[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by AssassyN

Can't believe nobody has caught this yet!

Do NOT try to connect an 85W adapter to a machine clearly made for 60W! I mean I'm no EE, but you can't tell me that doesn't SOUND dangerous? I learned my lesson long ago when I couldn't find the actual AC adapter for my router, so I used some spare I found in the actic. Clearly it gave it too much power, and it was in smoke in seconds flat.

Only use the power adapter made to work w/ the MacBook. You can bank on Apple not honoring any warranty if you do otherwise.

IIRC, if everything else is the same, going with an adapter that is higher spec'd is not a problem. The computer draws what it needs. Using a lower spec'd adapter than what is required is a big no-no though.

However, I have no idea if everything else about the adapter is the same. Are you sure the adapter you were using didn't have the wrong voltage?

Originally Posted by mindwaves

CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester :

Processor :
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System :

Graphics Card :
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 277 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 531 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.92

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 324 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1044 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1069 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.30

************************************************** **

Sweet. As expected, your dual-core 1.83 GHz is roughly twice as fast as my iMac G5 2.0 for the CPU score.

[analogika]

That shouldn't make a difference.

the 85W is what the adapter is capable of putting out.

The actual power draw depends upon what the device that's hooked up draws.

[AssassyN]

Well I know my router went up in smoke; take it for what it's worth.

I wouldn't be trying anything funny with electricity involving my $1099+ toy, personally.

[RogerR]

[QUOTE=andreas_g4]Roger, you might want to structure your post a bit more…

What's the matter, not enough space in between my paragraphs?

Anyway, thanks everyone for the input. I'm not sure yet which path I'll take.

[harrisjamieh]

Just thought i'd add:

I've ordered mine

1.83 Ghz Core Duo
512 RAM (i'll sort something out with that at a later date...)
60 GB HD
Combo Drive
White (obviously)

Basically the standard 1st model config. Suits me best

YAY!!

Allow up to 3-5 days to build order, allow 3-7 business days to deliver - bummer!

[tomacwhite]

Just read over on Macrumors that you can actually slide the HD out of the battery bay ! :o Can someone confirm or deny this ?

Sounds VERY interesting.. Could one of the lucky ones on here with a new MacBook have a look? Thanks!

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by mindwaves

CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester :

Processor :
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System :

Graphics Card :
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 277 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 531 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.92

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 324 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1044 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1069 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.30

************************************************** **

Was that a 1.83 or a 2.0Ghz?

For comparison, here are the results for my 1.83 Ghz iMac CD:

Tester :

Processor : iMac Core Duo
MHz : 1.83 Ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS X 10.4.6

Graphics Card :
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 283 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 534 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.89

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 330 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1324 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2688 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.13



Proc. is virtually identical, and shading (CINEMA 4D) and Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) are similar. Only main downfall on the MB is hardware lighting - to be expected

[Eug Wanker]

Lemme just say again...

I'm shocked the low end MacBook got a Core Duo 1.83 GHz, for $1099.

I'll also say I'm happy I was dead wrong on this one.

EDIT:

AI confirms that the hard drives are user upgradable.

"Flipping a MacBook upside down and removing its rectangular lithium-polymer battery reveals two RAM slots, placed side-by-side behind a RAM door on one wall of the battery cavity. Two metal levers aid in releasing and securing RAM modules into the RAM slots, which are soldered to edge of the MacBook's logic-board.

Each RAM slot is capable of accepting up to 1GB of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM, for a max of 2GB. For best performance, Apple recommends that the RAM modules be installed as pairs with an equal amount of memory in each slot.

Below the two RAM slots at the base of the battery cavity is where users will find the MacBook's hard disk drive. Without disassembling the notebook, users will be able to quickly removing some protective aluminum shielding and lift the disk out of the computer. "

[TiDual]

Ok, this machine looks great, and seems like excellent value (despite the dead-chic-black-$150 surcharge).

