Apple MacBook User Review Discussion

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.

 

+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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

In which you happily participate

 

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

 

Exactly what I meant!

 

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.

 

Awesome review! Thanks.

 

Rather than blurb out words SHOW US. Show us a $600 PC notebook that comes with 4GB DDR3 ram @ 1067 Mhz.

 

and show us what exactly programs that uses such a huge bandwidth on a DDR3 $1300 notebook
especially that comes with the OS that are known for the lowest memory consumption?

 

Rather than senselessly attacking me why don't you read the post I was quoting? No need for you to act like a jerk. The previous poster mentioned $600 PC's having 4GB ram, I only asked him to show us one that had the same ram as the Macbook. This is NOT about ME backing up what I said, it was about the other poster.

Also, your post makes zero sense. Why down a machine for having beefier specs for future needs. Aren't many people here already shouting out Nahelem? You're just a Mac hater and looking for any way you can crap on the Macbook. Who would say something negative about having ultra fast ram and large system bus?

 

Please refrain from any personal insults, guys.

For the record, programs can utilize the high speeds/bandwidth on DDR3 memory. The issue with the 1066mhz DDR3 ram in the macbook is it's high latency, making it no more efficient than the average 800mhz DDR2. This however, may change in the future when manufactuers are able to produce lower CAS latency DDR3 memory.

 

I'm interested in if the memory management has been discussed yet. I know the review compared OSX and Vista in this department, but I don't know that it was accurate.

Reviewer stated that Vista used twice the memory, and did this in a light saying that the use of more memory is worse, where that simply might not be accurate. How does OSX handle its memory compared to Vista? That is the real question, not how much it is using. I know Vista loads a lot of programs you frequently use into the RAM for quick access. Does OSX do this? That alone could be the difference in 250 + megs of memory use. Since you can instantly dump whatever is in the memory and then load something new, it is only to your advantage to pre-load as many programs as possible, as long as that memory is freed up once needed for your current task, which is how Vista Superfetch operate.

As to where I stand on Mac vs. PC:

I have nothing against macs, as I type, it is on one of their superior keyboards (IMO - Minus button layout). I would probably buy a macbook air if I could afford one, simply because the sexy, sleek design.

 

^yes it does-Mac OS cache-s as much ram as possible AFAIK!

 

well im just asking...cant i?

future needs?
lets head back to 2 years ago...people are all stuffed with 'just' 667-mhz and nobody complains about it...so...future needs?
well...theres also 800-mhz version of nehalems
which is better to lower the price of macbooks..

IMHO only if ddr3 can provide a significant boost of speed when doing heavy tasks then it is prove useful..which is more likely to happen in desktops rather than laptops...

 

Well, if Mac lovers praise their cherished products but WITHOUT at the same time belittle the competition (e.g. BS such as "OS X is light years ahead of Windows and uses less RAM"), maybe that would help in having constructive discussion and less flame.

 

If Apple offers Blu-ray soon then I will convert to Apple. As a photographer and Video editor I want to burn my own Blu-ray discs. In the old days Apple would embrace this because of their strength in these two mediums. Now it seems Apple is only interested in protecting iTunes.