Apple MacBook User Review Discussion

[Phil]

True, but I have to admit the new Macbooks are at least getting closer specification-wise to what you could get a similar Windows machine for the same price. I would say $1299 is fair for a 13.3" LED Core 2 Duo notebook with a low-end nVidia GPU.

True. It's very close in price to the Sony SR for example, and Dell 1340 will probably not be much cheaper.

Too bad Apple uses cheaper LED panels than Sony or than the ones being used on Macbook Air.

[Jackboot]

"Apple's OS seems to do a better job handling memory than Vista. Immediately after booting the amount of RAM used is 327 MB. This figure is amazing. Not only does Apple produce an Operating system that is light years more polished than Windows Vista, but it actually uses half as much RAM."

Why do Mac fanboys keep repeating this hyperbolic BS???

Or did I miss something? Does the Mac OS X now support and interface with as many different devices as Windows can? Can Mac OS X now accomodate enterprise and corporate requirements (manageability, expandability, flexibility, compatibility, etc.) as well as the usual consumer needs? Can the Mac OS X run the millions of software out there (including those written 20 years ago) as Windows can (backward-compatibility) ?

If the answer is "no" to all of these questions, then these OS' aren't even in the same league. So don't try to compare these two different species of animal.

+1 on this - but I also want to point out the silliness in claiming that OSX is "arguably superior" based on using ~250 MB less memory upon bootup. Good lord...there are plenty of good reasons to argue that OSX is preferable to Vista, but arguing that using 1/4 of the capacity of a 1GB module of memory (~$15) upon bootup is even noteworthy is not one of them. Also note that the the author is eerily silent on XP in his analysis of this apparently important metric of performance and likewise with any mention of what kinds of processes are loading with his installation of Vista

One other very important point in regards to the discussion in this thread - it is completely unfair to only compare 13" PC notebooks with the Macbook. This market is severely limited and lets the Macbook off way too easily. 12" and 14" notebooks should be compared so long as they are similar in weight and features. A mere inch difference in display size is not significant enough to exclude a host of other notebooks from being compared, particularly since the Macbook is far from being categorised as an "ultraportable" machine due to its brickish weight for its size (which, strangely enough, is euphemised as "solid" in so many uncritical reviews). 14" and 15" notebooks, for example, have an inch difference in screen size and no one thinks twice in comparisons between these two formats. A very good reference notebook to compare with the Macbook IMO is the Lenovo T400 (both are 4.5 lbs).

And finally, why does this review exclude any analysis of the Macbook's display? This is one of the most complained about features among Mac fanatics and PC fanatics alike. This review fails to even mention that the ultra glossy display is completely inappropriate for many users. Instead, the reviewer claims that the backlight "compensates" for the glossy display. LOL WUT? This is bias from a happy owner, pure and simple. In this vein, IMHO, I don't think this website (or any "review" website) should publish reviews from owners who are necessarily passionate (they laid out the cash after all). This type of methodology is sure to result in poor reviews lacking robustness and full of an air of bias as this one is. Reviews by owners as simple forum threads are of course great because they are recognised as user reviews and do not hold the same weight in influencing consumer decisions that an "official" published review does. For example, I would hate to be a consumer that relied on this review in deciding to purchase the new Macbook and then finding out that I can't read the display in my very bright windowed office due to glare.

[scythie]

I find it laughable that the same person who thinks that OS X is "arguably superior" compared to Vista is using Vista for the majority of his review on this notebook [HD Tune, PCMark, 3DMark, games, heck even WEI and Windows Task Manager!]. I don't want to start a flame war or anything [although I probably am...] but come on. If this OS can't even run the most basic of programs for benchmark, reference, and review purposes, how can it be "superior"? Because it uses less RAM? Please.

Sorry, just had to let that out.

[Citizen86]

...Reviews by owners as simple forum threads are of course great because they are recognised as user reviews and do not hold the same weight in influencing consumer decisions that an "official" published review does. For example, I would hate to be a consumer that relied on this review in deciding to purchase the new Macbook and then finding out that I can't read the display in my very bright windowed office due to glare.

You know that even though it was published on the front of this website, it's still entitled "User Review", right? There is already an official Notebookreview review.... It's up to the person reading this "Apple Macbook User Review" to realize it's a user review... and IMO, that's not so difficult

[Xirurg]

You post this every time I write an Apple article. I am a registered owner of probably 50 apple products over the past 20 years. I love Apple products and buy lots of them.

I really like a lot of the features of this notebook, but its over priced. I think Apple knows this too. They have a legion of early adopters that will plunk down extra to have Apple's latest - including me. In a few months they will drop the price saying components are cheaper - which is silly (the bill of goods on this notebook is not over $600 - common iSupply, back me up).

The case is made from one of the most common materials in the world, using a 30 year old technique. Kudos to Apple for thinking of applying CNC machining of billet aluminum to notebook casings first, this alone does not justify the cost. Neither does iLife08.

At $999 I would be happy to see this in the hands of more people. And the old plastic version should be even cheaper. I've never considered Apple to be elitist stuff - to me they are like VW, made for the masses (not hardware geeks like me).

Sorry for being a consumer advocate. All the folks that like over paying can just keep doing that. I expect there will be a lot of open box deals in the next few weeks on these notebooks - that would be my recommendation.

I like having four USB 2.0 ports - surprised I missed that.

And I have a reason for that.every time you post an article about apple,it becomes a fan-war.You called your last article "mehbook"s,and now you write a review,which couple of our members qualify as biased.

[Citizen86]

And I have a reason for that.every time you post an article about apple,it becomes a fan-war.You called your last article "mehbook"s,and now you write a review,which couple of our members qualify as biased.

Except they are qualifying it as biased TOWARDS Apple... quite the change eh?

[Phil]

Every time you post an article about apple, it becomes a fan-war.

In which you happily participate

[Xirurg]

^haha,but, your honor,in my defense,I have to say that I don't insult anyone and back up my posts with facts!

[Xirurg]

Except they are qualifying it as biased TOWARDS Apple... quite the change eh?

Exactly what I meant!

[rapion125]

I don't see why a MacBook only has 2GB of RAM, when $600 crap has 4GB of RAM. I don't see why a MacBook only has a 160GB 5400RPM HDD, when that same $600 crap has a 320GB 5400RPM HDD. Why can't MacBooks have 4GB of RAM, a 320GB 5400RPM HDD, a P7350, 9400M.

Also, why don't Apple use socket CPUs? All the other OEMs do. I wanna be able to upgrade that P7350 to a P9500 if I need more power.