Next MacBook update a yawner; Ultra-portable to get 13-inch display - Page 3

I wonder if LED displays will need the stupid glossy surface to impress people. I hate glossy screens so I hope not. Hopefully LED technology will make the screens bright enough so gloss is not necessary.

I want to move away from my G5 and into the MacBook Pro. Now that the new Santa Rosa one will have 200 Gig 7200 RPM drives (desktop speed), the change will make sense.

Apple is doing a lot of things right, and it is the best out there, but the system is not simple and I like the lessons in the Apple stores. It is no good to go and get a lesson and then go home and be unable to duplicate what one learned.

For example: I keep some 20,000 emails in Mail. Mail is meant to do this. That is why it has sorting, find, flagging abilities. I use it as a database. If a customer from 2 years ago leaves a message I just type Mr. Wilson and I see his information from before. Now moving those 20,000 emails into a "copy" in another Apple system is not simple. I placed a post and got several conflicting ways and utilities to do this.

Another example, to copy a DVD one needs this or that. Backups and versions in different computers do not work easily.

The solution is to live in 1 system. And back that 1 system up.

So for the first time the MacBook Pro has gotten to 7200 RPM 200 Gigs, 4 G ram, faster processors. It finally has true desktop features.

Yes if you are working video you need G5s. But if not here is your home. Expect sales of MacBook Pros to skyrocket.

Agree. I'd still take the extra weight for an optical drive, but otherwise this is exactly what I've found with my 15" as well. I dragged one right the way around the world (backpacking!), and although I coped, a 12" would have made all the difference.

Thanks, I was wondering where the hell that setting was.

It's not actually Image Capture that opens iPhoto, though. The OS does that - Image Capture's Preferences window is just the place where Apple bizarrely decided to put the controls to change that OS-wide setting. Similarly, the setting for the default e-mail client is in Mail's preferences, the default web browser setting is in Safari's, but you could set the default apps to something else and delete Image Capture, Safari, and Mail off of your system, and the default apps would still launch when they were supposed to.

Those settings all used to be in System Preferences. Why on earth they were moved is a mystery to me.

I think because they have a popular media player they are regaining some recognition, but they are not a serious competitor to Windows. Their hardware is still much too expensive (also way, way, way less distributed) to compete seriously with Windows. Every single major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with an OS distributes it with the option to have Windows on it.

I agree here, though. The MacBook should be around $800. Didn't Apple switch to Intel to save money? Why can everyone else do it for hundreds cheaper per notebook? Just seems strange.....

because apple offers more. plus they have a catchy slogan. think different.

No, the G4 CPU was much cheaper than the Core Duo.

As to why the MacBook isn't $800, why not ask Lenovo why their laptops aren't $800 either, or any number of the top end brand name manufacturers....

Apple aren't Acer, Packard Bell or eMachines.

Well then what other operating system is a serious competitor to Windows in the home market? Apple is a competitor if people seriously consider buying Macs over Windows. And if you know a major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with Windows optional, please send them my way. They just bundle Windows on there and charge you for it. *


No, Apple switched to Intel to get access to chips that didn't suck. Freescale was having problems making faster G4s, and IBM wasn't interested in improving the G5 enough.

* = Dell is finally shaping up, but that's far from across-the-line, and isn't even shipping yet.

They all would all fall over themselves to get OS X if Apple allowed it. There is at least one major OEM, that I'm aware of, that has tried unsuccessfully to get OS X.

Like many, you fail to see that marketshare means very little. By your argument, Rolls Royce should sell cheaper cars to compete with Ford, Hyundai, etc.

Apple has the high end market of consumer and prosumer machines. Their main concern is selling more hardware, not trying to beat out Microsoft for the valueless title of 'most common OS.'

If you wnat to make a comparison, compare Apple's hardware sales to other vendors. Just reported here on AI this week, Apple snagged 10% of all domestic notebook sales from retail outlets. That includes all those sub-$1000 HP, Dell and Toshiba notebook. If we had the total number of $1000+ or Core (2) Duo notebooks we'd see a tremendous gain here.


I implore you, link me to one of these identically spec'd $800 notebooks.

