Apple's Redesigned MacBook and MacBook Pro: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 22, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Performance
Outside of gaming performance, there shouldn't be any tangible improvement in system performance from these new notebooks compared to the previous generation. To test that theory I ran some of the same real world tests I did in my last Apple notebook review, comparing the new MacBook and MacBook Pro to the previous generation:
With the exception of the Pages test, the numbers show very little difference between the old and new systems. The new 2.0GHz MacBook is slower than the old 2.4GHz model as you'd expect, and the new 2.4GHz MacBook Pro is in line with the older MacBook Pro performance.
I suspect the Pages test favors the new machines as it is a bit more disk-bound and the newer machines have faster drives. But if you want to know, the new notebooks aren't any faster in normal usage than the old ones. These changes are far more aesthetic.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
View All Comments
joey2264 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
Uhm, Apple charges $150 to upgrade from 2 to 4 GB. A 2 GB 1066 DDR3 notebook dimm is about $60 on Newegg. What are you smoking??strikeback03 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
He didn't mention how many slots are populated in the standard configuration. If standard is a pair of 1GB sticks, then you need a pair of those $60 2GB sticks to get 4GB.joey2264 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
It doesn't matter. 2 GB of memory (2 Dimms) cost about $80, and 4 GB cost about $120, as stated in the article. But Apple is charging $150 to upgrade from one to the other, when it only costs $40 more.Thanks for correcting me, because Apple is raping their customers even more than I thought.
strikeback03 - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link
Might be true, but as you can't choose zero RAM as a shipping configuration, from the customer perspective (assuming 2 2GB sticks are needed) you either pay $120 to Newegg and do the work yourself or pay $150 to Apple.Also, I highly doubt Apple is paying Newegg prices for components, so even more profit. But RAM upgrades seem to always be something the manufacturers have raped customers on.
Brucmack - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
It'd be nice to provide a couple of extra data points...- Macbook battery life on XP
- Lenovo battery life on XP & Linux
wolf550e - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
Anand, please perform same test on Ubuntu 8.10 and tell us whether it's closer to OS X or Vista.R3MF - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
but i live in hope of a response:Is this integrated nvidia chipset the same as was rumoured to work with the Via Nano CPU?
Kind regards
boe - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
I'm curious to how XP would compare to Vista/ OS X.snouter - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
No 1680x1050? When will Apple step up and offer this? This is even more egregious than the lack of an SSD option, although, an SSD could be added to the MBP later, and the screen is forever.The MBP should only offer the CPU models with 6MB cache. This would have been one more way to differentiate the MBP from the MB. Put the Pro in Pro dammit.
No matte option on the MBP? Please.
====
I upgraded my 2.16GHz Merom to a 2.4GHz Penryn, largely for the LED screen, but, now I've even more glad that I did.
If Apple does not add some flexibility to the 15" MBP build options, I'll be waiting for the 17" MBP. My workplace bought me one, and... 1920x1200 LED is pure love, though I could live happily with a 1680x1050 on my preferred form factor, the 15".
Apple has a knack of diminishing their gains with some weird regresions and non-moves. It's love hate for sure.
iwodo - Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - link
With much increased battery life, ( not that it uses that much less power, but you accomplish the same task in less time would means less power usage )I hope Intel hurry up with their controller chip.