or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Thin Apple notebooks may come clad in black aluminum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thin Apple notebooks may come clad in black aluminum - Page 4

post #121 of 177
so what do you think the odds are that this releases with the new os?
post #122 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortmajor View Post

so what do you think the odds are that this releases with the new os?

About 8/1
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #123 of 177
Here's the thing, remember all those years ago when you bought your first ipod and spent hours if not days loading up all of your CD back catalogue, before you started downloading tunes... surely if someone is buying their first mac/itunes/ ipod experince they can't be expected to download their entire back catalogue.. can they?
post #124 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney View Post

Here's the thing, remember all those years ago when you bought your first ipod and spent hours if not days loading up all of your CD back catalogue, before you started downloading tunes... surely if someone is buying their first mac/itunes/ ipod experince they can't be expected to download their entire back catalogue.. can they?

You got your answer in the other thread you posted in with the exact same thing. External.
post #125 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

yeah if you're an idiot and trust some company because it has "superior arrays" over the next bunch of bozos for $5.00/month less. Not to mention no matter how confidential any company says their info is there are always risks. My stuff in my house. Your stuff on some corps servers. Have fun.

You just dated yourself grandpa by saying warez kid lol who the f%$@ says that anymore? Wired mag?

Right...and if your house burns down all your photos go up in smoke. But my backup on S3 is somewhere in Amazon's cloud. For a head crash a RAID array is good enough if I don't have a 2 drive failure. I guess your data isn't all that important to you if you don't have offsite storage.

Like Amazon cares about baby pictures of my kid.

Who the hell has time to back up a terabyte worth of crap onto a stack of DVDs anyway? Oh you.

I'd rather just buy more disks and do a RAID 10. Anything that can happen to my array can happen to a stack of DVDs.
post #126 of 177
I'm not trying to inject myself into this debate. I have a question.

What's wrong with a home user having an external HDD (or two) and backing up with superduper?

I'm guessing a RAID setup is better, although in all honesty I'm not all that familiar with RAID. Is that really necessary for a home user?
post #127 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I'm not trying to inject myself into this debate. I have a question.

What's wrong with a home user having an external HDD (or two) and backing up with superduper?

I'm guessing a RAID setup is better, although in all honesty I'm not all that familiar with RAID. Is that really necessary for a home user?

You can mirror. Then remove the drive, and put another one in. Move it somewhere safe, if it's really important.

It depends on how important the home user feels thing are. It varies. Most people feel their stuff is important, but not important enough to back up.
post #128 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You can mirror. Then remove the drive, and put another one in. Move it somewhere safe, if it's really important.

It depends on how important the home user feels thing are. It varies. Most people feel their stuff is important, but not important enough to back up.


I backup to an external HDD. I don't have a RAID setup though. I'm feeling a little inadequate after reading this thread.

Is an external HDD backup adequate or should I do more?
post #129 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I backup to an external HDD. I don't have a RAID setup though. I'm feeling a little inadequate after reading this thread.

Is an external HDD backup adequate or should I do more?

This us becoming very Zen-like.

How important is your stuff?

Is it important enough to keep if your HDD crashes forever?

Is it important enough that you will want it in 40 years?

Is it important enough to worry about after your house burns down to the ground?

Those are different levels. the highest level determines what you need to do.
post #130 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I backup to an external HDD. I don't have a RAID setup though. I'm feeling a little inadequate after reading this thread.

Is an external HDD backup adequate or should I do more?

If you are doing a regular backup at all, then you are doing more and better than 95% of what computer users do. Different backup schemes are good at different things. Mirroring doesn't protect against power surges that blow your drives, or prevent accidental overwriting, or provide anything of a history to go back to if a new version is corrupted. Mirroring is pretty obscure or rarely used, though I think all current OSs offer it. Mac mirroring is very easy.

It's a good idea to have a backup that's completely disconnected from power and computer except when backing up.

Everything eventually fails or breaks, and you can get some pretty significant backup regimens where you rotate through several drives, with regular complete and incremental backups and such which provides you a history and fallback positions.
post #131 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

On my current Macbook, I have used the optical on about two occasions in three months (OS X install, ripping one DVD). I definitely don't need or want an internal optical drive on a laptop.

Do you not anticipate the need to install any software, or burn a disk?
post #132 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits View Post

Do you not anticipate the need to install any software, or burn a disk?

