Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ars Technica Reviews the MacBook

Posted by Zonk on Fri May 19, 2006 08:26 PM
from the shiny-will-not-sway-me dept.
Portables (Apple) Businesses Hardware Apple
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has performed another of their in-depth and thorough hardware reviews. The subject in this review is the newly released MacBook. From the article: 'The Apple portable web site proudly announces that the "family is finally complete." What began with an announcement from Steve Jobs at the MacWorld conference in January has come full circle with the release of the MacBook this week. Every Apple laptop is Intel powered and moving in what I would consider is the right direction. The laptop line is finally better delineated by pro and consumer features, and the prices have been fixed at points that better reflect the minute differences in the models.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Apple: Apple Unveils New Macbook 986 comments
Several readers have written in to mention that Apple has released the new Macbook on their site. Yahoo! has details from the press release: "With prices starting at just $1,099, the MacBook lineup includes three models: a 1.83 GHz and 2.0 GHz MacBook in a newly designed, sleek white enclosure and a 2.0 GHz MacBook in a stunning new black enclosure. The new MacBook offers performance up to five times faster than the iBook and up to four times faster than the 12-inch PowerBook with a completely new system architecture including a 667 MHz front-side bus and 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM memory expandable to 2GB."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Ars Technica Reviews the MacBook 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • The consumers were clamoring for new laptops (Score:5, Informative)

    by artifex2004 (766107) on Friday May 19 2006, @08:36PM (#15370200) Journal
    and Jobs said, "let them eat paste! [macnn.com]"
      • I've got one. I can certainly understand the worry, but I've got one, and honestly it's not that bad. Perhaps its just perception, but it's not nearly as bad as the 12" G4s were on my lap. That said however, I'm not sure whether I'd keep any of these machines on one's lap cool or no. Regardless, speaking as a biologist, by placing anything that's warm on your lap for large portions of a day you're reducing your reproductive potential. *cue joke about slashdotters, girlfriends & reproduction*
  • I went and checked out the 13.3" Macbook in black with the matte finish today. I think that it will hold up as well as the aluminum. (All the iBooks I have seen scratch like crazy) The keyboard is nice, and I would say it's neither better nor worse than that of my 12" PowerBook. I think it's a little crazy to charge an extra $150 for a black versus white finish... However, market demands it... I even bought a black iPod.

    After getting my hands on it, I think I will eventually buy a black one. But still...

    I wish that they had a 13.3 Pro coming out with a matte screen, backlit keyboard, and the extra little perks that the 15 and 17 Pro's have... But that would probably end up costing as much as the 15...

  • Benchmarks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by astrosmash (3561) on Friday May 19 2006, @08:43PM (#15370224) Journal
    What's most interesting are the benchmark results. While some screamed bloody murder over Apple's apparent downgrade to Intel's integrated graphics chipset, the new MacBook completely outclasses the old iBook on all fronts, and even out-performs the MacBook Pro in some cases (due to its slightly faster processor).

    So what's worse? Integrated graphics or an underclocked Radeon X1600?

    Nonetheless, the MacBook looks great, and I can't help but feel sorry for the people who rushed out and got a MacBook Pro. It seems that Apple rushed the Pro out of the door, whereas they took their time with the MacBook and got it right.
    • Ars compared the new Macbook to the first revision of the Macbook Pro, one processor gen behind. It would have been more appropriate (and expensive) to compare against the newer faster Macbook Pro.

      Remember that funny (and accurate) web page that shows the Apple product cycle? The Macbook is not yet at the stage where users demand their money back over some small detail that Apple overlooked. Wait a week or so, people will be damning Apple over heat issues, weird sounds, smells, thermal paste, whatever.

    • Re:Benchmarks (Score:5, Informative)

      by znu (31198) <znu@acedsl.com> on Friday May 19 2006, @09:29PM (#15370366)
      Don't take the Xbench OpenGL scores Ars reports too seriously. In MacWorld's benchmarks [macworld.com] with real-world OpenGL (UT2004), the MacBook Pro, with real video, delivered three times the framerate of the MacBook.
    • So what's worse? Integrated graphics or an underclocked Radeon X1600?

