I believe it's thinner at the edges but bulges slightly in the center back. It still has a big ol chin that will set it apart. i don't see Apple getting rid of that feature anytime soon as it contains the logo and "thin is in".
The notebooks based on ULV chips can get 10+ hours in some cases, but that trades off speed, and is more expensive. Often you need to get the optional bigger battery to do that.
"5 hours is not done using the SteveMark set of benchmarks (every possible function disabled). Rather, the MacBook Air was tested with wireless on, screen brightness between half and full, and made to run productivity-related work."
Go to Apple Store and take a look. You won't mistake those two.
1. iMac has a big ugly chin.
2. iMac has bulges in the rear center.
The iMac is significantly heavier and bulkier than the cinema display. BTW, the Dell XPS One is catching up with iMac on the looks. Actually, I think it looks better than iMac (due to the lack of the chin).
Keep in mind, having a thin dimension and low weight is not only green, but also saves Apple significant shipping cost.
So, let's dream...a line of Macs based on thinner LCD (why cannot they make desktop LCD as thin as the laptop LCD?), add Mac-on-a-board.
With Flash HD and small LCD (10 to 12"), it is the Tablet Mac. - under 0.5" thick
With 1.8" HD, 15" to 17" LCD, it is the eMac. - under 1" thick.
With 3.5" HD, optical drive, 20" to 24" LCD, it is the iMac. - under 1.5" thick including the bulge in the back.
Comparing MacBook Air to the MacBook is not a fair comparison. Its like comparing the MacBook to one of Dells 2inch thick desktop replacement laptops. That is not its competition. You need to compare its performance to other ultralight notebooks.
It's not a "which is the best machine to buy" comparison, it's a performance comparison, and the Air lags. No need to get all defensive about it. The performance will be worse than the cheapest MacBook. Deal with it.
what do you expect, considering the lower clock speed?! compared to it's direct competition, it will stack u pretty well.
No, even at the same clock speed the Air will be slower because of the slower hard disk and other compromises. Even the SSD has slower sustained read/write performance than a hard disk.
No, even at the same clock speed the Air will be slower because of the slower hard disk and other compromises. Even the SSD has slower sustained read/write performance than a hard disk.
Who cares.
You know, in actual fact, for 95+% of what I (and others like me) intend to do - PPT presentations, Excel, Word, iWork, SPSS with data files that are not larger than a few thousand data points, DVD watching and some CD burning (w/external media drive), and pretty much most of what I do on the web - 1.6GHz is PLENTY.
And, the types of uses I've listed above -- and users like me, who will use this primarily as a secondary, portable CPU -- are what this product is aimed at. This and my iPhone are all I need for the travel part of my life.
Why is it so difficult for folks to understand that this is not aimed at the heavy-duty MBP user?! This product will expand Apple's market, not substitute for either a $2800 MBP nor a $1300 MB.
The notebooks based on ULV chips can get 10+ hours in some cases, but that trades off speed, and is more expensive. Often you need to get the optional bigger battery to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
"5 hours is not done using the SteveMark set of benchmarks (every possible function disabled). Rather, the MacBook Air was tested with wireless on, screen brightness between half and full, and made to run productivity-related work."
Yes. And perhaps more important, the longer battery lives, i.e., 10+ hours (Sony) were measured when playing mp3 files only!
You know, in actual fact, for 95+% of what I (and others like me) intend to do - PPT presentations, Excel, Word, iWork, SPSS with data files that are not larger than a few thousand data points, DVD watching and some CD burning (w/external media drive), and pretty much most of what I do on the web - 1.6GHz is PLENTY.
And, the types of uses I've listed above -- and users like me, who will use this primarily as a secondary, portable CPU -- are what this product is aimed at. This and my iPhone are all I need for the travel part of my life.
Why is it so difficult for folks to understand that this is not aimed at the heavy-duty MBP user?! This product will expand Apple's market, not substitute for either a $2800 MBP nor a $1300 MB.
Hold up there Apple Insider. Anand is just speculating. There is some contradictory evidence on Apple's own developer page for the MacBook Air that suggests it may be a different chip.
"Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost accelerates data manipulation by applying a single instruction to multiple data at the same time, known as SIMD processing. SIMD technology accelerates vector math operations and floating-point calculations. Advanced Digital Media Boost supports Intel Streaming SIMD Extensions (SSE) versions 1, 2, 3, and 4 and allows the processor to execute most 128-bit instructions every clock cycle.:
As far I know, Merom doesn't have and can't have the SSE4 instruction code.
Not to rock the boat with my first AI post but the page that you linked to doesn't mention anything about SSE version 4. The paragraph that you quoted above doesn't include version 4, only 1, 2 and 3.
Maybe Apple updated the site between the time that you looked at it and the time that I looked at it.
You know, in actual fact, for 95+% of what I (and others like me) intend to do - PPT presentations, Excel, Word, iWork, SPSS with data files that are not larger than a few thousand data points, DVD watching and some CD burning (w/external media drive), and pretty much most of what I do on the web - 1.6GHz is PLENTY.
And, the types of uses I've listed above -- and users like me, who will use this primarily as a secondary, portable CPU -- are what this product is aimed at. This and my iPhone are all I need for the travel part of my life.
Why is it so difficult for folks to understand that this is not aimed at the heavy-duty MBP user?! This product will expand Apple's market, not substitute for either a $2800 MBP nor a $1300 MB.
Who cares about your mindless speculation? Who knows what Apple were thinking when they designed it and what people will use it for. Lets stick to the facts:
- the performance is less that the slowest MacBook
- the footprint is about the same as the MacBook
- the thickness is not much different to the MacBook, about 0.35" at the thickest point
- less ports, drives and flexibility
The Air wins on:
- weight
- more durable metal casing
- better looks
Apple in its time has walked a fine like between form and function. Sometimes they cross that line, like with the Cube. I think this might be another case of it. It generally happens when they take away functionality for the sake of form. I think they should have removed the case curves and made the footprint smaller. This matters a lot, for example in an airline seat. My predication: this will not be a wild seller.
Not to rock the boat with my first AI post but the page that you linked to doesn't mention anything about SSE version 4. The paragraph that you quoted above doesn't include version 4, only 1, 2 and 3.
Maybe Apple updated the site between the time that you looked at it and the time that I looked at it.
It generally happens when they take away functionality for the sake of form. I think they should have removed the case curves and made the footprint smaller.
It's not a "which is the best machine to buy" comparison, it's a performance comparison, and the Air lags.
Of course it lags. The machine was designed for minimum size and weight. And you don't get that by having the fastest available processors. For a machine this size, performance is pretty damn good, look at what other companies offer for three pounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by merdhead
- the thickness is not much different to the MacBook, about 0.35" at the thickest point
That difference is 40% thicker. I wouldn't consider a 40% difference "not much different".
You know, in actual fact, for 95+% of what I (and others like me) intend to do - PPT presentations, Excel, Word, iWork, SPSS with data files that are not larger than a few thousand data points, DVD watching and some CD burning (w/external media drive), and pretty much most of what I do on the web - 1.6GHz is PLENTY.
And, the types of uses I've listed above -- and users like me, who will use this primarily as a secondary, portable CPU -- are what this product is aimed at. This and my iPhone are all I need for the travel part of my life.
Why is it so difficult for folks to understand that this is not aimed at the heavy-duty MBP user?! This product will expand Apple's market, not substitute for either a $2800 MBP nor a $1300 MB.
The whole point is that for what you do a MB does the exact same thing even better, but for 700 dollars less. There is no way in hell that extra half inch of thickness is going to be worth that for anyone other than die hard Apple fans like you who will justify anything Mac puts out. From reading some of these posts I can see that Steve Jobs could take a dump on a shiny plate, charge a grand for it, and some of you guys would buy it and tout the greatness of it. I see what people mean with this whole fanboy thing.
The whole point is that for what you do a MB does the exact same thing even better, but for 700 dollars less. There is no way in hell that extra half inch of thickness is going to be worth that for anyone other than die hard Apple fans like you who will justify anything Mac puts out. From reading some of these posts I can see that Steve Jobs could take a dump on a shiny plate, charge a grand for it, and some of you guys would buy it and tout the greatness of it. I see what people mean with this whole fanboy thing.
