Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th May 2006 16:25 UTC, submitted by Michael Zandstra
Apple Apple has released the long-awaited and seriously overdue replacement for its iBook consumer laptop product line. Dubbed the MacBook, it comes with an Intel Core Duo processor (1.83 or 2.0Ghz), 13.3" widescreen display, 512MB RAM, and an Intel GMA 950 integrated graphics card. It comes in white and black. In the US, you'll pay $1099 for the cheapest model, in the UK GBP 749, and on Europe's mainland EUR 1079 (mainland price taken from Apple Germany, may differ per country). Update: Between all the MacBook talk, Apple also upgraded its MacBook Pro product line. Besides a minor speed bump, Apple added, as a free option, the glossy screen stuff.
Order by: Score:
Back in black
by Tyr. on Tue 16th May 2006 16:47 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

Mmmm comes in black too. *salivates*

Reply Score: 1

The black
by tophfisher on Tue 16th May 2006 16:49 UTC
tophfisher
Member since:
2006-04-07

YES.. The black costs more, you also get a larger drive, so that is part of the cost...

Reply Score: 1

RE: The black
by shadow_x99 on Tue 16th May 2006 17:10 UTC in reply to "The black"
shadow_x99 Member since:
2006-05-12

Large HD is a 50$ upgrade for the middle-range model... You pay roughly 150$ for the black casing... Does Black Casing really worth 150$?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The black
by ma_d on Tue 16th May 2006 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE: The black"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

If people buy it it is therefore worth it, to those people. Are you wondering if it costs enough for that to be a reasonable increase? Are you asking if 150 - (extra cost * markup) = 0?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The black
by deathshadow on Tue 16th May 2006 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE: The black"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> Large HD is a 50$ upgrade for the middle-range model... You pay roughly 150$ for the black casing... Does Black Casing really worth 150$?

When their idea of a 'large' hard drive (80 gigs) is a full generation behind what the rest of the world considers large - YES.

Seriously, a 60 gig drive is what I expect in a $699 bargain basement laptop...

Hmm... Small screen - small drive, light on RAM, overly diminuitive in size... what is this, a overglorified PDA?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The black
by dagw on Tue 16th May 2006 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The black"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with most of your points, but personally I see a small screen as positive not a negative.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The black
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 16th May 2006 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The black"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

small screen... yeah, I expect them to put a 15 inch screen in a 13 inch laptop..... wait.... oh thats right, the macbook is MEANT to be small.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: The black
by WZot on Tue 16th May 2006 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The black"
WZot Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with you on the HD size. A 100GB would be nice bonus with the black one.

I have to disagree with you when it comes to the small screen being a negative thing though. Much of the point with the MacBook is to be a compact, relatively lightweight and cheap machine. It's made to be used "on the go", so it _should_ be small and easy to carry around. Still, it features a great widescreen resolution of 1280x800. I should point out that I am writing this on a 12" iBook - a machine with roughly the same size. It's like a note book sizewise. That's what the iBook/MacBook is about really...being a note book sized tool that can do amazing stuff. ;)

Light on RAM; yeah. But all the default machines in the Apple Store got 512MB. 512MB is enough for normal usage, but many user would want to upgrade it to atleast 1GB. By having a low default size of the RAM it gives people more flexibility, and the posibility to buy the RAM from somewhere else (as the RAM upgrade prices in the Apple Store is really too expensive, atleast in the norwegian shop).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The black
by setuid_w00t on Tue 16th May 2006 18:43 UTC in reply to "The black"
setuid_w00t Member since:
2005-10-22

In Canada, the black model costs $1649 vs $1449 for the white model with a 20GB HD size difference.

Seems to me like apple is just trying to increase margins by selling premium status for $200 when the only measurable improvement is the HD size.

Here are some prices for comparison.
$119 http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=14771&vpn=MHT2060BH&manu...
$142 http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=14772&vpn=MHT2080BH&manu...

So the difference between the cost of 40 and 60 GB 2.5" 5400RPM SATA drives is $23 in this example.

I don't care that Apple sells the hard drive upgrade for $60. Apple always scams people on system upgrades.

Is a black plastic coating worth $177? I would say no. Scenester Apple fanboys will probably disagree and buy the 'cool black one'.

Reply Score: 1

Yeah, yeah
by GrapeGraphics on Tue 16th May 2006 16:51 UTC
GrapeGraphics
Member since:
2005-07-07

Yeah, yeah - I can hear it in the background - the MAcBook's too expensive... Personally I believe it's competitively priced and with the inclusion of the OS of MY choice, including the new features, it's the bomb.

Beware of the black... too many fingerprints!

ALL IMHO Jb

Reply Score: 5

...
by CPUGuy on Tue 16th May 2006 16:54 UTC
CPUGuy
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's heavy.

Reply Score: 2

RE: heavy
by hjeff on Tue 16th May 2006 18:28 UTC in reply to "..."
hjeff Member since:
2006-01-05

It'd be nice if it were lighter, but it's not out of whack with the PC laptops. It's lighter than all the HP laptops I could find and lighter than most of the Sony laptops (the two lighter ones are the TX and SZ series, the first one is way underpowered and the second one is going to run you about $700 more than the MacBook for the same specs - all the rest are heavier).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: heavy
by taos on Tue 16th May 2006 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE: heavy"
taos Member since:
2005-11-16

It's heavier than most Thinkpad T-Series with 14" LCD, let alone X-Series (12").

