if you add make an 11" ultra-portable laptop you're going to HAVE to charge out the ass and not have all the features that one currently sees in the MacBook and MacBook Pro series.
The question would be, "Who would really care?" I don't know why so many people assume a small notebook must do absolutely everything the desktop replacements do. A subnotebook is a desktop supplement, not a desktop replacement. So it gives up a few features. Do I need a backlit keyboard? No. Haven't missed it on any of my notebooks. Do I need a built-in iSight? Again, no. Look around the forum and you'll find many people who say they're holding onto their 12" PB G4s, despite the fact that these aging machines are nowhere near state of the art and weren't even when they were produced. They are, however, the smallest, most portable OS X-capable machines out there. Let me tell you, when I owned a 1 pound NEC Mobilepro, I really, really liked it and carried it with me everywhere. The only drawback was that it had a limited operating system that wasn't OS X and very few apps.
On the supply side, there really isn't a real reason for an Apple ultraportable to be eyepoppingly expensive. Remember, the 12" PB G4 cost a lot less than the 15" or 17". Shrinking a bit more wouldn't take that much engineering expertise. The only really different component for an ultraportable is the small, high dpi screen. A widescreen 11" could accommodate a standard keyboard. Apple could use the same Core Solo CPU as the Vaio TXs do, and those don't cost much, otherwise they never would have been used in the Mac Mini. With Core Duo nearly experiencing price pressure from Core 2 Duo, that should be even cheaper. There are so many things that aren't necessary. Does anyone need "stereo" speakers? The stereo separation is nonexistent, much like the bass and audio fidelity. Better to go mono and plug in nice headphones when necessary. A smaller battery would suffice with a smaller screen and lower speed CPU. An eSATA optical drive would save a little weight, but could reduce bulk significantly, even freeing up more than enough space for an ExpressCard slot, which could potentially be more useful and versatile on the road, what with cards for cell networks, etc. The only real advance that would be welcome would be having the OS (minus ever-changing cache files) loaded into flash RAM. Do that and you could potentially use the slower but lower power 1.8" drives, which Apple probably gets a huge price break on given the quantities they use in iPods. An 80GB drive would suffice for most ultraportable users and the 80GB iPod shows it's fast enough to play MPEG-4 video at 640x480 (higher data transfer rate than h.264), which is probably the most demanding thing users will do with subnotebooks. No owner will expect a tiny machine like that to be a Photoshop or FCP workstation. That's what Mac Pros with 20+" displays are for.
I sort of approach from a different angle then the above post though I agree that Apple could do what Kolchak outlined. We might not even disagree on the price, but I tend to think it would be priced in the same position as the old 12" PB between iBooks and PB, or maybe even closer to the 15" MBP. This is a second machine for most everybody 'cept students. Now I think it is quite possible to make my version fairly inexpensive, but probably more then what Kolchak was envisioning.
I think that if Apple wanted to make a subnotebook they'd do it properly. Everybody loves their 12" PB (I'm still holding onto mine, 800 dollars worth of repairs later (optical drive, DC-In board) because of size and weight. I'd actually like to ditch more size and weight but of course lack that option.
I think Apple really could do this nicely, especially with Robson/Santa Rosa for the flash offloading. I agree that 80 GB 1.8" hard drives would do very nicely (or heck, Crazy Cringely is talking about what could be seriously slick hard drive technology in his latest post so we could go cutting edge) paired with flash.
I think they should make it as thin as possible. Make it really pop like the old Sony X505. Go with the ULV CPU, maybe a fanless discrete graphics card, dump the optical drive, keep an ExpressCard slot, a high quality (backlit if it can fit) keyboard, all the ports on the MacBook Pro and so forth.
Sacrifice what creates heat and takes up space (CPU, GPU, optical drive, hard drive) but otherwise make it like the MacBook Pro. There already is a consumer laptop. This is for people who like/need the space/weight savings (students willing to eat pasta for months, business people, frequent fliers, second machine people, limited field work people, etc...) and those who buy it because it would be seriously cool and is tiny. i.e. the same people who go for the 8 GB Nano over the 30 GB iPod.
I think it would need a new moniker though because the Pro laptops are really about the speed. MacBook Nano? MacBook Mini? MacBook Thin? Whatever, but something new.
