Final Words

In terms of aesthetics and build quality, the new MacBook and MacBook Pro are absolutely excellent. When Apple introduced the iPhone I called it a phone that looked like it was made in 2007, and the same is true about the new notebooks.

Apple walks a fine line between balancing form and function and with this latest update it seems have to gone further on the form side. The glossy screens look great but will be problematic for those who use their notebooks outdoors a lot without shade or other shelter from the ultra bouncy rays of light from the sun. And the new trackpads offer a bit more functionality but are far too tempermental for me to be too happy about them.

Despite the hardware updates to the new machines they are no faster than the ones they are replacing. The GeForce 9400M is a nice change from the Intel integrated graphics in the older MacBook and hopefully it will send a clear message to Intel: the days of delivering mediocre integrated graphics are over. But in terms of actual performance, if you've already got a Penryn based MacBook or MacBook Pro, there's no reason to upgrade. You'd be much better off waiting until Apple adopts Nehalem in these things a year from now.

The winner of the group is the new MacBook, which finally closed the gap between it and its Pro sibling. I've said it throughout this article but the new $1299 MacBook is finally good enough for me to be happy recommending. It's not to say that the MacBook Pro isn't a good solution, it's just a bit pricey. Let me also take this time to once again point out that Apple needs to move to 4GB memory configurations, at least on the MacBook Pro, by default. The competition is offering more for less and memory isn't exactly very expensive.

It's a difficult conclusion to make because I genuinely enjoy the improvements in build quality Apple introduced with these new notebooks, but the quirks (ahem, trackpad) are too much for me to make a glowing recommendation here. If you need an Apple notebook today and aren't upgrading from an existing Intel MacBook or MacBook Pro obviously these two are fine, but go in knowing that you're being an early adopter of a platform that already has some issues.

I hate making this recommendation because the notebooks are probably at least 9 months away, but the Nehalem versions will have all of the build quality improvements of these notebooks, probably offer affordable SSD options (and maybe even one standard), and be significantly faster as a whole. In other words, buy the 2009 model year.

The Unexpected: Battery Life in OS X vs. Windows Vista
Comments Locked

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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now