I am very disappointed about the weight.
On the other hand, it does have a very nice feature set.

Oh well, I guess nothing can be _perfect_.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: heavy
by hjeff on Tue 16th May 2006 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: heavy"
hjeff Member since:
2006-01-05

True. 4.5lbs vs 5.2lbs, but the T-Series is significantly more money for the same features.

The difference is similar to the difference between a 12" PowerBook (4.6lbs) and a 15" PowerBook (5.6lbs), which is noticeable once you carry it more than a few blocks. Last year's iBooks were 4.9lbs, so the change here isn't big for this line, but it does mean that there are no really light options these days (MB: 5.2lbs, MBP: 5.6 and 6.8lbs).

Reply Score: 1

All as expected
by Fuji257 on Tue 16th May 2006 16:55 UTC
Fuji257
Member since:
2006-01-24

Pretty much a Mac Mini in a laptop form factor. For good or bad I think it's what everyone expected. No real surprises.

Reply Score: 2

RE: All as expected
by EmmEff on Tue 16th May 2006 18:25 UTC in reply to "All as expected"
EmmEff Member since:
2005-09-16

Agreed. No real surprises, but exactly what many have been waiting for. Now to decide between the MBP and the MB...

Reply Score: 2

Ehh..
by D3M0N on Tue 16th May 2006 16:56 UTC
D3M0N
Member since:
2005-07-09

Those things look awesome, but the killer of me ever owning one is that damn graphics "card" again. Shared memory sucks Apple! OS X needs as much RAM as it can get and taking away from teh system ram for video RAM is a step backwards from what you were doing before!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ehh..
by wereling on Tue 16th May 2006 17:03 UTC in reply to "Ehh.."
wereling Member since:
2006-05-15

Seperate video cards are expensive though, and if they're going to try to stay within their normal price and profit perameters they're going to be stuck with the onboard video. No real surprises here, though I do think the RAM is a bit low.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ehh..
by D3M0N on Tue 16th May 2006 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Ehh.."
D3M0N Member since:
2005-07-09

I was expecting it as the "low end" Mac Mini got it, but was still hoping they wouldn't do it. I'm sure they are more expensive, but they've been able to do it in the past. Like I said, to me - going from "real" graphics cards like in the past, this is a step backwards. No, I don't game really at all, so its that aspect is not what I care about. RAM is a precious thing in OS X. I've got my 12" Powerbook G4 maxed out at 1.25GB with Tiger 10.4.6, and I was able to notice more lag with the stock 512MB. I can't imagine running with anything less.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ehh..
by miscz on Tue 16th May 2006 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ehh.."
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

If the graphics chipset won't need more than 64 Mb of memory then it won't draw from system memory. I don't think that such situations will happen during regular use of OSX. Low level power consumption is more important IMO anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Ehh..
by BlackJack75 on Tue 16th May 2006 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ehh.."
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

The problem is not that you lose 64mb, you can easily one 1gb of ram and ignore it. The problem is that you can't play games newer than 2004. And since those are powerpc only, basically you can play nothing.

The Intel GMA is also CoreImage accelerated, but won't come close to any cheap ATI...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ehh..
by miscz on Tue 16th May 2006 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ehh.."
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

Notebooks are not gaming systems. Nobody serious buys them to play Doom 3, come on. MacBook is even less suitable for this because of it's size and becuase of the fact that it is a Mac.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Ehh..
by BlackJack75 on Tue 16th May 2006 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ehh.."
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

Nobody serious buys a laptop _in_order_to play games. That said if you do have to buy one and occasionally like play a game it would be nice if the latest laptop available wasn't miserably slow at games. You know for that hour free in which you'd like to play a bit.

And should I mention it again, CoreImage will be a key stone of OSX in the future. Having a decent GPU inside certainly would not hurt. Or at least offer the option on purchase.

I know you have the option with the MacBook Pro. I'll probably go for one of these, just for the GPU.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Ehh..
by bvkchaitanya on Wed 17th May 2006 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ehh.."
bvkchaitanya Member since:
2006-05-12

Here i am, straight contradiction ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ehh..
by bvkchaitanya on Wed 17th May 2006 03:41 UTC in reply to "Ehh.."
bvkchaitanya Member since:
2006-05-12

i doubt there might be an NDA with intel on GPU.

Reply Score: 1

grmbl
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 16th May 2006 17:00 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

What seriously pisses me off is the fact only the expensive model comes in black.

What utter nonsense ;) . I don't have enough money for that model (I'll do entry-model).

Reply Score: 5

RE: grmbl
by stew on Tue 16th May 2006 17:41 UTC in reply to "grmbl"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

Spray paint is cheap ;)

Reply Score: 4

v RE: grmbl
by Moulinneuf on Tue 16th May 2006 22:15 UTC in reply to "grmbl"
Lack 7200RPM HD Option
by shadow_x99 on Tue 16th May 2006 17:09 UTC
shadow_x99
Member since:
2006-05-12

I would've loved a 7200RPM Hard-Drive in option... Other than that, great little laptop... I have to say that the shared-memory is also a bit unfortunate... But I can live with it...

