Apple struggling to meet demand for new LED-lit notebooks

[AppleInsider]

An ambitious move on the part of Apple Inc. to be amongst the first PC manufacturers to adopt eco-friendly LED backlit displays for its notebook designs is thus far causing the company slightly more grief than good.

The Cupertino-based Mac maker, which refreshed its MacBook Pro systems with Intel's Santa Rosa-based underpinnings during the first week of June, has yet to catch up with demand for the new LED-lit 15-inch models. In recent weeks, in fact, the firm appears to have fallen further behind.

The Apple online store, which once estimated delivery of the 15-inch models at 5 to 7 business days, has recently push those ETAs out to 7 to 10 business days. In favoring its own channels, the company has managed to funnel a trickling supply of the notebooks into its own retail stores. However, that has left most third party vendors on hold.

Some high-volume Apple dealers tell AppleInsider that thousand of units have remained on backorder since early June, while others claim they've yet to receive a single shipment of the new notebooks. In speaking to these dealers, Apple representatives have reportedly identified the new 15-inch LED backlit display panels as the root of the problem. However they stopped short of indicating whether the holdup is a result of an ongoing quality issue or simply supply constraints associated with the relatively new display lighting technology.

"In stock soon. Order now to get in line," online retailer Amazon.com has been telling customers shopping for the 2.4GHz 15-inch MacBook Pro. "First come, first served." Meanwhile, those looking for the entry-level 2.2GHz model are quoted slightly more favorable wait times of 4 to 5 days.

Over at OnSale.com, things aren't much different. The online discount shop, which is offering $150 mail-in-rebates on both current and previous generation MacBook Pros, had been completely out of stock for the past five weeks. Only in recent days has it begun reflecting immediate availability of the 2.2GHz model. Again, however, the retailer recommends that customers call in to check on availability of the 2.4GHz models.

Apple's move towards LED-backlit displays for its MacBook Pro systems is part of a broader company-wide commitment toward a greener Apple. Unlike traditional fluorescent-lit LCD display panels, which contain minute amounts of mercury, the new LED-lit panels are free of the potentially harmful toxin.



The Mac maker has said that it plans to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of mercury altogether by transitioning to LED backlighting for all its computer and consumer electronics displays "when technically and economically feasible." Its next foray into the realm of LED backlit mobile computing is expected to arrive later this year in the form of an ultra thin, ultra portable 13-inch design.

Given that both Wall Street analysts and AppleInsider have recently cited rising Mac sales -- particularly in the notebook department -- as recent growth drivers for Apple, it begs the question of how many more units the company could be pushing if it could truly meet demand.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[melgross]

If the problem is due to demand rather than to defects, then it is a position that most manufacturers would love to be in.

Nevertheless, it's not good to allow things to get out of control, and make people wait.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Its next foray into the realm of LED backlit mobile computing is expected to arrive later this year in the form of an ultra thin, ultra portable 13-inch design.

OMFG.

How many times do I have to say it?!

13" ISN'T ULTRA-PORTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Calling my crappy Nokia 3100 an iPhone doesn't make it one. Neither does calling a 13" MBP an ultra-portable! It will still carry nearly the same weight as the 13" MBs... that's 5.1 lbs, FYI.

Wake up, you stupid lunatics!

-Clive

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

OMFG.

How many times do I have to say it?!

13" ISN'T ULTRA-PORTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Calling my crappy Nokia 3100 an iPhone doesn't make it one. Neither does calling a 13" MBP an ultra-portable! It will still carry nearly the same weight as the 13" MBs... that's 5.1 lbs, FYI.

Wake up, you stupid lunatics!

-Clive

Why do you assume it will weigh that much? It could weigh 3.5 pounds. Maybe not ultra, but fairly light.

[crees!]

So this past weekend I went to a local Apple store to pick up a new 15 MBP. Wanted the 7200RPM HD option but they didn't have any in stock and said that upgrade will have to be ordered through Apple.com. Fair enough. I ordered a 15" MBP with the upgraded HD and that only delayed shipping by 1 week. It's still set to arrive next week.

[tsvisser]

i think the point is that even if it is 1 pound, it still isn't ultra portable. the ultra portable form factor has been established by products such as the Sony VGN-UX, OQO 002, Samsung Q, etc...

[gloss]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

OMFG.

How many times do I have to say it?!

13" ISN'T ULTRA-PORTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Calling my crappy Nokia 3100 an iPhone doesn't make it one. Neither does calling a 13" MBP an ultra-portable! It will still carry nearly the same weight as the 13" MBs... that's 5.1 lbs, FYI.