Rolls Royces run on the same roads and on the same gas. Not so with OS X and Windows software and compatibility. The likes of Lenovo and Sony are free to push highest of the high end hardware only, and Acer is free to push low end crap only, and that is because they don't have to worry about the OS marketshare. They reinforce one another through Windows.
Valueless, as shown by Microsoft's profits?
I'm astounded by how bad the majority of computer design is, but they're going to catch up. That means hardware will eventually be commodified to the point where Apple can't make a difference with it. The long term profits, as well as the biggest profits, are and will always remain on software side.
It used to be that when people were defending a piece of overpriced Apple hardware, they used the "identical" ploy to tip comparisons. When you compare two computers, set one as the benchmark to strive for and add costly extras to the other to make it "identical" (total feature matching to same or better), you pretty much always guarantee win for the first computer. In actual buy decisions the benchmark is based on a set of wants and means, not a particular product. Funnily, Apple with its tiny lineup of products is far easier to abuse with the same trick.

Example: Show me an Apple equal of the cheapest tower Dell sells with better than 7600GT graphics? (I'm guessing this is in the $600 range...)
Answer: An upgraded Mac Pro at around $2500. (Overpriced!!1!1! Boooooo!)

But Macbook doesn't need dishonest defense. Its hardware is quite competetive at the price - anything roughly comparable costs more. Still, I feel 1150EUR is too much for the low end. I'd like to see the next Macbook upgrade with low end model at 900EUR. It can even have the same specs it does now - no tech they could upgrade on the inside will show to the average user, anyway.

Workable Windows laptops are about 600EUR. It's not a big stretch for folks to shell out 200-300EUR more to get OS X, even if the only thing they knew about it was that it will remove the possibility of viruses and whole-computer "gunk-ups". But 500EUR more? That makes for a hard sell.

I don't make stuff like that up, but maybe my memory was slightly stretched or there is a different, older model, or maybe I have the brand wrong.

The manufacturer might fudge things, but here is one that is close at least specwise. Panasonic Toughbook W5 gets 11 hours according to their specs, and it runs 2.7lb and still has an integrated (though weird) optical drive:

http://www.toughbook-europe.com/medi...t_CF-W5_en.pdf

Maybe. Maybe it's easier to pack stuff in the base when it's a little larger. The previous 12" models were pretty thick, relatively speaking, compared to the current 13" model.

oh! do I second that.

seems like a upgrade from the macbook tho. still holding out for it to be atleast "pro-ish"

I really hate that comparison. OSX and Windows aren't 'roads and gas' and for a long time now it really doesn't matter if you're running on alternate 'roads and gas' if you're still getting from A to B. Different roads? Come on, we're on identical hardware, networks and protocols now. Different gas? When was the last time you had a software compatibility issue?

And if you really insist on pushing car analogies the counter example would be a Prius which runs on 'roads and gas' that a Rolls Royce can't. I can't remember ever seeing a diesel roller either. It's not like I can nip down to my local motor factors and buy Rolls Royce parts either.

[QUOTE=Gon;1081179]
The likes of Lenovo and Sony are free to push highest of the high end hardware only, and Acer is free to push low end crap only, and that is because they don't have to worry about the OS marketshare. They reinforce one another through Windows.Valueless, as shown by Microsoft's profits?{/quote]

Apple are free to do whatever they want as they own both the hardware and the software. They obviously choose not to spread themselves too thinly or participate in low margin products which would damage their image in the high end.


Already happened. Apple can't compete with commodity low end hardware and still be Apple, not in the way people here cry out for (ie. cheap laptops with Celerons in or econobox plastic towers with cheesy 6bit screens).


But you're comparing 'Apples and Oranges' there. Apple doesn't do a cheap tower so you've got nothing to compare to. It's like making carbon brakes pads a buying prerequisite and lambasting Aston Martin they don't make a car as cheap as a Honda.


It's a little high now I reckon. It wasn't when it came out but the competitors have moved on. But here of course you're comparing Apples and Apples.


And yet they seem to be selling like hotcakes - go figure!

Apple needs to get it's European pricing in line with reality though.

My point exactly. "If blah blah blah, and then something else, this and that, then Apple would take over the world."