      That's a pretty stupid question. The builtin chipset used sucks; it uses system ram, for starters. That is -really- going to hurt when you're mucking about in Aperture or iPhoto, or go to play a video and the whole system becomes slow as a dog.

      Here's a test: why don't you try running Quake 4 at 1280x1024 or higher and tell me how well it works for you. Works FANTASTIC on the MBP (it was a little laggy sometimes, but they've since up

      • Re:Macbook Pro owners didn't get ripped off (Score:5, Informative)

        by gozar (39392) on Friday May 19 2006, @11:03PM (#15370607) Homepage
        Test number two: try playing the high-definition (1080i) trailers on Apple's website. I'd be absolutely shocked if it manages to do it without dropping frames like crazy. My Macbook Pro barely breaks a sweat.

        I went to the Apple Store today, and this was the second thing I tried! It was able to play the 1080i version trailer of Art School Confidential without any problem (except for some bandwidth issues downloading the 150MB file). I didn't look at how much processor was being used at the time though.

        The Cars trailer (it was 8xx X 3xx something resolution) also played without a hitch.

        • FPS? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Kadin2048 (468275)
          Was it playing at its full framerate though? If you press Command-I while the video is playing, it'll bring up an informational window that will show the file's framerate, and the rate that it's actually playing at. Quicktime will drop the framerate before it actually starts to studder, so something can look fairly smooth (if you're not looking closely) but on closer inspection might only be playing at 15 or 20 fps.

          Not saying that's what's happening, but "it looks good" can be misleading if you're trying to

      • Re:Benchmarks (Score:5, Funny)

        by WinterSolstice (223271) on Friday May 19 2006, @09:41PM (#15370401)
        Heh - it's classic. See Weird Al's "It's all about the Pentiums" for an example :D

        "My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
        But it was obsolete before I opened the box
        You say you've had your desktop for over a week?
        Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique! "

        It's just a fact of life.

        -WS

  • Conclusion (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Espectr0 (577637) on Friday May 19 2006, @08:56PM (#15370266) Journal
    Pros:
    • widescreen display
    • Nice screen resolution
    • Improved graphics over iBook G4
    • Glossy screen is nice in some situations
    • MagSafe
    • Integrated iSight
    • Affordable
    • Enhanced track pad operation
    • Dramatic performance increase
    • No latch!
    • Super easy to service (hard drive too!)
    • Front Row and remote control

    Cons:
    • High operating temperatures (Almost 85 degrees!)
    • Glossy screen can be annoying under certain circumstances (i.e., with any direct lighting)
    • Integrated graphics siphon off system RAM, slower than dedicated graphics card


    I wonder what hard drives they use. My powerbook's hard drive died in just a little over 2 years. Between whine noises, power adapters that fall away too easily, notebook latches that don't close properly, logic board issues, overheating, display glitches, dead hard drives and more, i think that apple
    hardware is just as error-prone as regular pc hardware.
    • Interestingly I noted that the benchmarks pretty much showed there was literally no difference and in some cases the regular Mac Book peformed BETTER than the Mac Book Pro.

      What's most amazing is the crowing about features that are on my Dell laptop that I bought back in December. Matter of fact in February I bought another for the SO, but that one had the glossy screen which neither of us really are all that thrilled with. But the screen is wide aspect and 1280x800. Price point is even the same. But the

      • Re:Conclusion (Score:4, Informative)

        by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Friday May 19 2006, @11:23PM (#15370656)
        In the Ars review, the mentioned that the thing was throttling the CPU down to avoid damage

        Yeah -- This is an important point. You are buying a 1.83Ghz laptop, but effectively you are only getting a 1.66Ghz laptop. This should never happen under normal use conditions. (And 100% CPU should be considered normal use, so long as you aren't sitting on the beach or something.)

  • New keyboard (Score:5, Informative)

    by tji (74570) on Friday May 19 2006, @08:58PM (#15370274)
    I spent a couple minutes checking out the MacBook at my local Apple store.. It looks good. I think it will do well at that price point.

