MacBook Features and Photos

[tf843364]

Tweak your system!

That is completely wrong. I have a core duo with 2GB of ram and 1080 is a little choppy. The GMA950 isn't a bad chip... but it falls far from "good." If you do get anything with the 950 don't expect to play somewhat recent (as of Doom 3) 3d games or 1080 h.264 video at acceptable quality.

The 950 is a 64 megabyte chip, minimum.
This means that by default it takes 64 megabytes of your memory and steals it for its own use. When you have only stock 512 that is a good ratio.
When you have 2 gigs, that chages things. you can set the card to use just 128, up to 224 megabytes of memory. That should leave you plenty, over 1.5 gigs.
OSX may automatically do this, in which case im an idiot. I'd check that though.

 

[iChill]

the cables.

tomarow i am going to pick up my WHITE macbook. i have nothing against the black however, but the remote and cables are white.

i am hoping for WHEN they release the black iMac or whatever they shall call it, that there will be black cables. as well as a black headfones for the ipod i think they would be sweet.

 

[CrackedButter]

The battery says 55 Wh, which I assume would be 5500mAh. I remember my system profiler reported my battery as just under 5200 mAh.


You seriously are complaining about a few ounces? Especially when you look at this comparison:

I'm not complaining, I said it tickled me. I don't care for the comparision either, it is what it is, a heavier machine. I'm not a weakling either, I carry around a lot of heavy stuff everyday, even when I'm not at work.

I have my preferences.

 

[Jawbreaker]

I just played with the MacBooks at Westfarms for about an hour. I already have a white 1.83ghz on order, so this wasn't about dealbreaking so much, but I was very wary of the glossy screen and keyboard so I wanted to see them in person.

Photos seem to overstate the gloss of the screen, in my opinion. The first thing you notice is not the gloss, but rather that the screen is significantly brighter and more clear than the iBook G4 (I have previously owned 2) or the PowerBook G4. I was surprised by its quality and while there is some glare, it's worth noting that the Apple Store practically has a glowing ceiling, unlike most homes, so if that's what your workspace is like, you may take concern, but otherwise it should be fine. I am curious how it performs outdoors, but let's be honest, the iBook's matte screen was pretty much illegible outdoors too on account of being so dreadfully dark.

The keyboard takes some getting used to but all in all I liked it. The keys' action is more responsive than the iBook and there is none of the squishiness that made me always worry my typing would break the iBook. If I watched my hands I became confused by the spaces between the keys, but if I was typing normally, ie. not staring at the keyboard, it worked fine. My memory of my 12" PowerBook G4 makes me think this new keyboard is not quite its equal, but I was just fiddling with a friend's 15" G4 and the MacBook's keyboard is certainly superior to that one - the G4 keys have nice action but feel flimsy.

The magnetic latch is awesome, and reminds me of one of my favorite features of my tangerine clamshell. Build quality in general seems much better than the iBook G4, which was, in my view, a real drop from the original Dual USB iBook G3 - whose first incarnation was one of the finest machines I've ever used, all logic board problems aside.

The weight of the MacBook is quite good given its size, and so it's the size that is slightly disappointing, as it is much more on the scale of the 14" iBook than the 12". However, I have no qualms about the dimensions that have grown, and am more excited by how slim it is - the other things that occupy my bag are books, usually, so the thinner the laptop is, the more space for other things; whereas depth and width are not occupying space I could have ever used for other storage anyway.

Sadly the display models have no games installed so I couldn't try out the GMA950. As soon as my order arrives I will give it a thorough test in World of Warcraft, with comparison to my 1.83ghz iMac and my old 1.33ghz iBook G4. The Radeon 9550 is nothing to write home about in WoW so I am curious how the MacBook will compare.

Incidentally, after seeing them in person, the black MacBook is really sharp. The cosmetic problem with the white ones is that the keys match the outside of the laptop and not the slightly grey interior material. On the black models, the keys are the same color as everything else. I have to say the design on the white MacBook is somewhat distracting. But I wouldn't plunk that kind of money just for the color, sorry.

 

[Balli]

User replacable hard drive...

Does this mean that Apple Stores can now upgrade your hard drive (like they do with RAM) when you buy one there?

 

[CrackedButter]

I agree, although I would not go quite so far as to say that they downright "suck."

However, those of us that were expecting something revolutionary in terms of size and weight have been sorely disappointed. Why, for instance, must they have a thick border around the screen - which adds more width and height - instead of a thin one like the MacBook Pros?

Yes, yes, I know some may answer that it is because this is a "consumer" notebook and it would have been more expensive to fit everything into a smaller enclosure, but nonetheless, this is what many were expecting, especially as laptops are supposed to get smaller with each release, and not stay the same size (it has been 5 years since the release of the previous 12" iBook design, and these are about the same size and weight proportional to the screen size).