Mindwave, thanks for the benchmarks, but we really need more impressions of the machine. As an AluBook (15", G4) owner, this is looking attractive, but I have several concerns.
1. Your description of this as a "big ibook" is worrying, since I found the iBooks pretty clunky (and the MacBook is notably slimmer).
2. Heat seems likely to be the same problem here as with the MBP ... any comments?
3. It's nice looking, but the big bezel around the display looks a little "wrong" in the photos the more you look at it ... how is that "in person"?
4. How is the keyboard, really, after extended use. I like the look, but this is critical.
5. How far back does the display tilt ... is it as limited as the MBP?

Thanks! May order one of these tomorrow ... nice that ram & HD upgrades are both so easy.

[tomacwhite]

That's excellent about the HDD. Especially after mine died in my iBook G4 and cost a fortune to get replaced..

[f1000]

Originally Posted by AssassyN

Well I know my router went up in smoke; take it for what it's worth.

I wouldn't be trying anything funny with electricity involving my $1099+ toy, personally.

You probably plugged in an adapter with a reversed polarity. All too common mistake with off-the-shelf transformers.

[andreas_g4]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I'm shocked the low end MacBook got a Core Duo 1.83 GHz, for $1099.

I'll also say I'm happy I was dead wrong on this one.

Same here. I thought we'd get 1.5 Core Solo and 1.66 Core Duo. The outer limit of my dreams was a T2400 option in the high end model. Awesome. Makes me kinda forgive the integrated graphics thing.

And it is also great to hear that the HD is user upgradable. I'm still glad to have ordered the 100 GB option, but I can also imagine putting a nice 7200 RPM HD in, once I feel the need and prices are a bit more down.

EDIT: Typos

[Extyx]

With a quick snap...

I'm wondering if the GMA950 can do slight game dev (aAs in, 800x600, 680x480, I don't
care, as long as it can be done with 18FPS+.) and possible run the original Call of Duty/Counter Strike 1.6. If
it can do bootcamp at all.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

If money is an issue, what about just 1.83 GHz plus 1 GB RAM?

I'm thinking it should be fine for Word under Rosetta, running Safari, iCal, and iTunes at the same time, but I'm not sure so I'm interested in the answer to this question too.

It ran fine on my iBook with 1 GB, but I'm not sure how much extra RAM is needed for Office under Rosetta, and you start off with less to begin with since the GPU uses some.

I have that amount of RAM on my iMac, and for that level of usage it is fine. I personally regret not getting more RAM because I've found Rosetta to be something of a RAM hog, but I often use a lot of apps at once. If the MacBook isn't going to be your only/main computer, 1GB should be more than enough.

[tillin]

wow.. i think i might just sell my 17" powerbook and get one of these. only problem is...

my copy of photoshop CS2 will SUFFFEERRRRRRR with rosetta..

[icruise]

I think it's interesting that Apple went with glossy on the body of the white machine and matte for the black one. Makes sense, but I still didn't expect that.

[Dork.]

Just got back from seeing the MacBooks. My wife joined me. She wants the black one now....

I don't have the specs in front of me, but someone brought their 12" iBook in for comparison, and the MacBook was definitely smaller in height. It looks quite nice. by comparison.

I can definitely get used to the keyboard. My 12" iBook has a keyboard that can lift out of the unit. My toddler has lifted keys off before while grabbing at the keyboard! The MacBook's keys look like they stick through holes in the casing, making for a tighter fit and no noticable gunk between the keys on the keyboard.

The Black iPods have a kind of glossy finish, and the black MB has more of a matte finish. I'm not really sure which model will pick up fingerprints more easily.

The magnetic power adaptor also seems "stronger" than the MBP's....

[RogerR]

I had asked earlier here for opinions about whether to get the 1.83 w/ 2 gigs of ram or a 2.0 with 1 gig of ram. I went back and forth, but I ended up ordering the 1.83 w/ 2 gigs of ram and a 100 gig HD.

I ordered through the local Mac Store (a chain in OR and WA), and the ram upgrade was $100 cheaper than what Apple charges. I just think, over the long haul, the ram could make a bigger difference than the small processor speed boost (I could be wrong, of course). And I really didn't need the superdrive.

