Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > New MacBook is here!!

New MacBook is here!!
Thread Tools
harrisjamieh
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 08:35 AM
 
Finally! It took its time...

apple.com/macbook
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
Dark Helmet
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: President Skroob's Office
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 09:10 AM
 
To get it out of the way... bla bla core graphics bitch bitch.

My Intel mini plays high def video's better than the mini with a video card.

"She's gone from suck to blow!"
     
TiDual
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 09:32 AM
 
This machine looks pretty perfect. As observed, it has the onboard graphics with shared memory ... but anyone who expected different was dreaming. My only disappointments is:

1. Weight ... at 2.36kg this weighs basically the same as the MacBook Pro (2.54kg) ... I really had my heart set on something nearer 2kg.
2. The 200$/Euro premium for black (ok they throw in 20GB disk too, but it should atleast have 1GB RAM at that price)

Apart from that, this is a great machine ... if I can get around the weight issue, I'll probably bite. That black just looks too gorgeous ... and matches my iPod video. Frankly the bottom of the line model is a real deal.
     
Gamoe
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 09:44 AM
 
Looks pretty solid. Not thrilled about the integrated graphics, but I expected it. Black isn't looking too good to me from the pictures, but I'll reserve final judgement after seeing it in person. I'm curious about the "glossy screen" and the "flush keyboard". Wish they would have come out with an ultra-slim version, but Apple seems to be pushing video a lot lately, so I wasn't really expecting it.

My G3 iBook will continue serving me well for a while to come, so i won't be buying soon. However, eventually I'll probably snap one of these up. You guys work out the bugs for me, please.
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 10:51 AM
 
To me the only downside with this unit is the RAM.

In the intel Mac's you have to install RAM in matching pairs or you get shitty performance.

Apple in typical fashion has only put 512 RAM in this suckers. Bad part is they did it with 2x256 chips.

So if you want a gig of RAM you have to take out the TWO chips that are in there and buy TWO 512's.

To make things worse Apple overcharges for RAM.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 11:02 AM
 
Wow. The MacBooks look great for me. I hear what people are saying on the integrated graphics, but at least Apple isn't touting dubious gaming performance numbers on the web site like they have done in the past (at least, I didn't see anything in my brief glance-through). Apple's advertising focus for these machines seems to be iLife, as it should be.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dark Helmet
To get it out of the way... bla bla core graphics bitch bitch.

My Intel mini plays high def video's better than the mini with a video card.
When will you learn...

On Macs, HD video playback has NOTHING to do with the specs of the GPU.
     
JASnyder
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 11:14 AM
 
Thinking of a 1.83 core duo to replace my iBook G3 800. How does the power of this new machine compare to my 1.8 G5 iMac?
     
hookem2oo7
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Anson, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 11:23 AM
 
depending on what application you're using (universal binary of course ) it should be considerably faster...again, depending on what you're using it for
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by JASnyder
Thinking of a 1.83 core duo to replace my iBook G3 800. How does the power of this new machine compare to my 1.8 G5 iMac?
The new MacBook will blow away the iBook G3 completely out of the water in most things, and will be "only" moderately faster in some things.

One extreme example is H.264 video.

The G3 800 iBook cannot play back 640x480 H.264 at all.
The Core Duo 1.83 MacBook can play back 1920x1080 H.264 at full speed.
     
hookem2oo7
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Anson, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 11:32 AM
 
did anyone see this?

"1. The MacBook continuously monitors system thermal and power conditions, and may adjust processor speed as needed to maintain optimal system operation."

wonder what exactly that means...
     
SeSawaya
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: in a weapons producing nation under Jesus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 11:35 AM
 
just ordered the "middle one"
upped the HD to 80 gigs for $45 - I'm sure that will slow down the ship date.

Cant wait!


Now where do I get more ram for it? if I buy a 512 chip, then I only have 768? blah.
     
JASnyder
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 11:49 AM
 
I expect that the MacBook will trash my G3. What I was interested in is how the 1.83 MacBook compares to my 1.8 G5 iMac.
     
Drakino
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 12:08 PM
 
Hmm, Not sure a black paint job is worth $150. The only difference between the white and black 2.0 ghz ones are 60->80gb hard drive and the color.

Time to call up my old reseller though, been waiting for these to come out to buy my sister one as a graduation present.
<This space under renovation>
     
himself
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 12:47 PM
 
Integrated graphics suck if you don't have at least 1 gig of ram. I just got a core duo mini, and the thing was paging in/out like crazy, with only itunes, mail, and safari running (with about 5 tabs open). Not only that, but there are graphics glitches like windows completely blanking out (turning completely white) when switching between apps or moving a window... and even though the processors are barely taxed, it performs like a morbidly obese out-of-shape drunken bastard. Double the ram and things improve noticeably.

The new macbooks look sweet, but I can't get around that massive bezel around the screen and the integrated graphics.
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
     
andreas_g4
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: adequate, thanks.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 12:50 PM
 
Ordered 1.83, 100 Gig, and two 1 GB RAMs from an other vendor. Whohoo!
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
When will you learn...