I can't answer for him, but I can say that it depends on what you intend for the thing.

I would imagine that most, if not pretty much all, people who buy an ultraportable also have another computer.

While some people use portables as a desktop replacement, an ultraportable is simply not a good candidate.

You are not likely to put nearly as much software on your ultraportable, as it's not suited to doing much of the work bigger machines are designed for.

Therefore, most of these devices will be mostly used for communications, rather than for heavy applications. The few new installs done, therefore, can be brought over from your "standard" machine. Any updates are usually done from downloaded packages.
post #133 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This us becoming very Zen-like.

How important is your stuff?

Is it important enough to keep if your HDD crashes forever?

Is it important enough that you will want it in 40 years?

Is it important enough to worry about after your house burns down to the ground?

Those are different levels. the highest level determines what you need to do.

rolf nice one mel!
zenga
Reply
zenga
Reply
post #134 of 177
I don't think the optical drive is the issue. There are light 12 in notebooks that have DVD RWs... like this Sony:

http://www.dynamism.com/tz90/main.shtml

2.2lbs!
post #135 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb View Post

I don't think the optical drive is the issue. There are light 12 in notebooks that have DVD RWs... like this Sony:

http://www.dynamism.com/tz90/main.shtml

2.2lbs!

You didn't read that correctly.

It's an 11.1" screen, not 12".

2.26 pounds WITHOUT standard battery.

Quote:
With so much power and gadgetry, you will be pleased to learn that the unit weighs only 2.26 pounds (1025g) and measures 10.9 x 7.8 x 0.88 inches (277 x 198 x 22.5mm). It is less than 1 inch thick with the light-weight battery! Even the size of the AC adapter has been reduced to 1.4 x 3.3 x 0.9 (36 x 83x 22.5mm).

Three battery options include the lightweight battery 6-hour (3-hour real world), standard battery 12-hour (6-hour real world), and enhanced battery 18-hour (9-hour real world). With the optional standard battery, the thickness is 29.8mm (1.17") and it adds 135g (0.29 lbs). With the optional enhanced battery, the thickness is 42.5mm (1.67") and it adds 290g (0.63 lbs) .

With the 6 hour battery, add another .29 pounds.

Better battery, more weight and size.
post #136 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb View Post

I don't think the optical drive is the issue. There are light 12 in notebooks that have DVD RWs... like this Sony:

http://www.dynamism.com/tz90/main.shtml

2.2lbs!

the keyboard looks like MacBook keyboard or something wrong with me?

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #137 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duddits View Post

Do you not anticipate the need to install any software, or burn a disk?

When I need to do those things I'd be happy to dig up the external disk drive that would surely come with an ultraportable. Like I said: OS install, one DVD rip in three months. That's my normal pace of optical drive use, and this is my only machine. If I had an ultraportable instead of an Macbook, I'd surely have a desktop in addition.

Only software I even have that comes on a disk is OS X, iLife, and WoW. The rest is off the net. Remember OS X can transfer your old apps through Firewire while installling, and remember that you can make disk images so as long as there's enough storage you don't need to insert the same disk twice.

I have burned some disks at work because security mandated physically separate networks. But at home, there's no such limitation. Why touch optical disks when you don't have to?
post #138 of 177
No one really seems to know whether the rumoured new black/ silver machines are simply new MacBooks are the MacBookPro Nano. To be honest, it doesn't matter.

The current crop of MacBooks are excellent. While they have certainly benefitted from faster processors, the only other way to improve them is to take the same basic form factor and reduce it. So, I'd like to see something with the same amount of screen real estate, albeit an LED 13.3" screen, and DVD drive but in a slightly thinner and lighter package. The existing Sony SZ-series more or less fits the bill. Very thin and very light, it now even comes with flash memory modules.

Who needs a super-slim model with a small screen and no DVD drive when you can already get such a machine made by Apple? it's called an iPhone.
post #139 of 177
I remember an Apple laptop that came with a docking station. I wonder if this would work here. You have an ultra portable that plugs into a dock that has a hard drive and CD/dvd.

You could even get a mini cd for the road. It would allow for a bunch of acc. and yet still make for an untra portable.

