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

  • Calin - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link

    What about testing power use under XP I mean
    XP compares more favourably to Mac OS (or anything else) than Vista, and I wanted to know if that excessive power use is Vista-only, or if it does appear on Windows XP too
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    Or some version of Linux?
  • wilkinb - Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - link

    yeh I agree the diff will be how the OS is set to manage each device etc etc...

    On my Sony laptop i get around 2 hours on high performance and a bit over 5 hours on battery saving...

    The results they posted dont really tell us much other then a bootcamp vista install isnt as good as an osx install at managing power on apple laptop... amazing right?

    I am sure if i dont use the Sony install and tool/drviers etc I will also get less battery life on my laptop. So the question would be do you think apple put more effort into power management on their OSX install then they did for Vista?
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - link

    Let me just say that I've tried testing various power saver setting under Vista on several notebooks (see review on Friday) and I just can't get anywhere near 5 hours of battery life. Sure, the CPUs are a bit higher spec on some of the notebooks, but as one example a 12.1" laptop with 55 Whr battery, 320GB 5400RPM HDD, 4GB RAM, LED backlighting, and P8400 pulls an "amazing" 138 minutes of DVD playback and 142 minutes of web surfing... though it does manage 261 minutes when sitting idle at the desktop.

    As best I can tell, the CPU and HDD just don't seem to be entering sleep modes much if at all, unless the system is 100% idle. Even then, 261 minutes idle battery life doesn't compare favorably to the MacBook pulling 286 minutes of web surfing.

    How big is the Sony battery, if I may ask? (Just for reference, take Voltage * mAhr to get Whr.) What sort of CPU, GPU, HDD, RAM does it use? What we need to see to prove it's possible is a Vista laptop with a 20W TDP CPU, 2GB RAM, 5400 RPM HDD, and 13.3" LED backlit LCD that can still get close to five hours of battery life with a 55 Whr battery. If you think you have one, get the manufacturer to send me one for review! :)
  • Spivonious - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    Are you guys turning off the Vista indexer and SuperFetch? Those two things would run the harddrives pretty constantly on a fresh install, which would definitely drag down battery life.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    Do normal users disable SuperFetch? I've disabled indexing as much as I know how, since I don't use it, but SuperFetch is part of Vista. Besides, it shouldn't run on battery power (and neither should indexing).
  • Spivonious - Friday, October 24, 2008 - link

    If you want to actually test Vista battery life, install the OS and use it for a week before testing the battery life. I agree with the other poster that both the indexer and SuperFetch are great features, but they do spin the harddrive when the computer is idle until the index is built and SuperFetch learns what you use most often.

    Spinning harddrive = lower battery life

    Comparing battery life between Vista and OS X is like comparing the time it takes to eat a pomegranate and an apple.
  • headbox - Saturday, October 25, 2008 - link

    no, battery tests let people know how long they can use their computer without plugging it in.

    You're not comprehending the article- the PC laptops are also being tested at idle, just sitting there doing nothing. If Vista is going to spend that entire time "superfetching" nothing, that's a problem.
  • jonmcc33 - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    No, normal users do not disable SuperFetch. That's just bad tweaking advice, as much as turning Indexing off is as well. Both are amazing features added to Vista.

    I tested a Latitude D630 (2.6GHz Core 2 Duo Penryn, 2GB RAM) with Vista Business and a 9-cell 85WHr battery. Life was over 5 hours.
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, October 23, 2008 - link

    I wouldn't be surprised if there's just some glitch on many of the laptops that's keeping battery life down, but until some manufacturer can deliver Vista with 55 Whr and 5 hours (give or take) battery life I remain skeptical. Users shouldn't have to hack their laptop in any way to get the increased battery life; it should just work properly out of the box. You know, like the MacBooks with OS X.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now