You think Apple would put a DVD player in something quite a bit smaller than the Air?
My point is a low budget (read Intel Atom chipset) Apple branded netbook and with a DVD player. The Air doesn't have one because it is so thin. I'm not looking for razor blade thin. The DVD player should remain in there. We have the Mac Mini on the low end with a DVD player and we need a low-end Macbook with similar specs.
When MSI actually does some innovation we can talk. Right now, you are basically saying a Rolex knockoff bought on the street is cheaper than the real thing. Well, duh!
Well, you see, an awful lot of people consider a Rolex nothing but an overpriced status symbol. And what is basically being said here is that a $50 Casio or Timex can keep time just as well as a $4000 Rolex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
I was ignorant. You were being a douche bag by choice. There's no excuse for being a douche bag, especially to someone you don't know.
So what's your excuse? Did I call you any names like "douche bag"?
Quote:
Then I noted that most people don't have the slightest idea how to hack OS X, thus bringing up that you could was pointless.
Was it pointless? I simply noted that under no circumstance, under no OS, was your contention that they booted slowly true.
Quote:
Hmm, maybe I am a bit behind the times. But I remember many early netbooks - as in mid to early 2008 and back - making use of low-capacity SSDs, like the EeePC. Is this a recent development? I am being serious.
Now, yes. What about the timeframe I'm talking about above?
Uh, who cares about the past? Are you going to start comparing those netbooks with previous generation non-aluminum Macbooks instead of current generation? And no, it is not a recent development. The Wind was introduced last May and always had a hard drive. The HP and Asus in July.
Quote:
No, I can see people getting eyestrain from using tiny screens for long periods of time. I can see people getting cramped hands from using keyboards that are smaller than stand, full-size keyboards. I'll add I can also see people making more typing errors thanks to the tiny, poorly spaced out keys.
Whom have you seen? I doubt you've actually talked to any netbook owners in person. There's a good chance you've never even handled a netbook.
Quote:
Oh, I need evidence for logical conjectures?
So you admit that this is only conjecture, not something you actually see as you claimed in the last paragraph.
Quote:
Sorry, that's not true. Netbooks haven't been around that long, nor have they gained any real popularity until recently. Netbooks represent a miniscule niche that's eating into similarly priced full-size laptops.
Netbooks are outselling the iPhone. Nuff said.
Quote:
I already said I was being facetious.
No, you were caught bashing netbooks with incorrect, unsupportable assertions, so you backtracked.
Quote:
An 8" to 10" display with ~1024x768 resolution has about the same pixel pitch as a 1440x900 13.3" MacBook Air (or MacBook) display?
First I have to do your research for you, now I have to do your math, too. Every netbook in the US is either 9 or 10" nowadays, with all newer ones trending toward 10". Let's do some basic calculations, and these are simple ones not taking into account that the horizontal resolution is measured in a different direction from the diagonal measurement. 10" at 1024 pixels gives a relative figure of 102.4. 13.3" Apple screens have 1280x800 resolution, not 1440x900. 13.3" at 1280 gives 96.2, not significantly lower. Maybe I should have used your erroneous figure of 1440, which would give 108.3, but I don't need to fudge the figures. For comparison, the 17" MacBook Pro has 1920x1200, which gives a much higher 113 for noticeably smaller pixels. I don't see you complaining about the MBP screen causing eyestrain. For Pete's sake, are you intentionally trying to be dense?
Quote:
If Dell has a laptop with a display of that size at that resolution, yeah, that could potentially result in eyestrain as well.
Yes, Dell has a 16" laptop with that resolution. You've got the net. Look it up. And, oh, brother, yet more "potentially" speculation.
Quote:
Did you see Apple's Macworld keynote last week where it was noted Macs are selling over twice as fast as the rest of the industry? How do you explain that?
Really? Then at that rate, Apple should rocket from 5% or so market share to 50% in three or four years. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. You're mistaken again.
Quote:
Obviously if it's not entirely aluminum then I'm not entirely mistaken, am I?
Maybe not entirely on this point, but seeing as how you are entirely wrong on most other points, I wouldn't brag about it if I were you. You make it sound like aluminum is some kind of wonder material.
I think the Macbook Air is the perfect form factor as it is now... Although I am not so naive to think Apple would actually redesign it with functionality in mind, It would be *perfect* if it had an expresscard slot, firewire or a USB/eSATA combo port like some of the Panasonic/Toshiba/Sony subnotebooks. I appreciate nice clean design, but I think they take it to far. Not even the Macbook has any of these features.. I love OSX, but god they make it hard.
Here is an example, I made a chart comparing the Sony Vaio TT ultraportable versus the Macbook Air:
So basically you think that those of us who like the Air should go pound sand, so that Apple can sell crappy plastic junk with tiny screens and shrunken keyboards, because somehow this is the same segment of the market?
They don't have to sell junk. Take the aluminium Macbook. If they made a 10" version using a single or dual core Atom without an optical drive, it would knock at least $400 off the price. Their version would be a premium netbook.
It would be a great product for writers who have to use machines on very cramped coffee tables in Starbucks.
I'm not suggesting that Apple should give up the Air in favor of the small netbook. I think they should have both but you know what would happen. If it has to be one or the other, I think the better move is to satisfy the most users.
