or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new MacBook Air dubbed world’s thinnest notebook
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new MacBook Air dubbed world’s thinnest notebook - Page 9

post #321 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilburner View Post

The Panasonics use Magnesium cases - lighter and stronger than aluminum. Dont forget - they maintain an ultralight laptop (sub 3lbs for 12" screen, and 3.3 lbs for 14" screen) while shock-armoring them. All Steve wants is to make them purdy.

Maybe you could define who YOU think the target customer is for this, since you can not handle anyone questioning it. I have exclusively bought ultralights for the past 10 years for myself and my team. I know in the real world how ultralights are used and what features make "bare minimum" for the average traveling businessperson.

Since this product is clearly not targeted at the design-crowd (RAM, HDD, video limitations) I am assuming that it is targeted at those who use ultralights, which demographically tend to be people who cherish light weight and form factor over features - businesspeople who travel a lot and use the laptop for their work. But Apple (IMHO) dropped the ball with two critical features (from conversations/usage from many people that I have talked to/worked with over many years) - larger HDD, and replaceable battery.

You might have a point on the battery, but I don't think on the hard drive, I'll call BS.

Dell D430 - 40GB hard drive, 80 optional, 64 SSD optional.

Toughbook W5 60GB
Y5 - 60GB
Y7 - 80GB
T5 - 60GB
T7 - 80GB
W7 - 80GB

That's the entire Panasonic "Business Rugged" line as shown on their web site right now. I see no options for bigger drives on any of them.
post #322 of 400
What's wrong with the forum software? It shows a page 9, but whatever I do, it just goes back to page 8.

I wonder where this post will end up.
post #323 of 400
The first post on page 9. That's very strange.
post #324 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The first post on page 9. That's very strange.

seems perfectly in order ... on page 9
post #325 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by YTV View Post

Not sure why your hard drives are dying so fast, I have had dozens of computers and have never had a hard drive fail ever. Successor to the mini, lol. The mini is basically a notebook without a screen. If Apple makes a desktop tower between the mini and the mac pro, that will kill 70% of mac pro sales instantly, Apple know this, thats why they dont.

I guess I do more than surf the web... If you don't have hard drives dying, you ain't trying...

This MacWorld article pretty much sums up my thoughts: http://www.macworld.com/article/5856...drangemac.html

And I totally agree with Dan's justifications.

In our print shop we are currently using G5 towers, we're in need of upgrades, but can't jusitify the steep price of buying new Mac Pros, so we're looking at higher end iMacs. I don't like that idea because the iMacs use notebook based hardware so they're not as durable for business use as a comparative Windows PC desktop tower would be, and we could get the Windows desktops at least $500 cheaper a piece than the iMacs and over $1000 a piece vs Mac Pros. We'd buy a Mac Mini-Tower in a second, but because it's not available, we're looking at Windows PCs. Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line. So what is Apple losing out on? Lost Mac Pro sales that never would existed anyways or a Mac business customer worth $100,000+ dollars in future sales that will now be going to Windows PCs?

I could care less about the MacBook Air, it's a niche product, and Apple's past record with niche products is they hang around for a year or two and then they're gone. Good luck to the people who buy them and a year for now have to scrap them because their non-replaceable batteries won't hold a charge anymore. I can't wait for those complaints to hit the boards - Apple Sucks, they won't replace my dead battery in my MBA!!! It's not portable or mobile if you have to be anchored to a wall adapter. I'll keep my 1st gen MacBook which is plenty light and portable, and that I can carry an extra battery for if I need it. Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways. \
post #326 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

It's really neat, and slim.. and light weight.. but unnecessarily wide and deep It must have been possible to shrink away the phat borders on the side of the screen.


You are a genius. Why didn't Apple think of this. Please, get a job at Apple NOW.
post #327 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by tripo View Post

seems perfectly in order ... on page 9

Now it is. Once I made that post, but not before.
post #328 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

I guess I do more than surf the web... If you don't have hard drives dying, you ain't trying...

This MacWorld article pretty much sums up my thoughts: http://www.macworld.com/article/5856...drangemac.html

And I totally agree with Dan's justifications.

In our print shop we are currently using G5 towers, we're in need of upgrades, but can't jusitify the steep price of buying new Mac Pros, so we're looking at higher end iMacs. I don't like that idea because the iMacs use notebook based hardware so they're not as durable for business use as a comparative Windows PC desktop tower would be, and we could get the Windows desktops at least $500 cheaper a piece than the iMacs and over $1000 a piece vs Mac Pros. We'd buy a Mac Mini-Tower in a second, but because it's not available, we're looking at Windows PCs. Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line. So what is Apple losing out on? Lost Mac Pro sales that never would existed anyways or a Mac business customer worth $100,000+ dollars in future sales that will now be going to Windows PCs?

I could care less about the MacBook Air, it's a niche product, and Apple's past record with niche products is they hang around for a year or two and then they're gone. Good luck to the people who buy them and a year for now have to scrap them because their non-replaceable batteries won't hold a charge anymore. I can't wait for those complaints to hit the boards - Apple Sucks, they won't replace my dead battery in my MBA!!! It's not portable or mobile if you have to be anchored to a wall adapter. I'll keep my 1st gen MacBook which is plenty light and portable, and that I can carry an extra battery for if I need it. Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways. \

I find your argument to be a difficult one to sustain. I also had a business that had mostly Macs.

Moving to Windows just because your accountant seemingly can't get your tax deductions for capital equipment is strange.

