Apple's MacBook Air supply dries up as rumors of new 11.6-inch model persist - Page 3

The pixel density of the 1280x800 13.3 MB/MBP/MBA is already slightly higher than the 15 MBP and slightly lower than the 17 MBP. If you consider the high-resolution display, which I mentioned earlier, then a 1280x800 11.6 display would equate to that BTO option.

Im curious, too.

I bet I could turn on my iPad and access a book in iBooks before he could turn on his netbook and access that same book in the Kindle reader for Windows.

I bet I could turn on my iPad and access Wikipedia.com from Safari before he can do the same task on his netbook with IE or Firefox.

Then we have issues with readability on a ≤5 high 600 pixel display (most of them crappy TN panels with weak CCFL backlights). And dont even get me started with battery life.

Im sure there are reasons why someone would spend that much for a netbook when they can get so much more from a cheap notebook, but I have to say those reasons are limited. And Im sure there are reasons why some might find a netbook a better consumer option than an iPad, but if you look at what people do with these devices the iPad seems to be a much better fit all around for the average user. Well see the real results soon about netbook sales v. tablets soon.

Steve Jobs is devastated that you are not going to buy a Mac anymore.

If it's not made by Apple, I don't want it. Plus this accessory makes the iPad too Top heavy, and it's not securely fit at it's most vulnerable point, which is the point at the bottom. Too easy for the device to slip out of place.

first of all, you have a netbook AND an iPad? Technology Whore are we? I suppose you're going to say you have an iPhone, iPod touch, MBP and iMac as well? Or some combination or form of these? I'm trying to simplify my technology, not add to it...
Second, I don't want a non-Apple product. yes, I'm dreaming up things that don't exist, and probably just waiting for the world to catch up. I want a netbook sized laptop that I can run iOS on (i.e. Apps, Airplay, etc.), and some features of OSX (like garage band, installing Google Chrome, looking at my files and organizing my primary PC off it, etc.) that's made by Apple. Is this too much to ask? Probably

you must be in Journalism. Quoting something out of context doesn't make your comments valid.

I think you are cheating as you haven't really turned off your iPad and similarly most people don't turn off their netbooks. They're kept in standby mode and are usable as soon as the screen is open.


ps - have you ever timed how long an iPad takes to start from being completely turned off? It is a surprisingly long time.

Maybe they'll drop the Macbook Air altogether. Maybe the replacement will be a iOS Air. Maybe people have just discovered the Macbook Air and love the outdated technology and tired form factor.

I thought my use of the term turn on made it clear that I was referring to actually turning on the device, not just the display and touch-screen sensor.


You think 25 seconds is a long time? Why dont you time how long a netbook running Windows takes to get to the login screen, then add in the time it takes to load the desktop, then add in the time it takes to launch apps.

But that does bring up a good point. People can keep their iPad in a perpetual wait mode for days without charging while using throughout the day for many fast tasks with a minimal or start time for productivity app, and without worrying about the battery dying on you. This just isnt the same for a device using a desktop OS. Surely will someone will argue that if IE or Firefox or Outlook Express or Thunderbird is open its just as fast but how long can all these apps be left running and still have a device that will still be power left in the battery.

I still believe that as Apple is the ONLY Mac OS hardware provider, they should consider expanding their range, though I fully appreciate the business/logistics/marketing aspect of multiple products. Perhaps if the MBA13 had the more-requested features, we would not be talking of an MBA11. Or, to follow-on from my opening line, both?

I was dead-against glossy displays, but for the iMac27 I bought for home recently, it really is not an issue, at least the way we use it. We also got a MBP13 and I can't say I still do not wish for a matte display- you would have thought with the option of moving/tilting you could find an acceptable angle. Of course with my MBP15/matte I can just use it with any tilting....

My wish-list: non-crippled processor, 4gb ram, new integrated graphics is ok, Giga ethernet, extra Ethernet, USB and FW ports. Better speaker(s) and matte option and I am sold!

I can see a version that marries the best of the MBA13 and the MB13 too, and drop the prices of the MBP's.

Finally, am I in the minority for wishing for a black Mac laptop? I believe Sony do a black one with textured finish (easy to grip, difficult to slip....).

Come on, you are an intelligent guy, this is not a proper argument. Sales can be fab, and they can be even better. Ipad sales have exceeded all expectations, but they could have been half of that and still be fab. .