Hmmm, the Apple stores are all down. That's weird, Intel release the quad chips today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
Netbooks aren't a hit because they are portable. They are a hit because they are cheap. Yet another ridiculous price point in the long-running race to the bottom that is the PC industry outside of Apple.
It's a bit of both. Apple could simply make a cheaper Macbook by cutting it down. It's not really a race to the bottom, it's about satisfying different markets. Apple's version of the netbook doesn't have to be badly made. It could be a premium netbook at $700-800 like the Vaio P.
Was it pointless? I simply noted that under no circumstance, under no OS, was your contention that they booted slowly true.
Average consumers - the ones you've been saying don't need the performance non-netbooks provide - aren't going to know how to hack Mac OS X onto their netbooks. So I saw it as pointless to bring up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Uh, who cares about the past? Are you going to start comparing those netbooks with previous generation non-aluminum Macbooks instead of current generation? And no, it is not a recent development. The Wind was introduced last May and always had a hard drive. The HP and Asus in July.
Uh because I wanted to know whether it was a recent development or not. I don't closely follow netbook trends. Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Whom have you seen? I doubt you've actually talked to any netbook owners in person. There's a good chance you've never even handled a netbook.
Oy, it's a figure of speech. I can/could see that happening. That's all I meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
So you admit that this is only conjecture, not something you actually see as you claimed in the last paragraph.
I never meant to imply it was anything more than that. I thought most people understood my figure of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Netbooks are outselling the iPhone. Nuff said.
That's unknown. The Macalope, of all people, did a good job in pointing out the flaws in that assertion here:
No, you were caught bashing netbooks with incorrect, unsupportable assertions, so you backtracked.
If all they were were assertions (which they were), I don't have to support them with anything, especially when they're logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
First I have to do your research for you, now I have to do your math, too.
You don't have do to anything. I simply asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Every netbook in the US is either 9 or 10" nowadays, with all newer ones trending toward 10". Let's do some basic calculations, and these are simple ones not taking into account that the horizontal resolution is measured in a different direction from the diagonal measurement. 10" at 1024 pixels gives a relative figure of 102.4. 13.3" Apple screens have 1280x800 resolution, not 1440x900. 13.3" at 1280 gives 96.2, not significantly lower. Maybe I should have used your erroneous figure of 1440, which would give 108.3, but I don't need to fudge the figures. For comparison, the 17" MacBook Pro has 1920x1200, which gives a much higher 113 for noticeably smaller pixels. I don't see you complaining about the MBP screen causing eyestrain. For Pete's sake, are you intentionally trying to be dense?
Don't know why I got the 15" MacBook Pro's resolution mixed up with the 13" MacBook's.
So you're going by horizontal measurements only? That doesn't seem as though it provides a complete picture (pardon the pun). And of course, there are still 8" and 9" models on the market but it helps they're trending towards 10".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Yes, Dell has a 16" laptop with that resolution. You've got the net. Look it up. And, oh, brother, yet more "potentially" speculation.
So touchy. I wasn't questioning your example, I was agreeing with you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Really? Then at that rate, Apple should rocket from 5% or so market share to 50% in three or four years. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. You're mistaken again.
Argh, this is why I shouldn't write late at night. I meant to say Mac sales grew over twice as fast as the rest of the industry. That is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Maybe not entirely on this point, but seeing as how you are entirely wrong on most other points, I wouldn't brag about it if I were you. You make it sound like aluminum is some kind of wonder material.
Where did I praise aluminum like it was some precious metal? I saw Mavin's picture, it didn't look like it was aluminum, especially the area around the keyboard. You think I'm gonna gloat about it? Well now that you mention it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
So what's your excuse?
Well...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Boy, you must really like shoving your foot deep into your mouth. You haven't the vaguest notion of what you're talking about.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
First I have to do your research for you, now I have to do your math, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Yes, Dell has a 16" laptop with that resolution. You've got the net. Look it up.
First let me say that it appears that the Chinese web site was not interpetted correctly. The reported work on a new AIR and guessed at the size. So really I don't see why it has to be a 15 inch device.
For sake of arguement let's say it is 15 inch, would that be an acceptable sized machine? For many I would have to say yes if a couple of shortcomings are dealt with. Those would be internal storage space and I/O. I purchased my MBP just a couple of weeks after AIR hit the stores and did so after carefully looking at AIR. I'm glad that I went the MBP route and part of that is due to the included Ethernet port. That one little facility has been a life saver already, something no USB dongle can match. So if the new AIR overcame the form over function problems of the original then yeah I'd go for it. That means an Ethernet port and Firewire port at the minimal. Internal storage needs to be addressed of course, which is the second condition to deal with. This would likely mean multiple 1.8" drives or a custom storage PC board. In a nut shell a 15" AIR would rock if it addressed the existing models short comings.
Now just because I think it is possible and viable it doesn't means I think it will happen. Rather I suspect Apple is working on a reduced size model to leverage the netbook market with a clam shell design. Even at reduced size I'm hoping they learned a few lessons from AIR design and acceptance, that means ports people. The potential is for the new AIR to be low cost if Apple goes ATOM for the CPU. Atom is maybe $30 in large lots so right there Apple is likely to save a couple of hundred and then cooling is much simpler. Of course AIR being overpriced never bothered Apple. Done right Apple could deliver a 9 to 10" machine rather economically. Well for Apple anyways, expect to see a machine in the $500 to $600 range.
