MacBook Fills Out Laptop Line

maclistsadditional.com said:

>>It would seem that the user should be getting more than just another 20GB
>>for the extra $200.
>
>It's the only way to get black. Worth something I guess, but when
>you subtract out the cost of the hard disk upgrade on its own onto
>the mid-priced model, it's an expensive colour change!


Right! It doesn't seem to make sense. Could the referenced table be in
error? Folks on the Internet have suggested that the black MacBook
includes a dual layer Superdrive. Do you know for sure one way or
another?

Thanks!



Randy B. Singer
Co-Author of: The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th and 6th editions)

Routine OS X Maintenance and Generic Troubleshooting
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

At 6:27 PM -0700 5/19/06, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>Could the referenced table be in
>error? Folks on the Internet have suggested that the black MacBook
>includes a dual layer Superdrive. Do you know for sure one way or
>another?

Well, on the specs page <http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html> it says:

One of the following optical drives:
  * Slot-loading Combo drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW):
reads DVDs at up to 8x speed, writes CD-R discs
at up to 24x speed, writes CD-RW discs at up to
16x speed, reads CDs at up to 24x speed
  * Slot-loading SuperDrive with double-layer read
support (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW): writes DVD-R and
DVD+R discs at up to 4x speed, writes DVD-RW and
DVD+RW discs at up to 4x speed, reads DVDs at up
to 8x speed, writes CD-R discs at up to 24x
speed, writes CD-RW discs at up to 10x speed,
reads CDs at up to 24x speed

So it sounds like the mid- and top-range models
will read double layer but not write double
layer. Apple's pretty good about tooting its own
horn, so I think we can be pretty sure that the
specs are right, but maybe one of us should buy
one just to be sure! :)

Dave

On May 20, 2006, at 2:15 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:

> Does the black MacBook add a dual layer Superdrive instead of a
> single layer Superdrive?

No, both the high-end white MacBook and the black have single-layer
Superdrive. It has been said--whether accurately or not--that there
isn't a thin-enough dual layer Superdrive available at this time.
Try thinking of the black version as being the base price and the
white version having a discount. ;-) That doesn't work for me, either.

>
> It would seem that the user should be getting more than just
> another 20GB
> for the extra $200.

I still believe Apple is rationing. The price is right if you can
sell out the product you can produce, without having long waits.
Whether they think sales of the black would exceed sales of the white
at equal pricing, or the production capacity of the black is less
than that of the white, or some combination of those. Time and the
first price drop will tell if they got it right--if the "black tax"
stays about the same it will suggest that they got it about right.
Note that it isn't obvious that the same factory produces both models.

I took a pair of sea voyages today (round trip ferry Kingston-
Edmonds) to visit the Alderwood Mall Apple store (which I would class
as "large mini-store"). Reactions:
    1. An Apple store's lighting is a harsh test of the glossy
screen, particularly when standing at the table containing the
machine so that the screen is tilted way back. The glossy was not
ideal, but acceptable, in that environment. Were I in the MacBook
Pro market (I'm not) I would probably select the matte screen. [I
may have a MacBook sometime in the summer, either mine or the
company's.] By the way, in that configuration, the stop to the
motion of the screen works for me, despite my great height.

    2. In a lighted situation, I like the MacBook keyboard better
than the MacBook Pro keyboard. (I'm sure I'd like the lighted keys
in some situations, but my USB light still works.) I certainly like
the *feel* of the MacBook keyboard better than that of the MacBook
Pro (but I haven't done prolonged tests of sitting down comfortably
typing on either). The extra "stuff" added to the arrow keys seems
fine to me.

    3. At equal pricing, I would have trouble picking between high-
end white, and black. (The store had 3 of each on display...I messed
about with the low-end.) With the existing pricing the choice is
easy (for me).

    4. On the machine I tried, the right-click-with-two-fingers-on-
the-trackpad didn't work until I turned it on. Quite likely, that
means it's off out of the box to avoid "surprises." It was on when I
left.

    5. Overall, I'd be happy with the machine as a laptop (not as a
desktop replacement).

   --John

On 20 May 2006, at 15:15 , maclistsadditional.com wrote:
> Someone told me that the dual layer
> drives are physically larger (and more power hungry) which leads to
> problems both with physical space and heat dissipation, but I'm not
> 100% sure that it wasn't more like speculation than fact.

This is fact. The 17" has more room behind the CD drive, so can
accomodate the 1" Dual layers, which are longer than the single layer
burners at the same height.