You're going to re-buy all of your software? What is the economic justification for those purchases, as well as the retraining that will be needed?

As you can buy a MacPro for about $2200, and would need to buy memory ($199 for 4GB) anyway, I'm not sure how simply replacing the few machines that need it is such a hardship.

I had almost 30 Macs, and about 12 PC's. I replaced about a third of the Macs each year. The PC's being in accounting, sales, and front counter use could be kept for longer.

One does what one must do, but compromizing is rarely the best policy.

iMacs are used in the schools here in NYC. They have a very good record of service under very trying conditions. As tests have shown the 2.8GHz 24" iMac to have about equal performance in CS3 to a 2.8GHz Mac Pro, and about equal performance with publishing and graphics programs, speed isn't a question either. The 24" monitor is a very good one as well.

Is the business doing so badly?
post #329 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways. \

Yeah, I never understood that. I guess I just chalked it up to "most people" being idiots. Or perhaps valuing different things than I do. Heck, it annoys me that my brand new 80 gig iPod classic (that will hold all my media files while my MBA is free to store other documents) weighs 5 whole ounces. In any case I'm definitely going to a minimalist case for my MBA, or more reasonably a rigid protective sleeve.
post #330 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

I guess I do more than surf the web... If you don't have hard drives dying, you ain't trying...

This MacWorld article pretty much sums up my thoughts: http://www.macworld.com/article/5856...drangemac.html

And I totally agree with Dan's justifications.

In our print shop we are currently using G5 towers, we're in need of upgrades, but can't jusitify the steep price of buying new Mac Pros, so we're looking at higher end iMacs. I don't like that idea because the iMacs use notebook based hardware so they're not as durable for business use as a comparative Windows PC desktop tower would be, and we could get the Windows desktops at least $500 cheaper a piece than the iMacs and over $1000 a piece vs Mac Pros. We'd buy a Mac Mini-Tower in a second, but because it's not available, we're looking at Windows PCs. Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line. So what is Apple losing out on? Lost Mac Pro sales that never would existed anyways or a Mac business customer worth $100,000+ dollars in future sales that will now be going to Windows PCs?

I could care less about the MacBook Air, it's a niche product, and Apple's past record with niche products is they hang around for a year or two and then they're gone. Good luck to the people who buy them and a year for now have to scrap them because their non-replaceable batteries won't hold a charge anymore. I can't wait for those complaints to hit the boards - Apple Sucks, they won't replace my dead battery in my MBA!!! It's not portable or mobile if you have to be anchored to a wall adapter. I'll keep my 1st gen MacBook which is plenty light and portable, and that I can carry an extra battery for if I need it. Most people carry their notebooks in a notebook case that weighs twice as much as their computer anyways. \

All I know is that I attend a fairly small campus in a fairly small city, on our campus we have about 300 pretty loaded Mac Pro's. Lets say the retail price of the computers was $2500 and that the campus got a volume discount making each computer $1900. Now lets say Apple made a mini-tower retail priced at $1200 and the school got a volume discount price of $950.

$1,900 x 300 = $570,000
$950 x 300 = $285,000

Now without knowing the exact profit margins of each machine, I think we can safely assume that the margin will be slightly higher on the Mac Pro, not by a lot, but still make a difference.

I think you can see where im going with this, this is just an example of 1 small campus in 1 small city.

Apple is not trying to make products that fill everyones needs. They are going for certain niche markets, and are attacking them viciously like a rabid lion. In some instances they actually create the market with a product they think will be well received. We all know that Apple is not for everyone, but more than that, each individual Apple product is not for every Apple lover either.
post #331 of 400
Just off the floor of the MacWorld Expo where I got solid confirmation the MacBook Air Processor is a 45nm Merom 2 years in the making. So only the Mac Pro takes you into the next generation Intel Penryn processor family today. \

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #332 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post

Just off the floor of the MacWorld Expo where I got solid confirmation the MacBook Air Processor is a 45nm Merom 2 years in the making. So only the Mac Pro takes you into the next generation Intel Penryn processor family today. \

Anands begs to differ on that:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3201

You might notice that the Merom is a 65nm part, while mobile Penyrn parts are 45nm.

I posted the article as you might not believe me.
post #333 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

You are a genius. Why didn't Apple think of this. Please, get a job at Apple NOW.

You actually think Apple doesn't try to make their devices as small as possible? what this nice looking photoshop doesn't permit is any real structural integrity. It has no engineering to it, just what something thinks looks nice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Anands begs to differ on that:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3201

You might notice that the Merom is a 65nm part, while mobile Penyrn parts are 45nm.

I posted the article as you might not believe me.

I posted this yeasterday but I don't think anyone noticed. I am agreement with Anand; his rationale is sound.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #334 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Since most of us here question your statements, you can direct it to everyone.

Those mag frames aren't cases. The cases are rubberized plastic. The frame is a thin metal casting that averages less than a mm thick in most places, and is what the internal components are screwed to. It doesn't cover anything, just holds them together. I discussed this earlier.

I don't know how you define ultralights, because by todays standards, they didn't exist ten years ago.

The market for any new product is always hard to completely define. we can look at the iPhone for that. It was though it would not get into business, but the reports are that it is pushing its way in very well.

I suspect that people who would spend $1200 to $1500 will move their price to cover this. Business people will buy them, despite the lack of a separate battery (which someone will quickly come up with a solution for). Journalists will love them. Students going to college will buy them (yes, I know, poor students won't, but they couldn't afford a MacBook either). Peope who just must have a really obviously tinner mchine will buy one.

