Ars has reviewed the new Santa Rosa-based MacBook, and concludes: “All in all, the new MacBook is shaping up to be a worthy replacement to my old PowerBook. In combination with Mac OS X 10.5, the most polished iteration of Apple’s operating system, the MacBook is a joy to use. Even Omniweb, my favorite but much-maligned web browser, is snappy, and the Core 2 Duo processor appears capable of handling anything I throw at it. Certainly for someone with my fairly modest computing needs (word processing, web browsing, data manipulation, light graphics work, and media playback) the consumer line does what I want and does it well.”
Interesting how data manipulation and graphics work are here considered ‘modest’ computing needs.
The baseline of what we think a personal computer should be able to do is creeping steadily forwards, as fast or perhaps faster than computers are advancing…
“Certainly for someone with my fairly modest computing needs (word processing, web browsing, data manipulation(*), light graphics work, and media playback) the consumer line does what I want and does it well.”
I added the emphasis on my own.
We have no idea what he meant by “data manipulation” (could be as simple as running awk scripts or some spreadsheet work, and I guess the specced C2Ds are more than enough to handle this), so what’s wrong with the author’s phrasing?
As a PowerBook replacement (as the author suggests), it sure is a great machine.
Data manipulation he is probably referring to database work and the likes.
I’ve got the previous generation (Rev. B) and when I first loaded it up, I as genuinely shocekd at the speed. I expected the speed of it to be slow thinking that Mac OS X wasn’t optimised yet for Intel processors; I was proven wrong on the boot up.
I’m now running Leopard, I did a clean install, none of this upgrade, or archive and install garbage – not a single problem. Its interesting that when going through the macosrumors.com forum those who seem to have the most problems are those who didn’t do a clean install – format and install.
I’ve got a rev-b, and Leopard has been okay, just a little wonkier than usual. No kernel panics yet, but I’ve had some odd application crashes. It just feels wonkier than Tiger did.
Otoh, I did an upgrade. Boo for me…
The meme of “EVERYONE knows you should do a clean install and not an upgrade” reminds me of the old joke about driving directions in a rural area – “Oh yes, just turn left at the old barn that burned down five years ago, then hang a right at the big oak that was cut down last year.”
If the upgrade functionality in OS X (and Linux and Windows) is truly so fragile and prone to failure, then it should either be fixed or removed altogether.
You have got a point; I’ve always said, however, to anyone who installs a new operating system, do a clean install. Yes, in theory one should be able to upgrade smoothly – after all, Apple promised it to be so. Even after a seemingly reliable upgrade I find that they’re haunted with bad juju – they never work as reliably as their ‘clean install’ counterpart.
As to why they keep upgrade there, because the marketing department demands it. I’m sure if the software engineers were in charge there would be only one way to install, but the marketing department want it there for their needs, to say, “look, our operating system is nice and easy; and upgrading is so simple! just upgrade and get back to work”.
So as simplistic as it sounds, the reason why the ‘smooth upgrade’ exists is to to keep the marketing department happy rather than it actually the result of good technological reasoning.
Unfortunately it seems that the ability to upgrade reliably has been lost somewhere during the transition to the current crop of “modern” operating systems. I think that a lot of has to do with the increasing complexity of operating systems, and the more complex upgrade processes that have been necessary as a result (since increased complexity inherently increases potential points of failure).
I can’t remember ever seeing a problem upgrading MacOS versions from 7 through 9 (ditto for BeOS). And I think the main reason is that those OSes were simple enough that the upgrade process was effectively identical to the installation process (which itself was just a file copy from the installation media to the disk). While I don’t pretend to know exactly what’s going on during an OS X upgrade, it does seem to be a fair bit more involved.
I didn’t say anything was wrong with it. Just that it’s interesting to watch how the definition of ‘modest needs’ is changing and expanding over time.
