It depends on what your definition of "full size" is. I consider the keyboard on my 12" PB G4 full size, and I sorely miss that form factor \
I was thrilled with the announcement of the MBA until they described the footprint. Sigh....
The 12” Powerbook was nice having the keyboard go nearly to the edge but it also had a 4:3 ratio display. All Mac notebooks use a 16:10 display ratio which limits the width of the footprint. Even though being 1” longer on the diagonal and having more display area, the 13” Macs have a shorter display height than the 12” PBs.
Some stats: The physical footprint dimensions of the 12” PB are 10.9” (w) x 8.6” (d), while the 13” MBP is 12.78” (w) x 9.74” (d). The display dimensions of the 12” PB are 9.67” (w) x 7.27” (d), while the 13” MBP is 11.28” (w) x 7.05“ (d). As you can see, the width of the display itself is wider than the width of the entire footprint of the 12” PB. Assuming the display frame border is the same as the 12” PB, in order to make a new Mac notebook footprint width end at the side edge of the keyboard the display size could be not be smaller than 11.4” wide, which seems fine, until you see the height would only be 6.04”.
Personally, I do so much reading on my machine that I wish 4:3 ratio would make a comeback, especially when trying to put a laptop on a setback tray sitting in coach. I have plenty of vertical space but no extra horizontal space. However, I’ll settle for Mac notebooks not going the even wider 16:9 ratio of the new iMacs and other notebook vendors.
I think apple should start thinking of their iMac problems from a two week delay to a month delay, I have order my iMac 27 inch i7 on Dec 31 and it has been push to Jan 29, so funny also that they even change the status of my order to prepared for shipment, and its been like that for a little less than 7 days but as tomorrow it would be a week that it change from not yet shipped to prepared for shipment.
I think apple is going to ship my computer either the same day of the presentation or the day before but I doubt it would leave today on a weekend.
Thanks apple a 2500 dollar computer is taking you guys a month to deliver just be straight forward and put that its going to take a month to deliver, because we are having issues in the design and electronic components. But don´t put your loyal clients as to lab rats for your product testing that should be made by your own not by clients.
Yet AI thinks the next upgrade for the MBA is a single processor that is has the same clock speed as current low end?
• Core i5-520UM (1.86GHz, 3MB, 18W) $241
Not the more logical upgrade in clock speed and performance to the ULV Core-i7s?
• Core i7-620UM (2.13GHz, 4MB, 18W) $278
• Core i7-620UM (2.26GHz, 4MB, 18W) $305
Just to reiterate, Core 2 was 17W for low voltage and 10W for ultra-low voltage. The new Cores are 18W for ultra-low voltage and 25W for low-voltage. The MBA will have to be CULV.
Clock are speeds way over rated !
battery life is the new chip god
i wonder when PA SEMI will enter into the MBA arena
and the us army/marines really need a rugged MBA type device ..AND PA SEMI HAS ALREADY worked with the CIA and the PENTAGON
I use the turbo because it?s the next generation replacement and it?s easier for most people to understand the stepping that way. . On this forum if you say that the C2D
running at 1.86GHz and 2.13GHz will be replaced by Core-7s running 1.06Ghz and 1.20GHz, respectively, you?ll get a lot of bellyaching about how Apple is screwing the customer yet again. On AnandTech I wouldn?t refer to them as such.
But isn't the bellyaching justified? Let's examine the situation with the low voltage and ultra low voltage processors more carefully, this time using standard frequencies rather than turbo frequencies.
These are the low voltage Penryns used in the current MBA:
Core 2 Duo SL9400: 1.86GHz, 6 MB, 17W (29W with MCH)
Core 2 Duo SL9600: 2.13GHz,\t 6 MB, 17W (29W with MCH)
And these are two of the ultra low voltage Penryns which are not used in the current MBA:
Core 2 Duo SU9400: 1.4GHz, 3 MB, 10W (22W with MCH)
Core 2 Duo SU9600: 1.6GHz, 3 MB, 10W (22W with MCH)
Now let's compare them to the Arrandales.
