The thread transitions from speculating about a 10" MacBook Air to speculation on a 11" MacBook mini?
(I might get a little crazy in my post in the aforementioned thread)
I like the idea of a 11" MacBook mini, especially one that is an aluminum unibody chassis sandwiched between carbon fiber panels. Make the Apple logo glow red and the unit a convertible (laptop/slate tablet) and I could see Apple selling 11" MacBook minis like hotcakes?!
A large percentage of all metal in use today, particularly aluminum, is from recycled materials. Aluminum is very good for the purpose of recycling. It requires reletively little energy to recycle.
and by a "large percentage" i presume you mean less than 25%...
There is nothing wrong with carbon fiber per se, I never said otherwise. I am well aware of the many current uses of carbon fiber. My critique was mainly aimed at one poster and the mention of the use of Dyneema in an FRP. Not going to happen, ever.
Also, a general lack of understanding amongst you all about in situ specific strength and modulus of high modulus fibers which are bound together through weaving and resins (most often) which reduces the strength to weight advantage by a factor of five (or more).
There is no structural design challange in making things small and light.
Apple makes pretty things, if that's what you mean by a leader in industrial design.
On the other hand, making something large and light, now that's a real structural design challange.
Frank - you don't know who I am or what I do or have done so telling me I am in 'way over my head sonny boy' is more than a little bit obnoxious. Your assumption that others can't read or understand fairly straightforward technical data is more than a bit patronizing.
My point is pretty simple - you can't just ream off numbers and think that tells the whole story. What would you rather wear on your head; a motorcycle helmet made of fiberglass or steel?
If you don't think making an electronic package that is small, light and robust is a design challenge then I guess you should start your own computer company and compete with Apple.
Apple does make pretty things but they also make functional things - for example the MacPro sitting on my desk now has much more elegant thermal control than any other mainstream computer and its mechanical layout is clean - they are clearly more than parts integrators such as Dell.
I appreciate a discussion on how one might use composites to make a lighter more robust laptop but name calling is not on.
By the way I worked at Hercules for 5 years so I might actually know something you don't.
Yes carbon fibre is not overly recycleable but when was the last time you threw your laptop in the dumpster - most people can't do it because they remember the original cost. I suspect most go into a closet to lanquish forever or are passed on to students. It is good that people are worrying about such things but in the scheme of things it is I think small apples - materially certainly less than a pop can a week for a year.
Eventually, everything gets dumped. It isn't recycled as a product forever. In the end, it gets taken apart, and everything with value gets removed. In the case of aluminum, it will be recycled. With a carbon fiber case, it won't.
on second thoughts these statements are just a pile of crap - and since it's about the environment that annoys me.
get your facts straight Mel - or just spare us if you can't be bothered.
aluminium smelters run on electricity not on gas. wiki it if you don't know...
sometimes they may be located next to a gas powered power station but that's not the same thing
Use your head. Running on gas isn't meant that the plants use gas. I understood how aluminum was refined 40 years ago. It's the power plants that are using gas. You were talking about coal. I didn't assume you meant the plants were smelting the aluminum using coal, did I?
Quote:
and what are you saying about coal - that because it's abundant or frequently used it's good for the environment?
coal has about 5 times the carbon load of oil (which is obviously worse than gas) without mentioning the toxic releases from most coals
You know, you really have to spend some time actually paying attention to what I write, and not what you want to THINK I write! What I said about coal there was pretty obviously telling you what I thought about it:
Quote:
While I'm not an advocate of the use of coal for any purpose, about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now.
Quote:
and "much aluminum" is so NOT mined "where deforestation is not much of a problem"
so much aluminium kills so much forest - and if you've ever been to a reforested bauxite mine you would not have the opinion that replanting comes anywhere close to making up for the damage
plus while you're at it please check those tailings damns
oh and the outputs of heavy metals from the smelters
I'm not saying that any mining is good for the environment. There are worse alternatives to using aluminum, and that's the point.
Quote:
and if you really want to give us your environmental cred - the please tell us the last apple product you recycled.
recycling is such a small part of the environmental picture
honestly - you're the first to ask people for verification of their facts
and then you come up with this.
Oh, please, I don't have to give you any "cred". You wouldn't believe it if I told you anyway. You're just trying to start an argument.
As for recycled Apple products, I give them away. I can't account for what may happen after that.
If you want to look up recycled computer products, go to Google.
Frank - you don't know who I am or what I do or have done so telling me I am in 'way over my head sonny boy' is more than a little bit obnoxious. Your assumption that others can't read or understand fairly straightforward technical data is more than a bit patronizing.
My point is pretty simple - you can't just ream off numbers and think that tells the whole story. What would you rather wear on your head; a motorcycle helmet made of fiberglass or steel?
If you think making an electronic package that is small, light and robust is a structural design challenge then I guess you should start your own computer company and compete with Apple.
Apple does make pretty things but they also make functional things - for example the MacPro sitting on my desk now has much more elegant thermal control than any other mainstream computer and its mechanical layout is clean - they are clearly more than parts integrators such as Dell.
I appreciate a discussion on how one might use composites to make a lighter more robust laptop but name calling is not on.
By the way I worked at Hercules for 5 years so I might actually know something you don't.
If I had a motorcycle I wouldn't own a helmet.