Just a thought.

en
post #140 of 177
Perhaps this line will take over for the macbooks, hence the minor update of the macbooks we seen in the last update. I was too lazy to go through all the previous pages to see if someone has mentioned this yet.
post #141 of 177
I would love a device like this.
post #142 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I'm not trying to inject myself into this debate. I have a question.

What's wrong with a home user having an external HDD (or two) and backing up with superduper?

I'm guessing a RAID setup is better, although in all honesty I'm not all that familiar with RAID. Is that really necessary for a home user?

Absolutely nothing wrong. Just toss the external HDD into your fire safe or better yet, your parent's fire safe across town.

The only reason I back up the S3 is because

a) It was easy. I downloaded JungleDisk and copied files over just like an external drive. Of course I SHOULD have looked an additional 30 seconds to figure out a backup program but honestly, I just copy new iPhoto folders over once a month or so.

.Mac is likely even easier but the costs are higher. Amazon S3 is $0.15/GB per month. So to get .Mac's 10GB is $1.50/month.

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007624.html

b) It was cheap. It's a $0.15/GB per month plus $0.20/GB transfer fee. I think my first S3 bill was under $4 to hold my tiny (at the time) iPhoto collection.

c) When you watch folks after a disaster the thing that hurts the most are losing memories...photos being one medium to store memories. Stuff is just stuff and insurance will replace some of it. But losing your wedding photos it's just gone. Or kid photos.

$5 a month is pretty cheap insurance for accidental deletions, drive failures and anything else that might befall those photos.

Now all the video I have is a different story. I load those on my "server" (old quicksilver) and stick the tapes in the fire safe and hope that they won't melt if something bad happens. If it weren't for the movies I wouldn't have bothered with a home server.

Looking at that blog it might have been the wrong way to go anyways although honestly all I do is use two external 320GB USB drives at the moment and duplicate the data. I need that much space just to fiddle with the videos anyway and if I had that much filled $48 on S3 is more expensive than keeping my own array and sticking a $80 drive over at my parents.

I do all this on a MBP and Quicksilver and I could see the same setup working for an ultraportable. Just slower. Maybe not...the quicksilver isn't fast.
post #143 of 177
After seeing Apple's most recent iPod release, I'm not too enthusiastic about an all flash-based notebook. Don't get me wrong, I've been waiting for the dawn of Touch for about 3 years now, and glad that it's finally here. Still, in light of the road that Apple's tread regarding capacity, 16 GB isn't a lot when your device's primary modus operandi is video playback.

That being said, given the current prices of flash memory, I think we could expect a storage capacity around 32 GB, 9 of which would be need to be devoted to a full install of Leopard. Assuming that you'll want do to more with your Mac than just turn it on, you might need an additional 2 GB for Photoshop CS3, 2.5 GB for Illustrator CS3, 0.5 GB for Final Cut Express HD, and about 0.5 for Office: Mac 2004, bringing the total to about 5.5 GB. Now, of course the average user may not *need* any or all of these apps, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it's a handy configuration to carry around, and a fair start for most basic media projects.

Now if I can fit my entire iTunes library on an iPod, I'd hope that I could do the same on a PC. I like to listen to music whilst switching back and forth between Photoshop and Illustrator, and I've got exactly 9.5 GB in my audio library, so I'll use that as a benchmark.

So 9 + 5.5 + 9.5 = 24, leaving me with about 8 GB of storage space to play with, which isn't much by anyone's account. Of course, without an optical drive, it makes installing virtually any of these applications basically moot, but that's an entirely separate issue.

Also, one final word to those suggesting Glass + Aluminum enclosures: No one seems to have pointed out that glass is significantly heavier than plastic, plus a lot easier to break, making it a poor choice for laptops. Kudos to Apple if the find a work around; though I think a laptop made from transparent aluminum is a bit far out even for them.
post #144 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by teejaysplace24 View Post

That being said, given the current prices of flash memory, I think we could expect a storage capacity around 32 GB, 9 of which would be need to be devoted to a full install of Leopard. Assuming that you'll want do to more with your Mac than just turn it on, you might need an additional 2 GB for Photoshop CS3, 2.5 GB for Illustrator CS3, 0.5 GB for Final Cut Express HD, and about 0.5 for Office: Mac 2004, bringing the total to about 5.5 GB.

If it is instead a Newton II running Mobile OS X then we're talking a OS install of well under a GB, which is the only way 32GB is going to be useful as storage. A man can dream.

