I don't believe an 8 or 16GB SSD is nearly enough for MacOS X.
On my MBP /System is 4.95GB and /Library is 14.19 GB. That's over 19GB already.
Other core features like /bin, /sbin, /preferences and the Mach kernel are much smaller. They collectively weigh in at less than 100MB.
The hidden directories /private and /usr come in at 5.65GB and 2.32GB respectively. I don't know whether they're mostly user or system data, but presumably they're stored at the root for a good reason.
If you add things like OS level caches to the mix it seems pretty easy to fill 32GB without installing a single application, even the ones that come bundled with every Mac.
Just for reference my MBP has 8.48GB worth of /Applications and 12.19GB in /Developer. If I wanted all those on my SSD then the minimum size would have to be 64GB.
This will just generate more hate on Apple. How can other manufacturers possibly keep their low price point while trying to keep at least appearance of in step with Apple on technology advancement? I can just see them foaming at the mouth right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I'll bet money if they do in fact incorporate an SSD primary drive for OS/Applications, the competitor's copy-machines will be right behind them doing the exact same thing. They are just waiting to see how Apple does it since it's cheaper for Apple to do it than having their own R&D department.
Before engaging in Apple cheerleading, you guys should read up on Intel's "Robson" / Turbo Memory technology which was introduced in 2005.
Count me as someone who also purchased the Seagate 500GB Momentus Hybrid drive for my MacBook Pro 13". I pulled the optical and put the Seagate drive there, while my original HDD bay holds a 1TB WD drive.
For me, I get incredibly fast speed, and tons of storage (1.5TB) and it was *cheap*.
I'd love to haves me some of that pure SSD goodness though. I'm just waiting for the price to come down.
I hadn't heard of hybrid drives before today, but after looking at a couple of youtube videos with people being very happy about replacing their MacBook hdds with a hybrid drive, I'm really looking forward to seeing how well it works when/if Apple implements the idea themselves.
--If I'd heard of such a thing without knowing that Apple might be formally making use of the idea in their next updates, I'd totally be on about doing this for my current MBP.
The SSD rumor shows a lack of understanding about how OS X works. It would effectively mean that you would be limited in the number of 3rd party apps you could install, since such programs use the system-wide Library folder. For example once Library/Applications Support maxes out, you would no longer be able to install any apps that require system-wide library files.
I could also see this setup confusing end users. "Where do I put my files?" "Which partition is which?" It would make much more sense for apple to go to some sort of SSD/HDD hybrid drive, where all the data is in one place and you don't have to deal with partitioning at all.
While SSD is the future (speed really IS awesome), apple has to be very careful in the way they roll it out. Right now, SSD speed is offset by the limited drive size. That difference will eventually go away, but for the moment what that means is that SSD is a great fit for some users while a poor fit for others.
If only Apple could get with the maker of Mac OS X to make the system completely seamless to the end user.
Your comment shows a lack of understanding about how Apple or OS X works. There is absolutely nothing in this rumour that says it?s as impossible as you suggest. In fact, it?s pretty easy for a company that controls the HW and OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
Before engaging in Apple cheerleading, you guys should read up on Intel's "Robson" / Turbo Memory technology which was introduced in 2005.
Unless the SSD is write locked, which is highly unlikely, it will have absolutely no impact on malware protection. The intent here is to simply provide a nice performance boost by putting frequently used system files on a drive that is faster than a traditional spinner, without taking the (perceived) write degradation hit of SSDs (limited lifetime write capability).
That's certainly how other companies use the technology.
Apple controls the hardware and the OS. They could certainly go down the path of locking OS X down the way they lock iOS down.
I don't think it will be immediate. This is just the first step. Like the proverbial frog in the slowly warming water.
Apple has every incentive in the world to make OS X more and more like iOS. Apple loves control.
has anyone stopped to think the 16gb SSD is for core osx files ands apps? only seeing as apple just launched the mac app store
I think most have realized that. Only the dissenters can?t seem to figure that out.
