The New MacBook

Size-wise, the new MacBook is perfect. It's a full half pound lighter than the previous generation MacBook and it's much more solidly built. The beveled edges are nice, it looks great, it feels like you're getting what you paid for, and aesthetically I have no complaints. It feels like a modern MacBook.

Yep. I like it.

  New MacBook 2008 Penryn MacBook 2007 Merom MacBook
Dimensions H: 0.95"
W: 12.78"
D: 8.94"
H: 1.08"
W: 12.78"
D: 8.92"
H: 1.08"
W: 12.78"
D: 8.92"
Weight 4.5 lbs 5.0 lbs 5.0 lbs
Screen Size/Resolution 13.3" / 1280 x 800 (LED backlit) 13.3" / 1280 x 800 13.3" / 1280 x 800
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz or 2.4GHz (45nm Penryn, 1066MHz FSB) Intel Core 2 Duo 2.1 - 2.4GHz (45nm Penryn, 800MHz FSB) Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0 - 2.2GHz (65nm Merom)
GPU NVIDIA GeForce 9400M (256MB UMA) Intel GMA X3100
(144MB UMA)
Intel GMA X3100
(144MB UMA)
Memory 2GB - 4GB DDR3 1066 1GB - 4GB DDR2-667 1GB - 4GB DDR2-667
HDD 160GB - 320GB 2.5" 5400RPM SATA HDD
128GB SSD optional
120 - 250GB 2.5" 5400RPM SATA HDD 80 - 160GB 2.5" 5400RPM SATA HDD
Optical Drive Integrated SuperDrive Integrated Combo drive or SuperDrive Integrated Combo drive or SuperDrive
Networking 802.11a/b/g/n
10/100/1000 Ethernet
802.11a/b/g/n
10/100/1000 Ethernet
802.11a/b/g/n
10/100/1000 Ethernet
Built in iSight Yes Yes Yes
Inputs 2 x USB 2.0
1 x Audio in
1 x Integrated mic
2 x USB 2.0
1 x FireWire 400
1 x Audio in
1 x Integrated mic
2 x USB 2.0
1 x FireWire 400
1 x Audio in
1 x Integrated mic
Outputs 1 x Audio
1 x mini DisplayPort
1 x Audio
1 x mini-DVI
1 x Audio
1 x mini-DVI
Battery 45WHr 55WHr 55WHr
Price $1299 $999 $1099

 

My biggest complaint about the old MacBook was that its display was clearly inferior to the MacBook Pro and Air. The issues were two-fold: 1) Apple used a cheaper panel with the MacBook (both it and the Pro use a TN panel it seems, unlike what I had originally assumed), and 2) the MacBook used a CCFL backlight instead of the LED backlight on the Pro.

The combination of those two issues meant that the MacBook's screen was horribly washed out at anything but perfect viewing angles, and honestly distracting enough that I wouldn't want to spend money on the machine; I'd opt for the MacBook Pro. Unfortunately, MacBook Pros are expensive and the MacBook is the "affordable" Apple notebook so my solution only really works in a world where government bailouts also apply to notebook purchases. `

Apple's solution was to create a $1299 upgraded MacBook. It still has a 13.3" display and still uses a cheaper panel than the MacBook Pro, but it's LED backlit. LED backlights give you better color reproduction and viewing angles than CCFL backlights, and thus we have a much better looking display.


Inside the MacBook


It's a tiny motherboard thanks to the single chip GeForce 9600M

The 13.3" widescreen display is perfect for writing, chatting and web browsing. It's the same size and resolution screen as what's on my MacBook Air, which is perfect for what I use it for. If you start doing a lot of image editing or heavy multitasking, despite the benefits features like Exposé offer you'd be much better off with a 15" display. But for a writer or student, I like the 13.3" MacBook form factor.

