This topic keeps cropping up - Apple's development of products seemingly frustrated and limited by available bandwidth.
When the iPhone and iGreed were simultaneously introduced, where Apple sought a share of the ongoing connection/subscription revenue, I thought that Apple should just build/buy and operate it's own telecoms network with a near worldwide presence - like Vodafone. That way they could provide as much iBandwidth as necessary for the devices they sell, and milk the connection charges at the same time.
Apple needs to develop and operate their own iNet and do the vertical integration tango properly, rather than by proxy through 'deals.'
I wonder if AAPL's cash reserves would stretch to that? :-) That would give Apple proper end to end control of the flagship product.
A lot to ask for from the form factor? Maybe, but I think dropping 2G more ram would make a lot of difference for most pros trying to use this machine.
Ah the mythical pros. Someone supposedly photographed a pro once but it turned out to be a photoshop job. They justify all the desires of a spec-whore because after all, they don't just want those features they *need* them.
People who depend on RAM-intensive apps will use the Macbook Pro anyway with 8GB RAM if they use a laptop at all and wouldn't be doing their main work on an ultra-portable.
It's true that one browser + kernel + IGP VRAM can use up 1GB RAM so opening up Parallels/VMWare on 2GB can start paging but machines I've seen running on 2GB get by pretty smoothly if you don't open 3 or 4 big apps at once and if they get the MBA SSD up to >200MB/s write, it will swap that memory out in the blink of an eye.
The more memory the better of course but it's always a cost balance. Do they put in 4GB and bump up the price by $100? Do they give you 4GB in this revision and then try to sell the next revision with 8GB but fail because you have everything you need?
They ship Mac Minis with 2GB so they obviously still see that as a reasonable amount of RAM. In a $1500 machine, you'd probably expect a bit more but they do it with everything. There was no reason to ship the iPad with 256MB RAM when the iPhone that came out 3-4 months later had double that in it, other than holding back the features to ensure an upgrade cycle. If a company sells you everything you want today, they can't sell you something else tomorrow.
All manufacturers are scared of hitting that end-game scenario where a consumer gets 1TB of non-volatile RAM paired with a >8-core CPU and a fused GPU capable of photoreal graphics in real-time that lasts 24 hours on battery at full load and a multi-touch IPS display in a MBA form-factor weighing under 2lbs because what comes next? After that, it's not about the product itself any more.
When you match the USB port size, it's quite clear that the pictured MBA is bigger. There's some perspective distortion so the measurements come out slightly lower at 12.5"....
I did the same thing in Photoshop and it came out that the MacBook Air is significantly smaller all around, so it's still debatable if you ask me.
Another thing to consider is that this isn't a 13" macBook Air by any means since if it was, the motherboard would be much bigger than the one in the current MacBook Air and motherboards don't just grow in size like that. My conclusion again is that this is a significantly smaller device than the current Air, possibly about 9" in the long dimension.
The more memory the better of course but it's always a cost balance. Do they put in 4GB and bump up the price by $100? Do they give you 4GB in this revision and then try to sell the next revision with 8GB but fail because you have everything you need?
They ship Mac Minis with 2GB so they obviously still see that as a reasonable amount of RAM. In a $1500 machine, you'd probably expect a bit more but they do it with everything.
Even with Apple's profit margins, I doubt going from 2 GB to 4 GB would add more than about $50. Sell it as a BTO options for $100 and Apple just made another $50 in profit. The problem is not selling a base model with 2 GB, it is not being able to upgrade it. By not allowing BTO RAM additions, Apple just cuts themselves out of some part of the market. Maybe they do it deliberately because they have higher profit margins on the 13" MBP.
Shame about mini-displayPort. I wish they'd get over it.
Nothing to get over, it's a fantastic thing. Adapters to all known outputs, dirt cheap - even an HDMI with sound out on the market for less than £15. Any other connector is going to be limited.
I did the same thing in Photoshop and it came out that the MacBook Air is significantly smaller all around, so it's still debatable if you ask me.
I posted an overlay picture. You can measure the USB ports using shift-command-4 and drag over each port. Hit escape before letting go the mouse to cancel taking a screenshot. The widths of the ports might be out by a pixel but there's no mistake that the MBA pictured is bigger by a significant amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Another thing to consider is that this isn't a 13" macBook Air by any means since if it was, the motherboard would be much bigger than the one in the current MacBook Air and motherboards don't just grow in size like that. My conclusion again is that this is a significantly smaller device than the current Air, possibly about 9" in the long dimension.
