I just hope it has a decent display. I'm not sure, it will probably have a crappy display. I just hope it is at least 1280x800 and I hope it has a decent sized trackpad.
A macbook air with an 11.6" display and at 16/10 or 16/9 screen aspect will be very wide, and unless they have a 2" thick bezel around the outside of the screen to give it depth, it's going to be hard to fit in a full sized keyboard and trackpad.
I hope for a 1280x800/720 screen but I can't see that happening.
Although, I am 90% certain we will see Macbook/13" MBP updates soon too. A 1440x900 13" display? i3 processor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism;
1) Why would the display be ?crappy?? This isn?t something Apple typically does, especially not on their MacBook Air.
2) If it?s !6/9(sic) aspect ratio it can?t be 1280x800.
3) What is a "1280x800/720 screen??
3. What Dick is saying is he hopes it will be a 16:9 1280x720 or 16:10 1280x800.
As I mentioned before, I think there are some or many 16:10 1280x800 netbooks. At this stage very unlikely IMO for the 11" MBA to be anything but this resolution and aspect ratio.
It was a surprise, but now that we've heard it you know it sounds 110% like what Apple would do.
Over the year a number of people have suggested this route in one form or another. Personally I favored a PCI Express card based on one of the standardized notebook formats. The potential is to save a lot of money. If Apples approach is something they keep to themselves and don't allow upgrade competition then I might have problems with it.
In the end a PC Board approach saves space, increases reliabity and saves dollars. Space is very significant in these smaller machines. I just hope the final shipping version has space for storage expansion of some sort.
Quote:
I think it will be 16:10. Take a stroll through your local netbook store and see the display that will be in your MBA. The display will be LED, though not IPS, and while better quality than a netboook be similar ratios to what netbooks are.
Why note IPS. If they go Core 2, that processor is cheap now. If they go AMD the processor is likely even cheaper. This would allow for a more expensive screen. With careful selection of components Apple could save hundreds to be applied against a nice screen. Frankly a sharp screen and a good GPU is more enticing than a marginally faster CPU.
Funny but when the discussion turns to 7" class iPads I suggest a stroll through the local GPS kiosk. Grwat minds or what.
...It would be in line with the PPI of the high res displays of the MBPs, so that is feasible, and it could be argued that this smaller display would likely be closer to the eyes than the 15 and 17” MBPs with high-res displays. Also, it puts it in line with the iPad resolution thus making iPad apps feasible.
I'll restate what I do think, this is basically Apple's entry into the netbook market without making a netbook. We do know how Apple dismisses something then comes back to annihilate the category. In this case Apple is pissed with the netbook/ultraportable space so they are going to squeeze it tight from both ends, iPad on one, MBA on the other.
1280x800 LED backlit is just nice for what the 11" crowd wants.
YES IMAGINE IF IT RAN IOS IPHONE AND IPAD APPS. KILLER, KILLER STUFF.
Frankly a sharp screen and a good GPU is more enticing than a marginally faster CPU
I think users are more positively affected by those first two over the last two, yet a recent AnandTech article reviewing a 13? MBP as a Windows machines pooh-poohs the 13? MBP for it?s continued use of the C2D at the current price point. What is odd about the article is that the reviewer triumphed how much better the MBP display was over everyone else?s display that was tested, how responsive that special Nvidia 320M GPU is and well built everything else. In the end his price point seems solely based on the CPU?s age, not it?s performance, not it?s cost from Intel compared to the Core-i chips, and not the quality or cost of any other component.
For those prices it would have to use ARM or Atom. I can?t see either one of those for Mac OS X.
I'm not sure why there is so little support in the forums for an AMD solution. Especially considering the way Intel has been jerking around the mobile industry.
In any event Zacate seems like perfect processor for an Apple marketed subnotebook. It is very fast for its size and very low power. Considering how this AIR is being described, it could be best classified as a subnotebook. That is a machine without all the features that people consider as required in a notebook.
