Black Macbook $899 vs. New Macbook $1199

I am trying to decide between the Black Macbook, 2.4ghz version, for $899 and the New Macbook (lower end) for $1199. This is for school and personal use. I'm torn. Any thoughts if the $300 is worth it in this case? I'll probbaly use it for 2 years.

 

Please tell us what applications and you use and how heavy you use them, and what games if any.

 

Well, I have been predominantly a PC user (I'm on my old iBook though since my HP died on me). I generally use Microsoft Office, Firefox/Safari/etc, iTunes, any decent video player, and AIM. Other than that, just a few small programs here and there when I need them for converting audio/video, editing pics, etc. I'm a law student and don't have time for much else at the moment. I use each of the above very regularly (except where I said otherwise).

I should note installing XP is necessary for my law school exam software, but many friends with the older Macbook run it without any issues.

Thanks!

 

I would suggest you to go for new one $300 worth to spend.As you will get most latest notebook and it will retain most of its value if you are planning to keep it for another couple of yrs.whereas black one is already discontinued. If you spend $900 now on a old model over the period of 2 yrs you will be loosing more money.As I have both in my home I will recommend you to go for new one . you will be benifiting in each aspect.

 

None of that requires the newer macbook with its better GPU. Basically you're paying $300 for an aluminium design and LED screen. It's up to you if that's worth it.

The LED screen on the new Macbook isn't any better than the screen on the blackbook by the way.

Personally I would prefer the newer model, even when I wouldn't really need it. Mainly for the reasons tariq mentioned.

 

I would also go with the new design as it will hold it's value better then the now old design.

 

Retained value aside? I'm low on money and trying to decide if it's really worth the extra $300 for now, not when I hope to maybe sell down the road.

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll take some more if you have any.

 

yes its worth it. If you cant afford another 300$, wait until you can.

That blackbook will not hold up anywhere near as well as the unibodys. I have a whitebook that is cracking in about 10 places from moderate girlfriend use.

save the money until you can afford the new one.

But you say you are low on money to begin with, why on earth are you buying a laptop

 

Thats just not true. I've had multiple plastic MacBooks with multiple screens (thanks to shoddy build quality leading to botched repairs by Apple). Now I have an aluminum MacBook with an LG screen. This screen is leaps and bounds beyond the plastic MacBook screens. It's significantly brighter, the colors are better, the blacks are darker. It's one of the best screens on a notebook I've used. And yes I've used several MacBook Pros (LED) and MacBook Airs as well.

This screen is so much better that it makes the plastic MacBook not even worth it.

Thats also not true.

GPU plays a big part when it comes to video quality.

Second, having had both Intel and nvidia GPUs in OS X and in Vista, that nvidia GPU just makes the overall UI run significantly smoother. Everything from Expose being smoother, Dashboard being smoother, animations (like minimizing) are smoother.

On top of that, you're forgetting OpenCL in Snow Leopard. If it does what Apple claims it will do, then its going to make a world of difference. The "CUDA" stuff is already available in Windows thanks to nvidia drivers. I haven't messed around with it on my Mac yet, but I have on my HP. My HP has a 2GHz Core 2 Duo running on the Santa Rosa platform, Merom core, with a GeForce 8400M GS. The 8400M GS, in my experience, is about 5x faster than the X3100 you'll find in the plastic MacBook. I played around with the CUDA enabled video encoder that nvidia provided and it was very significantly faster than encoding video directly on the processor. On top of that, with Folding@Home, my GPU was able to pump out completed units about 3x faster than my friend's PS3.

To top that off, its been my experience that the 9400M in the MacBook runs about twice as fast as the 8400M GS. GTA4 literally runs at twice the frame-rate, UT3 also literally runs at twice the frame-rate (seriously, the 9400M pushes 60fps at the same settings in areas where the HP dips below 30).

So that 9400M is going to make a significant difference in the long term usability of the system, especially if Snow Leopard and OpenCL do what Apple claims they will.