So, do you think I'll see a performance boost from my current 800 Mghz G4 iMac?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by RogerR

I ordered through the local Mac Store (a chain in OR and WA), and the ram upgrade was $100 cheaper than what Apple charges. I just think, over the long haul, the ram could make a bigger difference than the small processor speed boost (I could be wrong, of course). And I really didn't need the superdrive.

I think you probably made the right choice. The difference in speed between the two processors will be pretty negligible, but going from 1GB to 2GB of RAM is a big difference.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Icruise

I have that amount of RAM on my iMac, and for that level of usage it is fine. I personally regret not getting more RAM because I've found Rosetta to be something of a RAM hog, but I often use a lot of apps at once. If the MacBook isn't going to be your only/main computer, 1GB should be more than enough.

Schweet. I'll stick with the 1 GB. This is my secondary computer. My main computer has 1.5 GB RAM. Kinda weird though that this MacBook is twice as fast as my primary computer, a G5 2.0 iMac.

[icruise]

Take a look at this image from the MacWorld First Look article. Somehow I didn't think the MacBook would be so much bigger than the 12" PowerBook.



Interesting shot of the keys there as well:

[PJJames]

Hey guys,
Just got back from checking out the new Macbooks. I was soooo impressed. I waited up til like 7 this morning and was in the middle of the whole debut of them and it was so much fun. I'm definatly going to get a black one here when I sell my Powerbook...I love it...can't complain at all. The finish though isn't glossy, it's matte...and it had tonnnnnnns of finger prints on it...mostly because I'm sure tons of people were handling it today, but nevertheless...it was a little dirty. Perfect size...perfect all around. I'm totally impressed by the magnetic latch, it's awesome!

[hldan]

The new Macbooks are hotties but so far no one has noticed or mentioned that there is no Express Card slot built in. For what you are getting it probably won't matter.

[cal-ov-whe]

Maybe I'm the only one left, but I really don't like the whole widescreen deal. It got on my nerves for tv and it gets on my nerves for computer monitors, and now I no longer have a Mac option for a full screen laptop. The actual quality of the monitor looks fantastic, I'm a little jealous of that as my mom just got an iBook G4 in February which I have basically inherited as my backup to my G4 Mini. Oh, and I love (slash hate because I'm jealous) that they have higher resolution than the iBooks did.

Black matte finish? Thumbs down. That's fine though because if I was buying one, I would get white and save money and have no complaints because I like my Apple products to be white anyway.

MAJOR thumbs up for the MagSage adapter and built in iSight, although I strongly doubt I'd ever use the iSight.

And I'm not ready to move on to an Intel processor at the expense of Photoshop, so I guess I'm not going to start kicking myself for getting two G4 Macs at the end of G4's road.

Despite my peeves, I'd love to get one if I had $1400 laying around. I absolutely cannot wait to go to the new 5th Ave Apple Store Friday night to get a look - I'm sure I'll be much more impressed when I see them in person.

[brassplayersrock²]

hey all im typing this on one of the new black macbooks at the apple store manhatten village, all i can say is wow. this thing really flies. the keys are a little differant as posted above, but are really easy to type on. the glossy finish is really reflective, but it's not really a problem(edit: scratch that last part about it not being a problem). the screen angle is the same as the (according to the apple guy here) macbook pro. one thing that still bugs me and that they should have fixed is that the lock is on the very front of the ports again. oh well. these things are awesome. ooo, and i just tried the double finger scroll, very nifty. edit: the magnetic lid is a good feature. also, these things use the 17'' trackpad. annnd an employee just set off the alarm to test it.


brass

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Jazzjackrabbit86

Maybe I'm the only one left, but I really don't like the whole widescreen deal. It got on my nerves for tv and it gets on my nerves for computer monitors, and now I no longer have a Mac option for a full screen laptop.

The term "full screen" has no meaning when used for a computer (and it's rather misleading when used for movies as well, since more and more people are getting widescreen TVs and "full screen" movies actually fill up less of the screen than widescreen ones).