I'm not sure why there is so little support in the forums for an AMD solution. Especially considering the way Intel has been jerking around the mobile industry.
In any event Zacate seems like perfect processor for an Apple marketed subnotebook. It is very fast for its size and very low power. Considering how this AIR is being described, it could be best classified as a subnotebook. That is a machine without all the features that people consider as required in a notebook.
Intel has been jerking around the mobile sector because AMD has had not players. Id est, they can. AMD?s lack of decent mobile chips has allowed Intel to slow down mobile chip development to reduce costs.
I keep hearing all these great things about Bobcat but I still have yet to see any results that make it a better option for Apple than Intel?s product. Being slightly cheaper isn?t going ro cut it for AMD. THey need to have a product that is more power efficient than Intel?s offerings and a guarantee that they can manufacturer enough to suit Apple?s needs.
The UI elements are tiny though. When Apple's philosophy is about the end user experience, I don't think they'd do this. The OS X UI running on an iPad is usable though:
It's not that bad. In fact I rather like that pixel density. That's 135 PPI, versus 100 PPI for a 2560x1600 30". Anyway, you can make the Dock bigger if you're having trouble seeing it.
I'm not sure why there is so little support in the forums for an AMD solution. Especially considering the way Intel has been jerking around the mobile industry.
In any event Zacate seems like perfect processor for an Apple marketed subnotebook. It is very fast for its size and very low power. Considering how this AIR is being described, it could be best classified as a subnotebook. That is a machine without all the features that people consider as required in a notebook.
If Apple got the drivers right Zacate could be a real option. I don't know how confident Apple is about AMD supply though.
How about a new dual core A4 based system. They have OS X's guts running real nice on the iOS devices, might be OK with more power and a graphics bump.
Everytime I see something like this in print I cringe because the CPU in the A4 is not very powerful at all. It would not run a Mac OS/X based computer very well at all. Unless of course you are the sort of person that runs one app and shuts down all other activities while that app runs.
People pick up an iPad and feel its performance and automatically assume that the processor is extremely powerful. It isn't in and of its self. Rather everything that makes up iPad works together to give the user a good experience. Given the demands of the common apps used on OS/X that A8 core would have huge problems with performance.
Remember this is a cell phone processor and as such has limited capability. The primary focus of ARM processors of this type is performance per watt.
It's not a new issue, but then, nothing has changed either. Apple finds 2x graphics performance and 20% less CPU performance in a smaller footprint better value than a Core-i3 system. All arguments will be rehash of the 13" MB/MBP arguments.
Who knows, maybe Apple will reveal some OpenCL driven UI magic in Mac OS X 10.7 or Mac OS XI that really needs the GPU. If so, this will make a lot of people happy, no?
There are many things in OS X and particularly iLife '09, '11? that are already GPU accelerated. A Corei3 without any other GPU is a sacrifice they just can't make. Given cost considerations as well, we could really be looking at Core2 Duo, 320M.
There are many things in OS X and particularly iLife '09, '11? that are already GPU accelerated. A Corei3 without any other GPU is a sacrifice they just can't make. Given cost considerations as well, we could really be looking at Core2 Duo, 320M.
Why does everyone specify the Core-i3 for this class of machine? There is only one Core-i3 with a TDP that would work and it doesn?t even look like it?s shipping in quantity. The other low TDP Core-i chips have multiple options that are shipping in quantity.
Why does everyone specify the Core-i3 for this class of machine? There is only one Core-i3 with a TDP that would work and it doesn?t even look like it?s shipping in quantity. The other low TDP Core-i chips have multiple options that are shipping in quantity.
So which chips should be we looking at? And it would be good to know at what price premium over Core2...
