Who wants to pay more for a machine so you can do less?
Those who value portability over performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It does less than a Macbook so it needs to cost less than a Macbook. This is why netbooks are starting to push the Macbook down on the top best-selling laptops on Amazon. The MBA isn't even in the picture.
Amazon isn't the primary seller of Apple's computers. Apple's online and brick-and-mortar stores are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The more that technology progresses, the harder it will be for Apple to sell £1000 machines when other manufacturers are willing to sell all people need for a fraction of that.
Obviously you missed their Macworld keynote last week, where it was noted Apple's computer sales are growing over twice as fast as the rest of the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
When low end processors match Core 2 Duo and handle HD video, Apple will have to rethink its strategy if it wants to be a computer manufacturer targeted to home users.
Well then I guess Apple's gonna have a while to think about things. Netbooks are cannibalizing similarly priced, similarly junky, full-size laptops, which is not where Apple competes, nor needs to compete (again, considering their premium Macs are outpacing the industry by a large margin).
But given that portability is at the expense of performance, machines with higher portability and lower performance should cost less given that higher performance is harder to achieve. Making something slower isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Amazon isn't the primary seller of Apple's computers. Apple's online and brick-and-mortar stores are.
I know but it's an indicator of what people buying from a retailer that sells both Macs and PCs side by side are doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Obviously you missed their Macworld keynote last week, where it was noted Apple's computer sales are growing over twice as fast as the rest of the industry.
Low end technology is still at the point where it is slow enough that even for basic stuff, a more expensive machine makes sense. Once they get dual core 1.83GHz Atoms then it's going to be harder for high end manufacturers to sell to the masses.
I think a single 1.83GHz Atom is due in March.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Well then I guess Apple's gonna have a while to think about things. Netbooks are cannibalizing similarly priced, similarly junky, full-size laptops, which is not where Apple competes, nor needs to compete (again, considering their premium Macs are outpacing the industry by a large margin).
How long is a while in the computer industry? People say SSD will take a while before it's mainstream. A lot of companies today are in serious trouble financially and pushing technology to make as many sales as they can. They are selling quad machines with displays now for just over £500 ($750). Where do they go after that?
They go smaller and cheaper, exactly where netbooks are. This is why it's wrong for people to keep looking at Apple's premium line as defining their future when it's the Mini and a laptop equivalent that will take over eventually.
I would go so far as to say that in 3-5 years, Apple won't be able to sell a £1000+ computer unless it's encrusted with diamonds.
What happens when you get a machine with 4 main cores + 128 GPU cores that processes normal tasks adequately and every specialized task as fast as you'd need? So fast that the computer doesn't hold you back no matter what you are doing. You don't need anything more than this. When this machine costs under £500 and it does virtualization fast enough that it runs any OS fast enough, what will Apple do? Rely on the fact that they have protected their software from running on anything that isn't a Mac? I'm sure that people will be as loyal to that as they are to buying the Adobe CS Suite and this is evident from the interest in buying MSI Winds and putting OS X on them.
But given that portability is at the expense of performance, machines with higher portability and lower performance should cost less given that higher performance is harder to achieve. Making something slower isn't.
Not when they use miniaturized versions of full-sized Intel processors and adequate storage space (as well as a full size display, keyboard, aluminum unibody construction, and MultiTouch trackpad) like the MacBook Air does. Equipped with an SSD, MacBook Air's are pretty zippy.
Netbooks boot slow and generally have pathetic storage space as well as claustrophobic, migraine-inducing screens (w/ no energy efficient, long lasting, instant-on LED backlighting) and carpal tunnel-inducing micro keyboards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I know but it's an indicator of what people buying from a retailer that sells both Macs and PCs side by side are doing.
Right, and it's not a good indicator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Low end technology is still at the point where it is slow enough that even for basic stuff, a more expensive machine makes sense. Once they get dual core 1.83GHz Atoms then it's going to be harder for high end manufacturers to sell to the masses.
I think a single 1.83GHz Atom is due in March.
The "masses" are buying Macs over what the competition's offering by a BIG margin. Also, see my signature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
What happens when you get a machine with 4 main cores + 128 GPU cores that processes normal tasks adequately and every specialized task as fast as you'd need? So fast that the computer doesn't hold you back no matter what you are doing. You don't need anything more than this. When this machine costs under £500 and it does virtualization fast enough that it runs any OS fast enough, what will Apple do? Rely on the fact that they have protected their software from running on anything that isn't a Mac? I'm sure that people will be as loyal to that as they are to buying the Adobe CS Suite and this is evident from the interest in buying MSI Winds and putting OS X on them.
You're basing your predictions for the future on what applications of today require in terms of performance, rather than what applications of the future will require. D'oh!
I have an Air, new Macbook, and older Macbook Pros. If anything I wanted an Air because it was the smallest/lightest. They need to make a smaller Air. Smaller screen, maybe make the keyboard go all the way to the edge like they did to the 12" powerbook. Remove the screen bezel. My Air is practically the same size as my Macbook, just thinner.