And besides it's a well know fact that business users are indeed preferring matte displays, or at the very least not glassy ones, how can you. How can you tell? See what they choose when they are given an option on other platforms than apple, and on other models of apple.

So, it is indeed self evident that had macbook pro 13" should have had a matte option it would indeed sell much more.

And that's why it's incomprehensible to me how apple won't offer this option. And very disappointing of course too.

1) I think Doretea is one of those elusive female posters.

2) If matte displays are so popular then…

• … why don’t exist for all Macs
• … why did it take so long for the 15" to get a matte display.
• … why do they charge an extra $50 when the glossy glass panel will surely be more costly to engineer, produce, install and service than having the cheap plastic of matte top.
• … why does matte only come on the high-res display options which in itself is an additional charge of $100, before you add the $50 additional charge on the 15” MBP?

Sure, if Apple has more products to sell to meet the diverse needs of more people they can sell more items. That is how commerce works, the problem with that concept is that products cost money so you have to find your core market and focus on that to maximize profits. Apple will allow a matte option in the 13” Mac if the sales are high enough to justify it, but that is the only reason they would or should do it. So far, based on the rhetorical questions I posed above it doesn’t look like something that is wildly popular among business users or consumers; I bet this is regulated mostly to a small but solid core of image and video-based professionals and how many of them use a 13” Mac with a 110ppi display for their work?

PS: If future Macs will all be touchscreen-capable expect glass panels on all future Macs.

Unlike most people on these forums, I seem to be the minority that thinks Less is more. I don't need a desktop, laptop, iPad and iPhone to function. I'm looking for Apple to make a device that truly bridges the gap between the desktop and the iphone. Right now the iPad nor the MBA does that for me. I don't want a Laptop as my primary PC and the iPad doesn't work well enough for me as a bridge device (for reasons i've already posted on this forum). I think this is where the MBA with a hybrid iOS/OSX or and iOS MBA would come into place. Apple needs to address an issue i've had for a while using multiple devices in their "ecosystem"; that being better integration across platforms. I don't want two PC's when i'm in my own house and want to coach-potato it up, or while traveling. I want a companion device that allows me to remote into my desktop while on the coach or can be sync'd while traveling. I usually don't want a full OSX device when on the coach or traveling, just some essentials. Right now a laptop nor the iPad combines the best of both worlds.

Edit:I think one way they could bridge the gap would be to allow iPHone/Touch/iPad Apps to run in OSX. Another way they could bridge this gap is to allow cloud sync from a laptop/iPad to my primary iTunes Server (being my PC). Now perhaps that's what Airplay is going to be, but I think Airplay will mainly just allow the reverse to happen.

You mean like the $999 Macbook?

iPad 499-699
Macbook 999
MBP 1199-2199
MBA 1499-1799

If they were to revamp the MBA and price it between the iPad and MBP, then what purpose does the white Macbook serve in the lineup anymore? If the price is dropping that significantly, then one or the other must go. I think we'll see similar price structures, maybe $100 off current MBA prices. CLV processors, 4GB RAM and SSD across the board.

Or Apple will zig when we all expect them to zag and wow us w/a take on things we never anticipated

Start up time is just one measure of performance and as people do leave their machines in sleep mode with IE or Firefox or Outlook Express or Thunderbird running it isn't that important. As I said I think you are cheating in your argument by focusing on this one performance measurement.

I didnt start at Sleep Mode because the netbook would have no chance. I can hit the home button on an iDevice and then start Safari or Mail before a netbook user can open up their netbook lid, wait for the HDD to spin up again and wake, then they have to use the mouse to click on IE/Firefox or OE/Thunderbird to launch their app. Lets not forget that Windows can take a long time to reestablish a wireless connection.

If you are talking with this programs actually running in the background at all times and opening the lid only turns on the display but the full OS is constantly running, well that is a silly comparison as the battery life would be eaten up rather quickly that way. There is just no comparison to an iDevice and you still may have slower and worse access to mail and internet browsing due to the need to maneuverer a mouse and use a cramped keyboard.

Like I stated, Im sure there are some consumers that find them ideal, but for what most people want from satellite computers is what Apple has provided and what others are now scrambling to offer.

BTW, just because an Atom processor is faster than an ARM processor doesnt mean that it can do the same task faster. The OS and apps are important to how every runs. You tie an anvil to the worlds faster runner and hes still the worlds fastest runner, but hes not going to be impressing anyone.

@Soli.