Every major manufacturer bundles Windows. 1 manufacturer bundles OS X. Competition for Windows? Hardly. Especially now, when you consider people, including myself, are running Windows and OS X on my MBP.

In the short term, Windows loses very little marketshare to Mac switchers. It's the long term that can really hinder Microsoft. I know of several switchers that either used Bootcamp and/or Parallels at first, but found that OS X offered an "as good or better" solution.

For many years Apple had no retail stores. Many people who are now Mac users knew nothing of Macs because they got a chance to get a hold of one. The retail stores, iPods, Best Buys and the increasing ubiquitousness of Mac notebooks has made it easy for the public to form a well rounded opinion about Apple and Macs.

I wonder how many people using BootCamp, Parallels or VMWare purchased a new, retail copy of XP or Vista, or simple reused an existed OEM copy? Did you buy a retail copy of Windows for your MBP?

BTW, there are at least a few manufacturers that allow you to get Linux builds with select OEM hardware. I believe Dell is one of them.

Good for you. Most Mac users aren't bothered if OSX sells more than windows or vice versa. As long as OSX is good, Macs are good then why the fudge would any sane person care what the other guys are doing.

Apple has to step up its game as well or at least keep it at a high level. They have to realize that many of its new found users aren't as tied to Apple has the hardcore users. If they feel that Apple doesn't fit their needs or take their concerns seriously, they could switch back. I've seen it before. Apple had a big jump with the original iMac. They treated them like they were long time mac users and as a result many switched back.

Ok, there's no need to insinuate that I am a thieving bastard simply because I use Windows on my Mac.

I agree that in the short term Microsoft does lose very little, and has the potential to lose more market share to Apple. All I'm saying is that if you can run Windows on every piece of hardware and you can run OS X on only 1 manufacturer's hardware, there is the more than probable conclusion that Windows would be more widespread than OS X. Opinions aside, this is reality.

Maybe when Leopard comes out, we can run it on a Sony Vaio for $1300 with close to the specs of the new MBP's for $2499. That, in my opinion, would be the answer for OS X to truly compete with Windows. Let us decide what hardware we need, and what OS we want. What a blasphemous thing that is to say, but it would be sweet.

OS marketshare has nothing to do with the quality of the OS, except that Apple has a potential to invest more as the increased user-base for Macs, iPhones, and AppleTVs will lower the R&D costs for developing OS X.

But marketshare itself clearly means nothing to the quality of the product. We need only look at Intel and Microsoft's track record to see this.

Apple sold 2x as many machines as it did 3 years prior. IOW, Apple's user-base is growing and Apple's profits are growing. That is enough for me to be happy. If the rest of the world grow by a 100 fold it wouldn't make a lick a difference to Apple's bottom line.


I have seen no evidence of switchers going back to Windows. If anything, I've seen/read of longtime OS X users moving to Linux.

i agree. apple would make so much more money if other companies used their os on their systems. especially if the systems were cheaper. but i think stevey wants to be unique, and be in total control of his company and be the lone seller of his os.

I'm not sure they would make more money. The R&D costs become higher. You have to now supply an unconceivable amount of drivers and need work out compatibility issues for thousands instead of 5 machines.

When you say cheaper, are saying a lower introductory machine, or a cheaper machine at the current configuration level. If it's the latter, then you haven't done any price comparisons in the last few years.

The biggest problem with Apple willy-nilly selling its OS to OEMs and DIYs is the complete lack of quality that will ensue. The day Apple decides to run on any X86 (which it won't) is the day that I move away from OS X. Windows can't have the same interaction between the hardware and OS like OS X can because MS has deliberately spread itself to thin to make the quick buck.

Apple didn't bend to OEMs begging to get out from under the Windows crutch back when Apple was faltering so why do you think Apple will do it now when it is thriving?

Hi all.

The one that that I am waiting and hoping for... and I don't much care whether it pushes me towards a MacBook or a MacBook Pro is higher DPI to take advantage of resolution independence.

Is this only me? We've been promised resolution independence for 2-3 years now. What I would like to do with it is to have 15" macbook or pro, with the resolution of a 17" macbook pro.

