UMPCs that cost as much have more features than the Air. Some UMPCs with an SSD are the same price as the base price of the Air with a regular HD.
Geez! The OP said that people don't spend $1,800 on a secondary device. I merely gave an example where a UMPc was not a replacement to full-fledged computer and can be costly. It wsn't a debate on which is a better computer or which has more ports than the other. There is no pissing contest! Just a simple price comparison to what niche market buyers are willing to pay for certain conveniences.
Packing portable speakers seems to defeat the point of trying to stay light and compact.
I agree.
I am also surprised that so few people seem to hold Bluetooth technologies as more viable options, given the Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR available in the MacBook Air.
True, stereo Bluetooth headsets/headphones/speakers are expensive, but so is any other quality audio equipment.
I really only know of the Motorola stereo Bluetooth headphones on store.motorola.com, which are about $170, if I recall, but I'm sure if one were so inclined, another quality pair could be found using product reviews as guides.
If one has the money to spend on this chic ultra portable, then shelling out a bit more for multi-use stereo Bluetooth headphones probably won't be a huge problem either. Many mid to high end cell phones usually support this same Bluetooth + EDR technology, as well.
The only thing that prevents me from spending my money on snazzy gadgets like these is my financial discipline in making sure the essentials are covered with more to spare before I do. There are those lucky enough to have enough left over after essentials, and those who choose to ignore financial responsibility and spend frivilously. Neither describes me at the moment.
This is Apple recouping it's R&D costs. They are selling a proof of concept. The principle goals were the worlds thinnest notebook and multi-touch.
The people who buy the MBA will love it but I think there wont be many.
It seems obvious that the 'thinning' technology will go to the MBP and MB in a few months time along with Multi-touch. Apple are declaring "if you want a thin laptop buy Apple.
This is Apple recouping it's R&D costs. They are selling a proof of concept. The principle goals were the worlds thinnest notebook and multi-touch.
The people who buy the MBA will love it but I think there wont be many.
It seems obvious that the 'thinning' technology will go to the MBP and MB in a few months time along with Multi-touch. Apple are declaring "if you want a thin laptop buy Apple.
My question from the start has always been the following. Let's assume we want to keep the same keyboard and screen and don't care about thickness. Could we shave abuot 0.5 inches off each side of the keyboard and another 0.5 off the top? I think so. So you'd have a slightly smaller footprint. To accommodate the battery and other needs you'd have more space internally by going with say a uniform .8 thickness. It would be more box like such as with other macs. But you'd keep a sleek aluminum industrial design. You'd have no special claim to fame, but perhaps an extra port or two. Perhaps it could even be a touch lighter, but not sure.
And UMPCs that cost as much are made to be one's primary computer?
I don't know anyone who own's a UMPC, so I couldn't tell you. But an $1,800 computer that isn't good for much is a bizarre concept, especially to Mac users who are accustomed to even a $599 Mac Mini being capable of acting as the center of your digital world. An 80GB 4200RPM hard drive is too small and slow to do much of anything at the prosumer level, not to mention a lack of optical drive or firewire port makes half of the iLife Apps essentially useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I think you mean "...way too much money..." for you (and perhaps people you know).
For me, and most people. These days, $1,800 is twice as much as most people spend on their primary computer.
For me, and most people. These days, $1,800 is more than most people spend on their primary computer.
That's fine, since "most people" don't buy Macs. (I am not trying to sound elitist or snarky in the remotest: just making a point based on market shares.)
I don't know anyone who own's a UMPC, so I couldn't tell you. But an $1,800 computer that isn't good for much is a bizarre concept, especially to Mac users who are accustomed to even a $599 Mac Mini being capable of acting as the center of your digital world. An 80GB 4200RPM hard drive is too small and slow to do much of anything at the prosumer level, not to mention a lack of optical drive or firewire port makes half of the iLife Apps essentially useless..
I only know two, and they are brothers with plenty of disposable income. But that wasn't my point, I was merely pointing out that there are devices that are expensive that only serve a few. I could whip out several car analogies but I'd rather not go down that road.
