You need not be concerned about any perceived fragility that you believe the MBA has. Structurally, it's a tank. I recently retired my 2008 MBA with the new 13" MBA and it is just as sturdy and solid as my original one. The aluminum construction is strong, does not flex, and I'm totally happy with the unit's quality.
It's the PC-makers with their cheap plastic housings that you should really be concerned with. At least Apple cares about what's on the outside as well as what's in the inside.
Thanks for the feedback on that. A few other forum members have reassured me it's well built as well. I'll have take another look.
One quibble though: Your photo of a 'Powerbook 100' is actually a Powerbook 140.
An easy way to tell is to look at the brightness and contrast controls. The Powerbook 100 had two circular dials, the 140 had two horizontal sliders and the Powerbook 170 (active matrix) had a single brightness slider.
Am I the only one that noticed and is amused that they used a mockup picture of the unibody macbook pro instead of an actual photo? Me thinks the person responsible searched the web and found a photo they THOUGHT was of the actual product . Most obvious: The optical drive is on the front.
Yes, I noticed that. You would have thought the Apple.com website would have been a good source for a picture of a current device.
I don't think we'll see a strictly faster pace in 2011-2015 (compared with the rest of the tech world) based on what we saw comparing the first and 2nd halves of this decade*.
*For the nitpickers, yes I'm aware the decade was technically 2000-2009
The decade would actually be 2001-2010 just as 2001 was the beginning of the new millennium?not 2000. The last century was the 20th century; it ended in 2000.
I just want to know how many 11? MacBook Airs (remembering the taper!) would fit into a Mac Portable:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Underhill
I still have a G4 iBook running tiger and still going strong. Feels huge and clunky compared to our 2010 MacBook. Mind you it's still thinner than some of the bricks still on the shelves in PC World.
Having said that I hope Apple don't try and go thinner with the Air. I tried one and it felt somewhat fragile in my hands. Put me off buying one.
Better viewing angle than some of the latest Dells too! My friend got a Dell less than a year ago and I?m shocked at how you basically can?t see the screen if you?re standing above it (say, if you?d been working on the floor and stand up).
One quibble though: Your photo of a 'Powerbook 100' is actually a Powerbook 140.
An easy way to tell is to look at the brightness and contrast controls. The Powerbook 100 had two circular dials, the 140 had two horizontal sliders and the Powerbook 170 (active matrix) had a single brightness slider.
Yes, not only that but the PowerBook 100 was mostly irrelevant. In most history or timelines, people put the 100 at the beginning, but in reality the PowerBook 140 and 170 were developed first, all though all three were announced and released at the same time. The 140 and 170 were game changers and sold very well, but the Sony designed PowerBook 100 lacked the floppy drive and other features which resulted in it being a failure.
I think it is a good article because it is good to reflect from time to time. On the hardware side the rate of progress from 2005 is impressive, especially considering the often voiced complaints Apple is somehow abandoning the Mac. That is a reflection of Apple's position today and its ability to invest. I do think on the software side though on the Mac the rate of progress has slowed down.
In 2000 we were running Mac OS 9:
And in 2005 we had the landmark release of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger:
And we enter 2011 with 2007's Leopard polished up a bit:
If you ignore aesthetics and the GUI, a lot of core technologies went in between 2000-2005. And the development of Mac OS X from 2001 (Jaguar) to 2003 (Panther) was just incredible given Apple's position at the time.
The decade would actually be 2001-2010 just as 2001 was the beginning of the new millennium?not 2000. The last century was the 20th century; it ended in 2000.
So the 1980s started in 1981? 2000 was the end of a second set of 1000 years so yes, 2001 was the beginning of the next millenium, but decades start in the 0 not the 1.
If you ignore aesthetics and the GUI, a lot of core technologies went in between 2000-2005. And the development of Mac OS X from 2001 (Jaguar) to 2003 (Panther) was just incredible given Apple's position at the time.
Yes, that is why I said recently the progress since 2007 or so has been limited. AAPL is doing many things, but progress in GUI for computers has ground to a standstill, pretty much. As have iLife, etc.
The progress in 2000-2003 was so fast, it was clear Apple was on a perfectionistic roll. I bought stock then.