Edit: I forgot to add the most important thing overall. The build quality. The aluminum MacBooks are built 100x better than the plastic MacBooks. Every single issue I've had, hardware wise, with the Mac was related to the poor quality of the plastics used on the plastic MacBook. The potential cracking (that will happen regardless of how well you treat it) on the top case, bottom case (due to heat) and cracking from just general use is reason enough to stay away from them.

 

I would say 300$ is definitely worth it for the new aluminum unibody enclosure, LED screen, and 9400M graphics....you may not need the new 9400M graphics for your uses yet.....BUT wait till Snow Leopard come out with the new OpenGL specs which would allow GPU acceleration in certain areas like video playback unless you will not be dealing with any graphics at all then go ahead with the Black Macbook....it is still a very solid laptop compared to some other consumer-level laptops.

 

I would also say the new machine is worth the $300 extra.

Of course, you could also get the older one and still have enough cash left for a nice Ipod Touch. That's another way to look it.

 

If you believe that screen is great then good for you.

I have a very different opinion. I had the Alu Macbook with the LC screen too (9C89): I noticed mediocre contrast and horrible blacklevels. Very similar as the old macbook of my cousin.

Notebookcheck.com and Notebookjournal.de have measured blacklevels and contrast of the old and new Macbook with professional equipment. The numbers are very clear. Contrast and blacklevels have not improved at all. MBA and MBP have way better screens. I've posted some of the info here (2nd post): http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=596201&highlight=9C89

The only thing I agree with is that the new screen is brighter. That is true.

It was all true. The OP asked for converting videos. Converting video's has nothing to do with the GPU and will work fine on X3100. And X3100 plays videos fine. So again no justification for the better GPU.

Still I would prefer buying the newer model because the next version of OS X is more GPU dependent so for future upgrades it's handy.

But the OP is short of money he said, he may be better off with a Whitebook, since nothing he does requires a stronger GPU or the 2.4 CPU.

 

dont forget that you can buy all of that used, especially the black book since its used and most mac users upgraded to the aluminum body cuz they like to be up to date.
I got a White Macbook 2.4ghz, 160gb hd, 2gb ram, warranty good til august 2009.

 

I have the LG screen on my aluminum MacBook.

On my plastic Macs I've had LG and Chi-Mei.

This screen looks better than any of the plastic MacBooks I have owned, used, or my friends own.

The aluminum MacBook's screen is simply better than the plastic. Even for just the LED backlight.

Yeah I've seen that. Not only is notebookcheck a very questionable source of any information (they do have the Intel GMA 950 above the Radeon X200 after all, and as someone who has owned and used both, I can tell you the Radeon is several times faster than the GMA 950 and they use synthetic benchmarks to judge performance of products) but they don't even explain how they came to their conclusions.

And as I've said here and at other forums, Apple's screens are not all created equal. Unfortunately some bad ones do get into the mix. It appears that notebookcheck supposedly got one of those bad ones, seeing as how my backlight is even throughout. On the flip side, my first plastic MacBook did NOT have an even backlight. The left side was significantly darker than the right. It literally faded from light to dark.

However, one bad screen does NOT equal the entire line having bad screens.

Not true on Windows (thanks to CUDA) and most certainly NOT true when Snow Leopard hits the streets. I like how you cut that part of my post out though.

Again, not true. Snow Leopard will finally bring hardware acceleration for video to OS X, and if the OP has Windows already, then they can install Windows on their MacBook and get full bitstream decoding decoding thanks to the 9400M and get vastly improved image quality as a result. When Snow Leopard is released, if Apple finally brings the bitstream decoding they're promising, image quality will get a very nice bump, CPU use will go down, and battery life will be extended thanks to the 9400M.

If the OP goes with the X3100, they will be stuck with inferior image quality and higher CPU use and no hardware support for H.264 and only basic minimal support for VC-1, which has died since HD-DVD went under. And very minimal support for MPEG-2. Basically, everything will be done in software and look worse compared to how it looks when done in hardware.