Oh by the way Apple will have multiple plays against the netbook onslaught. This small AIR would only be one approach to competition with multiple tablets offering up real innovation.
Average consumers - the ones you've been saying don't need the performance non-netbooks provide - aren't going to know how to hack Mac OS X onto their netbooks. So I saw it as pointless to bring up.
What others feel pointless to bring up is saying that netbooks boot slowly then when it's pointed out that they don't, you switch to saying XP is worthless.
Quote:
Uh because I wanted to know whether it was a recent development or not. I don't closely follow netbook trends. Thank you.
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about, but you'll keep typing anyway.
Quote:
Oy, it's a figure of speech. I can/could see that happening. That's all I meant.
I never meant to imply it was anything more than that. I thought most people understood my figure of speech.
Then why not use more accurate phrases like, "I think," "I believe" or "I assume"? It's a big difference writing "I could see that happening" instead of "I see it happening."
Quote:
That's unknown. The Macalope, of all people, did a good job in pointing out the flaws in that assertion here:
The Macalope won't even identify himself. What kind of "journalist" is that? And he/she/it doesn't debunk the claim, but rather waffles that maybe it's true and maybe it's not.
Quote:
If all they were were assertions (which they were), I don't have to support them with anything, especially when they're logical.
Good thing you're not in any debating societies or in a court of law.
Quote:
You don't have do to anything. I simply asked.
You refuse to do research, refuse to do math, just come in and toss around unsupportable statements then say, "Ah, don't worry about what I say. Just leave it unchallenged."
Quote:
So you're going by horizontal measurements only? That doesn't seem as though it provides a complete picture (pardon the pun). And of course, there are still 8" and 9" models on the market but it helps they're trending towards 10".
Horizontal resolution works fine because all the screens have the same aspect ratio. Basic trigonometry would tell you that. There's no such thing as an 8" netbook and all the best sellers have 10". 9" models still have the same pixel pitch as the 17" MBP, which you resolutely refuse to criticize. Older, discontinued 7" netbooks have lower resolution screens.
Quote:
So touchy. I wasn't questioning your example, I was agreeing with you!
Still waiting for your criticism that the small pixel pitch 17" MBP display causes eyestrain and migraines. I get the feeling you're a major Apple apologist given your complete aversion to saying anything bad about them.
Quote:
Where did I praise aluminum like it was some precious metal? I saw Mavin's picture, it didn't look like it was aluminum, especially the area around the keyboard. You think I'm gonna gloat about it? Well now that you mention it...
Oh, excuse me, wasn't it you who put down the MSI because you thought it was made of junky plastic rather than aluminum? Lemme check. Yep.
Quote:
Of course not, I wasn't being one.
So you think. Have it your way. I won't waste time trying to educate you further. You're set in your opinions. Whenever you're proven wrong, you just come up with new falsehoods to fill the void.
Well, you see, an awful lot of people consider a Rolex nothing but an overpriced status symbol. And what is basically being said here is that a $50 Casio or Timex can keep time just as well as a $4000 Rolex.
Actually, Rolex was a bad example. I don't even like Rolex watches. My point is that MSI is a copycat. It's easy to slash costs when you don't have to actually pay for a team like Ive's to design and build probably dozens of prototypes during a couple of years. Good design costs money. MSI just took a shortcut. It's a form of theft.
You completely ignored this issue in your reply.
And, if the Air is just a status symbol with no value, why copy it? Neither Casio nor Timex are copycats. They do their own work. Like I said, when MSI bothers to do their own designs, we can talk.
What others feel pointless to bring up is saying that netbooks boot slowly then when it's pointed out that they don't, you switch to saying XP is worthless.
I didn't say XP was worthless and I already said that was supposed to be an aside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about, but you'll keep typing anyway.
Nope, I simply don't follow netbook info that much. That is my fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Then why not use more accurate phrases like, "I think," "I believe" or "I assume"? It's a big difference writing "I could see that happening" instead of "I see it happening."
I did use "I could see" and "I can see." Nowhere have I flatly said "I see it happening."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
The Macalope won't even identify himself. What kind of "journalist" is that? And he/she/it doesn't debunk the claim, but rather waffles that maybe it's true and maybe it's not.
Sorry you don't know who The Macalope is. That doesn't change the fact that we don't have iPhone numbers in and that Gartner is making assumptions about channel stuffing on Apple's part (which they haven't proven) without considering the same could be true for netbooks (again, if it is actually true for iPhones).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Good thing you're not in any debating societies.
I was referencing your earlier demands for hard data. Obviously I have supported my assertions with logical statements. Go back and look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
You refuse to do research, refuse to do math, just come in and toss around unsupportable statements then say, "Ah, don't worry about what I say. Just leave it unchallenged."
Every point I've been wrong on I've stated "I stand corrected" or something to that effect. Bringing it up again doesn't change that. I've also admitted I "might be behind the times."
Now you're putting your exaggerated words in my mouth. I didn't say not to challenge my statements, I questioned your assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Still waiting for your criticism that the small pixel pitch 17" MBP display causes eyestrain and migraines. I get the feeling you're a major Apple apologist given your complete aversion to saying anything bad about them.