But those clock speeds are terrible?!? Turbo boost brings it past 2ghz but since it's 2 core Turbo boost will only kick in if only one core is used... I know it's Arrandale so it's not just about clock speeds, and Turbo boost is a little more complicated than I made it to be, but this and an Intel IGP running at what must be low clocks... Makes i series unlikely from where I'm standing... Also the RAM is only 800mhz on the Core i series you highlighted... Not sure how much difference this makes.
Everytime I see something like this in print I cringe because the CPU in the A4 is not very powerful at all. It would not run a Mac OS/X based computer very well at all. Unless of course you are the sort of person that runs one app and shuts down all other activities while that app runs.
People pick up an iPad and feel its performance and automatically assume that the processor is extremely powerful. It isn't in and of its self. Rather everything that makes up iPad works together to give the user a good experience. Given the demands of the common apps used on OS/X that A8 core would have huge problems with performance.
Remember this is a cell phone processor and as such has limited capability. The primary focus of ARM processors of this type is performance per watt.
Serious question-- How would an A9 multi-core ARM match up with, say, an Atom or C2D?
Another way to ask this what level of ARM would be capable of running OS X?
And, would it be power efficient enough to be practical?
Maybe a different question needs to be asked (and forgive me if this sounds like a MSFT solution):
Is there room for an OS between OS X and iOS, where:
OS X == Unlimited capability -- what we have today, targeted at desktops & power users.
OS X Mobile == Most OS X features but with curtailed use of resources that drain battery (I don't have any idea of what those would be) -- designed to run OS X apps efficiently on MBA and Laptops
iOS == limited capability -- what we have today on the iPad (4.2)
I don't really like the idea of another OS-- Rather a single, modular, OS that Apple (and, to some extent, the user) could select what (and how many) OS capabilities are best suited to the device and tasks at hand.
I am able to be productive on a powerful desktop Mac with dual displays (lots of apps running, lots of browser windows, lots of user tasks).
I am also able to be productive on an iPad (with far less active use of resources, and, basically, a single user task).
There are times, however, that I would like to tradeoff a little iPad battery life for a little more capability -- say, run iMovie or Motion.
The lowest clockspeed ARM known to run OS X was about 400MHz. The first iPhone.
Now, if you mean Mac OS, not OS X, then that is a loaded question and I'd say Apple has no plans to port Mac OS X to ARM.
But, as you noted, much of Mac OS X was ported to ARM. I haven't JBd an iDevice since then, but I suspect that iOS still looks a lot like OS X under the covers.
Then, as an iOS developer I see that each release of iOS contains more core OS functions ported from Mac OS X.
I've heard said, and I think it is true: That Apple is using iOS to re-implement portions of Mac OS X "the way it should have been done". Then the iOS implementation is ported (incorporated, is probably a better word) into the Mac OS X mothership... One Mac OS X feature that was not ported to the iPhone was the multiple column table view -- it was impractical on the 3.5" screen. However, I expect to see this on the larger iPad screen.
Someday, I expect the last vestige will be removed whenNSObject is deprecated in favor of OSObject (or some such).
Edit: There were people installing Linux on early iPods, circa 2003. Those devices didn't have a MMU, so the implementation was limited. I don't recall the iPod CPU specs, but a 30 GB iPod could be a web server in your pocket.
Comments
I just hope it has a decent display. I'm not sure, it will probably have a crappy display. I just hope it is at least 1280x800 and I hope it has a decent sized trackpad.
A macbook air with an 11.6" display and at 16/10 or 16/9 screen aspect will be very wide, and unless they have a 2" thick bezel around the outside of the screen to give it depth, it's going to be hard to fit in a full sized keyboard and trackpad.
I hope for a 1280x800/720 screen but I can't see that happening.
Although, I am 90% certain we will see Macbook/13" MBP updates soon too. A 1440x900 13" display? i3 processor?
1) Why would the display be ?crappy?? This isn?t something Apple typically does, especially not on their MacBook Air.
2) If it?s !6/9(sic) aspect ratio it can?t be 1280x800.
3) What is a "1280x800/720 screen??