It has no hard drive though. Apple can make the motherboard any size they want and they have to make it bigger to get it to reach the other side of the machine to put a USB port on the other side.
It looks about the same to me, the new one is just much neater as they don't need thermal sensors, sata cables and a big block allocated for the HDD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
Even with Apple's profit margins, I doubt going from 2 GB to 4 GB would add more than about $50. Sell it as a BTO options for $100 and Apple just made another $50 in profit.
They can't add more chips though due to the space so they'd have to use 4gbit chips, which are more expensive. Not as bad as they used to be but there's still an $87 difference between Crucial's 2GB and 4GB DIMMs using the higher density chips.
What they could do is put 4GB on the faster CPU model. So the pictured 1.83GHz model could be 2GB with 128GB SSD and the 2.13GHz model could be 4GB with 256GB SSD with a $300 upgrade price. That would certainly make the higher up model a more compelling upgrade.
All manufacturers are scared of hitting that end-game scenario where a consumer gets 1TB of non-volatile RAM paired with a >8-core CPU and a fused GPU capable of photoreal graphics in real-time that lasts 24 hours on battery at full load and a multi-touch IPS display in a MBA form-factor weighing under 2lbs because what comes next? After that, it's not about the product itself any more.
This is why Apple changed the game by coming out with the tablet. If you look at the iMac, other than gamers, why would anyone (non-"pro") need better specifications? iMac at 27" and 1TB 4GB of RAM, not much more they can go with that other than just beefing up the specs.
Looking at the pic below, I can see how a Core 2 Duo 17W CPU with 320M graphics could sit in there in a 11.6" form factor.
Once you take out the HDD space and just put a stick of SSD chips, you can shrink the whole thing down to 11.6".
As you mention, 1.83GHz model could be 2GB with 128GB SSD and the 2.13GHz model could be 4GB with 256GB SSD.
I think that will be at 11.6" or thereabouts 1280x800 screen.
Apple did at one point have the very popular PowerBook G4 12" and iBook G4 12", as we all (well most of us "oldies") know.
A powerful but thin and light 12" or so notebook or sub-notebook or whatever, is quite possible. There'd be people that would grab 'em.
Heck, I'd do it if I didn't carry a whole bag of cables, notebook lock, charger, mic, video adapters etc. for my presentations.
And if I had a proper desktop external screen in the retail outlet where my training table is.
This MacBook Air is going to be the new portable powerhouse. 12" (or thereabouts) 1280x800 LED-backlit, $1,099 for the 1.86ghz 2GB RAM 128GB SSD.
Better battery tech and smaller screen and no spinning HDD should give 8 to 10 hours. Obviously the battery won't be in separate blocks like the picture of the prototype, assuming those blocks are the battery.
Mah current feelings at this stage...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It looks about the same to me, the new one is just much neater as they don't need thermal sensors, sata cables and a big block allocated for the HDD.
Looking at the pic below, I can see how a Core 2 Duo 17W CPU with 320M graphics could sit in there in a 11.6" form factor.
Once you take out the HDD space and just put a stick of SSD chips, you can shrink the whole thing down to 11.6".
As you mention, 1.83GHz model could be 2GB with 128GB SSD and the 2.13GHz model could be 4GB with 256GB SSD.
I think that will be at 11.6" or thereabouts 1280x800 screen.
Apple did at one point have the very popular PowerBook G4 12" and iBook G4 12", as we all (well most of us "oldies") know.
A powerful but thin and light 12" or so notebook or sub-notebook or whatever, is quite possible. There'd be people that would grab 'em.
Heck, I'd do it if I didn't carry a whole bag of cables, notebook lock, charger, mic, video adapters etc. for my presentations.
And if I had a proper desktop external screen in the retail outlet where my training table is.
This MacBook Air is going to be the new portable powerhouse. 12" (or thereabouts) 1280x800 LED-backlit, $1,099 for the 1.86ghz 2GB RAM 128GB SSD.
Mah current feelings at this stage...
1) Additional storage is one of those things that one may or may not need when they do need more performance. For this reason I can see this proprietary mini-PCIe(?) card having both multiple storage options for the 2 basic CPU/RAM configurations.