It's not a "whitebook". The official name is "MacBook White". Anyhow, the base line MacBook ($1299) ships with a 2GHz Penryn running on nvidia's 9400M chipset (system on a chip) and DDR3 memory, so its significantly faster than the 2.1GHz Penryn on the Santa Rosa platform in the MacBook white.

Plus the OP will make up for that savings in the long run thanks to downright terrible build quality (all of my plastic MacBooks had build quality issues and all of them had to be replaced due to those issues and Apple's botched repairs, they're the reason I finally got upgraded to an aluminum MacBook) and the inferior GPU.

The MacBook white will crack from regular use, heat, and other outside influences, and the GPU will greatly hinder the long term usability of the system. There is absolutely no reason to buy the MacBook white. It's worth it to save the extra money to buy the aluminum model.

Another thing to think about is that its incredibly easy to take the case apart on the MacBook. It essentially makes everything user serviceable (finally) and you can replace parts yourself. AppleCare is no longer a requirement like it is for the MacBook White.

If you don't believe me about the name, just go to apple.com and look at the bottom of the page. It clearly says "MacBook White".

 

Here's my advice:
1) hold off if you can till after macworld in Jan09.. its unlikely but maybe there will be a mac netbook which might fit your needs... if not then
2) If you have the money get the new alu mb.
3) If not then buy a refurbished or 2nd hand plastic mb. You should be able to pick up a bargain on ebay, and this will keep alot more $$ in your pocket for essentially the same experience as buying a new plastic mb.
a

 

SauronMOS, I can't really be bothered to explain once again that the blacklevels of the macbook are no where near the MBP and MBA. Or that video conversion will be faster on the blackbook than on the base alu macbook because it's more CPU dependent than GPU dependent. Maybe someone else wants to explain.

Never the less, a few remarks to what you wrote:
- Notebookcheck and Notebookjournal are independent sources that reach similar conclusion about the blacklevels and contrast rates of the Alu Macbook, after having measured them with professional equipment capable of measuring blacklevels, contrast and brightness. That's how they came to their concusions.
- The GPU list of Notebookcheck is just a collection of several benchmarks results. It is not intended as anything more. Some people treat is as something more though. Based on the fact that they have a limited number of results it is very well possible that a weaker card comes out better than a stronger card. No surprises there.
- Whitebook, blackbook, and Alu book are not offical names. I like to use them because they are shorter and most people know what it means.
- If you quote someone I'd appreciate it if you leave the user name in front of the quote, so I can see who you are quoting.

 

I say get the BlackBook, max out the RAM (aftermarket, not from Apple) and get AppleCare

 

Come to the dark side, get the blackbook

It will suit you fine for what you need.

 

I appreciate all the feedback. I didn't mean to start a war, but at the same time I do enjoy a good debate. It helps me better analyze my options.

It seems like the $300 is worth it for the new Macbook. Indeed money is tight, but getting a desktop (as someone suggested) is not an option. I take my laptop with me everywhere I go. Also, as to the old Macbook and iPod Touch idea -- I already have an iPod touch.

It is interesting to hear of problems with the older Macbook cases. My girlfriend, a friend of mine, and his girlfriend, all have had their cases chipping away.

The Black Macbook at $900 was just appealing because, while I am not sure I can justify a $1200 Apple over a $700ish PC, I can definitely justify a $900 one. However, perhaps I'll just suck it up and splurge as I am so sick of Windows and all the problems it brings. At this point, I'm inclined to decide between the new Macbook and a solid, but less expensive PC (blasphemy around here, I know, I know).

Can anyone point me to more info on this Snow Leopard, what it will feature, and when it will be released? Thanks!

 

Anyone who says the old Blackbook/Whitebook MacBook screens are "similar" to the new LED MacBooks are plain and simply wrong. I've used them side by side for a great deal of time, and the new MacBook LED displays blow the old ones out of the water. THAT said, even the new LED MacBook displays pale in comparison to the MacBook Pro LED displays of late. Personally, the new MB LED display isn't "good enough" for me. But to say it's no better than the old MB displays is just pure madness.

And yes, it's $300 well spent.