Okay so I think I am going to go with the 1.6 over the 1.8 because the processor speed is meaningless to me and I'd rather save that extra 10-20 minutes of battery life.
Question: Do I go with the SSD or the HDD. Comes out of my expense account. So I am not really paying, but ultimately it limits other office purchases albeit only so slightly.
1. Anyone care to guess how many minutes of battery life I get with an SSD?
2. Anyone care to guess the increase in speed or boot time with the SSD?
(I thought I read in tests it took 45 seconds to boot the HDD version.)
3. Am I naive in assuming that the 1.6 will yield an extra 10-20 minutes of battery life?
4. I assume the saved weight of the SSD is 1 ounce or something like that.
Question: Do I go with the SSD or the HDD. Comes out of my expense account. So I am not really paying, but ultimately it limits other office purchases albeit only so slightly.
I'd wait for the SSD testing before buying.Question: Do I go with the SSD or the HDD. Comes out of my expense account. So I am not really paying, but ultimately it limits other office purchases albeit only so slightly.
Question: Do I go with the SSD or the HDD. Comes out of my expense account. So I am not really paying, but ultimately it limits other office purchases albeit only so slightly.
Advice?
I'd wait for the SSD testing before buying.
Thanks. Any predictions.?
I'd say...
? a 1.6GHz w/SSD will last ~35 minutes more than a 1.6GHz w/HDD while playing iTunes music
? a 1.8GHz w/SSD will last ~20 minutes more than a 1.6GHz w/HDD while playing iTunes music
? a 1.6GHz w/HDD will last ~15 minutes more than a 1.8GHz w/HDD while playing iTunes music
That is based absolutely no empirical data, but you asked. Someone on this board seems pretty good at determining the power usage. I hope they chime in with some calculated predictions.
If battery life was significantly better with the 64GB SSD, I think Apple would say so in their marketing materials; instead, they only mention faster performance and durability.
If battery life was significantly better with the 64GB SSD, I think Apple would say so in their marketing materials; instead, they only mention faster performance and durability.
A concern I have. Will see. This was also a question I had on why no test reviewers received the SSD apparently. Probably innocent or obvious explanation. But could be because journalists would say there is no difference and would discourage the purchase. Hope that is not the case.
If battery life was significantly better with the 64GB SSD, I think Apple would say so in their marketing materials; instead, they only mention faster performance and durability.
Overall those are probably the best features of SSD over the 1.8" HDD. Those teeny HDD's seem pretty efficient overall so I wouldn't imagine any tremendous energy savings vs. the SSD in this case.
Overall those are probably the best features of SSD over the 1.8" HDD. Those teeny HDD's seem pretty efficient overall so I wouldn't imagine any tremendous energy savings vs. the SSD in this case.
Surprisingly decent performance, too. It beat out, in several HDD tests, a 2.16 CD MBP, that was being sold only 8 months ago.
Overall those are probably the best features of SSD over the 1.8" HDD. Those teeny HDD's seem pretty efficient overall so I wouldn't imagine any tremendous energy savings vs. the SSD in this case.
Do we have the performance difference between and SSD and HDD though?
Assume the startup time would at least be better....
Sorry NYCMacFan, I don't. I'll be honest and say that the perfomance vs. the value is probably in bragging rights more than anyting else at this point. I understand you'll expense it but I'm hard pressed to imagine it being worth the $999 entry fee.
I guess an ecomony of scale has to start somewhere though
Okay so I think I am going to go with the 1.6 over the 1.8 because the processor speed is meaningless to me and I'd rather save that extra 10-20 minutes of battery life.
Question: Do I go with the SSD or the HDD. Comes out of my expense account. So I am not really paying, but ultimately it limits other office purchases albeit only so slightly.
1. Anyone care to guess how many minutes of battery life I get with an SSD?
2. Anyone care to guess the increase in speed or boot time with the SSD?
(I thought I read in tests it took 45 seconds to boot the HDD version.)
3. Am I naive in assuming that the 1.6 will yield an extra 10-20 minutes of battery life?
4. I assume the saved weight of the SSD is 1 ounce or something like that.
Advice?