The rumors were all about a "radical form factor redesign," but the appearance, size, and weight of these new iBooks - er, MacBooks, that is - is nothing radical nor revolutionary.

In short: they could have been worse, but nonetheless this highly anticipated release leaves me disappointed.

Maybe I was being harsh there, but with my one issue, these new laptops don't interest me, I'd like to see some level of progression with these products other than in terms of processing power or screen aesthetics.

One machine I really loved a few years back when it was introduced was the Sharp Murmansa (I think that was the correct spelling.) It was 1cm thick (thats with the lid down!!) and the designers cleverly hid the internal battery, had a great 12 or 14 inch screen. The downside to it was besides the HD, all the other drives were external and an optional extra, I don't like external components unless I buy them, for example, I have 2 external firewire drives plugged into my laptop.

The battery incidentally run through the spine of the laptop, the bit where the screen hinge is attached to the main board part of the laptop. It was small and round plus the AC plug plugged into it right where the hinge would be.

Now, if Apple can be bothered to consistently downsize the iPod with each release then they should be able to take some weight out of their laptop products. They'd happily take 1mm of thickness from an iPod but not respond accordingly to their other portables.

They even downsized the iMac as well and nobody complained about the weight issue to begin with anyway.

 

[bis01005]

Upgrade the Graphics card

I see that the MACBOOK contains the following video specs:

GMA 950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

I went to Intel and looked the board over and it seems the board can handle more RAM.

"Dynamic Video Memory Technology (DVMT) 3.0 supports up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically."

Is it possible to add the 224MB to the MACBOOK somehow?

 

[Windowlicker]

The MacBooks are so full of features... will they cannibalise MacBook Pro sales?

I feel the distinction between the models is now made the right way. You can have screen spanning and sound in etc in the consumer laptop as well, but it all comes down to the graphics chip. You don't do any 3d stuff with it, neither many other graphic intensive tasks.

A big minus goes to the glossy screen ;P

 

[thenulls]

My only concern in regards to buying one of these right away is the new wireless "N" standard coming up quickly. Anyone know if the Airport cards in these are replaceable?

 

[Garissimo]

For the life of me, I can't figure out why the 17" MBP weighs more than any of these laptops. Look at the photo comparing your 12.1" vs. the 13.3" MacBook again if you have having trouble understanding the slight weight gain.

I don't have "trouble understanding" the weight gain, captain obvious, I'm pointing out that the trend is in wrong direction.

I'd like to see next generation laptops weigh the same or less than the outgoing models and run cooler.

While the new Macbook vs. old Powerbook G4 12" is not an Apples to Apples comparison, a lot of people wanting to upgrade from the Powerbook G4 12" are going to compare the two because it's the smallest form factor Apple has right now.

 

[bosrs1]

I think it's more concerns with the reflective nature of the screens. Some consider them unacceptable when in a moderate-high light situation.

edit: beaten by speedy-pants ^^^^

I personally consider them unacceptable period. One of the draws of Macs was that they had kept the matte finish. Glossy screens produce wicked bad glare in even low light environments like an office.

Also the integrated graphics are a big concern for me.

 

[matticus008]

With more efficient displays and CPUs, you'd expect weight loss to be one of the benefits.

Why? It's not like either of those components contribute significantly to the weight of the machine. The heavy part is the battery, followed by the case (it seems to still have a sturdy magnesium frame in it). The only way to save weight is to have a lighter battery or an all-plastic case. The new computers require more power, hence a heavier battery.

 

[bommai]

ya i knew they weren't 1,000 but just used that figure coz that was the saving bewtween the 2 models... so i should ad that you would have quite a bit leftover to buy more toys...

also, are the dell LCDs as nice as the apple ones? i have an apple one at work and its amazing...

I was skeptical in the beginning. I bought a 20" Dell Widescreen LCD in April of 2005 and it has worked great. Not a single dead pixel and it rotates too. It has a 4 port USB hub built in and it has height adjustment as well as tilt. I cannot complain. It also has both VGA and DVI inputs as well as composite video input. The 24" has LCD/VGA and composite as well as component video input for high def sources that don't have DVI (such as older satellite receivers, etc). Also, the 24" has memory card slots and USB hub. My friend bought a 24" for $650 and loves it. I was told that the Dell and Apple LCDs are pretty close in quality.

 

[milo]

So far, I've been a tad disappointed with speed. I've had a few too many spinning beach balls, esp with Safari. But that might be because I haven't put in additional RAM yet.