 

The facts:
White Macbook
Maximum brightness: 209.2 cd/m²
Average brightness: 179.5 cd/m²
Blacklevels: 1.2 cd/m²
Contrast ratio: 174:1
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-13-Core-2-Duo-Notebook.2641.0.html

Aluminium Macbook
Maximum brightness: 298 cd/m²
Average : 246.1 cd/m²
Black: 1.92 cd/m²
Contrast: 155:1
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Update-Apple-MacBook-Aluminium-Unibody-13-9400M.12533.0.html

Conclusion: The brightness of the new LED screen is higher. Contrast and black levels on the old Macbook are better.

A person judging a screen by the brightness will prefer the new LED screen. A person judging by blacklevels and contrast will notice both screens are mediocre.

Why do I say mediocre? Here some examples of good displays.
Macbook Pro
Maximum: 370 cd/m²
Average: 312 cd/m²
Black: 0.76 cd/m²
Contrast: 487:1
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-Pro-15-v5-2008-Unibody-9600M-GT-9400M.11973.0.html

Macbook Air
Maximum: 354 cd/m²
Average: 308 cd/m²
Black: 0.49 cd/m²
Contrast: 722:1
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-Air-Subnotebook.7979.0.html

 

You're completely ignoring everything I said as well as the facts.

Snow Leopard will have technologies, like CUDA that already exists in Windows, that will allow developers to write the applications in such a way that they can hand the task off to the GPU and the GPU will be able to process it MUCH faster than the CPU in the same system.

Software already exists in Windows, and no doubt will pop in Snow Leopard almost immediately, that allows the GPU to ENCODE (convert) video at a MUCH higher speed than the CPU. For example, an 8400M GS is, thanks to CUDA, able to churn out completed units in F@H about 3x faster than the PS3.

Also, theres other things to consider when looking at the CPU speed of the aluminum MacBook versus the black MacBook.

The black MacBook has a Penryn Core 2 Duo running at 2.4GHz on the Santa Rosa platform. The aluminum MacBook has a Penryn Core 2 Duo running at 2GHz on the nvidia 9400M platform.

The Santa Rosa platform runs an 800MHz FSB and Apple uses 667MHz DDR2 memory.

The 9400M platform sports a 1066MHz FSB with 1066MHz DDR3 memory.

And in my real world experience, the 2GHz Core 2 Duo running with the 1066MHz FSB and 1066MHz DDR3 RAM runs about 30% faster than the same processor on the Santa Rosa platform.

Which puts it at least equal to the black MacBook in terms of overall CPU performance, maybe even a little bit above.

And, again, neither you nor them have disclosed what this so-called "professional equipment" is and how those results came to be. And, again, their review makes it sound like they got a bad screen because of the fact that the backlight was not even. One bad screen does NOT represent the entire line being bad.

That combined with the fact that they fail to disclose how they get their results on screen tests ruins their credibility.

Sure, if you want to modify the forums so I can easily have the HTML code present while I type this in TextEdit

Thats about right. I've had all of my plastic MacBooks crack and discolor in some way.

And, again, they FAIL to mention how they achieved those results. Results mean nothing without a PROVEN method of achieving them and accurate testing methods.

And, again, they appear to have a BAD screen on their MacBook due to the supposedly uneven lighting. Mine is even. My first MacBook was not. But I knew that MacBook did NOT represent the entire line.

 

True. I did that on purpose. The facts are clear.

You can try to discredit the source but Notebookjournal, a source independent of Notebookcheck measured very similar brightness, contrast and blacklevels.

Not true. In my opinion.

Not true. Check the benchmarks. The Black Macbook outperforms the Aluminium Macbook 2.0 in non GPU accelerated applications, the Alu Macbook is faster in GPU accelerated applications.
http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=219447,00.asp

 

Thank you for admitting the facts are clear. The fact that Snow Leopard will include technologies that make it clear the OP should go for the aluminum MacBook because it will take full advantage of that much higher end GPU even if you're not playing games.

And, once again, neither site has provided testing methods or equipment used.