I want a subnotebook myself, and all flash would be great but I think at this point in time perhaps 4GB of flash + 80GB HDD is the way to go.
post #145 of 177
If Apple are working on a PDA, what's the betting the PDA is flash-based and the 'ultra thin' is simply a smaller, lighter, possibly 12" MBP WITH external drive?

I'd be very, very surprised if Apple miniaturised the MB ahead of the MBP, knowing how much consumer cachet goes with smaller & lighter products.
MATTE MATTERS
Reply
MATTE MATTERS
Reply
post #146 of 177
I'm game for a black alu anno' Mac Tower...

Lemon Bon Bon

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #147 of 177
Ultra portable to the extreme eh?

I hear people saying over and over: "I am only getting [product name] if it weighs less than [weight here] and is as thick as [strange object comparison here]".

Well my goodness do we have the laziest weakest group of people here or what? As a college student with an apartment I find myself walking to and from campus, as well as to each class with my MacBook and it is no way hinders my ability to move every day, all day. I have many books to carry around on top of my laptop and to be honest the laptop is the lightest thing I have in my bag. What is all the rage with a laptop that weighs so little? To me I would feel as if I would damage it because it wouldnt have that strong sturdy feel. Like was stated in Jurassic Park "If it's heavy it's expensive" I like my expensive Apple products to have some weight to them, which is why I will never own a Shuffle I guess.

IMO the MacBook is the perfect compromise between the MBP (which is large) and the iBook 12" (which I also have and consider to small).
post #148 of 177
The difference between 3lb and 6lb is really huge. 6lbs won't kill you, but I'd buy a 3lb Mac notebook tomorrow.
post #149 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakeb View Post

The difference between 3lb and 6lb is really huge. 6lbs won't kill you, but I'd buy a 3lb Mac notebook tomorrow.

Maybe this is just me, but do/would you feel secure owning something so light that costs $1300? I would feel again that something that is so light but so expensive is extremely fragile.
post #150 of 177
post #151 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberamd View Post

Ultra portable to the extreme eh?

I hear people saying over and over: "I am only getting [product name] if it weighs less than [weight here] and is as thick as [strange object comparison here]".

Well my goodness do we have the laziest weakest group of people here or what? As a college student with an apartment I find myself walking to and from campus, as well as to each class with my MacBook and it is no way hinders my ability to move every day, all day. I have many books to carry around on top of my laptop and to be honest the laptop is the lightest thing I have in my bag. What is all the rage with a laptop that weighs so little? To me I would feel as if I would damage it because it wouldnt have that strong sturdy feel. Like was stated in Jurassic Park "If it's heavy it's expensive" I like my expensive Apple products to have some weight to them, which is why I will never own a Shuffle I guess.

IMO the MacBook is the perfect compromise between the MBP (which is large) and the iBook 12" (which I also have and consider to small).

The point here is that most of don't NEED an ultralight, but we would want one.

It isn't that carrying a 6 pound machine around would kill us, but that it isn't comfortable.

While 6 pounds, plus case, is very noticeable after a while, 3 pounds is much less so.

because of that, if the full needs aren't required all of the time, a much lighter machines would be better for those times.

I have absolutely no NEED for a portable, but if one was light enough, and small, I would get one.

And weight doesn't have to mean quality. There are plenty of heavy PC portables out there. Does that mean that they are higher quality than a lighter Mac?
post #152 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberamd View Post

Maybe this is just me, but do/would you feel secure owning something so light that costs $1300? I would feel again that something that is so light but so expensive is extremely fragile.

You haven't explained why more weight means "better" to you.

Give us some reasons why a machine made of high quality materials, designed properly, and therefore weighs less, is any worse than a machine with cheaper materals, poorly designed, that weighs more.

Or is this just a "feeling" that you have?
post #153 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by macNewbTube View Post

What do you think?

http://macnewbtube.wordpress.com/200...pple-keyboard/

What's so special that we have to think about it?
post #154 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You haven't explained why more weight means "better" to you.

Give us some reasons why a machine made of high quality materials, designed properly, and therefore weighs less, is any worse than a machine with cheaper materals, poorly designed, that weighs more.

Or is this just a "feeling" that you have?

How much of the weight of a standard notebook is batteries anyway? The ultralights are a lot more miserly with battery power, so they can get away with much lighter batteries and still run longer. The weight devoted to thermal management can be reduced by a lot too.

