Apple MacBook (Early 2009) Review Discussion

by Perry Longinotti

When I looked at the Unibody MacBook a little while ago I liked almost everything about it. What I disliked most about the notebook was its sticker price. Apple decided to make the new MacBook more expensive than previous versions since it's built like a MacBook Pro but lacks some of the high-end features.

What I was hoping for from a new MacBook was a device that would be competitive with the $500 Windows notebooks crowding the shelves of most computer retailers. I don't mean something priced that low, but rather something closer to the average person's notebook budget. Most folks can live with the decent construction techniques of the iBook/MacBook design. I thought that was the whole point of having the MacBook and MacBook Pro line-ups; different strokes for different folks.

Perhaps Apple realized that they were under represented in the value segment, so they released an updated white plastic MacBook based on the Nvidia 9400M IGP chipset. A few key benefits of the new aluminum model are stripped away to bring this model down to Apple's traditional pricing for one of their starter notebooks $999.00.

Read the full content of this Article: Apple MacBook (Early 2009) Review

Related Articles:

• Apple MacBook User Review
• Apple MacBook Pro Review (Late 2008 Model)
• Apple MacBook Review (Late 2008 Model)
• Apple MacBook Air Review

 

Lewdvig - Nice review - Thanks. I'm impressed that the 3dMark06 is as high as it is - Good news!! Has Apple done anything to protect the newer plastic MacBooks from scratches? H-P uses a hard-coating finish, the name of which escapes me, to keep the glossy finish from scratching so easily.

 

I know what you mean by the increased price of the newer macbooks and i mean whyyy the hell remove the firewire?

Great review dude!

 

It felt pretty much the same. After a couple of weeks of use there are zero scratches. It is much better than teh Core Duo and first Core 2 Duo MacBooks which felt a bit weak out of the box - lots of creaking plastic. Perhaps Apple are using slightly thicker materials.

Thanks! I don't have any FW peripherals anymore, but lots of people do so I knew that would be a plus for some.

 

Great review lewdvig, it felt very pleased reading it. You are a truly Laptophile lol

It's a shame that apple doesn't put this laptop in the sub 800 dolar tag, for the specs that's most of us would expect, I know apple has major advantage over MS, with a software that is more user friendly, the add value if you like.

 

Great review Lewdvig!

I have a question tho!Can you say that white mb is "better buy" then alu?

 

Guys lets try to keep AT LEAST ONE Apple Notebook review without starting flame wars. Thank you.

 

Thanks!

That's a tough question. It really comes down to how much money you have in your pocket and/or your comfort level spending the money.

The unibody is going to be more durable and has a better screen. Is that worth $300... for most folks, probably not. For me yes, because materials mean a lot to me.

IMO Apple made a mistake in positioning the 13" Unibody as a MacBook. It's really closer to a 13" MBP as its price indicates. Calling it a MacBook sets an affordability expectation which couples with the low RAM and HDD spec to create a perception of not so-hot-value.

IMO They should have tried:
MB Line:
1. Plastic MacBook - Basic spec 2 GB DDR2, 120 GB HDD, C2D 5800, $799
2. Plastic MacBook - High spec 4 GB DDR3, 250 GB HDD, C2D 7350, $999

MBP Line:
13" Unibody 4 GB DDR3, 320 GB HDD, C2D P8400, $1299
15" Unibody 4 GB DDR3, 500 GB HDD, C3D P8600, $1599
17" Unibody 4 GB DDR3, 500 GB HDD, C3D P8600, $1999
- all three of these would have BTO options for CPU etc.

 

The specs are very, very sad for a $1000 laptop in 2009... 120GB HDD.. are you kidding me? $300 Netbooks have larger HDDs... and memory card slots for for.

 

That would have been great. But unfortunately, I don't think Apple is necessarily making it easy for its clientele

 

i think apple has made a big step towards affordability. A macbook is now only $700 and it allows dual booting of windows and mac. And it includes a decent graphics card and other decent specs. many people who just want a laptop to use for internet will choose the basic one because its cheaper than the other mac laptops and the user does not need to install an antivirus and most of all, because its a MAC!

 

Which macbook are you talking about for $700?

 

Even those hypothetical prices are 'premium' but if you factor a value of $300-350 for the Apple extras (OS X, iLife and Design) they are more reasonable.

 

Haha that's what I mean. Still expensive, no doubt, but at least it would be reasonable for someone thinking of buying an Apple and not wanting to pay the extraordinary prices they ask.

But that's not Apple's purpose. They put the high prices, and people buy them anyways

 

Looks like a very nice review. Informative, well written.