These are the low voltage Arrandale i7s:
Core i7 620LM: 2GHz, 4 MB, 24W
Core i7 640LM: 2.13GHz, 4 MB, 24W
And the ultra low voltage Arrandale i7s:
Core i7-620UM: 1.06GHz, 4MB, 18W
Core i7-640UM: 1.2GHz, 4MB, 18W
As you can see, if the stepping is from the LV Core 2 Duos to the LV Core i7s (or hypothetically from the ULV Core 2 Duos to the ULV Core i7s) then there's no real concern for people not understanding. The clock speeds are more or less in line with each other and you do get a moderate decrease in the combined TDP of CPU + MCH.
The potential problem with understanding only comes from the scenario where the stepping is from the LV Core 2 Duos to the ULV Core i7s. But any complaints about this are totally justified. It is very possible that the ULV Core i7s perform worse than the LV Core 2 Duos when both cores are being utilized and turboboost frequencies cannot be fully realized. In this case there is a sacrifice of performance for a larger decrease in the combined TDP compared to the LV->LV case. Consumers should be aware of this tradeoff. By using the turboboost frequencies however you are completely hiding this tradeoff, and make it seem as if the decrease in combined TDP comes at no cost in performance.
I surely understand your point but had to decide on whatbi think is the lesser of two evils, so to speak. I've always hated Intel's code names and marketing terms. Mark my words, once Apple releases these dual-core 32nm Core-i's people will come out of the woodwork to sign up for this forum to say how Apple sucks because other vendors had quad-core Core-i7 back in September 2009.
the extra battery and 500GB are enough to keep me with a MBP but that is my main system. I do several people with desktops that love their MBA for what it is.
Those mobile quad-core i7's are at 1.6 GHz, and are advertised as such, but usually have it's Turbo Boost speed in parentheses. I used to think those i7's where lame, until I read up on Turbo Boost, and also realized they supported HT. That, and GHz are overrated. I have a Core i5-750 in my new PC, and it spends most of its time at 1.2 GHz, unless it really needs to do something, and when it does, it runs everything fast.
I think Intel only makes it confusing to flood the market segment, for example, I'm confused why most of the desktop Core i3/i5 models exist, but are only differentiated by slight speed bumps, and the i3 that has integrated graphics.
As for the MBA, it all sounds fine, except the GMA HD graphics. Eww.
Comments
How small could this be and still have a full sized keyboard ? Job's sausage fingers will settle for nothing less.
It depends on what your definition of "full size" is. I consider the keyboard on my 12" PB G4 full size, and I sorely miss that form factor
I was thrilled with the announcement of the MBA until they described the footprint. Sigh....
It depends on what your definition of "full size" is. I consider the keyboard on my 12" PB G4 full size, and I sorely miss that form factor
I was thrilled with the announcement of the MBA until they described the footprint. Sigh....
The 12” Powerbook was nice having the keyboard go nearly to the edge but it also had a 4:3 ratio display. All Mac notebooks use a 16:10 display ratio which limits the width of the footprint. Even though being 1” longer on the diagonal and having more display area, the 13” Macs have a shorter display height than the 12” PBs.
Some stats: The physical footprint dimensions of the 12” PB are 10.9” (w) x 8.6” (d), while the 13” MBP is 12.78” (w) x 9.74” (d). The display dimensions of the 12” PB are 9.67” (w) x 7.27” (d), while the 13” MBP is 11.28” (w) x 7.05“ (d). As you can see, the width of the display itself is wider than the width of the entire footprint of the 12” PB. Assuming the display frame border is the same as the 12” PB, in order to make a new Mac notebook footprint width end at the side edge of the keyboard the display size could be not be smaller than 11.4” wide, which seems fine, until you see the height would only be 6.04”.
Personally, I do so much reading on my machine that I wish 4:3 ratio would make a comeback, especially when trying to put a laptop on a setback tray sitting in coach. I have plenty of vertical space but no extra horizontal space. However, I’ll settle for Mac notebooks not going the even wider 16:9 ratio of the new iMacs and other notebook vendors.
Remember these?
I think apple is going to ship my computer either the same day of the presentation or the day before but I doubt it would leave today on a weekend.
Thanks apple a 2500 dollar computer is taking you guys a month to deliver just be straight forward and put that its going to take a month to deliver, because we are having issues in the design and electronic components. But don´t put your loyal clients as to lab rats for your product testing that should be made by your own not by clients.