And, of course, a lot of Apple customers who don't necessarily fit any of those categories will also buy one.

This machine can actually do more work than you might suspect. I certainly don't expect heavy duty users of PS or video to use this, but it can do graphics nicely and publishing as well. With ultralight screens being smaller and having less resolution, by todays standards, no ultralight is ideal here, but when on a trip, this could work pretty well.


melgross,

here is an answer to one of your misstatements:

from http://www.panasonic.com/business/to...-computers.asp

Note it IS case, not frame.

Toughbook W7Ultra-lightweight 3.0 lbs, DVD Super MULTI-Drive
Genuine Windows Vista® Business (with XP downgrade option)
Full magnesium alloy case
Shock-mounted hard drive
Drop- and spill-resistant
Ultra-portable 3.0 lbs.
Long-lasting 7-hour battery life
Mobile broadband ready for AT&T and Verizon Wireless networks

But you continue to miss the point. I wish I could answer it in monosyllables for you:

The MBA is good. But it is too limited. When you enter a market it is usually best to match your competition. They fail on HDD, battery, ports, and in some cases size (bigger and heavier). Thinness while nice is an answer to a question no one but Steve asked.

This is a show-car, not a showroom ready device. Apple's stock is going down. They are here in a new category and looking at the bezel on the screen there is a 14 or 15 inch version being worked on, and no doubt some of those other more expensive options including larger HDD and larger SSD. Other than the software (remote optical, pinch/grab touchpad) which isnt even NEW, just repurposed into a laptop, there really isnt anything new in this device, yet it is compromised. If you ask why I am stuck on this, it is because I WAS counting on this device to move back to Apple with. The MBPro and the MB do not fit my needs. So as a potential buyer, and a fan, and someone who is directly in the market for an ultralight, it is a poorly executed device for this market. Gorgeous, sexy, innovative yes. But too compromised to meet the needs of its market.

You must be an ultimate fanboy to not at least acknowledge the shortcomings. Hopefully you'll get a black turtleneck for your efforts.
post #335 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilburner View Post

The MBA is good. But it is too limited. When you enter a market it is usually best to match your competition. They fail on HDD, battery, ports, and in some cases size (bigger and heavier). Thinness while nice is an answer to a question no one but Steve asked.

All computers are limited. A Mac Pro is powerful but doesn't travel well despite it's handles. A MacBook is portable but a heavy for a constant traveler or underpowered for serious video editing. That is how it works!

The machines you mention are limited in screen size, performance and they don't even have a full size keyboard.! They might be okay for occasional use, but certainly aren't the machine you want to use for an extended period of time. Stop comparing subcompacts to an ultralight!


Quote:
This is a show-car, not a showroom ready device.

It's not your station wagon. It's not your family cruiser. It is the specific device for a specific consumer. That doesn't make it a bad machine. i don't think Alienware's mega=gamer machines are bad machines.. they just aren't for me.


Quote:
The MBPro and the MB do not fit my needs. So as a potential buyer, and a fan, and someone who is directly in the market for an ultralight, it is a poorly executed device for this market. Gorgeous, sexy, innovative yes. But too compromised to meet the needs of its market.

If a typical notebook computer doesn't meet your needs in any way how the hell would you expect an ultralight from Apple to ever fit them? Sure, you can daydream all you want but that isn't going to make it happen.

As for it's market, it's perfect for it's market. I'm it's market, you aren't, and I say it fits my needs and works into my lifestyle perfectly. 80GB is plenty as i have a new Mac Pro at home with 3TB of HDD capacity.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #336 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilburner View Post

melgross,

here is an answer to one of your misstatements:

from http://www.panasonic.com/business/to...-computers.asp

Note it IS case, not frame.

Toughbook W7Ultra-lightweight 3.0 lbs, DVD Super MULTI-Drive
Genuine Windows Vista® Business (with XP downgrade option)
Full magnesium alloy case
Shock-mounted hard drive
Drop- and spill-resistant
Ultra-portable 3.0 lbs.
Long-lasting 7-hour battery life
Mobile broadband ready for AT&T and Verizon Wireless networks

Ok these have the full case.

These aren't the models they advertise on Tv. Those have a rubber/plastic case on a mag frame. Those are the ones I've seen.

Quote:
But you continue to miss the point. I wish I could answer it in monosyllables for you:

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Quote:
The MBA is good. But it is too limited. When you enter a market it is usually best to match your competition. They fail on HDD, battery, ports, and in some cases size (bigger and heavier). Thinness while nice is an answer to a question no one but Steve asked.

Again, as everyone else has pointed out, there are many of ultralights around. Some are better, some are worse. There is no all around model from anyone. That's all that's being said here, and you just don't get it.

The rest of your so called argument is irrelevant.

Quote:
You must be an ultimate fanboy to not at least acknowledge the shortcomings. Hopefully you'll get a black turtleneck for your efforts.

You know nothing about anyone here, least of all me, to call me a fanboy.

That doesn't help your fractured argument any more than do your other remarks.
post #337 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilburner View Post

from http://www.panasonic.com/business/to...-computers.asp

Note it IS case, not frame.

It's also a hardened notebook. How much does that cost, BTW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilburner View Post

They are here in a new category and looking at the bezel on the screen there is a 14 or 15 inch version being worked on

No, the bezel is wide to stiffen the machine (and in particular, the glass screen) against bending and flexing. Take it away and the screen pops or cracks. They might find a way to reduce the bezel over time, but as long as the machine is as thin as it is that bezel is going to be there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilburner View Post

Other than the software (remote optical, pinch/grab touchpad) which isnt even NEW, just repurposed into a laptop, there really isnt anything new in this device, yet it is compromised.

