Apple MacBook Pro (MB471LL/A) 15.4 in. Notebook

When the MacBook Pro was introduced in 2006, many Mac fans were disappointed that looked almost identical to the PowerBook it replaced. It was a bit thinner, the screen resolution was a bit different and yes, it had the built-in webcam originally introduced on the G5 iMac, but at a glance one couldn't tell it apart from its obsolete predecessor.

The MacBook Pro, however, vastly exceeded the PowerBook's features and capabilities, offering far greater speed than any PowerBook, along with improved battery life, and within a few months of its introduction, the ability to run Windows.

Over the next two years, Apple steadily improved the MacBook Pro, fitting cooler yet more powerful processors, LED backlit screens, adding FireWire 800 (which the PowerBook also had) while also improving performance in every respect. In short, the MacBook Pro looked like the old PowerBook, but any resemblance vanished the moment you started using it.

Which brings me to the subject of this review, Apple's new masterpriece. The new MacBook Pro, like the new MacBook I reviewed earlier this evening, isn't perfect, but if you can live with its (few) limitations you will find it to be about the best small laptop ever built. Any similarity between the two reviews is intentional, as the two products themselves are far more closely related than any previous MacBook Pro and MacBook, sharing design and even most specifications. Read on.

In terms of specifications and equipment, the new MacBook Pro actually is slightly inferior in many respects to the old MacBook Pro models. Processor speed is about the same, as is maximum memory and hard disk capacity. There are no new 3G network cards, no card readers, no BlueRay and no new battery technology. The new MacBook Pro is rated at exactly the same runtime as the old MacBook Pro, but that is on its integrated video. Engage the dedicated graphics chip and you will lose a whopping 60 minutes of runtime. Like its little brother, the MacBook Pro also loses its FireWire 400 port, though the FireWire 800 port remains and is backward compatible (with an adapter cable) to the FireWire 400 devices you may own.

There are only two performance specifications that are improved on the new model, graphics and bus speed. The front-side bus is sped up from 800 MHz to 1066 MHz, which is a significant bump that may actually translate to improved application performance in some situations. Bus speed isn't like processor speed or hard drive speed, which will almost always give a massive performance boost, but it does help the computer's various components to communicate with one another faster.

The more significant performance improvement relates to the graphics. The old models used an inVideo GeForce 8600GT graphics chip with either 256 MB or 512 MB of dedicated VRAM. The new MacBook Pro actually has two graphics chips inside, an integrated GeForce 9400M that is identical to the one in the standard MacBook, and a discreet GeForce 9600GM with the same 256 MB or 512 MB as the previous MacBook Pro video cards, but on a more advanced chipset that should provide higher performance.

I tried Doom 3 on the MacBook Pro and didn't feel a significant difference from my previous-generation MacBook Pro, and I didn't expect to as both computers had the same 2.4G GHz processor and 256 MB of dedicated video RAM. The new MacBook Pro has the previously mentioned faster bus, but my older model has twice the installed RAM (4 GB compared to 2 GB). WHere the new model disappoints me is that with the dedicated graphics enabled, battery life drops a full hour.

While you need to use the integrated video to get the same battery runtime as you got with the old MacBook Pro, it isn't THAT much of a sacrifice. Things really are that much better with Vampire Video these days.

Compared with the previous model MacBook, a consumer model with Vampire Video and of which I own a 2.2 GHz late 2007 model, doesn't do so badly in moderately demanding graphical applications. I've used mine (in Windows XP) to play 2005-era games with decent results, though the high-end games of 2005, like Doom 3, would barely run.

The new MacBook Pro and MacBook nVidia GeForce 9400M is also a Vampire Video system, sucking 256 MB of system RAM, but unlike all VV systems of yore, this one actually isn't too shabby. Doom 3 can actually be played, albeit at medium detain and XGA resolution. Its MUCH faster than the old MacBook, and perhaps half as fast as the old MacBook Pro or the new one running dedicated graphics.

So performance is improved, battery life is sacrificed with dedicated graphics and equalled with integrated and you lose your FireWire 400 port, why then would anyone want the new MacBook Pro? Simply put, it is GORGEOUS. Anyone who thought the old Aluminum PowerBook and MacBook Pro was jewel like is in for a treat. If the old ones were jewels, the new one is made from pure unobtainium. It is THAT nice.

The case is cut from a single block of aluminum, and the resulting laptop is the most rigid feeling portable computer I've ever put my hands on, even better than special ruggedized models like Panasonic's ToughBook series. I don't know if the machine is as tough as it seems, and I doubt that the glass display and the hinge are ruggedized, but it sure feels durable and should more than handle anything that normal users can throw at it. In fact, the MacBook and MacBook Pro (and the older MacBook Air) are, by a wide margin, the most rigid laptops I've ever touched.