The reason matte returned to the 15" is because so many people voiced this request, not the other way around - that it was delayed because of not enough interest. It was delayed because as you said apple are looking for uniformity with the glass displays that will enable them in the future to add the touch interface. That's one of the reasons it's not there on imacs. Apple have made a functional and above all aesthetic choice with the glass. Sadly this renders the glare for so many of us simply unbearable and this is no issue of blue ray or no blue ray, of no e-sata, and ll those other minor complaints that people whine about.

It's a huge usability issue for a vast array of people including myself. I can't barely tolerate the glare on the iphone, I can again barely accept it on the ipad, and I simply cannot stand it on the imacs and mbps. But we know how stubborn apple can be when they reach an aesthetic decision (let's take for example never having produced a two physical button mouse). The extra charge is there btw because I think it's a different manufacturing process to produce a matte macbook pro, and the volumes are much lower than the de facto glass panel.

The fact of the matter remains that if apple had only a small minority of users complaining about lack of matte, that being apple, they would have NEVER decided to switch back to matte on a brand new model with a new aesthetic. This concession on the macbook pro 15" tells me that they have a whole lot of people demanding them that they simply can't ignore. I would wager it's about half an half for matte and glassy. But of course when they made that aesthetic decision it would be admission of failure of their design if they then offered matte across the board. That's like saying we spent so much time designing this but if you don't like it or find it very useable we have back up option for you. This is simply not apple. Yet they have made many concessions against the glassy display: on the 17" and 15" mbps and on the air.

Apologies to Dorothea, which has beautiful Greek name for nick, where doro: is gift, and thea: is godess (as well as view).

Most things. Opening documents, typing, web browsing, email, photo browsing, and especially video playback. I often get "Your iPad is probably too slow to play this movie correctly" errors on files that play flawlessly on the HP netbook.


Exactly, it never takes more than a few seconds for me to "start" my netbook and start using it.

**It's important to distinguish that I'm not trying to promote HP over Apple here. I'd much rather have an Apple netbook with similar capabilities to the HP Mini 5103. That is the product that I think should replace the MBA.

That is nonsense. And show us this "Your iPad is probably too slow to play this movie correctly message.


More nonsense. A few, eh? Cant even give an actual number like I provided? based on the specs of that HP Mini we can easily see youre talking double the time to start up over the iPad, not to mention important things like display type and battery life compared to the iPad. If you go with the HD panel you impact battery and cost eve more.


Even the original MBA can run circles around your netbook, and thats before you factor in the screen size and fullsize keyboard which make the MBA a much better choice for the people it was designed for.

Its great that you like your netbook (though I would have personally gotten something from Asus) but to say that your netbook is what the MBA should be and that your netbook can perform any task faster than an iPad and do it better is silly. Why not find the enjoyment of your product without have to make up reasons to like it before you can do so? It makes no sense.

I wasn't sure of the exact number, I just knew it was nowhere near as slow as Apple apologists usually claim. I just went and timed it, and it's just under 20 seconds from closed to running and displaying a page in Firefox.

Just to butt in on the conversation...


VLC on my old iBook gives me that "your CPU is too slow to play this" message on... just about every video. To be expected since it's an ancient laptop, but I'm sure VLC on the iPad has the same error messages.


Do you shut down your laptop every time you're done using it, or do you put it to sleep like a normal person? The wakeup time for a netbook is as fast as any other computer, a second or two.

What are the codec, container, resolution and bitrate? Have you tried playing it in VLC?

Your netbook would have been able to play for video files until recently, but that changed with allowance of video players with bundled codecs. I find That I use this as the drag-n-drop option in iTunes makes this very easy.

Again, your netbook is fine but for the tasks the iPad and MBA are designed for they kick the butt of any netbook. Netbooks on the other hand weren’t designed that way, they came about because Intel created a low-powered x86-capable chip thus allowing a desktop OS on a much smaller machine. That is the key difference: intelligent design v. opportunistic evolution.


That is from the lid closed, not with the machine off. I can hit the Home button, slide to unlock and open Safari in 3 seconds without rushing. I can do the same in just under 30 seconds if the device is completely off, which it doesn’t have to be since it can be in idle mode for a month before discharging.

It does. And you'd expect it perhaps with an MKV. Heck, even my 2.4GHz iMac struggles with those. But I'm getting the error even with 720p h264 .mp4s. I get the error, and then it chunks along stuttering and skipping, freezing, etc. Same files play flawlessly on the netbook.

I really don't know much about these things, I just know what won't play on the iPad, WILL play on the netbook without issue.