It'll be a hard battle between the MacBook and the iMac I think!

Reply Score: 2

Waitaminit...
by wereling on Tue 16th May 2006 17:09 UTC
wereling
Member since:
2006-05-15

13.3" at 16x9 widescreen? For $1099. Thanks. I'll pass.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Waitaminit...
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 16th May 2006 20:05 UTC in reply to "Waitaminit..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Why? Wide is better today when you are normally using more than one data source. I would love to be able to have both a text editor and documentation for a new API open side by side so I can read while I type.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Waitaminit...
by atsureki on Wed 17th May 2006 05:23 UTC in reply to "Waitaminit..."
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

13.3" at 16x9 widescreen? For $1099. Thanks. I'll pass.

It's 16:10, actually. 1280x800 is what I have on this ocean liner of a Compaq. It's definitely enough to be comfortable, and the aspect is nice for video.

I'm glad Apple finally ditched the extremely frustrating 1024x768 ceiling. You can also finally have a higher external res than that on the built-in display. That's the biggest thing that's been keeping me away from the iBook line for so long. They've finally given their pro laptops an edge in video without crippling their consumer end.

Reply Score: 1

Expensive color
by lagitus on Tue 16th May 2006 17:10 UTC
lagitus
Member since:
2005-07-18

It's funny that the black color alone costs $150.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Expensive color
by BlackJack75 on Tue 16th May 2006 18:28 UTC in reply to "Expensive color"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

They used crude oil to get this color. International events caused them to slightly increase the price.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Expensive color
by Kroc on Tue 16th May 2006 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Expensive color"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Indeed, people need to understand that this is not 'paint'. Black polycarbonate is not cheap to produce. It's very durable!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Expensive color
by chlordane on Tue 16th May 2006 22:42 UTC in reply to "Expensive color"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

For $150 more you get...

80GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive2
and it is black....think of it as a special edition...

Hell, for $500 more you can get a MacBook Pro with
15.4-inch widescreen display
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 128MB GDDR3 memory

Apple products are going to be expensive....
Thats all folks!

^_^

Edited 2006-05-16 22:43

Reply Score: 1

Integraded Video
by Fuji257 on Tue 16th May 2006 17:11 UTC
Fuji257
Member since:
2006-01-24

If Integrated Video is so much cheaper and Intel is so much cheaper (as Apple has been telling us), then why are the prices no different than the last lineup of iBooks?

Sorry, I'm as big a fan of Apple than most, but they are milking the price a bit.

I still find it a good value and would much rather have a $1000 MacBook than any PC laptop; but if you think Apple ain't milking the price a wee bit you may be disillusioned.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Integraded Video
by wereling on Tue 16th May 2006 17:20 UTC in reply to "Integraded Video"
wereling Member since:
2006-05-15

I think the work you're looking for is "naive", not "dissillusioned", but you've got a point. I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised, but I figured they'd at least shoot for the >$1000 market.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Integraded Video
by wereling on Tue 16th May 2006 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Integraded Video"
wereling Member since:
2006-05-15

WORD. WORD dammit. I really need to learn to be a better typist.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Integraded Video
by MikeGA on Tue 16th May 2006 17:53 UTC in reply to "Integraded Video"
MikeGA Member since:
2005-07-22

Um, hello, Front Row and iSight?

On the other hand, the price of the black is rather outrageous, but if Apple want to milk it, it's up to them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Integraded Video
by EmmEff on Tue 16th May 2006 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Integraded Video"
EmmEff Member since:
2005-09-16

On the other hand, the price of the black is rather outrageous, but if Apple want to milk it, it's up to them.

People still have the right not to buy it...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Integraded Video
by Ralf. on Tue 16th May 2006 18:04 UTC in reply to "Integraded Video"
Ralf. Member since:
2005-08-13

Apple NEVER mentiones that Intel will be cheaper!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Integraded Video
by signals on Tue 16th May 2006 18:25 UTC in reply to "Integraded Video"
signals Member since:
2005-07-08

If Integrated Video is so much cheaper and Intel is so much cheaper (as Apple has been telling us), then why are the prices no different than the last lineup of iBooks?

Because things aren't priced by their cost to manufacture. They will charge the most they can get enough people to pay. There is apparently enough of a demand for them (or Apple thinks there will be) that they can charge what they do and still sell enough of them. It's how capitalist markets work.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Integraded Video
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 16th May 2006 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Integraded Video"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

an integrated web cam kinda raises the price a bit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Integraded Video
by grabberslasher on Tue 16th May 2006 19:21 UTC in reply to "Integraded Video"
grabberslasher Member since:
2006-02-09

The Core Duo costs more than three times the price of a G4 chip (I think), last time I heard. Apple never said it was cheaper. What's nice is now at the same price you can get a 6x faster machine. :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Integraded Video
by snowbender on Tue 16th May 2006 20:32 UTC in reply to "Integraded Video"
snowbender Member since:
2006-05-04

I don't think the price is unreasonable. I think this laptop is in several ways a better laptop in its class (the lower end Apple laptops) than the iBook.

