards
boe - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
I'm curious to how XP would compare to Vista/ OS X.snouter - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
No 1680x1050? When will Apple step up and offer this? This is even more egregious than the lack of an SSD option, although, an SSD could be added to the MBP later, and the screen is forever.The MBP should only offer the CPU models with 6MB cache. This would have been one more way to differentiate the MBP from the MB. Put the Pro in Pro dammit.
No matte option on the MBP? Please.
====
I upgraded my 2.16GHz Merom to a 2.4GHz Penryn, largely for the LED screen, but, now I've even more glad that I did.
If Apple does not add some flexibility to the 15" MBP build options, I'll be waiting for the 17" MBP. My workplace bought me one, and... 1920x1200 LED is pure love, though I could live happily with a 1680x1050 on my preferred form factor, the 15".
Apple has a knack of diminishing their gains with some weird regresions and non-moves. It's love hate for sure.
iwodo - Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - link
With much increased battery life, ( not that it uses that much less power, but you accomplish the same task in less time would means less power usage )I hope Intel hurry up with their controller chip.