Is a lighter MacBook likely?

razbox

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 5, 2006
6
0
I just got a new MacBook black today via the website, and after 3 hours have decided to return it.

Whilst it's a gorgeous machine with lots of great things, the main problems for me are:
1. software problems - eg wmv files not playing very well, Microsoft Office still slow, I have to pay to get Universal apps like Final Cut Pro...
2. the battery gets very hot - too hot for lap use
3. but worst of all, it's too heavy for me to lug around the world on my travels...

I guess I'll have to continue using my Dell X1 which is only 1.2kg (but it's slower, boring, and I have to put up with Dell & Windows).

Are Apple likely to bring out a light machine? I had one in the 90s, a Powerbook Duo 280c!
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
If Apple comes out with something lighter and less expensive, it would likely be in the education niche.

The MacBook is nice, but can't quite compete with the Dell for school contracts.

However, I wouldn't count on too much smaller or lighter -- just less expensive.
 

interlaced

macrumors 6502a
Nov 16, 2005
564
0
I hope they make a lighter Macbook. I wanted to get one myself but I thought about the same issues you did. Also, I want to wait until at least the new revs.
 

cyberdogl2

macrumors regular
Jan 6, 2003
221
21
hopefully the new revs will come before the educational promotion ends. That said, no, a lighter Macbook doesn't seem that likely.
 

Bubbasteve

macrumors 65816
Dec 23, 2004
1,163
0
Charleston, IL
I really hate to come across as a jerk but I don't really think that 5.2 pounds is that heavy to carry around, especially if it's going to be carried in a backpack of some sort.
 

Josh396

macrumors 65816
Oct 16, 2004
1,128
0
Peoria/Chicago, IL
Bubbasteve said:
I really hate to come across as a jerk but I don't really think that 5.2 pounds is that heavy to carry around, especially if it's going to be carried in a backpack of some sort.
I agree. For the feature of the Macbook I don't think 5 pounds is that heavy at all. I have books for school that weigh more.
 

cyberdogl2

macrumors regular
Jan 6, 2003
221
21
i also agree. i mean, you're not gonna be lifting it the whole time you're using it. Perhaps a gym membership is in order.
 

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,241
1
Washington D.C
Come on its what 5.2 pounds? Unless you have a disablity, a 5.2Lbs should not make that big of a deal.. but if it does to you pick up a iBook
 

coffey7

macrumors 6502a
Feb 12, 2006
516
0
cyberdogl2 said:
i also agree. i mean, you're not gonna be lifting it the whole time you're using it. Perhaps a gym membership is in order.
+1
 

bodeh6

macrumors 6502a
May 18, 2005
772
0
If you complain of the weight of the MacBook my suggestion is to work out. just over 5 lbs is not that much. My little sister who is almost 1/2 my size lugs here 7.9 lb Dell around campus all the time in her backpack.

WORK OUT!
 

JimmyB248

macrumors regular
Mar 8, 2006
133
0
1. software problems - eg wmv files not playing very well, Microsoft Office still slow, I have to pay to get Universal apps like Final Cut Pro...
2. the battery gets very hot - too hot for lap use
3. but worst of all, it's too heavy for me to lug around the world on my travels...
1. Flip4Mac have just released a beta universal program that would let you run the WMV files juuust fine. Microsoft Office I have used myself on a MB and it really isn't that slow, and you need it so bad that you'll change back to a Dell, why don't you just install Bootcamp and run it off XP, full speed that way I believe.
You have to pay for FCP? You're kidding right...you expect it free?

2. Google this, some people have reported a plastic covering on the hinge that traps the heat, my own MBP can get quite hot, but not that bad really.

3. Come on...

:D
 

Spectrum

macrumors 65816
Mar 23, 2005
1,474
783
Never quite sure
Josh396 said:
I agree. For the feature of the Macbook I don't think 5 pounds is that heavy at all. I have books for school that weigh more.
Yeah, but:

A: it is heavier than both the 12"iBook and the 12"PB it replaces.
B: by going intel, they could have made it really svelte.

Not everybody needs a 2.0Ghz Core Duo, but many people would appreciate OSX. Apple could use the ultra low voltage 1.67Ghz CD chip, keep the integrated graphics, drop goodies like FW800 (;)), drop the glossy screen, drop the iSight, drop the optical in/out, make the battery smaller/lighter to match the ULV chip, and keep the 2.5" drive (with multi-sized options).

I would love the power of a 15" PB (or better) in a sub-4lb package. And I'm sure many would pay a premium for such a light machine. Ultra-light Sony's are not at all cheap, and this would run OSX :).
 

calebjohnston

macrumors 68000
Jan 24, 2006
1,801
1
I really can't believe the things people complain about. It's like 5 pounds. How much lighter can it get?
 

Spectrum

macrumors 65816
Mar 23, 2005
1,474
783
Never quite sure
calebjohnston said:
I really can't believe the things people complain about. It's like 5 pounds. How much lighter can it get?
The 12" PB introduced, what, THREE years ago, was 4.6 lbs.

I'm not saying they (Apple) can make it sub-5lbs for the same price, but they certainly could make a lighter (if more expensive) laptop.
 

MacsomJRR

macrumors 6502a
Jul 8, 2003
516
0
San Diego
I think they are going to stick with this model for a while. A smaller, lighter laptop doesn't seem possible right now considering the size of the MB.
 