* dual core cpu
* higher screen resolution and wide screen (1024x768 -> 1280x800)
* the built-in iSight webcam
* the remote
* it has an audio-in jack (the iBook doesn't have this)
* supports external screens in mirrorring and extending mode with an external screen resolution up to 1920x1200 (with the iBook only mirrorring was allowed and thus external resolution was also limited to 1024x768; except of course if you used a certain hack, or ran linux)

Whether those are useful or not for you, is another question of course. And on the other hand, the 512mbyte ram is a bit low, and it is 2x256mbyte, so it's probably better to go for 1gbyte (or 2gbyte) rightaway and that ups the price a bit more of course.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Integraded Video
by snowbender on Tue 16th May 2006 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Integraded Video"
snowbender Member since:
2006-05-04

I forgot to mention the harddisk. The iBook has a 4200rpm drive in the standard model, while the MacBook has a 5400rpm drive.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Integraded Video
by chlordane on Tue 16th May 2006 22:31 UTC in reply to "Integraded Video"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

Yeah, the pricing is a little off.....
but dang, those machines are still sweet...

You can still get an ibook for not a bad price....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q...

My friend just bought a 14" iBook, and he got rid of her Celeron based HP.....

She has no regrets....

Reply Score: 1

Wow
by deathshadow on Tue 16th May 2006 17:13 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

1100 bucks for a 13.3" 'widescreen' display - I knew manufacturers were throwing around this widescreen term for a reason - I didn't realize it was to go back to a display smaller than what was on most LCD luggables in the early 90's.

Wonder if it's as poorly engineered as the others have been so far - from the size and composition it's likely WORSE, which of course means it will get rave reviews for 'quality' by people who don't see past the glossy exterior.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow
by stew on Tue 16th May 2006 17:42 UTC in reply to "Wow"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

What exactly do you mean by "poorly engineered"?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wow
by altair on Tue 16th May 2006 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
altair Member since:
2005-07-06

He's trolling. If you notice he has posted more than once bashing it.

@deathtroll
The $699 laptops that have more than 60 gig hard drives have 4200 RPM hard drives generally. A 5400 RPM hard drive is much faster than that. If you don't like the macbook then don't buy one. However, it is not poorly engineered or a generation behind.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wow
by deathshadow on Tue 16th May 2006 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>>What exactly do you mean by "poorly engineered"?

Oh, like putting insulating foam across the entire mainboard to trap the heat in with no sinks on the northbridge or gpu... (hell, if they thought they could get away doing that to the cpu, they'd do that too. See the G3 and G4 iBooks)

Or putting in six layers of RF shielding over the mainboard that is most likely FCC B compliant without any shielding at all... (yet still having the resulting unit feel flimsy)

Or putting a daughterboard like the modem or networking card directly atop the CPU sink, so you open them up inside a year and find scorch marks on it...

Or putting the internal wireless antenna inside the RF shield, basically making that nice 4DB run they make atop the inside of the display half of the case less effective than the 0DB 'flats' used in most PCMCIA cards...

Or using a crappy little 4x proprietary 'superdrive' without even OFFERING a dual layer or faster version on smaller models - likely using a hardwired version of cable select or dropping a pin or two to make the board COMPLETELY incompatable with standard SATA or ATA hardware (depending on flavor)...

Or hard bolting the hard drive into a carriage that hard bolts not directly to the case, but into the motherboard stanchions with nothing remotely resembling shock inhibitors...

Or using cheap LCD's that quality-wise in terms of MCD and contrast ratio make the early active-scans that came in the old 486 thinkpads a decade ago look good... polished to a mirror glossy finish that of course blinds you with glare from a single incandescent bulb in the middle of the night - much less should you be foolhardy enough to take it out in broad daylight...

Shall I go on?

Reply Score: 4

v RE[3]: Wow
by tryphcycle on Tue 16th May 2006 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
RE[4]: Wow
by Tom K on Tue 16th May 2006 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

I hate to break it to you, but ...

The MBP is made in the same Asian factories that HP, Dell, Compaq, Acer, and God knows who else make their laptops. Just because there's a nice little apple on the case doesn't mean that the machine automatically becomes unsusceptible to the myriad of quality control issues that face users of laptops from any other company.

I did not even think twice about buying an MBP after reports of whining, screen flickering, hinge alignment, key alignment, latch alignment, and whatever else problems started flowing in. Apple has some serious QA issues to work out with the MBP.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow
by Mage66 on Thu 18th May 2006 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

You HAVE gone on...

Being a service technician that service Apple iBook and Powerbooks I can tell you:

1. There is NO insulating foam inside the units.

2. Hard drives are shock mounted on rubber mounts. Unlike Dell, IBM, Compaq and other units that screw the harddrive to the frame of the laptop.

3. Apple uses the best displays in the business.

4. Apple uses a proprietary drive more for cosmetic than for any other reason. You couldn't put a standard drive into an Apple machine due to the restraints of the bezel on the exterior case. If you have to have a different drive, buy a different notebook.

5. No Modem or Wireless card is directly atop the heatsink. They are NEXT to the heatsink, and if your modem or wireless card are scorched, you have a bigger problem than poor design.

