Wow. You think they might be intentionally gimping the macbook so more people step up to the macbook air or pro?
They aren't gimping the MB unless it's a conspiracy with Intel as this is the chip-over-chip upgrade. ONLY the cheapest MB with the slowest CPU was slower... and ONLY by a small margin, while it gained substantial battery life. The cheapest MB still whoops the MBA in any performance tests, including battery life.
Wow. You think they might be intentionally gimping the macbook so more people step up to the macbook air or pro?
If the increase in battery life is true, then I don't see it that way. The performance loss is negligible, and that's on a totally artificial benchmark at that. Given that notebook computers are already pretty potent little beasts, I'd love to see more emphasis on battery life.
If the increase in battery life is true, then I don't see it that way. The performance loss is negligible, and that's on a totally artificial benchmark at that.
Gizmodo and AnandTech both have tests with better battery performance, but I'm guessing they are using the antiqued battery in the antiqued system instead of swapping batteries or buying a new one for the older machines. Still, the voltage use of Santa Rosa/Penryn is definitely lower.
So much for the claims of the Air being the new Cube.
Uhhh... I went and played with one a few weeks back, and I tend to agree with the "or because it hopes to maintain the buzz by limiting availability." camp.
I was seriously disappointed. No wow factor at all.
Reading this kinda confirmed my thoughts. First-Class Lap Sculpture.
That being said, the Air is a fringe computer with a very limited lifespan. I'm sure it won't be long before a truly sub-notebook comes out, or the iPod touch gets a little more advanced.
I can see how it may appeal to women. I expect the next revision will be hot pink.
I'm looking forward to see what Apple does with OELD technology.
What were you expecting exactly. The Air is exactly what its advertised to be. If it already was not the notebook you wanted seeing live does not change anything. It is strikingly thin though.
What were you expecting exactly. The Air is exactly what its advertised to be. If it already was not the notebook you wanted seeing live does not change anything. It is strikingly thin though.
Tech Specs can only take you so far. I didn't care for the "fatty" Nano until I saw it in peson and held it in my hand. I think the same can be said about many Apple products regarding their UI. many a Windows users can't understand why Mac users love their Macs so much until they try it out. Segue: Which ci swhy i see the Apple Stores as having 10x the "halo effect" that the iPod ever had.
I'm more excited about battery life than overall performance. I doubt a typical MacBook user would notice the difference other than he or she not resorting to the wall outlet as often... unless he or she has to deal with a lot of Flash.
I agree this is disappointing, albeit probably not noticeable in the real world. It's too bad Apple is exposed to all the bad publicity, though; has anyone asked Intel why they reversed a 20-year trend and put less L2 cache on their latest chip?
It's cheaper to manufacture, but then the 6MB version is also cheaper to make than the old Merom 4MB.
Penryn die size 107 sq mm
Merom die size 143 sq mm
I am not sure if Penryn 3MB has the same die size with half the cache disabled or a smaller die.
Either way Penryn 3MB will be cheaper again to make than a the Penryn 6MB. If the cache is there but disabled it is a way of improving yields as they can sell a CPU when some of the cache may be faulty
Of course if it has a smaller die they can make more CPUs from the single wafer of silicon.
It's cheaper to manufacture, but then the 6MB version is also cheaper to make than the old Merom 4MB...
I was referring to what Intel charges. They sell the 2.1GHz w/3MB L2 for the same price as the Merom 2.0GHz w/ 4MB L2. Same goes for the 2.2GHZ Penryn and the 2.4GHz Merom.
I have no idea if Intel is increasing their net profit on each chip revision, but their aggressive pricing and push to newer chips sure does suggest that they are.
I agree this is disappointing, albeit probably not noticeable in the real world. It's too bad Apple is exposed to all the bad publicity, though; has anyone asked Intel why they reversed a 20-year trend and put less L2 cache on their latest chip?
The processors have 50% more L2 than before, Intel sold 2MB Meroms before (there is one in the lowest end Mac mini and there was one in the lowest end previous Core 2 Duo iMac.)
It's just Apple is now choosing the lower-end CPUs now instead of the higher end ones.
The processors have 50% more L2 than before, Intel sold 2MB Meroms before (there is one in the lowest end Mac mini and there was one in the lowest end previous Core 2 Duo iMac.)
It's just Apple is now choosing the lower-end CPUs now instead of the higher end ones.
That isn't true. The previous two revisions of MacBook and MacBook Pro had upto 4MB L2 Cache. The previous base-MacBook had 4MB L2 cache running at 2.0GHz. It now has 3MB L2 running at 2.1GHz for the exact same pricepoint as before. These are still the high-end, non-Extreme, processors.
What were you expecting exactly. The Air is exactly what its advertised to be. If it already was not the notebook you wanted seeing live does not change anything. It is strikingly thin though.
The TV adds with the Air coming out of the brown envelope get more anoying by the day. BF deal.
However , the new iPod Touch adds are amazing!!!!!!!!
Comments
Wow. You think they might be intentionally gimping the macbook so more people step up to the macbook air or pro?