I'm really thinking of getting a MSI Wind and making a hackintosh.
The AIR is thinner AND lighter than the macbook. That 2 pounds matter.
I also would like to see the real estate around the screen and keyboard on my macbook air shrink, though I have never found the footprint constraining - all my bags, backpacks, etc have always had space and it was the weight and thickness that were helpful.
However, I find 13inches is the minimum screen size for long-term use and this also conveniently allows a fullsize keyboard. Below this is just inefficient, especially in letterbox.
Having said that, above 13inches helps a touch with a bigger screen, but adds weight and less on the bottom unit except perhaps more space for a larger batter (which also adds to the weight.
So again, I'd love the design - I enjoy looking at my laptop everyday as do others - but this would be a what - 4.lb macbook pro??
But the MBA is also way too expensive if this is all you are doing.
Who wants to pay more for a machine so you can do less? This is the problem with the MBA.
It does less than a Macbook so it needs to cost less than a Macbook. This is why netbooks are starting to push the Macbook down on the top best-selling laptops on Amazon. The MBA isn't even in the picture.
A huge number of people are actually very happy running a 1.6GHz Atom laptop just as people were happy running a few hundred MHz G3 or G4 a few years ago.
The more that technology progresses, the harder it will be for Apple to sell £1000 machines when other manufacturers are willing to sell all people need for a fraction of that.
When low end processors match Core 2 Duo and handle HD video, Apple will have to rethink its strategy if it wants to be a computer manufacturer targeted to home users. Maybe it doesn't want this. Perhaps the high end is the new goal; the business users, the enthusiasts, the people who want to have the fastest machines available and are willing to pay for it.
No offence but this is a whole lot of nonsense. I'm surprised because you are a moderator and you have been here for years.
It really doesn't occur to you that other people value different things in a computer? That portability or even "looks cool" could be as important to someone's buying decision as functionality is to yours?
I understand your opinion here, but you are arguing it as if it's objective fact for all of us. It's not.
I was speaking to the people that want to make a hacintosh. The folks on that forum have written drivers for the mini9 and created one of the most stable configurations out there for a hacintosh. Do you have a built in memory stick reader on your mac? The problem with bluetooth only pertains to instillation of the mac os. If its off when installing osx there is not currently a way to turn it on. The were finally able to get the standard hard drive to sleep but you have to hit a key after wakeup or the computer acts like the 0 key is stuck. Wow those are deal breakers huh? You quoted the final few issues that they are working to resolve and and the team is asking for any other known problems. What about early mba's that shut down cores from over heating when watching you tube? Nope my dell has no fan and can play youtube videos fine. No banding or other screen problems either. I can get almost 4 hours on the battery and it recharges in about an hour and half from completely discharged. That's what about hour less then the best possible runtime of an air and about 3x as fast to recharge. Wow Nice for a machine that costs 1/4 as much as a mba.
My point was not that everyone should run out and buy a dell but that if you are going to build a hacintosh then you should consider it. I realize that the idea of hacintosh offends some people but after creating a hacintosh netbook I can say that apple is ignoring this to their detriment. I expect that in time apple will come out with their own very unique take on a netbook.
Netbooks boot slow and generally have pathetic storage space as well as claustrophobic, migraine-inducing screens (w/ no energy efficient, long lasting, instant-on LED backlighting) and carpal tunnel-inducing micro keyboards.
Boy, you must really like shoving your foot deep into your mouth. You haven't the vaguest notion of what you're talking about. My Wind running Leopard cold-boots in less than 60 seconds. Others who have timed their Winds go down to as low as 40 seconds, and roughly the same booting into XP. The "pathetic" storage space that comes stock is 120GB, not much less than the 160GB that the Macbook comes with, and it's a standard 2.5" HD so I can push it to 500GB if I wanted to. Hate to break it to you, but the Wind does have an "energy efficient, long lasting, instant-on LED backlight." And it doesn't sound like you have any idea what causes RSI. You'd better quit while you're ahead. Oh, wait, you're not ahead.
You are right that 1.8" drives are more expensive than 2.5" drives. However, drive cost is measured in dollars per GB. So the 1.8" drives are more expensive per byte, not necessarily per unit. So a 1.8", 120GB drive may not cost more than a 250GB 2.5" drive. You "pay" by having less capacity, not necessarily by needing more dollars.
...Translated from Chinese by Google Translate, the recent*entry*on Apple.pro said, "It is understood that Apple is producing more than the current MBA size MacBook Air (15-inch?)."
the way i read it, the entry asserts there will be a size other than 13.3"; the idea it would be a 15" is parenthetical speculation.
i think there's a greater likelihood of the MBA line expanding with the addition of a smaller model (read: "netbook"). That would still be consistent with this report, it seems to me.
But the MBA is also way too expensive if this is all you are doing.
Who wants to pay more for a machine so you can do less? This is the problem with the MBA.
Doing "less" according to whom? Honestly people, unless you actually own an MBA to make the critique, all you're doing is just pulling guesses out of your backside and you very well know it.