So the 1980s started in 1981? 2000 was the end of a second set of 1000 years so yes, 2001 was the beginning of the next millenium, but decades start in the 0 not the 1.
Assuming Mr. Christ died at moment 0, and "1" signified the first anniversary of his death, the first decade was over on new year's eve of the year 10. Exactly 10 years had passed. Similarly, 2000 years had passed (in simplified terms) on New Year's Eve, 1999-2000.
So, all the nerdy "experts" on this failed second grade math... they're wrong, and the general public is right, IMO. The 2010s began about 11.33 months ago.
Assuming Mr. Christ died at moment 0, and "1" signified the first anniversary of his death, the first decade was over on new year's eve of the year 10. Exactly 10 years had passed. Similarly, 2000 years had passed (in simplified terms) on New Year's Eve, 1999-2000.
So, all the nerdy "experts" on this failed second grade math... they're wrong, and the general public is right, IMO. The 2010s began about 11.33 months ago.
I think A.D (and by association C.E.) references Jesus? birth.
I suppose it makes sense if they were labelling the years instead of counting them, if you get my drift.
There have plenty of jokes about it. Something like...
"What year is this?"
"Negative 4"
"Negative 4? What happens at zero?"
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Birth of Christ:Collector's Edition?
LOL Something like that.
A.D. Specifically refers to Christ'd birth, but most of the world isn't Christian, so Current Era and Before Current Era were created to be more universal, even though the yer hasn't changed. I'm sure Wikipedia has a lot more and better info.
Assuming Mr. Christ died at moment 0, and "1" signified the first anniversary of his death, ...
The Gregorian calendar, observed by most of the world Christian or otherwise, counts the years since His birth, not His crucifixion.
Scholars place the birth of Christ at somewhere between 6 BC and 6 AD. Determining the date of Christ's crucifixion is easier to determine, since Pontius Pilate did not hold his position until 26 AD. Most accounts place the event at about 33 AD.
Comments
You need not be concerned about any perceived fragility that you believe the MBA has. Structurally, it's a tank. I recently retired my 2008 MBA with the new 13" MBA and it is just as sturdy and solid as my original one. The aluminum construction is strong, does not flex, and I'm totally happy with the unit's quality.
It's the PC-makers with their cheap plastic housings that you should really be concerned with. At least Apple cares about what's on the outside as well as what's in the inside.
Thanks for the feedback on that. A few other forum members have reassured me it's well built as well. I'll have take another look.
These are DED articles I like.
Me too!
One quibble though: Your photo of a 'Powerbook 100' is actually a Powerbook 140.
An easy way to tell is to look at the brightness and contrast controls. The Powerbook 100 had two circular dials, the 140 had two horizontal sliders and the Powerbook 170 (active matrix) had a single brightness slider.
Am I the only one that noticed and is amused that they used a mockup picture of the unibody macbook pro instead of an actual photo? Me thinks the person responsible searched the web and found a photo they THOUGHT was of the actual product
Yes, I noticed that. You would have thought the Apple.com website would have been a good source for a picture of a current device.
Article said:
I don't think we'll see a strictly faster pace in 2011-2015 (compared with the rest of the tech world) based on what we saw comparing the first and 2nd halves of this decade*.
*For the nitpickers, yes I'm aware the decade was technically 2000-2009
The decade would actually be 2001-2010 just as 2001 was the beginning of the new millennium?not 2000. The last century was the 20th century; it ended in 2000.
I still have a G4 iBook running tiger and still going strong. Feels huge and clunky compared to our 2010 MacBook. Mind you it's still thinner than some of the bricks still on the shelves in PC World.
Having said that I hope Apple don't try and go thinner with the Air. I tried one and it felt somewhat fragile in my hands. Put me off buying one.
Better viewing angle than some of the latest Dells too! My friend got a Dell less than a year ago and I?m shocked at how you basically can?t see the screen if you?re standing above it (say, if you?d been working on the floor and stand up).
Thanks for the nice retrospective!
One quibble though: Your photo of a 'Powerbook 100' is actually a Powerbook 140.