I'm more enamored with the idea of a machine that lasts a long time on batteries than I am about the weight, a lighter machine would just be a bonus.
post #155 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by macNewbTube View Post

What do you think?

http://macnewbtube.wordpress.com/200...pple-keyboard/

Isn't the new keyboard what the MacBook has anyway only in different colours?
post #156 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

How much of the weight of a standard notebook is batteries anyway? The ultralights are a lot more miserly with battery power, so they can get away with much lighter batteries and still run longer. The weight devoted to thermal management can be reduced by a lot too.

I'm more enamored with the idea of a machine that lasts a long time on batteries than I am about the weight, a lighter machine would just be a bonus.

The Sony 6 hour battery adds .29 pound. The 12 hour adds .69 pound.
post #157 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electric Monk View Post

If it is instead a Newton II running Mobile OS X then we're talking a OS install of well under a GB, which is the only way 32GB is going to be useful as storage. A man can dream.

I want a subnotebook myself, and all flash would be great but I think at this point in time perhaps 4GB of flash + 80GB HDD is the way to go.

By the time Apple could ship a Newton II, 64GB flash drives will be available. There is no way that Apple would put a HDD in a Newton II.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #158 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You haven't explained why more weight means "better" to you.

Give us some reasons why a machine made of high quality materials, designed properly, and therefore weighs less, is any worse than a machine with cheaper materals, poorly designed, that weighs more.

Or is this just a "feeling" that you have?

My reason was that I would feel that it would be extremely fragile (as I stated in what you quoted). I pick up my Dell E1505 and I feel like I could drop it from great heights and have no harm done to it (which I have done by accident, fell off my 5" tall bed in my dorm last year onto a tile floor). However I would not ever want to drop my MacBook from that height, as users complain about their MacBooks casing coming apart from simple use (see appledefects list of complains for Macbooks basicly unsealing themselves).

Now take the weight of my macbook which I am already paranoid I will damage, cut it in half, and you have a notebook so light that I would live in fear carrying it in my backpack with my calc books, and all my other school stuff.

Now this is just my opinion, as everyone is entitled to theirs. I am a member of, like I said in a previous post, the "if it's heavy, it's expensive" club. Small notebooks with screens < 13" are just not for me. I had a incredibly light Compaq v2000 and the thing felt like a toy. Not for me.

To me the current weight of the Macbook works great, I can watch DVD's in the car without a bump sending it flying in the air, and I can carry it around safely in my backpack with little worries (I worry a bit but thats because it is still around a week old, and scratch free thanks to Marware products).
post #159 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberamd View Post

Ultra portable to the extreme eh?

I hear people saying over and over: "I am only getting [product name] if it weighs less than [weight here] and is as thick as [strange object comparison here]".

Well my goodness do we have the laziest weakest group of people here or what? As a college student with an apartment I find myself walking to and from campus, as well as to each class with my MacBook and it is no way hinders my ability to move every day, all day. I have many books to carry around on top of my laptop and to be honest the laptop is the lightest thing I have in my bag. What is all the rage with a laptop that weighs so little? To me I would feel as if I would damage it because it wouldnt have that strong sturdy feel. Like was stated in Jurassic Park "If it's heavy it's expensive" I like my expensive Apple products to have some weight to them, which is why I will never own a Shuffle I guess.

IMO the MacBook is the perfect compromise between the MBP (which is large) and the iBook 12" (which I also have and consider to small).

Some people like more portability with smaller laptops because it makes them easier to use on an airplane, train, or in another cramped area. It doesn't appear you use your laptop while traveling much. Watching a movie is one thing, but trying to perform actual work while crammed in coach is a different story (thank God for Platinum first-class upgrades!).

The weight part becomes an issue on extended trips to remote areas. Try going on a medical relief mission in a third-world country where you have the choice of carrying an extra 2-4 pounds in laptops and batteries v. more medicine to treat the underserved. Yes, I have known of people who have needed to make that decision.
post #160 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The Sony 6 hour battery adds .29 pound. The 12 hour adds .69 pound.

OK, I assume those are the ultraportable batteries. My Compaq's battery is about 0.85, I thought it was more than that, its total weight is comparable with a MacBook Pro. My sister has my MBPro, so I can't check that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Thin Apple notebooks may come clad in black aluminum