>The $999 MacBook Air model ships with a 1.1Ghz i3 processor
1.1Ghz i3? Ouch. I guess that lets Apple squeak in under that magic $1000 barrier, but one has to assume the GeekBench score on this model will be painfully low. It'll be suitable for grandma's email and Amazon browsing but little else.
>The $999 MacBook Air model ships with a 1.1Ghz i3 processor
1.1Ghz i3? Ouch. I guess that lets Apple squeak in under that magic $1000 barrier, but one has to assume the GeekBench score on this model will be painfully low. It'll be suitable for grandma's email and Amazon browsing but little else.
1.1 to 3.2 GHz. If you're mostly reading text on a page you'll be happy for the lower battery usage. Even the Core i5 option is 1.1 GHz but with 4 cores 8 threads and pan of 3.5 GHz. The top of the line Core i7 option only brings it up to 1.2 GHz with a peak of 3.8 GHz.
>The $999 MacBook Air model ships with a 1.1Ghz i3 processor
1.1Ghz i3? Ouch. I guess that lets Apple squeak in under that magic $1000 barrier, but one has to assume the GeekBench score on this model will be painfully low. It'll be suitable for grandma's email and Amazon browsing but little else.
What activities is 3.2GHz good for then? That's the TurboBoost speed, in other words, the speed when applications ask for maximum power and the cooling system can handle it.
The Geekbench score you're looking for will probably be closer to the high end GHz than the low, battery-saving end, if the MacBook Air cooling system is anywhere near as good as the improved cooling in the 16" MacBook Pro, which lets its CPU operate much closer to its TurboBoost max GHz (sustained) than the last 15" models did.
It's one of those reasons my 13" i5 MacBook Pro is faster than my old 15" i7, despite having similar base GHz. The newer 13" has a much higher clock speed ceiling.
I paraphrase what I wrote at the end of my earlier post in this same thread: There are obviously some commenters here who keep using their 1990s era view of how computers work to make uninformed evaluations of the highly adaptive dynamic technologies of today.
But another is the upgrade to 256Gb storage in the base model.
It’s not like up until now you didn’t had the option to get a 256+ GB; you just had to cough out your own money to do it instead of expecting to get a “subsidy” from those that only needed 128 GB.
Love the improvements, but where is the larger screen for adults?
On the shelf at a retailer near you, ready to be used on your desk. Many sizes and prices available.
These are ultra-portable laptops. A bigger screen would make the MBA not an ultra-portable. I've used a couple of the new 16" MBPs and they're lovely — but big.
We're talking another 3 inches, not 3 feet. It would be an ultra portable 16". What other 16" would come close in portability?
You don't think it's wrong that if a person would prefer the next screen size up they have to spend an additional $1,400?
So get a 16” MBP and stop bitching around; this laptop is definitely not for you.
Love the improvements, but where is the larger screen for adults?
On the shelf at a retailer near you, ready to be used on your desk. Many sizes and prices available.
These are ultra-portable laptops. A bigger screen would make the MBA not an ultra-portable. I've used a couple of the new 16" MBPs and they're lovely — but big.
We're talking another 3 inches, not 3 feet. It would be an ultra portable 16". What other 16" would come close in portability?
You don't think it's wrong that if a person would prefer the next screen size up they have to spend an additional $1,400?
So get a 16” MBP and stop bitching around; this laptop is definitely not for you.
Love the improvements, but where is the larger screen for adults?
On the shelf at a retailer near you, ready to be used on your desk. Many sizes and prices available.
These are ultra-portable laptops. A bigger screen would make the MBA not an ultra-portable. I've used a couple of the new 16" MBPs and they're lovely — but big.
We're talking another 3 inches, not 3 feet. It would be an ultra portable 16". What other 16" would come close in portability?
You don't think it's wrong that if a person would prefer the next screen size up they have to spend an additional $1,400?
So get a 16” MBP and stop bitching around; this laptop is definitely not for you.
Would love to see a MBA 15" as my eyes get tired after working on the machine for hours on end, but I don't want to spend $$$ for a MBP 16" and yes, I also have a 27" desktop that spoils me... Perhaps a price point of $1,300 for base MBA 15"...
golfer12 said: Would love to see a MBA 15" as my eyes get tired after working on the machine for hours on end, but I don't want to spend $$$ for a MBP 16" and yes, I also have a 27" desktop that spoils me... Perhaps a price point of $1,300 for base MBA 15"...
”You can't always get what you want But if you try sometime you find You get what you need”
Is the thinking this is just a modest spec bump before the Air, or 'a' MacBook goes ARM? I've currently got a 12" MacBook and love the form factor but must admit I'm tempted by a more touch responsive keyboard as I do so much typing on it. The iPad Pro with Magic Keyboard is interesting and the engineering into that hinge so the iPad floats looks incredible. However, the cost of the keyboard and iPad Pro combined does seem prohibitively expensive when compared with an Air that has the keyboard built in and macOS, even if you don't get touchscreen.