2) If they are getting rid of the trapdoor that means the edges are thicker, which means there will likely be more volume for the battery, especially for the same size footprint. For me, this is an important aspect if I?m even going to consider this machine. It has to be at least as long as the current MacBook and hopefully ≥50% more.
2) If they are getting rid of the trapdoor that means the edges are thicker, which means there will likely be more volume for the battery, especially for the same size footprint. For me, this is an important aspect if I?m even going to consider this machine. It has to be at least as long as the current MacBook and hopefully ≥50% more.
I think Apple will have to shoot for 8 to 10 hours of battery life. That's the only range that makes sense given all their offerings and how they are going to market this 12" sub/notebook.
I do agree if they are going for a wedge rather than so much curves they could fit more battery in it.
I think fighting for "thinnest and lightest notebook ever" is kinda over since there's so many competitors out there that claim to be so. Apple may still spin it as "thinnest and lightest full-featured portable" or who knows what. Or given their engineering genius it could be thinnest this-or-that somehow... LOL
I posted an overlay picture. You can measure the USB ports using shift-command-4 and drag over each port. Hit escape before letting go the mouse to cancel taking a screenshot. The widths of the ports might be out by a pixel but there's no mistake that the MBA pictured is bigger by a significant amount. ... It has no hard drive though. Apple can make the motherboard any size they want and they have to make it bigger to get it to reach the other side of the machine to put a USB port on the other side....
I guess it can be argued either way and we'll find out soon enough, but when I put the pictures over the top of each other and resize the Air so as to have the ports come out the same size, the Air comes out smaller and looks to me to be 9" or so across the top. Even if I'm off by about 10 or 20% that means the picture is still of an 11.6"Air and not a 13.3" Air.
The motherboard also does seem to take up a larger percentage of the area inside the chassis than the current one. I took two of the current Airs apart just a couple of weeks ago and the motherboards are very tiny. It makes sense that this is a picture of an 11.6" Air, because the smaller size of the chassis would mean the motherboard would take up more area inside it, just as we see in the picture.
I guess it can be argued either way and we'll find out soon enough, but when I put the pictures over the top of each other and resize the Air so as to have the ports come out the same size, the Air comes out smaller and looks to me to be 9" or so across the top. Even if I'm off by about 10 or 20% that means the picture is still of an 11.6"Air and not a 13.3" Air.
I aligned them side by side here:
The ratio of the dimensions is around 1.1 although the bezel on the HP is bigger. 11.6 x 1.1 = 12.8". Given the smaller bezel on the MBA, the closest option is 13.3".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
The motherboard also does seem to take up a larger percentage of the area inside the chassis than the current one.
Weren't they using mini Core 2 Duo chips or something? Maybe they just decided to use standard lower cost Core 2 Duo chips.
Weren't they using mini Core 2 Duo chips or something? Maybe they just decided to use standard lower cost Core 2 Duo chips.
If by mini, you mean SFF, it’s the SFF ULVs that made these ultra-portables possible. I don’t see Apple, a company focused on smaller components to change that.
If by mini, you mean SFF, it’s the SFF ULVs that made these ultra-portables possible. I don’t see Apple, a company focused on smaller components to change that.
Yeah, the custom built SFF chips, not standard ULV ones but shrunken LV chips:
The chip sizes in the pictures look the same so it seems they will probably use the exact same ones. I don't think the motherboard is any bigger. The old one looks taller and the new one wider.
The new design looks a lot cleaner than the old one. It also looks like they are going to try and avoid cheating so much with the tapering. The Macbook Air is really 0.76" thick. Without the hard drive, I reckon they can get that to about 0.5", probably just slightly over. It might still taper to the front though. I like the idea of it having no tapering, just 0.5" height all the way round although it might not look the same coming out of a manilla envelope.
The chip sizes in the pictures look the same so it seems they will probably use the exact same ones. I don't think the motherboard is any bigger. The old one looks taller and the new one wider.
The new design looks a lot cleaner than the old one. It also looks like they are going to try and avoid cheating so much with the tapering. The Macbook Air is really 0.76" thick. Without the hard drive, I reckon they can get that to about 0.5", probably just slightly over. It might still taper to the front though. I like the idea of it having no tapering, just 0.5" height all the way round although it might not look the same coming out of a manilla envelope.
