Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica Reviews the MacBook
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has performed another of their in-depth and thorough hardware reviews. The subject in this review is the newly released MacBook. From the article: 'The Apple portable web site proudly announces that the "family is finally complete." What began with an announcement from Steve Jobs at the MacWorld conference in January has come full circle with the release of the MacBook this week. Every Apple laptop is Intel powered and moving in what I would consider is the right direction. The laptop line is finally better delineated by pro and consumer features, and the prices have been fixed at points that better reflect the minute differences in the models.'"
What began with an announcement from Steve Jobs at the MacWorld conference in January has come full circle with the release of the MacBook this week.
Almost.
What began with an announcement from Steve Jobs at the Macworld (no StudlyCaps) Conference in January will come full circle with the release of the Intel-based Power Mac.
The only thing that's complete at this point is the mobile product line, hence the MacBook family now being complete.
Apple loves price holes. Just look at the iPod. They used to have a 20GB regular iPod and a 6GB iPod mini. At that point, a lot of people are already going to be thinking that 6GB's just isn't enough, but if they want more they have to jump up to 20. I'm sure a lot of people who weren't really looking for something that big made the jump because there was nothing in between, and who wants to go down a level? Characteristically, Apple then introduced the nanos (which had even smaller hard drives) to replace the minis and then upped the capacity of the video iPods. Now, you can get either a 30GB model or a 4GB model. That's a huge hole and forces a lot of people who only need 10GB's or so to jump up to 30. It's amazing marketing, although I'm sure it makes some (myself among them) resentful at being herded like that.
I've always pictured the color of OS zealotry as a sort of bright flamingo pinkish hue
You could always, you know, buy a not-iPod.
Just a thought.
Haida Manga
Au contraire, mon frère! It seems the MacBook isn't really a "laptop" anymore!
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
You know, when you think you *only need* 10GB from a music player, they have already won.
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
Who is "they"? I'm the one making the decision about my needs. No one is telling me what size iPod (or other media player) I need. Apple is marketing a product based on available technologies at relatively fixed price points; if you were paying attention. Apple sets prices and slides newer, faster, bigger (in this case) technologies into them once, a.) the supply margins allow, and b.) when the demand is present in the market. Also, what did they win? If you mean they won by making a superior product at a reasonable price that not only plays music, but can be used as a general purpose storage device, then yeah, they've won 80% of the market. Does it fit everybody's wants and needs? No. Should it? Impossible. That's why there is another 20% market alive.
Weren't we talking about the MacBook? Isn't it designed to be an entry level consumer laptop? Was it ever advertised as a gaming laptop? Does Apple even mention games or gaming in their web or other promotional material relating to the MacBook? Ok, one on the Tech Specs page, "Big Bang Board Games", which I'm guessing is not a severely graphics intensive game experience. Other than that, none. Why are people complaining about a product's gaming performance when it's not advertised as a gaming machine? Aren't computers supposed to be tools and not just toys? Seems strange that the crowd that once called the Mac a 'toy computer' is complaining that it can't play games.
Now, you can get either a 30GB model or a 4GB model. That's a huge hole and forces a lot of people who only need 10GB's or so to jump up to 30. It's amazing marketing, although I'm sure it makes some (myself among them) resentful at being herded like that.
If you put it that way, it sounds like Apple is being very manipulative. However, if you look at the prices, the price difference is relatively not as drastic between the 4GB and 30GB models:
* 200 USD == 2GB iPod nano
* 250 USD == 4GB iPod nano
* 300 USD == 30GB iPod
* 400 USD == 60GB iPod
Basically, Apple can buy a larger harddrive per $$$ now. Why not offer this benefit when competing w/ others?
I think it's an issue of it being easier to tell the assemblers to gob it on rather than risk someone not getting enough.
Considering heat is a major engineering issue for laptops, I'd say they should probably train the people to use the right amount, not just swing one way or the other. A thermal paste layer of more then 0.003-0.005 inches thick can be less effective then no thermal paste at all. The thermal paste is used to "close the air gaps" between surface imperfections in the heat sink and the device being cooled. Thermal paste should never be considered or applied as a blanket layer between the two. Direct metal to metal contact should still be available as much as possible between the two surface areas and will result in far better heat transfer.
This is just a wild ass guess but from what I've seen in pictures and guides for using thermal paste with CPU's floating around the internet, almost everyone uses and suggests entirely too much. Oozing out the side or enough that you can leave a fingerprint behind is a good indicator. Don't believe me? Do some temperature experiments yourself.
I really like Apple laptops. Great quality, performant hardware, and NOT expensive. However I have never bought a single Apple laptop. And you know why ? Because they don't make ultraportable laptops, and, oh boy, I wish they would ! The lighter Apple laptop is the MacBook at 5.2 pounds (2.36 kg). For comparison purpose my current ultraportable, a Panasonic R3 stands at 2.2 pounds (990 g !). Wouldn't that be cool a 2.2 pounds Apple laptop ?
[sarcasm]And you're going to browse the internet/chat online/write a paper/view your digital pictures/watch a movie on a laptop with a 13.3" screen?[/sarcasm]
Why would screensize be the main argument against purchasing a laptop? Small size usually = mobility, which is sorta the point with laptops.