I use my MBA 8 hours a day at the office. In the morning and the end of the day, it gets thrown in my bag and heads home with me where it usually gets used even more when I decide to continue working from the comfort of my sofa.
I have Windows XP installed using VMware Fusion. My VM runs faster than my previous Sony Vaio laptop did running XP dedicated. I use WinXP for the software development tools that are Microsoft-only. I use the OSX side for everything else like email, websurfing, iTunes, video playing, etc. It works like a charm. Performance is great, and it doesn't slow me down, I am completely happy with the overall design of the machine. In my line of work, portability, lightness, durability and decent performance is an absolute must. MBA owners don't really care that it can't play Crysis as 130fps so stop comparing apples and oranges. I can say this statement as an actual user and not like you folks that have "heard" of a problem or "have a friend, that had a friend, that heard of a problem.".
My MBA performs more for me than my previous Sony Vaio and that was small too. I get more work done on it as well. It's an all-around better built machine. The netbooks everyone keeps wanting to compare the MBA to - while cheaper - are total junk. I have seen them and used them (out of curiosity). They would not last more than six months of physical abuse a genuine mobile user can provide. Yes, I can save money buying a cheaper plastic laptop but what use is it when things fall apart for me after moderate use? I don't think the MBA is expensive considering how well-built it is. If "cheap" is all you're concerned with, there are plenty of options. If durability, quality and all-around MOBILE usefulness is what is important, pay the extra to know you're getting quality.
I'm willing to bet most people b******g about the Air have never actually used it for more than the five minutes at an Apple store and came to a conclusion. You're a vocal minority that for whatever reason, seem to place an unusual amount of hatred for this particular product when in fact, it is selling well (regardless of your opinion) and to my knowledge, most MBA owners are quite happy with it. Why?? Because they know that value comes not just from the cost of the internal components but from the entire package and usability.
It's not meant for you. Honestly, quit your whining and get over it. Apple did a great job with the MBA. I am saying that from actual real-world experience spanning many months and 8+ hours of day use from it. Sure, it is not for everyone but what is? The MBP is not for me yet I don't go around whining that it's not for me. Just move on. If you're an AAPL owner, sell and go away. I'm happily holding on to my AAPL holdings and my MBA.
The airs will take over the pro line, as SSD will eventually take over all computers. Ive been waiting for this, I cant and am waiting for the 17". Sexy.
SSD is undoubtably the future, and waiting only for prices to come down. I could see the optical drive being dropped in tandem with the adoption of SSD as standard, making the MacBook and MacBook Pro's the thinnest laptop computers with no moving parts.
Apple would likely offer integrated storage with a modified chipset to optimize performance (and leverage economies of scale in their iPod/iPhone storage business), even though the rest of the industry would balk at first at the idea of not being able to upgrade the internal drives.
That is, the storage memory chips would be integrated on the motherboard to reduce the physical space requirements, with the downside that you would not be able to "swap out" your hard drive. Like an iPod, you would buy the machine with the desired storage.
Since there are no moving parts, there would be little reason to have a removable storage drive, as they would be less likely to fail (and besides, OS X has integrated backups). The advantage would be that the form factor would be significantly thinner, and lighter (no drive chassis, connectors, etc.), as currently the optical drive and internal storage are two of the largest components after the battery (and look what they just did with the MacBook Pro 17").
On size:
Apple aren't going to release a laptop smaller than the 13" MacBook/Air. Any device smaller than this will be handled by the iPod/iPhone team, and would likely be a larger iPhone-like device.
Yup, in this age of cloud computing (an age that will never come to an end or become obsolete) and a dubious economy, a smaller EEE PC like Air with a 10" screen, a FULL SIZE keyboard that extends to the edges and all the wireless connectivity you could wish for is what we need. A built in HSDPA modem would help!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tummy
I have an Air, new Macbook, and older Macbook Pros. If anything I wanted an Air because it was the smallest/lightest. They need to make a smaller Air. Smaller screen, maybe make the keyboard go all the way to the edge like they did to the 12" powerbook. Remove the screen bezel. My Air is practically the same size as my Macbook, just thinner.
I'm really thinking of getting a MSI Wind and making a hackintosh.
Not when they use miniaturized versions of full-sized Intel processors and adequate storage space (as well as a full size display, keyboard, aluminum unibody construction, and MultiTouch trackpad) like the MacBook Air does. Equipped with an SSD, MacBook Air's are pretty zippy.
Netbooks boot slow and generally have pathetic storage space as well as claustrophobic, migraine-inducing screens (w/ no energy efficient, long lasting, instant-on LED backlighting) and carpal tunnel-inducing micro keyboards.
Not all entirely true and the MBA is still slower than a MB. Plus SSD goes in both the netbook and the MBA. As I say, people expect a performance drop when using an ultra-portable as you do using an iphone.
The question is, is it worth paying nearly 6 times more to get a bigger screen and maybe 2-3 times faster performance when most people are unlikely to require the extra performance on the go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
You're basing your predictions for the future on what applications of today require in terms of performance, rather than what applications of the future will require. D'oh!