The new MacBook Pro has the same keyboard as the MacBook Air, which is almost identical to that of the old MacBook, though with what feels like a higher quality of construction. All MacBook Pro keyboards are backlit like the Air and the old MacBook Pro and large PowerBook, reinforcing the sense that this is a premium product.

Speaking of keyboards, I am a certified keyboard snob. I find Apple's modern keyboards to look strange and feel stranger, but they are also fast, accurate and comfortable. They aren't bad, just different, and once you get used to it, you will likely find, as I did with my own MacBook, that your typing speed increases and your error rate decreases. That said, I still prefer the old metal-look (they are actually plastic) keys on the old MacBook Pro and aluminum PowerBooks. Yes, I am slightly faster and more accurate on the MacBook keyboard, but the old MacBook Pro/PowerBook keyboards, much like the ThinkPad, just feels higher quality and more luxurious.

Another major change is the new touchpad, which is made entirely of glass and has NO BUTTONS AT ALL. Yes, while PCs are going to two, three and even five buttons on their touchpads and eraserheads, Apple took away the single button and leaves you with none. Not to fear, the entire touchpad IS THE BUTTON, and with a setting in the control panel, the right or left bottom corner can be configured as a "right button", taking away the one complaint many users had about Apple's old touchpads. I found the entire pad-as-button concept to feel strange for like the first two seconds I used the MacBook, then it quickly became second nature. I just continued clicking as I always did with my thumb and the new touchpad worked exactly the same as the old one, but when I tried clicking elsewhere, I found it so intuitive that I stopped moving the thumb. This negates one of the major disadvantages touchpads have always had over eraserheads, which is the requirement to move your hands too much to click. Now, the same finger or thumb can point and click in a single motion that in some situations is even faster and more intuitive than a regular mouse.

The last major change is the display, which like the old MacBook is only available in glossy, but unlike the old MacBook is all glass. This is a major improvement, as glass is more environmentally friendly (says Apple), easier to keep clean and less prone to scratches. It also looks a whole lot more expensive and higher-quality than the old MacBook display, which looked like it was covered by a thin sheet of flexible plastic, though that clearly wasn't the case. The display itself is also of higher quality, with the LED backlighting from the MacBook Air making for brighter colors, instant warm up and decreased power consumption.

There is a downside to the new display design, shared with all glossy screens, and that is glare. Glossy screens produce deeper blacks, whiter whites and vivid, saturated color that makes them terrific for watching movies and viewing photographs, but lousy for working with text or for use near strong light sources. Glossy screens, and this one is VERY glossy, are in effect mirrors, and while the strong LED backlight can overpower almost any reflection, that doesn't mean that the reflection isn't there. I often got a headache when using my old MacBook in the late afternoon, just at the same time that the light came through my office window and right onto the laptop display. My current matte screen laptop makes me headache-free. The moral is that you need to examine not only how you will use your laptop, but where, and even when, to see if glossy will work for you. In my old office glossy was terrific, while in my new one it is literally a pain.

The lack of a matte option is annoying on the regular consumer MacBook, but may well lead to an uproar from MacBook Pro buyers. I'm not sure what the percentage of MacBook Pro buyers selecting matte screens was, but judging from all of the blog posts (my own included) in the days following the new models' announcement one might think Apple is facing a small rebellion. People who like glossy screens really like them, but those who hate them, likewise really hate them. I suppose there is also a middle ground user that really doesn't care, not to mention many who use a portable like a transportable desktop, only relying on the built-in display in rare instances. I think glossy-only was a bad choice, but then I am sure that the design made a matte screen impractical. Of course, it could also be that the previous generation MacBook Pro simply didn't sell in sufficient quantities with its matte screen option to justify keeping such a display in the lineup. I have a strong preference for matte, but that is just my opinion.

In the most simple terms, the new MacBook Pro and MacBook laptops are nothing more than the MacBook Air thickened to include an optical drive, a removable battery and a new glass screen. Anyone who liked the idea of the Air but couldn't deal with its compromises should love the new MacBooks. Anyone who didn't like the look and feel of the Air will be similarly disappointed with the new MacBooks. Anyone stuck between the regular and Pro MacBooks will likewise make the same choices they made in years-gone-by, choosing price (MacBook), light weight (Air) or power and screen size (Pro). Finally, the user experience is about the same whichever choice you make, with only the physical shell and the availability of dedicated graphics to really differentiate the various models.

In conclusion, the new MacBook Pro is a revolutionary product, perhaps even more significant than Apple's titanium laptops of 2001. Along with the new consumer MacBook, the MacBook Pro is thinner, stronger, lighter and far nicer than any portable ever made before, and should set the standard for a long time to come. In fact, the only real competition the new MacBook Pro has comes from its little bothers, the MacBook and MacBook Air, which are similarly luxurious, exotic and capable, though which lack the FireWire 800 port so important to video work and the dedicated graphics and large screen.