 

I agree, excellent, and loved the pictures.

I must say that, even with the new Aluminum MacBooks out, I think that the White MacBook is much more elegant and stylish. The Aluminum just doesn't work as well as it does on the iMac.

If the price was just a tad lower, or the specs were increased a tad, this could be a killer value.

 

i agree i also love the Matte screen of the white macbook more epecially if you are traveling with it.

 

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

YES! For me matte is a must! I'll never get a laptop with a glossy screen...neeeevvvveerrrr!

 

Well, it's matte-er. It is still glossy, just less so than the new Unibody 'Book.

 

Great review, but HP and others have so many more options and features for the same price. This macbook just does not compete and I think Apple tries to hype up the aluminum body way too much to make up for their lack of value to price.

 

booboo soon every notebook will have glossy sadly i know this is gonna happen.

Lewdvig, Still glossy?......the other white macbooks(original)was matte wasnt it?

 

nope,glossy!

 

i'm sorry, i meant $799

 

Another Apple product review with the obligatory cheap jabs at Vista. No wonder why Apple fans have bad rep.

 

a little too expensive for what it is it's still a good notebook though

 

Still like to know which one that is...the new Macbooks still cost $1000 at least without student discounts etc. which only bring them down to about $930...and I wouldn't mine something cheaper

 

Great Review Lewdvig!

I agree about the card reader. I use them everyday on my HP's.

A rear USB port would be nice also.

 

this is why M$ fans have bad rep-have you read writers previews articles?if no,then take a look!

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=314893

 

I don't know what that article you link to has to do with his comment... he was making a comment about how Vista uses more RAM than OS X after boot up, and lewdvig claims that means that OS X is a better OS.

I'm not going to say which one is better, because at the end of the day, it just comes down to personal preference. And I really enjoy lewdvig's reviews. But I as well, roll my eyes when I read comments about how 2 gigs of RAM is not enough for Vista and performance is crap.

Besides, these days, any $400+ computer has at least 3 gigs of RAM, it's Apple who refuses to give more to it's users.

Anyway's, that's the end of my rant

BTW, I have Vista installed on my Acer Netbook w/ 1 gig of RAM, so I'm not just talking out my butt

 

Actually, as he said, it means that OSX is more memory efficient. As an M$ fan (simply because what I do for work requires M$ OS), I can appreciate that it happens to be true.

 

Because memory is so expensive nowadays? Maybe on a Mac.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you can buy memory from 3rd party vendors to use in a MAC. DDR2 is DDR2, no? There's no special MAC RAM AFAIK.

But if you have to buy it from Apple, then I suppose I see your point. At least it's nice of them to let you do more with less.

 

At the beginning, the specifications should have iLife preinstalled, not iWork.

 

Yup, thanks for catching that. iApologize.

 

No, plastic laptops weigh more because of something called specific strength and stiffness. This is why we don't make planes out of plastic.

More blinkered ignorance from the cult of Jobs who don't realise that Sony was using chiclet keys way before they appeared on Macs. Not that I'd ever get a Vaio, but credit where it is due (or rather, not misattributing credit, since chiclet keys have been available on PDAs and calculators for yonks).

All in all, the $999 Macbook sounds like an interesting product. It's ironic that it has FiWi where its $1299 big brother doesn't.

 

Overall I liked the review.
But honestly, did you have to bash Vista in your review??
I mean, talking about its performance is fine, but this is a review about a NOTEBOOK not an OS.
So if you could keep your unsubstantiated generalizations about Vista and its appeal to the public to yourself that would be great. Thanks...

 

To the contrary, since a MAC ties its OS to the hardware, and since you can't legally install OSX on a PC, it's valid to compare OSs.

A perspective buyer would need/want to know the pros and cons of a MAC v. PC given the cost differential and that which may justify the price premium of a MAC to say a practically comparable Dell or HP.

These reviews on this site are best when they make comparisons. The more comparitives, the merrier and more informed readers will be when making buying decisions.

Not every con for Vista is a bash. Sometimes it's just a fact. Likewise, not every con assessed for a MAC is a bash against MACs.

 

The bash against Vista in this case is to justify the pathetic specs of the Mac... seems pretty straight forward to me. "its a more efficient OS.. therefore its ok for Apple to include only 2GB of 600mhz RAM on a $1000 PC" ... in 2009.

 

Nope,poster was saying that OP is Apple fanboy,and by showing him the article I meant that he is wrong

 

Yet a Linux based notebook could get away with even less specs and be perfectly acceptable to the end user.

I don't think stating Vista's memory usage relative to another OS is a bash against Vista who even Microsoft realizes is a resource "hog" and aims to scale that back with Windows 7. It's just stating a fact.