I dunno. I'd like to see the specs of the turd and the shiny plate before I make a judgement.
The funniest thing for me is how these people want to walk both sides of the road - it's limited because it's so small, but it's not really that small. And it's expensive, it works out to about $22 per 1/100th of an inch of thickness difference.
Now I love my Mac, and I was waiting to put down my money, even $2,000+ for a small machine. The limitations don't bother me so much, it's just that it's not small. For practical purposes it's no smaller than a MacBook in situations where it matters - a cramped seat, a small carry-on. The reduced weight and volume are nice, but the old 12" still beats this hands down.
The whole point is that for what you do a MB does the exact same thing even better, but for 700 dollars less. There is no way in hell that extra half inch of thickness is going to be worth that for anyone other than die hard Apple fans like you who will justify anything Mac puts out. From reading some of these posts I can see that Steve Jobs could take a dump on a shiny plate, charge a grand for it, and some of you guys would buy it and tout the greatness of it. I see what people mean with this whole fanboy thing.
1) You seem to know a lot about crap.
2) Last I looked, this site is called "Appleinsider." In any event, now that you "...see what people mean with this whole fanboy thing" and (obviously) do not like what you see, I am sure you'll decide to leave.
Comments
People used to say the "damn Macbook is pretty thin" too.
Imagine the next iMac looks like the current generation of Cinema 24.
Isn't the current iMac about as thin?
Isn't the current iMac about as thin?
I believe it's thinner at the edges but bulges slightly in the center back. It still has a big ol chin that will set it apart. i don't see Apple getting rid of that feature anytime soon as it contains the logo and "thin is in".
Dude! Still only 5 hours of battery life.
The notebooks based on ULV chips can get 10+ hours in some cases, but that trades off speed, and is more expensive. Often you need to get the optional bigger battery to do that.
"5 hours is not done using the SteveMark set of benchmarks (every possible function disabled). Rather, the MacBook Air was tested with wireless on, screen brightness between half and full, and made to run productivity-related work."
Isn't the current iMac about as thin?
Go to Apple Store and take a look. You won't mistake those two.
1. iMac has a big ugly chin.
2. iMac has bulges in the rear center.
The iMac is significantly heavier and bulkier than the cinema display. BTW, the Dell XPS One is catching up with iMac on the looks. Actually, I think it looks better than iMac (due to the lack of the chin).
Keep in mind, having a thin dimension and low weight is not only green, but also saves Apple significant shipping cost.
So, let's dream...a line of Macs based on thinner LCD (why cannot they make desktop LCD as thin as the laptop LCD?), add Mac-on-a-board.
With Flash HD and small LCD (10 to 12"), it is the Tablet Mac. - under 0.5" thick
With 1.8" HD, 15" to 17" LCD, it is the eMac. - under 1" thick.
With 3.5" HD, optical drive, 20" to 24" LCD, it is the iMac. - under 1.5" thick including the bulge in the back.
Comparing MacBook Air to the MacBook is not a fair comparison. Its like comparing the MacBook to one of Dells 2inch thick desktop replacement laptops. That is not its competition. You need to compare its performance to other ultralight notebooks.
It's not a "which is the best machine to buy" comparison, it's a performance comparison, and the Air lags. No need to get all defensive about it. The performance will be worse than the cheapest MacBook. Deal with it.
what do you expect, considering the lower clock speed?!
No, even at the same clock speed the Air will be slower because of the slower hard disk and other compromises. Even the SSD has slower sustained read/write performance than a hard disk.
No, even at the same clock speed the Air will be slower because of the slower hard disk and other compromises. Even the SSD has slower sustained read/write performance than a hard disk.
Who cares.
You know, in actual fact, for 95+% of what I (and others like me) intend to do - PPT presentations, Excel, Word, iWork, SPSS with data files that are not larger than a few thousand data points, DVD watching and some CD burning (w/external media drive), and pretty much most of what I do on the web - 1.6GHz is PLENTY.
And, the types of uses I've listed above -- and users like me, who will use this primarily as a secondary, portable CPU -- are what this product is aimed at. This and my iPhone are all I need for the travel part of my life.