3. What Dick is saying is he hopes it will be a 16:9 1280x720 or 16:10 1280x800.
As I mentioned before, I think there are some or many 16:10 1280x800 netbooks. At this stage very unlikely IMO for the 11" MBA to be anything but this resolution and aspect ratio.
It was a surprise, but now that we've heard it you know it sounds 110% like what Apple would do.
Over the year a number of people have suggested this route in one form or another. Personally I favored a PCI Express card based on one of the standardized notebook formats. The potential is to save a lot of money. If Apples approach is something they keep to themselves and don't allow upgrade competition then I might have problems with it.
In the end a PC Board approach saves space, increases reliabity and saves dollars. Space is very significant in these smaller machines. I just hope the final shipping version has space for storage expansion of some sort.
I think it will be 16:10. Take a stroll through your local netbook store and see the display that will be in your MBA.
Why note IPS. If they go Core 2, that processor is cheap now. If they go AMD the processor is likely even cheaper. This would allow for a more expensive screen. With careful selection of components Apple could save hundreds to be applied against a nice screen. Frankly a sharp screen and a good GPU is more enticing than a marginally faster CPU.
Funny but when the discussion turns to 7" class iPads I suggest a stroll through the local GPS kiosk. Grwat minds or what.
...It would be in line with the PPI of the high res displays of the MBPs, so that is feasible, and it could be argued that this smaller display would likely be closer to the eyes than the 15 and 17” MBPs with high-res displays. Also, it puts it in line with the iPad resolution thus making iPad apps feasible.
I'll restate what I do think, this is basically Apple's entry into the netbook market without making a netbook. We do know how Apple dismisses something then comes back to annihilate the category. In this case Apple is pissed with the netbook/ultraportable space so they are going to squeeze it tight from both ends, iPad on one, MBA on the other.
1280x800 LED backlit is just nice for what the 11" crowd wants.
YES IMAGINE IF IT RAN IOS IPHONE AND IPAD APPS. KILLER, KILLER STUFF.
I know you man, from mac rumors,
Have any legitimate reasons to dislike glossy, or did you just want to take a potshot at me?
Frankly a sharp screen and a good GPU is more enticing than a marginally faster CPU
I think users are more positively affected by those first two over the last two, yet a recent AnandTech article reviewing a 13? MBP as a Windows machines pooh-poohs the 13? MBP for it?s continued use of the C2D at the current price point. What is odd about the article is that the reviewer triumphed how much better the MBP display was over everyone else?s display that was tested, how responsive that special Nvidia 320M GPU is and well built everything else. In the end his price point seems solely based on the CPU?s age, not it?s performance, not it?s cost from Intel compared to the Core-i chips, and not the quality or cost of any other component.
For those prices it would have to use ARM or Atom. I can?t see either one of those for Mac OS X.
I'm not sure why there is so little support in the forums for an AMD solution. Especially considering the way Intel has been jerking around the mobile industry.
In any event Zacate seems like perfect processor for an Apple marketed subnotebook. It is very fast for its size and very low power. Considering how this AIR is being described, it could be best classified as a subnotebook. That is a machine without all the features that people consider as required in a notebook.
Funny but when the discussion turns to 7" class iPads I suggest a stroll through the local GPS kiosk. Great minds or what.
I'm not sure why there is so little support in the forums for an AMD solution. Especially considering the way Intel has been jerking around the mobile industry.
In any event Zacate seems like perfect processor for an Apple marketed subnotebook. It is very fast for its size and very low power. Considering how this AIR is being described, it could be best classified as a subnotebook. That is a machine without all the features that people consider as required in a notebook.
Intel has been jerking around the mobile sector because AMD has had not players. Id est, they can. AMD?s lack of decent mobile chips has allowed Intel to slow down mobile chip development to reduce costs.