    But, I did not like the keyboard. Compared to the keyboard on my PowerBook, or the MacBook Pro's, it didn't feel nearly as good. Maybe it's something you could get used to. But, I really like the old PowerBook keyboard..
    • Definitely second this opine. I had the opportunity to check out the new MacBooks today as well and the shiny screen is really annoying (I'm a coder, not a laptop movie-watcher). That, combined with the reduced tactile feel of the keyboard, made me feel much better about buying a MBPro. It ran a tad faster than my 1.8, but it's not like my 1.8 is a dog.

      I got a chance to play with a Lenovo X60 (2GHz Core Duo, 1GB DDR2, bluetooth, wifi) today as well and I have to say that I wish the MB was more like it. It w

  • Good bye i/power book (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sarcasticfrench (949383) on Friday May 19 2006, @09:22PM (#15370352)
    Has anyone else noticed that the Powerbooks/iBooks have gone the way of the dodo? Also, at the beginning of the Core Duo age they were still selling the iMac G5's along with the iMac Core Duo's, but now it's just the Core Duo. Same with the Mac Mini. As for all the Apple notebooks now being widescreen, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm going to miss the good old days of non-widescreen notebooks. I don't know why, but a good old non-widescreen still has much more appeal to me than a widescreen of the same size.

  • my thoughts on the heat (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cbc1920 (730236) on Friday May 19 2006, @10:20PM (#15370487)
    I have a new Macbook pro, and yes, it does get hot. As for the thermal paste, I think it's an issue of it being easier to tell the assemblers to gob it on rather than risk someone not getting enough. As soon as my warrenty expires, you can guarantee I will be in there redoing it myself.
    On the other hand, I notice that my laptop's fan NEVER comes on, as long as I'm not in the hot sun. It seems that with the aluminum case, they have the luxury of using the back half of the laptop as a giant heat exchanger. Heat radiation is proportional to the difference in temperature between the air and the heatsink, so the high temperatures just mean that Apple has decided that having a quiet laptop was more important than a cool one.
    My friends all have Dells and Sonys. Yes, they run cooler, but their fans are almost ALWAYS on, and if they run any more than the basics, they start to sound like a leaf blower.
    Bottom line- with all my past laptops, I have had underclock them in order to keep the fans off, since that seems to be the first component to fail. I can put up with a hot computer, as long as it is quiet and lasts longer.
    A final note- my processor has a full blown whine, but it is easily quited with the well-known quietMBP program. I hope someone comes up with a more elegant solution.

    • Re:my thoughts on the heat (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think it's an issue of it being easier to tell the assemblers to gob it on rather than risk someone not getting enough.

      Considering heat is a major engineering issue for laptops, I'd say they should probably train the people to use the right amount, not just swing one way or the other. A thermal paste layer of more then 0.003-0.005 inches thick can be less effective then no thermal paste at all. The thermal paste is used to "close the air gaps" between surface imperfections in the heat sink and the devi
  • The one neat feature on the Macbook that the pro doesnt have and not one person has mentioned it. You can remove the Macbooks hard drive through the battery bay and replace it with whatever size you want by just simply removing 3 screws. No more cracking open the case to replace the hard drive on them.

    K maybe I like those types of neat little nuances.

    • Not one person ... except TFA (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2006, @11:39PM (#15370695)
      I find it funny when people spend time reading through all the /. comments of each story ... but never read the story itself. It boggles the mind, it does.

  • I, for one, am dissapointed. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jethro (14165) on Friday May 19 2006, @11:33PM (#15370675)
    Alright, it seems that this is a great upgrade for people coming from a 12" iBook.

    I, however, am looking for an upgrade for my 12" Powerbook G4. And this ain't it.

    First of all, the glossy screen. I guess we've got that confirmed now. I hate those. As the Ars review mentions, that's not a feature 'professionals' want. I certainly don't.

    Quite a few of the new features - display spanning, for example - are NOT a new feature for me. My 12" Powerbook can already do that.

    I'm not sure about the keyboard... I'll have to go play with that at an Apple store or something.

    Now, I would NOT pay $150 for a black case. I would, however, HAPPILY pay an extra $150 for a non-glossy screen. I will never buy a laptop with a glossy screen.