Why is it so difficult for folks to understand that this is not aimed at the heavy-duty MBP user?! This product will expand Apple's market, not substitute for either a $2800 MBP nor a $1300 MB.
Dude! Still only 5 hours of battery life.
The notebooks based on ULV chips can get 10+ hours in some cases, but that trades off speed, and is more expensive. Often you need to get the optional bigger battery to do that.
"5 hours is not done using the SteveMark set of benchmarks (every possible function disabled). Rather, the MacBook Air was tested with wireless on, screen brightness between half and full, and made to run productivity-related work."
Yes. And perhaps more important, the longer battery lives, i.e., 10+ hours (Sony) were measured when playing mp3 files only!
Who cares.
You know, in actual fact, for 95+% of what I (and others like me) intend to do - PPT presentations, Excel, Word, iWork, SPSS with data files that are not larger than a few thousand data points, DVD watching and some CD burning (w/external media drive), and pretty much most of what I do on the web - 1.6GHz is PLENTY.
And, the types of uses I've listed above -- and users like me, who will use this primarily as a secondary, portable CPU -- are what this product is aimed at. This and my iPhone are all I need for the travel part of my life.
Why is it so difficult for folks to understand that this is not aimed at the heavy-duty MBP user?! This product will expand Apple's market, not substitute for either a $2800 MBP nor a $1300 MB.
Right on! And for those that disagree, let's see you argue with this guy… http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/te...ewanted=1&_r=2
Boy, are you going to look dumb soon.
I hope your right, I really do. However, I have a feeling it's going to be the 3rd revision that will see some success, if it gets there.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's hot. Thou, It's just like others have posted... everyone thinks it's nice, but nobody is going to buy one.
Maybe it's too expensive, maybe it's that people on this forum, all my clients, friends and associates need more power and options.
I can however, definitely see Hollywood stars packing these things around to check email and buy sunglasses online.
Would be nice if games didn't need an optical disc to play.
I hope your right, I really do. However, I have a feeling it's going to be the 3rd revision that will see some success, if it gets there.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's hot. Thou, It's just like others have posted... everyone thinks it's nice, but nobody is going to buy one.
Maybe it's too expensive, maybe it's that people on this forum, all my clients, friends and associates need more power and options.
I can however, definitely see Hollywood stars packing these things around to check email and buy sunglasses online.
Would be nice if games didn't need an optical disc to play.
Did you not read the above link?
Hold up there Apple Insider. Anand is just speculating. There is some contradictory evidence on Apple's own developer page for the MacBook Air that suggests it may be a different chip.As far I know, Merom doesn't have and can't have the SSE4 instruction code.
Not to rock the boat with my first AI post but the page that you linked to doesn't mention anything about SSE version 4. The paragraph that you quoted above doesn't include version 4, only 1, 2 and 3.
Maybe Apple updated the site between the time that you looked at it and the time that I looked at it.
Who cares.
You know, in actual fact, for 95+% of what I (and others like me) intend to do - PPT presentations, Excel, Word, iWork, SPSS with data files that are not larger than a few thousand data points, DVD watching and some CD burning (w/external media drive), and pretty much most of what I do on the web - 1.6GHz is PLENTY.
And, the types of uses I've listed above -- and users like me, who will use this primarily as a secondary, portable CPU -- are what this product is aimed at. This and my iPhone are all I need for the travel part of my life.
Why is it so difficult for folks to understand that this is not aimed at the heavy-duty MBP user?! This product will expand Apple's market, not substitute for either a $2800 MBP nor a $1300 MB.
Who cares about your mindless speculation? Who knows what Apple were thinking when they designed it and what people will use it for. Lets stick to the facts:
- the performance is less that the slowest MacBook
- the footprint is about the same as the MacBook
- the thickness is not much different to the MacBook, about 0.35" at the thickest point
- less ports, drives and flexibility
The Air wins on:
- weight
- more durable metal casing
- better looks
Apple in its time has walked a fine like between form and function. Sometimes they cross that line, like with the Cube. I think this might be another case of it. It generally happens when they take away functionality for the sake of form. I think they should have removed the case curves and made the footprint smaller. This matters a lot, for example in an airline seat. My predication: this will not be a wild seller.