There is NOT six layers of RF shielding. Only one. And it's not overkill or flimsy.

The antenna for the Airport runs around the display screen. I don't understand what your problem with it is.

I don't understand what your problems are. They don't seem valid based on what I know of the interior of Apple Laptops having repaired them for a decade.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow
by Shane on Wed 17th May 2006 01:37 UTC in reply to "Wow"
Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

1100 bucks for a 13.3" 'widescreen' display - I knew manufacturers were throwing around this widescreen term for a reason - I didn't realize it was to go back to a display smaller than what was on most LCD luggables in the early 90's.

13.3" or 12.1" just about hits the sweet spot for me. I like my notebooks portable.

The 12.1" lcd on my PowerBook isn't that great though, quality-wise.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wow
by g__t on Wed 17th May 2006 09:46 UTC in reply to "Wow"
g__t Member since:
2006-01-04

"I didn't realize it was to go back to a display smaller than what was on most LCD luggables in the early 90's"
Well, >=12 & <14" diagonal is good for portable devices.
More, make it heavier, bigger and more poer hungry, good for desktop replacement; less make it quite unpractical to be used with "standard" GUI and softwares.
Moreover, the better definition, the 16:10 format and the evolved LCD tecnology make this screen uncomparably better than LCDs of 10 years ago when <14" diagonal was rather accepted for cost and technical limits.
You cannot really compare a 1280*800 TFT display with low latencies, high viewing angle and many candles/cm2 with those old horrible 800*600 DSTN! The high definition is not even an issue due to the adjustable scaling tecnology of the GUI.
Of course, it's not a mediacenter, however today with good 19"-20" LCDs becoming more cheap even a 15,4" or a 17" notebook screen may seem small for many users... and are neither good as portable devices.
Maybe are a good compromise solution, but certainly not perfect for all people: someone would like to save something on the notebook LCD and buy an external monitor fitting to his entertainment needs, not his portability needs; the price difference would not be dramathic and upsides would be that in this way you have: a multi monitor solution, a more portable notebook, a better monitor for entertainment, a secondary monitor if one of the two gets broken.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wow
by deathshadow on Wed 17th May 2006 10:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> Moreover, the better definition, the 16:10 format and the evolved LCD tecnology make this screen uncomparably better than LCDs of 10 years ago when <14" diagonal was rather accepted for cost and technical limits.
You cannot really compare a 1280*800 TFT display with low latencies, high viewing angle and many candles/cm2 with those old horrible 800*600 DSTN! The high definition is not even an issue due to the adjustable scaling tecnology of the GUI.


So... you think 1280x800 on a display with less viewable surface area than a early 1990's 14" CRT in an OS that's support for dynamically sized fonts in the UI is borderline nonexistant is a GOOD idea? Land sakes it's only a half inch taller than a paperback book - I've seen portable DVD players with bigger screens. /burn/

... and I was not talking dual scan, I'm talking the early active scans (TFT) used in most GOOD thinkpads of the 486 and early pentium era - which in terms of contrast, color and viewability WERE BETTER LOOKING than what I've seen of the 17" MacBook Pro... Can't imagine this little 13.3" bugger is going to be much better.

Not to mention this move to glossy - between spending the 80's on adhesive films applied to CRT's, a cottage industry in the late 80's and early 90's manufacturing glare filters (in both cloth and plastic) it truly seems that with a number of LCD's from many manufacturers, the lessons learned about TV's and CRT's are being thrown out the window. Eye strain and glare headaches here we come.

Although that does beg a question about this... Given that the lions share of graphics arts people are obsessed with Apple AND accurate color reproduction, is that going to make the mini the weapon of choice given that color reproduction on LCD's in terms of graphics work sucks donkey balls? Or are they all going to be running dual monitor setups using the DVI to VGA adaptors?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Wow
by g__t on Wed 17th May 2006 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
g__t Member since:
2006-01-04

" in an OS that's support for dynamically sized fonts in the UI is borderline nonexistant"
Are you joking?
In those years I used from to 10" to 21" LCD screens on OSX, Linux and Windows (9x and NTx) and above 12,1" screens I never reported bad problems of usability of the GUIs nor of the common programs. And I'm not a bullseye.

"I'm talking the early active scans (TFT) used in most GOOD thinkpads of the 486 and early pentium era - which in terms of contrast, color and viewability WERE BETTER LOOKING than what I've seen of the 17" MacBook Pro"
You are joking!
Even if you compare higher end TFT screens from even only 5 years ago (as they were new, not after 5 years of usage) with today entry level screens you can see that today times of response, color faithfulness, uniformity of luminance, brilliance, contrast ratio, viewing angle etc had become a lot better (and I'm not talking of a particular producer).

"Not to mention this move to glossy [cut] Eye strain and glare headaches here we come."
You are definitely joking!
I tried glossy screen from Sony, Acer and Toshiba (and I own one of those, and use on daily basis for several hours, so as you see I'n not a macaholic) and color are more faithful than on a similar level opaque LCD and on the long run you don't have any bad effect on headhackes or eyehackes.
Opacity was added to reduces glares in outdoor operations with the tradeoff of blurred images and opacized colours.
Since today multimedia entertainment is a common task on notebook and they approach to replace desktops in indoor usage, a glossy screen definitely makes more sense (and other treatments nowdays reduces glares to a very tolerable level so they are, I've tried, really good even outdoor, and where I'm there is a really bright sun!)