I sort of approach from a different angle then the above post though I agree that Apple could do what Kolchak outlined. We might not even disagree on the price, but I tend to think it would be priced in the same position as the old 12" PB between iBooks and PB, or maybe even closer to the 15" MBP. This is a second machine for most everybody 'cept students. Now I think it is quite possible to make my version fairly inexpensive, but probably more then what Kolchak was envisioning.
I think that if Apple wanted to make a subnotebook they'd do it properly. Everybody loves their 12" PB (I'm still holding onto mine, 800 dollars worth of repairs later (optical drive, DC-In board) because of size and weight. I'd actually like to ditch more size and weight but of course lack that option.
I think Apple really could do this nicely, especially with Robson/Santa Rosa for the flash offloading. I agree that 80 GB 1.8" hard drives would do very nicely (or heck, Crazy Cringely is talking about what could be seriously slick hard drive technology in his latest post so we could go cutting edge) paired with flash.
I think they should make it as thin as possible. Make it really pop like the old Sony X505. Go with the ULV CPU, maybe a fanless discrete graphics card, dump the optical drive, keep an ExpressCard slot, a high quality (backlit if it can fit) keyboard, all the ports on the MacBook Pro and so forth.
Sacrifice what creates heat and takes up space (CPU, GPU, optical drive, hard drive) but otherwise make it like the MacBook Pro. There already is a consumer laptop. This is for people who like/need the space/weight savings (students willing to eat pasta for months, business people, frequent fliers, second machine people, limited field work people, etc...) and those who buy it because it would be seriously cool and is tiny. i.e. the same people who go for the 8 GB Nano over the 30 GB iPod.
I think it would need a new moniker though because the Pro laptops are really about the speed. MacBook Nano? MacBook Mini? MacBook Thin? Whatever, but something new.
Ditch the optical drive? That gets rid of a LOT of usability to me.
Ditch the optical drive? That gets rid of a LOT of usability to me.
It shouldn't be necessary to drop it anyway. I've found a few ultraportables at about 3lb that have an optical drive. The reason it's tempting to drop them is because even the thinnest ones take a lot of volume. I think the slim drives are down to the size of a CD jewel case right now. It is very compact considering what it does, but that's a lot space too.
Personally, it doesn't affect me either way, I would be content with a Firewire optical drive because I rarely use one these days except to install software and that use is diminishing. The other use is to import audio or video, not something I need on the go.
I would be content with a Firewire optical drive because I rarely use one these days except to install software and that use is diminishing. The other use is to import audio or video, not something I need on the go.
Exactly. I use the drive in my 12" PB once in a blue moon. 99.9% of the time, it's just dead weight. But go with external SATA instead of Firewire and you wouldn't even need a Firewire bridge chipset, reducing cost for the external drive. Ditto for using eSATA hard drives on the same connector.
Exactly. I use the drive in my 12" PB once in a blue moon. 99.9% of the time, it's just dead weight. But go with external SATA instead of Firewire and you wouldn't even need a Firewire bridge chipset, reducing cost for the external drive. Ditto for using eSATA hard drives on the same connector.
eSATA would require a power source, 6-pin FW could probably provide enough juice to run the drive without needing to plug the drive into anything else.
Not a lot of power. Hard drives spin up easily because of small, superflat platters and precision bearings. 2.5" drives take about 5W to spin up, less than the 7W Apple specs for Firewire ports. 3.5" drives can't be run off bus power. DVD drives can take up to 30W to spin up because of the relatively heavy and large media, although sustained rotation takes a fraction of that. Much safer to have an external adapter rather than risk blowing your Firewire port, a part that's not easily replaceable on a laptop.
Not a lot of power. Hard drives spin up easily because of small, superflat platters and precision bearings. 2.5" drives take about 5W to spin up, less than the 7W Apple specs for Firewire ports. 3.5" drives can't be run off bus power. DVD drives can take up to 30W to spin up because of the relatively heavy and large media, although sustained rotation takes a fraction of that. Much safer to have an external adapter rather than risk blowing your Firewire port, a part that's not easily replaceable on a laptop.
Ahh good someone with more figures than I. Well I guess Apple would need to make some sort of external bus that could handle 30W of power to spin the drive up off of.
Not a lot of power. Hard drives spin up easily because of small, superflat platters and precision bearings. 2.5" drives take about 5W to spin up, less than the 7W Apple specs for Firewire ports. 3.5" drives can't be run off bus power. DVD drives can take up to 30W to spin up because of the relatively heavy and large media, although sustained rotation takes a fraction of that. Much safer to have an external adapter rather than risk blowing your Firewire port, a part that's not easily replaceable on a laptop.