Ok but we can do the same comparison between apps people use now and apps people used 3-4 years ago. Back then, we had maybe single 1.5GHz G4s vs now with Core 2 Duos. I can't say that web browsing, text editing, email, SD video etc improves vastly going from the old machine to the new one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
It really doesn't occur to you that other people value different things in a computer? That portability or even "looks cool" could be as important to someone's buying decision as functionality is to yours?
The netbooks look cool. Check out the new one:
Yes it looks very similar to a MBA but now it's not a selling point for the MBA. It is also portable.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't value these things over portability, I just don't think they should pay more for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
MBA owners don't really care that it can't play Crysis as 130fps so stop comparing apples and oranges.
I think comparing a netbook at 1/6th the price to the MBA is a valid comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The netbooks everyone keeps wanting to compare the MBA to - while cheaper - are total junk. I have seen them and used them (out of curiosity). They would not last more than six months of physical abuse a genuine mobile user can provide.
Even assuming it doesn't last 6 months, which isn't true in general, you can buy 5 and still be cheaper than the MBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
It's not meant for you.
Ok that's fine that you're happy with the machine and it fits your needs. It's a machine that tries to balance decent performance while being extremely light and portable. I think that the number of people who need that extra performance on the go is very small. If the price difference was maybe 50-100%, I'd feel differently but at nearly 600%, I just don't see the huge benefits and the MBA's disappointing sales records show other people feel the same.
As always, people will be defensive about their own purchase, I would be too and if MBA owners feel that it was worth the money then I don't have a problem with that.
Apple aren't going to release a laptop smaller than the 13" MacBook/Air. Any device smaller than this will be handled by the iPod/iPhone team, and would likely be a larger iPhone-like device.
I agree. I don't see the point in a machine with a 9", 10" or 11" screen. Sure, it's smaller, but you can't put it in your pocket, and the screen and keyboard comfort levels go way down.
The only advantage would be price, and I don't think that's the Apple way. Though Apple should get a better entry into the $999 price point, perhaps with a black MacBook instead of the white one which looks like crap with any dirt on it. If they can manage aluminum, all the better.
I do hope a 7" pad comes out; that's an entirely different class of device because you can put it in your coat pocket. It would serve as a browser and book reader, and you could type with reasonable comfort on it (for a pocketable device). It could even have a physical keyboard built in to a detachable cover. This would be a bluetooth device and would attach magnetically as a cover to protect the glass when in your pocket or backpack.
Appleinsider said: "A Chinese-language blog with a debatable track record claims Apple is working on a 15-inch MacBook Air with more information to come in the "second half" of this year."
Apple aren't working on a 15" MacBook Air. They're dropping the optical drive from all their laptops. By next year, optical drives will be an optional extra and the "Air" model will be absorbed back into the MacBook line.
Great! + with an integrated larger battery. I can see it happening quite soon as the unibody manufacturing process seems to be designed for change
Also, it'd make more sense from a green perspective as Apple is gonna sell more 15 than 17 inchies!
Boy, you must really like shoving your foot deep into your mouth.
Thank you so much for the asinine tone. It really makes me want to hear you out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
You haven't the vaguest notion of what you're talking about. My Wind running Leopard cold-boots in less than 60 seconds. Others who have timed their Winds go down to as low as 40 seconds, and roughly the same booting into XP.
Alright, I stand corrected, though most consumers don't have any idea (or interest in) hacking their netbook to run Mac OS X. Windows XP can't compete with Leopard's features, reliability and usability (which I'm sure you're aware of).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
The "pathetic" storage space that comes stock is 120GB, not much less than the 160GB that the Macbook comes with, and it's a standard 2.5" HD so I can push it to 500GB if I wanted to.
Ok, I should have said many netbooks have pathetic storage because they make use of piddly solid-state drives that are dwarfed by Apple's iPods and iPhones built-in storage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Hate to break it to you, but the Wind does have an "energy efficient, long lasting, instant-on LED backlight."
That's good that yours does. But from my understanding, most still use cathode tubes. The Air obviously uses a bigger display, but also a higher resolution one, which raises the price tag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
And it doesn't sound like you have any idea what causes RSI. You'd better quit while you're ahead. Oh, wait, you're not ahead.
I was being a bit facetious, sheesh!
With that said, I could totally see people developing eyestrain from using an 8" to 10" screen and wrist/hand cramps from a micro keyboard.
Just because those processors are no longer exclusive to the MacBook Air doesn't mean they benefit from the same economies of scale full-size processors do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
You are right that 1.8" drives are more expensive than 2.5" drives. However, drive cost is measured in dollars per GB. So the 1.8" drives are more expensive per byte, not necessarily per unit. So a 1.8", 120GB drive may not cost more than a 250GB 2.5" drive. You "pay" by having less capacity, not necessarily by needing more dollars.
Comments
Who wants to pay more for a machine so you can do less?