  • Ultraportable (Score:3, Insightful)

    by this great guy (922511) on Friday May 19 2006, @11:37PM (#15370684)

    I really like Apple laptops. Great quality, performant hardware, and NOT expensive. However I have never bought a single Apple laptop. And you know why ? Because they don't make ultraportable laptops, and, oh boy, I wish they would ! The lighter Apple laptop is the MacBook at 5.2 pounds (2.36 kg). For comparison purpose my current ultraportable, a Panasonic R3 stands at 2.2 pounds (990 g !). Wouldn't that be cool a 2.2 pounds Apple laptop ?

        • Re:Ultraportable (Score:4, Insightful)

          by this great guy (922511) on Saturday May 20 2006, @03:41AM (#15371256)

          For me the 3 extra lbs make a huge difference, let me explain you why. First it's not all about the weight, but also about the physical space a laptop takes. Second, I agree that this extra weight/space is not really annoying when you CARRY it, but in fact it really impacts the way you USE it. If you are the kind of person who exclusively use your laptop laid on a desk or occasionally on your laps for short periods of time (< 1h) and carry it in a regular laptop bag, then yes maybe you won't care about 5 lbs vs. 2 lbs. But if you are like me and like to use it like a book, to carry it with one hand with no bag when you walk short distances, to being sit comfortably on a couch with the laptop laid on ONE lap (because it's so small), etc, then 5 lbs vs. 2 lbs makes a lot of differences.

          In addition to the weight/space advantage, such small laptops generally never overheat because they use ULV (ultra low voltage) processors, they have no fans so they are totally silent, and they have a long battery life: about 5h with my laptop, close to 7h with the new Panasonic R5, and probably around 10h with the T5 (Panasonic advertises 15h) !

          Ultraportables (generally it means anything less than 1 kg = 2.2 lbs) have really changed the way I feel about laptops. It's as if there was a kind of "barrier" at 2-3 lbs: suddendly when you go under this barrier a lot of things become possible that you would not do with a 3+ lbs laptop.

    • Re:GMA950 graphics, bah! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Doctor Memory (6336) on Friday May 19 2006, @09:06PM (#15370300) Homepage
      Yeah, right. Not even the Dells in this price range have separate graphics cards. Good luck finding a 2Ghz dual-core laptop for a grand or so without integrated graphics. Hell, good luck finding a 2GHz dual-core laptop in this price range, period. To get the equivalent from Dell, you have to get a high-end Inspiron, and that'll set you back more than $1500. Of course, with that you'll get a 17" screen, which is cool, but if you want to stick close to the $1200 price point, you'll have to settle for a 1.66GHz Core Duo.
        • OK, but it still has only integrated graphics.
          • "Hell, good luck finding a 2GHz dual-core laptop in this price range, period."

            The parent to my post was implying that the MacBook was a good deal.

            So, Dell:
            $1229

            White MacBook with same specs:
            $1549

            Black MacBook with same specs:
            $1699

            • Re:GMA950 graphics, bah! (Score:5, Interesting)

              by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Friday May 19 2006, @10:58PM (#15370591) Homepage
              That's interesting. I went to Dell and configured a laptop to match the Macbook. It was an Inspiron 6400. Same processor, same memory, same graphics, same wireless, same size hard drive, none of the great Apple software. The display is 15".

              $1487.

              An equivalent Macbook (the lowest one) is $1099. Add in $200 for Applecare and the Macbook is still cheaper. Plus the Dell is 50% thicker. It also weighs 16% more.

              An Inspiron 640m 14" notebook configured to be the same as the Macbook is $1457. Still $200 more and you don't get all that great software (OS X and iLife). It weighs the same, but is still 50% thicker.

              What a 12" screen? You'll need a Inspiron 710m. But that means a 1.7 GHz Pentium M. Matching things the best I can otherwise (CD-RW only, no DVD reader or burner) it costs... $1658. That's $400 more than the Macbook. It weighs one pound less than the 13" MacBook but... it's STILL 50% THICKER.

              The Macbook is a great deal. You say you configured a cheaper Dell... can you provide the model? I'd like to see for myself.