Wake up, you stupid lunatics!

-Clive

ul´´-tra-pôrt´&-b&l) (n.) A class of laptop computer that is designed around its portability. Ultraportables typically weigh less than four pounds and, when closed, are 1.5” thin or thinner.

So, yes, it damn well could be.

Don't be so rude.

[ryanh]

Gross misuse of the term "begs the question."

[melgross]

Originally Posted by tsvisser

i think the point is that even if it is 1 pound, it still isn't ultra portable. the ultra portable form factor has been established by products such as the Sony VGN-UX, OQO 002, Samsung Q, etc...

No,those are a different class altogether.

[nascarnate326]

Originally Posted by gloss

So, yes, it damn well could be.

Don't be so rude.

Amen.

[Feste]

Originally Posted by ryanh

Gross misuse of the term "begs the question."

Yeah, you noticed that too, huh? Well, okay not so much "misuse" as "completely incorrect use..."

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by melgross

Why do you assume it will weigh that much? It could weigh 3.5 pounds. Maybe not ultra, but fairly light.

Originally Posted by gloss

ul´´-tra-pôrt´&-b&l) (n.) A class of laptop computer that is designed around its portability. Ultraportables typically weigh less than four pounds and, when closed, are 1.5” thin or thinner.

So, yes, it damn well could be.

Don't be so rude.

Originally Posted by nascarnate326

Amen.

Okay let's look at the required hardware for this device:

Casing, display, keyboard/input, Mo-board, CPU, RAM, Wi-Fi, HDD, battery.

The a large portion of weight within a laptop is the display. The size of the battery depends on the power requirements of the unit... one huge determining factor is the size of the display. The only thing Apple can do to dodge these two weight factors is to make the screen smaller. As for the casing, Apple would be making a smart move by using aluminum/titanium/whatever alloy. Keyboard/input, Mo-board, CPU, RAM Wi-Fi card are all fixed weights. I think we can all agree on these facts.

At this point, the only difference between this device and the 13" MB is the presence of an optical bay, and a storage device. The storage device could be a 1.8" but then you're either forced to go with expensive SSD or the extremely fragile HDD. Let's assume Apple goes for the SSD. They'll save a matter of ounces. How about an Optical drive? How much does a slim DVD burner weigh? The heaviest one I could find was exactly one pound (most were around 0.6lbs. That would put this hypothetical optical-less, SSD MacBook at 4 lbs exactly.

This is all very much beside the point.

By Gloss' definition, it could be classified as ultra-portable. Sure we could eke past the definition of "ultra-portable" but that's not the point. My point is that the idiocy that occurs here is ridiculous. People on these forums chant "I won't buy a laptop until Apple makes an Ultra-Portable." That's ridiclous. Apple's current laptops are already under 1" and 5 lbs or so. What, you're waiting for them to be 4 lbs instead? Get real. That's like saying I have 2013 lb pile of cow s**t and that I shovel off 15 pounds. "Oh, now it's light because it's under a ton."

"Ultra-portability" is not a definition, it's a characteristic. If Apple is going to make an "ultra-portable" it won't be a limb-sacrificed laptop. It'll be a device built from the ground up with portability in mind.

I do think Apple will release a 13" laptop but it'll be a more-powerful MB with the bells and whistles of a MBP. It probably won't be under 4 lbs, but it will continue Apple's existing trend of developing lightweight, thin portables. Of course idiots around here will tout it as the Wu-rumored ultra-portable when it's a device no more portable than the 12" PB. That wasn't marketed as an ultra-portable and no one cared. Now it's a humoungous marketing scheme that you idios have fallen for.

When this laptop arrives, don't make a fool of yourself and mistake it for an ultra-portable. If you do, you face my rapage once again.

Remember: "Ultra-portability" is not a definition, it's a characteristic.

-Clive

[ryanh]

Originally Posted by Feste

Yeah, you noticed that too, huh? Well, okay not so much "misuse" as "completely incorrect use..."

Yeah, being a copy-editor/writer means I'm a grammar, spelling, and usage Nazi.

That last statement illustrates that I'm pro-Oxford comma.

Um ... Macs? Good stuff, eh?

[virtualmark]

Originally Posted by crees!

So this past weekend I went to a local Apple store to pick up a new 15 MBP. Wanted the 7200RPM HD option but they didn't have any in stock and said that upgrade will have to be ordered through Apple.com. Fair enough. I ordered a 15" MBP with the upgraded HD and that only delayed shipping by 1 week. It's still set to arrive next week.