LegendMUD
is it impossible to keep a laptop cool now?
Considering everyone wants faster CPUs and higher benchmarks, the answer is "yes"
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Actually, that's just basic sales. Suppose you've got someone who wants to by a widget. Not an Acme Widget, but just any widget, and they've settled on Acme. But if an Acme Widget fanboi walks in off the street and tells the customer that there's going to be a new version released next week, then the customer might well decide to wait until Widget 2.0 comes out and get that one instead. While they're waiting for 2.0 to come out, they might go to Acme's competitor and get one of theirs. You've lost that sale.
And this is just stuff I gleaned while selling luggage at my local department store.
AC's modded -6. I don't see you, I don't mod you, anything you say is lost. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
The GMA950 is free, it comes with the system chipset. It's hard to get any cheaper than that. A dedicated video chipset would probably add significant (relative) cost to the manufacturing of the i^HMacBook, as it would require additional system board real estate, cooling allowances and the chips (GPU and RAM) themselves.
With that said, I was very disappointed there wasn't a "high end" MacBook with dedicated video to serve as a 12" PB replacement. My initial thoughts were that the black MacBook would fill this niche and that's why it was US$150 more (and a different colour), but closer examination revealed it was just a cynical money-grab.
Intel's usual quality and performance standards go out the window when it comes to their graphics chips.
No, they're simply not *meant* to be anything more than a very basic video card. You're saying because a Honda Civic can't outrun a Nissan Skyline, Honda's "usual quality and performance standards go out the window".
Economically speaking, every retail version of OS X is an upgrade.
You can wipe the drive completely and do a clean install of OS X from any retail version. Upgrades require that you have a previous version of the operating system already on your drive. Sure, if you get a Macintosh you already have a previous version, but if ever something happens like a hard drive crash, you can just do a clean install. Windows upgrades require you install the previous version first then the upgrade in circumstances like that, or else use a full installation version.
Slashdot posts yet another Apple story, and they again get hammered with a bunch of people configuring pimped Dell's but never buying them.
You know what?
Perhaps because a lot of people don't need a powerful GPU? I do audio & music with my computer. A fast CPU is crucial, and the GPU doesn't matter at all. Same is true even for most 2D graphics & video work. 3D graphics and games are the main things that benefit from a nice GPU. Sure, many 2D gfx filters could be offloaded (like CoreImage does), but most apps aren't coded that way. Me, I'll take the digital audio input & output (first time the consumer lappy has had audio input of ANY kind, nice!) over a fancy GPU any day.
The point is that people who think the MacBook is cheap are clearly not shopping around. If Dell are more expensive right now, perhaps it has something to do with the relatively short period of time the Core Duo has been available on the market. I expect a lot of manufacturers are trying to shift their existing stock out of the way. Hence, a Core Duo costs a lot on Dell but you can find a perfectly acceptable laptop with an "inferior" chip for far less.
I'd argue that the Core Duo is a waste of time in most laptops (of any kind) if they're going to be crippled with a crappy integrated graphics chip or slow hard drive. If you can't play games, then what is the point of stuffing a fast dual core CPU in there?
It's a different material -- the black plastic is stiffer.
To verify this yourself, go in to an Apple store, or Apple Authorized Reseller, where both are on display. Try torquing the screens on each unit a bit. Gently. Don't get thrown out of the store for ripping the screen off the hinges -- although that would be difficult given it seems to be on there pretty tightly.
Also press against the back of the display. You'll see the LCD's colors change as you press with light to moderate force on the back of the white Macbook's display, but you'll have to pres much harder on the black Macbook to get the same effect. The color change demonstrates that you're stressing the LCD panel itself. Unfortunately, LCD panels really can't be strained very far without failure, so the implication is that the black unit's display is better protected from damage coming from behind.
I do suspect the pricing is largely an attempt to control demand for the black unit, but as trivia, it's clear the two units use different case materials.
And hey! Don't forget those extra 20GB of hard drive space! Isn't that alone worth the extra $150, especially given the price of hard drive upgrades, and all three of those tedious confusing steps to install...yeah, ok, maybe not.
I predict the prices for similarly spec'd white and black units will even out within four months.
I think the primary "professional" limitation to the Macbook is the integrated graphics, not the glossy screen. If you're doing video-intensive projects on the run, you'll perhaps want more powerful graphics. That being said, my primary professional use for a laptop is writing, and the Macbook will be more than sufficient for the task.
So far as the glossy screen is concerned, I prefer non-glare surfaces. The colors don't appear as saturated, but satin-finish screens suit me better under a variety of lighting conditions.
I don't think either of these considerations will keep me from buying a Macbook. It's a good balance of price and performance, one of Apple's most attractive offerings to date. I'm particularly pleased that the RAM and hard drive are so readily accessible. I'll probably buy the 2 GHz model in white so I can get the slightly faster processor and Superdrive at purchase. Upgrades can come later from the aftermarket.
The more I look at the black case, the less I like it. I know that's just a matter of personal taste, but I actually like white. I certainly don't like the black enough to pay extra.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.