                • The argument I am constantly having with myself is:

                  "I want a laptop... OSX is so well designed and elegant, and I can't wait to learn Cocoa and objC and do some development for it. But I really wish I could play Civ4 between classes. Maybe Windows isn't sooo bad..."

                  So you can see why a dual-boot option looks pretty damn good. I will be shelling out for a new MacBook in the next few weeks.

        • Re:GMA950 graphics, bah! (Score:5, Informative)

          by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Friday May 19 2006, @11:11PM (#15370631) Homepage
          Where did you get THAT number?

          I go to Dell and check out the same model...

          2 GHz Core Duo, 1 Gig of RAM, XP Pro, 100 Gig 7200 RPM drive, glossy screen, you're looking at $1746 shipped.

          The price YOU quoted was for 1.66 GHz, XP Media Center, 5400 RPM drive, non-glossy screen.

          By the way, both prices are after a 22% SALE that Dell is holding. I know they're always holding some sale or another, but even with the sale your price is flat out wrong for the specs you quoted.

          This doesn't include all the great software that OS X comes with like iLife, iWork, and more. Also, the Dell is 50% thicker than the Mac. The video out is VGA only (not DVI). On the plus side, you do get the 5-in-1 media card reader (I'm still surprised Apple hasn't done this yet with all the media stuff they push).

          If I make a white Macbook match the Dell (by upping the RAM, the hard drive, and adding Apple Care)... it costs $1798.

          Ladies and gentlemen, the Macintosh premium: $52

          That's 3%.

          I'd GLADLY pay $52 to get OS X, iLife, and a laptop that isn't 50% thicker.

        • Their standards don't go out the window - its a budget, integrated circuit doing what it is designed to do... 2D and basic 3D acceleration at minimal cost. As the review said, (oops, I admitted that I read it. so embarassing!) it can still run fairly complex games under reduced settings.

          Having said that, I am disappointed that I'd have to drop another $700 for a Radeon 1600 (in the MacBook Pro, which is actually slower!). Not gonna go there.
        • Precisely the point. Why stick a crappy GPU in with a great CPU? Nvidia and ATI make a variety of laptop chips which run circles around the GMA950. At a comparable or lower price.

          The GMA950 is free, it comes with the system chipset. It's hard to get any cheaper than that. A dedicated video chipset would probably add significant (relative) cost to the manufacturing of the i^HMacBook, as it would require additional system board real estate, cooling allowances and the chips (GPU and RAM) themselves.

          With th

    • I'm sure it's already been stated, but here goes anyway.

      With a GPU, the Macbook would DESTROY the sales of the Macbook Pro. Once Intel comes out with the C2D, that chip will go into the Macbook Pro, and then there will be enough of a difference to allow big boy graphics in the Macbook. Then again, apparently Intel's next IG, the 965, will not suck AS bad and might suffice for basic 3-D use.
      • Apple loves price holes. Just look at the iPod. They used to have a 20GB regular iPod and a 6GB iPod mini. At that point, a lot of people are already going to be thinking that 6GB's just isn't enough, but if they want more they have to jump up to 20. I'm sure a lot of people who weren't really looking for something that big made the jump because there was nothing in between, and who wants to go down a level? Characteristically, Apple then introduced the nanos (which had even smaller hard drives) to replace the minis and then upped the capacity of the video iPods. Now, you can get either a 30GB model or a 4GB model. That's a huge hole and forces a lot of people who only need 10GB's or so to jump up to 30. It's amazing marketing, although I'm sure it makes some (myself among them) resentful at being herded like that.
        • You could always, you know, buy a not-iPod.

          Just a thought.

          • I'm not sure I follow you...
          • What, like a Walkman?

            It's funny how the original post is reflective of how ubiquitous the iPod has become. I'll throw in my own anecdote:

            I fly about 15 times a year for business. In the last 6 months, out of about 8 flights, only 1 has told the passengers they can now turn on/off their "portable electronic devices". The rest of them told us we could now turn on/off our "iPods and other portable electronic devices". It didn't even occur to me until maybe a half hour after the first time I heard it. They just assumed most of us who had small electronic devices had iPods.

