[Machound]

Quote:

---

I'm not crazy about the white versions myself. But if I have to layout 200 bucks more, I'd be for more memory, not black paint.

---

To be fair it's $200 for black paint AND a 160 GB HD. Since Apple charges $100 to increase the HD from 120 to 160 GB, it's technically a $100 premium for black paint. Unfortunately, if memory serves me correctly, black paint was only $50 above the HD price differential on the previous MacBook... so this represents a step backward for Apple's black paint pricing.
Apple, Inc... how about offering us a choice of five colors all priced the same? Remember pastel iMacs, or iPod Micro & iPod Nano colors? You'll doubtless see more "halo" effect if you color Macbooks the same as iPods, especially if they're bundled together. I realize this suggestion may run counter to today's business-focused marketing strategy.
Don't forget about homemakers, teens, tweens, and early twenties -- even if those groups aren't currently in Apple's marketing vogue.

[montgomery_burns]

The 200 GB hard drive is still the older 4200 rpm model.

[Nobody]

Are they 64-bit or 32-bit microprocessors? Thanks.

[montgomery_burns]

Quote:

---

To be fair it's $200 for black paint AND a 160 GB HD. Since Apple charges $100 to increase the HD from 120 to 160 GB, it's technically a $100 premium for black paint. Unfortunately, if memory serves me correctly, black paint was only $50 above the HD price differential on the previous MacBook... so this represents a step backward for Apple's black paint pricing.

---

According to Apple's web site, upgrading the $1299 white MacBook from 120 to 160 GB HD costs $75. So the black paint is actually a $125 premium.
For the price premium, the black MacBook should have included 2 GB memory standard.

[stormovick]

I think Apple made the right move here they need to hold the line on price. Had they Santa Rosa equipped their low-end machines, theyd overrun their price targets for sure and cannibalize sales from the Mac Book Pro.
Personally, Im waiting for a Mac Book Pro with 4 GB of ram and all of the above. But its going to cost dearly.

[luckylindy]

I had doubts that the integrated graphics could cut it Until I hooked my Macbook up to a second HP 19" LCD monitor at work and saw that Rotate was enabled (hello portrait mode)...until I hooked up my Macbook to my 52" HDTV and watched movies using Front Row...until I installed Final Cut Pro 5 and edited in dual screen mode. All of this with nary a stutter in performance. Did I play Quake or Myst or Crest or Trist (obviously I am not a gamer)? Nope, so I can't vouch for games. But everything else I have thrown at my BlacBook (it's got 2.0GHz of memory) has been a revelation. So much performance for the dollar. Don't convince your work-mates TOO hard. If they want prosumer performance, this is the machine.

[Ponceno]

Quote:

---

Are they 64-bit or 32-bit microprocessors? Thanks.

---

The Original Core or Core 1 is a 32-bit CPU
The Core 2 is a 64-bit CPU

[robco]

I could live without many of the features of Santa Rosa, but the GMA X3100 isn't one of them. I have an original MacBook and the 950 is OK, but I was hoping for something a little better. If not the GMA X3100, at least a low-end discrete GPU as an option. I was planning on upgrading, but now I guess I'll either wait or consider a Windows laptop. The MacBook Pro is nice, but too big, too heavy, too fragile and too expensive for me. I don't need blistering graphics performance, but would like something a little better than the 950.
I don't like the black tax either. I'm developing the stains on my white MacBook and I won't get another white one. Another ho-hum Mac product update. But consumer gadgets aren't taking focus away from the Mac at all...

[Ponceno]

Quote:

---

I think Apple made the right move here they need to hold the line on price. Had they Santa Rosa equipped their low-end machines, theyd overrun their price targets for sure and cannibalize sales from the Mac Book Pro.
Personally, Im waiting for a Mac Book Pro with 4 GB of ram and all of the above. But its going to cost dearly.

---

The Santa Rosa CPU's are in 2007 like $100 less than the original Core 2 from last year.
Look for the Table at the end of this article and you will see for yoursellf
http://www.appleinsi...to_benefit.html
I believe that simple a matter to leave the top speed Santa Rosa chips for the MacBook Pro, don't be surprise to see another update this year on the MacBook's with low end Santa Rosa chips.

[Ponceno]

Quote:

---

I was planning on upgrading, but now I guess I'll either wait or consider a Windows laptop.

---

You maybe a PC switcher because no true Mac User will ever consider a Windows machine over a Mac OS X one.

[robco]

Santa Rose refers to the motherboard chipset, not the CPU. The CPUs are unchanged, still the "Merom" series used in current models at the same clock speeds. The new "Penryn" core chips are still some time away from production. Santa Rosa increases the front side bus speed to 800MHz and has integrated flash memory. Power consumption is also said to be improved. The 3GB RAM limit will also go away as well.
When the MacBook Pro is updated with Santa Rosa chips, hopefully that will mean that a MacBook update isn't far behind. Intel probably hasn't fully ramped up production, so prices will be high and volume low for a while. I guess Apple felt the need to do something before the education shopping season begins.

[Machound]

Quote:

---

According to Apple's web site, upgrading the $1299 white MacBook from 120 to 160 GB HD costs $75. So the black paint is actually a $125 premium.

---

You're right and I was wrong. Apple charges $100 to increase from 160 to 200 GB, not from 120 to 160 GB.

Quote:

---

For the price premium, the black MacBook should have included 2 GB memory standard.

---

Agreed. 2 GB RAM 160 GB HDD black paint for an $200 would be ok. Hopefully Apple sees the error of their ways and makes a price adjustment. $125 for black paint is out of touch with reality.

[Ponceno]

Quote:

---

Santa Rose refers to the motherboard chipset, not the CPU. The CPUs are unchanged, still the "Merom" series used in current models at the same clock speeds.

---

Not entirely true. The Santa Rosa CPU's also have the new 800 Ghz from side bus and the 2 top model now are 2.2 and 2.4 Ghz.

[HumanJHawkins]

Quote:

---

I had doubts that the integrated graphics could cut it Until I hooked my Macbook up to a second HP 19" LCD monitor at work and saw that Rotate was enabled (hello portrait mode)...until I hooked up my Macbook to my 52" HDTV and watched movies using Front Row...<CUT>

---

Unfortunately there is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding graphics... The only thing that integrated graphics suck at is rendering complicated 3D graphics in real-time at high frame rates. Very few non-3D games require this. So, if you don't play 3D first-person shooters or other graphically intense games, you should expect perfect graphic performance from a MacBook (or any other cheap computer).
I think what gets under people's skin and makes them gripe about this so much (and give others the false impression that their video is somehow going to look bad) is that the MacBook is perfect for them EXCEPT for the ability to play 3D games. And they don't want to pay an extra $1000 just to be able to play a game. So, they get angry. It's like Apple is holding some prize just out of reach for them.
Long story short, if you don't play 3D games, the MacBook should be awesome. If you do, you should strongly consider getting a 17" Toshiba with the full keyboard and nVidia GeForce Go 6600 for about the same price. (And learn to live with Windows because there is no 3D game capable Mac laptop in that price range.)