On Macs, HD video playback has NOTHING to do with the specs of the GPU.

According to the "programmer" GoMac Quicktime is all GPU on the intels.

Also makes you wonder why MacCentral even bothered to run tests on the video cards using High Def movies. Why does Apples own high-def trailers demand high video cards?

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
Kadman
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alexandria, KY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by hookem2oo7
did anyone see this?

"1. The MacBook continuously monitors system thermal and power conditions, and may adjust processor speed as needed to maintain optimal system operation."

wonder what exactly that means...
That's pretty much what all systems do these days. Some systems have software that lets you establish "rules" for what changes when battery life reaches a certain level. Your 2.0 Ghz CPU can even drop down to 500-800 Mhz if you aren't using any CPU intense applications (web browser, etc).
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by himself
Integrated graphics suck if you don't have at least 1 gig of ram. I just got a core duo mini, and the thing was paging in/out like crazy, with only itunes, mail, and safari running
Guess what. I got a dual G5 with 512 RAM and it was totally unusable. It is not the fault of the GPU but how RAM hungry OSX is.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
hookem2oo7
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Anson, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kadman
That's pretty much what all systems do these days. Some systems have software that lets you establish "rules" for what changes when battery life reaches a certain level. Your 2.0 Ghz CPU can even drop down to 500-800 Mhz if you aren't using any CPU intense applications (web browser, etc).
i was thinking it might be a safety for apple...if the cooling system in the MBs is like the MBPs and they run super hot the processor will scale down to keep temps down. dunno, maybe i was just reading too far into this. I'm aware that many laptops support a "SpeedStep" like feature, this just made me wonder...
     
himself
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
Guess what. I got a dual G5 with 512 RAM and it was totally unusable. It is not the fault of the GPU but how RAM hungry OSX is.
Like I said... It sucks unless you have a gig or more of ram. It sucks precisely because OS X is ram hungry, and sharing system memory with graphics never seemed to be a good idea to me. My old 667Mhz powerbook with 512MB of ram performed better than the mini before the memory upgrade.

P.S. what would you expect running a G5 with half a gig of ram?
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
According to the "programmer" GoMac Quicktime is all GPU on the intels.
That is wrong.

Also makes you wonder why MacCentral even bothered to run tests on the video cards using High Def movies. Why does Apples own high-def trailers demand high video cards?
They don't. There is no reference at all to the GPU needed in the Quicktime requirements.
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 02:06 PM
 
I don't care I'm getting a black one.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Drakino
Hmm, Not sure a black paint job is worth $150. The only difference between the white and black 2.0 ghz ones are 60->80gb hard drive and the color.
Not to mention that scratches will be more visible on black than on white
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
Guess what. I got a dual G5 with 512 RAM and it was totally unusable. It is not the fault of the GPU but how RAM hungry OSX is.
Guess what, I ran my DP 2.0 with only the stock 512MBs of RAM for a while, and it was totally usable.

In any event, I'm off to ebay to price iBook G4s - these new MactelBooks are pretty pathetic.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 02:56 PM
 
OS X sucks with 512 MB.
     
b1NARY73
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kennewick, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by hookem2oo7
did anyone see this?

"1. The MacBook continuously monitors system thermal and power conditions, and may adjust processor speed as needed to maintain optimal system operation."

wonder what exactly that means...
Basically it means it will adjust the proc speed down when you are emailing, word processing, etc. It will crank it up when you need it, like say in photoshop. This is what AMD has for their line of Athlon 64 series. My tower I built has a AMD Dual Core 3800, and when it is idle, or I am just surfing the web..... it runs at 35 degrees celsius. When I am playing CS:S, it will climb up to 45-50 degrees celsius. Hope this helps.... and I am correct in my facts.... =)
 Macbook Pro 17" / 2.5GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo / 4GB Ram / 350GB
 Macbook Pro 17" / 2.16GHZ Intel Core Duo / 2GB Ram / 120GB
 Macbook Black / 2.4GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo / 4GB Ram / 350GB
     
harrisjamieh  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 03:16 PM
 
I originally thought this was what it meant, but I don't think it is - why would it look at thermal and power conditions to adjust the proc. speed? Speedstep from intel looks at the load put on the CPU, not at how hot the machine is
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 04:26 PM
 
THANK YOU APPLE...I HATED THE WHITE...

definately ordering a Black Macbook. awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thrilled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
tcugrilla
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 04:34 PM
 
I saw the black macbook in the apple store today. Once you go black you can't go back. It was incredible.
     
Star-Fire
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 04:37 PM
 
I find it funny how some think they suck and some love them. I love them, I don't need a fancy GPU when doing PS and Illustrator work and I don't game on my laptop, so my MBP will be going away. I am a little miffed they you have to pay more for black, but it looks so sweet and I treat my laptops like gold so not to worried about scratches. I'm supprised they have a 2.0 in them, they will be quite powerful.
MacBook Pro 2.5 with 4 GB Ram, 250 GB 5400RPM, iMac 20" Intel Dual Core 2.0 with 2 GB Ram
http://star-fire.deviantart.com/gallery/
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by himself
Like I said... It sucks unless you have a gig or more of ram. It sucks precisely because OS X is ram hungry, and sharing system memory with graphics never seemed to be a good idea to me. My old 667Mhz powerbook with 512MB of ram performed better than the mini before the memory upgrade.