I travel. On airplaces. The 17" isn't even legal carry-on in many places now, let alone practical in coach. But I need lots of screen real-estate. Resolution independence should allow me to vary the zoom factors of different things independently depending on how bleary-eyed I am, whether the sun is shining in from the window-seat of sleepy-guy on the left and so on without having to sacrifice detail on PDFs and manual pages and so on.

But it is all designed for CRTs. With LCDs, Apple remains the one manufacturer to continue selling the same-size chunky pixels. Resolution independence will bring us nothing unless they actually give us more DPI to display this glory on.

Is there any word at all?

THANKS!
Greg

Apple could create a version of Leopard that works on pc's that uses windows drivers and what not. And by cheaper i mean that if you were to compare a pc to a mac and put the same configurations the mac would be a few hundred dollars more, and that few hundred dollars more can mean the difference between someone who's buying a new computer. If apple was to make the pc leopard and companies were to use it on pc's apple would still be making money off the software and more people would be using the mac os. for example dells are very inexpensive, of course depending on the model you get. but let's say you get a cheap-o pc from dell, and you could get mac os on it, it'd be less expensive and people who can't really afford the more high end technology would get the dell rather than the mac.

That makes no sense. Drivers have to be tailored to each OS. Or haven't you noticed that WinXP drivers don't work with Win98 or Win2k (and vice versa)? If Microsoft can't get drivers to operate over different versions of their own OS, what makes you think Apple can?

There's a misunderstanding of RI.

Some people seem to think it requires even greater rez than now, but it doesn't.

RI isn't going to be used to make on-screen iobjects, or text, smaller. If it were, then a higher rez would be required.

But, it's going to be used to make the on-screen objects, and type, larger. Anything sized for the normal sized rez will simply be scaled up smoothly. Type will be larger, icons will be larger, and so on.

The idea, for example, would be to make the menu bar larger. Do we need higher rez to be able to do that? No, we don't.

I'm not saying that going to 150 ppi wouldn't be nice, but higher than that, FOR THIS PURPOSE, isn't required. I say for this purpose, because some people feel that going as high as 200 ppi would be good for them. So be it. If that's what they think they need, ok.

But, it's only when one makes an object, or text, SMALLER on screen, that a higher rez is needed.

You can easily see that now. Type in a large text size, then type the same thing in increasingly smaller sizes. The larger sizes will have much better detail, and smoothness, than the smaller sizes. The screen rez is the same, of course.

That's the equivelant of RI, where you are increasing the size of the interface to see small details more easily.

If you were going the other way, then I would agree.

It's never been stated. I don't think they will offer it until Leopard. I wouldn't consider a higher dpi display until res independence is available and properly working. It is in Tiger but it's not really well supported, and is turned off by default.

as i see it the main benefit of resolution independence when it comes to pro machines is being able to have higher rez screens but still leaving the ui elements the same size. but higher rez screens would make everything sharper to the eye. so while you don't need ri to make things smaller, you do need them to keep things the same physical size but with a higher resolution. this is good for sharpness and for the ability to work in palette-heavy applications in a more flexible way.

That's not what most people would use it for. The idea is to make it easier to read when larger, hi rez screens, like the ones that are out now, are used by people who have problems with the elements that are already so small.

You're talking about those people who I mentioned who would like to see higher rez screens anyway.

I certainly wouldn't want to make text sizes smaller in pallets than they are now. They are already too small in Compressor.

Companies can arrange their pallets any way they want to. The idea is to simplify them, not to add more stuff. Make them more contextually relevant.

I have no problem with the rez on my monitor now. But, this is another argument altogether.

i wouldn't mind being able to shrink the pallettes on my powerbook screen. on my home machine i'm okay with everything the way it is. but resolution independence to me means more than just making things bigger for grannies. text rendering will be better across the board with higher rez monitors.

Not everybody needs the dvd drive all the time, but just about everybody would like to have longer battery life. That's why the 13, 15 and 17 inch Apple laptops should have a multipurpose drive bay. So if you don't need to use the dvd drive, you can remove it and replace it with either a second battery or a second hard drive. And if Apple can make these design changes without severely impacting the the size and weight of the laptop, then I don't see why they shouldn't.

And when are the 15 and 17 inch MacBook Pros getting the magnetic display latch and user replaceable hard drive?