Those who value portability over performance.
It does less than a Macbook so it needs to cost less than a Macbook. This is why netbooks are starting to push the Macbook down on the top best-selling laptops on Amazon. The MBA isn't even in the picture.
Amazon isn't the primary seller of Apple's computers. Apple's online and brick-and-mortar stores are.
The more that technology progresses, the harder it will be for Apple to sell £1000 machines when other manufacturers are willing to sell all people need for a fraction of that.
Obviously you missed their Macworld keynote last week, where it was noted Apple's computer sales are growing over twice as fast as the rest of the industry.
When low end processors match Core 2 Duo and handle HD video, Apple will have to rethink its strategy if it wants to be a computer manufacturer targeted to home users.
Well then I guess Apple's gonna have a while to think about things. Netbooks are cannibalizing similarly priced, similarly junky, full-size laptops, which is not where Apple competes, nor needs to compete (again, considering their premium Macs are outpacing the industry by a large margin).
Those who value portability over performance.
But given that portability is at the expense of performance, machines with higher portability and lower performance should cost less given that higher performance is harder to achieve. Making something slower isn't.
Amazon isn't the primary seller of Apple's computers. Apple's online and brick-and-mortar stores are.
I know but it's an indicator of what people buying from a retailer that sells both Macs and PCs side by side are doing.
Obviously you missed their Macworld keynote last week, where it was noted Apple's computer sales are growing over twice as fast as the rest of the industry.
Low end technology is still at the point where it is slow enough that even for basic stuff, a more expensive machine makes sense. Once they get dual core 1.83GHz Atoms then it's going to be harder for high end manufacturers to sell to the masses.
I think a single 1.83GHz Atom is due in March.
Well then I guess Apple's gonna have a while to think about things. Netbooks are cannibalizing similarly priced, similarly junky, full-size laptops, which is not where Apple competes, nor needs to compete (again, considering their premium Macs are outpacing the industry by a large margin).
How long is a while in the computer industry? People say SSD will take a while before it's mainstream. A lot of companies today are in serious trouble financially and pushing technology to make as many sales as they can. They are selling quad machines with displays now for just over £500 ($750). Where do they go after that?
They go smaller and cheaper, exactly where netbooks are. This is why it's wrong for people to keep looking at Apple's premium line as defining their future when it's the Mini and a laptop equivalent that will take over eventually.
I would go so far as to say that in 3-5 years, Apple won't be able to sell a £1000+ computer unless it's encrusted with diamonds.
What happens when you get a machine with 4 main cores + 128 GPU cores that processes normal tasks adequately and every specialized task as fast as you'd need? So fast that the computer doesn't hold you back no matter what you are doing. You don't need anything more than this. When this machine costs under £500 and it does virtualization fast enough that it runs any OS fast enough, what will Apple do? Rely on the fact that they have protected their software from running on anything that isn't a Mac? I'm sure that people will be as loyal to that as they are to buying the Adobe CS Suite and this is evident from the interest in buying MSI Winds and putting OS X on them.
But given that portability is at the expense of performance, machines with higher portability and lower performance should cost less given that higher performance is harder to achieve. Making something slower isn't.
Not when they use miniaturized versions of full-sized Intel processors and adequate storage space (as well as a full size display, keyboard, aluminum unibody construction, and MultiTouch trackpad) like the MacBook Air does. Equipped with an SSD, MacBook Air's are pretty zippy.
Netbooks boot slow and generally have pathetic storage space as well as claustrophobic, migraine-inducing screens (w/ no energy efficient, long lasting, instant-on LED backlighting) and carpal tunnel-inducing micro keyboards.
I know but it's an indicator of what people buying from a retailer that sells both Macs and PCs side by side are doing.
Right, and it's not a good indicator.
Low end technology is still at the point where it is slow enough that even for basic stuff, a more expensive machine makes sense. Once they get dual core 1.83GHz Atoms then it's going to be harder for high end manufacturers to sell to the masses.
I think a single 1.83GHz Atom is due in March.
The "masses" are buying Macs over what the competition's offering by a BIG margin. Also, see my signature.
What happens when you get a machine with 4 main cores + 128 GPU cores that processes normal tasks adequately and every specialized task as fast as you'd need? So fast that the computer doesn't hold you back no matter what you are doing. You don't need anything more than this. When this machine costs under £500 and it does virtualization fast enough that it runs any OS fast enough, what will Apple do? Rely on the fact that they have protected their software from running on anything that isn't a Mac? I'm sure that people will be as loyal to that as they are to buying the Adobe CS Suite and this is evident from the interest in buying MSI Winds and putting OS X on them.
You're basing your predictions for the future on what applications of today require in terms of performance, rather than what applications of the future will require. D'oh!
I have an Air, new Macbook, and older Macbook Pros. If anything I wanted an Air because it was the smallest/lightest. They need to make a smaller Air. Smaller screen, maybe make the keyboard go all the way to the edge like they did to the 12" powerbook. Remove the screen bezel. My Air is practically the same size as my Macbook, just thinner.