Hexcel? I'm familiar with the company and it's product lines. So what of it? You have yet to show me something that I don't know regarding the subject matter being discussed here.
Use your head. Running on gas isn't meant that the plants use gas. I understood how aluminum was refined 40 years ago. It's the power plants that are using gas. You were talking about coal. I didn't assume you meant the plants were smelting the aluminum using coal, did I?
ok father time \
but no you couldn't assume anything because I specifically wrote clear sentences for you like:
"energy which is often sourced from carbon burning power plants" which is impossible to misunderstand
but what you write (about aluminium smelting power coming from gas) is also wrong.
You know, you really have to spend some time actually paying attention to what I write, and not what you want to THINK I write! What I said about coal there was pretty obviously telling you what I thought about it:
your writing leaves a lot to be desired Mel
it's not clear, not sourced - and your only aim is to defend Apple policies
which while appearing to support the company actually does the opposite
because it doesn't hold them accountable, or help them become better in any way
Apple is a publicly listed company which means that they have deliberately opened themselves
to public influence & opinion (monetary and otherwise) whether you like it or not
and worse, you are always asking other people for proof
when you hardly ever provide any yourself
plus you seem to have trouble writing what you mean
when you write "A number of newer aluminum smelter plants use gas" that is at best ambiguous
or your statement "about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now"
what were you trying to do? reassure us that our aluminium has a better or worse env footprint?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm not saying that any mining is good for the environment. There are worse alternatives to using aluminum, and that's the point.
it's not the point until you make one - and saying there are worse alternatives is only half of half a point
say what you think (ie aluminium is better than X) then back it up (ie because...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Oh, please, I don't have to give you any "cred". You wouldn't believe it if I told you anyway. You're just trying to start an argument.
As for recycled Apple products, I give them away. I can't account for what may happen after that.
If you want to look up recycled computer products, go to Google.
thanks for the google hint, that'll help a lot of us out.
now that you've proved my point, which is that not many apple products are actually recycled
(i too have never recycled an apple product - i don't know anyone who has - like you i've only given them away)
can you explain why you maintain that plastic is better for the environment (currently)
again, i believe that aluminium has the potential to be better
but i remain unconvinced that it is currently better than either plastic or CF
and therefore structural issues aside am unconvinced that it is better as an environmental material
...the (very large) environmental impact is simply hidden.
Hexcel? I'm familiar with the company and it's product lines. So what of it? You have yet to show me something that I don't know regarding the subject matter being discussed here.
Ok I'll bite.
Hercules as in the first major manufacturer of carbon fibre/composite components.
They pioneered composite construction in many many military/aerospace apps.
Hercules as in the first company to make a fully composite F1 car - the MP4.
If you don't know who Hercules is and claim to be all knowing about composites then your credentials are pretty suspect.
I don't much appreciate being quoted and having my quote changed - this is bad etiquette.
Making something STRUCTURALLY strong/rigid is just a small part-and one of the more straightforward parts - of the design brief. They have a lot more things to deal with; heat dissipation, EMI, EMC, vibration, packaging etc.
As to Apple being just a company full of artists without any engineer's this is just palaver. The fact that they pay attention to how it looks and feels does not make it any less an engineering company.
When you have production runs the size of Apple the product better be pretty well right or you will be bankrupt in no time. I can't remember any huge engineering disasters at apple short of the Lisa and its myriad of connectors.
There is nothing you don't seem to know so I don't think there is a lot of point in having a dialogue with you.
Am now thoroughly fed up with Windows so considering taking the Mac plunge. I'd love a Mac Air but has been mentioned in other posts on this thread, the Mac Air is left wanting on many levels....
1) It has poor connectivity - 1USB is laughable
2) No disc drive. Other manufactures have them and still manage to keep the weight down. Why not Mac?
3) The battery life is woeful, paricularly if you need to surf a lot (as I do)
4) No dedicated graphics card (I will be using it for multimedia stuff as well as routine word processing etc.)
5)Storage not particularly big
Will Apple be improving this to give the perfect portable laptop (and I'm not talking about teeny screened netbooks here, I want a 13 inch screen. Nor do I want a MacBook, which weighs as much as my current laptop.)?
Or will I be forced to go Linux (not an unattractive option and there's now plenty of vendors selling light, well specced machines...)
Hercules as in the first major manufacturer of carbon fibre/composite components.
They pioneered composite construction in many many military/aerospace apps.
Hercules as in the first company to make a fully composite F1 car - the MP4.
If you don't know who Hercules is and claim to be all knowing about composites then your credentials are pretty suspect.
I don't much appreciate being quoted and having my quote changed - this is bad etiquette.
Making something STRUCTURALLY strong/rigid is just a small part-and one of the more straightforward parts - of the design brief. They have a lot more things to deal with; heat dissipation, EMI, EMC, vibration, packaging etc.
As to Apple being just a company full of artists without any engineer's this is just palaver. The fact that they pay attention to how it looks and feels does not make it any less an engineering company.
When you have production runs the size of Apple the product better be pretty well right or you will be bankrupt in no time. I can't remember any huge engineering disasters at apple short of the Lisa and its myriad of connectors.
There is nothing you don't seem to know so I don't think there is a lot of point in having a dialogue with you.