I am skeptical of that power figure. I don't think it takes nearly that much power, or if it did, there must be ways around it. If it was a danger, I don't think MCE Tech, among others, would offer a bus-powered firewire DVD drive if it would damage the port. Heck, even a desktop optical drive that I just grabbed has a max power rating of 23W, I'd think that notebook optical drives are considerably more power conservative than that.
I am skeptical of that power figure. I don't think it takes nearly that much power, or if it did, there must be ways around it. If it was a danger, I don't think MCE Tech, among others, would offer a bus-powered firewire DVD drive if it would damage the port. Heck, even a desktop optical drive that I just grabbed has a max power rating of 23W, I'd think that notebook optical drives are considerably more power conservative than that.
I think it would need a new moniker though because the Pro laptops are really about the speed. MacBook Nano? MacBook Mini? MacBook Thin? Whatever, but something new.
I am skeptical of that power figure. I don't think it takes nearly that much power, or if it did, there must be ways around it. If it was a danger, I don't think MCE Tech, among others, would offer a bus-powered firewire DVD drive if it would damage the port. Heck, even a desktop optical drive that I just grabbed has a max power rating of 23W, I'd think that notebook optical drives are considerably more power conservative than that.
Sure, you could get around it. With a slow ramp-up to full RPM. Notebook drives have always taken longer to get up to speed. If it was that easy to drop the power consumption of the drives, desktop drives wouldn't need even the 23w you noted, which is not that far from the "up to 30w" I quoted. Certainly closer to 30 than to the 7 Apple specifically says here. Yes, I know it repeatedly says 7w sustained power per port, but I wouldn't feel comfortable pushing two to three times that much through a port even momentarily. You kill a Firewire port on a laptop, how would you replace it other than replace the motherboard?
Sure, you could get around it. With a slow ramp-up to full RPM. Notebook drives have always taken longer to get up to speed. If it was that easy to drop the power consumption of the drives, desktop drives wouldn't need even the 23w you noted, which is not that far from the "up to 30w" I quoted.
How does one find these numbers? My notebook drives don't have any figures, but even so, I'm skeptical of your figures. All I found was one sheet from Pioneer where they said their drive was 5 or 6 watts during writing, but didn't state start-up. The point I was making is that desktop drives have no need to be careful with power consumption, they'll get what I need. Notebook counterparts are generally a lot more miserly than any desktop part will be.
How does one find these numbers? My notebook drives don't have any figures, but even so, I'm skeptical of your figures. All I found was one sheet from Pioneer where they said their drive was 5 or 6 watts during writing, but didn't state start-up. The point I was making is that desktop drives have no need to be careful with power consumption, they'll get what I need. Notebook counterparts are generally a lot more miserly than any desktop part will be.
…On the supply side, there really isn't a real reason for an Apple ultraportable to be eyepoppingly expensive. Remember, the 12" PB G4 cost a lot less than the 15" or 17". Shrinking a bit more wouldn't take that much engineering expertise. The only really different component for an ultraportable is the small, high dpi screen. A widescreen 11" could accommodate a standard keyboard. … No owner will expect a tiny machine like that to be a Photoshop or FCP workstation. That's what Mac Pros with 20+" displays are for.
A VERY good comment Kolchak. I really do think there is a market for a product like this. There are a lot of people out there who already have a desktop machine, but need something personal they can use to check email, surf the web, maybe some simple iLife stuff, write a document, etc... but don't really want to shell out for a full fledged MacBook/MBP or even a Dell for that matter. These people already have a computer they could sync such a device with, and need something a step up from an iPod, and a step down from a MacBook, even if that step comes with a little added cost. At Kolchak's specs it could probably be done for under $1000 even. Apple could even price them with a larger profit margin than the MacBooks (with which it may compete) since the hardware being used is outdated.