Crees,

I ordered a 15" MBP with the 7.2k hard drive two and a half weeks ago, and it's still not shipped. But I've just gone onto the Apple store and it's still quoting 7-10 business days for shipping.

I don't know that those estimated shipping dates are all that reliable. But, your mileage may vary.

[hohlecow]

i placed an order on july 6th for a 2.2 and it just shipped from shanghai today. yesterday was the latest it was estimated to ship by. finger's crossed that it gets here by saturday.

they seemed to have them in the store, but I wanted some other items on the same receipt that weren't in stock in the store. it was kind of funny that I could place an order at the apple store online that the reps at the store couldn't do for me. I was hoping to walk out of the store with the items they had in stock and have the other one's shipped to me.

[J45p3r]

I ordered my 2.4GHz w/7200RPM drive on June 28. Was supposed to ship last Friday, now saying July 30.

[bobmarksdale]

I ordered the 2.2 on June 15th and it shipped on June 22 and I got it on the 25th. Pretty good in my book given the high demand.

[ajhill]

Recent delays in MBP seemed to more related to the hard drive configuration rather than a problem with producing the led backlit panel.

I was at the Apple Store last night and MacBook Pros were being purchased at an amazing rate. You would think they were giving away a car with each MacBook Pro purchased. I was very jealous.

I love the way the media needs to have a reason to explain anything that could, maybe, possibly, kinda be a problem for Apple. Hey, strong demand for your premium notebook computer? We all should be so lucky to have demand problems like these.

The Apple stores have been packed and MORE IMPORTANTLY they are moving merchandise!

Go Apple!

[britwithgoodteeth]

Originally Posted by ajhill

Recent delays in MBP seemed to more related to the hard drive configuration rather than a problem with producing the led backlit panel.

I was at the Apple Store last night and MacBook Pros were being purchased at an amazing rate. You would think they were giving away a car with each MacBook Pro purchased. I was very jealous.

I love the way the media needs to have a reason to explain anything that could, maybe, possibly, kinda be a problem for Apple. Hey, strong demand for your premium notebook computer? We all should be so lucky to have demand problems like these.

The Apple stores have been packed and MORE IMPORTANTLY they are moving merchandise!

Go Apple!

I'm with ajhill! The media does nothing but bash Apple without reason!!11!

Go Appple!!

[rogue68]

I don't care whether people call the 13" MBP an 'ultra portable' or not. I just want one.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

The a large portion of weight within a laptop is the display. The size of the battery depends on the power requirements of the unit... one huge determining factor is the size of the display.

The things that determine the power consumption of a display are resolution (number of pixels), and size (which determines the power required for the backlight). So, a 12.1" 16:10 display with 1280 x 800 resolution would require the same amount of power as the 13" one for the pixels, and about 13% less power for the backlight for the same brightness (as the 12.1" screen has about 13% less area). In other words, going to a 12.1" screen wouldn't save you that much.

However, the current MacBook uses CCFL backlighting. The screen size can be maintained, and power consumption can simultaneously be reduced by using L.E.D. backlighting instead.

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

At this point, the only difference between this device and the 13" MB is the presence of an optical bay, and a storage device.

Nope. Two more significant differences:

• CPU designed for ultra-mobile laptops
• Aluminium casework

The first of these is very significant (more so than the display). Intel's T5600 Merom, used in the MacBook, has a TDP of 34 watts. The ULV version, the U7600, has a TDP of 10 watts. This significant power saving, coupled to the reduced power consumption of the L.E.D. backlighting of the display, allows the use of a smaller, lighter battery.

The casework for the MacBook has a healthy dollop of internal bracing, making the unit rather dense. The 13" MacBook is 0.663 ounces/cubic inch, whilst the 15.4" MacBook Pro is 0.638 ounces/cubic inch.

This means that if the 13" MacBook used the same construction as a 15.4" MacBook Pro, it would weigh about 4.9 pounds. However, not only is the aluminium construction less dense, it would also allow for a smaller form factor, especially if there's no optical drive.

[davebarnes]

Slash,

You are going to rot in Greenpeace Hell for writing "contain minute amounts of mercury, the new LED-lit panels are free of the potentially harmful toxin."

/sarcasm

,dave

[Denton]

Originally Posted by rogue68

I don't care whether people call the 13" MBP an 'ultra portable' or not. I just want one.