Ah, thanks for the history lesson. Seeing as Hercules was acquired by Hexcel over a dozen years ago, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the current discussion.
Apple does make pretty things though, very pretty things, and that's one undeniable fact.
Oh, and Apple makes well engineered high quality products too. As do most other companies.
it's not clear, not sourced - and your only aim is to defend Apple policies
which while appearing to support the company actually does the opposite
because it doesn't hold them accountable, or help them become better in any way
Apple is a publicly listed company which means that they have deliberately opened themselves
to public influence & opinion (monetary and otherwise) whether you like it or not
and worse, you are always asking other people for proof
when you hardly ever provide any yourself
plus you seem to have trouble writing what you mean
when you write "A number of newer aluminum smelter plants use gas" that is at best ambiguous
or your statement "about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now"
what were you trying to do? reassure us that our aluminium has a better or worse env footprint?
it's not the point until you make one - and saying there are worse alternatives is only half of half a point
say what you think (ie aluminium is better than X) then back it up (ie because...)
thanks for the google hint, that'll help a lot of us out.
now that you've proved my point, which is that not many apple products are actually recycled
(i too have never recycled an apple product - i don't know anyone who has - like you i've only given them away)
can you explain why you maintain that plastic is better for the environment (currently)
again, i believe that aluminium has the potential to be better
but i remain unconvinced that it is currently better than either plastic or CF
and therefore structural issues aside am unconvinced that it is better as an environmental material
...the (very large) environmental impact is simply hidden.
A lot of what you're saying here are half truths and misconstructions of what I've said. My writing is no less clear than yours is.
But you seem to think that opposing what Apple does is a plus for you, and are spending your time doing that, while you accuse me of doing the opposite.
And again, to confuse what I say. I provide links when required, as you seem to think you do.
And again, I never said that plastic is better for the environment. That's another time where you say I've said something I didn't.
It too difficult to keep trying to correct your misunderstanding my staments, and then building up arguments around those misunderstandings.
And again, I never said that plastic is better for the environment. That's another time where you say I've said something I didn't.
my bad on the "better" - that should have read "worse"
which is what you say on pg 3
correct me where i'm wrong but don't accuse me of continually misquoting you
because aside from obvious typos i do not misquote or twist your statements (where they are clearly stated)
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
But you seem to think that opposing what Apple does is a plus for you
don't get disheartened that people oppose some of what apple does - that's normal and healthy
it's also a part of product refinement - even if a very crude form of it
this is a specialist apple forum and there are very few people here who hate apple
you'll probably find that the most financially committed people (ie the strongest supporters monetarily) are the hardest critics - because they have more to lose
(but they also generally have more valid experience)
don't get disheartened that people oppose some of what apple does - that's normal and healthy
it's also a part of product refinement - even if a very crude form of it
this is a specialist apple forum and there are very few people here who hate apple
you'll probably find that the most financially committed people (ie the strongest supporters monetarily) are the hardest critics - because they have more to lose
(but they also generally have more valid experience)
You're very new here, so I don't expect you to know much about the members, but when you've been here for a while, you'll note that I criticize Apple as much as anyone, and more than some. Even in this thread I've criticized them several times.
Don't do what a few do when they first come here, which is to take one or two discussions and expand that to the universe. Stick with the discussion, and don't extrapolate what someone thinks overall.
Good industrial design follows the mantra that form follows function, but at Apple it seems that form must limit function in order to meet Steve Jobs visions(eg. Apple III, Mac Cube, Macbook Air, etc.). Jonathan Ives and his industrial design team have made some nice designs, but the MacBook Air isn't one of them.
Oh, how dead wrong on the last sentence. If you owned and used an AIR for more than a week, you will know , the AIR sets the Gold standard in industrial design.
Most people look at the paper specs and the total price which seems like a put-off for the AIR. It hits jackpot on its implementation of form-factor, weight, and usability.
Will Apple be improving this to give the perfect portable laptop (and I'm not talking about teeny screened netbooks here, I want a 13 inch screen. Nor do I want a MacBook, which weighs as much as my current laptop.)?
Apple seems to make laptops with dedicated GPUs bigger and bigger with every re-design -instead of smaller.
The new MacBook Pro (late 2008) has a larger footprint than the previous MacBook Pro.
And before that by cancelling the 12" PowerBook they forced people to go 15" if they wanted a dedicated GPU.
Yet to be honest, the 'integrated' Nvidia graphics in the new MacBook Air is much more powerful than the dedicated GPU in the 12" PowerBook ever was. From that point of view, the integrated graphics might be well sufficient for the type of multimedia you want to do.
But the trend is clear: Apple seems to think that small laptops only need to be 'adequate' power houses, while 'pro' features are more and more only found in the high-end, and also larger, products.
I am really interested to see the new 17" MacBook Pro. Shame Apple had problems and couldn't introduce it already. I speculate that the 17" MacBook Pro was intended to come with up to 8GB of memory, optional Blu-Ray drive and perhaps even 2 dedicated GPUs in SLI config. We know the current OS kernel has issues with 8GB on laptops and Blu-Ray is an Apple self-proclaimed 'bag of hurt', maybe one of these is the reason for the delay.
In either case, my assumption is that the 17" MBP will have 'power' features found only in this model - which will never transpire down to the smaller laptop models.