I think that makes the most sense. I am actually a fan of the first Dell Adamo. They made it thin and durable while still allowing it to be thick enough for ports. Too bad Apple didn’t engineer it , they could have gotten more into that space.
The 2nd Adamo is completely arsed up. They made it cool looking for a sci-fi film. but it’s impractical.
Anyone confident of the ports on this prototype? To me, it looks like on left from top to bottom it’s mDP, USB, SD Card, and right top to bottom it’s MagSafe, USB, audio in/out jack (under board).
I am actually a fan of the first Dell Adamo. They made it thin and durable while still allowing it to be thick enough for ports.
I think it does look quite nice being squared off but seeing it here shows that it does lose that thin perception a fair bit without the tapering:
Not that I particularly care about the thin aspect personally but it might go against the marketing a little.
Eventually, I reckon all the laptops will go this way but 4 USB 3/Light Peak ports. I was hoping this generation would be the one to drop the MBA and make a thin Macbook but it's another couple of years away. 8GB soldered RAM, 512GB SSD card, 4 USB ports, quad CPU with fused GPU and there's not much to expect after that except a progression towards ReRAM or similar merging RAM and SSD:
Yeah, I agree that is by far one of the most hideous laptops I've ever seen and you can't really use it comfortably on your lap. It wouldn't burn your lap at least but not comfortable regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Anyone confident of the ports on this prototype? To me, it looks like on left from top to bottom it?s mDP, USB, SD Card, and right top to bottom it?s MagSafe, USB, audio in/out jack (under board).
The new design looks a lot cleaner than the old one. It also looks like they are going to try and avoid cheating so much with the tapering. The Macbook Air is really 0.76" thick. Without the hard drive, I reckon they can get that to about 0.5", probably just slightly over. It might still taper to the front though. I like the idea of it having no tapering.
The tapering shape is what makes the Air. I owned one and loved the tapered-design.
The one thing I hated - the trapdoor - they are changing, thankfully. It really was a nightmare from a practicality standpoint. Most USB sticks wouldn't even fit. It was cool in a sort of MacGyver way, but stupid when you owned one.
Comments
This topic keeps cropping up - Apple's development of products seemingly frustrated and limited by available bandwidth.
When the iPhone and iGreed were simultaneously introduced, where Apple sought a share of the ongoing connection/subscription revenue, I thought that Apple should just build/buy and operate it's own telecoms network with a near worldwide presence - like Vodafone. That way they could provide as much iBandwidth as necessary for the devices they sell, and milk the connection charges at the same time.
Apple needs to develop and operate their own iNet and do the vertical integration tango properly, rather than by proxy through 'deals.'
I wonder if AAPL's cash reserves would stretch to that? :-) That would give Apple proper end to end control of the flagship product.
A lot to ask for from the form factor? Maybe, but I think dropping 2G more ram would make a lot of difference for most pros trying to use this machine.
Ah the mythical pros. Someone supposedly photographed a pro once but it turned out to be a photoshop job. They justify all the desires of a spec-whore because after all, they don't just want those features they *need* them.
People who depend on RAM-intensive apps will use the Macbook Pro anyway with 8GB RAM if they use a laptop at all and wouldn't be doing their main work on an ultra-portable.
It's true that one browser + kernel + IGP VRAM can use up 1GB RAM so opening up Parallels/VMWare on 2GB can start paging but machines I've seen running on 2GB get by pretty smoothly if you don't open 3 or 4 big apps at once and if they get the MBA SSD up to >200MB/s write, it will swap that memory out in the blink of an eye.
The more memory the better of course but it's always a cost balance. Do they put in 4GB and bump up the price by $100? Do they give you 4GB in this revision and then try to sell the next revision with 8GB but fail because you have everything you need?
They ship Mac Minis with 2GB so they obviously still see that as a reasonable amount of RAM. In a $1500 machine, you'd probably expect a bit more but they do it with everything. There was no reason to ship the iPad with 256MB RAM when the iPhone that came out 3-4 months later had double that in it, other than holding back the features to ensure an upgrade cycle. If a company sells you everything you want today, they can't sell you something else tomorrow.
All manufacturers are scared of hitting that end-game scenario where a consumer gets 1TB of non-volatile RAM paired with a >8-core CPU and a fused GPU capable of photoreal graphics in real-time that lasts 24 hours on battery at full load and a multi-touch IPS display in a MBA form-factor weighing under 2lbs because what comes next? After that, it's not about the product itself any more.