A high powered MacMini runs what these days? $600? Imagine removing the optical drive (not needed in a syncing/docking device). Replace the 2.5" drive with a 1.8" 80 gig drive, use the same motherboard with integrated graphics, smash and stretch, go back to a core solo (saves costs, and you won't need anything more powerful in such a device), add a battery and keyboard/touchscreen, and you're basically set. It's a little more technical than that, but you get the idea. Add a screen and sell it for $999? Seems very doable to me. I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
A high powered MacMini runs what these days? $600? Imagine removing the optical drive (not needed in a syncing/docking device). Replace the 2.5" drive with a 1.8" 80 gig drive, use the same motherboard with integrated graphics, smash and stretch, go back to a core solo (saves costs, and you won't need anything more powerful in such a device), add a battery and keyboard/touchscreen, and you're basically set. It's a little more technical than that, but you get the idea. Add a screen and sell it for $999? Seems very doable to me. I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to base the costings on a Mac Mini. It is more realistic to base them on the $1099 MacBook.
11" widescreen displays are more expensive than 13" ones.
ULV (necessary to keep heat and power consumption down) Core Solos are more expensive than 1.83 GHz Core Duos (well, the 1.06 GHz Core Solo is the same price, but I'm assuming people would want a faster processor than that.).
1.8" HDDs are more expensive than 2.5" ones.
Providing an external optical drive (presumably you would do this? Or would it be an option?) is more expensive than having one built-in.
Presumably you're after aluminium casework? That's much more expensive than the MacBook's plastic.
These higher costs are offset by a cheaper battery, casework and shipping costs. However, the cost savings are minor whilst the cost increases are not. I don't think anything under $1499 is realistic.
These higher costs are offset by a cheaper battery, casework and shipping costs. However, the cost savings are minor whilst the cost increases are not. I don't think anything under $1499 is realistic.
Lest anyone forget, 12" PB buyers shelled out $1800 retail for a machine much less capable than the 15 and 17" models. Many people would be more than happy to pay the same for a 3 pound machine they can carry at all times, unlike the bigger MB/MBP. Those who are fixated on maximum features severely underrate the attractiveness of maximum portability. When you're a student having to lug your laptop all around campus throughout a school day or a frequent business traveler who's already weighed down by a couple of carry-ons, small and light sells.
Lest anyone forget, 12" PB buyers shelled out $1800 retail for a machine much less capable than the 15 and 17" models. Many people would be more than happy to pay the same for a 3 pound machine they can carry at all times, unlike the bigger MB/MBP. Those who are fixated on maximum features severely underrate the attractiveness of maximum portability. When you're a student having to lug your laptop all around campus throughout a school day or a frequent business traveler who's already weighed down by a couple of carry-ons, small and light sells.
I agree, absolutely. I think that Apple would benefit from having an ultra-portable. I'm just saying that if anyone expects it to cost less than around $1499, they'll be disappointed if/when it arrives.
Comments
For business buyers cost is sometimes a secondary issue as long as it fits below some magic amount.
Vinea
True - but these are likely to be very expensive and probably above that magic amount for a lot of people/businesses.
if you add make an 11" ultra-portable laptop you're going to HAVE to charge out the ass and not have all the features that one currently sees in the MacBook and MacBook Pro series.
The question would be, "Who would really care?" I don't know why so many people assume a small notebook must do absolutely everything the desktop replacements do. A subnotebook is a desktop supplement, not a desktop replacement. So it gives up a few features. Do I need a backlit keyboard? No. Haven't missed it on any of my notebooks. Do I need a built-in iSight? Again, no. Look around the forum and you'll find many people who say they're holding onto their 12" PB G4s, despite the fact that these aging machines are nowhere near state of the art and weren't even when they were produced. They are, however, the smallest, most portable OS X-capable machines out there. Let me tell you, when I owned a 1 pound NEC Mobilepro, I really, really liked it and carried it with me everywhere. The only drawback was that it had a limited operating system that wasn't OS X and very few apps.
On the supply side, there really isn't a real reason for an Apple ultraportable to be eyepoppingly expensive. Remember, the 12" PB G4 cost a lot less than the 15" or 17". Shrinking a bit more wouldn't take that much engineering expertise. The only really different component for an ultraportable is the small, high dpi screen. A widescreen 11" could accommodate a standard keyboard. Apple could use the same Core Solo CPU as the Vaio TXs do, and those don't cost much, otherwise they never would have been used in the Mac Mini. With Core Duo nearly experiencing price pressure from Core 2 Duo, that should be even cheaper. There are so many things that aren't necessary. Does anyone need "stereo" speakers? The stereo separation is nonexistent, much like the bass and audio fidelity. Better to go mono and plug in nice headphones when necessary. A smaller battery would suffice with a smaller screen and lower speed CPU. An eSATA optical drive would save a little weight, but could reduce bulk significantly, even freeing up more than enough space for an ExpressCard slot, which could potentially be more useful and versatile on the road, what with cards for cell networks, etc. The only real advance that would be welcome would be having the OS (minus ever-changing cache files) loaded into flash RAM. Do that and you could potentially use the slower but lower power 1.8" drives, which Apple probably gets a huge price break on given the quantities they use in iPods. An 80GB drive would suffice for most ultraportable users and the 80GB iPod shows it's fast enough to play MPEG-4 video at 640x480 (higher data transfer rate than h.264), which is probably the most demanding thing users will do with subnotebooks. No owner will expect a tiny machine like that to be a Photoshop or FCP workstation. That's what Mac Pros with 20+" displays are for.