With Apple, if you want highest high-end features, you will only find them in the 17" MBP, no longer in any of the smaller versions. The smaller you go, the less power you get. You might still get adequate power - depending on your needs - but small and powerful is something Apple is gradually moving away from.
I am really interested to see the new 17" MacBook Pro. Shame Apple had problems and couldn't introduce it already. I speculate that the 17" MacBook Pro was intended to come with up to 8GB of memory, optional Blu-Ray drive and perhaps even 2 dedicated GPUs in SLI config. We know the current OS kernel has issues with 8GB on laptops and Blu-Ray is an Apple self-proclaimed 'bag of hurt', maybe one of these is the reason for the delay.
The original 17" MBP was released 2-3 months after the original 15" MBP. Since it's technically a little more complicated and has a much smaller market it's no surprise this is coming later.
The 17"MBP was the only Mac notebook that could have possibly taken the available 12.7mm optical drive, but if they maintain the 24.1mm for the MB and 15" MBP for the upcoming 17" MBP, which seems reasonable, then it looks like only a 9.5mm drive will fit. Besides the utility and logistic issues of BR it doesn't very seem likely.
I don't see Apple even offering 6GB, much less 8GB, for their Pro notebooks. The cost is excessive and the benefit would only be had by a few.
I think the 17" MBP will probably loss FW400 and a USB port. I think 17" MBP will most likely follow the current unibody design, which means Apple will place no ports in front of the hatch line.
I think the 17" MBP will probably loss FW400 and a USB port. I think 17" MBP will most likely follow the current unibody design, which means Apple will place no ports in front of the hatch line.
Do you really think they will dumb down the 17" MBP even further? Stripping features instead of adding them?
Yes FW800 is compatible with FW400, but the cables aren't. Which means stripping that port will require you to carry extra adapter cables with you - if you want to ensure you can hook it up to client's peripherals. It just becomes more bothersome - instead of less.
So what's the point of getting a 17" MBP then? Just the screen? Seeing that people start to mod 15" MBP to get 1920x1200 resolutions, that's a very minor difference. From a high-end 'Pro' laptop I want more.
Unless Apple can finally find the will to release workstation class laptops. But then again they are a consumer company and will likely never do that.
So I guess it makes sense to become even more 'consumer' oriented by stripping even more 'Pro' features...
They really are trying hard to push 'Pro' users into buying other laptops.
As you can tell, I wish Apple would go the other way and - at least for built-to-order customers - offer more 'Pro' features in their laptops. Like 500GB HDs, more than 4GB RAM, higher resolution LCDs, more disk drive options, a 'second battery instead of disk drive' option.
But alas Apple is more and more on the 'one size fits all' bandwagon. Or the 'one USB port fits all' trail.
Attempting to make the MacBook Air 15% lighter is a noble cause, but getting real needed power into the hands of mobile professionals should be a higher priority.
If anything it means Apple concedes defeat.
They realised they will never be able to build workstation class laptops, so they try to differentiate on other features like size and weight.
But alas Apple is more and more on the 'one size fits all' bandwagon.
I'm note sure how you can come to that conclusion. First of all, I know of no other major PC vendor that has such a small line of options for sale. This has always been Apple's way so if their is a bandwagon it started with Apple and it only includes other boutique PC vendors. Secondly, they have various classes and a few options within each, albeit a lot less than others. The idea that the MBA's single USB port is indicative of this happening to the 17" MBP is just crazy.
Maybe you're right; maybe they'll keep the basics of the 17" model with the optical drive in front. This would allow it the room that the other mac unibody notebooks don't have for additional ports. But something tells me that they'll probably go with the venting out the back so the HDD and battery will be in the front. My rough estimate leads me to think that a port may need to go away to accommodate this design. The least useful and least future-forward interface port in FW400. If they do have room to include the same amount of ports to the new 17" MBP then I hope they remove the FW400 and replace it with a 2nd FW800.
As for the being to replace the optical drive with a battery (or 2nd HDD), I'm all for that, but Apple probably wouldn't like selling a machine with a fake optical drive slot. I've mentioned before that I think the internal optical drive for notebooks is coming to an end with the next case overhaul. When removed, it will allow a lot of extra room for more ports and plenty of space to add any number of options. I really wish it would have been done this time around!
Comments
MacBook Air 10" in 2009?
The thread transitions from speculating about a 10" MacBook Air to speculation on a 11" MacBook mini?
(I might get a little crazy in my post in the aforementioned thread)
I like the idea of a 11" MacBook mini, especially one that is an aluminum unibody chassis sandwiched between carbon fiber panels. Make the Apple logo glow red and the unit a convertible (laptop/slate tablet) and I could see Apple selling 11" MacBook minis like hotcakes?!
A large percentage of all metal in use today, particularly aluminum, is from recycled materials. Aluminum is very good for the purpose of recycling. It requires reletively little energy to recycle.
and by a "large percentage" i presume you mean less than 25%...
You're in way over your head sonny boy.
There is nothing wrong with carbon fiber per se, I never said otherwise. I am well aware of the many current uses of carbon fiber. My critique was mainly aimed at one poster and the mention of the use of Dyneema in an FRP. Not going to happen, ever.