An easy way to tell is to look at the brightness and contrast controls. The Powerbook 100 had two circular dials, the 140 had two horizontal sliders and the Powerbook 170 (active matrix) had a single brightness slider.
Yes, not only that but the PowerBook 100 was mostly irrelevant. In most history or timelines, people put the 100 at the beginning, but in reality the PowerBook 140 and 170 were developed first, all though all three were announced and released at the same time. The 140 and 170 were game changers and sold very well, but the Sony designed PowerBook 100 lacked the floppy drive and other features which resulted in it being a failure.
In 2000 we were running Mac OS 9:
And in 2005 we had the landmark release of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger:
And we enter 2011 with 2007's Leopard polished up a bit:
If you ignore aesthetics and the GUI, a lot of core technologies went in between 2000-2005. And the development of Mac OS X from 2001 (Jaguar) to 2003 (Panther) was just incredible given Apple's position at the time.
The decade would actually be 2001-2010 just as 2001 was the beginning of the new millennium?not 2000. The last century was the 20th century; it ended in 2000.
So the 1980s started in 1981? 2000 was the end of a second set of 1000 years so yes, 2001 was the beginning of the next millenium, but decades start in the 0 not the 1.
If you ignore aesthetics and the GUI, a lot of core technologies went in between 2000-2005. And the development of Mac OS X from 2001 (Jaguar) to 2003 (Panther) was just incredible given Apple's position at the time.
Yes, that is why I said recently the progress since 2007 or so has been limited. AAPL is doing many things, but progress in GUI for computers has ground to a standstill, pretty much. As have iLife, etc.
The progress in 2000-2003 was so fast, it was clear Apple was on a perfectionistic roll. I bought stock then.
So the 1980s started in 1981? 2000 was the end of a second set of 1000 years so yes, 2001 was the beginning of the next millenium, but decades start in the 0 not the 1.
Assuming Mr. Christ died at moment 0, and "1" signified the first anniversary of his death, the first decade was over on new year's eve of the year 10. Exactly 10 years had passed. Similarly, 2000 years had passed (in simplified terms) on New Year's Eve, 1999-2000.
So, all the nerdy "experts" on this failed second grade math... they're wrong, and the general public is right, IMO. The 2010s began about 11.33 months ago.
Assuming Mr. Christ died at moment 0, and "1" signified the first anniversary of his death, the first decade was over on new year's eve of the year 10. Exactly 10 years had passed. Similarly, 2000 years had passed (in simplified terms) on New Year's Eve, 1999-2000.
So, all the nerdy "experts" on this failed second grade math... they're wrong, and the general public is right, IMO. The 2010s began about 11.33 months ago.
I think A.D (and by association C.E.) references Jesus? birth.
Assuming Mr. Christ died at moment 0, and "1" signified the first anniversary of his death
Nope... there was no year zero. For some bizarre reason they started counting at 1.
Nope... there was no year zero. For some bizarre reason they started counting at 1.
Crazy how they started the 1st year at 1. It seems so random.
Crazy how they started the 1st year at 1. It seems so random.
I suppose it makes sense if they were labelling the years instead of counting them, if you get my drift.
I think A.D (and by association C.E.) references Jesus? birth.
Birth of Christ:Collector's Edition?
I suppose it makes sense if they were labelling the years instead of counting them, if you get my drift.
There have plenty of jokes about it. Something like...
"What year is this?"
"Negative 4"
"Negative 4? What happens at zero?"
...
Birth of Christ:Collector's Edition?
LOL Something like that.
A.D. Specifically refers to Christ'd birth, but most of the world isn't Christian, so Current Era and Before Current Era were created to be more universal, even though the yer hasn't changed. I'm sure Wikipedia has a lot more and better info.
Assuming Mr. Christ died at moment 0, and "1" signified the first anniversary of his death, ...
The Gregorian calendar, observed by most of the world Christian or otherwise, counts the years since His birth, not His crucifixion.
Scholars place the birth of Christ at somewhere between 6 BC and 6 AD. Determining the date of Christ's crucifixion is easier to determine, since Pontius Pilate did not hold his position until 26 AD. Most accounts place the event at about 33 AD.