I read somewhere that the SSD one boots insanely fast. I don't remember the exact time, but I am pretty sure it was single-digit seconds. I could be mistaken, but we should know soon enough.
Maybe, but I don't actually "boot" my macs that often. It may not be that big a deal in the long run. Sleep works so well I only boot if I absolulely have to.
Comments
UMPCs that cost as much have more features than the Air. Some UMPCs with an SSD are the same price as the base price of the Air with a regular HD.
Geez! The OP said that people don't spend $1,800 on a secondary device. I merely gave an example where a UMPc was not a replacement to full-fledged computer and can be costly. It wsn't a debate on which is a better computer or which has more ports than the other. There is no pissing contest! Just a simple price comparison to what niche market buyers are willing to pay for certain conveniences.
Packing portable speakers seems to defeat the point of trying to stay light and compact.
I agree.
I am also surprised that so few people seem to hold Bluetooth technologies as more viable options, given the Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR available in the MacBook Air.
True, stereo Bluetooth headsets/headphones/speakers are expensive, but so is any other quality audio equipment.
I really only know of the Motorola stereo Bluetooth headphones on store.motorola.com, which are about $170, if I recall, but I'm sure if one were so inclined, another quality pair could be found using product reviews as guides.
If one has the money to spend on this chic ultra portable, then shelling out a bit more for multi-use stereo Bluetooth headphones probably won't be a huge problem either. Many mid to high end cell phones usually support this same Bluetooth + EDR technology, as well.
The only thing that prevents me from spending my money on snazzy gadgets like these is my financial discipline in making sure the essentials are covered with more to spare before I do. There are those lucky enough to have enough left over after essentials, and those who choose to ignore financial responsibility and spend frivilously. Neither describes me at the moment.
The people who buy the MBA will love it but I think there wont be many.
It seems obvious that the 'thinning' technology will go to the MBP and MB in a few months time along with Multi-touch. Apple are declaring "if you want a thin laptop buy Apple.
This is Apple recouping it's R&D costs. They are selling a proof of concept. The principle goals were the worlds thinnest notebook and multi-touch.
The people who buy the MBA will love it but I think there wont be many.
It seems obvious that the 'thinning' technology will go to the MBP and MB in a few months time along with Multi-touch. Apple are declaring "if you want a thin laptop buy Apple.
My question from the start has always been the following. Let's assume we want to keep the same keyboard and screen and don't care about thickness. Could we shave abuot 0.5 inches off each side of the keyboard and another 0.5 off the top? I think so. So you'd have a slightly smaller footprint. To accommodate the battery and other needs you'd have more space internally by going with say a uniform .8 thickness. It would be more box like such as with other macs. But you'd keep a sleek aluminum industrial design. You'd have no special claim to fame, but perhaps an extra port or two. Perhaps it could even be a touch lighter, but not sure.
Which would you prefer?
And UMPCs that cost as much are made to be one's primary computer?
I don't know anyone who own's a UMPC, so I couldn't tell you. But an $1,800 computer that isn't good for much is a bizarre concept, especially to Mac users who are accustomed to even a $599 Mac Mini being capable of acting as the center of your digital world. An 80GB 4200RPM hard drive is too small and slow to do much of anything at the prosumer level, not to mention a lack of optical drive or firewire port makes half of the iLife Apps essentially useless.
I think you mean "...way too much money..." for you (and perhaps people you know).
For me, and most people. These days, $1,800 is twice as much as most people spend on their primary computer.
For me, and most people. These days, $1,800 is more than most people spend on their primary computer.
That's fine, since "most people" don't buy Macs. (I am not trying to sound elitist or snarky in the remotest: just making a point based on market shares.)
I don't know anyone who own's a UMPC, so I couldn't tell you. But an $1,800 computer that isn't good for much is a bizarre concept, especially to Mac users who are accustomed to even a $599 Mac Mini being capable of acting as the center of your digital world. An 80GB 4200RPM hard drive is too small and slow to do much of anything at the prosumer level, not to mention a lack of optical drive or firewire port makes half of the iLife Apps essentially useless..