Also, a general lack of understanding amongst you all about in situ specific strength and modulus of high modulus fibers which are bound together through weaving and resins (most often) which reduces the strength to weight advantage by a factor of five (or more).
There is no structural design challange in making things small and light.
Apple makes pretty things, if that's what you mean by a leader in industrial design.
On the other hand, making something large and light, now that's a real structural design challange.
Frank - you don't know who I am or what I do or have done so telling me I am in 'way over my head sonny boy' is more than a little bit obnoxious. Your assumption that others can't read or understand fairly straightforward technical data is more than a bit patronizing.
My point is pretty simple - you can't just ream off numbers and think that tells the whole story. What would you rather wear on your head; a motorcycle helmet made of fiberglass or steel?
If you don't think making an electronic package that is small, light and robust is a design challenge then I guess you should start your own computer company and compete with Apple.
Apple does make pretty things but they also make functional things - for example the MacPro sitting on my desk now has much more elegant thermal control than any other mainstream computer and its mechanical layout is clean - they are clearly more than parts integrators such as Dell.
I appreciate a discussion on how one might use composites to make a lighter more robust laptop but name calling is not on.
By the way I worked at Hercules for 5 years so I might actually know something you don't.
Yes carbon fibre is not overly recycleable but when was the last time you threw your laptop in the dumpster - most people can't do it because they remember the original cost. I suspect most go into a closet to lanquish forever or are passed on to students. It is good that people are worrying about such things but in the scheme of things it is I think small apples - materially certainly less than a pop can a week for a year.
Eventually, everything gets dumped. It isn't recycled as a product forever. In the end, it gets taken apart, and everything with value gets removed. In the case of aluminum, it will be recycled. With a carbon fiber case, it won't.
totally agree on aluminium being perfect for recycle - and i wish more of it was
i'd like to see your sources on how much of the MB aluminium comes from recycled stock
no wait, i'd like to see apple's sources - the MB carbon costs (comparison to total costs only) are here
coming from a country which is the number 1 exporter of alumina in the world
and where mining is one of the biggest industries (and having worked in an alumina refinery as a student)
I can assure you that there are not many (in my experience none) places where bauxite is not mined without serious environmental impact
since it is invariably found on the tops of hills under trees in forests - not in the desert plains
again i'd love to see your figures for the quantity of aluminium from recycled sources
if only to reassure myself that the world isn't crazy enough to dig, refine, smelt, use, bury then dig again.
it's totally possible that aluminium can be sourced from recycled stock
but until that day it remains a very environmentally dubious material
whether or not plastic / CF is a more environmentally friendly material than aluminium
is a debate i'd love to see held in public - because it's important and i'd like to know the answer.
(however it's clear that Al is the winner from a purely recycling viewpoint)
This gives a decent idea, at least from the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_recycling
on second thoughts these statements are just a pile of crap - and since it's about the environment that annoys me.
get your facts straight Mel - or just spare us if you can't be bothered.
aluminium smelters run on electricity not on gas. wiki it if you don't know...
sometimes they may be located next to a gas powered power station but that's not the same thing
Use your head. Running on gas isn't meant that the plants use gas. I understood how aluminum was refined 40 years ago. It's the power plants that are using gas. You were talking about coal. I didn't assume you meant the plants were smelting the aluminum using coal, did I?
and what are you saying about coal - that because it's abundant or frequently used it's good for the environment?
coal has about 5 times the carbon load of oil (which is obviously worse than gas) without mentioning the toxic releases from most coals
You know, you really have to spend some time actually paying attention to what I write, and not what you want to THINK I write! What I said about coal there was pretty obviously telling you what I thought about it:
While I'm not an advocate of the use of coal for any purpose, about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now.
and "much aluminum" is so NOT mined "where deforestation is not much of a problem"
so much aluminium kills so much forest - and if you've ever been to a reforested bauxite mine you would not have the opinion that replanting comes anywhere close to making up for the damage
plus while you're at it please check those tailings damns
oh and the outputs of heavy metals from the smelters
I'm not saying that any mining is good for the environment. There are worse alternatives to using aluminum, and that's the point.
and if you really want to give us your environmental cred - the please tell us the last apple product you recycled.
recycling is such a small part of the environmental picture
honestly - you're the first to ask people for verification of their facts
and then you come up with this.
Oh, please, I don't have to give you any "cred". You wouldn't believe it if I told you anyway. You're just trying to start an argument.
As for recycled Apple products, I give them away. I can't account for what may happen after that.
If you want to look up recycled computer products, go to Google.
and by a "large percentage" i presume you mean less than 25%...
Look at the link I posted.
Frank - you don't know who I am or what I do or have done so telling me I am in 'way over my head sonny boy' is more than a little bit obnoxious. Your assumption that others can't read or understand fairly straightforward technical data is more than a bit patronizing.
My point is pretty simple - you can't just ream off numbers and think that tells the whole story. What would you rather wear on your head; a motorcycle helmet made of fiberglass or steel?
If you think making an electronic package that is small, light and robust is a structural design challenge then I guess you should start your own computer company and compete with Apple.
Apple does make pretty things but they also make functional things - for example the MacPro sitting on my desk now has much more elegant thermal control than any other mainstream computer and its mechanical layout is clean - they are clearly more than parts integrators such as Dell.