Here's what the inspector says for one of the offenders: (it's an mp4 file)





And again, you're mistakenly making the assumption that I'm making these pronouncements in a vacuum. I have both a netbook and an iPad on my desk right now, I'm well aware of what they can and can't do. For real usage, not just based on a spec sheet.

The netbook is as good if not better than the iPad for most things, most of the time. For the things I use the netbook for the most (web browsing and videos), the netbook is dramatically better.

That all looks within spec for the iPad, so there is something else going on. The iPad will play up to Man Profile 3.1, its possible that was encoded with blocks for a different profile.


I dont doubt that you think its better, but your initial comments were about its speed and I pointed out how that is erroneous. Turning it on, launching apps I bet you cant find a comparable app that doesnt launch much faster on the iPad than on your netbook. I bet you even spend more time working that cramped little trackpad moving that mouse around and accessing the Start Menu while you can an app on the iPad.

This is the key, IPad has two things going for it. One is the Solid State Storage and the other is the GUI acceleration. It doesn't by any means have a fast CPU. Further it suffers from constrained memory. These are realities that aren't debatable. Any app requiring extensive CPU time will have issues on the iPad. Fortunately developer have seen fit to avoid putting such apps on the iPad.

I really appreciate that they want to cut down the weight of the new model as much as possible, but as someone who has worked with carbon fiber, I really don't see it as financially viable in commercial electronic consumer products like a case for a laptop. Overkill in my opinion. Its also very difficult and time consuming to produce two sided products that look aesthetically pleasing. And last I heard it was in short supply in part because of the Boeing Dreamliner.

Other than aluminum or molded plastic, their acquisition of liquidmetal sounds like the way they will go.
If for some reason they can pull off a carbon body case, i would want that laptop just out of curiosity.

BTW, the iphone 4 body is an achievement on its own for a consumer product. Apple is not screwing around when it comes to some of their products. I don't think the general public really appreciates all that it entails. Certainly a lot more work and effort than any phone case available today.

So there are fast aspects to the device? If not aspects of a device arent the fastest among all products does that mean its not fast in doing certain tasks? Is it fair to only judge speed by the power of the CPU when its the users ability to complete a task that really matters? If we were comparing the same OS to the vastly different CPUs then it would be a clear win for the faster CPU if the task was CPU intensive, but were not as Apple clearly redesigned OS X to be idealized for three different ARM-based products each with different UIs, two using CocoaTouch for the I/O.



1) Ive never seen CF on a computer be functional. I have a very limited knowledge of CF but they all seemed to be flimsy, not rigid, which is something I dont want to see in a case for rigid components inside. Ive seen CF that was very rigid so perhaps there is a minimum thickness that needs to be employed but isnt for some reason.

2) I think Apples employing aluminium in so many of their consumer products doesnt get enough attention. From the two pieces of the iPhone frame being milled at 1 million(?) per week and growing to the new Mac mini being a solid block of aluminum when the product category wont have the same wear and tear and size requirement as the average notebook is simply amazing. I hope one day we get some detail into how they were able to accomplish this.

Remember the comment is in respect to VLC and other CPU intensive apps or functions.

Most certainly! Much of that capability is due to hardware acceleration. Video playback of certain encodings works so well because of hardware acceleration. What I tried to point out is that apps demanding significant CPU power will not always meet peoples expectations because many optimizations make iPad appear faster than the CPU really is.

In this case VLC seems to have this issue. CODECs demanding strong CPU performance seem to have issues. The word "seem" is important here because VLC is very much a rev one software release. There could be potential for more aggressive optimization.
[qoute]
If not aspects of a device arent the fastest among all products does that mean its not fast in doing certain tasks? Is it fair to only judge speed by the power of the CPU when its the users ability to complete a task that really matters?
[/quote]
Well this was a discussion about VLC not completing a task or displaying degraded performance.

Outside of VLC how the task is completed can be important too. Fortunately the types of apps popular on iPad have been doing very well on the device. That is in part due to developers realizing the limits of the device.

The OS doesn't matter. Rather it is app performance that matters. To me it is no surprise that Apple kept apps like VLC off the platform for as long as they did as slow apps could have given the platform a poor rep before establishing itself. At this point people have a better idea of what to expect.

While I'm not a fan of carbon fiber, I do have to point out that structures made with the stuff can be very ridged. The problem for Apple is that they can't easily do a unibody with the machined in features.