FleurDuMal

macrumors 68000
May 31, 2006
1,802
0
London Town
Spectrum said:
Yeah, but:

A: it is heavier than both the 12"iBook and the 12"PB it replaces.
B: by going intel, they could have made it really svelte.

Not everybody needs a 2.0Ghz Core Duo, but many people would appreciate OSX. Apple could use the ultra low voltage 1.67Ghz CD chip, keep the integrated graphics, drop goodies like FW800 (;)), drop the glossy screen, drop the iSight, drop the optical in/out, make the battery smaller/lighter to match the ULV chip, and keep the 2.5" drive (with multi-sized options).

I would love the power of a 15" PB (or better) in a sub-4lb package. And I'm sure many would pay a premium for such a light machine. Ultra-light Sony's are not at all cheap, and this would run OSX :).
Perhaps Apple didn't see much of a market for them in the ultraportable range? Although of course there a many exceptions to this rule, from what I can tell most of Apples customer-base are either students or professional/amateur digital artists. Neither of these I don't think would really appreciate a stripped down, very basic notebook where must performance was sacrificed for size.
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,910
41
Andover, MA
Spectrum said:
The 12" PB introduced, what, THREE years ago, and was 4.6 lbs.

I'm not saying they (Apple) can make it sub-5lbs for the same price, but they certainly could make a lighter (if more expensive) laptop.
Yes... but it has a smaller screen and battery. And an aluminum case.

I think 5.2 pounds is pretty good, given all that it provides. Heck, people'd probably even buy it if they bumped it up to 5.3 pounds and added a decent graphics card.
 

Maxiseller

macrumors 6502a
Jan 11, 2005
846
0
Little grey, chilly island.
Are you guys kidding suggesting the OP go to the gym and work out? What absolute nonsense.

Have you considered that, while i agree, 5 pounds isn't that much - it IS a lot when combined with a couple of other textbooks, and all the other things that one tends to carry in a backpack. Throw in a flask and lunchbox and you have a regular posture killer.

Sony, Dell and many other manufacturers make light notebooks. The fact is (fanboys aside) Apple needs to step up to the mark.
 

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,241
1
Washington D.C
Spectrum said:
Yeah, but:

A: it is heavier than both the 12"iBook and the 12"PB it replaces.
B: by going intel, they could have made it really svelte.

Not everybody needs a 2.0Ghz Core Duo, but many people would appreciate OSX. Apple could use the ultra low voltage 1.67Ghz CD chip, keep the integrated graphics, drop goodies like FW800 (;)), drop the glossy screen, drop the iSight, drop the optical in/out, make the battery smaller/lighter to match the ULV chip, and keep the 2.5" drive (with multi-sized options).
QUOTE]


Mac OS X need a fast chip to make it a nice OS, with a Core Duo it gets it there! As for dropping features like 1) Glossy Screen, it does not add any weight, and the Optical in/out and iSight would not make a weight difference maybe bring it to like 4.8-9ib's(.2.4lbs is not alot)

What Apple should do it not weaken the MacBook, but make a MacBook Lite, with a 1.67Ghz Core Duo Low Voltage, 12'' Screen and a smaller battery, but keep iSight and such as it really does not add weight
 

Spectrum

macrumors 65816
Mar 23, 2005
1,474
783
Never quite sure
zap2 said:
Mac OS X need a fast chip to make it a nice OS, with a Core Duo it gets it there!
Not really. OSX works plenty fine on a 1.67 single-core G4 Powerbook. Going dual-core at the same speed should be more than enough to see a better performance in areas where it is most noticeably lacking on the PB (e.g. fast multitasking).
zap2 said:
What Apple should do it not weaken the MacBook, but make a MacBook Lite, with a 1.67Ghz Core Duo Low Voltage, 12'' Screen and a smaller battery, but keep iSight and such as it really does not add weight
Fair points.... dropping the other stuff might trim some costs (although keeping them would help justify the higher price needed to cover costs of a more niche product).

End point is: if they dropped the guts of a Macbook (with a ULV 1.67chip) into a 12"PB, surely there would be room to spare, and thus-case weight to be saved.
 

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,241
1
Washington D.C
Spectrum said:
Not really. OSX works plenty fine on a 1.67 single-core G4 Powerbook. Going dual-core at the same speed should be more than enough to see a better performance in areas where it is most noticeably lacking on the PB (e.g. fast multitasking).

Fair points.... dropping the other stuff might trim some costs (although keeping them would help justify the higher price needed to cover costs of a more niche product).

End point is: if they dropped the guts of a Macbook (with a ULV 1.67chip) into a 12"PB, surely there would be room to spare, and thus-case weight to be saved.

Ya, i forgetting the power of these new intels:rolleyes: But i'd love a 12'' intel Mac.
 

benthewraith

macrumors 68040
May 27, 2006
3,083
80
Miami, FL
Sun Baked said:
If Apple comes out with something lighter and less expensive, it would likely be in the education niche.

The MacBook is nice, but can't quite compete with the Dell for school contracts.

However, I wouldn't count on too much smaller or lighter -- just less expensive.
No, it wouldn't compete with Dell for school contracts, but I actually found out you spend more on laptops with school contracts than you do with actually just getting the laptop sometimes. I got two hundred off my Mac. :)
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,910
41
Andover, MA
Well, given that (a) Apple makes but one consumer laptop and will only make one for the foreseeable future, (b) the MBs are selling like hot cakes, and (c) people are already complaining about the lack of 'decent' graphics, I don't think anyone should be holding their breath for a smaller, less featured consumer laptop to arrive on the scene.