I appreciate a discussion on how one might use composites to make a lighter more robust laptop but name calling is not on.
By the way I worked at Hercules for 5 years so I might actually know something you don't.
If I had a motorcycle I wouldn't own a helmet.
Hexcel? I'm familiar with the company and it's product lines. So what of it? You have yet to show me something that I don't know regarding the subject matter being discussed here.
Use your head. Running on gas isn't meant that the plants use gas. I understood how aluminum was refined 40 years ago. It's the power plants that are using gas. You were talking about coal. I didn't assume you meant the plants were smelting the aluminum using coal, did I?
ok father time
but no you couldn't assume anything because I specifically wrote clear sentences for you like:
"energy which is often sourced from carbon burning power plants" which is impossible to misunderstand
but what you write (about aluminium smelting power coming from gas) is also wrong.
around 30% in 2007 of the worlds aluminium is smelted in China,
which is most likely where the MB aluminium comes from (this would be good to know if Apple would kindly tell us)
and the majority (70-80%) of their power plants are coal fired
which goes some way to explain the distastrous air quality in the region
You know, you really have to spend some time actually paying attention to what I write, and not what you want to THINK I write! What I said about coal there was pretty obviously telling you what I thought about it:
your writing leaves a lot to be desired Mel
it's not clear, not sourced - and your only aim is to defend Apple policies
which while appearing to support the company actually does the opposite
because it doesn't hold them accountable, or help them become better in any way
Apple is a publicly listed company which means that they have deliberately opened themselves
to public influence & opinion (monetary and otherwise) whether you like it or not
and worse, you are always asking other people for proof
when you hardly ever provide any yourself
plus you seem to have trouble writing what you mean
when you write "A number of newer aluminum smelter plants use gas" that is at best ambiguous
or your statement "about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now"
what were you trying to do? reassure us that our aluminium has a better or worse env footprint?
I'm not saying that any mining is good for the environment. There are worse alternatives to using aluminum, and that's the point.
it's not the point until you make one - and saying there are worse alternatives is only half of half a point
say what you think (ie aluminium is better than X) then back it up (ie because...)
Oh, please, I don't have to give you any "cred". You wouldn't believe it if I told you anyway. You're just trying to start an argument.
As for recycled Apple products, I give them away. I can't account for what may happen after that.
If you want to look up recycled computer products, go to Google.
thanks for the google hint, that'll help a lot of us out.
now that you've proved my point, which is that not many apple products are actually recycled
(i too have never recycled an apple product - i don't know anyone who has - like you i've only given them away)
can you explain why you maintain that plastic is better for the environment (currently)
again, i believe that aluminium has the potential to be better
but i remain unconvinced that it is currently better than either plastic or CF
and therefore structural issues aside am unconvinced that it is better as an environmental material
...the (very large) environmental impact is simply hidden.
If I had a motorcycle I wouldn't own a helmet.
Hexcel? I'm familiar with the company and it's product lines. So what of it? You have yet to show me something that I don't know regarding the subject matter being discussed here.
Ok I'll bite.
Hercules as in the first major manufacturer of carbon fibre/composite components.
They pioneered composite construction in many many military/aerospace apps.
Hercules as in the first company to make a fully composite F1 car - the MP4.
If you don't know who Hercules is and claim to be all knowing about composites then your credentials are pretty suspect.
I don't much appreciate being quoted and having my quote changed - this is bad etiquette.
Making something STRUCTURALLY strong/rigid is just a small part-and one of the more straightforward parts - of the design brief. They have a lot more things to deal with; heat dissipation, EMI, EMC, vibration, packaging etc.
As to Apple being just a company full of artists without any engineer's this is just palaver. The fact that they pay attention to how it looks and feels does not make it any less an engineering company.
When you have production runs the size of Apple the product better be pretty well right or you will be bankrupt in no time. I can't remember any huge engineering disasters at apple short of the Lisa and its myriad of connectors.
There is nothing you don't seem to know so I don't think there is a lot of point in having a dialogue with you.
1) It has poor connectivity - 1USB is laughable
2) No disc drive. Other manufactures have them and still manage to keep the weight down. Why not Mac?
3) The battery life is woeful, paricularly if you need to surf a lot (as I do)
4) No dedicated graphics card (I will be using it for multimedia stuff as well as routine word processing etc.)
5)Storage not particularly big
Will Apple be improving this to give the perfect portable laptop (and I'm not talking about teeny screened netbooks here, I want a 13 inch screen. Nor do I want a MacBook, which weighs as much as my current laptop.)?
Or will I be forced to go Linux (not an unattractive option and there's now plenty of vendors selling light, well specced machines...)
Ok I'll bite.
Hercules as in the first major manufacturer of carbon fibre/composite components.
They pioneered composite construction in many many military/aerospace apps.
Hercules as in the first company to make a fully composite F1 car - the MP4.
If you don't know who Hercules is and claim to be all knowing about composites then your credentials are pretty suspect.
I don't much appreciate being quoted and having my quote changed - this is bad etiquette.
Making something STRUCTURALLY strong/rigid is just a small part-and one of the more straightforward parts - of the design brief. They have a lot more things to deal with; heat dissipation, EMI, EMC, vibration, packaging etc.
As to Apple being just a company full of artists without any engineer's this is just palaver. The fact that they pay attention to how it looks and feels does not make it any less an engineering company.