When you match the USB port size, it's quite clear that the pictured MBA is bigger. There's some perspective distortion so the measurements come out slightly lower at 12.5"....
I did the same thing in Photoshop and it came out that the MacBook Air is significantly smaller all around, so it's still debatable if you ask me.
Another thing to consider is that this isn't a 13" macBook Air by any means since if it was, the motherboard would be much bigger than the one in the current MacBook Air and motherboards don't just grow in size like that. My conclusion again is that this is a significantly smaller device than the current Air, possibly about 9" in the long dimension.
Why? What do you think you will need more ram for? I have used the air and it runs very well.
I wouldn't say they run "very well," but I would agree that the bottleneck is definitely the IO and the processor, not the RAM.
The more memory the better of course but it's always a cost balance. Do they put in 4GB and bump up the price by $100? Do they give you 4GB in this revision and then try to sell the next revision with 8GB but fail because you have everything you need?
They ship Mac Minis with 2GB so they obviously still see that as a reasonable amount of RAM. In a $1500 machine, you'd probably expect a bit more but they do it with everything.
Even with Apple's profit margins, I doubt going from 2 GB to 4 GB would add more than about $50. Sell it as a BTO options for $100 and Apple just made another $50 in profit. The problem is not selling a base model with 2 GB, it is not being able to upgrade it. By not allowing BTO RAM additions, Apple just cuts themselves out of some part of the market. Maybe they do it deliberately because they have higher profit margins on the 13" MBP.
Shame about mini-displayPort. I wish they'd get over it.
Nothing to get over, it's a fantastic thing. Adapters to all known outputs, dirt cheap - even an HDMI with sound out on the market for less than £15. Any other connector is going to be limited.
I did the same thing in Photoshop and it came out that the MacBook Air is significantly smaller all around, so it's still debatable if you ask me.
I posted an overlay picture. You can measure the USB ports using shift-command-4 and drag over each port. Hit escape before letting go the mouse to cancel taking a screenshot. The widths of the ports might be out by a pixel but there's no mistake that the MBA pictured is bigger by a significant amount.
Another thing to consider is that this isn't a 13" macBook Air by any means since if it was, the motherboard would be much bigger than the one in the current MacBook Air and motherboards don't just grow in size like that. My conclusion again is that this is a significantly smaller device than the current Air, possibly about 9" in the long dimension.
It has no hard drive though. Apple can make the motherboard any size they want and they have to make it bigger to get it to reach the other side of the machine to put a USB port on the other side.
It looks about the same to me, the new one is just much neater as they don't need thermal sensors, sata cables and a big block allocated for the HDD.
Even with Apple's profit margins, I doubt going from 2 GB to 4 GB would add more than about $50. Sell it as a BTO options for $100 and Apple just made another $50 in profit.
They can't add more chips though due to the space so they'd have to use 4gbit chips, which are more expensive. Not as bad as they used to be but there's still an $87 difference between Crucial's 2GB and 4GB DIMMs using the higher density chips.
What they could do is put 4GB on the faster CPU model. So the pictured 1.83GHz model could be 2GB with 128GB SSD and the 2.13GHz model could be 4GB with 256GB SSD with a $300 upgrade price. That would certainly make the higher up model a more compelling upgrade.
All manufacturers are scared of hitting that end-game scenario where a consumer gets 1TB of non-volatile RAM paired with a >8-core CPU and a fused GPU capable of photoreal graphics in real-time that lasts 24 hours on battery at full load and a multi-touch IPS display in a MBA form-factor weighing under 2lbs because what comes next? After that, it's not about the product itself any more.
This is why Apple changed the game by coming out with the tablet. If you look at the iMac, other than gamers, why would anyone (non-"pro") need better specifications? iMac at 27" and 1TB 4GB of RAM, not much more they can go with that other than just beefing up the specs.
Once you take out the HDD space and just put a stick of SSD chips, you can shrink the whole thing down to 11.6".
As you mention, 1.83GHz model could be 2GB with 128GB SSD and the 2.13GHz model could be 4GB with 256GB SSD.
I think that will be at 11.6" or thereabouts 1280x800 screen.
Apple did at one point have the very popular PowerBook G4 12" and iBook G4 12", as we all (well most of us "oldies") know.