Edited 2006-05-17 12:45

Reply Score: 1

Oh well
by truckweb on Tue 16th May 2006 17:30 UTC
truckweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

1100$ for "widescreen" 13.3inch 1280x800 screen and Intel GMA950 that eats the main memory of only 512Mb.

So, you NEED to upgrade the Ram to 1Gig or 2Gig. 60Gig is not realy enough now, for OS,Software and data (music, video, ...). So that needs to be upgraded too.

In the end, you could pay much less for much better at DELL. The only cool thing about this laptop is OS X.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Oh well
by Fuji257 on Tue 16th May 2006 18:01 UTC in reply to "Oh well"
Fuji257 Member since:
2006-01-24

>>1100$ for "widescreen" 13.3inch 1280x800 screen and Intel GMA950 that eats the main memory of only 512Mb.

So, you NEED to upgrade the Ram to 1Gig or 2Gig. 60Gig is not realy enough now, for OS,Software and data (music, video, ...). So that needs to be upgraded too.

In the end, you could pay much less for much better at DELL. The only cool thing about this laptop is OS X.<<

Sorry, but you are mistaken. For the about same price Dell offers the same video, CPU, but a bigger screen. Apple has more apps.

http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/entnb_e1705?c=us...

These are the "cheap" Core Duo Dell's. Dell offers more customization. The only thing the MacBook has over this current Inspiron lineup is included apps and OS X versus XP Media Center Edition. Which of course is WAY more than enough for OS X fans. Though probably not enough to get any swithers unless they are on fence anyways.

Ironically, Dell offers a similar Laptop with only a Core Solo for about the same price.

http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/entnb?c=us&cs=19...

I guess they know some people can't sift thru their website as well as others.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Oh well
by Tom K on Tue 16th May 2006 22:01 UTC in reply to "Oh well"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know what world you come from, but in this one, most people I know still have <60 GB drives that nowhere close to being full.

But hey, you're welcome to find us a non-Apple notebook that has the same feature set, the same weight, the same size, and a lower price than the MB. :-)

Reply Score: 2

vikramsharma
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple is kinda officially supporting Windows, in a way. It would be better if Apple released drivers of isight and the remote for linux. Apple would gain a lot of customers only on that basis. Apple is a hardware company and if supporting Linux means selling more where's the harm. Maybe I am being to idealistic.

About the configuration, as the video memory is shared 1 GB memory would be a better option, I personally would prefer maxing out the memory if I could afford it.

Reply Score: 4

To those already mentioning Dell
by MonkeyPie on Tue 16th May 2006 17:53 UTC
MonkeyPie
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think the new Macbooks are too far off the mark from what Dell is offering. Most of the specs are, for the most part, the same if not better than whats being offered. Longer battery life than the 710m.

The new MacBook can only be best compared with Dells Inspiron 710m and it has an even smaller screen and hard drive only goes UP TO 80gig.

http://www.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/notebooks?c=us&cs...

Not bad overall, planning on buying one of these later in the summer before next semester.

JRM7

Reply Score: 2

Black costs more
by tony on Tue 16th May 2006 18:27 UTC
tony
Member since:
2005-07-06

You pay more for the hard drive, and to share the color of Steve Jobs' turtlenecks.

Mmm... Steve Jobs...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Black costs more
by Gryzor on Tue 16th May 2006 18:44 UTC in reply to "Black costs more"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

Aye, I love Apple (use a PBook myself) but the difference of price between the two is nosense.
Why not offer the same HDD and the same price, just like the iPod.

This is bulls***

I will switch to a MacBook Pro tho, because that's what I require, but anyways I feel like they're stealing people's money.

Reply Score: 1

You NEED a car, You WANT Mercedez
by rakamaka on Tue 16th May 2006 18:55 UTC
rakamaka
Member since:
2005-08-12

It summarize Apple
Apple is made by elite people, made for elite people.
Comparatively 50% more pricing than PC and Apple is HARDWARE MONOPOLY!!
And they dream of more marketshare?
I would be happy to have my PC Laptop with 10 times better hardware configuration for same price...and load freeBSD or Linux Desktop (alongwith free XP comes with PC) to have equally secure system as Mac.

Reply Score: 1

snowbender Member since:
2006-05-04

Oh.. and which is that magic laptop then?
Tell me.. I'd love to have a pc laptop with similar properties, but with 10 times better hardware configuration for same price. Oh.. and i run linux anyways.
So, that would be a laptop for approximately 733 us dollar (you said that Apple hardware is 50% more expensive than "PC" (whatever you mean with "PC"))
My requirements? 12"-13", Intel Core Duo, 1280x800 resolution or higher, not too heavy, at least 60giga harddisk, decent battery life. I think that's the most important.
But well, you say you could find 10 times better hardware than the MacBook for only 733 dollar... I'm curious what you're gonna come up with.