When you have production runs the size of Apple the product better be pretty well right or you will be bankrupt in no time. I can't remember any huge engineering disasters at apple short of the Lisa and its myriad of connectors.
There is nothing you don't seem to know so I don't think there is a lot of point in having a dialogue with you.
Ah, thanks for the history lesson. Seeing as Hercules was acquired by Hexcel over a dozen years ago, I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the current discussion.
Apple does make pretty things though, very pretty things, and that's one undeniable fact.
Oh, and Apple makes well engineered high quality products too. As do most other companies.
What separates Apple from the rest of the bunch?
Very pretty products.
ok father time
but no you couldn't assume anything because I specifically wrote clear sentences for you like:
"energy which is often sourced from carbon burning power plants" which is impossible to misunderstand
but what you write (about aluminium smelting power coming from gas) is also wrong.
around 30% in 2007 of the worlds aluminium is smelted in China,
which is most likely where the MB aluminium comes from (this would be good to know if Apple would kindly tell us)
and the majority (70-80%) of their power plants are coal fired
which goes some way to explain the distastrous air quality in the region
your writing leaves a lot to be desired Mel
it's not clear, not sourced - and your only aim is to defend Apple policies
which while appearing to support the company actually does the opposite
because it doesn't hold them accountable, or help them become better in any way
Apple is a publicly listed company which means that they have deliberately opened themselves
to public influence & opinion (monetary and otherwise) whether you like it or not
and worse, you are always asking other people for proof
when you hardly ever provide any yourself
plus you seem to have trouble writing what you mean
when you write "A number of newer aluminum smelter plants use gas" that is at best ambiguous
or your statement "about half the energy used in this country, and many others, is from coal now"
what were you trying to do? reassure us that our aluminium has a better or worse env footprint?
it's not the point until you make one - and saying there are worse alternatives is only half of half a point
say what you think (ie aluminium is better than X) then back it up (ie because...)
thanks for the google hint, that'll help a lot of us out.
now that you've proved my point, which is that not many apple products are actually recycled
(i too have never recycled an apple product - i don't know anyone who has - like you i've only given them away)
can you explain why you maintain that plastic is better for the environment (currently)
again, i believe that aluminium has the potential to be better
but i remain unconvinced that it is currently better than either plastic or CF
and therefore structural issues aside am unconvinced that it is better as an environmental material
...the (very large) environmental impact is simply hidden.
A lot of what you're saying here are half truths and misconstructions of what I've said. My writing is no less clear than yours is.
But you seem to think that opposing what Apple does is a plus for you, and are spending your time doing that, while you accuse me of doing the opposite.
And again, to confuse what I say. I provide links when required, as you seem to think you do.
And again, I never said that plastic is better for the environment. That's another time where you say I've said something I didn't.
It too difficult to keep trying to correct your misunderstanding my staments, and then building up arguments around those misunderstandings.
If you like, you can crow about it, but I'm done.
And again, I never said that plastic is better for the environment. That's another time where you say I've said something I didn't.
my bad on the "better" - that should have read "worse"
which is what you say on pg 3
correct me where i'm wrong but don't accuse me of continually misquoting you
because aside from obvious typos i do not misquote or twist your statements (where they are clearly stated)
But you seem to think that opposing what Apple does is a plus for you
don't get disheartened that people oppose some of what apple does - that's normal and healthy
it's also a part of product refinement - even if a very crude form of it
this is a specialist apple forum and there are very few people here who hate apple
you'll probably find that the most financially committed people (ie the strongest supporters monetarily) are the hardest critics - because they have more to lose
(but they also generally have more valid experience)
don't get disheartened that people oppose some of what apple does - that's normal and healthy
it's also a part of product refinement - even if a very crude form of it
this is a specialist apple forum and there are very few people here who hate apple
you'll probably find that the most financially committed people (ie the strongest supporters monetarily) are the hardest critics - because they have more to lose
(but they also generally have more valid experience)
You're very new here, so I don't expect you to know much about the members, but when you've been here for a while, you'll note that I criticize Apple as much as anyone, and more than some. Even in this thread I've criticized them several times.
Don't do what a few do when they first come here, which is to take one or two discussions and expand that to the universe. Stick with the discussion, and don't extrapolate what someone thinks overall.
Good industrial design follows the mantra that form follows function, but at Apple it seems that form must limit function in order to meet Steve Jobs visions(eg. Apple III, Mac Cube, Macbook Air, etc.). Jonathan Ives and his industrial design team have made some nice designs, but the MacBook Air isn't one of them.
Oh, how dead wrong on the last sentence. If you owned and used an AIR for more than a week, you will know , the AIR sets the Gold standard in industrial design.
Most people look at the paper specs and the total price which seems like a put-off for the AIR. It hits jackpot on its implementation of form-factor, weight, and usability.
Will Apple be improving this to give the perfect portable laptop (and I'm not talking about teeny screened netbooks here, I want a 13 inch screen. Nor do I want a MacBook, which weighs as much as my current laptop.)?
Apple seems to make laptops with dedicated GPUs bigger and bigger with every re-design -instead of smaller.
The new MacBook Pro (late 2008) has a larger footprint than the previous MacBook Pro.