Thats why opinions aren't facts.

"OpenCL

Another powerful Snow Leopard technology, OpenCL (Open Computing Language), makes it possible for developers to efficiently tap the vast gigaflops of computing power currently locked up in the graphics processing unit (GPU). With GPUs approaching processing speeds of a trillion operations per second, they’re capable of considerably more than just drawing pictures. OpenCL takes that power and redirects it for general-purpose computing." http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/

The 9400M in the MacBook is many times more powerful than any of the Core 2 Duos present in any system. OpenCL, if it lives up to Apple's promises and what CUDA does in Windows, will make that extra $300 seem like pennies in comparison to the performance increase it will offer.

Good job linking to a popup window with no way back to the original article.

I also like how that popup window is filled with synthetic benchmarks that in no way reflect real world performance.

Windows Media Encoder? Seriously? That software is outdated by several years and doesn't even work properly on modern systems.

The plastic MacBook getting better battery life than the aluminum MacBook? I had two plastic MacBooks with several different batteries thanks to Apple's botched repairs and none of them were able to outperform the aluminum MacBook in battery life.

I've been building PCs longer than most people here have even owned one. I can tell you from absolute experience that synthetic benchmarks mean absolutely nothing towards real world performance. 3DMark, SYSMark, Mobile Mark, PC Mark, wPrime, none of those mean anything when it comes to measuring real world performance

So how about some real benchmarks? Nothing synthetic or entirely outdated?

 

Dont forget tax!!!!

 

Lol I've pointed out at least 4 factual errors in your posts and you haven't admitted one. And you keep continuing

Your latest one is:
"the 2GHz Core 2 Duo running with the 1066MHz FSB and 1066MHz DDR3 RAM runs about 30% faster than the same processor on the Santa Rosa platform."

Let's focus on this one. Ok let's see how many of these benchmarks support your claim of 30% faster:
http://www.macworld.com/article/136214/2008/10/macbookbenchmarks.html. Hmm is it just me or does the White macbook outperform the base aluminium macbook in several benchmarks... And no we weren't talking about GPU performance, because obviously the 9400 is a lot faster than the X3100.

PCMag, Notebookcheck and Notebookjournal were unreliable sources for you, let's see how Macworld does.

I am curious to see how you will deny this benchmark and continue to fanatically defend your purchase

 

But what if the OP has no plans for upgrading. Lots of buyers will simply stay with the OS installed on their machine. Not everyone plans to shell out on an upgrade.

So in this scenario, your points are all mute.

 

Good point, but for the record, I'm not the type of person that could use an old OS when a new one is out. I'm too much of a nerd when it comes to technology. The fact that I was even considering the older Macbook is not like me, but money isn't exactly freely flowing at the moment.

Anyway, the talk I saw here about Snow Leopard is the main thing that kept me from buying the Macbook Black. Indeed I do little gaming (I used to do more when I had a desktop), but with Vista, I have seen just how important a powerful GPU can be absent actual gaming. Besides, perhaps if the computer can support some gaming I'll get back into it a bit. Of course the better build (from what I've read) and the actual design, which I find far nicer than the older Macbooks, also played a part.

It is surprising to see these reviews knocking the LCD because so many consumer posts I've read have given it such high praise. Perhaps to your average consumer, the new LCDs are excellent, but to your professionals who rely on the exact color quality, viewing angles, etc, that's not the case. I don't know, but I'll find out today when I drop by the Apple store to check them out for myself.

At this point, feel free to continue discussing the differences, but if I get a Mac, it will be the new Macbook. Now it's just a question of the new Mac for $1200 or a PC for $800-900. You don't need to answer that here as I'm sure as Mac users, it will be 20 for Mac and 0 for PC. And quite frankly, after my Vista experience the past 14-15 months, I'm very close to shelling out the extra cash for a less powerful machine with less features just so I can never look at Vista again.

Thanks again guys!

