Apple struggling to meet demand for new LED-lit notebooks

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 72
    davebarnesdavebarnes Posts: 272member
    Slash,



    You are going to rot in Greenpeace Hell for writing "contain minute amounts of mercury, the new LED-lit panels are free of the potentially harmful toxin."



    /sarcasm



    ,dave
  • Reply 22 of 72
    dentondenton Posts: 725member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rogue68 View Post


    I don't care whether people call the 13" MBP an 'ultra portable' or not. I just want one.



    My thoughts exactly!
  • Reply 23 of 72
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,727member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Okay let's look at the required hardware for this device:



    Casing, display, keyboard/input, Mo-board, CPU, RAM, Wi-Fi, HDD, battery.



    The a large portion of weight within a laptop is the display. The size of the battery depends on the power requirements of the unit... one huge determining factor is the size of the display. The only thing Apple can do to dodge these two weight factors is to make the screen smaller. As for the casing, Apple would be making a smart move by using aluminum/titanium/whatever alloy. Keyboard/input, Mo-board, CPU, RAM Wi-Fi card are all fixed weights. I think we can all agree on these facts.



    At this point, the only difference between this device and the 13" MB is the presence of an optical bay, and a storage device. The storage device could be a 1.8" but then you're either forced to go with expensive SSD or the extremely fragile HDD. Let's assume Apple goes for the SSD. They'll save a matter of ounces. How about an Optical drive? How much does a slim DVD burner weigh? The heaviest one I could find was exactly one pound (most were around 0.6lbs. That would put this hypothetical optical-less, SSD MacBook at 4 lbs exactly.



    This is all very much beside the point.



    By Gloss' definition, it could be classified as ultra-portable. Sure we could eke past the definition of "ultra-portable" but that's not the point. My point is that the idiocy that occurs here is ridiculous. People on these forums chant "I won't buy a laptop until Apple makes an Ultra-Portable." That's ridiclous. Apple's current laptops are already under 1" and 5 lbs or so. What, you're waiting for them to be 4 lbs instead? Get real. That's like saying I have 2013 lb pile of cow s**t and that I shovel off 15 pounds. "Oh, now it's light because it's under a ton."



    "Ultra-portability" is not a definition, it's a characteristic. If Apple is going to make an "ultra-portable" it won't be a limb-sacrificed laptop. It'll be a device built from the ground up with portability in mind.



    I do think Apple will release a 13" laptop but it'll be a more-powerful MB with the bells and whistles of a MBP. It probably won't be under 4 lbs, but it will continue Apple's existing trend of developing lightweight, thin portables. Of course idiots around here will tout it as the Wu-rumored ultra-portable when it's a device no more portable than the 12" PB. That wasn't marketed as an ultra-portable and no one cared. Now it's a humoungous marketing scheme that you idios have fallen for.



    When this laptop arrives, don't make a fool of yourself and mistake it for an ultra-portable. If you do, you face my rapage once again.



    Remember: "Ultra-portability" is not a definition, it's a characteristic.



    -Clive



    I don't agree with your assessment. Just look at some of the models out there. While some do have smaller screens, that doesn't account for all of their their much lighter weight.



    When cutting weight by a significant amount, some compromise must be expected. No DVD, a smaller HD, which, by the way, is NOT "extremely fragile".



    A plastic case might be called for as well. Look at some Sony models, and other manufacturers have come out with them as well. Go from a small 11" screen to 13", and you might pick up 8 to 10 oz. That's all.



    I would like to see an 11" lightweight model myself, to carry around for fun.



    But, a full featured model could go at 3.5 lbs.
  • Reply 24 of 72
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,727member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth View Post


    I'm with ajhill! The media does nothing but bash Apple without reason!!11!



    Go Appple!!



    That's not true.
  • Reply 25 of 72
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    2 ad hominem attacks by Mr. CliveAtFive - 2 points.