A powerful but thin and light 12" or so notebook or sub-notebook or whatever, is quite possible. There'd be people that would grab 'em.
Heck, I'd do it if I didn't carry a whole bag of cables, notebook lock, charger, mic, video adapters etc. for my presentations.
And if I had a proper desktop external screen in the retail outlet where my training table is.
This MacBook Air is going to be the new portable powerhouse. 12" (or thereabouts) 1280x800 LED-backlit, $1,099 for the 1.86ghz 2GB RAM 128GB SSD.
Better battery tech and smaller screen and no spinning HDD should give 8 to 10 hours. Obviously the battery won't be in separate blocks like the picture of the prototype, assuming those blocks are the battery.
Mah current feelings at this stage...
It looks about the same to me, the new one is just much neater as they don't need thermal sensors, sata cables and a big block allocated for the HDD.
Looking at the pic below, I can see how a Core 2 Duo 17W CPU with 320M graphics could sit in there in a 11.6" form factor.
Once you take out the HDD space and just put a stick of SSD chips, you can shrink the whole thing down to 11.6".
As you mention, 1.83GHz model could be 2GB with 128GB SSD and the 2.13GHz model could be 4GB with 256GB SSD.
I think that will be at 11.6" or thereabouts 1280x800 screen.
Apple did at one point have the very popular PowerBook G4 12" and iBook G4 12", as we all (well most of us "oldies") know.
A powerful but thin and light 12" or so notebook or sub-notebook or whatever, is quite possible. There'd be people that would grab 'em.
Heck, I'd do it if I didn't carry a whole bag of cables, notebook lock, charger, mic, video adapters etc. for my presentations.
And if I had a proper desktop external screen in the retail outlet where my training table is.
This MacBook Air is going to be the new portable powerhouse. 12" (or thereabouts) 1280x800 LED-backlit, $1,099 for the 1.86ghz 2GB RAM 128GB SSD.
Mah current feelings at this stage...
1) Additional storage is one of those things that one may or may not need when they do need more performance. For this reason I can see this proprietary mini-PCIe(?) card having both multiple storage options for the 2 basic CPU/RAM configurations.
2) If they are getting rid of the trapdoor that means the edges are thicker, which means there will likely be more volume for the battery, especially for the same size footprint. For me, this is an important aspect if I?m even going to consider this machine. It has to be at least as long as the current MacBook and hopefully ≥50% more.
2) If they are getting rid of the trapdoor that means the edges are thicker, which means there will likely be more volume for the battery, especially for the same size footprint. For me, this is an important aspect if I?m even going to consider this machine. It has to be at least as long as the current MacBook and hopefully ≥50% more.
I think Apple will have to shoot for 8 to 10 hours of battery life. That's the only range that makes sense given all their offerings and how they are going to market this 12" sub/notebook.
I do agree if they are going for a wedge rather than so much curves they could fit more battery in it.
I think fighting for "thinnest and lightest notebook ever" is kinda over since there's so many competitors out there that claim to be so. Apple may still spin it as "thinnest and lightest full-featured portable" or who knows what. Or given their engineering genius it could be thinnest this-or-that somehow... LOL
I posted an overlay picture. You can measure the USB ports using shift-command-4 and drag over each port. Hit escape before letting go the mouse to cancel taking a screenshot. The widths of the ports might be out by a pixel but there's no mistake that the MBA pictured is bigger by a significant amount. ... It has no hard drive though. Apple can make the motherboard any size they want and they have to make it bigger to get it to reach the other side of the machine to put a USB port on the other side....
I guess it can be argued either way and we'll find out soon enough, but when I put the pictures over the top of each other and resize the Air so as to have the ports come out the same size, the Air comes out smaller and looks to me to be 9" or so across the top. Even if I'm off by about 10 or 20% that means the picture is still of an 11.6"Air and not a 13.3" Air.
The motherboard also does seem to take up a larger percentage of the area inside the chassis than the current one. I took two of the current Airs apart just a couple of weeks ago and the motherboards are very tiny. It makes sense that this is a picture of an 11.6" Air, because the smaller size of the chassis would mean the motherboard would take up more area inside it, just as we see in the picture.
I guess it can be argued either way and we'll find out soon enough, but when I put the pictures over the top of each other and resize the Air so as to have the ports come out the same size, the Air comes out smaller and looks to me to be 9" or so across the top. Even if I'm off by about 10 or 20% that means the picture is still of an 11.6"Air and not a 13.3" Air.
