New Apple MacBook out

glitchrock-buddha · Post by **glitchrock-buddha** » Thu May 18, 2006 2:19 am

I think it's hilarious that the black one is $200 more than the white one of the same speed. The only difference is an 80gb drive instead of 60 gb, but if you upgrade the white one to a n 80gb drive, it's only $50 more. So you pay exactly $150 for the color black... nifty.

The black looks way better, but shit, 150 bucks? Amusing.

Also, not much mention here that the mb pros have effectively dropped in price by about $300 I think, since the 2.0 has replaced the 1.83 as the bottom model, and then they knocked a bit more off. that's what I was waiting for. Does this mean we're at second generation mb pro now?

grb

shaneblyth · Post by **shaneblyth** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:15 am

kenn michael wrote:I wrote earlier in the thread that Live runs EXTREMELY WELL on my Core Duo Mac Mini with shared graphics. (better than my G5) I don't see any audio performance loss due to graphic overhead. I haven't even optimized my RAM config - I have one 256 chip and a 1GB chip... (you're supposed to have matching RAM pairs when using shared graphics memory)

I think my Mini is listed in the Performance Test thread as well. It runs audio in OSX perfectly as well as in Windows XP.

Shared graphics on the Macbook is not a problem for audio apps.

I think your wasting your time telling some people this they just have it in their head that shared memory graphics is really bad.. I totally agree with your findings..Maybe if you repeat your post 100 times with speed comparisons some people will finally get it that it just is not an issue for audio apps in particualar AND even in graphics for home theatre and movies it works perfectly.. The thing is that shared graphics from a few years ago was really bad.. it just is not the case now.. sure a dedicated card and memory is better but it sude doesnt suck extra cpu usage or cause slow downs at all.. Your mac Mini will kick the butt of my high end powerbook for audio work no danger and with live 6 it will totally obliterate it !

bencodec · Post by **bencodec** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:29 am

hey, worht mentioning just in case you weren't aware, bt yu ahve to restart the machien after removing that kext file. if you did that then hose shitty intel graphics chips really make a big difference for audio.

scientist wrote:re: voiding the warranty...i'm just repeating what the employee said. but when pressed who knows what they'd do with a repair claim. at the store they were a little unfamiliar with the concept of how easy it was to exchange hard drives... so for them its better safe than sorry. my best guess is throwing a 7200 rpm drive in won't be a problem, and i'll probably try it out in a month or two if the preinstalled drive isn't cutting it.

re: speed stepping...i pulled the extension and ran the performance test. the cpu savings were not that great. i went from 39% to about 37%. probably not worth monkeying with your system. we'll see how things change with live 6.
edit: kenn, i just saw your note in the performance thread about running other apps...i haven't tried anything beyond live running alone. i'll mess around some more and see what happens.

re: the look. i'm with ya...the new computers aren't anything special visually. its a step down for me going from aluminum to white plastic.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:32 am

scientist wrote:hey all,
just got back from the mac store in seattle where i loaded up the live demo and performance test on a few machines...don't count on total accuracy, as i didn't make sure the machines were all set to the performance test specs:
macbook 1.83, 1gig ram: 40%
macbook 2.0, 1gig ram: 39%
macbook pro 1.83, 1gig ram: 54%
i don't know what the problem was with the pro model, maybe some settings had been messed with as its probably been a demo for at least a few weeks. the macbooks were straight out of the box plus a ram upgrade, and had been set up the night before...so had only been in use for an hour or two.

Man! You all owe me some MONEY!

The macbook has no video card to offload graphics tasks onto, so Live tells the macbook to run graphics at all times on the second processor. Little or no speedstepping in Live! Like I said the macbooks would beat the pros out the door until either an OS upgrade or Live 6 improves the situation.

LOFA · Post by **LOFA** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:58 am

Machinesworking wrote:
scientist wrote:hey all,
just got back from the mac store in seattle where i loaded up the live demo and performance test on a few machines...don't count on total accuracy, as i didn't make sure the machines were all set to the performance test specs:
macbook 1.83, 1gig ram: 40%
macbook 2.0, 1gig ram: 39%
macbook pro 1.83, 1gig ram: 54%
i don't know what the problem was with the pro model, maybe some settings had been messed with as its probably been a demo for at least a few weeks. the macbooks were straight out of the box plus a ram upgrade, and had been set up the night before...so had only been in use for an hour or two.
Man! You all owe me some MONEY!

The macbook has no video card to offload graphics tasks onto, so Live tells the macbook to run graphics at all times on the second processor. Little or no speedstepping in Live! Like I said the macbooks would beat the pros out the door until either an OS upgrade or Live 6 improves the situation.

NIce!