And before that by cancelling the 12" PowerBook they forced people to go 15" if they wanted a dedicated GPU.
Yet to be honest, the 'integrated' Nvidia graphics in the new MacBook Air is much more powerful than the dedicated GPU in the 12" PowerBook ever was. From that point of view, the integrated graphics might be well sufficient for the type of multimedia you want to do.
But the trend is clear: Apple seems to think that small laptops only need to be 'adequate' power houses, while 'pro' features are more and more only found in the high-end, and also larger, products.
I am really interested to see the new 17" MacBook Pro. Shame Apple had problems and couldn't introduce it already. I speculate that the 17" MacBook Pro was intended to come with up to 8GB of memory, optional Blu-Ray drive and perhaps even 2 dedicated GPUs in SLI config. We know the current OS kernel has issues with 8GB on laptops and Blu-Ray is an Apple self-proclaimed 'bag of hurt', maybe one of these is the reason for the delay.
In either case, my assumption is that the 17" MBP will have 'power' features found only in this model - which will never transpire down to the smaller laptop models.
With Apple, if you want highest high-end features, you will only find them in the 17" MBP, no longer in any of the smaller versions. The smaller you go, the less power you get. You might still get adequate power - depending on your needs - but small and powerful is something Apple is gradually moving away from.
I am really interested to see the new 17" MacBook Pro. Shame Apple had problems and couldn't introduce it already. I speculate that the 17" MacBook Pro was intended to come with up to 8GB of memory, optional Blu-Ray drive and perhaps even 2 dedicated GPUs in SLI config. We know the current OS kernel has issues with 8GB on laptops and Blu-Ray is an Apple self-proclaimed 'bag of hurt', maybe one of these is the reason for the delay.
The original 17" MBP was released 2-3 months after the original 15" MBP. Since it's technically a little more complicated and has a much smaller market it's no surprise this is coming later.
The 17"MBP was the only Mac notebook that could have possibly taken the available 12.7mm optical drive, but if they maintain the 24.1mm for the MB and 15" MBP for the upcoming 17" MBP, which seems reasonable, then it looks like only a 9.5mm drive will fit. Besides the utility and logistic issues of BR it doesn't very seem likely.
I don't see Apple even offering 6GB, much less 8GB, for their Pro notebooks. The cost is excessive and the benefit would only be had by a few.
I think the 17" MBP will probably loss FW400 and a USB port. I think 17" MBP will most likely follow the current unibody design, which means Apple will place no ports in front of the hatch line.
I think the 17" MBP will probably loss FW400 and a USB port. I think 17" MBP will most likely follow the current unibody design, which means Apple will place no ports in front of the hatch line.
Do you really think they will dumb down the 17" MBP even further? Stripping features instead of adding them?
Yes FW800 is compatible with FW400, but the cables aren't. Which means stripping that port will require you to carry extra adapter cables with you - if you want to ensure you can hook it up to client's peripherals. It just becomes more bothersome - instead of less.
So what's the point of getting a 17" MBP then? Just the screen? Seeing that people start to mod 15" MBP to get 1920x1200 resolutions, that's a very minor difference. From a high-end 'Pro' laptop I want more.
Unless Apple can finally find the will to release workstation class laptops. But then again they are a consumer company and will likely never do that.
So I guess it makes sense to become even more 'consumer' oriented by stripping even more 'Pro' features...
They really are trying hard to push 'Pro' users into buying other laptops.
As you can tell, I wish Apple would go the other way and - at least for built-to-order customers - offer more 'Pro' features in their laptops. Like 500GB HDs, more than 4GB RAM, higher resolution LCDs, more disk drive options, a 'second battery instead of disk drive' option.
But alas Apple is more and more on the 'one size fits all' bandwagon. Or the 'one USB port fits all' trail.
Attempting to make the MacBook Air 15% lighter is a noble cause, but getting real needed power into the hands of mobile professionals should be a higher priority.
If anything it means Apple concedes defeat.
They realised they will never be able to build workstation class laptops, so they try to differentiate on other features like size and weight.
But alas Apple is more and more on the 'one size fits all' bandwagon.
I'm note sure how you can come to that conclusion. First of all, I know of no other major PC vendor that has such a small line of options for sale. This has always been Apple's way so if their is a bandwagon it started with Apple and it only includes other boutique PC vendors. Secondly, they have various classes and a few options within each, albeit a lot less than others. The idea that the MBA's single USB port is indicative of this happening to the 17" MBP is just crazy.
Maybe you're right; maybe they'll keep the basics of the 17" model with the optical drive in front. This would allow it the room that the other mac unibody notebooks don't have for additional ports. But something tells me that they'll probably go with the venting out the back so the HDD and battery will be in the front. My rough estimate leads me to think that a port may need to go away to accommodate this design. The least useful and least future-forward interface port in FW400. If they do have room to include the same amount of ports to the new 17" MBP then I hope they remove the FW400 and replace it with a 2nd FW800.
As for the being to replace the optical drive with a battery (or 2nd HDD), I'm all for that, but Apple probably wouldn't like selling a machine with a fake optical drive slot. I've mentioned before that I think the internal optical drive for notebooks is coming to an end with the next case overhaul. When removed, it will allow a lot of extra room for more ports and plenty of space to add any number of options. I really wish it would have been done this time around!