The keyboard is the same thing I've got on my Air, and I already love it there so there are no complaints here. Apple continues to refuse to outfit the MacBook with a backlit keyboard, which I continue to believe is a big mistake as it could be a small but significant advantage over the competition. The backlit keyboard on the MacBook Pro continues to be one of my favorite features. Thankfully the keyboard is well spaced enough that you honestly don't need a backlight in most situations, but it's still nice to have for those dark nights or on an airplane. Update: As many have pointed out, the $1599 2.4GHz MacBook does ship with a backlit keyboard which is a good move by Apple. I would like to see that on the $1299 model as well however.

There are no surface mounted speakers on the MacBook; like the MacBook Air the speakers are located beneath the keyboard but an improvement over the air is the fact that the new MacBook has two speakers instead of just one. Overall sound quality is a bit better but the more noticeable improvement is the stereo sound; welcome to the 1980s.


Power, Ethernet, two USB, mini DisplayPort, audio in, audio out, Kensington security slot.

Highly controversial in the Mac community is Apple's complete abandonment of Firewire from the MacBook; all that's left are two USB 2.0 ports. If you remember the first iPod had Firewire before Apple eventually gave it up in favor of USB as well. With the loss of FireWire you do lose the ability to connect two Macs together and use one of them in target disk mode, and you do lose a preferred method of connecting many camcorders, but the number of times I've used FireWire on my notebooks, much less desktops, has been minimal at best.

The new MacBook is honestly perfect for those who want the MacBook Air but would be put off by its hardware limitations. I find it to be the perfect Air-replacement if you need a bit more functionality. While I would recommend the older MacBook over the Air for those who needed practicality, I did so with hesitation as the display was a bit too bothersome for me. The new MacBook offers the build quality and improved display that make it a good, more level headed alternative to the Air if you don't need the weight reduction.

My complaints still stand about the MacBook - it could use a higher quality LCD panel and lacks a couple of key features that the Pro adds (ExpressCard slot, backlit keyboard), but this time the difference between the base and Pro models is close enough where I'm comfortable recommending the MacBook. Its added portability and fairly light weight are both additional advantages over the Pro. When it comes down to it, if you need something smaller, the MacBook works; if you need something larger and a bit more flexible then the Pro is a good option.

Compare the MacBook to what's available in the PC space and you'll see that the Apple-premium is on the high side these days. The Dell Inspiron 13 can be had, similarly configured to the MacBook, for $1024 compared to $1299 for the MacBook. While that comparison doesn't take into account the value of OS X and the MacBook's aesthetic/build quality advantages, the Dell Inspiron 13 ships with 4GB of memory by default compared to 2GB on the MacBook. Apple is using more expensive DDR3 memory with the MacBook but when all of the major PC OEMs are shipping systems with 3GB or 4GB of memory and Apple is still stuck at 2GB there's cause for complaint.

For the most part OS X behaves quite well with 2GB, but for heavier multitasking the more memory the better. Even the $1999 MacBook Pro configuration ships with only 2GB, which is just plainly unacceptable. You have to spend $2499 to get a default configuration with 4GB of memory from Apple; thankfully Apple charges an unusually reasonable $150 for an upgrade to 4GB which is not too far off the $120 it'd cost you to buy a similar amount from Newegg. You're still better off taking the 2GB from Apple and buying more memory from Newegg since you're already paying for the 2GB in the base system price.

Price concerns aside though, if you want OS X (legally) the only way you're going to get it is by buying a Mac. Thankfully Apple has made the new MacBook good enough for me to recommend, and all it took were some minor tweaks.

My Biggest Gripe: No Standard SSDs The New MacBook Pro
Comments Locked

66 Comments

View All Comments

  • plonk420 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    could anyone test this with the new (and even old) Mac Book Pro to test for CPU usage?