>The $999 MacBook Air model ships with a 1.1Ghz i3 processor
1.1Ghz i3? Ouch. I guess that lets Apple squeak in under that magic $1000 barrier, but one has to assume the GeekBench score on this model will be painfully low. It'll be suitable for grandma's email and Amazon browsing but little else.
1.1 to 3.2 GHz. If you're mostly reading text on a page you'll be happy for the lower battery usage. Even the Core i5 option is 1.1 GHz but with 4 cores 8 threads and pan of 3.5 GHz. The top of the line Core i7 option only brings it up to 1.2 GHz with a peak of 3.8 GHz.
One of the big differences between the i3, i5, i7 is the amount of onboard cache -- which can make a significant difference in speed. Unfortunately I don't have the specs for these processors -- but historically the i5 can have double the cache of an i3 which speeds up repetitive tasks like speadsheets & such.
But another is the upgrade to 256Gb storage in the base model.
It’s not like up until now you didn’t had the option to get a 256+ GB; you just had to cough out your own money to do it instead of expecting to get a “subsidy” from those that only needed 128 GB.
LOL... what subsidy?
Apple charged a $200 premium - 20% of the total cost of the machine to upgrade from 128Gb to 256Gb. For many buyers that not only put the MBA up into MBP price range but simply was a deal breaker on price. So they would try to get by with the 128Gb. Plus many simply don't know the difference and trusted Apple to do the right thing (until they found out that they hadn't).
The fact is: the 128Gb wasn't "subsidizing" anything. You can buy a 256Gb for about $50 -- to charge $200 for an upgrade from a $128Gb was bordering on robbery. And that robbery became even worse when you consider that the 128Gb was not only borderline in terms of capacity (barely enough) but could not be upgraded.
No, as I said, since the SSD cannot be upgraded, Apple did the right thing by making the base spec adequate for average & usual needs.
Love the improvements, but where is the larger screen for adults?
On the shelf at a retailer near you, ready to be used on your desk. Many sizes and prices available.
These are ultra-portable laptops. A bigger screen would make the MBA not an ultra-portable. I've used a couple of the new 16" MBPs and they're lovely — but big.
We're talking another 3 inches, not 3 feet. It would be an ultra portable 16". What other 16" would come close in portability?
You don't think it's wrong that if a person would prefer the next screen size up they have to spend an additional $1,400?
So get a 16” MBP and stop bitching around; this laptop is definitely not for you.
Love the improvements, but where is the larger screen for adults?
On the shelf at a retailer near you, ready to be used on your desk. Many sizes and prices available.
These are ultra-portable laptops. A bigger screen would make the MBA not an ultra-portable. I've used a couple of the new 16" MBPs and they're lovely — but big.
We're talking another 3 inches, not 3 feet. It would be an ultra portable 16". What other 16" would come close in portability?
You don't think it's wrong that if a person would prefer the next screen size up they have to spend an additional $1,400?
So get a 16” MBP and stop bitching around; this laptop is definitely not for you.
Would love to see a MBA 15" as my eyes get tired after working on the machine for hours on end, but I don't want to spend $$$ for a MBP 16" and yes, I also have a 27" desktop that spoils me... Perhaps a price point of $1,300 for base MBA 15"...
I look forward to Apple making a "MacBook SE" -- not with a smaller screen but with a lower price. Or, more specifically, a MacBook with a larger but less high end screen and one where thin and light bows out to increased functionality & flexibility: more ports -- including USB-A, replaceable & upgradeable components such as keyboards, SSDs, memory. And thus emphasize lifetime cost over high end specs such as weight, thickness and screen specs.
It is, I think very possible that the new iPad Pro might push them in that direction: Essentially the MacBook line has been competing with the iPad line emphasizing thin & light designs over traditional laptop features like ports, repairability and upgradeability.
In the coming years we will see the two lines becoming increasingly similar in terms of capabilities so, perhaps, MacBooks will be able to distinguish themselves by returning to basics. For Apple that could be a "win" by increasing the volume of Macs and thus spreading their fixed costs out over a higher volume. And, it could also enable them to finally become competitive in one of their original strengths: education.
You can buy a 256Gb for about $50 -- to charge $200 for an upgrade from a $128Gb was bordering on robbery. ... No, as I said, since the SSD cannot be upgraded, Apple did the right thing by making the base spec adequate for average & usual needs.
Increasing the storage for the base model means the people that only needed/wanted 128 GB of storage (which would have made the base 2020 MBA just 8-900€) pay more, or they are subsidizing the costs for everybody else.
What's stopping you from getting a HP laptop and a 50€ SSD? "Robbery" is when you are forced to do something; when you do it because you want, it's called "trade".
I'm not saying that Apple did wrong, I'm just saying that nothing stopped you before from getting more storage (I am writing this message on a 5 y old Air with i7, 8 GB RAM and 512 GS SSD - I needed more so I paid for what I need with my own money). Cheers!
golfer12 said: Would love to see a MBA 15" as my eyes get tired after working on the machine for hours on end, but I don't want to spend $$$ for a MBP 16" and yes, I also have a 27" desktop that spoils me... Perhaps a price point of $1,300 for base MBA 15"...