    Just about the only rule we have here besides spamming is name-calling.
  • Reply 26 of 72
    deckarddeckard Posts: 63member
    So. I wanted a 15" 2.2... three week wait, so that wasn't going to happen. I upgraded that to the 15" 2.4... four week wait, so that wasn't going to happen.



    What other option did I have? Yep, that's right - the 17" big bad boy. Okay, so I ordered the 17" by phone at my local reseller - wait time? Oh, about 2 minutes while he went out to the stock room and picked one!



    Everyone wants the 15" units but nobody wants/can afford/wants to afford the 17".



    Picked it up last night and I have to say; this laptop is just incredible. Stock standard (who can afford options when you're paying almost $4K AUD for the laptop???) but it flies.



    As for the screen, no it's not LCD backlit but I don't really care - by the time the cold cathode has had it's day I'll be upgrading to something faster in an even more sexy case!



    The point of this ramble is: wait times in Australia are simply inane. Who in there right mind would wait a MONTH for an order to be filled? For anything?



    There's a difference between not expecting such huge demand and not expecting ANY demand. I've said it before: Apple are historically useless at supply chain management on new product releases. I don't know why I keep expecting them to get any better.



    This type of situation is NOT the way to grow your company on a global basis.



    But then, I don't think Apple really cares much about the OS market.
  • Reply 27 of 72
    zwebenzweben Posts: 75member
    I just wanted to say that I didn't care that much about the LED backlighting at first, but I compared the displays on my friend's MacBook Pro to my PowerBook, and the difference in image quality was immense. Not only was the viewing angle much better, the color accuracy was much better too.



    You know how laptop LCD's have distorted colors when you look at them from the side? His display barely had that effect at all. The color accuracy was also much better, and it was obscenely bright.



    I was very impressed.
  • Reply 28 of 72
    extremeskaterextremeskater Posts: 2,248member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    OMFG.



    How many times do I have to say it?!



    13" ISN'T ULTRA-PORTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    Calling my crappy Nokia 3100 an iPhone doesn't make it one. Neither does calling a 13" MBP an ultra-portable! It will still carry nearly the same weight as the 13" MBs... that's 5.1 lbs, FYI.



    Wake up, you stupid lunatics!



    -Clive



    If 5.1lbs is too much for you to carry, maybe instead of a mac upgrade you should invest in a gym membership and bulk up a bit. By any standard in the US market and common sense alone 13" is considered ultra portable. There simply is not a mass market for laptops without optical drives, solid state storage just to have a laptop that weighs a pound less.



    Even Steve Jobs is starting to understand that simple doesn't always sell, people want features and that requires a certain level of space.
  • Reply 29 of 72
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    At this point, the only difference between this device and the 13" MB is the presence of an optical bay, and a storage device. The storage device could be a 1.8" but then you're either forced to go with expensive SSD or the extremely fragile HDD. Let's assume Apple goes for the SSD. They'll save a matter of ounces. How about an Optical drive? How much does a slim DVD burner weigh? The heaviest one I could find was exactly one pound (most were around 0.6lbs. That would put this hypothetical optical-less, SSD MacBook at 4 lbs exactly.



    Sony has a notebook that weighs 2.65lb, which includes an internal dual layer writing optical drive, standard WiFi, Bt and EVDO.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    The things that determine the power consumption of a display are resolution (number of pixels), and size (which determines the power required for the backlight).



    Resolution has very little to do with power consumption. It's the light generation part of the display that consumes the most power.
  • Reply 30 of 72
    kareliakarelia Posts: 525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Intel's T5600 Merom, used in the MacBook...



    Ahem... the MacBook now uses either a T7200 (2.0GHz) or T7400 (2.16GHz) Merom. The previous low-end MacBook (1.83GHz Core 2) used a T5600.
  • Reply 31 of 72
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rogue68 View Post


    I don't care whether people call the 13" MBP an 'ultra portable' or not. I just want one.