I think that if Apple wanted to make a subnotebook they'd do it properly. Everybody loves their 12" PB (I'm still holding onto mine, 800 dollars worth of repairs later (optical drive, DC-In board) because of size and weight. I'd actually like to ditch more size and weight but of course lack that option.
I think Apple really could do this nicely, especially with Robson/Santa Rosa for the flash offloading. I agree that 80 GB 1.8" hard drives would do very nicely (or heck, Crazy Cringely is talking about what could be seriously slick hard drive technology in his latest post so we could go cutting edge) paired with flash.
I think they should make it as thin as possible. Make it really pop like the old Sony X505. Go with the ULV CPU, maybe a fanless discrete graphics card, dump the optical drive, keep an ExpressCard slot, a high quality (backlit if it can fit) keyboard, all the ports on the MacBook Pro and so forth.
Sacrifice what creates heat and takes up space (CPU, GPU, optical drive, hard drive) but otherwise make it like the MacBook Pro. There already is a consumer laptop. This is for people who like/need the space/weight savings (students willing to eat pasta for months, business people, frequent fliers, second machine people, limited field work people, etc...) and those who buy it because it would be seriously cool and is tiny. i.e. the same people who go for the 8 GB Nano over the 30 GB iPod.
I think it would need a new moniker though because the Pro laptops are really about the speed. MacBook Nano? MacBook Mini? MacBook Thin? Whatever, but something new.
I sort of approach from a different angle then the above post though I agree that Apple could do what Kolchak outlined. We might not even disagree on the price, but I tend to think it would be priced in the same position as the old 12" PB between iBooks and PB, or maybe even closer to the 15" MBP. This is a second machine for most everybody 'cept students. Now I think it is quite possible to make my version fairly inexpensive, but probably more then what Kolchak was envisioning.
I think that if Apple wanted to make a subnotebook they'd do it properly. Everybody loves their 12" PB (I'm still holding onto mine, 800 dollars worth of repairs later (optical drive, DC-In board) because of size and weight. I'd actually like to ditch more size and weight but of course lack that option.
I think Apple really could do this nicely, especially with Robson/Santa Rosa for the flash offloading. I agree that 80 GB 1.8" hard drives would do very nicely (or heck, Crazy Cringely is talking about what could be seriously slick hard drive technology in his latest post so we could go cutting edge) paired with flash.
I think they should make it as thin as possible. Make it really pop like the old Sony X505. Go with the ULV CPU, maybe a fanless discrete graphics card, dump the optical drive, keep an ExpressCard slot, a high quality (backlit if it can fit) keyboard, all the ports on the MacBook Pro and so forth.
Sacrifice what creates heat and takes up space (CPU, GPU, optical drive, hard drive) but otherwise make it like the MacBook Pro. There already is a consumer laptop. This is for people who like/need the space/weight savings (students willing to eat pasta for months, business people, frequent fliers, second machine people, limited field work people, etc...) and those who buy it because it would be seriously cool and is tiny. i.e. the same people who go for the 8 GB Nano over the 30 GB iPod.
I think it would need a new moniker though because the Pro laptops are really about the speed. MacBook Nano? MacBook Mini? MacBook Thin? Whatever, but something new.
Ditch the optical drive? That gets rid of a LOT of usability to me.
Ditch the optical drive? That gets rid of a LOT of usability to me.
It shouldn't be necessary to drop it anyway. I've found a few ultraportables at about 3lb that have an optical drive. The reason it's tempting to drop them is because even the thinnest ones take a lot of volume. I think the slim drives are down to the size of a CD jewel case right now. It is very compact considering what it does, but that's a lot space too.