It's definitely the ram, I'd recommend anyone getting one of these get at least a gig.

That is completely wrong. I have a core duo with 2GB of ram and 1080 is a little choppy. The GMA950 isn't a bad chip... but it falls far from "good." If you do get anything with the 950 don't expect to play somewhat recent (as of Doom 3) 3d games or 1080 h.264 video at acceptable quality.

That's not what I've seen, or have read reported elsewhere. My duo has no problem playing 1080. Maybe something else is funky on your machine, or there's something funky with a particular movie (using a codec that isn't optimized yet or something)?

In my experience, 1080 has been more than acceptable, for the most part it has been flawless.

I don't think so. The processor word size (which is 32 bits) determines how much memory you can install. i.e. the Dual PowerMac is a 64-bit processor and can support 8GB (4GB for each 64bit Processor) the Quad can hold 16gb.

That's completely wrong. A 32 bit processor can access up to 4 gigs of ram, a 64 can go far beyond that (terrabytes I believe). The number of processors (or cores) makes no difference at all. On most of these machines, the limit is the number of slots (the quad and dual G5's all access 16 gigs, a single G5 could access that and more if they built one with enough slots). And supposedly, the 4 gig limit can be overcome even with a 32 bit processor.

The 950 is a 64 megabyte chip, minimum.
This means that by default it takes 64 megabytes of your memory and steals it for its own use. When you have only stock 512 that is a good ratio.
When you have 2 gigs, that chages things. you can set the card to use just 128, up to 224 megabytes of memory. That should leave you plenty, over 1.5 gigs.
OSX may automatically do this, in which case im an idiot. I'd check that though.

I don't know if anyone knows yet how it's implemented on the MB, but on the mini, the video chip never uses more than 80 gig. Apple put a limit on it that can't be adjusted by the user.

 

[50548]

I personally consider them unacceptable period. One of the draws of Macs was that they had kept the matte finish. Glossy screens produce wicked bad glare in even low light environments like an office.

Also the integrated graphics are a big concern for me.

It's just amazing to see this kind of reaction now...

I remember, WHENEVER we were comparing Apple notes with notes such as the ones from Sony, that A LOT of people bragged about the "XBrite" or "TruBrite" glossy displays, saying that they were MUCH better than Apple's... now that Apple does it, the other "half" raises its head and starts screaming...what gives?

 

[thogs_cave]

That's completely wrong. A 32 bit processor can access up to 4 gigs of ram, a 64 can go far beyond that (terrabytes I believe). The number of processors (or cores) makes no difference at all. On most of these machines, the limit is the number of slots (the quad and dual G5's all access 16 gigs, a single G5 could access that and more if they built one with enough slots). And supposedly, the 4 gig limit can be overcome even with a 32 bit processor.

Yep, it's all about the design, the number of address lines, and the like. I was going to do a full write up when I saw the original (misinformed) post, but why reinvent the wheel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

 

[quigleybc]

Afterall, how many of us were smitten and giddy with the notion of applying are own thermal grease! What fun!

Can you order the Macbook with "lite" thermal grease? Or thermal grease "on the side".......?

 

[FrenchFry]

An Apple first timers opinion.....

Bought my first ever Apple (as long as the Apple II doesn't count when I was in 3rd grade) last night for the wife. After spending about an hour messing around with it setting up etc, I was very impressed. My first impression of externals of the MacBook were:
1. That it's SOLID. It's 5 lbs which unless your smaller than my 5ft 1in wife shouldn't be a problem.

2. I was amazed at how thin it was... I had previously owned an Alienware Sentia (supposedly the thinest laptop at the time '02).

3. I was exstatic about the magnetic power connector (my laptop died b/c the connector that you plug the power cord into came off the MB inside the case and shatter into a bunch of pieces)

4. The magnetic latch is pretty cool. Not anything really earth shattering but cool none the less.

5. The screen is awesome much better on the eyes out in the sun then a regular laptop screen. Yes this is the same one that so many people are complaining about not liking but haven't seen yet...

6. The keyboard. great design as far as not being able to get crud under the keys. I thought it was going to be a pain but the spacing feels exactly like a desktop keyboard... and the travel distance and firmness of the buttons are much better.

7. Integrated Graphics, again it's for the wife and she doesn't play 3d games so no worries. However I've played some 3d games on my laptop with the 855 chipset and it worked bearably. Bump up the RAM to 2GB if you're really concerned.

8. RAM, the 512 is fine for now for my wife.... I'm getting two sticks of 1GB simply b/c for the price to performance why not? You can get this type of Ram for about $80/stick. Well worth it especially if you want the graphics to have more memory available to use.