 

^^ Ive been using Vista for the past year and havent found any problems with it. I enjoy playing modern games on vista, cant say the same about mac... what games are there... minesweeper, space junkie, and oh yeah thats right starcraft

 

Clearly there is a much larger gaming library for the PC. The only game I've played heavily over the years is Warcraft III. I had a few FPSs but never could get into them. I will never buy a computer solely for gaming purposes because personally I'd prefer to just buy a console system.

My problems with Vista are its insanely tight security, constant freezing, and the bloatware that most manufacturers load up their computers with. I used to just do a fresh Windows install once receiving the computer, but these days the manufacturers only send you a disc that reinstalls the system exactly as it came. Useless... I find it inexcusable that I have to click "Allow" 12 times anytime I want to open or install some program, change network setting, etc. I also don't want to be reminded 100 times that I'm not using anti-virus software. I haven't used it in years because it is generally a resource hog, and I don't get viruses to begin with, so I don't need to reminded on a daily basis. I also think the OS is just ugly. With Mac OS being so innovative and "cool," I find Vista to be outdated and boring. Personal taste of course. Drivers continue to be a pain. And finally, the constant freezing is just ridiculous. I had a pretty high end laptop and kept the system very clean. I'd still get freezes way too often.

The only problem is, PCs are generally less expensive for a lot more. Thus, the cost-benefit analysis is difficult.

 

If that's the case the new Macbook is clearly the better choice for you.

 

Cool. This is why these discussions are so helpful. I've honestly been out of the Mac loop for a while, except as it relates to my iPod touch, so I had no idea a new OS was going to be released (next year I believe?). Good to know, because if I bought the older model and couldn't run the new OS as I would like to, I'd be pissed.

 

Just as a quick follow-up:

I went to Best Buy today and checked out the Macbook White, Aluminum Macbook, and new Macbook Pro. The quality to my untrained eye was MBP > MB Alum > MB White. The colors were much more vivid on the newer models than the old one. I also did not find the reflection to be that bothersome. Granted it wasn't too bright, I don't see it being a problem.

I changed all 3 computers' backgrounds to an image consisting of black and whites, and the MBP definitely had the best blacks. However, I didn't think they were that bad on the MB Alum like the comparison posted showed. If you have the screen at the right angle, it looks fine for everyday use.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

I'm very happy I didn't go with the Macbook Black. It's a great computer, no doubt, but these aluminum Macbooks and MBPs are just beautifully designed. The trackpad is incredible as well.

 

Take note that RAM for the new Alu Macbook is fairly more expensive then the plastic Macbooks. If you can get a good conditioned second hand one then one then chances are the unit has already been upgraded to 4 Gigs RAM so you save a bit more.

As for the screen debate, perhaps the LED backlighting and the glass display artificially boost the perception of contrast despite of the technical specifications of both screens of the old and new are similar?

 

I did a clean install of vista and all the bloatware was gone. You can also uninstall the bloatware.
You couldve done BLACK VIPER VISTA TWEAK and turned of the ALLOW/BLOCK a.k.a. UAC. UAC is for the people that tend to go delete stuff that they are not suppose to, just so that they can get more music, video, etc on their hard drive.
If you want the OSX eye candy on Vista, you could just get WINDOW BLINDS.
I never had any issues with drivers, seeing that they had all the drivers on their website. If they did not have the newest drivers, then I used DRIVERMAX to find out what the newest ones are.


--- i completely understand that you prefer one over the other, personal preference, but you can always change what you don't like. after all, it is 2008. The number one thing i hate about this macbook white is the screen they put in. Its so hard to keep clean and super sensitive to chemicals, so i hate shelling out more cash for iKlean. Oh and lets not forget, white is hard to keep from staining. (GFs macbook BTW)

 

Thing is, the colors can look fairly good after changing the gamma, especially with the brightness high. But at the same the high brightness makes the blacks look grayish, and since the contrast rate is determined by the difference between black and white, the contrast rate is screwed up.

People who look at the colors and the high brightness tend to be satisfied. People who look at the black levels and contrast rate are generally disappointed.

To add to the confusion: the Alu Macbook can come with 3 different panels, and the plastic Macbook too as far as I know. All with slightly different characteristics. So people aren't necessarily talking about the same screens.