My thoughts exactly!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Okay let's look at the required hardware for this device:

Casing, display, keyboard/input, Mo-board, CPU, RAM, Wi-Fi, HDD, battery.

The a large portion of weight within a laptop is the display. The size of the battery depends on the power requirements of the unit... one huge determining factor is the size of the display. The only thing Apple can do to dodge these two weight factors is to make the screen smaller. As for the casing, Apple would be making a smart move by using aluminum/titanium/whatever alloy. Keyboard/input, Mo-board, CPU, RAM Wi-Fi card are all fixed weights. I think we can all agree on these facts.

At this point, the only difference between this device and the 13" MB is the presence of an optical bay, and a storage device. The storage device could be a 1.8" but then you're either forced to go with expensive SSD or the extremely fragile HDD. Let's assume Apple goes for the SSD. They'll save a matter of ounces. How about an Optical drive? How much does a slim DVD burner weigh? The heaviest one I could find was exactly one pound (most were around 0.6lbs. That would put this hypothetical optical-less, SSD MacBook at 4 lbs exactly.

This is all very much beside the point.

By Gloss' definition, it could be classified as ultra-portable. Sure we could eke past the definition of "ultra-portable" but that's not the point. My point is that the idiocy that occurs here is ridiculous. People on these forums chant "I won't buy a laptop until Apple makes an Ultra-Portable." That's ridiclous. Apple's current laptops are already under 1" and 5 lbs or so. What, you're waiting for them to be 4 lbs instead? Get real. That's like saying I have 2013 lb pile of cow s**t and that I shovel off 15 pounds. "Oh, now it's light because it's under a ton."

"Ultra-portability" is not a definition, it's a characteristic. If Apple is going to make an "ultra-portable" it won't be a limb-sacrificed laptop. It'll be a device built from the ground up with portability in mind.

I do think Apple will release a 13" laptop but it'll be a more-powerful MB with the bells and whistles of a MBP. It probably won't be under 4 lbs, but it will continue Apple's existing trend of developing lightweight, thin portables. Of course idiots around here will tout it as the Wu-rumored ultra-portable when it's a device no more portable than the 12" PB. That wasn't marketed as an ultra-portable and no one cared. Now it's a humoungous marketing scheme that you idios have fallen for.

When this laptop arrives, don't make a fool of yourself and mistake it for an ultra-portable. If you do, you face my rapage once again.

Remember: "Ultra-portability" is not a definition, it's a characteristic.

-Clive

I don't agree with your assessment. Just look at some of the models out there. While some do have smaller screens, that doesn't account for all of their their much lighter weight.

When cutting weight by a significant amount, some compromise must be expected. No DVD, a smaller HD, which, by the way, is NOT "extremely fragile".

A plastic case might be called for as well. Look at some Sony models, and other manufacturers have come out with them as well. Go from a small 11" screen to 13", and you might pick up 8 to 10 oz. That's all.

I would like to see an 11" lightweight model myself, to carry around for fun.

But, a full featured model could go at 3.5 lbs.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth

I'm with ajhill! The media does nothing but bash Apple without reason!!11!

Go Appple!!

That's not true.

[lundy]

2 ad hominem attacks by Mr. CliveAtFive - 2 points.

Just about the only rule we have here besides spamming is name-calling.

[deckard]

So. I wanted a 15" 2.2... three week wait, so that wasn't going to happen. I upgraded that to the 15" 2.4... four week wait, so that wasn't going to happen.

What other option did I have? Yep, that's right - the 17" big bad boy. Okay, so I ordered the 17" by phone at my local reseller - wait time? Oh, about 2 minutes while he went out to the stock room and picked one!

Everyone wants the 15" units but nobody wants/can afford/wants to afford the 17".

Picked it up last night and I have to say; this laptop is just incredible. Stock standard (who can afford options when you're paying almost $4K AUD for the laptop???) but it flies.

As for the screen, no it's not LCD backlit but I don't really care - by the time the cold cathode has had it's day I'll be upgrading to something faster in an even more sexy case!

The point of this ramble is: wait times in Australia are simply inane. Who in there right mind would wait a MONTH for an order to be filled? For anything?

There's a difference between not expecting such huge demand and not expecting ANY demand. I've said it before: Apple are historically useless at supply chain management on new product releases. I don't know why I keep expecting them to get any better.

This type of situation is NOT the way to grow your company on a global basis.

But then, I don't think Apple really cares much about the OS market.

