My hunch is that if you were worried that the last Mac Book was too underpowered for you, the new Mac Book will only assuage your concerns by, well, 25 percent or so.For a lot of people, that's actually enough to get over the purchasing decision hump.The new Skylake architecture might be coming to us in this "M class" processor instead of something more powerful, but I'm hopeful that the difference will be enough for me.

Depending on the lighting, the rose gold version of Apple's new, slightly faster Mac Book looks either kind of bronze or incredibly pink.

Sitting here on my desk next to last year's space gray version, it's so vibrant it looks almost like I would get an electric zap of energy if I touched it.

The speed improvement on the inside are not as electric.

Apple gave us the 1.2Ghz Intel Core m5 version to test, and though I can notice the difference, it's small enough that it's not an easy or automatic upgrade from the previous Mac Book.

With this year's machine, I still fully expect to hit that wall, but I'm already starting to feel confident it won't happen nearly as often.

One thing that isn't quite resolved: dealing with the single USB-C port.The ecosystem of accessories and adapters is getting better (and safer), but you should budget a hundred bucks or so for adapters to go alongside the ,299 (for the base model) you will spend on the laptop itself.I ran a few benchmark tests and have been poking around for the last twenty minutes or so — nothing too crazy — and here's the long and short of it.Geekbench 3 pegs the speed improvements on raw processor operations at around 20 percent, but disk-write speeds using Blackmagic saw bigger improvements, as much as 80 or 90 percent faster (reading speeds look like smaller, incremental improvements).Overall, the thing feels about 25 percent faster to me.But benchmarks and just a couple minutes of use are one thing, while actual extended use is quite another.