 

The only thing you've pointed out is the fact that you didn't know what you were talking about when it came to quite a few topics, especially the one regarding the GPUs current and future role in a Mac.

I see synthetic benchmarks, benchmarks using old and outdated software (iMovie HD? come on, that was a UB app that was originally written to take advantage of PPC technology), and a game in OS X that would run probably 3x faster in Windows.

Why not use software that was written with Intel processor optimizations in mind and not just recoded to run natively on the processor? Why use an older version of Photoshop that doesn't run as good as the new version? Why not run games that were written natively for OS X and not just ported?

And what kind of ridiculous test did they run in iTunes? iTunes uses the horribly inefficient, slow, and bad sounding FhG MP3 encoder. If they wanted to encode MP3 they should have used LAME. And why even test AAC to MP3 conversion? Nobody does that. Nobody is stupid enough to degrade the sound quality with a transcode that brings in another level of generation loss as well as encoding using such a bad sounding MP3 encoder.

Apple's AAC encoder in iTunes is highly optimized for Intel processors. A more realistic benchmark would be to transcode Apple Lossless files to AAC in iTunes.

I find it funny you relied on that page for benchmarks. Have you even looked at them all? They're all over the place. Real benchmarks performed by reliable sources are consistent across the board. Not all over the board like these.

I'm not fanatically defending a purchase at all Just the truth. My purchase was a white plastic MacBook nearly 2 years ago. But thanks to the plastic MacBook's terrible build quality (reason alone to never buy a plastic MacBook) and Apple's poor repair service, I'm now on my second replacement. This time they happened to replace it with an aluminum MacBook since it was available at $1299, the price I originally paid.

 

I've supplied four external sources to back up what I have said. You have supplied none.

That will be enough discussion for me.

 

You provided sources that did not even attempt to explain how they reached their conclusions AND relied on synthetic benchmarks that don't reflect real world performance, and they don't update those benchmarks either. You provided other sources that relied (again) on synthetic benchmarks and outdated software that was never intended to run on Intel processors anyway, it had only been basically patched to run on Intel but not optimized for it.

You were also wrong about many things, especially the GPUs current and future roles in the Mac.

 

Just give it up Sauron. Seriously. Just because it's newer, doesn't mean it's better.

For the OP's usage the old Macbook is far better.

 

They do.
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Wie-wir-testen.1948.0.html#c45061

Translated by Google:

At least 3 of the MacWorld benchmarks were not synthetic.

Please show me. Quote me literally were I was wrong about the GPUs current and future role in the Mac.

 

So they go on and on about how a screen should be lit, but yet they still don't explain how they conduct the test, how the "tool" is used, or anything.

So my point still stands. They don't explain a single thing about how they come to their conclusions.

And, again, concerning the MacWorld links, they used old and outdated software that was NEVER optimized for Intel processors, only made into a universal binary so it would run.

Not to mention the fact that their Photoshop test was completely unrealistic. A script to play with a 50MB image file? Yeah that really reflects how people use Photoshop.

On top of the fact that their benchmarks were entirely all over the board. Go to a respectable hardware enthusiast site that runs benchmarks and you'll see consistency. You won't see slower systems outperforming faster systems in various tests, you'll consistently modern software running on modern platforms with the faster hardware always coming out on top, not only sometimes.

As for the GPUs, unless you've gone back and edited your posts (I don't have time to read the whole thread) you specifically said that GPUs don't play a role in video conversion. That is not true. Snow Leopard will allow this. Windows already does. If the OP installs Windows then he can use various CUDA enabled applications that will take advantage of the GPU and decrease encoding time significantly. Snow Leopard will effectively turn the GPU into a GPGPU and allow it to be used to speed up almost anything. Heres what you said:

Again, regarding video playback. With the aluminum Macs, Apple has enabled some amount of hardware acceleration for H.264 playback in Quicktime and iTunes, but not full bitstream decoding like in Windows. Snow Leopard is supposed to take full advantage of the GPU for video playback. If the OP wishes to install Windows, then he has access to full bitstream decoding, where the GPU does ALL of the video work which increases both battery life and image quality.