Reply Score: 2

Nice - but not the Black Model
by MacGod on Tue 16th May 2006 18:58 UTC
MacGod
Member since:
2006-03-24

OK - so the black model is a little expensive - Sorry Apple, you won't be getting my extra 150.00 for black (even though it looks cool).

But, for the same amount of money, you could up your hard drive to 100 GB SATA and 1 GB of RAM on the 2.0 GHz white Mac Book (for about 24 dollars more).

That is a pretty good price point for that technology - 1 GB of RAM and 100 GB hard drive on a 13" widescreen, glossy screen, and superdrive - I will be special ordering my version tonight when I get home!!!

Bill

Reply Score: 2

gma 950
by maddocks on Tue 16th May 2006 19:14 UTC
maddocks
Member since:
2006-01-28

I have a dell inspiron 2200 my girlfriend bought me for xmas $400. god bless her heart she didnt know any better. It has a 915gm and the shared ram is dynamic. You cant set the video ram in the bios or with software. So 8mb for vga then you start a video the machine stops it adjust to 16mb plays the video then stops goes back to 8mb. Yes it really stops and I mean dead! I've seen people deny this but its true. I swicthed to Linux because it freezes it at 8mb and I dont game and 8mb plays videos fine thats partly why I was so pissed. Now does the 950 in the mbp do the same thing? Can you set the ram in the bios with software anyhow? Does the machine freeze up while switching or seriously slow down?I like small laptops and small screens but IHATE INTEL GMA 915.

Reply Score: 1

I for one...
by JustAnotherMacUser on Tue 16th May 2006 20:12 UTC
JustAnotherMacUser
Member since:
2006-01-08

...like the 13" Black MacBook.

After literly kicking butt with my Dual 2 and RAID O pair of Raptors as a boot drive and 30", I really couldn't go back to something slower full time.

What I need is a small portable Mac just to do some light things, take it back to the bruteMac for heavy lifting, I have some mobile audio work (DJ) with that digital optical out.

I don't know if you know, but SoundCheck on iTunes/iPod absolutely sucks, the volume still radically changes. However I've found Volume Logic, which does a great job making iTunes music sound better and consistant. Since it won't run on a iPod, a small portable Mac with digital connections is just what the doctor ordered.

Since it's in black that makes all the so much cooler. $1100 is acceptable, of course Apple Care, RAM and tax is going to bring it up quite a bit. Oh darn. Dell's bait and switch works at Apple too.

Reply Score: 2

Big versus small
by _LH_ on Tue 16th May 2006 20:24 UTC
_LH_
Member since:
2005-07-20

I wonder why everybody's whining that they can get a 17" laptop for that price but nobody complains that a 12" IBM or Dell with similar setup to macbook costs at least $500 more.

This isn't Dell vs Apple thing but portable vs dragable.

Edited 2006-05-16 20:25

Reply Score: 5

RE: Big versus small
by WZot on Tue 16th May 2006 23:47 UTC in reply to "Big versus small"
WZot Member since:
2005-07-06

That my exact opinion aswell. Other laptops with this cost/size/weight ration is way more expensive.

People who will buy the MacBook don't want a big laptop that barely fits on your lap. They want a relatively inexpensive laptop with good resolution that can be put in between the books in a backpack. Thats the beauty and idea about the iBook/MacBook. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Well....
by chlordane on Tue 16th May 2006 22:23 UTC
chlordane
Member since:
2006-05-11

I am not excited about Intel producing processors for Apple, and I am definitly not excited about Apple's Boot Camp program, but man, that is a sweet looking machine, and I love the specs....^_^

One day, I may buy one......

Edited 2006-05-16 22:24

Reply Score: 1

sledgehammer89
Member since:
2006-02-02

sad if this is true...

Reply Score: 1

hjeff Member since:
2006-01-05

A non-worry. Linux distros have run on Macs for many years without needing a 2nd track pad button. You have standard options: control-click acts as a right-click usually, and likewise you can simulate whatever you need; and, as always, you can buy devices with any number of buttons and use them.

Reply Score: 1

chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

I would recommend a used Thinkpad over an Apple machine to run Linux on.....or FreeBSD

I think the MacBook was made for Mac OS X any way..

^_^ to each his own....

Reply Score: 1

Fuji257 Member since:
2006-01-24

>> no 2nd mouse button = useless 4 Linux
>>sad if this is true...

ah, yes. Linux users. What a curious lot. They think that;

"iwlist eth1 scan | grep -o 'ESSID"[^"]*"' | while read f ; do echo "{f:6}" ; done"

is kid stuff any user should know - - - but alas, Control+Click is just out of reach . . .

Reply Score: 4

snowbender Member since:
2006-05-04

Not necessarily. I've run Linux on an iBook with a G3 cpu, and currently on the last iBook with a G4 cpu. It also has only one mouse button.

However... most of the time, I use the laptop on a desk and then I always use a small external optical usb mouse, which has 2 buttons and a scroll wheel which also acts as 3rd button. I prefer to use a real mouse instead of the trackpad, since for me it's much faster and easier in use. So... in that regard the one button mouse on the laptop itself doesn't matter.

When I'm on the move, or on the train or something and it's not handy to use an external mouse, then there's still 2 ways to get access to a 2nd and 3rd mouse button.