(Heck, even you described running awk scripts as ‘simple’ — another example of this process in action.)
i stopped reading the moment i read “…Mac OS X 10.5, the most polished iteration of Apple’s operating system…” now i cant say what its like on a fresh install or pre installed, but from an upgrade perspective (2 ppc machines and 1 x86) it was not polished and all and all it seemed rushed. As for apple’s hardware, amazing and i love it.
You stopped reading because you disagreed with the reviewer’s opionion on one point???
it is not a question of the number of “points”, it is a matter of the weight you give to them. and yes, that’s personal.
I can’t say what it’s like when you install Leopard via an upgrade because I’ve always found upgrades to be problematic on any OS, so I only do fresh installs.
However, I can say that on a new install, Leopard met and exceeded all of my expectations.
I can understand your perception because I have a similar perception. I’ve found that even the most likely to use the machine in a way that I might didn’t have any real problems.
While it’s fine for most things, when you start to use it hard or need your third party applications to work, Leopard becomes rough, as if it’s annoyed for being bothered. Virtual memory has often been a problem with Mac OS X as they’ve moved from one caching scheme to the next. Leopard is better in design, but obviously not in execution.
However, on the Intel machines, the uptick in performance is quite amazing.
Edited 2007-12-06 06:51
I’ve heard this mentioned quite a bit. Is it a measurable or subjective difference?
I’m sure it is measurable because the Intel-based machines with Tiger were sorely lacking in good performance, even if they were much faster than PowerPC-based machines.
It was somewhat obvious when they first ran WinXP on a MacBook Pro and declared it the fastest laptop computer to run WinXP that there was a performance problem with Tiger on those machines.
Still, I don’t recall seeing any tables showing the differences between Tiger and Leopard…sorry.
I believed you had the answer to your problems before you even made your statement. Upgrades are rarely smooth. It’s always better to do a fresh install. I’ve learned that even for programs, whether it be MSOffice, WordPerfect, OpenOffice.org, Norton, AVG, GIMP or any program without an internal update mechanism (for version to version upgrades, not fixes and patch updates) it is always better to do a complete uninstall before installing the latest version. In the case of OS’s, I always do a clean wipe of the drive and complete install.
Doing this, whether in Windows XP, Mac OS X Tiger or Slackware Linux, I never have crashes or misbehaving programs. It might work for you too, but no promises. Sometimes there are systems that just won’t act nicely no matter how correctly you do things.
I never understood the bashing against the MacBook keyboard. As shallow as my decision process might seem, its keyboard was actually one of the sexy thing that pushed me into getting one. I just love the feeling of the flat keys. This is by far my favorite laptop keyboard I’ve ever used. And I’m not a Mac fan, I’m a Windows user using mostly Windows on my MacBook.
My only complain was the sharp edge of the case that was scratching my wrists. But a very lite sanding of that plastic edge fixed the problem.
Edited 2007-12-06 00:03
Well, I run Gentoo on my Macbook Black, so my computing needs are certainly not that modest.
I frequently run some heavy network simulations too. Even in these scenarios, the processing power of this machine is more than enough for me.
Edited 2007-12-06 01:34
I’m getting so tired of this forum. It must be getting kickbacks from Apple to be posting so many articles about the virtues of OSX and Apple in general. Almost makes me want to start watching Fox News for some “fair and balanced” info. Maybe OS News should change their name to OSX News :-p
You do know that this is a website related to operating systems, and Apple has just released such a thing? So why not report lots about Apple? I realize this article is more about hardware, but hey, you need something to run your OS don’t you?
One does understand why some have a problem.
Apple as software supplier doesn’t generate a great deal of news. However, Apple generates intense interest in everything it does, so this leads to items which, if they were about some other company, would not even be noticed. Suppose Dell, or HP, or Acer, were introducing a similar new product. Well, they probably do every week and we don’t notice. But since Apple’s product line has so few machines, any change, however small, is news.
The result of the combination of intense interest and little significant news leads to something that is a little troubling: the tendency for sites to publish what news there is, which leads to them gradually being taken over by McTrivia. You can see this happening on Ars, and to a lesser extent, as in this article, it sometimes happens here.