I aligned them side by side here:
The ratio of the dimensions is around 1.1 although the bezel on the HP is bigger. 11.6 x 1.1 = 12.8". Given the smaller bezel on the MBA, the closest option is 13.3".
The motherboard also does seem to take up a larger percentage of the area inside the chassis than the current one.
Weren't they using mini Core 2 Duo chips or something? Maybe they just decided to use standard lower cost Core 2 Duo chips.
Weren't they using mini Core 2 Duo chips or something? Maybe they just decided to use standard lower cost Core 2 Duo chips.
If by mini, you mean SFF, it’s the SFF ULVs that made these ultra-portables possible. I don’t see Apple, a company focused on smaller components to change that.
If by mini, you mean SFF, it’s the SFF ULVs that made these ultra-portables possible. I don’t see Apple, a company focused on smaller components to change that.
Yeah, the custom built SFF chips, not standard ULV ones but shrunken LV chips:
http://www.anandtech.com/print/2420
The chip sizes in the pictures look the same so it seems they will probably use the exact same ones. I don't think the motherboard is any bigger. The old one looks taller and the new one wider.
The new design looks a lot cleaner than the old one. It also looks like they are going to try and avoid cheating so much with the tapering. The Macbook Air is really 0.76" thick. Without the hard drive, I reckon they can get that to about 0.5", probably just slightly over. It might still taper to the front though. I like the idea of it having no tapering, just 0.5" height all the way round although it might not look the same coming out of a manilla envelope.
Yeah, the custom built SFF chips, not standard ULV ones but shrunken LV chips:
http://www.anandtech.com/print/2420
The chip sizes in the pictures look the same so it seems they will probably use the exact same ones. I don't think the motherboard is any bigger. The old one looks taller and the new one wider.
Ah, yes. SFF LV, not ULV.
image: http://i56.tinypic.com/24l0oj5.jpg
The new design looks a lot cleaner than the old one. It also looks like they are going to try and avoid cheating so much with the tapering. The Macbook Air is really 0.76" thick. Without the hard drive, I reckon they can get that to about 0.5", probably just slightly over. It might still taper to the front though. I like the idea of it having no tapering, just 0.5" height all the way round although it might not look the same coming out of a manilla envelope.
I think that makes the most sense. I am actually a fan of the first Dell Adamo. They made it thin and durable while still allowing it to be thick enough for ports. Too bad Apple didn’t engineer it , they could have gotten more into that space. The 2nd Adamo is completely arsed up. They made it cool looking for a sci-fi film. but it’s impractical.
I am actually a fan of the first Dell Adamo. They made it thin and durable while still allowing it to be thick enough for ports.
I think it does look quite nice being squared off but seeing it here shows that it does lose that thin perception a fair bit without the tapering:
Not that I particularly care about the thin aspect personally but it might go against the marketing a little.
Eventually, I reckon all the laptops will go this way but 4 USB 3/Light Peak ports. I was hoping this generation would be the one to drop the MBA and make a thin Macbook but it's another couple of years away. 8GB soldered RAM, 512GB SSD card, 4 USB ports, quad CPU with fused GPU and there's not much to expect after that except a progression towards ReRAM or similar merging RAM and SSD:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/e...-the-speed-of/
The 2nd Adamo is completely arsed up.
Yeah, I agree that is by far one of the most hideous laptops I've ever seen and you can't really use it comfortably on your lap. It wouldn't burn your lap at least but not comfortable regardless.
Anyone confident of the ports on this prototype? To me, it looks like on left from top to bottom it?s mDP, USB, SD Card, and right top to bottom it?s MagSafe, USB, audio in/out jack (under board).
Yeah, I'd say that's most likely.
The new design looks a lot cleaner than the old one. It also looks like they are going to try and avoid cheating so much with the tapering. The Macbook Air is really 0.76" thick. Without the hard drive, I reckon they can get that to about 0.5", probably just slightly over. It might still taper to the front though. I like the idea of it having no tapering.
The tapering shape is what makes the Air. I owned one and loved the tapered-design.
The one thing I hated - the trapdoor - they are changing, thankfully. It really was a nightmare from a practicality standpoint. Most USB sticks wouldn't even fit. It was cool in a sort of MacGyver way, but stupid when you owned one.