I've used 17" MacBook Pros and don't find them to cause eyestrain. Pixel pitch isn't everything, obviously, but I will concede the point (on pixel pitch, not screen real estate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Oh, excuse me, wasn't it you who put down the MSI because you thought it was made of junky plastic rather than aluminum? Lemme check. Yep.
Nope. Go back and read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
So you think. Have it your way.
Yeah, I think you're excessively rude for no apparent reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
I won't waste time trying to educate you further. You're set in your opinions. Whenever you're proven wrong, you just come up with new falsehoods to fill the void.
Obviously not, otherwise I wouldn't have admitted when I was wrong. You've made some nonsensical statements yourself (which you never retracted) but unlike you, I don't bring them back up ad nauseam, exaggerate or flat out lie about your earlier posts, and condescend to you like hell when you're wrong.
A lot of people buy the MacBook Air because it's a cool laptop that simply meets their needs. As was pointed out by it's defenders when it arrived on the scene...
I think that a 10-11" MacBook Air would make sense. Using one of the low power chips due to come out. This would give Apple something to compete with the netbooks without giving up any capabilities.
Another way to go is to make that size tablet using the same type of chip an led screen and SSD hard drive making it thin, low power and small.
I bought an HP Mini 1000 over the weekend (Circuit City's going out of business sale). I have a 24" imac in my office but I wanted something I could cart around the house and take with me on vacation. I wanted a unit that was light and had decent battery life.
I paid around $400 for the HP Mini but I would have gladly paid $550 or so for an equivelent 10" Apple Netbook. I don't believe Steve Jobs when he says that Apple couldn't build a nice $500 netbook. I think Apple is waiting for the new Atom processors before throwing their hat in the ring. I believe an Apple netbook is a question of "when" not "if".
Imagine how mondo a non-removable battery Apple could squeeze in the space now taken by an optical drive...we could hit double-digit battery life here...given how rarely I use my optical drive on the go (never) and how often I'm using the battery (always) this would be a change that while counterintuitive at first, could be a real example of pushing the industry forward.
Seeing as how the MBA is more expensive than the MB and closer to the MBP, hopefully (if this is true), the new MBA will have processors of at least 2 GHz or greater. While 1.86 GHz is not bad, it is rather low for $2,500.00.
Imagine how mondo a non-removable battery Apple could squeeze in the space now taken by an optical drive...we could hit double-digit battery life here...given how rarely I use my optical drive on the go (never) and how often I'm using the battery (always) this would be a change that while counterintuitive at first, could be a real example of pushing the industry forward.
Well the Air doesn't have an optical drive -- but in MacBooks or (possibly, though perhaps less likely) MBPs they could certainly get much longer battery life.
I'm curious, does the Air use Unibody and Lithium-Polymer batteries, i.e. did they get it BEFORE the macbook pros and Apple just did not bring it up until the MBPs came out?
I'm curious, does the Air use Unibody and Lithium-Polymer batteries, i.e. did they get it BEFORE the macbook pros and Apple just did not bring it up until the MBPs came out?
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.
Miniaturization is harder to achieve, too. Laptop performance has reached the point where there are few machines that can't do what most people need out of them, so the premium market has shifted from emphasizing performance to emphasizing portability. People who still need firebreathing performance can still get it, but if you don't need it why would you settle for a cheap machine when you can splurge a little and get something light and sleek?
If the speculation that Apple is moving the Mac mini to the Atom (via the NVIDIA ION platform) is true then presumably Apple has plans for the ION. It might be what allows them to offer smaller portables. They could even scale up the platform from the iPhone instead of trying to run full-bore Mac OS X on them and get really good battery life. I'm not saying they will, necessarily, but they have a lot of options.
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.
I'm not sure that it is. iPhones seem to do the job just fine and they have a bare fraction of the horsepower of even an MBA. True, I would not want to try running Pages on the iPhone's ARM CPU, but Pages is a big, heavy app that assumes a Mac underneath. Apple could write a smaller, lighter version that can display full Pages and Word documents and author simple ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
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.
It's easy to go that way when Apple is hoarding a large and growing share of the premium market, especially in laptops. They certainly aren't slashing prices, and their products are selling quite well.
Given what the mini is used for, I don't see it taking anything over. The future is portable devices, laptops, rackmounts/specialty configurations, and workstations (which will always be better at real heavy lifting like 3D rendering and hydrodynamics). And consoles. I'll carve a special case out of workstations for high-end gaming rigs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
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.
I would say that that depends more on the state of the economy in 3-5 years than on anything else. I am certainly not going to try to predict that, and anyway it's not appropriate for this forum.
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.
Well, of course, it depends on whether software stabilizes or continues to drive hardware improvements. Jobs once mentioned something offhand about mathematical algorithms in development that could focus blurred photos after the fact. That would be a nice, consumer-friendly update to iPhoto that could put all your GPU cores to work. I certainly think that the ARM and Atom platforms have bright futures and that small, nimble products built around them will (finally!) take over the cheap hulks that pass for low-end notebooks now. I expect these new products to sell very well. But I am not ready to sound a death knell for Apple's laptop line. If it can sell like this in these times, it has a bright future.
I bought an HP Mini 1000 over the weekend (Circuit City's going out of business sale). I have a 24" imac in my office but I wanted something I could cart around the house and take with me on vacation. I wanted a unit that was light and had decent battery life.
