You of all people should know that a 1.6GHz 18W TDP CULV C2D was going for about $350 in 2008 making it impossible for Apple to sell the MBA for $600. Furthermore, you should know that is this slower CPU costs more than the 2.4GHz 35W TDP C2D because of it's worse power efficency and larger size. How could that entire system be under $600 on just HW costs? It's literally impossible for what's included.
It is pretty clear that the market place doesn't value Intel ULV processors in the same way Intel does. As for that $600 point I don't know where that came from, but the joke with AIR is the entire platfom not just the processor.
We can rehash the specifics if you want but the sales figures are evidence that the market can't digest the joke. Not being able to justify the extra expense of the poorly performing ULV processor is only part of the digestion problem. The AIR comes up significantly short in other areas too.
Quote:
Saying it's an overpriced joke is as silly as saying an iPhone for $700 with an 800MHz CPU, 512MHz RAM, 32GB storage and 3.5" display are an overpriced joke when compared to pretty much any PC in the world when you compare specs.
The big difference here is that iPhone lives up to user expectations.
Quote:
I'm using an extreme example to show that the MBA is a specialized satellite computing device, not designed to be you main computer like a MB or MBP.
Is it not marketed as a laptop? If we where talking about the iPad, it would be clear that Apples intention is for iPad to be a satellite device. AIR on the otherhand is clearly marketed as an ultraportable laptop, but yet comes up short when judged against peoples expectations.
Quote:
Before the ipa release I predicted that Apple would change the name again to exclude iPhone as it obviously made little sense and could hurt the brand of their other devices if people think they simply install one into the other and call it a day. The iPad OS is clearly tailored for the HW, yet the trolls on this forums enjoyed saying how wrong I was in January when that didn't come to pass. Turns out I was just ahead of the curve by a few months.
Memory is fuzzy but I might be remembering that. Apples had a hard time properly naming iOS, I believe that part of the issue is coming up with a name that minimizes consumer confusion. Apples path is the direct opposite of Microsofts here. Windows Phone 7 or whatever they call it is bound to confuse some.
In any event it looks like iOS has some staying power now. I suspect it will be showing up in a lot of devices in the future even if not declared as such. The new Apple TV is one example but iOS could easily drive future routers, storage devices and other gadgets Apple dreams up.
What is funny here is that 20 some odd years ago i dreamed of having this much computing power on my desk at home. Back then the college I was attending had SUN work stations for Comp Sci students to use. The thought of being able to afford such capability didn't exist. Now i can put better performance in my pocket.
That little bit of history is in part why I'm so negative with respect to AIR. There is no reason for a small & light device like AIR to give up as much as it did these days. Similar machines from PC manufactures only reinforces this point. You can argue about my points but I still have to return to the overwheming fact that the market has rejected AIR. Maybe the reasons are different than my overall classification of the machine as a joke. The PC phrase could be: it lacks value to justify its price.
I?d say your definition of iOS is incorrect. Apple seems to have clearly made the difference between the OSes the CPU architecture,
The only reason that iOS runs on ARM is due to the low power nature of the processor. I don't think there was a decision made at Apple to make the architecture iOS is running on a distinguishing feature. That make no more sense than saying OS/X is characterised by runnin on i86. For one thing OS/X didn't start out on i86, for another i'm rather confident that Apple works to keep the OS portable.
Quote:
but iOS for iDevices could not run on iDevices by a simply recompiling for ARM. They had to rewrite the frameworks, apps, etc., not just create a new GUI.
Some things have to be targeted for the device that the code will be running on but that happens for all OS'es. As to the frameworks here the story is much the same, new hardware and concepts require new code. What people mis here is that some of the development done for iOS actually got ported back into Mac OS. This allowed Mac OS to benefit from new approaches taken in iPhone development.
Quote:
That puts OS X as the umbrella OS for Mac OS and iOS. They come from the same source and use the same kernel as well as other, higher-level code, but they are distinct OSes and we should expect iOS to be recompiled to be Mac OS XI or a notebook with an ARM CPU running Mac OS X.
Well we shouldn't expect anything. In any event aren't you contradicting yourself here?