1) You required something completely new? How often does that happen?

2) All ultralights are compromised. It's just a matter of deciding whether those compromises are acceptable. The MBA makes a different set of choices than most others, so yes, there are bound to be fans of existing ultralights that don't like it. But there are also bound to be people who never liked ultralights who will like it.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #338 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I find your argument to be a difficult one to sustain. I also had a business that had mostly Macs.

Moving to Windows just because your accountant seemingly can't get your tax deductions for capital equipment is strange.

You're going to re-buy all of your software? What is the economic justification for those purchases, as well as the retraining that will be needed?

As you can buy a MacPro for about $2200, and would need to buy memory ($199 for 4GB) anyway, I'm not sure how simply replacing the few machines that need it is such a hardship.

I had almost 30 Macs, and about 12 PC's. I replaced about a third of the Macs each year. The PC's being in accounting, sales, and front counter use could be kept for longer.

One does what one must do, but compromizing is rarely the best policy.

iMacs are used in the schools here in NYC. They have a very good record of service under very trying conditions. As tests have shown the 2.8GHz 24" iMac to have about equal performance in CS3 to a 2.8GHz Mac Pro, and about equal performance with publishing and graphics programs, speed isn't a question either. The 24" monitor is a very good one as well.

Is the business doing so badly?

We are a subsidiary and are given a budget to purchase our equipment with so no accountant is involved. Also we use Adobe CS 2 & 3 which is dual licensed for Mac and Windows so there's no re-purchasing of software. Adobe CS is Adobe CS whether it's used on a Mac or PC, and most of our artists use both so training is a non-issue.

If you want to give me the money to purchase the Mac Pros, I'd be happy to oblidge. But as it is, we can get dual-core towers with 2 GB RAM for $899, so I can get 2 1/2 machines for the cost of one Mac Pro and use the savings to do other projects that we want to do. So it's not about compromising, it's about being fiscally responsible.

The iMac is a capable machine and performs well for what it is, a consumer product. Desktop hardware however has much better MTF (mean-time-to-failure) specifications and historical reliability than mobile based products. Apple had to replace my hard drive in my MacBook twice within the last year due to physical failures. I do creative work and application evaluation almost 20 hours a day on it and it is both my work and personal computer. That says alot for the capability of the MacBook, but also points out the fragility of the equipment. In comparison I've not had one failure with our 30 some-odd G5s. Again a credit to their capability and quality of build. I for one liked the transition to Intel for their product line-up and power, but suspect Apple compromised on build quality over the equivalent PPC product line-up.

BTW, our business is doing fine with over 2 million+ profit per year in a low margin direct-mail advertising market. We just don't see much of that back in investment - damn greedy investors!
post #339 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

We are a subsidiary and are given a budget to purchase our equipment with so no accountant is involved. Also we use Adobe CS 2 & 3 which is dual licensed for Mac and Windows so there's no re-purchasing of software. Adobe CS is Adobe CS whether it's used on a Mac or PC, and most of our artists use both so training is a non-issue.

It doesn't matter whether you are a subsidiary or not. Accounting rules remain the same for part of the company, wherever that may be, or whatever it may be.

Quote:
If you want to give me the money to purchase the Mac Pros, I'd be happy to oblidge. But as it is, we can get dual-core towers with 2 GB RAM for $899, so I can get 2 1/2 machines for the cost of one Mac Pro and use the savings to do other projects that we want to do. So it's not about compromising, it's about being fiscally responsible.

Perhaps. The question then is why did your department buy the G5's in the first place? The same discount applied then. Obviously, there must have been a perceived advantage to spend so much more then. Why has that changed?

Quote:
The iMac is a capable machine and performs well for what it is, a consumer product. Desktop hardware however has much better MTF (mean-time-to-failure) specifications and historical reliability than mobile based products. Apple had to replace my hard drive in my MacBook twice within the last year due to physical failures. I do creative work and application evaluation almost 20 hours a day on it and it is both my work and personal computer. That says alot for the capability of the MacBook, but also points out the fragility of the equipment. In comparison I've not had one failure with our 30 some-odd G5s. Again a credit to their capability and quality of build. I for one liked the transition to Intel for their product line-up and power, but suspect Apple compromised on build quality over the equivalent PPC product line-up.

I see this argument from those who have not used these machines much, if at all. Your mention of the HDD is misplaced, as the iMac uses the same drives as any other desktop. The mobo is also made for the iMac, and is not the same as used in the portables, etc.

In fact, the only thing that is, is the chips and chipset, and the Optical drive, which is reliable.

Also, remember that portables fail, not always so much for their "fragility" but more because they get banged around much more than their owner realizes. If your desktop was constantly moved around like your portable, it would last for even less time before failure.

Quote:
BTW, our business is doing fine with over 2 million+ profit per year in a low margin direct-mail advertising market. We just don't see much of that back in investment - damn greedy investors!

I'm sorry if i misunderstood, but this line is what made me think along those lines:

Quote:
Mind you not my preference, but in these economic times, you have to do what's best for the bottom line.

Reads like a tightening of the belt.
post #340 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by YTV View Post

All I know is that I attend a fairly small campus in a fairly small city, on our campus we have about 300 pretty loaded Mac Pro's. Lets say the retail price of the computers was $2500 and that the campus got a volume discount making each computer $1900. Now lets say Apple made a mini-tower retail priced at $1200 and the school got a volume discount price of $950.

