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
Johnmcl7 - Thursday, January 15, 2009 - link
I didn't say it was for *nix, that's why I said *nix applications which still use the middle mouse button in other operating systems. There are many times when there isn't space for using a mouse, hence it's a laptop.As for keyboard shortcuts, they're not faster when using a mouse as it means a break from the sequence rather than just clicking with the mouse that's in use anyway
themadmilkman - Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - link
Why don't you head to a store and try it? It's much more intuitive than you give it credit for.Sunrise089 - Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - link
There was a time when cars were changed and tweaked every single year, often for purely aesthetic/emotional reasons. That is no longer true. The average enthusiast car shopper is no less spec-conscious than PC geeks. And likewise the majority, and especially in the high-end/luxury market (Lexus, Apple) that is composed less by knowledgeable enthusiasts and more by people craving a certain image or experience, tend to shop based upon style, price, or other easy-to-understand factors.headbox - Saturday, October 25, 2008 - link
wrong. If people were "spec-conscious" about what they drive and getting performance was priority #1, then we'd see thousands of motorcycles on the freeways instead of dozens. You can spend $8,000 and get a motorcycle that is faster than any car made, gets 50 mpg, and can still carry a few bags of groceries.People buy nice cars because they can afford it and like the aesthetics.
RaynorWolfcastle - Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - link
Just a note, but I've read elsewhere that under Windows, the graphics on the MBP always use the 9600 chip; I'm sure this accounts for part of the difference in battery life (assuming you ran the OSX tests using the integrated 9400 video.ltcommanderdata - Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - link
The Windows vs OS X battery life tests were done on a MacBook Air so discrete GPU has no effect.jonmcc33 - Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - link
Maybe you should test the power settings with Vista on Power saver setting? My Latitude D610 lasts over 3 hours with Vista. I wouldn't use Balanced unless it was plugged into the AC adapter.Calin - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
What about testing under XP?jonmcc33 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link
Nobody cares about Windows XP and it would be REALLY bad to compare to the latest Mac OS X product.BushLin - Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - link
I don't see why, XP isn't a limitation on anything useful unless you were just talking about the eye candy of OS X... See how many businesses still supply their laptops with XP rather than the junk they're supplied with because they're not tethered to Microsoft like the manufacturers.