Personally, it doesn't affect me either way, I would be content with a Firewire optical drive because I rarely use one these days except to install software and that use is diminishing. The other use is to import audio or video, not something I need on the go.
I would be content with a Firewire optical drive because I rarely use one these days except to install software and that use is diminishing. The other use is to import audio or video, not something I need on the go.
Exactly. I use the drive in my 12" PB once in a blue moon. 99.9% of the time, it's just dead weight. But go with external SATA instead of Firewire and you wouldn't even need a Firewire bridge chipset, reducing cost for the external drive. Ditto for using eSATA hard drives on the same connector.
Exactly. I use the drive in my 12" PB once in a blue moon. 99.9% of the time, it's just dead weight. But go with external SATA instead of Firewire and you wouldn't even need a Firewire bridge chipset, reducing cost for the external drive. Ditto for using eSATA hard drives on the same connector.
eSATA would require a power source, 6-pin FW could probably provide enough juice to run the drive without needing to plug the drive into anything else.
Not a lot of power. Hard drives spin up easily because of small, superflat platters and precision bearings. 2.5" drives take about 5W to spin up, less than the 7W Apple specs for Firewire ports. 3.5" drives can't be run off bus power. DVD drives can take up to 30W to spin up because of the relatively heavy and large media, although sustained rotation takes a fraction of that. Much safer to have an external adapter rather than risk blowing your Firewire port, a part that's not easily replaceable on a laptop.
Ahh good someone with more figures than I. Well I guess Apple would need to make some sort of external bus that could handle 30W of power to spin the drive up off of.
Not a lot of power. Hard drives spin up easily because of small, superflat platters and precision bearings. 2.5" drives take about 5W to spin up, less than the 7W Apple specs for Firewire ports. 3.5" drives can't be run off bus power. DVD drives can take up to 30W to spin up because of the relatively heavy and large media, although sustained rotation takes a fraction of that. Much safer to have an external adapter rather than risk blowing your Firewire port, a part that's not easily replaceable on a laptop.
I am skeptical of that power figure. I don't think it takes nearly that much power, or if it did, there must be ways around it. If it was a danger, I don't think MCE Tech, among others, would offer a bus-powered firewire DVD drive if it would damage the port. Heck, even a desktop optical drive that I just grabbed has a max power rating of 23W, I'd think that notebook optical drives are considerably more power conservative than that.
I am skeptical of that power figure. I don't think it takes nearly that much power, or if it did, there must be ways around it. If it was a danger, I don't think MCE Tech, among others, would offer a bus-powered firewire DVD drive if it would damage the port. Heck, even a desktop optical drive that I just grabbed has a max power rating of 23W, I'd think that notebook optical drives are considerably more power conservative than that.
http://www.mcetech.com/lucidm8x.html
Indeed they do!
I think it would need a new moniker though because the Pro laptops are really about the speed. MacBook Nano? MacBook Mini? MacBook Thin? Whatever, but something new.
MacPod
I am skeptical of that power figure. I don't think it takes nearly that much power, or if it did, there must be ways around it. If it was a danger, I don't think MCE Tech, among others, would offer a bus-powered firewire DVD drive if it would damage the port. Heck, even a desktop optical drive that I just grabbed has a max power rating of 23W, I'd think that notebook optical drives are considerably more power conservative than that.
Sure, you could get around it. With a slow ramp-up to full RPM. Notebook drives have always taken longer to get up to speed. If it was that easy to drop the power consumption of the drives, desktop drives wouldn't need even the 23w you noted, which is not that far from the "up to 30w" I quoted. Certainly closer to 30 than to the 7 Apple specifically says here. Yes, I know it repeatedly says 7w sustained power per port, but I wouldn't feel comfortable pushing two to three times that much through a port even momentarily. You kill a Firewire port on a laptop, how would you replace it other than replace the motherboard?
Sure, you could get around it. With a slow ramp-up to full RPM. Notebook drives have always taken longer to get up to speed. If it was that easy to drop the power consumption of the drives, desktop drives wouldn't need even the 23w you noted, which is not that far from the "up to 30w" I quoted.
How does one find these numbers? My notebook drives don't have any figures, but even so, I'm skeptical of your figures. All I found was one sheet from Pioneer where they said their drive was 5 or 6 watts during writing, but didn't state start-up. The point I was making is that desktop drives have no need to be careful with power consumption, they'll get what I need. Notebook counterparts are generally a lot more miserly than any desktop part will be.