Some of the posters who object to this have not expressed themselves either clearly or politely, but one can understand there is something happening which can be mildly irritating.
However, in the end, you do not have to read stories that don’t interest you. And as long as the editors keep it within bounds, which these mostly do, there is no real cause for complaint.
Wow! Here’s a review of a nonexistant product, considering no Apple computer uses the Santa Rosa Centrino platform!
Edited 2007-12-06 05:54
I found the article lacking in comparisons with older Macbooks. What I’m sure most Macbook users are keen to find out is whether the upgrade to the new video chip (i.e. the X3100) brings noticeable improvements.
Apple should put a halfway-decent gfx-chip into the MB and of course then put a high-end gfx-chip into the MBP.
…Err, and offer a matte sceen-option BTO.
The integrated graphics chip in the new MacBooks is better than the old one (ie, it sucks less)… a buddy of mine just picked one up and is playing WoW on it quite comfortably.
I’d like to see a middle laptop, between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro, with better graphics. Also, something between the Mini and Mac Pro without an LCD built in, but with PCI-E slots so you can upgrade the video card if you’re so inclined.
– chrish
WoW plays comfortably on a GMA 950 too, so thats not saying much
I’m playing WoW on my MacBook, the first with the Core Duo and the GMA950, and it plays fine… but only if you set every graphic option to the minimun.
It could be an idea to use the black MacBook for that.
I am anxious to see the revelation of the new but secret laptop that is to be revealed in a few months. Are we finally going to have the features of a MBP in a form factor of a MB? Hope…Wish…etc..
My hopes for the new notebook
NO GMA graphics, designated nVidea
FireWire 800 (yes, I use it for external drives)
Backlit Keyboard
Aluminum casing
Thin and light
Having my MBP in a smaller package would deffinetly put me at the front of the line at my local apple store. Heres to hoping.
My dream laptop:
-Extra long battery life – I’d be more than happy to sacrifice a fast CPU and discrete graphics for this. IMO, 1.5-3 hrs just isn’t acceptable.
-Aluminum case – Plastic is an insulator!
-High native res – For looking at lots of code. Nothing sucks more than not being able to even put two xterms next to each other without them overlapping.
-*nix-compatibility – a must!
-Inaudible fan noise – I can’t think with a constant, high-pitched whine.
Really, that’s it. Why I can’t find this in a modern laptop is beyond me.
Battery life: Every single mac note book I’ve ever owned from the toilet seat ibook(my first experimental foray back into macs back in the day…) I’ve managed to get a good 3.5 -4h out of when they were new. Granted, I ALMOST never ran the LCD on max brightness, usually preferring fairly low settings, and was not playing music OR videos other than what may have been embedded in a web page. IOW I was mostly web browsing, using word, maybe playing a game now and then, tinkering around with system task scripting, software development, as well as other activities.
I LOVE the color. Nice to see black again! Especially for a lowly macbook.
GPU: Still shipping with the crappiest GPUs known to man is a HUGE drawback in my book though. I’d like to see them move to either ATI or nVidia mobile GPU solutions as Intel isn’t ever going to make a GPU that offers anything approaching what the big boys in GPUs offer. (Then again, they did FINALLY manage to kick AMD’s butt and release the Core 2 Duo, so you never know, but as they stand now those Intel GPUs really and truly suck.)
Packaging: I never really cared for the relatively huge boxes that all Apple notebooks came in, be they ibooks, powerbooks, or the various macbooks and won’t miss bigger packages so long as the smaller ones offer the similar protection to the larger package. (Never had to ship any of mine, but you never know…)
The desktop machine packaging was more reasonable, but those were MUCH more massive and required more bracing, plus I’d not like my shiny case scratched up if someone at a parcel service punctured or otherwise beat my box to hell. (Occurs extremely rarely nowadays, so I’m not as concerned as I used to be…)