”You can't always get what you want But if you try sometime you find You get what you need”
Yeh, that's often true. But Apple has painted the MacBook line into a niche corner of thin & light machines that its difficult to tell one from the other except on screen size. But most people can't tell a 13" MBA from an MBP.
Meanwhile other manufacturers provide lots of different options to meet different needs and price points.
Actually, at this point, for many people, the appeal of a MacBook lies less in the hardware than access to the Apple ecosystem and integration with their other Apple products.
My one concern is the fact that this (along with all of Apple's entry-level products) only comes with 8GB of RAM. That seems like a bottleneck to me compared to everything else that comes built-in. Am I correct that 8GB of RAM isn't much for even basic tasks you would expect to do on a laptop these days?
After using a 12" MB since 2015, I'll get a MBA with 16G RAM. I've frequently run out of application memory even just having a few apps open. Browsing is real problem for me if I open too many tabs. Opening mail is slow unless it's about the only app open.
I'm by no means a power user and I'm not running Pshop or any heavy lifting apps. I noticed an overall slowdown when upgrading to High Sierra. People say 8G is good now, and 16G is only for futureproofing but what happens when the future is here. I frequently restart to get some memory back and performance back.
Yeah, thousands of people are using 8G. That doesn't mean they're all happy with it, but they did save $200 by not going to 16G. I say a good lot of them bit the bullet to make that choice, especially if they opted for the 128G storage.
But now the machine I want is $200 cheaper than the previous version, and may have a better keyboard so I'm cool with that.
I've never heard why they soldered it in. But I agree that it was a silly move. I can see it in watches, iPhones and even iPads but not in laptops.
Not at all silly, it's a sound business decision, however unpopular. It is very popular to say Apple did it to thwart the DIYer. I doubt that's true, but neither side has proof either way.
Soldering directly to the mobo is faster, cheaper and more reliable than using sockets and inserting RAM. It also allows for the thinner profile that Apple is always touting, whether we like that or not.
No doubt Apple has run the numbers and found it's cheaper it terms of time to replace the whole mobo if not computer when RAM or storage fail. Their margins in the initial purchase price along with the cost of Apple Care balanced against the fairly high reliability make it a win for Apple.
Add to that they recycle the aluminium and other bits so it's a win-win but mainly for them.
Comments
The Geekbench score you're looking for will probably be closer to the high end GHz than the low, battery-saving end, if the MacBook Air cooling system is anywhere near as good as the improved cooling in the 16" MacBook Pro, which lets its CPU operate much closer to its TurboBoost max GHz (sustained) than the last 15" models did.
It's one of those reasons my 13" i5 MacBook Pro is faster than my old 15" i7, despite having similar base GHz. The newer 13" has a much higher clock speed ceiling.
I paraphrase what I wrote at the end of my earlier post in this same thread: There are obviously some commenters here who keep using their 1990s era view of how computers work to make uninformed evaluations of the highly adaptive dynamic technologies of today.
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need”
One of the big differences between the i3, i5, i7 is the amount of onboard cache -- which can make a significant difference in speed. Unfortunately I don't have the specs for these processors -- but historically the i5 can have double the cache of an i3 which speeds up repetitive tasks like speadsheets & such.
LOL... what subsidy?
No, as I said, since the SSD cannot be upgraded, Apple did the right thing by making the base spec adequate for average & usual needs.
What's stopping you from getting a HP laptop and a 50€ SSD? "Robbery" is when you are forced to do something; when you do it because you want, it's called "trade".
I'm not saying that Apple did wrong, I'm just saying that nothing stopped you before from getting more storage (I am writing this message on a 5 y old Air with i7, 8 GB RAM and 512 GS SSD - I needed more so I paid for what I need with my own money).
Cheers!
Very good; that means people can choose and it reinforces my previous point: Apple charging 10 or 1000€ is not "robbery", it's "trade".
I'm by no means a power user and I'm not running Pshop or any heavy lifting apps. I noticed an overall slowdown when upgrading to High Sierra. People say 8G is good now, and 16G is only for futureproofing but what happens when the future is here. I frequently restart to get some memory back and performance back.
Yeah, thousands of people are using 8G. That doesn't mean they're all happy with it, but they did save $200 by not going to 16G. I say a good lot of them bit the bullet to make that choice, especially if they opted for the 128G storage.
But now the machine I want is $200 cheaper than the previous version, and may have a better keyboard so I'm cool with that.
Soldering directly to the mobo is faster, cheaper and more reliable than using sockets and inserting RAM. It also allows for the thinner profile that Apple is always touting, whether we like that or not.
No doubt Apple has run the numbers and found it's cheaper it terms of time to replace the whole mobo if not computer when RAM or storage fail. Their margins in the initial purchase price along with the cost of Apple Care balanced against the fairly high reliability make it a win for Apple.
Add to that they recycle the aluminium and other bits so it's a win-win but mainly for them.