I keep hearing all these great things about Bobcat but I still have yet to see any results that make it a better option for Apple than Intel?s product. Being slightly cheaper isn?t going ro cut it for AMD. THey need to have a product that is more power efficient than Intel?s offerings and a guarantee that they can manufacturer enough to suit Apple?s needs.
The UI elements are tiny though. When Apple's philosophy is about the end user experience, I don't think they'd do this. The OS X UI running on an iPad is usable though:
It's not that bad. In fact I rather like that pixel density. That's 135 PPI, versus 100 PPI for a 2560x1600 30". Anyway, you can make the Dock bigger if you're having trouble seeing it.
I'm not sure why there is so little support in the forums for an AMD solution. Especially considering the way Intel has been jerking around the mobile industry.
In any event Zacate seems like perfect processor for an Apple marketed subnotebook. It is very fast for its size and very low power. Considering how this AIR is being described, it could be best classified as a subnotebook. That is a machine without all the features that people consider as required in a notebook.
If Apple got the drivers right Zacate could be a real option. I don't know how confident Apple is about AMD supply though.
How about a new dual core A4 based system. They have OS X's guts running real nice on the iOS devices, might be OK with more power and a graphics bump.
Everytime I see something like this in print I cringe because the CPU in the A4 is not very powerful at all. It would not run a Mac OS/X based computer very well at all. Unless of course you are the sort of person that runs one app and shuts down all other activities while that app runs.
People pick up an iPad and feel its performance and automatically assume that the processor is extremely powerful. It isn't in and of its self. Rather everything that makes up iPad works together to give the user a good experience. Given the demands of the common apps used on OS/X that A8 core would have huge problems with performance.
Remember this is a cell phone processor and as such has limited capability. The primary focus of ARM processors of this type is performance per watt.
It's not a new issue, but then, nothing has changed either. Apple finds 2x graphics performance and 20% less CPU performance in a smaller footprint better value than a Core-i3 system. All arguments will be rehash of the 13" MB/MBP arguments.
Who knows, maybe Apple will reveal some OpenCL driven UI magic in Mac OS X 10.7 or Mac OS XI that really needs the GPU. If so, this will make a lot of people happy, no?
There are many things in OS X and particularly iLife '09, '11? that are already GPU accelerated. A Corei3 without any other GPU is a sacrifice they just can't make. Given cost considerations as well, we could really be looking at Core2 Duo, 320M.
There are many things in OS X and particularly iLife '09, '11? that are already GPU accelerated. A Corei3 without any other GPU is a sacrifice they just can't make. Given cost considerations as well, we could really be looking at Core2 Duo, 320M.
Why does everyone specify the Core-i3 for this class of machine? There is only one Core-i3 with a TDP that would work and it doesn?t even look like it?s shipping in quantity. The other low TDP Core-i chips have multiple options that are shipping in quantity.
Why does everyone specify the Core-i3 for this class of machine? There is only one Core-i3 with a TDP that would work and it doesn?t even look like it?s shipping in quantity. The other low TDP Core-i chips have multiple options that are shipping in quantity.
So which chips should be we looking at? And it would be good to know at what price premium over Core2...
So which chips should be we looking at? And it would be good to know at what price premium over Core2...
Core-i5 and Core-i7, which the Core-i7 being the preferred option considering the machine type and the chips currently used in the MBA.
The price is pretty negligible. In fact, I bet the SFF ULV C2D plus the Nvidia 320M costs more for parts than the Core-i7 with IntelHD IGP.
Core-i3 (1), Core-i5 (3), Core-i7 (4) at18W TDP and non-embedded (Total 8): Now compare with the 2 SFF ULV C2Ds that Apple currently uses (Total 2):
Core-i5 and Core-i7, which the Core-i7 being the preferred option considering the machine type and the chips currently used in the MBA.
The price is pretty negligible. In fact, I bet the SFF ULV C2D plus the Nvidia 320M costs more for parts than the Core-i7 with IntelHD IGP.