How does one find these numbers? My notebook drives don't have any figures, but even so, I'm skeptical of your figures. All I found was one sheet from Pioneer where they said their drive was 5 or 6 watts during writing, but didn't state start-up. The point I was making is that desktop drives have no need to be careful with power consumption, they'll get what I need. Notebook counterparts are generally a lot more miserly than any desktop part will be.
Power consumption.
Power consumption.
Good one!
…On the supply side, there really isn't a real reason for an Apple ultraportable to be eyepoppingly expensive. Remember, the 12" PB G4 cost a lot less than the 15" or 17". Shrinking a bit more wouldn't take that much engineering expertise. The only really different component for an ultraportable is the small, high dpi screen. A widescreen 11" could accommodate a standard keyboard. … No owner will expect a tiny machine like that to be a Photoshop or FCP workstation. That's what Mac Pros with 20+" displays are for.
A VERY good comment Kolchak. I really do think there is a market for a product like this. There are a lot of people out there who already have a desktop machine, but need something personal they can use to check email, surf the web, maybe some simple iLife stuff, write a document, etc... but don't really want to shell out for a full fledged MacBook/MBP or even a Dell for that matter. These people already have a computer they could sync such a device with, and need something a step up from an iPod, and a step down from a MacBook, even if that step comes with a little added cost. At Kolchak's specs it could probably be done for under $1000 even. Apple could even price them with a larger profit margin than the MacBooks (with which it may compete) since the hardware being used is outdated.
A high powered MacMini runs what these days? $600? Imagine removing the optical drive (not needed in a syncing/docking device). Replace the 2.5" drive with a 1.8" 80 gig drive, use the same motherboard with integrated graphics, smash and stretch, go back to a core solo (saves costs, and you won't need anything more powerful in such a device), add a battery and keyboard/touchscreen, and you're basically set. It's a little more technical than that, but you get the idea. Add a screen and sell it for $999? Seems very doable to me. I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
A high powered MacMini runs what these days? $600? Imagine removing the optical drive (not needed in a syncing/docking device). Replace the 2.5" drive with a 1.8" 80 gig drive, use the same motherboard with integrated graphics, smash and stretch, go back to a core solo (saves costs, and you won't need anything more powerful in such a device), add a battery and keyboard/touchscreen, and you're basically set. It's a little more technical than that, but you get the idea. Add a screen and sell it for $999? Seems very doable to me. I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to base the costings on a Mac Mini. It is more realistic to base them on the $1099 MacBook.
- 11" widescreen displays are more expensive than 13" ones.
- ULV (necessary to keep heat and power consumption down) Core Solos are more expensive than 1.83 GHz Core Duos (well, the 1.06 GHz Core Solo is the same price, but I'm assuming people would want a faster processor than that.).
- 1.8" HDDs are more expensive than 2.5" ones.
- Providing an external optical drive (presumably you would do this? Or would it be an option?) is more expensive than having one built-in.
- Presumably you're after aluminium casework? That's much more expensive than the MacBook's plastic.
These higher costs are offset by a cheaper battery, casework and shipping costs. However, the cost savings are minor whilst the cost increases are not. I don't think anything under $1499 is realistic.These higher costs are offset by a cheaper battery, casework and shipping costs. However, the cost savings are minor whilst the cost increases are not. I don't think anything under $1499 is realistic.
Lest anyone forget, 12" PB buyers shelled out $1800 retail for a machine much less capable than the 15 and 17" models. Many people would be more than happy to pay the same for a 3 pound machine they can carry at all times, unlike the bigger MB/MBP. Those who are fixated on maximum features severely underrate the attractiveness of maximum portability. When you're a student having to lug your laptop all around campus throughout a school day or a frequent business traveler who's already weighed down by a couple of carry-ons, small and light sells.
Lest anyone forget, 12" PB buyers shelled out $1800 retail for a machine much less capable than the 15 and 17" models. Many people would be more than happy to pay the same for a 3 pound machine they can carry at all times, unlike the bigger MB/MBP. Those who are fixated on maximum features severely underrate the attractiveness of maximum portability. When you're a student having to lug your laptop all around campus throughout a school day or a frequent business traveler who's already weighed down by a couple of carry-ons, small and light sells.
I agree, absolutely. I think that Apple would benefit from having an ultra-portable. I'm just saying that if anyone expects it to cost less than around $1499, they'll be disappointed if/when it arrives.