It is likely more an issue of engineering though thicknees plays a part. The problem is well engineered carbon fiber parts are expensive and not exactly mass production items. It is sort of like hand laid up fiberglass/carbon boats which can be very nice indeed but expensive to make.

This also points out just how cheap labor is in China. When the first Unibody MBP where rumored I couldn't believe that they would be cost effective. Sure the idea sounds grand but looking at from the stand point of a person in the US it is hard to believe that they could CNC each and everyone of those cases. The cost "should" be huge, but obviously Apple is still shipping products that are bearable cost wise.

So yeah pretty amazing. The Liquid Metals licenses though seems to indicate that they need lower cost alternatives that keep quality high. I suspect that this material could see first application in a iPad rev. The reason being the back is about the right size to make usage of an injection molding process practicle. The only other approach, for thin cross sections, is blow molding which I find very strange when talking about metals.

All in all We should be seeing some very interesting ideas with respect to cases and chassis design from Apple soon.

Your word appear is key here. If we exclude it make the comment a fallacy as the OS and HW can’t be faster than what the sum of the parts are.

If we use the word appear then it’s the perception that people have which means desktop OSes are not designed for such slow processors anymore, obviously.


I haven’t used VLC on my iPad as it crashes but I do use CineXPlayer which works great. I have no idea what the CPU usage and battery time for video playback, but I use it for AVIs which don’t have a HW decoder so it will be worse.


The OS absolutely does matter. Apple didn’t cram Mac OS X into the iPhone, Touch or iPad with a new layer for apps on top. They rewrote a great deal of lower-level code, too. Some of which has found its way back into Mac OS X. The most famous of these is the QuickTime framework.

Apple’s not alone. Android has done the same with v2.2 over v2.1. They did so many amazing things with the x.1 release that I think it’s a shame that it wasn’t named v3.0. Just ook at performance from Android OS 2.1 to 2.2 on the same hardware and you’ll see a significance improvement in performance.

I hate to use automobiles as an example whenever possible but in this case I feel I must. Take a motorcycle over a sports car. That same motorcycle engine in a sports car will make it slow as crap. A sports car needs a big powerful engine because it’s heavy. But that relatively small engine in a motorcycle can make very fast. Desktop OSes are heavy cars that need more powerful processors to do the same tasks. We can use Windows Vista over Windows XP as an example. To take the conversation full circle, Windows 7 is the CF version of the Windows Vista.

i'm a mba owner for nearly two years and its a joy to use and has tons more selling points then just the weight ya really av ta use one for a while to see that tho

The MBP will not be dropped as I have reliable sources. There is a new mac book air coming out latter part of Nov.

The word appear is correctly used here as the hardware acceleration of video play back would lead so t think the iOS devices have a fast CPU when they don't. The same thing goes for video acceleration.

Again the OS really doesn't come into the equation here. CPU performance is CPU performance and it really doesn't matter what OS you are running.

Exactly, once you move outside of the hardware accelerated frameworks the CPU has to do all the heavy computations involved. Given a reasonably complex CODEC and a fast bit stream it can't keep up.

Well you can say that but I will maintain it doesn't matter with respect to this discussion. If an app is significantly slow on a platform it is due to the processor. For example many people upgrade their machines to newer processors simply because they want to run their existing apps faster along with the same ole OS.

As to the mixing of Frameworks between Mac OS/X and iOS that has been the case. In some cases those Frameworks are identical or very close to it. Frankly Quicktime X isn't an example of success in this case as I find it very VERY buggy on my 2008 MBP.

Well yeah but then again I've seen my iPhone performance go backwards.

I like to use cars to explain things from time to time my self but in this case I have to say you are supporting my position. Think about it, the engine is like the CPU, when underpowered it can't perform to expectations. The processor in the iPhone is like a hybrid engine where the gas driven part can handle the steady state driving but has to rely on the electric pony motor to accelerate or do other demanding chores. By itself the A8 core in Apples A4 is not really a power house when compared to things like ATOM.

In part this is why Apple was so aggressive in using the GPU that came with the A4. Think about it, when iPhone came out it was and probably still is, making more aggressive use of the GPU than OS/X. This wasn't done as an exercise on Apples part but rather it was the only way to deliver the experience that they wanted to offer via iPhone. The A4 CPU is now several hundred Megahertz faster now but the actual ability of the hardware is still base on a slow CPU architecture.

boy what would I give to have a look/leak (hint, hint) at that new air...