P.S. what would you expect running a G5 with half a gig of ram?
Your post was implying that all the page outs and poor performance was because of the GMA950. Even without it though performance would have sucked.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
Severed Hand of Skywalker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Guess what, I ran my DP 2.0 with only the stock 512MBs of RAM for a while, and it was totally usable.
Guess what. I know people on Rev A iMacs that think they are "usable" for just about everything.

It is a matter of opinion. Well that is until you look at what the page-outs are and then you're argument is in trouble.

to you waiting 10 seconds to switch between apps may not seem bad but to others that is not usable.

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
     
b11051973
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 04:54 PM
 
I ordered the 1.83 GHz system with a gig of ram and 80 gig hdd. I also got the modem and 2 day shipping. Grand total with tax was $1,401 and change. I figured I could live without the extra processor power and I have a Mac mini with a DVD burner that I never use. If I ever do need to burn something, I'll just transfer it over.

I can't wait. It's replacing a 867 MHz 12" PowerBook. The thing has really been showing it's slow age. While this MacBook isn't a MBP, it will be light years faster than what I have now. Estimated delivery date is 5/26. It's going to be a hard wait.

In the past, I usually have buyers remorse after making big purchases. I think I ordered a very sensible system and I feel really good about it. I almost bought a MBP like 5 times. I just felt really bad about doing it. This feels right.
     
b11051973
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 05:05 PM
 
I don't care about the integrated graphics I've decided. As long as the MB can do HD video, I'll be fine. I have a gaming Windows XP machine that can handle the heavy stuff. I use my Mac for entertainment stuff like music, video and surfing the web on the couch.
     
andreas_g4
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: adequate, thanks.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
In any event, I'm off to ebay to price iBook G4s - these new MactelBooks are pretty pathetic.
Troll.
     
Shinguuji
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 06:10 PM
 
Just as a side note : the reason for the dual DIMMS on the MacBook (ie 2x256Mb) is the integrated graphics. There's a performance hit using the GMA950 and the memory in single channel mode as the memory controller and the graphics are competing for memory bandwidth. Dual channel doubles the bandwidth and solves the problem.

This doesn't apply to the MBP - single channel is fine as the ATi has it's own internal graphics RAM.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 06:33 PM
 
I didn't see it above (although it might be in another thread): BlackBook

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
fhoubi
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 07:53 PM
 
Off topic: this introduction was well prepared... For the first in a long time all Apple webpages for a new product on f.e. the dutch and german sites are there, and already translated...
I'm-a trying to wonder, wonder, wonder why you, wonder, wonder why you act so.
     
pat++
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 08:07 PM
 
One big question : but were are the speakers ???
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
To me the only downside with this unit is the RAM.

In the intel Mac's you have to install RAM in matching pairs or you get shitty performance.

Apple in typical fashion has only put 512 RAM in this suckers. Bad part is they did it with 2x256 chips.

So if you want a gig of RAM you have to take out the TWO chips that are in there and buy TWO 512's.

To make things worse Apple overcharges for RAM.
You yourself explained why the memory is installed in pairs, so don't complain that Apple installs DIMMs in order to get the best performance from the machine!

Whether Apple RAM is expensive is irrelevant. Buy your RAM elsewhere.

Chris
     
himself
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2006, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
Your post was implying that all the page outs and poor performance was because of the GMA950.
Well, it sure didn't help. And checking in /var/vm verified this for me... 1.5GB of swap files for iTunes, Mail, and Safari? Give me a break. Like I explained before, my old 667Tibook, with 512MB or ram, out performed the mini (with the same amount of memory). That doesn't seem right to me. That 64MB of ram that the GMA950 uses is memory that the system doesn't have available to it. And not only does the system performance suffer from this, any hardware-accelerated graphics functions suffer as well.

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
Even without it though performance would have sucked.
Every Mac that I've used with 512MB of ram and dedicated graphics memory has been very usable. My TiBook still is.
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
     
Tarcat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2006, 01:31 AM
 
I really like what I see. The lack of a graphics card is a minor annoyance for me. Some people on here expect to get all the features of the pro level system for $1000 less. That is really foolish to expect. Graphics card issue aside, the system has really nice specs for the money and is a monumental improvement over the existing iBooks. And its very speedy.

For $1099 this is the nicest laptop you can get and for me is the most attractive machine in the Apple notebook line. I value compact dimensions over just about all else. I am a student and need and use my laptop in a lot of cramped spaces. The 15 incher is too wide for me. I have a 12 inch iBook and it is the perfect size for me. I hope the added width of the 13 incher won't change that. As my iBook is five years old, I need a replacement and the MacBook is a really appealing option. I wouldn't have minded not having things like the iSight and having a slightly lower price point but overall this is the most impressive new notebook Apple has released in years in my eyes.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,