$1,900 x 300 = $570,000
$950 x 300 = $285,000

Now without knowing the exact profit margins of each machine, I think we can safely assume that the margin will be slightly higher on the Mac Pro, not by a lot, but still make a difference.

I think you can see where im going with this, this is just an example of 1 small campus in 1 small city.

Apple is not trying to make products that fill everyones needs. They are going for certain niche markets, and are attacking them viciously like a rabid lion. In some instances they actually create the market with a product they think will be well received. We all know that Apple is not for everyone, but more than that, each individual Apple product is not for every Apple lover either.

You assume that is lost profit for Apple in your situation, however if there was no intention to buy a Mac Pro, there is no expectation of revenue for the sale of the Mac Pro. Your logic is similar and as faulty as the RIAA reasoning behind their decline of CD based music sales.

Apple would make up much more in volume sales of a mini-tower than any so-called lost sales of the Mac Pro. You could argue that Apple loses alot of sales of Mac Pros now because of "lost sales" to MacBook Pros, iMacs, MacBooks, etc... but that is obviously not the case because they still sell those products. You only get sales if the consumers want to buy your product. You lose out when you don't have a product to offer the consumer.

Scavenging of another product line is just an excuse not to make a product, it has no real world basis in fact of trade. The exception to that rule is overlapping product lines, for example two seperate but similar versions of a notebook line - HP and Compaq consumer notebooks come to mind. HP would be more profitable if they dropped the competing Compaq branded line and concentrated on just one HP notebook line.

The one thing Apple has done very well is distinguish similar but separate product lines and build customer loyalty and need around those products.
post #341 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

You assume that is lost profit for Apple in your situation, however if there was no intention to buy a Mac Pro, there is no expectation of revenue for the sale of the Mac Pro. Your logic is similar and as faulty as the RIAA reasoning behind their decline of CD based music sales.

Apple would make up much more in volume sales of a mini-tower than any so-called lost sales of the Mac Pro. You could argue that Apple loses alot of sales of Mac Pros now because of "lost sales" to MacBook Pros, iMacs, MacBooks, etc... but that is obviously not the case because they still sell those products. You only get sales if the consumers want to buy your product. You lose out when you don't have a product to offer the consumer.

Scavenging of another product line is just an excuse not to make a product, it has no real world basis in fact of trade. The exception to that rule is overlapping product lines, for example two seperate but similar versions of a notebook line - HP and Compaq consumer notebooks come to mind. HP would be more profitable if they dropped the competing Compaq branded line and concentrated on just one HP notebook line.

The one thing Apple has done very well is distinguish similar but separate product lines and build customer loyalty and need around those products.

Apple actually has three potentially overlapping lines.

The Mac Pro would overlap with a mid tower, unless Apple cut the low single chip $2200 model from the line. The iMac's would then compete with a low end mid tower+monitor combo.

Lines don't have to overlap on price to overlap. They just have to be close enough for people to perceive that they can substitute one for the other.

Having said that, I've been a big defender of the idea of a mid tower, as well as some lower priced monitors to go with them.

I feel as though Apple is missing a big opportunity in the business market.

Apple could rearrange their lines to separate them better than they would be if they just plopped a mid into the current mix.
post #342 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

I'm not sure there's any need for that...


As I have read it, oilburner is simply saying he's disappointed in what's been offered - not just because his needs are different, but doubly so because he was looking forward to getting an Apple machine, rather than another windows machine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Again, as everyone else has pointed out, there are many of ultralights around. Some are better, some are worse. There is no all around model from anyone. That's all that's being said here, and you just don't get it.

In this quote, you too appear to have grasped the central point - "some are better, some are worse". Oilburner was simply stating his opinion, and you have consistently stated yours.

As far as I'm concerned, it's too expensive. But then, I'm considering it from a 'wouldn't that be nice' perspective, rather than a 'I need a new computer' one.
It is interesting to hear how those who regard themselves in the target market think of the machine, but must we have the same points again and again?

Now, where's the tub for the £0.02...?
post #343 of 400
Discussion here got me thinking about the underlying trends driving pricing of SDDs vs. HDDs: http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2...s-macbook.html

Not a new issue, but interesting new possibilities are opening up.

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply

Philip Machanick creator of Opinionations and Green Grahamstown
Department of Computer Science, Rhodes University, South Africa

Reply
post #344 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple actually has three potentially overlapping lines.

The Mac Pro would overlap with a mid tower, unless Apple cut the low single chip $2200 model from the line. The iMac's would then compete with a low end mid tower+monitor combo.

Lines don't have to overlap on price to overlap. They just have to be close enough for people to perceive that they can substitute one for the other.

Having said that, I've been a big defender of the idea of a mid tower, as well as some lower priced monitors to go with them.

I feel as though Apple is missing a big opportunity in the business market.

Apple could rearrange their lines to separate them better than they would be if they just plopped a mid into the current mix.

I don't know that I'd classify their existing lines as overlapping, they are very distinct at this point. Mac mini is the budget entry level Mac, iMac is their consumer all-in-one desktop, and Mac Pro is their high-end Pro line of desktops. I think there is plenty of room for a mid-range "business" desktop. Dell and HP are able to do it and Apple does a similar mix on the iPod side.