In Summary, it's a great machine. Well worth the price, not sure I'd pay the extra for the two upper models but that depends on need.

I spent 30mins today trying to figure out what antivirus software to get for a mac... does that show how long I've been in the windows environ

 

[FrenchFry]

It's just amazing to see this kind of reaction now...

I remember, WHENEVER we were comparing Apple notes with notes such as the ones from Sony, that A LOT of people bragged about the "XBrite" or "TruBrite" glossy displays, saying that they were MUCH better than Apple's... now that Apple does it, the other "half" raises its head and starts screaming...what gives?

Hands down the "glossy" screen is better than any regular matte screen. I have more trouble reading text on my Dell 19" LCD than I do on my wifes new MacBook, in the same location at the same time. Glare isn't the problem its the LCD being "washed out" from the sun light.

 

[Garissimo]

Why? It's not like either of those components contribute significantly to the weight of the machine. The heavy part is the battery,

They don't contribute to the weight but they contribute to your power draw. If they're more efficient, and I'd hope the Intel Dual Cores would require less power than the G4s at some point in their evolution, you can use a smaller/lighter battery. Or use the same battery and get more life.

followed by the case (it seems to still have a sturdy magnesium frame in it). The only way to save weight is to have a lighter battery or an all-plastic case. The new computers require more power, hence a heavier battery.

That's my basic issue. I'd like to see the new computers require less power.

 

[andrewface]

Personally I think the new iBooks suck. Normally I hold judgement on such things and let all the other more "professional" whiners do it for me. Not that I am whining of course, I'm simply saying I don't like them. I'm not saying Apple can burn in hell or anything either. This revision just doesn't cater to me this time.

The screen looks interesting, in both resolution and this new gloss finish and I like the new upgradability to the MB's.

The one thing that does tickle me is the weight, I was hoping for something lighter and I expect it in a new revision of a popular model. Then again I expected the original Alubooks' to be lighter after the TiBooks. I want a less heavier laptop basically. A newer 12" MacBook Pro to be precise if it were possible with all the trimmings. But I don't want a laptop with seperate optical drive and such nonsense. Its gotta be done the Apple way, all in one.

The good news for me is, I was going to keep this Ibook G4 anyway regardless of what happens (nobody believes me, my friends and all, they think I will sell it but thats because they all bloody want it!!!). This is light enough for the moment and I will wait until Apple does a laptop that fits with my idea of being "better". I'm in the market for a new mac (even a desktop mac) for my uni course this year but can hold out for another 16 months if need be. Who knows what then when the newer processors start rolling off the production line.

seems like most people dont care about power...people just want light weight strange

 

[bosrs1]

It's just amazing to see this kind of reaction now...

I remember, WHENEVER we were comparing Apple notes with notes such as the ones from Sony, that A LOT of people bragged about the "XBrite" or "TruBrite" glossy displays, saying that they were MUCH better than Apple's... now that Apple does it, the other "half" raises its head and starts screaming...what gives?

Maybe the other side never had a reason to rear their head before. I've loathed the glossy screens ever since I saw my first one on my brother's Fujitsu. They look like crap. I'm particularly sensitive to glare since I wear glasses and get enough on them already without my computer screen adding to it. Poor choice by apple on this. It's seriously the one thing keeping me from replacing my PB with one of them.

 

[advocate]

That arstechnica article sure was written by a patronizing ****.

The key word there is "glossy,"... the scant few Mac users who immediately know what it means... Consider some synonyms... Gleaming. Shiny. Reflective. Now you're getting it.

Gee, thanks for explaining it. Now what does arrogant a**hole mean?

I think the point was that Mac users don't have to know what "glossy" means because Apple has never made them use such a terrible screen before. On the other hand, PC laptop users (myself included) are very familiar with the problems that a glossy screen presents..

 

[Evangelion]

"Dynamic Video Memory Technology (DVMT) 3.0 supports up to 224MB of video memory; system memory is allocated where it is needed dynamically."

Is it possible to add the 224MB to the MACBOOK somehow?

The GPU uses system-RAM as needed. IT does not have dedicated video-RAM. it uses 64-224MB of system-ram, depending on the situation.

 

[FrenchFry]

I think the point was that Mac users don't have to know what "glossy" means because Apple has never made them use such a terrible screen before. On the other hand, PC laptop users (myself included) are very familiar with the problems that a glossy screen presents..

Really I prefer the "glossy" screen to the "normal" Laptop screens... After seeing the MB in person I'd use the word terrible to describe a normal lcd screen. That's just my tired eyes though... and maybe my home and office (standard overhead flourescent) lighting just isn't the type to cause glare.

Also I've only used PCs up until yesterday so maybe it's jsut the new toy factor