I'm really thinking of getting a MSI Wind and making a hackintosh.
The AIR is thinner AND lighter than the macbook. That 2 pounds matter.
I also would like to see the real estate around the screen and keyboard on my macbook air shrink, though I have never found the footprint constraining - all my bags, backpacks, etc have always had space and it was the weight and thickness that were helpful.
However, I find 13inches is the minimum screen size for long-term use and this also conveniently allows a fullsize keyboard. Below this is just inefficient, especially in letterbox.
Having said that, above 13inches helps a touch with a bigger screen, but adds weight and less on the bottom unit except perhaps more space for a larger batter (which also adds to the weight.
So again, I'd love the design - I enjoy looking at my laptop everyday as do others - but this would be a what - 4.lb macbook pro??
But the MBA is also way too expensive if this is all you are doing.
Who wants to pay more for a machine so you can do less? This is the problem with the MBA.
It does less than a Macbook so it needs to cost less than a Macbook. This is why netbooks are starting to push the Macbook down on the top best-selling laptops on Amazon. The MBA isn't even in the picture.
A huge number of people are actually very happy running a 1.6GHz Atom laptop just as people were happy running a few hundred MHz G3 or G4 a few years ago.
The more that technology progresses, the harder it will be for Apple to sell £1000 machines when other manufacturers are willing to sell all people need for a fraction of that.
When low end processors match Core 2 Duo and handle HD video, Apple will have to rethink its strategy if it wants to be a computer manufacturer targeted to home users. Maybe it doesn't want this. Perhaps the high end is the new goal; the business users, the enthusiasts, the people who want to have the fastest machines available and are willing to pay for it.
No offence but this is a whole lot of nonsense. I'm surprised because you are a moderator and you have been here for years.
It really doesn't occur to you that other people value different things in a computer? That portability or even "looks cool" could be as important to someone's buying decision as functionality is to yours?
I understand your opinion here, but you are arguing it as if it's objective fact for all of us. It's not.
Quoting Columbus "sounds like a dream"
I was speaking to the people that want to make a hacintosh. The folks on that forum have written drivers for the mini9 and created one of the most stable configurations out there for a hacintosh. Do you have a built in memory stick reader on your mac? The problem with bluetooth only pertains to instillation of the mac os. If its off when installing osx there is not currently a way to turn it on. The were finally able to get the standard hard drive to sleep but you have to hit a key after wakeup or the computer acts like the 0 key is stuck. Wow those are deal breakers huh? You quoted the final few issues that they are working to resolve and and the team is asking for any other known problems. What about early mba's that shut down cores from over heating when watching you tube? Nope my dell has no fan and can play youtube videos fine. No banding or other screen problems either. I can get almost 4 hours on the battery and it recharges in about an hour and half from completely discharged. That's what about hour less then the best possible runtime of an air and about 3x as fast to recharge. Wow Nice for a machine that costs 1/4 as much as a mba.
My point was not that everyone should run out and buy a dell but that if you are going to build a hacintosh then you should consider it. I realize that the idea of hacintosh offends some people but after creating a hacintosh netbook I can say that apple is ignoring this to their detriment. I expect that in time apple will come out with their own very unique take on a netbook.
Netbooks boot slow and generally have pathetic storage space as well as claustrophobic, migraine-inducing screens (w/ no energy efficient, long lasting, instant-on LED backlighting) and carpal tunnel-inducing micro keyboards.
Boy, you must really like shoving your foot deep into your mouth. You haven't the vaguest notion of what you're talking about. My Wind running Leopard cold-boots in less than 60 seconds. Others who have timed their Winds go down to as low as 40 seconds, and roughly the same booting into XP. The "pathetic" storage space that comes stock is 120GB, not much less than the 160GB that the Macbook comes with, and it's a standard 2.5" HD so I can push it to 500GB if I wanted to. Hate to break it to you, but the Wind does have an "energy efficient, long lasting, instant-on LED backlight." And it doesn't sound like you have any idea what causes RSI. You'd better quit while you're ahead. Oh, wait, you're not ahead.
Not according to Apple:
http://www.apple.com/macbookair/features.html
Even so, from what I understand, you're going to pay more per GB for 1.8" drives compared to the far more widespread 2.5" drives.
The Apple copy says "was". Intel introduced the small form factor for everybody else in August:
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/...Mainstream.jpg
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...ps-announced/1
You are right that 1.8" drives are more expensive than 2.5" drives. However, drive cost is measured in dollars per GB. So the 1.8" drives are more expensive per byte, not necessarily per unit. So a 1.8", 120GB drive may not cost more than a 250GB 2.5" drive. You "pay" by having less capacity, not necessarily by needing more dollars.
...Translated from Chinese by Google Translate, the recent*entry*on Apple.pro said, "It is understood that Apple is producing more than the current MBA size MacBook Air (15-inch?)."
the way i read it, the entry asserts there will be a size other than 13.3"; the idea it would be a 15" is parenthetical speculation.
i think there's a greater likelihood of the MBA line expanding with the addition of a smaller model (read: "netbook"). That would still be consistent with this report, it seems to me.