The current MBA processors are…Yet AI thinks the next upgrade for the MBA is a single processor that is has the same clock speed as current low end?Not the more logical upgrade in clock speed and performance to the ULV Core-i7s?
Just to reiterate, Core 2 was 17W for low voltage and 10W for ultra-low voltage. The new Cores are 18W for ultra-low voltage and 25W for low-voltage. The MBA will have to be CULV.
Clock are speeds way over rated !
battery life is the new chip god
i wonder when PA SEMI will enter into the MBA arena
and the us army/marines really need a rugged MBA type device ..AND PA SEMI HAS ALREADY worked with the CIA and the PENTAGON
my 2cts
9
I use the turbo because it?s the next generation replacement and it?s easier for most people to understand the stepping that way. . On this forum if you say that the C2D
running at 1.86GHz and 2.13GHz will be replaced by Core-7s running 1.06Ghz and 1.20GHz, respectively, you?ll get a lot of bellyaching about how Apple is screwing the customer yet again. On AnandTech I wouldn?t refer to them as such.
But isn't the bellyaching justified? Let's examine the situation with the low voltage and ultra low voltage processors more carefully, this time using standard frequencies rather than turbo frequencies.
These are the low voltage Penryns used in the current MBA:
- Core 2 Duo SL9400: 1.86GHz, 6 MB, 17W (29W with MCH)
- Core 2 Duo SL9600: 2.13GHz,\t 6 MB, 17W (29W with MCH)
And these are two of the ultra low voltage Penryns which are not used in the current MBA:- Core 2 Duo SU9400: 1.4GHz, 3 MB, 10W (22W with MCH)
- Core 2 Duo SU9600: 1.6GHz, 3 MB, 10W (22W with MCH)
Now let's compare them to the Arrandales.These are the low voltage Arrandale i7s:
- Core i7 620LM: 2GHz, 4 MB, 24W
- Core i7 640LM: 2.13GHz, 4 MB, 24W
And the ultra low voltage Arrandale i7s:- Core i7-620UM: 1.06GHz, 4MB, 18W
- Core i7-640UM: 1.2GHz, 4MB, 18W
As you can see, if the stepping is from the LV Core 2 Duos to the LV Core i7s (or hypothetically from the ULV Core 2 Duos to the ULV Core i7s) then there's no real concern for people not understanding. The clock speeds are more or less in line with each other and you do get a moderate decrease in the combined TDP of CPU + MCH.The potential problem with understanding only comes from the scenario where the stepping is from the LV Core 2 Duos to the ULV Core i7s. But any complaints about this are totally justified. It is very possible that the ULV Core i7s perform worse than the LV Core 2 Duos when both cores are being utilized and turboboost frequencies cannot be fully realized. In this case there is a sacrifice of performance for a larger decrease in the combined TDP compared to the LV->LV case. Consumers should be aware of this tradeoff. By using the turboboost frequencies however you are completely hiding this tradeoff, and make it seem as if the decrease in combined TDP comes at no cost in performance.
I surely understand your point but had to decide on whatbi think is the lesser of two evils, so to speak. I've always hated Intel's code names and marketing terms. Mark my words, once Apple releases these dual-core 32nm Core-i's people will come out of the woodwork to sign up for this forum to say how Apple sucks because other vendors had quad-core Core-i7 back in September 2009.
the extra battery and 500GB are enough to keep me with a MBP but that is my main system. I do several people with desktops that love their MBA for what it is.
Those mobile quad-core i7's are at 1.6 GHz, and are advertised as such, but usually have it's Turbo Boost speed in parentheses. I used to think those i7's where lame, until I read up on Turbo Boost, and also realized they supported HT. That, and GHz are overrated. I have a Core i5-750 in my new PC, and it spends most of its time at 1.2 GHz, unless it really needs to do something, and when it does, it runs everything fast.
I think Intel only makes it confusing to flood the market segment, for example, I'm confused why most of the desktop Core i3/i5 models exist, but are only differentiated by slight speed bumps, and the i3 that has integrated graphics.
As for the MBA, it all sounds fine, except the GMA HD graphics. Eww.