[Zweben]

I just wanted to say that I didn't care that much about the LED backlighting at first, but I compared the displays on my friend's MacBook Pro to my PowerBook, and the difference in image quality was immense. Not only was the viewing angle much better, the color accuracy was much better too.

You know how laptop LCD's have distorted colors when you look at them from the side? His display barely had that effect at all. The color accuracy was also much better, and it was obscenely bright.

I was very impressed.

[extremeskater]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

OMFG.

How many times do I have to say it?!

13" ISN'T ULTRA-PORTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Calling my crappy Nokia 3100 an iPhone doesn't make it one. Neither does calling a 13" MBP an ultra-portable! It will still carry nearly the same weight as the 13" MBs... that's 5.1 lbs, FYI.

Wake up, you stupid lunatics!

-Clive

If 5.1lbs is too much for you to carry, maybe instead of a mac upgrade you should invest in a gym membership and bulk up a bit. By any standard in the US market and common sense alone 13" is considered ultra portable. There simply is not a mass market for laptops without optical drives, solid state storage just to have a laptop that weighs a pound less.

Even Steve Jobs is starting to understand that simple doesn't always sell, people want features and that requires a certain level of space.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

At this point, the only difference between this device and the 13" MB is the presence of an optical bay, and a storage device. The storage device could be a 1.8" but then you're either forced to go with expensive SSD or the extremely fragile HDD. Let's assume Apple goes for the SSD. They'll save a matter of ounces. How about an Optical drive? How much does a slim DVD burner weigh? The heaviest one I could find was exactly one pound (most were around 0.6lbs. That would put this hypothetical optical-less, SSD MacBook at 4 lbs exactly.

Sony has a notebook that weighs 2.65lb, which includes an internal dual layer writing optical drive, standard WiFi, Bt and EVDO.

Originally Posted by Mr. H

The things that determine the power consumption of a display are resolution (number of pixels), and size (which determines the power required for the backlight).

Resolution has very little to do with power consumption. It's the light generation part of the display that consumes the most power.

[Karelia]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

Intel's T5600 Merom, used in the MacBook...

Ahem... the MacBook now uses either a T7200 (2.0GHz) or T7400 (2.16GHz) Merom. The previous low-end MacBook (1.83GHz Core 2) used a T5600.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by rogue68

I don't care whether people call the 13" MBP an 'ultra portable' or not. I just want one.

Ditto. I prefer smaller and will sell my MacBook immediately, though I'd prefer an 11" or 12" MBP over 13".

Originally Posted by lundy

2 ad hominem attacks by Mr. CliveAtFive - 2 points.

Just about the only rule we have here besides spamming is name-calling.

We can get demerits? How many before we get banned? How long does the ban last? How long do the points stay on our "record"? Will these demerits affect my credit rating? Will you inform my mother of any demerits i receive? Please don't; she'll cry.

Seriously, I didn't know there was such a system in place here.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by extremeskater

If 5.1lbs is too much for you to carry, maybe instead of a mac upgrade you should invest in a gym membership and bulk up a bit. By any standard in the US market and common sense alone 13" is considered ultra portable. There simply is not a mass market for laptops without optical drives, solid state storage just to have a laptop that weighs a pound less.

Even Steve Jobs is starting to understand that simple doesn't always sell, people want features and that requires a certain level of space.

woah woah woah... I never said I wanted a laptop under 5.1 lbs. It the people out here whining for an ultra-portable. If anything, you agree with my point. Apple *may* release a 13" MBP that happens to be under 1" thick and 4 lbs, but that's not going to magically make it an "ultra-portable." I, personally agree that an ultra-portable is a stupid idea, unless it's implemented correctly: say, for example, a unit with very few guts and "back-to-my-Mac" via wi-fi or 3G (and the like) There we have a device that won't limit your computing power, and instead interface your desktop.

An under-powered, amputated laptop is not going to sell.

-Clive

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by lundy

2 ad hominem attacks by Mr. CliveAtFive - 2 points.

Just about the only rule we have here besides spamming is name-calling.

What's my point balance? Don't I get positive points for all the times I've given input that wasn't disagreeable among the AI forum? I think, in net points, I'm probably at about 50.

Plus I've never spammed. I should get a 20-point bonus for that.

-Clive

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

The things that determine the power consumption of a display are resolution (number of pixels), and size (which determines the power required for the backlight). So, a 12.1" 16:10 display with 1280 x 800 resolution would require the same amount of power as the 13" one for the pixels, and about 13% less power for the backlight for the same brightness (as the 12.1" screen has about 13% less area). In other words, going to a 12.1" screen wouldn't save you that much.