Since the whole Mac App Store is designed to be seamless and auto updates I would expect all apps that are installed with Mac OS X -and- through Mac App Store will be placed on the SSD, with all other app installs being put in a different folder, but still be called the Applications folder and look just like any other folder. This will also give the Mac App Store variants of an app an edge.
The only real question is what happens if you run out of room. This likely isn?t going to happen for most users (even now I only have 8GB of apps in my Applications folder, which includes mostly Mac OS X apps and the huge 1.32GB from MS Office which be on the Mac App Store for a long time to come).
But what if you do run out of room when downloading a large app from the Mac App Store? The same thing as any other setup, it won?t be able to install on that drive, except you get the added benefit of the app being installed on main storage drive (E.g., HDD) without the user ever knowing the difference unless they look at Get Info for some finer details. And that?s if Apple releases this with an update to Snow Leopard to allow for the segregation of Mac App Store apps from other apps and if it?s only 16GB, both which don?t have to happen for this to work.
why do people keep worrying about Apple locking down OS X? Apple developers need to develop from somewhere, and I don't think they about to lock down their own development platform..
My guess is that along with the OS being installed on the SSD, Safari, Mail, Preview, App Store, and iTunes will be as well.
Makes sense.
Either way, I'll be passing this update up. I just ordered a 320GB-7200RPM HDD for my original unibody MacBook... Gonna get as much as I can outta this baby! Maybe next year...
Smaller footprint. "Snow Leopard takes up less than half the disk space of the previous version, freeing about 7GB for you."
You can believe the marketing speak all you want. The core OS isn't just /System. You must include /Library and a bunch of directories and files that are normally kept hidden. I've already demonstrated how big those are on a real 10.6.6 installation.
Some of the bulk in /Library and the hidden directories comes from applications I've installed. Well guess what, everyone installs applications, even Apple themselves. All new Macs include a pre-installed copy of iLife that includes over 3GB of audio in /Library/Audio. Until they re-write the OS to stop mixing system and user files in the same directories, boot drives will have to be big enough to not only accommodate a full multi-lingual installation with all optional fonts, printer drivers and extras like Rosetta and X11, it will also have to reserve at least twice that much space for application support files, frameworks, documentation, dictionaries, package receipts, etc.
I'm betting the 64GB SSD found in the base model MacBook Air will find its way into every MacBook Pro.
You can believe the marketing speak all you want. The core OS isn't just /System. You must include /Library and a bunch of directories and files that are normally kept hidden. I've already demonstrated how big those are on a real 10.6.6 installation.
Some of the bulk in /Library and the hidden directories comes from applications I've installed. Well guess what, everyone installs applications, even Apple themselves. All new Macs include a pre-installed copy of iLife that includes over 3GB of audio in /Library/Audio. Until they re-write the OS to stop mixing system and user files in the same directories, boot drives will have to be big enough to not only accommodate a full multi-lingual installation with all optional fonts, printer drivers and extras like Rosetta and X11, it will also have to reserve at least twice that much space for application support files, frameworks, documentation, dictionaries, package receipts, etc.
I'm betting the 64GB SSD found in the base model MacBook Air will find its way into every MacBook Pro.
Actually, you don?t have to include /Library and the rest of a Mac OS X install from a Restore Disc.
What you?re suggesting is erroneous. You don?t have to have all those files on the same physical drive for the OS to work correctly. You don?t even need them all on the same partition, though there are surely ways to make multiple drives work as one logical partition.
All you have to do is put the files that would most benefit from the fast NAND on the NAND and code the OS to understand which files go where? just like files are stored in /Library and other places that connect with the application.
Are you saying that Apple couldn?t possibly devise an execute this feature that has already been done on a more simplistic level without the need of the OS being a key component to the underlying HW? I think they can.
Actually, you don?t have to include /Library and the rest of a Mac OS X install from a Restore Disc.
What you?re suggesting is erroneous. You don?t have to have all those files on the same physical drive for the OS to work correctly. You don?t even need them all on the same partition, though there are surely ways to make multiple drives work as one logical partition.
All you have to do is put the files that would most benefit from the fast NAND on the NAND and code the OS to understand which files go where? just like files are stored in /Library and other places that connect with the application.
Are you saying that Apple couldn?t possibly devise an execute this feature that has already been done on a more simplistic level without the need of the OS being a key component to the underlying HW? I think they can.
I'm sure that at some unspecified point in the future (perhaps as early as the release of 10.7 Lion) the system will be able to intelligently split directories across logical volumes. However, any new Mac released before that will have to cope with the way Snow Leopard and the current crop of applications work. That means dozens of GB getting tossed around the boot drive.
If this is true, it's probably similar to the Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid Drive with a 4GB SSD for cache, only better:
A few weeks ago I put a 500GB Momentus XT in my 2008 MBP, replacing a standard 7200rpm 500GB drive. It's has definitely speed up launching large apps like Photoshop, Lightroom, MS Word, etc...
Personally I'm such a fan of it's no-brainer automatic caching algorithms that I hope Apple uses the exact same thing even if the SSD much larger (32-64GB).
Apple could just use Unix mount points or symlinks to move or point system, library and applications to the SSD but that still seems messier and less efficient to the users than Seagate's approach.
Regardless of the implementation I'm buying one as long as Apple has in fact ditched the optical drive. I'm still hoping for USB3 and/or light peak as well, but for me the key is ditching the optical drive.
I'm sure that at some unspecified point in the future (perhaps as early as the release of 10.7 Lion) the system will be able to intelligently split directories across logical volumes. However, any new Mac released before that will have to cope with the way Snow Leopard and the current crop of applications work. That means dozens of GB getting tossed around the boot drive.
I don?t think i could have been clearer without actually showing you. Apple made provisions long ago for splitting applications, content data and support files across physical drives and logical partitions.
You can check it out yourself in System Preferences. Just go to Accounts, unlock it, right click on a primary user account and choose Advanced Options.
I followed another poster on this forum and removed my optical drive and installed a fast and small SSD for my boot drive and most applications and a large HDD for my user accounts, which includes my iTunes Library, my Library files and pretty much all content that Apps access after being launched from the SSD. I?ve never encounter even the slightest issue, but i have apps, like iTunes, that launch in a split second. Now imagine Apple designing the HW and OS around this for all their future notebooks.
I don't believe an 8 or 16GB SSD is nearly enough for MacOS X.
On my MBP /System is 4.95GB and /Library is 14.19 GB. That's over 19GB already.
Other core features like /bin, /sbin, /preferences and the Mach kernel are much smaller. They collectively weigh in at less than 100MB.
The hidden directories /private and /usr come in at 5.65GB and 2.32GB respectively. I don't know whether they're mostly user or system data, but presumably they're stored at the root for a good reason.
If you add things like OS level caches to the mix it seems pretty easy to fill 32GB without installing a single application, even the ones that come bundled with every Mac.
Just for reference my MBP has 8.48GB worth of /Applications and 12.19GB in /Developer. If I wanted all those on my SSD then the minimum size would have to be 64GB.
It would be just for the OS and some not very big apps (because of the base model price). 16 GB SSD would be great for all buying base models. You can still install big app on traditional HDD.
Another thing they could do would be to make "hibernate" the default "sleep" mode, and save the RAM image to the SSD. That would improve battery life and reduce the need for shutdowns.
I like this idea?the MB/MBP/MBA could "sleep" if you walk away from it for an hour (or whatever period of time you specified) and it could "hibernate" when you close the lid, thus using almost no power.
Now, if only they can find a way for batteries to hold their charge indefinitely, and not wear down over time. I've had my MB 13" (removable battery version) for a couple years, and I'm down to less than an hour on the battery. Sigh.
Quite simple really, this being a culmination of several other patents which have surfaced: the removal of the Function (top row) keys; although it may be premature for this to happen, which would provide more space for a higher trackpad. The patens showing a bezel which can control contrast and sound.
So, on my MacBook late 2007 I have an Escape key - well simply replace that keybeneath is... who uses "±" or "§"?!!! the next two are contrast, the next two are Hot Corner options with which to invoke Expose or Dashboard, the following two (F5 & F6) and empty, the remainder and music controls and then sound, which would be integrated into the Bazel and the final one would be Eject.
...Eject, well, what's the point in that if you have an SSD and traditional HDD taking up the room of the CD!
I'm pretty sure this will only happen in the future iterations of macs of which I would be pleased to find in part in this release.
I would like to see the abandonment of mechanical disc drives completely they are so out of vogue for a stylish device such as a mac and to make Toshiba blades common to all machines with up to 500gb(+ redundancy) cards to come, two ram cards and two blades (1tbt) easily user upgradeable in macbook pros double that of the Air, plus four ram cards and four ssd Blades (2tbt) in the iMac range on top of Flash for kernal and OS.
Apps and data would be comendably handled by ssd cards with software redesigned beyond the constraints and bottleneck of supporting legacy discdrives,
Battery life would be greatly extended noise levels virtually below human hearing and heat problem greatly reduced hence allowing the redesign of a slimer lighter more desireable case, in future we just won't need enormouse static capacity.
1 standard of connector lightpeak whatever its called fits all and SDXC cards for data libraryies where needed and streaming even HD videos with 5.1+ off my 1080p camera.
oh! and for us Pro users just incase anyone is listening anti reflective screen options are a must please.
And does anyone really need a tactile feedback keboard usage in tomorrows world, surely machines should be taking dictation by now and any correction could use virtual keyboards on a secondary glass lcd touchscreen keyboard with a multiple of programmable macro uses for varying apps and a stylas for artists, hey this may even catch on... well the iPad did. but please not a touch mainscreen, keep it clean.
and how far off is the iMac from replacing traditional TVs even though Apple "does not have an interest in that market" with the appleTV.
Super high speed internet is just round the corner within two years most will be looking at 50mbt/s connections over optical fiber and with that future cloud computing means our devices become elligent intelligent terminals rather than the hulking all computing service farm wired nightmare boxes of yesteryear where HD streaming will be the future for everyone and the internet will become unbroken video based instead of todays rather septically static infopage style with boring flash inserts.
Yes Apple may not burn its boats on the bleeding edge but what it does have is loads of future looking human user interface style, pity PCers seem to miss that point.
Comments
I don't believe an 8 or 16GB SSD is nearly enough for MacOS X.
On my MBP /System is 4.95GB and /Library is 14.19 GB. That's over 19GB already.
Other core features like /bin, /sbin, /preferences and the Mach kernel are much smaller. They collectively weigh in at less than 100MB.
The hidden directories /private and /usr come in at 5.65GB and 2.32GB respectively. I don't know whether they're mostly user or system data, but presumably they're stored at the root for a good reason.
If you add things like OS level caches to the mix it seems pretty easy to fill 32GB without installing a single application, even the ones that come bundled with every Mac.
Just for reference my MBP has 8.48GB worth of /Applications and 12.19GB in /Developer. If I wanted all those on my SSD then the minimum size would have to be 64GB.
Snow Leopard takes up 5-6GB. From http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/:
Smaller footprint. "Snow Leopard takes up less than half the disk space of the previous version, freeing about 7GB for you."
This will just generate more hate on Apple. How can other manufacturers possibly keep their low price point while trying to keep at least appearance of in step with Apple on technology advancement? I can just see them foaming at the mouth right now.
I'll bet money if they do in fact incorporate an SSD primary drive for OS/Applications, the competitor's copy-machines will be right behind them doing the exact same thing. They are just waiting to see how Apple does it since it's cheaper for Apple to do it than having their own R&D department.
Before engaging in Apple cheerleading, you guys should read up on Intel's "Robson" / Turbo Memory technology which was introduced in 2005.
http://www.intel.com/design/flash/na...mory/index.htm
For me, I get incredibly fast speed, and tons of storage (1.5TB) and it was *cheap*.
I'd love to haves me some of that pure SSD goodness though. I'm just waiting for the price to come down.
--If I'd heard of such a thing without knowing that Apple might be formally making use of the idea in their next updates, I'd totally be on about doing this for my current MBP.
The SSD rumor shows a lack of understanding about how OS X works. It would effectively mean that you would be limited in the number of 3rd party apps you could install, since such programs use the system-wide Library folder. For example once Library/Applications Support maxes out, you would no longer be able to install any apps that require system-wide library files.
I could also see this setup confusing end users. "Where do I put my files?" "Which partition is which?" It would make much more sense for apple to go to some sort of SSD/HDD hybrid drive, where all the data is in one place and you don't have to deal with partitioning at all.
While SSD is the future (speed really IS awesome), apple has to be very careful in the way they roll it out. Right now, SSD speed is offset by the limited drive size. That difference will eventually go away, but for the moment what that means is that SSD is a great fit for some users while a poor fit for others.
If only Apple could get with the maker of Mac OS X to make the system completely seamless to the end user.
Your comment shows a lack of understanding about how Apple or OS X works. There is absolutely nothing in this rumour that says it?s as impossible as you suggest. In fact, it?s pretty easy for a company that controls the HW and OS.
Before engaging in Apple cheerleading, you guys should read up on Intel's "Robson" / Turbo Memory technology which was introduced in 2005.
http://www.intel.com/design/flash/na...mory/index.htm
Did you read the article or just have zero understanding of the technologies? They are not the same thing!
Unless the SSD is write locked, which is highly unlikely, it will have absolutely no impact on malware protection. The intent here is to simply provide a nice performance boost by putting frequently used system files on a drive that is faster than a traditional spinner, without taking the (perceived) write degradation hit of SSDs (limited lifetime write capability).
That's certainly how other companies use the technology.
Apple controls the hardware and the OS. They could certainly go down the path of locking OS X down the way they lock iOS down.
I don't think it will be immediate. This is just the first step. Like the proverbial frog in the slowly warming water.
Apple has every incentive in the world to make OS X more and more like iOS. Apple loves control.
has anyone stopped to think the 16gb SSD is for core osx files ands apps? only seeing as apple just launched the mac app store
I think most have realized that. Only the dissenters can?t seem to figure that out.
Since the whole Mac App Store is designed to be seamless and auto updates I would expect all apps that are installed with Mac OS X -and- through Mac App Store will be placed on the SSD, with all other app installs being put in a different folder, but still be called the Applications folder and look just like any other folder. This will also give the Mac App Store variants of an app an edge.
The only real question is what happens if you run out of room. This likely isn?t going to happen for most users (even now I only have 8GB of apps in my Applications folder, which includes mostly Mac OS X apps and the huge 1.32GB from MS Office which be on the Mac App Store for a long time to come).
But what if you do run out of room when downloading a large app from the Mac App Store? The same thing as any other setup, it won?t be able to install on that drive, except you get the added benefit of the app being installed on main storage drive (E.g., HDD) without the user ever knowing the difference unless they look at Get Info for some finer details. And that?s if Apple releases this with an update to Snow Leopard to allow for the segregation of Mac App Store apps from other apps and if it?s only 16GB, both which don?t have to happen for this to work.
Makes sense.
Either way, I'll be passing this update up. I just ordered a 320GB-7200RPM HDD for my original unibody MacBook... Gonna get as much as I can outta this baby! Maybe next year...
Snow Leopard takes up 5-6GB. From http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/:
Smaller footprint. "Snow Leopard takes up less than half the disk space of the previous version, freeing about 7GB for you."
You can believe the marketing speak all you want. The core OS isn't just /System. You must include /Library and a bunch of directories and files that are normally kept hidden. I've already demonstrated how big those are on a real 10.6.6 installation.
Some of the bulk in /Library and the hidden directories comes from applications I've installed. Well guess what, everyone installs applications, even Apple themselves. All new Macs include a pre-installed copy of iLife that includes over 3GB of audio in /Library/Audio. Until they re-write the OS to stop mixing system and user files in the same directories, boot drives will have to be big enough to not only accommodate a full multi-lingual installation with all optional fonts, printer drivers and extras like Rosetta and X11, it will also have to reserve at least twice that much space for application support files, frameworks, documentation, dictionaries, package receipts, etc.
I'm betting the 64GB SSD found in the base model MacBook Air will find its way into every MacBook Pro.
You can believe the marketing speak all you want. The core OS isn't just /System. You must include /Library and a bunch of directories and files that are normally kept hidden. I've already demonstrated how big those are on a real 10.6.6 installation.
Some of the bulk in /Library and the hidden directories comes from applications I've installed. Well guess what, everyone installs applications, even Apple themselves. All new Macs include a pre-installed copy of iLife that includes over 3GB of audio in /Library/Audio. Until they re-write the OS to stop mixing system and user files in the same directories, boot drives will have to be big enough to not only accommodate a full multi-lingual installation with all optional fonts, printer drivers and extras like Rosetta and X11, it will also have to reserve at least twice that much space for application support files, frameworks, documentation, dictionaries, package receipts, etc.
I'm betting the 64GB SSD found in the base model MacBook Air will find its way into every MacBook Pro.
Actually, you don?t have to include /Library and the rest of a Mac OS X install from a Restore Disc.
What you?re suggesting is erroneous. You don?t have to have all those files on the same physical drive for the OS to work correctly. You don?t even need them all on the same partition, though there are surely ways to make multiple drives work as one logical partition.
All you have to do is put the files that would most benefit from the fast NAND on the NAND and code the OS to understand which files go where? just like files are stored in /Library and other places that connect with the application.
Are you saying that Apple couldn?t possibly devise an execute this feature that has already been done on a more simplistic level without the need of the OS being a key component to the underlying HW? I think they can.
Actually, you don?t have to include /Library and the rest of a Mac OS X install from a Restore Disc.
What you?re suggesting is erroneous. You don?t have to have all those files on the same physical drive for the OS to work correctly. You don?t even need them all on the same partition, though there are surely ways to make multiple drives work as one logical partition.
All you have to do is put the files that would most benefit from the fast NAND on the NAND and code the OS to understand which files go where? just like files are stored in /Library and other places that connect with the application.
Are you saying that Apple couldn?t possibly devise an execute this feature that has already been done on a more simplistic level without the need of the OS being a key component to the underlying HW? I think they can.
I'm sure that at some unspecified point in the future (perhaps as early as the release of 10.7 Lion) the system will be able to intelligently split directories across logical volumes. However, any new Mac released before that will have to cope with the way Snow Leopard and the current crop of applications work. That means dozens of GB getting tossed around the boot drive.
If this is true, it's probably similar to the Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid Drive with a 4GB SSD for cache, only better:
A few weeks ago I put a 500GB Momentus XT in my 2008 MBP, replacing a standard 7200rpm 500GB drive. It's has definitely speed up launching large apps like Photoshop, Lightroom, MS Word, etc...
Personally I'm such a fan of it's no-brainer automatic caching algorithms that I hope Apple uses the exact same thing even if the SSD much larger (32-64GB).
Apple could just use Unix mount points or symlinks to move or point system, library and applications to the SSD but that still seems messier and less efficient to the users than Seagate's approach.
Regardless of the implementation I'm buying one as long as Apple has in fact ditched the optical drive. I'm still hoping for USB3 and/or light peak as well, but for me the key is ditching the optical drive.
I'm sure that at some unspecified point in the future (perhaps as early as the release of 10.7 Lion) the system will be able to intelligently split directories across logical volumes. However, any new Mac released before that will have to cope with the way Snow Leopard and the current crop of applications work. That means dozens of GB getting tossed around the boot drive.
I don?t think i could have been clearer without actually showing you. Apple made provisions long ago for splitting applications, content data and support files across physical drives and logical partitions.
You can check it out yourself in System Preferences. Just go to Accounts, unlock it, right click on a primary user account and choose Advanced Options.
I followed another poster on this forum and removed my optical drive and installed a fast and small SSD for my boot drive and most applications and a large HDD for my user accounts, which includes my iTunes Library, my Library files and pretty much all content that Apps access after being launched from the SSD. I?ve never encounter even the slightest issue, but i have apps, like iTunes, that launch in a split second. Now imagine Apple designing the HW and OS around this for all their future notebooks.
I don't believe an 8 or 16GB SSD is nearly enough for MacOS X.
On my MBP /System is 4.95GB and /Library is 14.19 GB. That's over 19GB already.
Other core features like /bin, /sbin, /preferences and the Mach kernel are much smaller. They collectively weigh in at less than 100MB.
The hidden directories /private and /usr come in at 5.65GB and 2.32GB respectively. I don't know whether they're mostly user or system data, but presumably they're stored at the root for a good reason.
If you add things like OS level caches to the mix it seems pretty easy to fill 32GB without installing a single application, even the ones that come bundled with every Mac.
Just for reference my MBP has 8.48GB worth of /Applications and 12.19GB in /Developer. If I wanted all those on my SSD then the minimum size would have to be 64GB.
It would be just for the OS and some not very big apps (because of the base model price). 16 GB SSD would be great for all buying base models. You can still install big app on traditional HDD.
Another thing they could do would be to make "hibernate" the default "sleep" mode, and save the RAM image to the SSD. That would improve battery life and reduce the need for shutdowns.
I like this idea?the MB/MBP/MBA could "sleep" if you walk away from it for an hour (or whatever period of time you specified) and it could "hibernate" when you close the lid, thus using almost no power.
Now, if only they can find a way for batteries to hold their charge indefinitely, and not wear down over time. I've had my MB 13" (removable battery version) for a couple years, and I'm down to less than an hour on the battery. Sigh.
So, on my MacBook late 2007 I have an Escape key - well simply replace that keybeneath is... who uses "±" or "§"?!!! the next two are contrast, the next two are Hot Corner options with which to invoke Expose or Dashboard, the following two (F5 & F6) and empty, the remainder and music controls and then sound, which would be integrated into the Bazel and the final one would be Eject.
...Eject, well, what's the point in that if you have an SSD and traditional HDD taking up the room of the CD!
Done.
I would like to see the abandonment of mechanical disc drives completely they are so out of vogue for a stylish device such as a mac and to make Toshiba blades common to all machines with up to 500gb(+ redundancy) cards to come, two ram cards and two blades (1tbt) easily user upgradeable in macbook pros double that of the Air, plus four ram cards and four ssd Blades (2tbt) in the iMac range on top of Flash for kernal and OS.
Apps and data would be comendably handled by ssd cards with software redesigned beyond the constraints and bottleneck of supporting legacy discdrives,
Battery life would be greatly extended noise levels virtually below human hearing and heat problem greatly reduced hence allowing the redesign of a slimer lighter more desireable case, in future we just won't need enormouse static capacity.
1 standard of connector lightpeak whatever its called fits all and SDXC cards for data libraryies where needed and streaming even HD videos with 5.1+ off my 1080p camera.
oh! and for us Pro users just incase anyone is listening anti reflective screen options are a must please.
And does anyone really need a tactile feedback keboard usage in tomorrows world, surely machines should be taking dictation by now and any correction could use virtual keyboards on a secondary glass lcd touchscreen keyboard with a multiple of programmable macro uses for varying apps and a stylas for artists, hey this may even catch on... well the iPad did. but please not a touch mainscreen, keep it clean.
and how far off is the iMac from replacing traditional TVs even though Apple "does not have an interest in that market" with the appleTV.
Super high speed internet is just round the corner within two years most will be looking at 50mbt/s connections over optical fiber and with that future cloud computing means our devices become elligent intelligent terminals rather than the hulking all computing service farm wired nightmare boxes of yesteryear where HD streaming will be the future for everyone and the internet will become unbroken video based instead of todays rather septically static infopage style with boring flash inserts.
Yes Apple may not burn its boats on the bleeding edge but what it does have is loads of future looking human user interface style, pity PCers seem to miss that point.
Just my take on things...