Terminology aside, there's really no reason to prefer the old iBook displays to these widescreen ones. They have bumped up the resolution so that you get significantly more on the screen. Even if you forget about the fact that you get extra screen real estate to either side of the screen, you can still fit more on the MacBook screens than you can on the iBooks. What is it about widescreen displays that annoys you? The only possible criticism I can think of is that it makes the body of the notebook a bit wider (obviously).

[spewkie]

Any comments on the heat with these things?

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock

...one thing that still bugs me and that they should have fixed is that the lock is on the very front of the ports again...

what do you mean by fixed? maybe my ibook g4 is a bit out of date but my lock is all the way at the back (as far back as the power cable but on the left). Yes they should have left it there.

[Voch]

Originally Posted by spewkie

Any comments on the heat with these things?

Mine gets warm on the left back bottom but it's pretty much as hot as the bottom of my TiBook 667/DVI got. I'm using it on my lap now with the power plugged in.

Voch

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by SSharon

what do you mean by fixed? maybe my ibook g4 is a bit out of date but my lock is all the way at the back (as far back as the power cable but on the left). Yes they should have left it there.

i dont think i used the best wording to describe it.
fixed= the lock is on the very end of the ports like yours is. they have it in the front of the ports on the macbookpro as well.

another observation i noticed is how much better the speakers are in these things than my ti pb, way less tin to the sound and the bass is better

[Macola]

Can anyone confirm that the HD is user-upgradeable (i.e., doing so wouldn't void the warranty)? I'll have to wait until after May 23 to find out for sure, but I'm trying to plan ahead...

[slugslugslug]

Hey, you got one, Voch! How's Eclipse working out for you?

[cal-ov-whe]

Originally Posted by Icruise

Terminology aside, there's really no reason to prefer the old iBook displays to these widescreen ones. They have bumped up the resolution so that you get significantly more on the screen. Even if you forget about the fact that you get extra screen real estate to either side of the screen, you can still fit more on the MacBook screens than you can on the iBooks. What is it about widescreen displays that annoys you? The only possible criticism I can think of is that it makes the body of the notebook a bit wider (obviously).

I don't like widescreen monitors just because I hate watching videos on full screen (Apple+O) and having them distorted, as well as having to crop pictures before setting them as my background. I know those aren't a big deal, but they are just enough to get on my nerves.

I didn't say I liked the iBook displays more. In fact, I said I loved the fact that there was higher resolution on the MacBooks <"Oh, and I love (slash hate because I'm jealous) that they have higher resolution than the iBooks did">. I fully understand the concept of pixels and how that relates to what you can fit on the screens. It's just a simple matter of preference, and I prefer the screen ratio of non-widescreen (to be terminologically correct). As far as making the body of the notebook wider, I'm pretty indifferent. I don't like huge laptops, so I wouldn't get a 17" MBP, but a mid-sized widescreen vs. a mid-sized regular screen doesn't really phase me as far as portability is concerned.

Bottom line: I just don't like them, but it's not that deep. I don't hate them enough to never buy another Apple laptop or to send a mail bomb to Steve Job's house.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Jazzjackrabbit86

I don't like widescreen monitors just because I hate watching videos on full screen (Apple+O) and having them distorted, as well as having to crop pictures before setting them as my background. I know those aren't a big deal, but they are just enough to get on my nerves.

Well, many digital SLRs have a 3:2 image format, just like film. My Canon 20D is this way, which would mean that the images would have to be cropped regardless if it's a 16:10 screen or a 4:3 screen. Actually 16:10 is a lot closer to 3:2 than 4:3 is.

As for videos, 4:3 movies should not be distorted on 16:10 screens. If it's set up properly, the there are just black bars on the sides.

[cal-ov-whe]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, many digital SLRs have a 3:2 image format, just like film. My Canon 20D is this way, which would mean that the images would have to be cropped regardless if it's a 16:10 screen or a 4:3 screen. Actually 16:10 is a lot closer to 3:2 than 4:3 is.

As for videos, 4:3 movies should not be distorted on 16:10 screens. If it's set up properly, the there are just black bars on the sides.

The bars on the sides bother me too because then you have a smaller viewing space than if you had a regular monitor.