Core-i3 (1), Core-i5 (3), Core-i7 (4) at18W TDP and non-embedded (Total 8): Now compare with the 2 SFF ULV C2Ds that Apple currently uses (Total 2):
But those clock speeds are terrible?!? Turbo boost brings it past 2ghz but since it's 2 core Turbo boost will only kick in if only one core is used... I know it's Arrandale so it's not just about clock speeds, and Turbo boost is a little more complicated than I made it to be, but this and an Intel IGP running at what must be low clocks... Makes i series unlikely from where I'm standing... Also the RAM is only 800mhz on the Core i series you highlighted... Not sure how much difference this makes.
Everytime I see something like this in print I cringe because the CPU in the A4 is not very powerful at all. It would not run a Mac OS/X based computer very well at all. Unless of course you are the sort of person that runs one app and shuts down all other activities while that app runs.
People pick up an iPad and feel its performance and automatically assume that the processor is extremely powerful. It isn't in and of its self. Rather everything that makes up iPad works together to give the user a good experience. Given the demands of the common apps used on OS/X that A8 core would have huge problems with performance.
Remember this is a cell phone processor and as such has limited capability. The primary focus of ARM processors of this type is performance per watt.
Serious question-- How would an A9 multi-core ARM match up with, say, an Atom or C2D?
Another way to ask this what level of ARM would be capable of running OS X?
And, would it be power efficient enough to be practical?
.
Serious question-- How would an A9 multi-core ARM match up with, say, an Atom or C2D?
Another way to ask this what level of ARM would be capable of running OS X?
And, would it be power efficient enough to be practical?
.
The lowest clockspeed ARM known to run OS X was about 400MHz. The first iPhone.
Now, if you mean Mac OS, not OS X, then that is a loaded question and I'd say Apple has no plans to port Mac OS X to ARM.
Maybe a different question needs to be asked (and forgive me if this sounds like a MSFT solution):
Is there room for an OS between OS X and iOS, where:
OS X == Unlimited capability -- what we have today, targeted at desktops & power users.
OS X Mobile == Most OS X features but with curtailed use of resources that drain battery (I don't have any idea of what those would be) -- designed to run OS X apps efficiently on MBA and Laptops
iOS == limited capability -- what we have today on the iPad (4.2)
I don't really like the idea of another OS-- Rather a single, modular, OS that Apple (and, to some extent, the user) could select what (and how many) OS capabilities are best suited to the device and tasks at hand.
I am able to be productive on a powerful desktop Mac with dual displays (lots of apps running, lots of browser windows, lots of user tasks).
I am also able to be productive on an iPad (with far less active use of resources, and, basically, a single user task).
There are times, however, that I would like to tradeoff a little iPad battery life for a little more capability -- say, run iMovie or Motion.
.
The lowest clockspeed ARM known to run OS X was about 400MHz. The first iPhone.
Now, if you mean Mac OS, not OS X, then that is a loaded question and I'd say Apple has no plans to port Mac OS X to ARM.
But, as you noted, much of Mac OS X was ported to ARM. I haven't JBd an iDevice since then, but I suspect that iOS still looks a lot like OS X under the covers.
Then, as an iOS developer I see that each release of iOS contains more core OS functions ported from Mac OS X.
I've heard said, and I think it is true: That Apple is using iOS to re-implement portions of Mac OS X "the way it should have been done". Then the iOS implementation is ported (incorporated, is probably a better word) into the Mac OS X mothership... One Mac OS X feature that was not ported to the iPhone was the multiple column table view -- it was impractical on the 3.5" screen. However, I expect to see this on the larger iPad screen.
Someday, I expect the last vestige will be removed when NSObject is deprecated in favor of OSObject (or some such).
Edit: There were people installing Linux on early iPods, circa 2003. Those devices didn't have a MMU, so the implementation was limited. I don't recall the iPod CPU specs, but a 30 GB iPod could be a web server in your pocket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ABhW7lYA8
.