They aren't gimping the MB unless it's a conspiracy with Intel as this is the chip-over-chip upgrade. ONLY the cheapest MB with the slowest CPU was slower... and ONLY by a small margin, while it gained substantial battery life. The cheapest MB still whoops the MBA in any performance tests, including battery life.
Wow. You think they might be intentionally gimping the macbook so more people step up to the macbook air or pro?
If the increase in battery life is true, then I don't see it that way. The performance loss is negligible, and that's on a totally artificial benchmark at that. Given that notebook computers are already pretty potent little beasts, I'd love to see more emphasis on battery life.
If the increase in battery life is true, then I don't see it that way. The performance loss is negligible, and that's on a totally artificial benchmark at that.
Gizmodo and AnandTech both have tests with better battery performance, but I'm guessing they are using the antiqued battery in the antiqued system instead of swapping batteries or buying a new one for the older machines. Still, the voltage use of Santa Rosa/Penryn is definitely lower.
So much for the claims of the Air being the new Cube.
Uhhh... I went and played with one a few weeks back, and I tend to agree with the "or because it hopes to maintain the buzz by limiting availability." camp.
I was seriously disappointed. No wow factor at all.
Reading this kinda confirmed my thoughts. First-Class Lap Sculpture.
http://www.barefeats.com/macair.html
That being said, the Air is a fringe computer with a very limited lifespan. I'm sure it won't be long before a truly sub-notebook comes out, or the iPod touch gets a little more advanced.
I can see how it may appeal to women. I expect the next revision will be hot pink.
I'm looking forward to see what Apple does with OELD technology.
32,000 results for: keira + knightly + macbook + air
Wow. My quote got 3rd place on Google. LMAO! Where's my ribbon?
Wow. My quote got 3rd place on Google. LMAO! Where's my ribbon?
Speaking of... It's amazing how fast Google spiders the net these days.
What were you expecting exactly. The Air is exactly what its advertised to be. If it already was not the notebook you wanted seeing live does not change anything. It is strikingly thin though.
Tech Specs can only take you so far. I didn't care for the "fatty" Nano until I saw it in peson and held it in my hand. I think the same can be said about many Apple products regarding their UI. many a Windows users can't understand why Mac users love their Macs so much until they try it out. Segue: Which ci swhy i see the Apple Stores as having 10x the "halo effect" that the iPod ever had.
1) It's not using a "much cheaper processor."
It's cheaper to manufacture, but then the 6MB version is also cheaper to make than the old Merom 4MB.
Penryn die size 107 sq mm
Merom die size 143 sq mm
I am not sure if Penryn 3MB has the same die size with half the cache disabled or a smaller die.
Either way Penryn 3MB will be cheaper again to make than a the Penryn 6MB. If the cache is there but disabled it is a way of improving yields as they can sell a CPU when some of the cache may be faulty
Of course if it has a smaller die they can make more CPUs from the single wafer of silicon.
It's cheaper to manufacture, but then the 6MB version is also cheaper to make than the old Merom 4MB...
I was referring to what Intel charges. They sell the 2.1GHz w/3MB L2 for the same price as the Merom 2.0GHz w/ 4MB L2. Same goes for the 2.2GHZ Penryn and the 2.4GHz Merom.
I have no idea if Intel is increasing their net profit on each chip revision, but their aggressive pricing and push to newer chips sure does suggest that they are.
I agree this is disappointing, albeit probably not noticeable in the real world. It's too bad Apple is exposed to all the bad publicity, though; has anyone asked Intel why they reversed a 20-year trend and put less L2 cache on their latest chip?
The processors have 50% more L2 than before, Intel sold 2MB Meroms before (there is one in the lowest end Mac mini and there was one in the lowest end previous Core 2 Duo iMac.)
It's just Apple is now choosing the lower-end CPUs now instead of the higher end ones.
The processors have 50% more L2 than before, Intel sold 2MB Meroms before (there is one in the lowest end Mac mini and there was one in the lowest end previous Core 2 Duo iMac.)
It's just Apple is now choosing the lower-end CPUs now instead of the higher end ones.
That isn't true. The previous two revisions of MacBook and MacBook Pro had upto 4MB L2 Cache. The previous base-MacBook had 4MB L2 cache running at 2.0GHz. It now has 3MB L2 running at 2.1GHz for the exact same pricepoint as before. These are still the high-end, non-Extreme, processors.
So much for the claims of the Air being the new Cube.
What? I'm sure the Cube also sold extremely well when first released. The Air has only been out for less than 2 months!
What were you expecting exactly. The Air is exactly what its advertised to be. If it already was not the notebook you wanted seeing live does not change anything. It is strikingly thin though.
The TV adds with the Air coming out of the brown envelope get more anoying by the day. BF deal.
However , the new iPod Touch adds are amazing!!!!!!!!
What? I'm sure the Cube also sold extremely well when first released. The Air has only been out for less than 2 months!
Hope springs eternal for the MBA haters.
Its ok not to like the MBA. Its not for everyone.
Its also ok to admit you're wrong.
Hope springs eternal for the MBA haters.
Its ok not to like the MBA. Its not for everyone.
Its also ok to admit you're wrong.
Apple has eclipsed Dell as the No.1 supplier of notebooks to higher education in the United States.
And how many of those Apple notebooks are actually being used to run Mac OS?