Apple in 2003 was even selling G4 towers when they were selling G5 towers so it's not like they haven't done it before. We got our G5's when our company was bought out back in 2004, the new parent company gave us the G5's from their Graphics Print dept. So we never made the initial purchase. We had older G3's and G4's with OS 9 that we are still trying to migrate from. Graphics is holding onto OS 9 with their soon to be cold dead hands! Just kidding, but they are really going to need to drop it soon.

I double-checked my facts on the iMacs as far as the hard drive is concerned and your right they do use 3.5" hard drives, so I stand corrected. The chipset is, despite being a custom board still notebook based, and there are performance restraints because of that, that a desktop chipset wouldn't have. For instance a low-end Dell Precision tower with dual-core 2.3 GHz processor has a 1333 MHz bus compared to the iMac's 800 MHz bus. This would definately show up in a speed test. The Dell is also only $774.

I do have a little experience with the iMacs, I tried out CS3 on a new iMac in the Apple store last week for a good two hours while the wife was shopping, and it wasn't preceivably any quicker than my MacBook. Was it everyday use, no, but enough to get a feeling how it would work in our environment.
post #345 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by techthree View Post

I'm not sure there's any need for that...

When he stops insulting me, I'll stop thinking he's an idiot. The ball is in his court, as he threw the first pitch.

Quote:
As I have read it, oilburner is simply saying he's disappointed in what's been offered - not just because his needs are different, but doubly so because he was looking forward to getting an Apple machine, rather than another windows machine.

If that's all he said, then no one would be disagreeing with him. He's entitled to want what he wants, but that's no what he's been saying.

Quote:
In this quote, you too appear to have grasped the central point - "some are better, some are worse". Oilburner was simply stating his opinion, and you have consistently stated yours.

I've been giving him an out, but he won't take it. All he's really been doing is trying to point out why it's inferior.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, it's too expensive. But then, I'm considering it from a 'wouldn't that be nice' perspective, rather than a 'I need a new computer' one.
It is interesting to hear how those who regard themselves in the target market think of the machine, but must we have the same points again and again?

Now, where's the tub for the £0.02...?

If someone says "It's too expensive for ME", or " I THINK it's too expensive for most people", then fine. But, he's gone way beyond that.
post #346 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm View Post

Discussion here got me thinking about the underlying trends driving pricing of SDDs vs. HDDs: http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2...s-macbook.html

Not a new issue, but interesting new possibilities are opening up.

It's an interesting article, but not new.

Back a ways, there was this thing called Bubble Memory. It was supposed to take memory far beyond where HDD's seemed capable of going. It came out of development, and actually had some products. It was expected that after some time, the price would drop precipitately, and the storage would grow significantly.

But, HDD manufacturers weren't put off so easily. They managed to get HDD development well beyond what the predictions were for it, and the day of the Bubble Memory revolution never came to pass.

I'm not saying that the same thing will happen to SSD's, it won't, but the death of HDD's won't happen for a long time.
post #347 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

I don't know that I'd classify their existing lines as overlapping, they are very distinct at this point. Mac mini is the budget entry level Mac, iMac is their consumer all-in-one desktop, and Mac Pro is their high-end Pro line of desktops. I think there is plenty of room for a mid-range "business" desktop. Dell and HP are able to do it and Apple does a similar mix on the iPod side.

I don't mean now. I mean if they introduced a mid tower, they could then overlap.


Apple in 2003 was even selling G4 towers when they were selling G5 towers so it's not like they haven't done it before. We got our G5's when our company was bought out back in 2004, the new parent company gave us the G5's from their Graphics Print dept. So we never made the initial purchase. We had older G3's and G4's with OS 9 that we are still trying to migrate from. Graphics is holding onto OS 9 with their soon to be cold dead hands! Just kidding, but they are really going to need to drop it soon.[/quote]

Yes, they were. It wasn't by choice however, and it was for a very special reason. Unless they change chip makers again, it won't happen again.

OS 9. I dropped that for my graphics needs several years ago. Yes, it's about time.

Quote:
I double-checked my facts on the iMacs as far as the hard drive is concerned and your right they do use 3.5" hard drives, so I stand corrected. The chipset is, despite being a custom board still notebook based, and there are performance restraints because of that, that a desktop chipset wouldn't have. For instance a low-end Dell Precision tower with dual-core 2.3 GHz processor has a 1333 MHz bus compared to the iMac's 800 MHz bus. This would definately show up in a speed test. The Dell is also only $774.

Well, you'd have to check performance. But, you'd be surprised at how well that iMac does perform. Amazingly, the memory bandwidth business is not very significent. It's overblown as a speed issue. PS and other programs that deal with large files are called "cache busters". Going to main memory instead has little effect on the speed the program runs.

Here is the recent test from Macworld. Look at the results of the 2.8 iMac, and the Mac Pro's on most of the tests. Other than some video programming, there is little difference.

The iMac would blow away that Dell in all tests.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1315...cprobench.html

Quote:
I do have a little experience with the iMacs, I tried out CS3 on a new iMac in the Apple store last week for a good two hours while the wife was shopping, and it wasn't preceivably any quicker than my MacBook. Was it everyday use, no, but enough to get a feeling how it would work in our environment.

Then your test wasn't working properly. My experience with the 24" iMac in my daughter's school (it's an art school), have shown that the iMac is very fast indeed!

Don't try it on a 20" slow model. There is a big difference.
post #348 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilburner View Post

The Panasonics use Magnesium cases - lighter and stronger than aluminum. Dont forget - they maintain an ultralight laptop (sub 3lbs for 12" screen, and 3.3 lbs for 14" screen) while shock-armoring them. All Steve wants is to make them purdy.