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ADFYX083">http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ADFYX083

    h.264 high profile (QT supports this now, right?) level 4.1 720p60, fairlight/the black lotus's demo Only One Wish (2nd place at Intel's second demo compo) .. has some really handsome bitrate spikes :D ~mid 20s mbps spikes (but not as good as the 60mbit spikes in a 6 or 8mbit (average) encode of ASD's Antisize Matters)
  • michaelheath - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    Having spoken to a few Apple developers I know, the reason for this oddity is Nvidia's software implementation for Mac OS 10.5. While the ideal situation was for them to be able to switch on the fly, the agreement between Apple and Nvidia to develop for the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros happened so quickly it left little time to create a proper application that would allow for this (think of how you had to restart your computer to turn SLI on or off: same slapdash type of programming).

    The hope is that quick-toggling between integrated and dedicated graphics will come with Mac OS 10.6 as it may be too large of an update to patch Mac OS 10.5. It also makes sense in this aspect as Mac OS 10.6 also includes OpenCL GPGPU algorithms, which Nvidia is already promoting and developing under their CUDA platform.
  • RDO CA - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    On my Thinkpad T-400 with switchable graphics all that is needed to switch is to go to the taskbar icon and click switchable graphics and choose what you want and the screen goes dark for a second and thats it.
  • cliffa3 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    I'll test it sometime this week, but on my Lenovo T61 it seems like I get much more life out of Ubuntu than I do Vista 64-bit. Could be a windows thing in general, not just something that OS X does better.

    How was the battery life comparison between XP and Vista?
  • PilgrimShadow - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    Anyone know if the 9400M and 9600M appear in Vista's Device Manager?
  • TallCoolOne - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    I bought the new 2.0GHz MacBook last week as my first Mac and can say I'm not disappointed. The whole chassis feels as solid as, well, a block of aluminum! As Anand said, it feels like you get what you paid for. I actually like the multi-touch gestures, such as swiping with 3 fingers to flip pages and for back/forward when web browsing. I'd like to see iTunes also support that gesture. Two finger scolling is another great feature not mentioned in this article. What I don't like though is the stiffness of the mouse click. It takes far more pressure than any mouse and that required pressure is uneven in different areas of the trackpad. Pressing near the top requires more pressure than near the bottom. As for lack of standard SSD, Anand, perhaps you're a little too spoiled by that speed! I would not expect that as standard on even the fastest MacBook Pro at current prices. That is, unless you'd like to see the asking price for a MBP $500-600 more than it is now.
  • vlado08 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    It is interesting was vista side panel running during the test. Also was this fresh install of vista os. If it was fresh then was the indeing enabled.
  • vlado08 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    edit indeing - indexing
  • jmpt2 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    Very interesting to read your conclusions about better power management in MacOS vs Vista. This matches my experiences running Vista on the BootCamp partition of my Core Duo MacBook, and is the first time I've seen this discussed anywhere on the web. I found that with a main battery in quite poor condition after two years constant use, it became impossible to use Vista on battery power for more than a minute without the battery deciding it was empty and putting the machine into sleep mode. Under MacOSX the system could still be used for 30min+ (light use) before the same thing happened.

    I'd come to the conclusion that Apple were deliberately playing games with the ACPI tables to confuse Vista's power management code and make their own OS look better. This seemed to be supported by the fact that Vista is unable to correctly detect the charging state on my MacBook - running on battery power it would always report "Connected to mains, not charging". Does it still work that way on the latest MacBooks? In any case, your data does seems to suggest the problem is a more general issue with Vista. Sounds like you should investigate further...

  • BZDTemp - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    I wonder if OS X lasting longer on a battery can be transfered to the world of none portable?

    In other words say I run OS X on my daily, none laptop, work machine doing surfing, writing and perhaps listening to music(FLAC prefered over MP3) or even watching an episode of The Daily Show. Will this draw less power from the wall with a PC running OS X than with the same machine running Windows (and is there a difference between Windows versions). Also Linux should be included in the test.

    Imagine the perspective - with the whole green computing movement this could really make a difference not just in the server rooms.

    Please do check this out - this is not only interesting for us geeks but could make Anandtech something referred to by none-tech news media.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now