I paid around $400 for the HP Mini but I would have gladly paid $550 or so for an equivelent 10" Apple Netbook. I don't believe Steve Jobs when he says that Apple couldn't build a nice $500 netbook. I think Apple is waiting for the new Atom processors before throwing their hat in the ring. I believe an Apple netbook is a question of "when" not "if".
The HP? It has the same specs as every other netbook on the market (1.6Ghz Atom, Intel 950 Graphics, 1GB of RAM). What makes it remarkable is that it is markedly smaller than virtually every other 10" netbook and has a full sized keyboard. It does, however, use 1.8" drives to keep the size small. The one he bought at Circuit City has a 60GB 1.8" HD. The one at Best Buy has a 16GB SSD.
Comments
You think Apple would put a DVD player in something quite a bit smaller than the Air?
My point is a low budget (read Intel Atom chipset) Apple branded netbook and with a DVD player. The Air doesn't have one because it is so thin. I'm not looking for razor blade thin. The DVD player should remain in there. We have the Mac Mini on the low end with a DVD player and we need a low-end Macbook with similar specs.
When MSI actually does some innovation we can talk. Right now, you are basically saying a Rolex knockoff bought on the street is cheaper than the real thing. Well, duh!
Well, you see, an awful lot of people consider a Rolex nothing but an overpriced status symbol. And what is basically being said here is that a $50 Casio or Timex can keep time just as well as a $4000 Rolex.
I was ignorant. You were being a douche bag by choice. There's no excuse for being a douche bag, especially to someone you don't know.
So what's your excuse? Did I call you any names like "douche bag"?
Then I noted that most people don't have the slightest idea how to hack OS X, thus bringing up that you could was pointless.
Was it pointless? I simply noted that under no circumstance, under no OS, was your contention that they booted slowly true.
Hmm, maybe I am a bit behind the times.
Now, yes. What about the timeframe I'm talking about above?
Uh, who cares about the past? Are you going to start comparing those netbooks with previous generation non-aluminum Macbooks instead of current generation? And no, it is not a recent development. The Wind was introduced last May and always had a hard drive. The HP and Asus in July.
No, I can see people getting eyestrain from using tiny screens for long periods of time. I can see people getting cramped hands from using keyboards that are smaller than stand, full-size keyboards. I'll add I can also see people making more typing errors thanks to the tiny, poorly spaced out keys.
Whom have you seen? I doubt you've actually talked to any netbook owners in person. There's a good chance you've never even handled a netbook.
Oh, I need evidence for logical conjectures?
So you admit that this is only conjecture, not something you actually see as you claimed in the last paragraph.
Sorry, that's not true. Netbooks haven't been around that long, nor have they gained any real popularity until recently. Netbooks represent a miniscule niche that's eating into similarly priced full-size laptops.
Netbooks are outselling the iPhone. Nuff said.
I already said I was being facetious.
No, you were caught bashing netbooks with incorrect, unsupportable assertions, so you backtracked.
An 8" to 10" display with ~1024x768 resolution has about the same pixel pitch as a 1440x900 13.3" MacBook Air (or MacBook) display?
First I have to do your research for you, now I have to do your math, too. Every netbook in the US is either 9 or 10" nowadays, with all newer ones trending toward 10". Let's do some basic calculations, and these are simple ones not taking into account that the horizontal resolution is measured in a different direction from the diagonal measurement. 10" at 1024 pixels gives a relative figure of 102.4. 13.3" Apple screens have 1280x800 resolution, not 1440x900. 13.3" at 1280 gives 96.2, not significantly lower. Maybe I should have used your erroneous figure of 1440, which would give 108.3, but I don't need to fudge the figures. For comparison, the 17" MacBook Pro has 1920x1200, which gives a much higher 113 for noticeably smaller pixels. I don't see you complaining about the MBP screen causing eyestrain. For Pete's sake, are you intentionally trying to be dense?
If Dell has a laptop with a display of that size at that resolution, yeah, that could potentially result in eyestrain as well.
Yes, Dell has a 16" laptop with that resolution. You've got the net. Look it up. And, oh, brother, yet more "potentially" speculation.
Did you see Apple's Macworld keynote last week where it was noted Macs are selling over twice as fast as the rest of the industry? How do you explain that?
Really? Then at that rate, Apple should rocket from 5% or so market share to 50% in three or four years. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. You're mistaken again.
Obviously if it's not entirely aluminum then I'm not entirely mistaken, am I?
Maybe not entirely on this point, but seeing as how you are entirely wrong on most other points, I wouldn't brag about it if I were you. You make it sound like aluminum is some kind of wonder material.
Here is an example, I made a chart comparing the Sony Vaio TT ultraportable versus the Macbook Air:
So basically you think that those of us who like the Air should go pound sand, so that Apple can sell crappy plastic junk with tiny screens and shrunken keyboards, because somehow this is the same segment of the market?
They don't have to sell junk. Take the aluminium Macbook. If they made a 10" version using a single or dual core Atom without an optical drive, it would knock at least $400 off the price. Their version would be a premium netbook.
It would be a great product for writers who have to use machines on very cramped coffee tables in Starbucks.
I'm not suggesting that Apple should give up the Air in favor of the small netbook. I think they should have both but you know what would happen. If it has to be one or the other, I think the better move is to satisfy the most users.