--
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

On May 17, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Alexander Hoffman wrote:

> 3) I'd like to point out that while both the MacBook and the MacBook
> Pro use new magsafe AC adapters (and rumors of a third party adapter,
> yet?), the former uses as 60w version (which appears to the be old
> square) and the latter an 85w version (a larger rectangle). iBooks
> and PowerBooks have been using the same adapter, but those days might
> be over. Can either the MB or the MBP use the other's adapter, or are
> the connectors differently sized?

Actually, Apple laptops have used different capacity AC adapters for
quite a while. There was even a split in the Powerbook line; 12"
versions used a 40 watt adapter, while the larger versions used a 65
watt. I believe that the iBooks used the 45 watt, although the spec
page doesn't list it. All the more argument that the 12" powerbooks
were enhanced iBooks.

Alan Forkosh Oakland, CA
aforkoshmac.com

At 2:15 PM -0700 5/20/06, Matt Neuburg wrote:

>What this doesn't take account of is the difference between buying the
>higher model and configuring the same upgrades at the AppleStore. It is much
>cheaper to have Apple put the 80 gig HD into the white MacBook 2.0 than to
>buy the black MacBook 2.0 - yet at that point there is no known difference
>between them except color. m.

Hi Matt,

   The upgrades/options are the same for all three MacBook models.
Since they don't change they don't show up for the 2nd and 3rd
models. However, I've added a note to the second model just to
underline the fact that the premium you pay for the 3rd model is
almost entirely for the colour.

   Thanks for the feedback.

Dave

On 5/21/06 3:56 PM, "Alan Forkosh" <aforkoshmac.com> wrote:

> Actually, Apple laptops have used different capacity AC adapters for
> quite a while. There was even a split in the Powerbook line; 12"
> versions used a 40 watt adapter, while the larger versions used a 65
> watt. I believe that the iBooks used the 45 watt, although the spec
> page doesn't list it. All the more argument that the 12" powerbooks
> were enhanced iBooks.

My wife has a 12" PowerBook. I have a 17" PowerBook and an old G3 14" iBook.
We use the same adapters for all 3.

Alex wondered...

> 3) I'd like to point out that while both the MacBook and the MacBook
> Pro use new magsafe AC adapters (and rumors of a third party adapter,
> yet?), the former uses as 60w version (which appears to the be old
> square) and the latter an 85w version (a larger rectangle). iBooks
> and PowerBooks have been using the same adapter, but those days might
> be over. Can either the MB or the MBP use the other's adapter, or are
> the connectors differently sized?

No one had addressed this question, which I think is important, too,
so I checked with Cornell's Apple SE for the official answer.

Rick says that the 85W MagSafe power adapter from the MacBook Pro can
be used to power and charge the MacBook. The 60W MagSave power
adapter from a MacBook can be used to power a MacBook Pro, but
because of the lower wattage, it will not charge the MacBook Pro's
battery.

This is similar to the situation with iBook and 12" PowerBook
low-power adapters powering, but not charging, 15" and 17"
PowerBooks, but the latter's adapters working fine for the
less-demanding machines. Similarly, car/airplane adapters often are
too low-power to charge the laptop, but will power it while you use
it.

==========================================================================
  Mark H. Anbinder | mhatidbits.com
  Contributing Editor, TidBITS | http://www.tidbits.com/
==========================================================================

>No one had addressed this question, which I think is important, too,

Well, Macworld addressed it last week:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/firstlooks/macbookfaq/index.php

>I already own a MacBook Pro-can I use the power supply that came
>with it on a MacBook?
>If you hold the two power supplies side by side, you'll notice that
>the MacBook Pro's is larger. That's because the MacBook Pro uses an
>85-watt power supply, while the MacBook uses a 60-watt power supply.
>Apple says you can use the more powerful, 85-watt power supply with
>a MacBook without any problems, and that in 80 percent to 90 percent
>of situations, you can use the MacBook's power supply with the
>more-demanding MacBook Pro as well. If you're really taxing the
>MacBook Pro's processor with some heavy-duty work, the MacBook's
>adapter will still be able to power the MacBook Pro-but it may not
>have any power left over to charge its battery.

The Apple SE's statements to Mark were inaccurate.