So again, you are wrong. You were completely off when it came to the GPU's current and future role. You posted synthetic benchmarks, benchmarks with software that hasn't been shipping for over a year and was never optimized to begin with, and other benchmarks that don't even reflect how the software is used in a real world situation. You also put too much faith in a site that still does NOT even begin to discuss how they obtain their results and you ignore the fact that ONE bad screen does NOT represent the entire line of computers.

 

Get the New Macbook man. It's way better than the old one. I've worked with Macbook Air and Macbook Pro, and the New Macbook has the best screen I ever worked with.

Don't believe those websites that claim blacklevels and contrast are mediocre. Their way of testing is bogus or they just had a bad sample. Blacklevels are excellent, I'm telling ya.

The New Macbook runs 30% faster than the old one. This is because is has super duper DDR3 RAM and a whopping 1066MHz FSB. That's why it is also way faster with converting videos. Benchmarks say it isn't so? No man, they're wrong because they use synthetic benchmarks. And if they're not synthetic the software wasn't optimised for Intel.

And the best thing of all, all these goodies will only get better when Apple launches it's new Snow Leopard OS. Hallelujah

 

Can you please provide links for your wild claims!!!
lol
a

 

I said the new MacBook screen is no worse than the MacBook Pro or MBA. People incorrectly believe that the word "Pro" somehow means the MacBook Pro is a better overall computer and meant for "professionals" when its not even close to the same level as "professional level" systems from HP and Dell and others.

Considering they have no method of testing that they even DESCRIBE.

Did I say the new MacBook was 30% faster than the old one? No, I said the new platform was 30% faster than the equivalent previous generation one, which made the the current 2GHz model roughly on the same level, maybe slightly faster, than the previous 2.4GHz model.

If you're going to try to mock somebody and make fun of them at least thoroughly read their posts.

As I said, install Windows and use a CUDA enabled video encoder. Again, if you're going to mock someone at least read what they are saying.

All the benchmarks you provided WERE synthetic. Anyone who even knows the SLIGHTEST thing about hardware KNOWS that synthetic benchmarks mean absolutely nothing. Neither does running a script on a large file in Photoshop, or older outdated software.

If you want to show how fast your hardware really is, you need to get real world applications and run them in real world tests (let's see how fast those black MacBooks convert video in Handbrake compared to the new ones, plus lets let that new one run a video through a CUDA enabled converter). Let's measure the CPU use during H.264 playback or DVD playback, or how about game frame-rates during actual gameplay and not Time Demos?

How about converting music from Apple Lossless to AAC and not from MP3 to AAC?

If you want to mock someone at least know what you're talking about. I'll be reporting you to those above you on the site. A moderator should have class and knowledge.

 

Get neither. It will be outdated garbage in about a year anyway.

 

SauronMOS, yes I made fun of your posts. Personally I thought it was pretty funny but I can understand if you don't see it that way. It was nothing personal though.

I'm not going to discuss the points you raise anymore, except for one. Just because it's so easy to establish how accurate it is.

Ok so you say all the benchmarks I provided were synthetic. I think that is highly inaccurate. I'd like to know what other people think on this subject so I started a thread here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=4311294#post4311294

I invite you not post there yet. Let's see what other people say.

 

Lets just say that PhilFlow has been an established Super Moderator on here, with a amazing Rep Power at 31. And SauronMOS is a slightly new member with 6 Rep Power. There's no need to get defensive (SauronMOS), as we are just discussing differences of ideas.

P.S.- You can't just go pick Rep Power of the Rep Power tree, if you know what I mean.

 

I may be outdated, but it is certainly not garbage.

 

Outdated????
the nvidia 9400 chipset is as new as it gets. The c2d and 1066fsb is as fast as it gets in notebooks, the displayport is so new no one else has it yet, first laptop with no button mouse !! LED backlit screen is still a rare thing...what is outdated about all that?
a