Drop one of those laptops on concrete and expect a busted laptop. Be happy when it isn't...but the probability is only marginally better than with a normal laptop. These are not the same critters as the "fully-rugged" toughbooks. The Air with SSD will be as shock proof as any of those toughbooks. Meaning the drive still works but your screen is borked. And water resistant is all very well but not water proof. The Air will be as water resistant in its case. Neither should us try to use in the rain.

Quote:
Since this product is clearly not targeted at the design-crowd (RAM, HDD, video limitations) I am assuming that it is targeted at those who use ultralights, which demographically tend to be people who cherish light weight and form factor over features - businesspeople who travel a lot and use the laptop for their work. But Apple (IMHO) dropped the ball with two critical features (from conversations/usage from many people that I have talked to/worked with over many years) - larger HDD, and replaceable battery.

This is the first ultralight I can actually think about using as a primary computer AND can stick in a leather portfolio that is under an inch and a half thick. Its the full sized keyboard that does it.

I can leave my LaCie and optical drive in the rental car, hotel room, whatever and not haul those around with me. They are only moderate nusiances as carry ons. 64GB is plenty especially since I'm primarily living with a 32GB Bootcamp partition AND doing windows development at the same time while keeping around 10GB worth of imagery.

Trust me that I also have an assload of powerpoint documents for presentations. My iTunes library sits on my external drive, and I connect it when I want to sync my iPod.

All of my windows games are on there too. Not having the optical drive when on the plane is mildly annoying but not a deal killer. Too many of my games require a real mouse anyway.

Quote:
You can retort with "then go buy another computer" and I might end up having to do that. My point here was to vent my frustration that I have wanted to switch for the past year and was waiting for this machine to answer my needs. So yes, I might end up having to stay with another Windows machine against my wishes.

Well...if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Personally, I think its a great little machine because its an ultralite I can likely type on without feeling fat fingered and making scads of mistakes.

If the GMA3100 actually works with my application then I could use it as a primary machine....splitting it 32GB/32GB only sucks a little bit in comparison to what I have now.
post #349 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ok these have the full case.

These aren't the models they advertise on Tv. Those have a rubber/plastic case on a mag frame. Those are the ones I've seen.

Those are better. They are ugly though but no one is buying a toughbook for looks. Mine got taken out for a field test and I haven't gotten it back but I was told its a little...muddy.

Thanks buddy! I guess he'll have to hose it off or something. But what the heck, better he should have it and have to go traipsing around very uncomfortable places than me.
post #350 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Those are better. They are ugly though but no one is buying a toughbook for looks. Mine got taken out for a field test and I haven't gotten it back but I was told its a little...muddy.



Quote:
Thanks buddy! I guess he'll have to hose it off or something. But what the heck, better he should have it and have to go traipsing around very uncomfortable places than me.

That's exactly how i would feel about it.
post #351 of 400
Here's a review from PC Mag. Not a Mac based organization, to be sure. It reads as a pretty fair review.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2249835,00.asp
post #352 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Well, you'd have to check performance. But, you'd be surprised at how well that iMac does perform. Amazingly, the memory bandwidth business is not very significent. It's overblown as a speed issue. PS and other programs that deal with large files are called "cache busters". Going to main memory instead has little effect on the speed the program runs.

Here is the recent test from Macworld. Look at the results of the 2.8 iMac, and the Mac Pro's on most of the tests. Other than some video programming, there is little difference.

The iMac would blow away that Dell in all tests.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1315...cprobench.html

Um no, the iMac would not blow the Dell away. Unfortunately Apple has not seen fit to publish their performance specs for their latest iMacs, but they did publish specs for their Xserve that has similar config specs to the Dell. The Xserve only scores about 11 more overall performance points. I've included specs for the last iMac Apple tested and the Mac Pro for comparison. You're blowing smoke if you really think the iMac compares to those systems.

Dell Precision T3400: http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...210-02858.html

Apple Xserve: http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...127-00160.html

iMac (late 2006): http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...513-00010.html

MacPro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html (towards bottom of page, Quad-core only scored a 39.9)
post #353 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Um no, the iMac would not blow the Dell away. Unfortunately Apple has not seen fit to publish their performance specs for their latest iMacs, but they did publish specs for their Xserve that has similar config specs to the Dell. The Xserve only scores about 11 more overall performance points. I've included specs for the last iMac Apple tested and the Mac Pro for comparison. Your blowing smoke if you really think the iMac compares to those systems.

Dell Precision T3400: http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...210-02858.html

Apple Xserve: http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...127-00160.html

iMac (late 2006): http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...513-00010.html

MacPro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html (towards bottom of page, Quad-core only scored a 39.9)

Spec benchmarks don't necessarily compare well to actual performance on apps that people will really use. If you're looking for scientific app performance, then it might be a good comparison. But you want to find tests that compare the systems using the actual software you will run, or as close to the same kind as possible.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1315...nch.html?t=205

The iMac 2.8 compares pretty well on five of the eight tests - with real apps. If you do a lot of encoding or a lot of heavy multitasking, then the Mac Pro would be a better buy.
post #354 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Spec benchmarks don't necessarily compare well to actual performance on apps that people will really use. If you're looking for scientific app performance, then it might be a good comparison. But you want to find tests that compare the systems using the actual software you will run, or as close to the same kind as possible.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1315...nch.html?t=205

The iMac 2.8 compares pretty well on five of the eight tests - with real apps. If you do a lot of encoding or a lot of heavy multitasking, then the Mac Pro would be a better buy.