Hmmm, the Apple stores are all down. That's weird, Intel release the quad chips today.
Netbooks aren't a hit because they are portable. They are a hit because they are cheap. Yet another ridiculous price point in the long-running race to the bottom that is the PC industry outside of Apple.
It's a bit of both. Apple could simply make a cheaper Macbook by cutting it down. It's not really a race to the bottom, it's about satisfying different markets. Apple's version of the netbook doesn't have to be badly made. It could be a premium netbook at $700-800 like the Vaio P.
Was it pointless? I simply noted that under no circumstance, under no OS, was your contention that they booted slowly true.
Average consumers - the ones you've been saying don't need the performance non-netbooks provide - aren't going to know how to hack Mac OS X onto their netbooks. So I saw it as pointless to bring up.
Uh, who cares about the past? Are you going to start comparing those netbooks with previous generation non-aluminum Macbooks instead of current generation? And no, it is not a recent development. The Wind was introduced last May and always had a hard drive. The HP and Asus in July.
Uh because I wanted to know whether it was a recent development or not. I don't closely follow netbook trends. Thank you.
Whom have you seen? I doubt you've actually talked to any netbook owners in person. There's a good chance you've never even handled a netbook.
Oy, it's a figure of speech. I can/could see that happening. That's all I meant.
So you admit that this is only conjecture, not something you actually see as you claimed in the last paragraph.
I never meant to imply it was anything more than that. I thought most people understood my figure of speech.
Netbooks are outselling the iPhone. Nuff said.
That's unknown. The Macalope, of all people, did a good job in pointing out the flaws in that assertion here:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1374..._maladies.html
No, you were caught bashing netbooks with incorrect, unsupportable assertions, so you backtracked.
If all they were were assertions (which they were), I don't have to support them with anything, especially when they're logical.
First I have to do your research for you, now I have to do your math, too.
You don't have do to anything. I simply asked.
Every netbook in the US is either 9 or 10" nowadays, with all newer ones trending toward 10". Let's do some basic calculations, and these are simple ones not taking into account that the horizontal resolution is measured in a different direction from the diagonal measurement. 10" at 1024 pixels gives a relative figure of 102.4. 13.3" Apple screens have 1280x800 resolution, not 1440x900. 13.3" at 1280 gives 96.2, not significantly lower. Maybe I should have used your erroneous figure of 1440, which would give 108.3, but I don't need to fudge the figures. For comparison, the 17" MacBook Pro has 1920x1200, which gives a much higher 113 for noticeably smaller pixels. I don't see you complaining about the MBP screen causing eyestrain. For Pete's sake, are you intentionally trying to be dense?
Don't know why I got the 15" MacBook Pro's resolution mixed up with the 13" MacBook's.
So you're going by horizontal measurements only? That doesn't seem as though it provides a complete picture (pardon the pun). And of course, there are still 8" and 9" models on the market but it helps they're trending towards 10".
Yes, Dell has a 16" laptop with that resolution. You've got the net. Look it up. And, oh, brother, yet more "potentially" speculation.
So touchy. I wasn't questioning your example, I was agreeing with you!
Really? Then at that rate, Apple should rocket from 5% or so market share to 50% in three or four years. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. You're mistaken again.
Argh, this is why I shouldn't write late at night. I meant to say Mac sales grew over twice as fast as the rest of the industry. That is true.
Maybe not entirely on this point, but seeing as how you are entirely wrong on most other points, I wouldn't brag about it if I were you. You make it sound like aluminum is some kind of wonder material.
Where did I praise aluminum like it was some precious metal? I saw Mavin's picture, it didn't look like it was aluminum, especially the area around the keyboard. You think I'm gonna gloat about it? Well now that you mention it...
So what's your excuse?
Well...
Boy, you must really like shoving your foot deep into your mouth. You haven't the vaguest notion of what you're talking about.
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.
First I have to do your research for you, now I have to do your math, too.
Yes, Dell has a 16" laptop with that resolution. You've got the net. Look it up.
Did I call you any names like "douche bag"?
Of course not, I wasn't being one.
For sake of arguement let's say it is 15 inch, would that be an acceptable sized machine? For many I would have to say yes if a couple of shortcomings are dealt with. Those would be internal storage space and I/O. I purchased my MBP just a couple of weeks after AIR hit the stores and did so after carefully looking at AIR. I'm glad that I went the MBP route and part of that is due to the included Ethernet port. That one little facility has been a life saver already, something no USB dongle can match. So if the new AIR overcame the form over function problems of the original then yeah I'd go for it. That means an Ethernet port and Firewire port at the minimal. Internal storage needs to be addressed of course, which is the second condition to deal with. This would likely mean multiple 1.8" drives or a custom storage PC board. In a nut shell a 15" AIR would rock if it addressed the existing models short comings.
Now just because I think it is possible and viable it doesn't means I think it will happen. Rather I suspect Apple is working on a reduced size model to leverage the netbook market with a clam shell design. Even at reduced size I'm hoping they learned a few lessons from AIR design and acceptance, that means ports people. The potential is for the new AIR to be low cost if Apple goes ATOM for the CPU. Atom is maybe $30 in large lots so right there Apple is likely to save a couple of hundred and then cooling is much simpler. Of course AIR being overpriced never bothered Apple. Done right Apple could deliver a 9 to 10" machine rather economically. Well for Apple anyways, expect to see a machine in the $500 to $600 range.
