old news

Thanks BTA, but TVman is right, this is a a little old.

No, this is brand new. They updated the MacBook Pros a month back. This MacBook just came out today.

I don't see how this can lead to 10 hours battery life, its just marketing.
I have a similar notebook, with similar hardware: P8600, low power samsung SSD, intel GMA4500, 4gb, bluetooth, led 1280x800 screen, intel 5300 wifi card. Should consume less than the Macbook, since it has a lower power video card and an SSD. The battery has 64Wh, just like the Mac. Since it uses at least 9W on idle (measured with Powertop), battery life is at best 7 hours, 5:30 if working with openoffice. Mind, with windows I get 4:30 hours, instead of 7 (with tweaked ArchLinux).

This macbook consumes 6.4W (64Wh/10h) in idle? Bullshit.

idle means with no backlight, you are not supposed to see something during use as it's purpose is to shine on a desk :-P

Apple should STOP using the C2D processors for there new line up.

jbizzlerNo, this is brand new. They updated the MacBook Pros a month back. This MacBook just came out today.

I know, this has been confirmed for about a week, just not announced by apple. So is it old, no, but is it old to me, yes.

$immond$Apple should STOP using the C2D processors for there new line up.

And let the shiny new 48-shader IGP from nVidia go to waste? No way.

I just noticed Apple still uses 16:10 monitors. WTF?

$immond$Apple should STOP using the C2D processors for there new line up.

No choice. This is a 2-chip notebook.

Baumidle means with no backlight, you are not supposed to see something during use as it's purpose is to shine on a desk :-P

Tests are performed at middle-brightness, which is about 60-70% total brightness on Apple notebooks, and includes browsing the internet and editing text in a word processor. Keep in mind, OS X is built for battery life, much more so than even Windows 7. I'm not an Apple fanatic by any means, but you can't compare them to an off-the-shelf Pavilion and expect anywhere near the same power behavior, much less performance.

OSX actually has better power management than Windows 7 and/or XP. :P

ToTTenTranzAnd let the shiny new 48-shader IGP from nVidia go to waste? No way.

I just noticed Apple still uses 16:10 monitors. WTF?

Yeah, thank god. Laptops can definitely use the extra vertical space.

ToTTenTranzI just noticed Apple still uses 16:10 monitors. WTF?

16:9 in my opinion is only better for videos. I find it's a bit too thin if you are doing stuff like browsing the internet and writing and stuff like that (about the limits of a Mac), and besides if 16:10 annoys you with black bars then just use VLC and tell it to crop them off, and if you don't want to do that then just watch the movie/show. I don't notice the black bars at all.

And now it's time to talk about a real computer...

aj28Tests are performed at middle-brightness, which is about 60-70% total brightness on Apple notebooks, and includes browsing the internet and editing text in a word processor. Keep in mind, OS X is built for battery life, much more so than even Windows 7. I'm not an Apple fanatic by any means, but you can't compare them to an off-the-shelf Pavilion and expect anywhere near the same power behavior, much less performance.

Come on. Never believe a company's own test, let alone Apple tests.
My previous point remains: i have a notebook with similar specs, but with lower power hardware (SSD vs HDD, for example) and an heavy tweaked ArchLinux: recompiled kernel, lowered cpu voltage, changed cpu scheduler, 80 wakeups per seconds and more.
Much better power management than anything else, since it is focused on my machine only. And in idle I use 9 Watts.
From max 4 hours with XP to 6-7 hours with Linux.

You really expect that thing to use only 6W in idle? Dream on!