--
Jason Snell / Editorial Director, Mac Publishing / jsnellmacworld.com
415-243-3565 / AIM: MW jsnell / www.macworld.com / www.playlistmag.com

>Alex wondered...
>
>> 3) I'd like to point out that while both the MacBook and the MacBook
>> Pro use new magsafe AC adapters (and rumors of a third party adapter,
>> yet?), the former uses as 60w version (which appears to the be old
>> square) and the latter an 85w version (a larger rectangle). iBooks
>> and PowerBooks have been using the same adapter, but those days might
>> be over. Can either the MB or the MBP use the other's adapter, or are
>> the connectors differently sized?
>
>No one had addressed this question, which I think is important, too,
>so I checked with Cornell's Apple SE for the official answer.
>
>Rick says that the 85W MagSafe power adapter from the MacBook Pro can
>be used to power and charge the MacBook. The 60W MagSave power
>adapter from a MacBook can be used to power a MacBook Pro, but
>because of the lower wattage, it will not charge the MacBook Pro's
>battery.
>
>This is similar to the situation with iBook and 12" PowerBook
>low-power adapters powering, but not charging, 15" and 17"
>PowerBooks, but the latter's adapters working fine for the
>less-demanding machines. Similarly, car/airplane adapters often are
>too low-power to charge the laptop, but will power it while you use
>it.

Mark and I have both since learned that it's not as straightforward
as the Apple SE said. See today's update at ExtraBITS, but here's the
relevant section:

<http://www.tidbits.com/extrabits/>

>Macworld's Jason Snell pointed out an error about the MacBook's 60W
>power adapter. I wrote, "You can use the MacBook Pro adapter to
>power a MacBook and charge its battery, but not the reverse: a
>MacBook's 60W adpater will power a MacBook Pro, but it won't charge
>the battery." However, Jason notes, "the 60W adapter will power a
>MacBook Pro and charge its battery in, according to Apple, 80 to 90
>percent of tasks. Only in the 10-20 percent most energy-taxing tasks
>will cause enough of a power drain that the 60W adapter won't also
>be able to charge the battery."
>
>For practical purposes, though, it sounds as though the 60W adapter
>is inadequate to reliably and quickly charge the MacBook Pro
>battery, and users shouldn't swap them indiscriminately.

Jeff

--
____________________________________________________________
Jeff Carlson .................. http://jeffcarlson.com/blog/
Never Enough Coffee Creations...... http://www.necoffee.com/
Managing Editor, TidBITS........... http://www.tidbits.com/
NEW! Making a Movie in iMovie HD & iDVD 5 Visual QuickProject
      iMovie HD & iDVD 5: VQS.. http://necoffee.com/imovievqs/

On 5/23/06 1:19 PM, "Mark H. Anbinder" wrote:
> Rick says that the 85W MagSafe power adapter from the MacBook Pro can
> be used to power and charge the MacBook. The 60W MagSave power
> adapter from a MacBook can be used to power a MacBook Pro, but
> because of the lower wattage, it will not charge the MacBook Pro's
> battery.

Just to clarify: It will not charge the MacBook Pro's battery *while using
the MacBook Pro.* It will charge the battery just fine if the MacBook Pro is
asleep or turned off.

On May 24, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Jason Snell wrote:

>> No one had addressed this question, which I think is important, too,
>
> Well, Macworld addressed it last week:
>
> http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/firstlooks/macbookfaq/index.php
>

Thanks, Jason. That reference caused me to reread the article. With
respect to memory, I fear that those who use non-Apple RAM to get to
2G will then sell (on eBay?) the two 256 units they take out.

If Apple is still being silly about "improper" RAM in machines
returned for repair, that would be a mistake--one should save the
modules, and reinstall them before sending the machine back. (And,
in fact, test the machine with its original RAM before sending it--
the problem could in fact be bad RAM.)

So I'd suggest not including the expected value of the removed RAM in
one's RAM upgrade cost calculations. Besides, there will be more
sellers than buyers for these parts anyhow.

   --John

>If Apple is still being silly about "improper" RAM in machines
>returned for repair, that would be a mistake--one should save the
>modules, and reinstall them before sending the machine back. (And,
>in fact, test the machine with its original RAM before sending it--
>the problem could in fact be bad RAM.)

I've been bit by this problem before, but gambled this time and
bought two 1 GB sticks of generic RAM from the unfortunately-named
1-800-4-memory, from whom I've purchased a lot of RAM in the
pre-Tiger past. They've always been good about returns.

<http://www.8004memory.com/>

However, the generic worked fine in my MacBook. The biggest trouble I
had was getting the boards to seat complete... you really have to
push them in hard (at least, on my unit).

Jeff
--
____________________________________________________________
Jeff Carlson .................. http://jeffcarlson.com/blog/
Never Enough Coffee Creations...... http://www.necoffee.com/
Managing Editor, TidBITS........... http://www.tidbits.com/
NEW! Making a Movie in iMovie HD & iDVD 5 Visual QuickProject
      iMovie HD & iDVD 5: VQS.. http://necoffee.com/imovievqs/

On 24 May 2006, at 14:44 , johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:
> If Apple is still being silly about "improper" RAM in machines
> returned for repair,

What are you talking about? RAM is a user serviceable part.