Oh by the way Apple will have multiple plays against the netbook onslaught. This small AIR would only be one approach to competition with multiple tablets offering up real innovation.
Dave
Average consumers - the ones you've been saying don't need the performance non-netbooks provide - aren't going to know how to hack Mac OS X onto their netbooks. So I saw it as pointless to bring up.
What others feel pointless to bring up is saying that netbooks boot slowly then when it's pointed out that they don't, you switch to saying XP is worthless.
Uh because I wanted to know whether it was a recent development or not. I don't closely follow netbook trends. Thank you.
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about, but you'll keep typing anyway.
Oy, it's a figure of speech. I can/could see that happening. That's all I meant.
I never meant to imply it was anything more than that. I thought most people understood my figure of speech.
Then why not use more accurate phrases like, "I think," "I believe" or "I assume"? It's a big difference writing "I could see that happening" instead of "I see it happening."
That's unknown. The Macalope, of all people, did a good job in pointing out the flaws in that assertion here:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1374..._maladies.html
The Macalope won't even identify himself. What kind of "journalist" is that? And he/she/it doesn't debunk the claim, but rather waffles that maybe it's true and maybe it's not.
If all they were were assertions (which they were), I don't have to support them with anything, especially when they're logical.
Good thing you're not in any debating societies or in a court of law.
You don't have do to anything. I simply asked.
You refuse to do research, refuse to do math, just come in and toss around unsupportable statements then say, "Ah, don't worry about what I say. Just leave it unchallenged."
So you're going by horizontal measurements only? That doesn't seem as though it provides a complete picture (pardon the pun). And of course, there are still 8" and 9" models on the market but it helps they're trending towards 10".
Horizontal resolution works fine because all the screens have the same aspect ratio. Basic trigonometry would tell you that. There's no such thing as an 8" netbook and all the best sellers have 10". 9" models still have the same pixel pitch as the 17" MBP, which you resolutely refuse to criticize. Older, discontinued 7" netbooks have lower resolution screens.
So touchy. I wasn't questioning your example, I was agreeing with you!
Still waiting for your criticism that the small pixel pitch 17" MBP display causes eyestrain and migraines. I get the feeling you're a major Apple apologist given your complete aversion to saying anything bad about them.
Where did I praise aluminum like it was some precious metal? I saw Mavin's picture, it didn't look like it was aluminum, especially the area around the keyboard. You think I'm gonna gloat about it? Well now that you mention it...
Oh, excuse me, wasn't it you who put down the MSI because you thought it was made of junky plastic rather than aluminum? Lemme check. Yep.
Of course not, I wasn't being one.
So you think. Have it your way. I won't waste time trying to educate you further. You're set in your opinions. Whenever you're proven wrong, you just come up with new falsehoods to fill the void.
Well, you see, an awful lot of people consider a Rolex nothing but an overpriced status symbol. And what is basically being said here is that a $50 Casio or Timex can keep time just as well as a $4000 Rolex.
Actually, Rolex was a bad example. I don't even like Rolex watches. My point is that MSI is a copycat. It's easy to slash costs when you don't have to actually pay for a team like Ive's to design and build probably dozens of prototypes during a couple of years. Good design costs money. MSI just took a shortcut. It's a form of theft.
You completely ignored this issue in your reply.
And, if the Air is just a status symbol with no value, why copy it? Neither Casio nor Timex are copycats. They do their own work. Like I said, when MSI bothers to do their own designs, we can talk.
What others feel pointless to bring up is saying that netbooks boot slowly then when it's pointed out that they don't, you switch to saying XP is worthless.
I didn't say XP was worthless and I already said that was supposed to be an aside.
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about, but you'll keep typing anyway.
Nope, I simply don't follow netbook info that much. That is my fault.
Then why not use more accurate phrases like, "I think," "I believe" or "I assume"? It's a big difference writing "I could see that happening" instead of "I see it happening."
I did use "I could see" and "I can see." Nowhere have I flatly said "I see it happening."
The Macalope won't even identify himself. What kind of "journalist" is that? And he/she/it doesn't debunk the claim, but rather waffles that maybe it's true and maybe it's not.
Sorry you don't know who The Macalope is. That doesn't change the fact that we don't have iPhone numbers in and that Gartner is making assumptions about channel stuffing on Apple's part (which they haven't proven) without considering the same could be true for netbooks (again, if it is actually true for iPhones).
Good thing you're not in any debating societies.
I was referencing your earlier demands for hard data. Obviously I have supported my assertions with logical statements. Go back and look.
You refuse to do research, refuse to do math, just come in and toss around unsupportable statements then say, "Ah, don't worry about what I say. Just leave it unchallenged."
Every point I've been wrong on I've stated "I stand corrected" or something to that effect. Bringing it up again doesn't change that. I've also admitted I "might be behind the times."
Now you're putting your exaggerated words in my mouth. I didn't say not to challenge my statements, I questioned your assertions.
Still waiting for your criticism that the small pixel pitch 17" MBP display causes eyestrain and migraines. I get the feeling you're a major Apple apologist given your complete aversion to saying anything bad about them.