First, you can activate mouse button emulation in the linux kernel, and you can map keys to emulate a middle and a right button click. Commonly used keys are F11 and F12 for middle and right click. This can however be a bit annoying for applications where F11 is for example maximise to full screen, then you cannot use the regular function of F11 and F12 anymore. Another commonly used key combo is Fn+Ctrl and Fn+Alt for middle and right click. This can be used on most powerpc Apple laptops for as far as I know.

Second, a method which is only available on the most recent G4 iBooks (and I assume PowerBooks). You can configure the linux driver for the trackpad to interpret a one-finger tap as a left click, a two-finger tap as a middle click and a three-finger tap as a right click. Moreover, you can configure it to do a vertical scroll when sliding vertically on the right border of the trackpad and to do a horizontal scroll when sliding horizontally on the bottom border.

I assume that both of these techniques will also be available on the MacBooks.

I have activated both these methods and, for me, it works good enough... (I don't think I would find the trackpad much handier when it did have 2 or 3 buttons) it definitely wouldn't play in my decision to buy a MacBook.

Reply Score: 1

News flash re: black MacBook
by Brett Legree on Tue 16th May 2006 22:51 UTC
Brett Legree
Member since:
2005-07-17

For all of you who say 'I won't buy it because it is $150 more than a comparable white one' - news flash - you are not the target market here. Apple probably does not care about you.

The target market has already placed their orders...

Don't like it - don't buy it.

PS - I plan on paying the extra money. I'm not that poor...

Reply Score: 0

Apple and Microsoft together?
by chlordane on Tue 16th May 2006 23:17 UTC
chlordane
Member since:
2006-05-11

I wonder when Apple and Microsoft will merge...?

Now, before you say NEVER!, think about it....
It has been said Apple would never go to Intel for processors and they did....

So, think about it, and tell me what you think....

and while your thinking read this stuff...

http://www.datatek.net/humor/Microsoft%20to%20acquire%2...

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8600

Just a thought...

Reply Score: 0

The BlackBook looks like a Dell
by pxa270 on Wed 17th May 2006 00:12 UTC
pxa270
Member since:
2006-01-08
No all we need is
by Dullin on Wed 17th May 2006 03:09 UTC
Dullin
Member since:
2006-02-28

The only thing that I would like to happen is Apple releasing a bluthoot version of their mighty mouse( in black of course).

Now it would seal the deal.

Reply Score: 1

Ummm Black...
by MikeekiM on Wed 17th May 2006 03:43 UTC
MikeekiM
Member since:
2005-11-16

Yes, the Black one looks good, and still fit in the backpack, great for vacations...
Nice, to always have Bash, OS X, Oracle Db, Garage band and Spotlight at your fingertips.
Plus, the specs say it can power the 23 in Cinema display's resolution:
1920x1200.

It's a nice surprise it's a Core Duo! Core Duo 2( Mermon? ) coming out soon for the Mac Book Pro?

Reply Score: 1

Interesting but...
by g__t on Wed 17th May 2006 07:22 UTC
g__t
Member since:
2006-01-04

I would like to expect for new Intel processor line (a year awayted tech bump) and for seeing if the very first units suffers of some juvenile problems... are you glad to see me or someone had put an insane amount of thermal paste on you? ;)
Moreover, it would need badly at least 1GB of ram and a serious graphic card, however I'll pass gladly over that last issue since I'm an old geek and I like old games.
Why I would buy one?
It seem well build (from eastethical and practical p.o.w.), reasonably priced (I bet some $PCproducer is going to cut core duo notebook prices, eh?!) and I'll like to have at home something handy for developing for OSX.
Why would I'll not buy one?
If some macaholic say to me another time how superior is a Mac to the rest of the world I'll make he/she eat my SUSE DVD... ;)

Reply Score: 1

These are nice...
by tristan on Wed 17th May 2006 10:36 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

...very nice indeed. Although as with everyone else, I'm shocked that they're asking 130 more for the black version. How come the black iPod costs the same as the white one?

The entry-level 1.83GHz model for 750 is very very tempting. The only criticism I can think of (other than the use of 2x256 RAM sticks instead of 1x512) is that is makes the Mac Mini look massively overpriced.

I don't see how Apple can justify 600 for the 1.66GHz Core Duo model, when the faster 1.83Ghz laptop (including screen, keyboard, mouse etc) costs just 150 more.

Reply Score: 1

intel 950
by maddocks on Wed 17th May 2006 19:06 UTC
maddocks
Member since:
2006-01-28

So does anybody know of a performance decrease when the machine suddenly switches video ram? Or is the amount of vram adjustable in the bios or thru software?

Reply Score: 1

I now realize what comments are used for.
by maddocks on Fri 19th May 2006 14:57 UTC
maddocks
Member since:
2006-01-28

I guess the comments sections are more used for bashing each other instead of asking or answering technical questions about a particular OS or hardware. Thats okay I must seem like an odd ball trying to gather information in such a place. I wish I could bash on somebody right now and "fit in" but alas that doesnt help me in any way. I will try harder next time to make people feal stupid in my comments rather then get real life experiences on subjects.

Reply Score: 1