    Ditto. I prefer smaller and will sell my MacBook immediately, though I'd prefer an 11" or 12" MBP over 13".



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    2 ad hominem attacks by Mr. CliveAtFive - 2 points.



    Just about the only rule we have here besides spamming is name-calling.



    We can get demerits? How many before we get banned? How long does the ban last? How long do the points stay on our "record"? Will these demerits affect my credit rating? Will you inform my mother of any demerits i receive? Please don't; she'll cry.



    Seriously, I didn't know there was such a system in place here.
  • Reply 32 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post


    If 5.1lbs is too much for you to carry, maybe instead of a mac upgrade you should invest in a gym membership and bulk up a bit. By any standard in the US market and common sense alone 13" is considered ultra portable. There simply is not a mass market for laptops without optical drives, solid state storage just to have a laptop that weighs a pound less.



    Even Steve Jobs is starting to understand that simple doesn't always sell, people want features and that requires a certain level of space.



    woah woah woah... I never said I wanted a laptop under 5.1 lbs. It the people out here whining for an ultra-portable. If anything, you agree with my point. Apple *may* release a 13" MBP that happens to be under 1" thick and 4 lbs, but that's not going to magically make it an "ultra-portable." I, personally agree that an ultra-portable is a stupid idea, unless it's implemented correctly: say, for example, a unit with very few guts and "back-to-my-Mac" via wi-fi or 3G (and the like) There we have a device that won't limit your computing power, and instead interface your desktop.



    An under-powered, amputated laptop is not going to sell.



    -Clive
  • Reply 33 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    2 ad hominem attacks by Mr. CliveAtFive - 2 points.



    Just about the only rule we have here besides spamming is name-calling.



    What's my point balance? Don't I get positive points for all the times I've given input that wasn't disagreeable among the AI forum? I think, in net points, I'm probably at about 50.



    Plus I've never spammed. I should get a 20-point bonus for that.



    -Clive
  • Reply 34 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    The things that determine the power consumption of a display are resolution (number of pixels), and size (which determines the power required for the backlight). So, a 12.1" 16:10 display with 1280 x 800 resolution would require the same amount of power as the 13" one for the pixels, and about 13% less power for the backlight for the same brightness (as the 12.1" screen has about 13% less area). In other words, going to a 12.1" screen wouldn't save you that much.



    However, the current MacBook uses CCFL backlighting. The screen size can be maintained, and power consumption can simultaneously be reduced by using L.E.D. backlighting instead.



    [...]



    Two more significant differences:
    • CPU designed for ultra-mobile laptops

    • Aluminium casework

    The first of these is very significant (more so than the display). Intel's T5600 Merom, used in the MacBook, has a TDP of 34 watts. The ULV version, the U7600, has a TDP of 10 watts. This significant power saving, coupled to the reduced power consumption of the L.E.D. backlighting of the display, allows the use of a smaller, lighter battery.



    The casework for the MacBook has a healthy dollop of internal bracing, making the unit rather dense. The 13" MacBook is 0.663 ounces/cubic inch, whilst the 15.4" MacBook Pro is 0.638 ounces/cubic inch.



    This means that if the 13" MacBook used the same construction as a 15.4" MacBook Pro, it would weigh about 4.9 pounds. However, not only is the aluminium construction less dense, it would also allow for a smaller form factor, especially if there's no optical drive.



    I mentioned the case, did I not?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't agree with your assessment. Just look at some of the models out there. While some do have smaller screens, that doesn't account for all of their their much lighter weight.



    When cutting weight by a significant amount, some compromise must be expected. No DVD, a smaller HD, which, by the way, is NOT "extremely fragile".



    A plastic case might be called for as well. Look at some Sony models, and other manufacturers have come out with them as well. Go from a small 11" screen to 13", and you might pick up 8 to 10 oz. That's all.



    I would like to see an 11" lightweight model myself, to carry around for fun.



