MacBook test data reveals surprise

So not only are they overcharging for the black one, they're overcharging for a slower computer!

Hey, look at this crazy speed difference between the supposedly identical machine!!!! *waves hands*

Oh, by the way it was the hard drives that made the difference, therefore the entire article is useless up to the last line.

stupido, the machines were tested with the bundled hard drives they ship with. what difference does it make which actual part causes the performance gap ? the important fact here is that there is one. the end-comsumer buys the whole thing : motherboard, ram, hard-drive this article is definitely more useful than your post

For MacNN to report this nonissue as they did is solely sensationalist and irresponsible. MacWorld said themselves that the hard drives were different which accounted for any performance difference, so this article is both useless and misleading.

So... if it's the harddrive, why not mention details about the hard drive, like size, etc.

Why would they only mention the color over and over and make a mostly worthless misleading article?

Are these the white with the 60gb 5400, and the black with the 80gb 5400, or are they 100gb or 120gb drives, or the white with the 80gb.... It's all unknown.

-Jonathan

Axel, it's nonsense and irresponsible because the article makes it appear that there's a difference between the white and black MacBooks solely based on color. Since either color can be configured identically - same RAM, hard drive, etc. (there is no difference in the logic board)it's a nonissue and just is causing people to freak out thinking that they have a slower system just due to the color.

Now if they report that different hard drives affect performance, that would be useful information (if somewhat obvious), but that would be too tame an article to post, apparently.

While many of us mac users are smart enough to know the difference, there are far more mac users out there who would NOT realize that if they changed the hard drive, they would get better performance.

And most people just figure "spending more" equals "getting better".

And yes, the colour is something worth noting, because those same non-educated consumers can easily recognize the difference in base, non-upgraded models based upon... wait for it now... COLOUR!

(And yes, that is Canadian spelling. Take that, yanks! *lol*)

I'd still rather have black. I'm so sick of white and how easily it yellows over time. Black keeps looking good. Well worth the $200. Slower hard disk or not.

Since the fault lies at the HD, and you can custom configure the white to have the same HD as the black or bigger and you can custom configrue the Black as well, it is irresponsible to claim the Black is slower when in reality it is the choice of HD. And though Apple is currently using Brand X drives in default white and Brand Y in the default black MacBooks now, 3 months from now the brands of drives could change or switch as long as the capacities are the same and the impressions left by the review would be wrong. This was irresponsible journalism on both MacWorld and MacNN's part.

in any case, the differences between them were negligble. And they are also suspect. Some tests had such large discrepencies that you suspect the tests were done incorrectly or that the machines SW was configured differently (background processes etc) or that one of the machines has a HW fault and is not representative. They should really get a few of each model and test them all to see if they all behave similarly. In summary, the tests and review are useless as they are based on single items that may not be representative and the results are suspect, especially when both black and white are the winners in disk oriented tests by a large margin.