I didnt really have an idea of what ultra-portable meant until today at work. I'm an intern at a law firm, and i'm working on a project for this attorney. He whips out this tiny-ass centrino-duo IBM thinkpad. No optical drive, no hulk terrabite HD, the top of the clamshell is maybe the width of a pencil. It's pretty sweet. But then I think to myself, would I really want this as my home computer, or a main computer? The answer is NO.

The keyboard is (very) cumbersome, it's not practical to have more than one window/application open since the screen is tiny and low res. If the resolution were any smaller, I think I might need a magnifying glass. It's been enough on my eyes working on this all morning, let alone a 30 hr. flight to singapore.

So, i'm thinking of the true usability of a machine like this. I mean, could probably fit this in my shirt, or in a backpack/purse, etc. It would definitely fit in on an airline tray-table. But I'd be curious to see what it can run...email, web browsing, online othello....and thats probably about it. And not simultaneously without a mouse (but that will NOT fit on an airline tray-table...unless i'm flying 1st class). But then again, raise your hand if you often need to open photoshop and finalcut while on a plane. If you do, you probably have Steve Jobs' personal number anyways.

Not to mention, this thing isn't cheap. The model i'm running costs $1500. (http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/c...DAD8E72CF6FD61) so Lenovo probably doesn't push a whole ton of these. You could convince me that it's profitable, but i have my doubts. What will apple charge for this thing? $1950? Idk that apple has a name with businesses anyways, or that they'd be willing to switch....IT people train the firm in document management, etc. on the same operating system that the secretaries have at home/learned at community college. PC wears a suit and can play fun lawyer games like "calculator" and someone at the firm today even commented "why the hell do I have a media player on my computer?"

And finally, I think an apple ultra-portable would hurt the apple name with students. As a student, I have one computer, so it needs to be good. I cannot imagine owning this as my only computer. It's not meant for that anyways. Apple could really break the market with a happy medium....a lighter MB is all with a removable optical drive. Everyone wants a lighter computer, so start there. This thinkpad may as well come with a stylus, leave me to associate this glorified Sidekick with Windows! (In fact...maybe it WOULD be better if I just typed with my thumbs)

So if Apple wants to break into the market of people who are rich as $h!t and fly around the world every day, be my guest. But please don't even think of selling this to a student or a processing power-hungry photographer.

Benny

B

And that's exactly what an ultraportable is. It's not intended to be your main computer. It's for road warriors or for plugging in to the monitor/keyboard when back at home/the office.

For one, some have internal optical drives.

You don't have to want it or buy it. There is no one size fits all, but lacking an ultraportable is a considerable oversight in Apple's current mobile line-up.


Most of the people I've seen that want one have realistic expectations on the price, being about $2000.

Exactly. A MacBook that is a pound or so lighter and an inch or so smaller is all that's needed. Ultra portables are for a niche market and I doubt very many would sell, except to those who can afford a different computer for every need.

The MBs are already 1.08" while the MBPs are 1.00". Or do you mean that the MB should be .08" and MBP the thickness of a sheet of notebook paper.

As for the niche market, Apple's increase in salesdoubling in the past 3 yearsmay warrant an sub-notebook class. Percentage-wise doesn't matter, but if Apple can sell as many of these theoretical sub-notebooks as it did their most popular PowerBook just 4 or 5 years ago then it will a sweeping success for Apple.

So just make the MacBook lighter.

That still doesn't take away the need for an ultraportable from those that want a smaller laptop.

Apple doesn't need to have a major hit with every product it sells. A modest number of sales, as long as they are profitable, is fine. It will add incrementally to thir overall sales. Many large companies have thousands of products, Apple has just a couple of dozen, or so.

I mean instead of 12.75 inches wide by 8.75 inches deep, reduce the bezel around the display and make it 11.75 inches wide by 7.75 inches deep, smart ass.

I've heard/read more pining for a replacement for the 12" PowerBook than I have for a sub-notebook. My suggestion in the post above would satisfy the former and maybe partially satisfy the later without having to have two models.

If Apple could make dozens of models and keep profits up without wasting R&D money, I'm sure they would. Since Steve Jobs returned, it seems the goal is to minimize the number of models on the market.