            The fact is, most people won't even consider iPod alternatives. The reasons are varied, but for me it's because I've owned 4 MP3 players, including one Creative, before the two iPods I've bought (one is 3rd generation, and the latest is 5th generation), and every one of them sucked for a handful of reasons. Each one sucked for a different set of reasons, but they all sucked for more than one or two reasons.

            I just got tired of wasting my money on "iPod alternatives", so I don't even consider them any more. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

            On the integrated graphics, I think the MacBook has the same integrated video the Mac Mini has, which I've been using for about a month. I've tested dozens of apps in Mac OS X and Windows on my Mac Mini, and the integrated graphics performed WAY better than I expected. The only recent game I had any problem running because of the graphics was Doom 3. Half Life 2, World of Warcraft (Win and Mac) both ran comparable to my Powerbook with ATI Radeon 9700 and my AMD desktop with NVidia 6800GT.

            We use Solidworks for engineering our products at work, and I showed one of our engineers how it ran on the Mac Mini in Windows XP with a very complex 400mb model, and we were both quite impressed. Especially considering it's an $800 computer, and he needs a $2500 computer to get noticeably better 3D video performance ($750 of that is a high-end workstation card).

            Anyway, the point is, don't just write it off because it's integrated video. Not all integrated video is created equal...

            • Final Cut Studio not supported on MacBook (Score:4, Informative)

              by noahmckinnon (600713) on Saturday May 20 2006, @02:05PM (#15372912)
              from the Apple Support site: "If you have a MacBook, the Final Cut Studio (Universal) crossgrade Installer does not prohibit you from installing the pro applications, but this configuration does not meet the minimum system requirements for Final Cut Studio. See the Final Cut Studio system requirements for complete requirements. Note: The integrated graphics processor in the MacBook does not permit float processing in Motion and will result in degraded performance and other issues in Motion and other Final Cut Studio applications." http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 782 [apple.com]
        • That gap existed because those were the kinds of hard drives that were available, 6 gig 1 inch drives and 20/40 gig 1.8 inch drives. I'm not even sure if the 1.8 inch drives are more expensive, i'm guessing they're actually cheaper but less shock resistant. They could use multiple 1 inch drives, but that would end up making the smaller players more expensive than the big ones. Perhaps apple could have used their size to influence drive manufacturers to start making 1.4 inch drives, but that would likely red
        • Now, you can get either a 30GB model or a 4GB model. That's a huge hole and forces a lot of people who only need 10GB's or so to jump up to 30. It's amazing marketing, although I'm sure it makes some (myself among them) resentful at being herded like that.

          If you put it that way, it sounds like Apple is being very manipulative. However, if you look at the prices, the price difference is relatively not as drastic between the 4GB and 30GB models:

          * 200 USD == 2GB iPod nano
          * 250 USD == 4GB iPod nano
          * 300 USD ==
      • You're going to game on a laptop with a 13.3" screen?

        [sarcasm]And you're going to browse the internet/chat online/write a paper/view your digital pictures/watch a movie on a laptop with a 13.3" screen?[/sarcasm]

        Why would screensize be the main argument against purchasing a laptop? Small size usually = mobility, which is sorta the point with laptops.

    • Re:$150.00 (Score:4, Informative)

      by TomHandy (578620) <tomhandy&gmail,com> on Friday May 19 2006, @09:48PM (#15370416)
      The general explanation I've heard is that Apple is pricing the black model higher to try and control demand for it, since they apparently realize that if they made the black version the same price, they would have trouble meeting demand. I guess the question would be "why not just make more black macbooks?", but presumably there is some reason or some difficulty with making the black version (which apparently is not the same kind of glossy surface as the white ones).
    • I have the last g4 powerbook and ibook as well as the last g3 color ibook. Both the g4s have the airport card which does b/g, and the color ibook only does b. All of them connect flawlessly using WPA to a basic consumer Netgear wireless router and also to a wrt54g (version 2 I think). A while back before my Siemens Speedstream died, I had some issue with WEP which was solved by prepending "$" to the WEP key when entering it into the mac.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.