25-02-2008 15:37

It's not the bits and parts I was speaking of, nor how many layers, rather it was about how it's put together, with the logic board bolted directly to the lower shell instead of into a magnesium frame. I'd much rather deal with the layers and greater durability and strength of the iBook. Also, remember, thanks to the iBook being built in layers, you won't generally need to pull it completely apart in order to service it. In some cases, you may only need to remove the outer casing and EM shield, which is an easy task. Yes, the Macbook does still utilize a frame, but it's minimal, relying more on the plastic casing for its assembly and structural integrity while assembled. It literally relies on the outer plastic casing to hold it together. This means near-complete disassembly for nearly any repair or modification and if things aren't aligned just perfectly in the MacBook, you'll experience wonkiness with something like the superdrive, which is also extremely flimsy compared to that of the one in the iBook, because it is thinner in order to make it fit and reduce weight. 
All this to make the machine slimmer and keep the weight down with the larger screen... 
This means I need to elaborate on one other point... simple strength. 
I'd rather have slightly more weight with greater strength. 
The iBook also had a better display assembly, with its bezel bolted to the shell and superior frame around the LCD, instead of a pull-away bezel and little tabs at the bottom revealing a dozen or so screws bolting the LCD straight to the shell. 
I tend to compare laptop assembly to the separation of layers in a web application. XHTML would be the framework which holds the content (markup and method calls) together, and the CSS is the design which encases the XHTML. If you remove the CSS, your content should still hold together. In the same manner, after removing the outer casing, my laptop's frame should hold the innards together. The website should not rely on the exterior design elements for it's structural integrity, nor should my hardware rely on its outer plastic to hold it together. 
Thank god my skin doesn't hold my innards together in the same fashion! 
There's a pattern here: the things which make a thing work, held together by a strong yet flexible frame, encased and protected from the elements in a casing which also accounts for aesthetics. When each is not properly taken into account during the design and used appropriately in the end-product, you're going to run into issues. 
 
The only two structural elements I like better about the MacBook are the ease of upgrading the hard drive and RAM, though that is more for the typical user who is usually not savvy enough to pull apart an iBook to replace the hard drive or even remove the Airport cage to get at the RAM. I'm not sure about those RAM levers, though... seems to me that the fewer moving parts in a laptop the better. The MacBook is no where near as well-built as its predecessor.

Registered

25-02-2008 12:34

The MacBook is not actually that bad. The way the screen is built is fairly poorly designed and does take ages to completely disassemble, bit the only parts in it are the LCD, iSight and inverter. The inverter is easy to get at once the whole display is off. I have never had to replace an iSight camera in a MacBook, and very few LCDs if you don't count smashed ones. 
 
The bits that fail more often are all in the bottom case and are much easier to replace than in the iBook which requires four layers of case and a raft of screws to be removed before you can swap anything more interesting than the Battery or RAM. 
 
As for replacing smashed LCDs, it used to be if you smashed yours then it was cheaper to buy a new laptop. With the falling price of LCDs, the extra labour means that the cost of a full replacement OOW is still fairly high. Sometimes the extra spec and new warranty are worth the difference in price or the customer just tops up the insurance payout to get a new one. Apple wins again, since the labour wouldn't necessarily be paid to them if it was repaired.

Registered

25-02-2008 10:17

It's apparently not selling well, either. 
I hate to be an I told you so, but, uhm, yeah. 
I made a similar comparison about the MacBook online a few months back. The MacBook comes apart in like an hour, but takes around three to put back together. It's poorly constructed when compared to the construction of the iBook. At least in terms of efficiency... It is fairly roadworthy when assembled, however, to speak of resilience.

Registered

25-02-2008 02:09

What they fail to add is that most Apple laptops are not designed efficiently. Neither are their desktops. Not too many other peoples are either. Certainly not Dell. 
The fact is that there is no money in efficient design. If a design is efficient then it is easier to build and therefore easier to repair. There are hundreds of parts on your average car that could be made very easy to replace but they aren't. Apple and Dell make alot of money from service of their computers just as Ford, GM etc make a fortune out of fixing their cars down the road. 
The whole idea of the logic board is the worst crime. If it was efficient you would be able to upgrade your CPU, GPU, VRAM, maybe even the memory controller. 
 
One day, someone might decide to see if they are better off making their products easier to maintain, then they could offer longer warranties and the resulting increase in sales might offset the lost revenue from repairs. Not looking likely though. 
 
Maybe there is room for an 'open source' hardware platform. Sadly I doubt Apple would allow anyone to use their lovely OS on it......

Registered