Except for the whole business about the lame-ass performance.

rbro · Post by **rbro** » Thu May 18, 2006 5:15 am

maxi wrote:just went to the store. they are rocksolid - i was not shure about the case for my regular use, but the appear to be stronger than macbook pro's
they are beautiful machines, only needed to be stuffed with ram as the visuals use a lot

i'm getting one!

What are they made out of?

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Thu May 18, 2006 5:50 am

hmmm... 37% without the extension... did you restart afterwards?

my 1.66 Mac Mini gets 38% under OSX and it doesn't speedstep. your 1.83 should be faster than 37%.

forgie · Post by **forgie** » Thu May 18, 2006 6:33 am

People, people. Integrated graphics are only bad for heavy 3d stuff or if you have a small/slow chunk of RAM.

On a machine with a 667Mhz FSB and a dual-core CPU, integrated graphics are seriously not a major concern. Unless you want to play doom 3. Juse make sure you have two sticks of RAM that are the same size, or else your graphics will be bandwidth starved, and that WILL affect performance.

Also, integrated graphics are probably the only way Apple can afford to make these feature rich macbooks so cheap. Intel will no doubt be offering major incentives to use integrated graphics in a few macintosh product lines.

forgie · Post by **forgie** » Thu May 18, 2006 6:51 am

scientist wrote: re: the look. i'm with ya...the new computers aren't anything special visually. its a step down for me going from aluminum to white plastic.

Yeah, but that white plastic cost you, what, half as much as your old powerbook, and is what, 3-4 times more powerful? You're going from a high-level laptop to a medium-level laptop, of course it isn't going to look as good.

Except I do agree that the old G3 iBooks look better then their G4 brethren. I've got a 12" 1.33Ghz G4, and my GF has a 12" 500Mhz G3. I like hers better.

rbro · Post by **rbro** » Thu May 18, 2006 2:55 pm

I haven't read through this whole thread, but isn't the bottom line right now (at least for some of us) that the non-native apps run slower on the intels still? These are tempting, but does it make sense for a PB G4 owner like myself to get a Macbook at this point, or shouldn't I wait a bit?

scientist · Post by **scientist** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:11 pm

kenn, yep that's with restarting. it would probably be a more significant number with a higher cpu load, but still not enough for me to want to monkey with things. i read some threads on the apple site that discussed the specifics of what was going on with this extension, and they were very computer specific. to the point where people weren't deleting the extension but altering it (with terminal?) line by line for their specific model. maybe apple fixed this for the macbook? i left the extension out for quite some time, and through many restarts. the most significant change i saw the whole time is a dramatic reduction in battery time (according to the meter). the claim is these comps get 6 hours of battery life, which i'm guessing equates to maybe 4...with the extension removed it was down to 2:45 max.

forgie, actually no. the macbook is almost the same price as my previous powerbook (and the black ones are THE same price), and the feature set is similar (screen size, no. of ports, external monitor support). its definitely not a step down...the concept of 'high level' vs 'medium level' only applies visually, for people who care enough about looks to pay a little extra. luckily i don't so i saved some dough! this is my third mac laptop and they've all had similar feature sets; they've just gotten cheaper: pismo for $2500, powerbook 12" for $1500, and now the macbook for $1100.

rbro...if you're computer now does you fine, don't bother upgrading. my need for a new computer just happened to fall in line with these being released. by the time most apps are running intel native you'll be able to get a faster computer for the same price.

gomi · Post by **gomi** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:54 pm

scientist wrote:kenn, yep that's with restarting.

Or perhaps the build of 10.4.6 on the MacBooks has been the speedstepping
repaired, and thats why you didn't notice a difference?

tomperson · Post by **tomperson** » Thu May 18, 2006 5:16 pm

So, if i get it correctly, the new macbooks aren't made of aluminium? The construction build (one of the key aspects of mac machines) is not as good?

tomperson · Post by **tomperson** » Thu May 18, 2006 5:30 pm

gomi wrote:
scientist wrote:kenn, yep that's with restarting.
Or perhaps the build of 10.4.6 on the MacBooks has been the speedstepping
repaired, and thats why you didn't notice a difference?

Speedstepping is not a bug or problem, it's a feature that enables the processor to consume less energy, hence giving you more battery life.

scientist · Post by **scientist** » Thu May 18, 2006 5:31 pm

gomi, yeah that'd be my best guess. from the looks of the hacks people were doing it was as simple as changing a few numbers, so apple could have fixed it easily. that would explain why the macbook pro gets worse cpu % than the macbook in live (it hasn't had an update to fix the problem yet).

tomperson, the new macbooks are polycarbonate, same as the previous ibooks i think. the white is shiny finish, and the black has a matte finish. the build is just as good, just not as cool (to some people). the macbook pros are still aluminum.