--
And I just don't care what happens next / looks like freedom but it
feels like death / it's something in between, I guess

On 5/25/06 9:33 AM, "Google Kreme" wrote:
> On 24 May 2006, at 14:44 , johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:
>> If Apple is still being silly about "improper" RAM in machines
>> returned for repair,
>
> What are you talking about? RAM is a user serviceable part.

I think his point was that if your Mac is having a problem and you send it
in for repair, Apple may send it back with a note claiming that the problem
was caused by third-party RAM. (In my most recent case, even when that
wasn't the cause of the problem.) So you may save yourself some trouble if
you save the original RAM and reinstall it before sending your Mac in.

(This is all assuming you've verified yourself that your third-party RAM
isn't causing the problem, of course ;-) )

On May 25, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Google Kreme wrote:

> On 24 May 2006, at 14:44 , johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:
>> If Apple is still being silly about "improper" RAM in machines
>> returned for repair,
>
> What are you talking about? RAM is a user serviceable part.
>

That didn't stop Apple from returning the non-Apple RAM in a plastic
bag with many of the machines returned for repair, sometimes without
having done anything else. There was a period of that being routine
a couple of years ago...hence the "If Apple is still being silly"
part of what I wrote.

   --John

On May 26, 2006, at 1:22 PM, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:
> That didn't stop Apple from returning the non-Apple RAM in a plastic
> bag with many of the machines returned for repair, sometimes without
> having done anything else. There was a period of that being routine
> a couple of years ago...hence the "If Apple is still being silly"
> part of what I wrote.

Yes, they routinely remove third-party RAM even if it has nothing to
do with the problem, it seems. A year or two ago I had my PowerBook
Ti in for service, which came with 256 MB of RAM, to which I had
added 512. When it came back they had forgotten to even return it.
Fortunately they had a record of having removed it, and no record of
having replaced or returned it, so they made good on it. (When I
bought my Intel Mini the price of the upgrade for the 2 GB was not
that different from a third-party price, so I got Apple RAM in it. I
won't have that problem with this computer.)

Geoff

Does MacBook support external video in portrait mode?

This and the non-backward compatible AC-Adapters are holding me back from the upgrades to MacBook. I have a freeze-prone PB12 that I'd like to get rid off.

BTW, does wide-screen makes sense for 13" display? I think more vertical (as suppose to horizontal) pixels are more useful for general use. On my PB12, I find myself having to scroll the page up and down while viewing most webpages or documents.

On 6/1/06 12:04 PM, "Yoshipop" <yoshipopyahoo.com> wrote:

> Does MacBook support external video in portrait mode?
>
> This and the non-backward compatible AC-Adapters are holding me back from the
> upgrades to MacBook. I have a freeze-prone PB12 that I'd like to get rid off.
>
> BTW, does wide-screen makes sense for 13" display? I think more vertical (as
> suppose to horizontal) pixels are more useful for general use. On my PB12, I
> find myself having to scroll the page up and down while viewing most webpages
> or documents.

I read that vertical screen dimensions are constrained by airplane seating.
Taller notebooks with non-widescreen 15" displays, for example, can't be
opened all the way when they're on the tray and the person in front of you
reclines their seat.

Also, watching DVDs (again, often on airplanes) is rather popular so a
widescreen screen is favored to match the ratio used by non-pan 'n scan
versions of movies.

On 6/1/06 at 9:04 AM, yoshipopyahoo.com (Yoshipop) wrote:

> BTW, does wide-screen makes sense for 13" display? I think more
> vertical (as suppose to horizontal) pixels are more useful for
> general use. On my PB12, I find myself having to scroll the page up
> and down while viewing most webpages or documents.

I'd say portrait displays are fundamentally problematical for laptops
for a couple of reasons:

* The entry area for a laptop - keyboard plus trackpad - is ideally
wider than it is tall. Also, wider fits better on a lap and is less
likely to slide off.

* A portrait screen puts more stress on the hinges - the top of the
screen will be much further from the hinges that actually bear the
weight, and the extra force this creates will be spread over a narrower
area along the back of the laptop. The extra movement arm (hope that's
the proper technical term) will also make it harder to stay open at a
given angle, unless it's right at vertical.

Also, if you're not doing page layout, I'd have to disagree about
vertical pixels being more valuable than horizontal; wide-angle video
and landscape photo framing aside, a widescreen display is perfect for
using standard-width windows with a working area on either side, for
palettes, desktop icon space, accessories like the calculator, etc. etc.
And I deal with far more spreadsheets that are in landscape orientation
than in portrait.


Travis Butler
tbutlermac.com

...Cats are the proof of a higher purpose to the universe.