I've used 17" MacBook Pros and don't find them to cause eyestrain. Pixel pitch isn't everything, obviously, but I will concede the point (on pixel pitch, not screen real estate).
Oh, excuse me, wasn't it you who put down the MSI because you thought it was made of junky plastic rather than aluminum? Lemme check. Yep.
Nope. Go back and read.
So you think. Have it your way.
Yeah, I think you're excessively rude for no apparent reason.
I won't waste time trying to educate you further. You're set in your opinions. Whenever you're proven wrong, you just come up with new falsehoods to fill the void.
Obviously not, otherwise I wouldn't have admitted when I was wrong. You've made some nonsensical statements yourself (which you never retracted) but unlike you, I don't bring them back up ad nauseam, exaggerate or flat out lie about your earlier posts, and condescend to you like hell when you're wrong.
A lot of people buy the MacBook Air because it's a cool laptop that simply meets their needs. As was pointed out by it's defenders when it arrived on the scene...
First "it's" is correct. The second isn't.
Another way to go is to make that size tablet using the same type of chip an led screen and SSD hard drive making it thin, low power and small.
I paid around $400 for the HP Mini but I would have gladly paid $550 or so for an equivelent 10" Apple Netbook. I don't believe Steve Jobs when he says that Apple couldn't build a nice $500 netbook. I think Apple is waiting for the new Atom processors before throwing their hat in the ring. I believe an Apple netbook is a question of "when" not "if".
t.
Imagine how mondo a non-removable battery Apple could squeeze in the space now taken by an optical drive...we could hit double-digit battery life here...given how rarely I use my optical drive on the go (never) and how often I'm using the battery (always) this would be a change that while counterintuitive at first, could be a real example of pushing the industry forward.
Well the Air doesn't have an optical drive -- but in MacBooks or (possibly, though perhaps less likely) MBPs they could certainly get much longer battery life.
I'm curious, does the Air use Unibody and Lithium-Polymer batteries, i.e. did they get it BEFORE the macbook pros and Apple just did not bring it up until the MBPs came out?
I'm curious, does the Air use Unibody and Lithium-Polymer batteries, i.e. did they get it BEFORE the macbook pros and Apple just did not bring it up until the MBPs came out?
Yep.
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.
Miniaturization is harder to achieve, too. Laptop performance has reached the point where there are few machines that can't do what most people need out of them, so the premium market has shifted from emphasizing performance to emphasizing portability. People who still need firebreathing performance can still get it, but if you don't need it why would you settle for a cheap machine when you can splurge a little and get something light and sleek?
If the speculation that Apple is moving the Mac mini to the Atom (via the NVIDIA ION platform) is true then presumably Apple has plans for the ION. It might be what allows them to offer smaller portables. They could even scale up the platform from the iPhone instead of trying to run full-bore Mac OS X on them and get really good battery life. I'm not saying they will, necessarily, but they have a lot of options.
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.
I'm not sure that it is. iPhones seem to do the job just fine and they have a bare fraction of the horsepower of even an MBA. True, I would not want to try running Pages on the iPhone's ARM CPU, but Pages is a big, heavy app that assumes a Mac underneath. Apple could write a smaller, lighter version that can display full Pages and Word documents and author simple ones.
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.
It's easy to go that way when Apple is hoarding a large and growing share of the premium market, especially in laptops. They certainly aren't slashing prices, and their products are selling quite well.
Given what the mini is used for, I don't see it taking anything over. The future is portable devices, laptops, rackmounts/specialty configurations, and workstations (which will always be better at real heavy lifting like 3D rendering and hydrodynamics). And consoles. I'll carve a special case out of workstations for high-end gaming rigs.
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.
I would say that that depends more on the state of the economy in 3-5 years than on anything else. I am certainly not going to try to predict that, and anyway it's not appropriate for this forum.
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.
Well, of course, it depends on whether software stabilizes or continues to drive hardware improvements. Jobs once mentioned something offhand about mathematical algorithms in development that could focus blurred photos after the fact. That would be a nice, consumer-friendly update to iPhoto that could put all your GPU cores to work. I certainly think that the ARM and Atom platforms have bright futures and that small, nimble products built around them will (finally!) take over the cheap hulks that pass for low-end notebooks now. I expect these new products to sell very well. But I am not ready to sound a death knell for Apple's laptop line. If it can sell like this in these times, it has a bright future.
I bought an HP Mini 1000 over the weekend (Circuit City's going out of business sale). I have a 24" imac in my office but I wanted something I could cart around the house and take with me on vacation. I wanted a unit that was light and had decent battery life.
I paid around $400 for the HP Mini but I would have gladly paid $550 or so for an equivelent 10" Apple Netbook. I don't believe Steve Jobs when he says that Apple couldn't build a nice $500 netbook. I think Apple is waiting for the new Atom processors before throwing their hat in the ring. I believe an Apple netbook is a question of "when" not "if".
t.
Could you spec it out, please?
Thank you
Could you spec it out, please?
Thank you
The HP? It has the same specs as every other netbook on the market (1.6Ghz Atom, Intel 950 Graphics, 1GB of RAM). What makes it remarkable is that it is markedly smaller than virtually every other 10" netbook and has a full sized keyboard. It does, however, use 1.8" drives to keep the size small. The one he bought at Circuit City has a 60GB 1.8" HD. The one at Best Buy has a 16GB SSD.