 

"If you install Vista you get a peppy little notebook that only struggles when there are lots of applications open due to its 2GB of RAM (a limiting factory in Vista). On first boot, without virus scan installed, 500MB of MacBook’s memory is used, which rapid climbs up to just under 600 MB after a few minutes. This is almost double what is used for the arguably superior Mac OS X. Arguably? Who am I kidding, a few minutes in Vista will having you running back to OS X or XP. Hopefully you did not buy a MacBook to run Vista. I will only be testing the MacBook's Vista synthetic and gaming performance to give us some idea of raw performance."


ummm... yea, he's simply stating the facts, right? he's a fanboy, that is pretty obvious..

 

Fact as observed and actually a nod for Vista.

Fact as observed.

Think about this for a second? Since OS X is optimized to run on lower specs, much like Linux is, by shear relativity on this particular machine, Vista will appear the sluggard. What's more, the relative "user friendliness" would arguably be in favor of OS X versus Vista - as one experiencing both OSs on the same machine.

I wouldn't buy a MAC to run Vista on, I'd buy a PC. I can get much better specs on a PC for the price of a MAC and be able to run Vista the way it should be run - snappily with all bells and whistles. And I'd be happy. Much as I am now.

So in the end, what are you actually taking issue with?

Right, and I'm a fan of PCs. Should that mean that anything I say which doesn't paint a MAC in a flattering light invalidate what I may have said?

All I'm saying is, irrespective of what you might perceive the author's allegiance to be (and I'm saying I disagree with your assessment considering that Lewdvig's been very vocal with his criticisms against Apple and their MACs), if there's something factual in the review, it shouldn't matter. If you take exception to something which is posited as fact, then post a rebuttal to that alleged fact with something with more force of argument.

 

Yes he said that, but he also said that, and I quote: "This is almost double what is used for the arguably superior Mac OS X. Arguably? Who am I kidding, a few minutes in Vista will having you running back to OS X or XP." That's not just talking about memory efficiency, and that's all I was pointing out. Memory efficiency != better OS.

Since this thread has already been modded, I won't say much, but I will say that please keep those comments to yourself, I was pointing out a single point I did not like in a really good review, not saying anything about "fanboyism". For such an anti-fanboy Xirurg, you're a surprisingly big fanboy. I've been alongside you defending Macbooks in the past, so please don't make comments like that.

 

I also take a little exception to this comment. Lewdvig has been vocal about Apple's PRICING of their Macbooks, and how little bang for buck it contains. That was the whole point of that one large post he made a while back.

So while I guess the only thing I've really taken exception to over this whole debate is just the fact that because OS X takes up less memory than Vista does not make it the better OS, only if you are dealing with a computer that is lacking in RAM, but like I said, I have it installed on a slow computer with 1 gig of RAM without issue, compared to my main laptop with 3 gigs of RAM, so I don't see what the big deal is.

I do agree with your statement though. In the end, whatever you do, do NOT buy a Macbook to install Windows on it, unless you absolutely have to. You can definitely buy much better PC's for the same price. I mean, it's obvious, and that's where so much of the Mac hate comes from.

 

a)
1)I never made "fanboy"-ish comments in this this thread
2)I am not anti-fanboy!
3)If someone has a right to "attack" XXX product,then others should have the right to defend it.Thats why lawyers "exist"!
b)

care to elaborate this sentence?

c)
I pointed out to that thread to show that OP started biggest anti-apple flame war in the history of NBR,and he has owned so many Windows notebooks, that in no way that he can be named a "fanboy"!

Guys,WHT if someone says that something in MacOS is better then in Vista or likes something about apple notebooks makes him a fanboy?

 

MS DOS boots with only 640K, I guess it's better, euh, light-years ahead of OS X then.

 

So? The article proves/disproves nothing.

 

I don't subscribe to false dichotomies. Neither Apple nor MS is perfect.

IMO Vista is a terrible OS - it has gotten better but it is still nowhere near as efficient as XP, nor is it as refined as Windows 7. I base this opinion on the 20-25 PCs I have reviewed with that OS since it came out. And this is supported by MS rushing Windows 7 to market. Don't expect me to apologize for voicing my opinion.

Likewise, I am not going to stop calling out Apple regarding price and specifications.

 

I'm happy with you voicing your opinion lewdvig, and happy with people who can conduct actual arguments to or for something. So I understand that if you think Vista isn't a decent OS in your opinion with as much as you've used it, I just don't think that you can make that statement in the simple comparison of memory being used between OS's. That's all I was talking about.