However, the current MacBook uses CCFL backlighting. The screen size can be maintained, and power consumption can simultaneously be reduced by using L.E.D. backlighting instead.

[...]

Two more significant differences:

• CPU designed for ultra-mobile laptops
• Aluminium casework

The first of these is very significant (more so than the display). Intel's T5600 Merom, used in the MacBook, has a TDP of 34 watts. The ULV version, the U7600, has a TDP of 10 watts. This significant power saving, coupled to the reduced power consumption of the L.E.D. backlighting of the display, allows the use of a smaller, lighter battery.

The casework for the MacBook has a healthy dollop of internal bracing, making the unit rather dense. The 13" MacBook is 0.663 ounces/cubic inch, whilst the 15.4" MacBook Pro is 0.638 ounces/cubic inch.

This means that if the 13" MacBook used the same construction as a 15.4" MacBook Pro, it would weigh about 4.9 pounds. However, not only is the aluminium construction less dense, it would also allow for a smaller form factor, especially if there's no optical drive.

I mentioned the case, did I not?

Originally Posted by melgross

I don't agree with your assessment. Just look at some of the models out there. While some do have smaller screens, that doesn't account for all of their their much lighter weight.

When cutting weight by a significant amount, some compromise must be expected. No DVD, a smaller HD, which, by the way, is NOT "extremely fragile".

A plastic case might be called for as well. Look at some Sony models, and other manufacturers have come out with them as well. Go from a small 11" screen to 13", and you might pick up 8 to 10 oz. That's all.

I would like to see an 11" lightweight model myself, to carry around for fun.

But, a full featured model could go at 3.5 lbs.

Technicalities. All technicalities. Apparently most of you neglected to read the second half of the post which was dedicated to cluing you in to how you're falling for marketing schemes, and how "ultra-portable" cannot be defined and all that. Here it is one more time: It's not about how the thing looks on paper, it's about its usefulness as a tool and real-life ease of portability. 1" thick and 4lbs doesn't mean s**t if the thing is a crippled and gimpy laptop.

Pull your heads out and realize this.

Besides, can you seriously not handle Apple's current 5-lb laptops? What more could you want?! Good grief, get a backbone.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Sony has a notebook which includes an internal dual layer writing optical drive that weighs a total of 2.65 lb, which includes standard WiFi, Bt and EVDO.

No freaking way. What is it made of? Solid lead?

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Resolution has very little to do with power consumption. It's the light generation part of the display that consumes the most power.

Thank you for being the only person to stick up for me on a technical point.

-Clive

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Technicalities. All technicalities. Apparently most of you neglected to read the second half of the post which was dedicated to cluing you in to how you're falling for marketing schemes, and how "ultra-portable" cannot be defined and all that. Here it is one more time: It's not about how the thing looks on paper, it's about its usefulness as a tool and real-life ease of portability. 1" thick and 4lbs doesn't mean s**t if the thing is a crippled and gimpy laptop.

Pull your heads out and realize this.

Besides, can you seriously not handle Apple's current 5-lb laptops? What more could you want?! Good grief, get a backbone.

I think that you are the one missing the point here. You are trying to come up with your own definition, while denying that there is one.

At some point in time, people must agree on what words mean. If the great majority agree on a definition, then that is the definition. It may change later.

If you don't agree, that's too bad, but then you are the odd man out.

This has nothing to do with "handling" Apple's current lineup either.

I suppose that you complained when people said that the original 20 pound models were too heavy.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

What's my point balance? Don't I get positive points for all the times I've given input that wasn't disagreeable among the AI forum? I think, in net points, I'm probably at about 50.

You are normally pretty jovial, what has changed such that your attitude is so different now from in the past?

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

Thank you for being the only person to stick up for me on a technical point.

It's not the weight in itself, it's the fatigue. Have you ever had to walk around for twelve hours with a notebook strapped to your shoulder? Personally, I don't need a multi-GHz notebook, I really don't think many people do, but something that runs cooler, longer and is lighter would be a worthwhile tradeoff.

[Raven56]

I ordered a new baseline 15" macbook pro from a Mac1 store on the 13th of June and am still waiting for it to arrive. This is my first Mac and to be honest Apple is proving to be completely incompetent, 6 WEEKS is fare too long to wait for a laptop.
At least now i have some idea that I'm not the only one going through this pain.

And what problems have they had with the LED screens?

[J45p3r]

My MBP shipped this morning!