But the MBA is also way too expensive if this is all you are doing.
Who wants to pay more for a machine so you can do less? This is the problem with the MBA.
Doing "less" according to whom? Honestly people, unless you actually own an MBA to make the critique, all you're doing is just pulling guesses out of your backside and you very well know it.
I use my MBA 8 hours a day at the office. In the morning and the end of the day, it gets thrown in my bag and heads home with me where it usually gets used even more when I decide to continue working from the comfort of my sofa.
I have Windows XP installed using VMware Fusion. My VM runs faster than my previous Sony Vaio laptop did running XP dedicated. I use WinXP for the software development tools that are Microsoft-only. I use the OSX side for everything else like email, websurfing, iTunes, video playing, etc. It works like a charm. Performance is great, and it doesn't slow me down, I am completely happy with the overall design of the machine. In my line of work, portability, lightness, durability and decent performance is an absolute must. MBA owners don't really care that it can't play Crysis as 130fps so stop comparing apples and oranges. I can say this statement as an actual user and not like you folks that have "heard" of a problem or "have a friend, that had a friend, that heard of a problem.".
My MBA performs more for me than my previous Sony Vaio and that was small too. I get more work done on it as well. It's an all-around better built machine. The netbooks everyone keeps wanting to compare the MBA to - while cheaper - are total junk. I have seen them and used them (out of curiosity). They would not last more than six months of physical abuse a genuine mobile user can provide. Yes, I can save money buying a cheaper plastic laptop but what use is it when things fall apart for me after moderate use? I don't think the MBA is expensive considering how well-built it is. If "cheap" is all you're concerned with, there are plenty of options. If durability, quality and all-around MOBILE usefulness is what is important, pay the extra to know you're getting quality.
I'm willing to bet most people b******g about the Air have never actually used it for more than the five minutes at an Apple store and came to a conclusion. You're a vocal minority that for whatever reason, seem to place an unusual amount of hatred for this particular product when in fact, it is selling well (regardless of your opinion) and to my knowledge, most MBA owners are quite happy with it. Why?? Because they know that value comes not just from the cost of the internal components but from the entire package and usability.
It's not meant for you. Honestly, quit your whining and get over it. Apple did a great job with the MBA. I am saying that from actual real-world experience spanning many months and 8+ hours of day use from it. Sure, it is not for everyone but what is? The MBP is not for me yet I don't go around whining that it's not for me. Just move on. If you're an AAPL owner, sell and go away. I'm happily holding on to my AAPL holdings and my MBA.
SSD is undoubtably the future, and waiting only for prices to come down. I could see the optical drive being dropped in tandem with the adoption of SSD as standard, making the MacBook and MacBook Pro's the thinnest laptop computers with no moving parts.
Apple would likely offer integrated storage with a modified chipset to optimize performance (and leverage economies of scale in their iPod/iPhone storage business), even though the rest of the industry would balk at first at the idea of not being able to upgrade the internal drives.
That is, the storage memory chips would be integrated on the motherboard to reduce the physical space requirements, with the downside that you would not be able to "swap out" your hard drive. Like an iPod, you would buy the machine with the desired storage.
Since there are no moving parts, there would be little reason to have a removable storage drive, as they would be less likely to fail (and besides, OS X has integrated backups). The advantage would be that the form factor would be significantly thinner, and lighter (no drive chassis, connectors, etc.), as currently the optical drive and internal storage are two of the largest components after the battery (and look what they just did with the MacBook Pro 17").
On size:
Apple aren't going to release a laptop smaller than the 13" MacBook/Air. Any device smaller than this will be handled by the iPod/iPhone team, and would likely be a larger iPhone-like device.
I have an Air, new Macbook, and older Macbook Pros. If anything I wanted an Air because it was the smallest/lightest. They need to make a smaller Air. Smaller screen, maybe make the keyboard go all the way to the edge like they did to the 12" powerbook. Remove the screen bezel. My Air is practically the same size as my Macbook, just thinner.
I'm really thinking of getting a MSI Wind and making a hackintosh.
Not when they use miniaturized versions of full-sized Intel processors and adequate storage space (as well as a full size display, keyboard, aluminum unibody construction, and MultiTouch trackpad) like the MacBook Air does. Equipped with an SSD, MacBook Air's are pretty zippy.
Netbooks boot slow and generally have pathetic storage space as well as claustrophobic, migraine-inducing screens (w/ no energy efficient, long lasting, instant-on LED backlighting) and carpal tunnel-inducing micro keyboards.
Not all entirely true and the MBA is still slower than a MB. Plus SSD goes in both the netbook and the MBA. As I say, people expect a performance drop when using an ultra-portable as you do using an iphone.
The question is, is it worth paying nearly 6 times more to get a bigger screen and maybe 2-3 times faster performance when most people are unlikely to require the extra performance on the go?