I only know two, and they are brothers with plenty of disposable income. But that wasn't my point, I was merely pointing out that there are devices that are expensive that only serve a few. I could whip out several car analogies but I'd rather not go down that road.
Sony Vaio UX490N
Vulcan FlipStart
Question: Do I go with the SSD or the HDD. Comes out of my expense account. So I am not really paying, but ultimately it limits other office purchases albeit only so slightly.
1. Anyone care to guess how many minutes of battery life I get with an SSD?
2. Anyone care to guess the increase in speed or boot time with the SSD?
(I thought I read in tests it took 45 seconds to boot the HDD version.)
3. Am I naive in assuming that the 1.6 will yield an extra 10-20 minutes of battery life?
4. I assume the saved weight of the SSD is 1 ounce or something like that.
Advice?
Question: Do I go with the SSD or the HDD. Comes out of my expense account. So I am not really paying, but ultimately it limits other office purchases albeit only so slightly.
Advice?
I'd wait for the SSD testing before buying.
I'd wait for the SSD testing before buying.Question: Do I go with the SSD or the HDD. Comes out of my expense account. So I am not really paying, but ultimately it limits other office purchases albeit only so slightly.
Advice?
I'd wait for the SSD testing before buying.
Thanks. Any predictions.?
Originally Posted by NYCMacFan View Post
Question: Do I go with the SSD or the HDD. Comes out of my expense account. So I am not really paying, but ultimately it limits other office purchases albeit only so slightly.
Advice?
I'd wait for the SSD testing before buying.
Thanks. Any predictions.?
I'd say...That is based absolutely no empirical data, but you asked. Someone on this board seems pretty good at determining the power usage. I hope they chime in with some calculated predictions.
Thanks. Any predictions.?
If battery life was significantly better with the 64GB SSD, I think Apple would say so in their marketing materials; instead, they only mention faster performance and durability.
If battery life was significantly better with the 64GB SSD, I think Apple would say so in their marketing materials; instead, they only mention faster performance and durability.
A concern I have. Will see. This was also a question I had on why no test reviewers received the SSD apparently. Probably innocent or obvious explanation. But could be because journalists would say there is no difference and would discourage the purchase. Hope that is not the case.
If battery life was significantly better with the 64GB SSD, I think Apple would say so in their marketing materials; instead, they only mention faster performance and durability.
Overall those are probably the best features of SSD over the 1.8" HDD. Those teeny HDD's seem pretty efficient overall so I wouldn't imagine any tremendous energy savings vs. the SSD in this case.
Overall those are probably the best features of SSD over the 1.8" HDD. Those teeny HDD's seem pretty efficient overall so I wouldn't imagine any tremendous energy savings vs. the SSD in this case.
Surprisingly decent performance, too. It beat out, in several HDD tests, a 2.16 CD MBP, that was being sold only 8 months ago.
Overall those are probably the best features of SSD over the 1.8" HDD. Those teeny HDD's seem pretty efficient overall so I wouldn't imagine any tremendous energy savings vs. the SSD in this case.
Do we have the performance difference between and SSD and HDD though?
Assume the startup time would at least be better....
I guess an ecomony of scale has to start somewhere though
Okay so I think I am going to go with the 1.6 over the 1.8 because the processor speed is meaningless to me and I'd rather save that extra 10-20 minutes of battery life.
Question: Do I go with the SSD or the HDD. Comes out of my expense account. So I am not really paying, but ultimately it limits other office purchases albeit only so slightly.
1. Anyone care to guess how many minutes of battery life I get with an SSD?
2. Anyone care to guess the increase in speed or boot time with the SSD?
(I thought I read in tests it took 45 seconds to boot the HDD version.)
3. Am I naive in assuming that the 1.6 will yield an extra 10-20 minutes of battery life?
4. I assume the saved weight of the SSD is 1 ounce or something like that.
Advice?
I read somewhere that the SSD one boots insanely fast. I don't remember the exact time, but I am pretty sure it was single-digit seconds. I could be mistaken, but we should know soon enough.