Maybe, maybe not, but Apple uses them to show off their hardware, so the test results can't be that far off, and it's the closest thing to an industry standard test that can effectively measure performance between systems produced by different manufacturers that we have. Every major manufacturer uses the SPEC CPU2006 tests. I respect MacWorld's test results, but they are not scientific, and the results leave room for interpretation. And as they use a Mac Mini as the baseline, the results are only good as a comparison against that machine.
post #355 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

The iMac is a capable machine and performs well for what it is, a consumer product. Desktop hardware however has much better MTF (mean-time-to-failure) specifications and historical reliability than mobile based products. Apple had to replace my hard drive in my MacBook twice within the last year due to physical failures.

Er...I'd be using a RAID array on a NAS even with a Pro. Oh wait, I do since we didn't go FC.

Dude...the $800 Precision T3400 is a 1.8Ghz C2D. Yah think the 2.8Ghz Quad Mac Pro might be a tad faster? To get to the quad at 2.66Ghz with 2GB the cost goes up to $1600 and no option to go Octo...although its not confirmed that you can upgrade the single CPU pro is it?

I wouldn't be giving my guys 1.8Ghz C2D and thinking I'm being fiscally responsible. I'd be thinking I was being pennywise and pound foolish.

And your T3400 specs are for the 3.16Ghz wolfdale machine and it's not $800. Heck, it's not even on Dell's website yet. So you're comparing a 2006 Yonah iMac to a 2008 Wolfdale Dell.

Simply genius.
post #356 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Um no, the iMac would not blow the Dell away. Unfortunately Apple has not seen fit to publish their performance specs for their latest iMacs, but they did publish specs for their Xserve that has similar config specs to the Dell. The Xserve only scores about 11 more overall performance points. I've included specs for the last iMac Apple tested and the Mac Pro for comparison. Your blowing smoke if you really think the iMac compares to those systems.

Dell Precision T3400: http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...210-02858.html

Apple Xserve: http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...127-00160.html

iMac (late 2006): http://spec.it.miami.edu/cpu2006/res...513-00010.html

MacPro: http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html (towards bottom of page, Quad-core only scored a 39.9)

Those tests you supplied are, as anyone in the computer business knows quite well, totally worthless.

The only place spec is used is in comparing supercomputers. Even then, it's considered to be worthless, except for the problem that there are few programs that will run on all supercomputers other than spec.

I also read Apple's examples. Again, it says nothing useful for what we're talking about.

The only tests that have any value to this conversation are the ones I posted from Macworld, so far, at least.

if you ever go to the tech sites, you will see that they use both synthetic tests, which show some technical differences between processors and systems, and real-world programs.

You will also notice that for EVERY synthetic test suit they use, they will say that they do it because of interest, but that it has NO value in dteermining how the computer will perform in the real world of programs.

This is without exception.

So forget your spec numbers, and come back into the real world, and go read the Macworld tests.
post #357 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Maybe, maybe not, but Apple uses them to show off their hardware, so the test results can't be that far off, and it's the closest thing to an industry standard test that can effectively measure performance between systems produced by different manufacturers that we have. Every major manufacturer uses the SPEC CPU2006 tests. I respect MacWorld's test results, but they are not scientific, and the results leave room for interpretation. And as they use a Mac Mini as the baseline, the results are only good as a comparison against that machine.

You're misunderstanding what the tests say.

Spec was devised to read cpu performance directly in one very small area. It measures nothing else. It doesn't rell us anything about real integer performance, which is what most programs use.

It doesn't tell us anything about vector processing capabilities, which all processors now have, to a greater, or lessor extent.


Considering that OS X, and Windows both push most floating calculations off into the vector processors hardware, the numbers are less than useful. They are deceiving. This has been a criticism of spec testing for years now.

As far as for the Macworld tests, they DO make a comparison between all machines. The numbers themselves aren't important. What IS important is the difference between the numbers for the various machines under test.
post #358 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

And your T3400 specs are for the 3.16Ghz wolfdale machine and it's not $800. Heck, it's not even on Dell's website yet. So you're comparing a 2006 Yonah iMac to a 2008 Wolfdale Dell.

Simply genius.

Oh, and the reason that the T3400 is seeing $300-$400 off right now is likely because Dell is trying to dump all their older Conroe boxes before they get their Wolfdales in volume. Buy now and get 2007 tech that is 5% slower or buy later and not get the $300instant savings.
post #359 of 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Dude...the $800 Precision T3400 is a 1.8Ghz C2D. Yah think the 2.8Ghz Quad Mac Pro might be a tad faster? To get to the quad at 2.66Ghz with 2GB the cost goes up to $1600 and no option to go Octo...although its not confirmed that you can upgrade the single CPU pro is it?

They still haven't got the Harpertown Xeons, either.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #360 of 400
Quote:
Toughbook W7Ultra-lightweight 3.0 lbs, DVD Super MULTI-Drive
Genuine Windows Vista® Business (with XP downgrade option)
Full magnesium alloy case
Shock-mounted hard drive
Drop- and spill-resistant
Ultra-portable 3.0 lbs.
Long-lasting 7-hour battery life
Mobile broadband ready for AT&T and Verizon Wireless networks

If I remember in the keynote correctly Steve said the MBA battery life if 5 hours with wireless networking on. Since the emphasis of the machine is on wireless. With the wireless off the MBA battery should last much longer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new MacBook Air dubbed world’s thinnest notebook