You're basing your predictions for the future on what applications of today require in terms of performance, rather than what applications of the future will require. D'oh!
Ok but we can do the same comparison between apps people use now and apps people used 3-4 years ago. Back then, we had maybe single 1.5GHz G4s vs now with Core 2 Duos. I can't say that web browsing, text editing, email, SD video etc improves vastly going from the old machine to the new one.
It really doesn't occur to you that other people value different things in a computer? That portability or even "looks cool" could be as important to someone's buying decision as functionality is to yours?
The netbooks look cool. Check out the new one:
Yes it looks very similar to a MBA but now it's not a selling point for the MBA. It is also portable.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't value these things over portability, I just don't think they should pay more for them.
MBA owners don't really care that it can't play Crysis as 130fps so stop comparing apples and oranges.
I think comparing a netbook at 1/6th the price to the MBA is a valid comparison.
The netbooks everyone keeps wanting to compare the MBA to - while cheaper - are total junk. I have seen them and used them (out of curiosity). They would not last more than six months of physical abuse a genuine mobile user can provide.
Even assuming it doesn't last 6 months, which isn't true in general, you can buy 5 and still be cheaper than the MBA.
It's not meant for you.
Ok that's fine that you're happy with the machine and it fits your needs. It's a machine that tries to balance decent performance while being extremely light and portable. I think that the number of people who need that extra performance on the go is very small. If the price difference was maybe 50-100%, I'd feel differently but at nearly 600%, I just don't see the huge benefits and the MBA's disappointing sales records show other people feel the same.
As always, people will be defensive about their own purchase, I would be too and if MBA owners feel that it was worth the money then I don't have a problem with that.
On size:
Apple aren't going to release a laptop smaller than the 13" MacBook/Air. Any device smaller than this will be handled by the iPod/iPhone team, and would likely be a larger iPhone-like device.
I agree. I don't see the point in a machine with a 9", 10" or 11" screen. Sure, it's smaller, but you can't put it in your pocket, and the screen and keyboard comfort levels go way down.
The only advantage would be price, and I don't think that's the Apple way. Though Apple should get a better entry into the $999 price point, perhaps with a black MacBook instead of the white one which looks like crap with any dirt on it. If they can manage aluminum, all the better.
I do hope a 7" pad comes out; that's an entirely different class of device because you can put it in your coat pocket. It would serve as a browser and book reader, and you could type with reasonable comfort on it (for a pocketable device). It could even have a physical keyboard built in to a detachable cover. This would be a bluetooth device and would attach magnetically as a cover to protect the glass when in your pocket or backpack.
So you figured you'd post it anyway.
Tickled me that did
Apple aren't working on a 15" MacBook Air. They're dropping the optical drive from all their laptops. By next year, optical drives will be an optional extra and the "Air" model will be absorbed back into the MacBook line.
Great! + with an integrated larger battery. I can see it happening quite soon as the unibody manufacturing process seems to be designed for change
Also, it'd make more sense from a green perspective as Apple is gonna sell more 15 than 17 inchies!
Boy, you must really like shoving your foot deep into your mouth.
Thank you so much for the asinine tone. It really makes me want to hear you out.
You haven't the vaguest notion of what you're talking about. My Wind running Leopard cold-boots in less than 60 seconds. Others who have timed their Winds go down to as low as 40 seconds, and roughly the same booting into XP.
Alright, I stand corrected, though most consumers don't have any idea (or interest in) hacking their netbook to run Mac OS X. Windows XP can't compete with Leopard's features, reliability and usability (which I'm sure you're aware of).
The "pathetic" storage space that comes stock is 120GB, not much less than the 160GB that the Macbook comes with, and it's a standard 2.5" HD so I can push it to 500GB if I wanted to.
Ok, I should have said many netbooks have pathetic storage because they make use of piddly solid-state drives that are dwarfed by Apple's iPods and iPhones built-in storage.
Hate to break it to you, but the Wind does have an "energy efficient, long lasting, instant-on LED backlight."
That's good that yours does. But from my understanding, most still use cathode tubes. The Air obviously uses a bigger display, but also a higher resolution one, which raises the price tag.
And it doesn't sound like you have any idea what causes RSI. You'd better quit while you're ahead. Oh, wait, you're not ahead.
I was being a bit facetious, sheesh!
With that said, I could totally see people developing eyestrain from using an 8" to 10" screen and wrist/hand cramps from a micro keyboard.
The Apple copy says "was". Intel introduced the small form factor for everybody else in August:
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/...Mainstream.jpg
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...ps-announced/1
Just because those processors are no longer exclusive to the MacBook Air doesn't mean they benefit from the same economies of scale full-size processors do.
You are right that 1.8" drives are more expensive than 2.5" drives. However, drive cost is measured in dollars per GB. So the 1.8" drives are more expensive per byte, not necessarily per unit. So a 1.8", 120GB drive may not cost more than a 250GB 2.5" drive. You "pay" by having less capacity, not necessarily by needing more dollars.
Yeah, that's all I meant: dollars per GB.