You have a point with the digital 3:2 image format, and if I were to get a digital SLR , I'd probably have the opposite bias. I guess there's no pleasing me.

[mindwaves]

MacBooks also come with some new software.

Comic Life to make your own comics
Big Bang Board Games (chess, checkers..etc)...very nice IMO

Both apps integrated with iLife. Pretty neat. I am not sure if they came on before, but they did not come with my iMac G5 that I bought in November.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by mindwaves

MacBooks also come with some new software.

Comic Life to make your own comics
Big Bang Board Games (chess, checkers..etc)...very nice IMO

Both apps integrated with iLife. Pretty neat. I am not sure if they came on before, but they did not come with my iMac G5 that I bought in November.

They both came with my Intel iMac.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I'm shocked the low end MacBook got a Core Duo 1.83 GHz, for $1099.

I'll also say I'm happy I was dead wrong on this one.

Eug, I'll have to second every word of that post. I'm thrilled they dropped a Core Duo 1.83GHz in a $1099 MB.

I'm really glad you're Celeron speculation didn't materialize. And of course, my Core Solo speculation was wrong too - luckily. I'm really enjoying having been wrong about that!

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mindwaves

MacBooks also come with some new software.
Comic Life to make your own comics

My MBP came with that too.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by davidsi

what is the gma950? does it have its own memory?

The Intel GMA950 is Intel's iegrated graphics chip. It sucks, though not as hard as previous Intel integrated graphics chips. It steals system memory for its own use, 80 MB of it.

If you would do a search n this forum, you ould find that the GMA950 has been discussed extensively in the iMac/eMac/Mac Mini forum, as it is the same graphics chip that is in the Mac Mini.

[ajprice]

Thinking about the base price for the 1.83 being higher than the base iBook price, do you think they have missed out by not having a sub $999 Macbook below the 1.83, with a 1.66 Core Duo, or a Core Solo?

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by ajprice

Thinking about the base price for the 1.83 being higher than the base iBook price, do you think they have missed out by not having a sub $999 Macbook below the 1.83, with a 1.66 Core Duo, or a Core Solo?

No, because I think when spending ~$1k, $100 is relativly negligable, and Apple can boast a full dual core laptop line.

On another note, the MacBook is now once again an iMac-to-go (just like Apple called the iBook when it 1st came out in its clamshell G3 design)

[harrisjamieh]

Just got my delivery estimate - 23rd May to be dispatched, 2 JUNE TO BE DElIVERED!! thats crap! Unfortunatly, for some unknown reason, over here in the UK you can't pay extra for speedy delivery, so you are stuck with the standard 3-7 day service which is utter rubbish.

[Gamoe]

One of the few concerns I have about the MacBook is how well it would handle iMovie, and other apps of that nature. I'm not talking about fully "pro" apps, but rather video editing in general.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

One of the few concerns I have about the MacBook is how well it would handle iMovie, and other apps of that nature. I'm not talking about fully "pro" apps, but rather video editing in general.

Why would it have more problems with iMovie than earlier models?

[harrisjamieh]

It will handle iLife very well - almost as well as my iMac Core Duo, seeing as bar the graphics and HD speed, they are basically the same machine

[harrisjamieh]

Oh, I wonder if the MBs have the safe sleep feature that saves all your info to the HD when it is put to sleep, incase of power loss

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Icruise

Why would it have more problems with iMovie than earlier models?

Not saying it would. Just wondering how well it would do. I've never tried out an Intel Mac for this purpose (or any other really). Apps also get more complex, and conceivably video more demanding (high quality) so one has to keep that in mind as well.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Oh, I wonder if the MBs have the safe sleep feature that saves all your info to the HD when it is put to sleep, incase of power loss

Since you can even enable it for older models like the 12" PowerBook, I see no reason to think that the MacBooks wouldn't have the feature.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

Apps also get more complex, and conceivably video more demanding (high quality) so one has to keep that in mind as well.

More complex than what? Earlier versions? In any case, the MacBooks should blow all previous Apple portables (not including the MacBook Pros) out of the water when it comes to performance. They'll handle just about anything you can throw at them.