<p>Just wondering, has anyone bought/used/tried the new Macbook or Macbook Pro? What were your impressions? What do you like and dislike?</p>
<p>Hey, I tried the new macbook pro a few weeks ago. Although it looks absolutely stunning, I was not at all impressed with the glass track pad. I have an older MacBook Pro (the previous version) and I prefer the old track pad much better. I can imagine that it takes a little while getting used to it. If you have the time and patience, I'd recommend it. However, the new version is super fast, thinner, and the screen is fantastic.</p>
<p>I'm sticking with my old Mac. It's always been very reliable. If you're thinking about buying a new laptop and want to save money, take a look at the older notebooks from Apple that are still in stock.</p>
<p>Apparently it has a lot of problems with wireless connectivity.</p>
<p>I'm a senior in hs, and I recently bought the previous generation of the macbook pro, but before I did, I did extensive research on both. The trackpad on the new one did frustrate me, as you have to press down pretty hard on it to click. I got the older generation for $1400 with the sudent discount, compared to the $2000 minimum you'd have to shell out for the new one. I love the previous generation, even after coming off years on a pc. I would get the older one and possibly upgrade it with the money you save as I did.</p>
<p>There was some kind of software fix issued for the trackpad complaints from Apple. I've only played with the new ones in the store.</p>
<p>The trackpad isn't a problem for me because I normally use an external (Bluetooth) keyboard and mouse. The video chips in the new model supposedly run much cooler than the video chips in the previous generation. Note: I have three prev-gen MBPs.</p>
<p>there's an option for tapping the trackpad instead of pressing it so it clicks. tapping is flawless on it.</p>
<p>Husband got the one and loves it. Doesn't get hot like the older one, and with enabling the "tapping" option, it's quiet and efficient.</p>
<p>Big improvement. It's also made out of aluminum, and allegedly recyclable.</p>
<p>All the AlBooks (dating back to the first-of-this-form-factor PowerBook G4s) have "problems" with wireless connectivity, in that it's more difficult to pick out weak Wi-Fi signals.</p>
<p>That's an inherent design trade-off that comes with making the entire computer out of aluminum. There's not much that can be done about it.</p>
<p>I've gone from an AlBook PBG4 to a June 2007-refresh MBP, and I'll be upgrading to the new MBP next week. I would recommend them without hesitation. Quality, durable, usable and elegant machines.</p>
<p>I'm going to be getting a Macbook in the next few months for college, the new one for sure. My question, is the Pro worth the extra money? And if I were to get the macbook (regular), will the bottom line one suffice? I'm not a gamer, but I despise slow computers (don't we all though...). So will the bottom line one work, or should I get the upgraded one, or should I just kick in the extra money myself and get the Pro?</p>
<p>It really depends on your needs.</p>
<p>If you can live with the 13" screen on the MacBook, and you aren't going to be doing gaming or anything else really graphics/processor intensive (photo editing, etc.) then I would say the MacBook would be fine. Obviously, it's not "as fast" as the MBP, but we're in an age where virtually every machine has more than enough juice to run the basics - word processing, e-mail, Web surfing, etc.</p>
<p>I would definitely <em>not</em> get the "bottom line" plastic $1000 MacBook. Get the low-end $1300 aluminum unibody one. And bump the RAM. If there's one thing you want to spend money on for a small upgrade, max out the RAM. Having more RAM will make a small, but noticeable, difference.</p>
<p>Personally, I can't live with a screen any smaller than the 15.4" on the MBP, so I shell out the extra bucks for the Pro.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm going to be getting a Macbook in the next few months for college, the new one for sure. My question, is the Pro worth the extra money? And if I were to get the macbook (regular), will the bottom line one suffice? I'm not a gamer, but I despise slow computers (don't we all though...). So will the bottom line one work, or should I get the upgraded one, or should I just kick in the extra money myself and get the Pro?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>any Macbook will suit you fine. performance gain from the lower-end to the high-end ($1600) Macbook isn't that big, what you're really paying for is backlit keys. if you do any photo or video editing, the aluminum models will be better, but there's no reason to rule the plastic one out. one thing to keep in mind, though, is that the Macbook's display is mediocre at best. specifically, the blacks suck. try it out at a store, look at different images, maybe play a video, see if it's fine with you.</p>
<p>unless you really want the screen quality or size of a Macbook Pro, it isn't for you. you won't be using any of its power.</p>
<p>I supose the only reason I don't play games is because of the fact I don't have a powerful enough computer. If I were to get a Mac Pro, how good would that be at gaming (do you need the 2.8gHz processor?) and are there many decent games out for Macs?</p>
<p>You mean a MacBook Pro, right, not a Mac Pro :P</p>
<p>The MacBook Pro is a solid midrange machine for gaming. It's not going to satisfy the hard-core "must-run-Far-Cry-2-at-1920x1200-at-80-fps" set, but for games like CoD4, Source-engine (TF2, HL2, Left4Dead, etc.), Civ IV, iRacing, Fallout 3, etc. you'll be fine. I have all of the aforementioned except Fallout 3, and they run fine at medium-high graphics settings in the screen's native resolution (1440x900) on my older 2.2GHz 8600M GT MBP with only 128MB of VRAM.</p>
<p>You don't really need the 2.8GHz upgrade, but get the 2.53GHz for sure as it has double the VRAM of the slower machine, and VRAM is quite key for gaming graphics.</p>
<p>Now that Apple is on Intel architecture, there are a few more native games available for Mac - but many (most?) Mac gamers just install Windows and dual-boot to have the entire universe of PC games accessible with a five-minute restart.</p>
<p>actually the difference between the 256 MB and 512 MB cards is very small.</p>
<p>Benchmarks:</a> The new MacBook and games | From the Lab | Macworld</p>
<p>the biggest difference in FPS was 8 FPS with the 256 getting 96 as opposed to the 512 getting 104 FPS in Doom 3. And in the newest game tested, CoD4, there was a .4 FPS difference between the 512 and the 256 card.</p>
<p>It really depends on the game, Chipmoney. I play a Windows online racing simulator called iRacing, and its hyper-detailed track environments devour VRAM. Draw distances and detail "pop-in" improve markedly with VRAM increases.</p>
<p>I was wondering if y'all would recommend an old MacBook Pro [the previous generation], or a new MacBook [not pro]? They're about the same price. I'd be doing photo editing-type things and playing The Sims 2.
Thanks in advance. =]</p>
<p>I would go for the previous gen MBP over the MacBook, unless you just have to have a warranty and all that. Especially for photo editing. You'll want the graphic horsepower for photo editing, and you'll definitely want the 15.4" screen.</p>
<p>The CPU is what matters for photo editing, unless you're using photoshop CS4. The only thing with the old macbook pros is that the 8600 has a high rate of failure.</p>
<p>Can you define "high rate of failure"?</p>
<p>well it will more likely fail than any of the other cards, though it could also outlast a different card. It just depends if you get lucky. </p>
<p>of course any component on a computer can theoretically fail...but Nvidia has said there was a problem with the card and they knew about it...
PC</a> Pro: News: Nvidia sued over faulty GPU "cover-up"</p>