    But, a full featured model could go at 3.5 lbs.



    Technicalities. All technicalities. Apparently most of you neglected to read the second half of the post which was dedicated to cluing you in to how you're falling for marketing schemes, and how "ultra-portable" cannot be defined and all that. Here it is one more time: It's not about how the thing looks on paper, it's about its usefulness as a tool and real-life ease of portability. 1" thick and 4lbs doesn't mean s**t if the thing is a crippled and gimpy laptop.



    Pull your heads out and realize this.



    Besides, can you seriously not handle Apple's current 5-lb laptops? What more could you want?! Good grief, get a backbone.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Sony has a notebook which includes an internal dual layer writing optical drive that weighs a total of 2.65 lb, which includes standard WiFi, Bt and EVDO.



    No freaking way. What is it made of? Solid lead?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Resolution has very little to do with power consumption. It's the light generation part of the display that consumes the most power.



    Thank you for being the only person to stick up for me on a technical point.



    -Clive
  • Reply 35 of 72
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,727member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Technicalities. All technicalities. Apparently most of you neglected to read the second half of the post which was dedicated to cluing you in to how you're falling for marketing schemes, and how "ultra-portable" cannot be defined and all that. Here it is one more time: It's not about how the thing looks on paper, it's about its usefulness as a tool and real-life ease of portability. 1" thick and 4lbs doesn't mean s**t if the thing is a crippled and gimpy laptop.



    Pull your heads out and realize this.



    Besides, can you seriously not handle Apple's current 5-lb laptops? What more could you want?! Good grief, get a backbone.



    I think that you are the one missing the point here. You are trying to come up with your own definition, while denying that there is one.



    At some point in time, people must agree on what words mean. If the great majority agree on a definition, then that is the definition. It may change later.



    If you don't agree, that's too bad, but then you are the odd man out.



    This has nothing to do with "handling" Apple's current lineup either.



    I suppose that you complained when people said that the original 20 pound models were too heavy.
  • Reply 36 of 72
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    What's my point balance? Don't I get positive points for all the times I've given input that wasn't disagreeable among the AI forum? I think, in net points, I'm probably at about 50.



    You are normally pretty jovial, what has changed such that your attitude is so different now from in the past?
  • Reply 37 of 72
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Thank you for being the only person to stick up for me on a technical point.



    It's not the weight in itself, it's the fatigue. Have you ever had to walk around for twelve hours with a notebook strapped to your shoulder? Personally, I don't need a multi-GHz notebook, I really don't think many people do, but something that runs cooler, longer and is lighter would be a worthwhile tradeoff.
  • Reply 38 of 72
    raven56raven56 Posts: 1member
    I ordered a new baseline 15" macbook pro from a Mac1 store on the 13th of June and am still waiting for it to arrive. This is my first Mac and to be honest Apple is proving to be completely incompetent, 6 WEEKS is fare too long to wait for a laptop.

    At least now i have some idea that I'm not the only one going through this pain.



    And what problems have they had with the LED screens?
  • Reply 39 of 72
    j45p3rj45p3r Posts: 2member
    My MBP shipped this morning!
  • Reply 40 of 72
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    It's not the weight in itself, it's the fatigue. Have you ever had to walk around for twelve hours with a notebook strapped to your shoulder? Personally, I don't need a multi-GHz notebook, I really don't think many people do, but something that runs cooler, longer and is lighter would be a worthwhile tradeoff.



    That's the part the "go to a gym" people don't understand. Its not the weight, its the weight + time. Its the drag on the arm hauling it around, its the freaking pain in the shoulder from the freakin' strap on the bag. And its not just the laptop people have to carry around. A 2lb laptop isn't going to help if the power supply for it is 3 pounds.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    You are normally pretty jovial, what has changed such that your attitude is so different now from in the past?



    He needs to get back on the Zoloft. Or take up drinking again. Or both.
Sign In or Register to comment.