Not to rock the boat with my first AI post but the page that you linked to doesn't mention anything about SSE version 4. The paragraph that you quoted above doesn't include version 4, only 1, 2 and 3.
Maybe Apple updated the site between the time that you looked at it and the time that I looked at it.
Obviously they did change it since my post.
Who cares about your mindless speculation?
I certainly (and apparently, at least a couple of others) do!
Apple in its time has walked a fine like between form and function.
Mindless speculation #1.
Sometimes they cross that line, like with the Cube. I think this might be another case of it.
Mindless speculation #2.
It generally happens when they take away functionality for the sake of form. I think they should have removed the case curves and made the footprint smaller.
Mindless speculation #3.
My predication [sic]: this will not be a wild seller.
Mindless speculation #4.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
It's not a "which is the best machine to buy" comparison, it's a performance comparison, and the Air lags.
Of course it lags. The machine was designed for minimum size and weight. And you don't get that by having the fastest available processors. For a machine this size, performance is pretty damn good, look at what other companies offer for three pounds.
- the thickness is not much different to the MacBook, about 0.35" at the thickest point
That difference is 40% thicker. I wouldn't consider a 40% difference "not much different".
Who cares.
You know, in actual fact, for 95+% of what I (and others like me) intend to do - PPT presentations, Excel, Word, iWork, SPSS with data files that are not larger than a few thousand data points, DVD watching and some CD burning (w/external media drive), and pretty much most of what I do on the web - 1.6GHz is PLENTY.
And, the types of uses I've listed above -- and users like me, who will use this primarily as a secondary, portable CPU -- are what this product is aimed at. This and my iPhone are all I need for the travel part of my life.
Why is it so difficult for folks to understand that this is not aimed at the heavy-duty MBP user?! This product will expand Apple's market, not substitute for either a $2800 MBP nor a $1300 MB.
The whole point is that for what you do a MB does the exact same thing even better, but for 700 dollars less. There is no way in hell that extra half inch of thickness is going to be worth that for anyone other than die hard Apple fans like you who will justify anything Mac puts out. From reading some of these posts I can see that Steve Jobs could take a dump on a shiny plate, charge a grand for it, and some of you guys would buy it and tout the greatness of it. I see what people mean with this whole fanboy thing.
I certainly (and apparently, at least a couple of others) do!
Mindless speculation #1.
Mindless speculation #2.
Mindless speculation #3.
Mindless speculation #4.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
No, they're a value judgements, opinions based on what we know. Maybe try using a dictionary before you use any more English.
The whole point is that for what you do a MB does the exact same thing even better, but for 700 dollars less. There is no way in hell that extra half inch of thickness is going to be worth that for anyone other than die hard Apple fans like you who will justify anything Mac puts out. From reading some of these posts I can see that Steve Jobs could take a dump on a shiny plate, charge a grand for it, and some of you guys would buy it and tout the greatness of it. I see what people mean with this whole fanboy thing.
I dunno. I'd like to see the specs of the turd and the shiny plate before I make a judgement.
The funniest thing for me is how these people want to walk both sides of the road - it's limited because it's so small, but it's not really that small. And it's expensive, it works out to about $22 per 1/100th of an inch of thickness difference.
Now I love my Mac, and I was waiting to put down my money, even $2,000+ for a small machine. The limitations don't bother me so much, it's just that it's not small. For practical purposes it's no smaller than a MacBook in situations where it matters - a cramped seat, a small carry-on. The reduced weight and volume are nice, but the old 12" still beats this hands down.
The whole point is that for what you do a MB does the exact same thing even better, but for 700 dollars less. There is no way in hell that extra half inch of thickness is going to be worth that for anyone other than die hard Apple fans like you who will justify anything Mac puts out. From reading some of these posts I can see that Steve Jobs could take a dump on a shiny plate, charge a grand for it, and some of you guys would buy it and tout the greatness of it. I see what people mean with this whole fanboy thing.
1) You seem to know a lot about crap.
2) Last I looked, this site is called "Appleinsider." In any event, now that you "...see what people mean with this whole fanboy thing" and (obviously) do not like what you see, I am sure you'll decide to leave.
3) Bye!