or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by mcarling

In order to keep the battery small and light, I would not expect an ultra-portable before Penryn ships. I tolerate my oversized, clunky, heavy 12" PB only because I'm not willing to hassle with Linux on a laptop or use any Microsoft products. I would not hesitate to pay $3000 for a 10" Apple laptop.
Good points, but Apple's share of the laptop market is much larger now. That makes a more diverse product line both possible and desirable.
You're right. solid-state drives are not reliable enough yet to fully replace hard drives. However, it is time to switch to 1.8" hard drives in notebooks. I realize that 1920x1200 is optimistic in a 12" notebook. It is, however, what I want. Resolution Independence will make it practical.
I'm hoping it has a 1.8" hard drive, no optical drive, and at least 1920x1200 resolution.
What about Resolution Independence?
It may not be a coincidence that the revised release date for Leopard coincides with the ship date for Penryn. We may see some Penryn-based Macs in time for the holiday buying season. I don't think Apple would let its competitors have a free ride through the holidays with Penryn-based products.
I wish my 12" PowerBook didn't have an optical drive. It is far too heavy. If I could run MacOS on a <1kg Sony VAIO, I would. I'll buy a new MBP when one is available that weighs less than my 12" PowerBook. Drop the optical drive and switch to 1.8" hard drives.
I'd love to have a 24" monitor with 3840x2400, but I don't think the price will be attractive anytime soon.
The Santa Rosa chipset supports up to 4GB of memory so, until Intel offer a laptop chipset which supports 8 or 16GB, Apple cannot. My guess is this might happen in 2009.
I want 2560x1600 in a monitor not larger than 24 inches. Anything about 18 to 24 inches would be fine. I have a 1600x1200 20 inch monitor now and I want substantially better resolution without substantially larger size.
New Posts  All Forums: