T... but whatever losses are endured by a slight downgrade in graphics will be obliterated by CPU performance gains with a move to sandy bridge. I am not going to sit here and tell you and everyone else they shouldn't be playing Crysis on their Airs, but I would imagine that most of the Air target market can live without gaming. It will be a net gain for most....
I could be wrong but I bet that the SB cpus that wind up in the MBA will only be modestly faster than the C2D they replace. Either by Intel"s design or Apple downclocking them, I suspect they'll be optimized for power savings rather than raw cpu performance. IMO, MBAs don't need to be faster but they do need longer battery life. I am going to buy 13" MBA soon and I really would like to see it comfortably get 7 hours of use between charges, at a minimum. 8 hours between charges would be even better.
Heck I'd be happy with the current model if the C2Ds being used were fabbed at the 32 nm process node. Those would probably give me the battery life I desire and would easily perform well at the tasks I typically do on a laptop. Then again SB will do all of that as well too.
You could be right, but I would be surprised. If you look at the CPU benchmarks on the current 13" MBP vs the prior generation, the performance gain is anything but modest. Even if the CPU is underclocked for battery optimization or maybe even just product differentiation, I still think you are looking at a large difference in performance. I would think that additional battery life is largely limited by a combination of the Air form factor and current battery technology.
You could be right, but I would be surprised. If you look at the CPU benchmarks on the current 13" MBP vs the prior generation, the performance gain is anything but modest. Even if the CPU is underclocked for battery optimization or maybe even just product differentiation, I still think you are looking at a large difference in performance. I would think that additional battery life is largely limited by a combination of the Air form factor and current battery technology.
Good post. Sandy Bridge is a big step forward in terms of both power over C2D. i wonder whether the combined processor and GPU on the motherboard will liberate more space to allow for a slighter fatter battery? Secondly, it has been more than six months since intel's onboard GPU arrived. In that time, Intel hasn't stood still. Will they have tweaked performance? Whatever we get, I am expecting a big step-up in performance and a modest gain in battery life.
My biggest question about the next Air is: to what extent will it overlap with the 13" MBP? If Apple is prepping us for DVD-driveless future, then the differences may not be substantial.
.....Whatever we get, I am expecting a big step-up in performance and a modest gain in battery life. ....
My biggest question about the next Air is: to what extent will it overlap with the 13" MBP? .
That's the rub. The MBA doesn't need to be more powerful from a cpu POV. Read this thread. If it is it just bumps up against the 13" MBP. It does need longer battery life, especially the 11" model.
Apple will be constrained by how Intel designs the CULV SB processors. They may be designed to optimize performance more so than power savings. Apple can tweak them a bit by downclocking them but that's about it.
In the case of CPU performance I expect that to be the case in the AIR also. GPU wise I'm not to sure. The thing is in the past all of Intels ULV processors ran at reduced clock rates when they debuted. In the AIR they can do this to the CPU and still win big because SB is that much better. With respect to the GPU in SB (it is a poor one for gaming) it is hard to say where we will be when compared to the current AIR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailpipe
Good post. Sandy Bridge is a big step forward in terms of both power over C2D. i wonder whether the combined processor and GPU on the motherboard will liberate more space to allow for a slighter fatter battery?
I think the net gain will be zero. Why; because Apple will need room for the Thunderbolt chip. That chip by the way has it's own power profile.
Quote:
Secondly, it has been more than six months since intel's onboard GPU arrived. In that time, Intel hasn't stood still. Will they have tweaked performance? Whatever we get, I am expecting a big step-up in performance and a modest gain in battery life.
it would be a big surprise for Intel to make a mid course update to the GPU. Especially considering that they have a number of bugs to address first. Even then they would more than likely trim functionality to reduce the power profile of the GPU. It would be a surprise, a good one really, but I simply don't expect major changes. It isn't consistent with previous ULV releases.
Quote:
My biggest question about the next Air is: to what extent will it overlap with the 13" MBP? If Apple is prepping us for DVD-driveless future, then the differences may not be substantial.
AIR will always be limited by heat and battery life. Physics pretty much dictates that you can put more CPU power in a bigger box.
The impact of SSDs are well known, they however don't make the CPU itself faster. Any app that is CPU bound suffers on the AIRs. Certainly the general case with AIR has been very positive for most users but that does not imply a usable machine for every user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
That's the rub. The MBA doesn't need to be more powerful from a cpu POV. Read this thread. If it is it just bumps up against the 13" MBP. It does need longer battery life, especially the 11" model.
Apple will be constrained by how Intel designs the CULV SB processors. They may be designed to optimize performance more so than power savings. Apple can tweak them a bit by downclocking them but that's about it.
This here is the key, Apple needs to work with what Intel offers up. We may very well get AIRs with 1.2 GHz CPUs, maybe even lower clocks, but the actual performance of the machines should jump ahead of the current builds. Intels next massive jump in power vs performance will be with Ivy Bridge and the 3D transistor tech. That will make for a very interesting AIR. It really seems to me that expectations are real high for the SB AIRs, it is justified to some extent, but I think people need to moderate expectations a bit until the ULV chips are actualy delivered.
The impact of SSDs are well known, they however don't make the CPU itself faster. Any app that is CPU bound suffers on the AIRs. Certainly the general case with AIR has been very positive for most users but that does not imply a usable machine for every user. d.
Most users aren't CPU constrained. That's what the MBA tells us. Most users benefit much more from an SSD than from a faster cpu. For the type of use a MBA is designed for, it benefits much more from an SSD than a faster CPU.
If you are CPU constrained you need a MBP. The MBA isn't a PS or Final Cut rig.
Most users aren't CPU constrained. That's what the MBA tells us. Most users benefit much more from an SSD than from a faster cpu. For the type of use a MBA is designed for, it benefits much more from an SSD than a faster CPU. If you are CPU constrained you need a MBP. The MBA isn't a PS or Final Cut rig.
I think you're right. In fact, I'd go even further and say that 75% of MacBook Pro users aren't CPU constrained either. where incremental performance is gradually becoming more than most users need. Rather like cars, very few of us need one with more than 300 bhp. I remember that Bill Gates once said that 512 Kb of memory should be just about enough for anyone, so maybe it is better to say we've reached a point of diminishing returns,..
Not so with GPU performance for games, movies and so on. I can't understand why Intel has lagged for so long in this area. They need to get with the program.
Anyway, as you point out, the current 13" C2D MBA is an excellent machine and with SSD offers a quantum leap in speed. SSDs are a game changer. My wife's 2011 MBA is an order of magnitude faster than my 2009 C2D MBP. She uses Photoshop on her MBA, not professionally but as an amateur enthusiast - it copes fine. Sorry, but it does.
Which reminds me that the screen is noticeably better than that on the 13" MBP too.
So, if the MacBook Air is already as fast as most of us need most of the time, the June refresh is only going to underline its capability as a mainstream computer. It really can be your primary machine. More than that, I'd say that it has ALREADY REPLACED THE 13" MACBOOK PRO, it's just that most people haven't figured this out yet.
This makes me wonder what Apple has planned for the MacBook Pro line next January. Will the 13" die a natural death or will the 13" SB MBA kill it prematurely? It's kinda hard to figure out what Apple's strategy is. Airs and Pros, or just a single MacBook line-up in 11", 13" 15" and 17". We've already discussed this, but it is fascinating to see where Apple is leading us.
My dilemma is: do I buy a Sandy Bridge Air in June 2011 or wait for the new 13" IB MacBook Pro in January 2012? I don't need a new computer BTW, I am just nuts about new technology.
However that isn't 75% in my mind. I still hear people complaining about the speed of their machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailpipe
I think you're right. In fact, I'd go even further and say that 75% of MacBook Pro users aren't CPU constrained either. where incremental performance is gradually becoming more than most users need. Rather like cars, very few of us need one with more than 300 bhp. I remember that Bill Gates once said that 512 Kb of memory should be just about enough for anyone, so maybe it is better to say we've reached a point of diminishing returns,..
There are many issues here.
In one case developers are still implementing software upgrades to take advantage of current capabilities. Follow the developer forums, here and there and you will see many discussions that revolve around the use of GCD. There is a development lag to take advantage of the latest hardware and software initiatives.
Another issue is Apples future software initiatives with things like AI and speech processing. As more horsepower becomes available I'm pretty sure Apple will be taking advantage of it in future software releases.
I think the difference here is that you see a plateau where I see a steep slope ahead. The hardware always comes first a prime example being GPU computing. The MBP will be able to leverage new tech earlier simply because Apple can pack more in the box. "More" here being whatever hardware is required.
Quote:
Not so with GPU performance for games, movies and so on. I can't understand why Intel has lagged for so long in this area. They need to get with the program.
this is why I hope Apple implements an AMD solution. Maybe not in the AIR but certainly in something for nothing else to wake up Intel.
Quote:
Anyway, as you point out, the current 13" C2D MBA is an excellent machine and with SSD offers a quantum leap in speed. SSDs are a game changer. My wife's 2011 MBA is an order of magnitude faster than my 2009 C2D MBP. She uses Photoshop on her MBA, not professionally but as an amateur enthusiast - it copes fine. Sorry, but it does.
"It copes fine" isn't exactly a glowing endorsement. In any event there is a wide array of users many who could not tolerate "it copes fine". My iPad is doing fine right this very moment, but it certainly isnt a MBP replacement.
Quote:
Which reminds me that the screen is noticeably better than that on the 13" MBP too.
So, if the MacBook Air is already as fast as most of us need most of the time, the June refresh is only going to underline its capability as a mainstream computer. It really can be your primary machine. More than that, I'd say that it has ALREADY REPLACED THE 13" MACBOOK PRO, it's just that most people haven't figured this out yet.
Your perspective. However I'm convinced that AIR is a big compromise for many. It will be interesting to see how far SB goes to rectify this. The fact remains though you can put more power into a bigger box.
Quote:
This makes me wonder what Apple has planned for the MacBook Pro line next January. Will the 13" die a natural death or will the 13" SB MBA kill it prematurely? It's kinda hard to figure out what Apple's strategy is. Airs and Pros, or just a single MacBook line-up in 11", 13" 15" and 17". We've already discussed this, but it is fascinating to see where Apple is leading us.
My dilemma is: do I buy a Sandy Bridge Air in June 2011 or wait for the new 13" IB MacBook Pro in January 2012? I don't need a new computer BTW, I am just nuts about new technology.
Yeah being a tech nut is hard on the budget.
Your answer will come when Apple releases the new AIR. Then you will know what they managed to roll into the machine. It will either meets your needs or not.
The MacBookAir can easily cover all my basic computing needs. The only reason I'd still want a Pro is for use of virtual instruments on stage, the MBA seems a little under-spec'd for that.
But I think it has got just about everything else covered.
The MacBookAir can easily cover all my basic computing needs. The only reason I'd still want a Pro is for use of virtual instruments on stage, the MBA seems a little under-spec'd for that.
But I think it has got just about everything else covered.
I have to wonder what it is about AIR to cause you to say it is under specced. Do you see it as a CPU power issue or a lack of internal storage?
Honestly I can see both being an issue for your usage. I suspect though that it is primarily an issue of CPU performance. Whatever it is you do highlight my point which is that not every body can get by with the level of performance AIR offers up.
As it is I suspect that many here correlate the fast response of the SSD as an indicator of overall system performance. For many users that is a key element in the feel of the machine. What I object to is the ideas offered up that AIR type machines will be the only thing needed in the future. I still believe there will be a massive performance delta between AIRs and MBP for the foreseeable future. Especially considering that MBP can have SSDs installed and offer up CPUs with twice the clock rate.
I know the argument is that people don't need that but I believe that is a misguided point of view.
I have to wonder what it is about AIR to cause you to say it is under specced. Do you see it as a CPU power issue or a lack of internal storage?
Both. VI's like Omnisphere and Kontakt are about 50GB each; that adds up quick. To reliably run CPU/memory-hungry apps like VI's you need lots of overhead.
A maxed-out 13" is theoretically sufficient for the majority of VI's, but it'd be running on the limit which is not good for operational reliability. Not to mention it sells for $1799 and that is a lot of money for a 2.13GHz C2D with 4GB RAM.
If it wasn't for that, the MBA would be my first choice.
Not to mention it sells for $1799 and that is a lot of money for a 2.13GHz C2D with 4GB RAM.
I just checked and the 13" MacBookPro with the 2.3GHz i5, 4GB RAM and 256GB SSD goes for $1849
So for $50 more you get a newer/better CPU, SSD instead of Flash, a DVD-RW drive and better connectivity.
Add the DVDRW to the quoted MacBookAir and you exceed the price of the MBP. Hard to justify that when lower weight and form factor are its only true advantages.
Most users aren't CPU constrained. That's what the MBA tells us.
Actually, what the MBA tells us is that most MBA users aren't CPU constrained. What you should be wondering is: How much of Apple's portable market would be captured by the MBA if it started to approach MBP performance? I disagree that most users as a whole aren't CPU-constrained. Maybe this is true for the email and word processing crowd, but I personally do a lot of CPU-intensive tasks and I don't feel like a "power user." (See: Civilization 5, for instance)
However I'm convinced that AIR is a big compromise for many. It will be interesting to see how far SB goes to rectify this.
I agree. IMO, CPU speed and storage are the two largest offenders here.
What I am worried about is that the next gen Air is still only going to offer 256 GB SSDs. If that's the case, I am really in an awkward spot. Either I am going to buy the MBA with the form factor I want with not enough storage, or I'm going to buy the MBP with the form factor I don't want with a crappy resolution.
What I can't figure out is why Apple isn't offering the 13" MBP with the MBA screen. Honestly, I think they would already have my money.
Actually, what the MBA tells us is that most MBA users aren't CPU constrained. What you should be wondering is: How much of Apple's portable market would be captured by the MBA if it started to approach MBP performance? I disagree that most users as a whole aren't CPU-constrained. Maybe this is true for the email and word processing crowd, but I personally do a lot of CPU-intensive tasks and I don't feel like a "power user." (See: Civilization 5, for instance)
I?d argue that anyone that needs a lot of processing POWER is a power user. Whether you?re sung it professionally or just gaming you?re still doing an actively that requires a more powerful machine.
I?d say that most consumers aren?t hindered by the amount of processing power in the MBA which is why they?ve been such a hit. Not that they aren?t a hit for other reasons, but that the CPU is fast enough to be more than adequate without hindering their experience.
Well here is some interesting news from cpu-world.com which should maybe ease some concerns. The GPU is not underclocked by default--this isn't to say Apple won't do this themselves, but it is at least interesting to see that Intel is not delivering them underclocked.
Two forthcoming Core i7 ULV dual-core processors, i7-2637M and i7-2677M, have 1.7 and 1.8 GHz base, and 2.8 GHz and 2.9 GHz Turbo Boost frequencies. This is 200 MHz higher than the frequencies of their predecessors, Core i7-2617M and i7-2657M. Default clock rate of the HD 3000 graphics on new chips stays the same, 350 MHz, although the maximum turbo frequency is increased to 1.2 GHz.
Both. VI's like Omnisphere and Kontakt are about 50GB each; that adds up quick. To reliably run CPU/memory-hungry apps like VI's you need lots of overhead.
A maxed-out 13" is theoretically sufficient for the majority of VI's, but it'd be running on the limit which is not good for operational reliability. Not to mention it sells for $1799 and that is a lot of money for a 2.13GHz C2D with 4GB RAM.
If it wasn't for that, the MBA would be my first choice.
The current AIRs are a vast improvement over the old ones, there is no doubt about it. They are not however the machine for everybody. I'd go so far as to say they aren't even a machine for the rest of us.
The only thing I really object to is your line about 1799 being to much for a Core 2 Duo. Like everyone else I have to ask you what do you expect Apple to put in there? Seriously Apple can only build what the technology of the moment is capable of delivering. The value of AIR isn't in the processor and likely never will be.
As an old fart here I'm not to sure I could ever be happy with at 13" machine, this the mental lust for a 15" AIR. Of course resolution independence might help some but then there is decidedly less information on screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetroRichie
I agree. IMO, CPU speed and storage are the two largest offenders here.
Storage especially. Lets face it if we don't get better CPU performance out of the SB machines then Apple has screwed up. Storage is s tougher nut to crack. Then again a 15" AIR would have plenty of room for more blade SSD's.
Quote:
What I am worried about is that the next gen Air is still only going to offer 256 GB SSDs. If that's the case, I am really in an awkward spot. Either I am going to buy the MBA with the form factor I want with not enough storage, or I'm going to buy the MBP with the form factor I don't want with a crappy resolution.
The only way that I can see Apple dealing with this is to added a second or maybe even a third SSD slot. It is a real problem on a thin AIR type machine.
As to crappy resolution the MBPs aren't that bad. In fact I'm wondering what you are talking about.
Quote:
What I can't figure out is why Apple isn't offering the 13" MBP with the MBA screen. Honestly, I think they would already have my money.
You do realize that some people don't really like the AIR screens. Or maybe to be more specific the almost half scale size of the image on screen. This is another reason why I don't ever expect Apple to consolidate their portable lineup into a limited number of machines as some argue. The simple fact is different people have different needs.
Comments
T... but whatever losses are endured by a slight downgrade in graphics will be obliterated by CPU performance gains with a move to sandy bridge. I am not going to sit here and tell you and everyone else they shouldn't be playing Crysis on their Airs, but I would imagine that most of the Air target market can live without gaming. It will be a net gain for most....
I could be wrong but I bet that the SB cpus that wind up in the MBA will only be modestly faster than the C2D they replace. Either by Intel"s design or Apple downclocking them, I suspect they'll be optimized for power savings rather than raw cpu performance. IMO, MBAs don't need to be faster but they do need longer battery life. I am going to buy 13" MBA soon and I really would like to see it comfortably get 7 hours of use between charges, at a minimum. 8 hours between charges would be even better.
Heck I'd be happy with the current model if the C2Ds being used were fabbed at the 32 nm process node. Those would probably give me the battery life I desire and would easily perform well at the tasks I typically do on a laptop. Then again SB will do all of that as well too.
You could be right, but I would be surprised. If you look at the CPU benchmarks on the current 13" MBP vs the prior generation, the performance gain is anything but modest. Even if the CPU is underclocked for battery optimization or maybe even just product differentiation, I still think you are looking at a large difference in performance. I would think that additional battery life is largely limited by a combination of the Air form factor and current battery technology.
Good post. Sandy Bridge is a big step forward in terms of both power over C2D. i wonder whether the combined processor and GPU on the motherboard will liberate more space to allow for a slighter fatter battery? Secondly, it has been more than six months since intel's onboard GPU arrived. In that time, Intel hasn't stood still. Will they have tweaked performance? Whatever we get, I am expecting a big step-up in performance and a modest gain in battery life.
My biggest question about the next Air is: to what extent will it overlap with the 13" MBP? If Apple is prepping us for DVD-driveless future, then the differences may not be substantial.
.....Whatever we get, I am expecting a big step-up in performance and a modest gain in battery life. ....
My biggest question about the next Air is: to what extent will it overlap with the 13" MBP? .
That's the rub. The MBA doesn't need to be more powerful from a cpu POV. Read this thread. If it is it just bumps up against the 13" MBP. It does need longer battery life, especially the 11" model.
Apple will be constrained by how Intel designs the CULV SB processors. They may be designed to optimize performance more so than power savings. Apple can tweak them a bit by downclocking them but that's about it.
Good post. Sandy Bridge is a big step forward in terms of both power over C2D. i wonder whether the combined processor and GPU on the motherboard will liberate more space to allow for a slighter fatter battery?
I think the net gain will be zero. Why; because Apple will need room for the Thunderbolt chip. That chip by the way has it's own power profile.
Secondly, it has been more than six months since intel's onboard GPU arrived. In that time, Intel hasn't stood still. Will they have tweaked performance? Whatever we get, I am expecting a big step-up in performance and a modest gain in battery life.
it would be a big surprise for Intel to make a mid course update to the GPU. Especially considering that they have a number of bugs to address first. Even then they would more than likely trim functionality to reduce the power profile of the GPU. It would be a surprise, a good one really, but I simply don't expect major changes. It isn't consistent with previous ULV releases.
My biggest question about the next Air is: to what extent will it overlap with the 13" MBP? If Apple is prepping us for DVD-driveless future, then the differences may not be substantial.
AIR will always be limited by heat and battery life. Physics pretty much dictates that you can put more CPU power in a bigger box.
That's the rub. The MBA doesn't need to be more powerful from a cpu POV. Read this thread. If it is it just bumps up against the 13" MBP. It does need longer battery life, especially the 11" model.
Apple will be constrained by how Intel designs the CULV SB processors. They may be designed to optimize performance more so than power savings. Apple can tweak them a bit by downclocking them but that's about it.
This here is the key, Apple needs to work with what Intel offers up. We may very well get AIRs with 1.2 GHz CPUs, maybe even lower clocks, but the actual performance of the machines should jump ahead of the current builds. Intels next massive jump in power vs performance will be with Ivy Bridge and the 3D transistor tech. That will make for a very interesting AIR. It really seems to me that expectations are real high for the SB AIRs, it is justified to some extent, but I think people need to moderate expectations a bit until the ULV chips are actualy delivered.
The impact of SSDs are well known, they however don't make the CPU itself faster. Any app that is CPU bound suffers on the AIRs. Certainly the general case with AIR has been very positive for most users but that does not imply a usable machine for every user. d.
Most users aren't CPU constrained. That's what the MBA tells us. Most users benefit much more from an SSD than from a faster cpu. For the type of use a MBA is designed for, it benefits much more from an SSD than a faster CPU.
If you are CPU constrained you need a MBP. The MBA isn't a PS or Final Cut rig.
Most users aren't CPU constrained. That's what the MBA tells us. Most users benefit much more from an SSD than from a faster cpu. For the type of use a MBA is designed for, it benefits much more from an SSD than a faster CPU. If you are CPU constrained you need a MBP. The MBA isn't a PS or Final Cut rig.
I think you're right. In fact, I'd go even further and say that 75% of MacBook Pro users aren't CPU constrained either. where incremental performance is gradually becoming more than most users need. Rather like cars, very few of us need one with more than 300 bhp. I remember that Bill Gates once said that 512 Kb of memory should be just about enough for anyone, so maybe it is better to say we've reached a point of diminishing returns,..
Not so with GPU performance for games, movies and so on. I can't understand why Intel has lagged for so long in this area. They need to get with the program.
Anyway, as you point out, the current 13" C2D MBA is an excellent machine and with SSD offers a quantum leap in speed. SSDs are a game changer. My wife's 2011 MBA is an order of magnitude faster than my 2009 C2D MBP. She uses Photoshop on her MBA, not professionally but as an amateur enthusiast - it copes fine. Sorry, but it does.
Which reminds me that the screen is noticeably better than that on the 13" MBP too.
So, if the MacBook Air is already as fast as most of us need most of the time, the June refresh is only going to underline its capability as a mainstream computer. It really can be your primary machine. More than that, I'd say that it has ALREADY REPLACED THE 13" MACBOOK PRO, it's just that most people haven't figured this out yet.
This makes me wonder what Apple has planned for the MacBook Pro line next January. Will the 13" die a natural death or will the 13" SB MBA kill it prematurely? It's kinda hard to figure out what Apple's strategy is. Airs and Pros, or just a single MacBook line-up in 11", 13" 15" and 17". We've already discussed this, but it is fascinating to see where Apple is leading us.
My dilemma is: do I buy a Sandy Bridge Air in June 2011 or wait for the new 13" IB MacBook Pro in January 2012? I don't need a new computer BTW, I am just nuts about new technology.
I think you're right. In fact, I'd go even further and say that 75% of MacBook Pro users aren't CPU constrained either. where incremental performance is gradually becoming more than most users need. Rather like cars, very few of us need one with more than 300 bhp. I remember that Bill Gates once said that 512 Kb of memory should be just about enough for anyone, so maybe it is better to say we've reached a point of diminishing returns,..
There are many issues here.
In one case developers are still implementing software upgrades to take advantage of current capabilities. Follow the developer forums, here and there and you will see many discussions that revolve around the use of GCD. There is a development lag to take advantage of the latest hardware and software initiatives.
Another issue is Apples future software initiatives with things like AI and speech processing. As more horsepower becomes available I'm pretty sure Apple will be taking advantage of it in future software releases.
I think the difference here is that you see a plateau where I see a steep slope ahead. The hardware always comes first a prime example being GPU computing. The MBP will be able to leverage new tech earlier simply because Apple can pack more in the box. "More" here being whatever hardware is required.
Not so with GPU performance for games, movies and so on. I can't understand why Intel has lagged for so long in this area. They need to get with the program.
this is why I hope Apple implements an AMD solution. Maybe not in the AIR but certainly in something for nothing else to wake up Intel.
Anyway, as you point out, the current 13" C2D MBA is an excellent machine and with SSD offers a quantum leap in speed. SSDs are a game changer. My wife's 2011 MBA is an order of magnitude faster than my 2009 C2D MBP. She uses Photoshop on her MBA, not professionally but as an amateur enthusiast - it copes fine. Sorry, but it does.
"It copes fine" isn't exactly a glowing endorsement. In any event there is a wide array of users many who could not tolerate "it copes fine". My iPad is doing fine right this very moment, but it certainly isnt a MBP replacement.
Which reminds me that the screen is noticeably better than that on the 13" MBP too.
So, if the MacBook Air is already as fast as most of us need most of the time, the June refresh is only going to underline its capability as a mainstream computer. It really can be your primary machine. More than that, I'd say that it has ALREADY REPLACED THE 13" MACBOOK PRO, it's just that most people haven't figured this out yet.
Your perspective. However I'm convinced that AIR is a big compromise for many. It will be interesting to see how far SB goes to rectify this. The fact remains though you can put more power into a bigger box.
This makes me wonder what Apple has planned for the MacBook Pro line next January. Will the 13" die a natural death or will the 13" SB MBA kill it prematurely? It's kinda hard to figure out what Apple's strategy is. Airs and Pros, or just a single MacBook line-up in 11", 13" 15" and 17". We've already discussed this, but it is fascinating to see where Apple is leading us.
My dilemma is: do I buy a Sandy Bridge Air in June 2011 or wait for the new 13" IB MacBook Pro in January 2012? I don't need a new computer BTW, I am just nuts about new technology.
Yeah being a tech nut is hard on the budget.
Your answer will come when Apple releases the new AIR. Then you will know what they managed to roll into the machine. It will either meets your needs or not.
But I think it has got just about everything else covered.
The MacBookAir can easily cover all my basic computing needs. The only reason I'd still want a Pro is for use of virtual instruments on stage, the MBA seems a little under-spec'd for that.
But I think it has got just about everything else covered.
I have to wonder what it is about AIR to cause you to say it is under specced. Do you see it as a CPU power issue or a lack of internal storage?
Honestly I can see both being an issue for your usage. I suspect though that it is primarily an issue of CPU performance. Whatever it is you do highlight my point which is that not every body can get by with the level of performance AIR offers up.
As it is I suspect that many here correlate the fast response of the SSD as an indicator of overall system performance. For many users that is a key element in the feel of the machine. What I object to is the ideas offered up that AIR type machines will be the only thing needed in the future. I still believe there will be a massive performance delta between AIRs and MBP for the foreseeable future. Especially considering that MBP can have SSDs installed and offer up CPUs with twice the clock rate.
I know the argument is that people don't need that but I believe that is a misguided point of view.
I have to wonder what it is about AIR to cause you to say it is under specced. Do you see it as a CPU power issue or a lack of internal storage?
Both. VI's like Omnisphere and Kontakt are about 50GB each; that adds up quick. To reliably run CPU/memory-hungry apps like VI's you need lots of overhead.
A maxed-out 13" is theoretically sufficient for the majority of VI's, but it'd be running on the limit which is not good for operational reliability. Not to mention it sells for $1799 and that is a lot of money for a 2.13GHz C2D with 4GB RAM.
If it wasn't for that, the MBA would be my first choice.
And you don't have to completely lack a sense of humor. But we all have our shortcomings!
No one is perfect in life.
Not to mention it sells for $1799 and that is a lot of money for a 2.13GHz C2D with 4GB RAM.
I just checked and the 13" MacBookPro with the 2.3GHz i5, 4GB RAM and 256GB SSD goes for $1849
So for $50 more you get a newer/better CPU, SSD instead of Flash, a DVD-RW drive and better connectivity.
Add the DVDRW to the quoted MacBookAir and you exceed the price of the MBP. Hard to justify that when lower weight and form factor are its only true advantages.
Still, it is a winner on sex appeal alone!
Most users aren't CPU constrained. That's what the MBA tells us.
Actually, what the MBA tells us is that most MBA users aren't CPU constrained. What you should be wondering is: How much of Apple's portable market would be captured by the MBA if it started to approach MBP performance? I disagree that most users as a whole aren't CPU-constrained. Maybe this is true for the email and word processing crowd, but I personally do a lot of CPU-intensive tasks and I don't feel like a "power user." (See: Civilization 5, for instance)
However I'm convinced that AIR is a big compromise for many. It will be interesting to see how far SB goes to rectify this.
I agree. IMO, CPU speed and storage are the two largest offenders here.
What I am worried about is that the next gen Air is still only going to offer 256 GB SSDs. If that's the case, I am really in an awkward spot. Either I am going to buy the MBA with the form factor I want with not enough storage, or I'm going to buy the MBP with the form factor I don't want with a crappy resolution.
What I can't figure out is why Apple isn't offering the 13" MBP with the MBA screen. Honestly, I think they would already have my money.
Actually, what the MBA tells us is that most MBA users aren't CPU constrained. What you should be wondering is: How much of Apple's portable market would be captured by the MBA if it started to approach MBP performance? I disagree that most users as a whole aren't CPU-constrained. Maybe this is true for the email and word processing crowd, but I personally do a lot of CPU-intensive tasks and I don't feel like a "power user." (See: Civilization 5, for instance)
I?d argue that anyone that needs a lot of processing POWER is a power user. Whether you?re sung it professionally or just gaming you?re still doing an actively that requires a more powerful machine.
I?d say that most consumers aren?t hindered by the amount of processing power in the MBA which is why they?ve been such a hit. Not that they aren?t a hit for other reasons, but that the CPU is fast enough to be more than adequate without hindering their experience.
Two forthcoming Core i7 ULV dual-core processors, i7-2637M and i7-2677M, have 1.7 and 1.8 GHz base, and 2.8 GHz and 2.9 GHz Turbo Boost frequencies. This is 200 MHz higher than the frequencies of their predecessors, Core i7-2617M and i7-2657M. Default clock rate of the HD 3000 graphics on new chips stays the same, 350 MHz, although the maximum turbo frequency is increased to 1.2 GHz.
Both. VI's like Omnisphere and Kontakt are about 50GB each; that adds up quick. To reliably run CPU/memory-hungry apps like VI's you need lots of overhead.
A maxed-out 13" is theoretically sufficient for the majority of VI's, but it'd be running on the limit which is not good for operational reliability. Not to mention it sells for $1799 and that is a lot of money for a 2.13GHz C2D with 4GB RAM.
If it wasn't for that, the MBA would be my first choice.
The current AIRs are a vast improvement over the old ones, there is no doubt about it. They are not however the machine for everybody. I'd go so far as to say they aren't even a machine for the rest of us.
The only thing I really object to is your line about 1799 being to much for a Core 2 Duo. Like everyone else I have to ask you what do you expect Apple to put in there? Seriously Apple can only build what the technology of the moment is capable of delivering. The value of AIR isn't in the processor and likely never will be.
I agree. IMO, CPU speed and storage are the two largest offenders here.
Storage especially. Lets face it if we don't get better CPU performance out of the SB machines then Apple has screwed up. Storage is s tougher nut to crack. Then again a 15" AIR would have plenty of room for more blade SSD's.
What I am worried about is that the next gen Air is still only going to offer 256 GB SSDs. If that's the case, I am really in an awkward spot. Either I am going to buy the MBA with the form factor I want with not enough storage, or I'm going to buy the MBP with the form factor I don't want with a crappy resolution.
The only way that I can see Apple dealing with this is to added a second or maybe even a third SSD slot. It is a real problem on a thin AIR type machine.
As to crappy resolution the MBPs aren't that bad. In fact I'm wondering what you are talking about.
What I can't figure out is why Apple isn't offering the 13" MBP with the MBA screen. Honestly, I think they would already have my money.
You do realize that some people don't really like the AIR screens. Or maybe to be more specific the almost half scale size of the image on screen. This is another reason why I don't ever expect Apple to consolidate their portable lineup into a limited number of machines as some argue. The simple fact is different people have different needs.