Touch capabilities will likely come to Mac OS relatively soon. In this manner I have little doubt, however I don't expect a direct port of iOS. Rather I expect Apple to blend Touch with Macs current mouse and keyboard centric interface. Touch on the desktop isn't all it is cracked up to be, but certainly has its uses. Thus Apple will not give up the Mac interface.
As a side note I could see Apple bypassing a heavy stress on Touch on the desktop for more advanced tech.
The only reason that iOS runs on ARM is due to the low power nature of the processor. I don't think there was a decision made at Apple to make the architecture iOS is running on a distinguishing feature. That make no more sense than saying OS/X is characterised by runnin on i86. For one thing OS/X didn't start out on i86, for another i'm rather confident that Apple works to keep the OS portable.
PPC and x86 chips they used were for desktop-class machines. There is no contradiction unless you want to argue that you can?t classify a person as both a primate and Homo sapiens, when they are different tiered classifications. A Tech Taxonomy, as previously stated.
iOS is under OS X and Mac OS is under OS X. Both share kernel, frameworks and other code, but they are distinct OSes and can easily be defined as different. If you only define an OS as the kernel then you?ll disagree with this point but you?ll be limiting your view of OS X and many other things in the world if you disallow the concept of one term have multiple meanings depending on the context.
PPC and x86 chips they used were for desktop-class machines. There is no contradiction unless you want to argue that you can?t classify a person as both a primate and Homo sapiens, when they are different tiered classifications. A Tech Taxonomy, as previously stated.
iOS is under OS X and Mac OS is under OS X. Both share kernel, frameworks and other code, but they are distinct OSes and can easily be defined as different. If you only define an OS as the kernel then you?ll disagree with this point but you?ll be limiting your view of OS X and many other things in the world if you disallow the concept of one term have multiple meanings depending on the context.
A Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua are both Canines, but they certainly are different critters.
No being a software person, this seems as though everyone is making too fine a point of the parentage of iOS. It seems to me that it is fairly simple. Apple needed to use the ARM processor for the same reason that everyone else uses it...power consumption...and they did whatever it was that was necessary to come up with a useable OS and application set that users would find familiar (in the GUI).
I know that this ignores the devilish details which are where the thing is made to actually work, but that is what it looks like to someone who is not 'on the inside'.
A Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua are both Canines, but they certainly are different critters.
No being a software person, this seems as though everyone is making too fine a point of the parentage of iOS. It seems to me that it is fairly simple. Apple needed to use the ARM processor for the same reason that everyone else uses it...power consumption...and they did whatever it was that was necessary to come up with a useable OS and application set that users would find familiar (in the GUI).
I know that this ignores the devilish details which are where the thing is made to actually work, but that is what it looks like to someone who is not 'on the inside'.
Cheers
That is a better example than the one I posed. They are both dogs, with different abilities and sizes, but they come from the same source genetic offshoot.
Going to ARM was definitely for power consumption reasons, but Apple had to do a lot more than recompile for ARM. What they did makes the transfer from PPC to x86 seem like child?s play. iOS is still the fastest, smoothest OS I?ve used on any ARM-based device; even on newer Nokias with modern CPUs using Symbian which was originally designed for much, much, much slower HW.
Apple really did an incredible job of throwing away the scrape and rebuilding as needed. And the great thing for Mac users is this efficiency has already come back to the desktop variety. I will be surprised if Apple doesn?t use the concepts it learned for building the iOS GUI in the next version of Mac OS GUI. I don?t mean making your iMac touch-based, but the concepts themselves of dropping the complex aspects of ?PC? OSes in favour of a true user-friendly OS.
PPC and x86 chips they used were for desktop-class machines. There is no contradiction unless you want to argue that you can?t classify a person as both a primate and Homo sapiens, when they are different tiered classifications. A Tech Taxonomy, as previously stated.
iOS is under OS X and Mac OS is under OS X. Both share kernel, frameworks and other code, but they are distinct OSes and can easily be defined as different. If you only define an OS as the kernel then you?ll disagree with this point but you?ll be limiting your view of OS X and many other things in the world if you disallow the concept of one term have multiple meanings depending on the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
That is a better example than the one I posed. They are both dogs, with different abilities and sizes, but they come from the same source genetic offshoot.
Going to ARM was definitely for power consumption reasons, but Apple had to do a lot more than recompile for ARM. What they did makes the transfer from PPC to x86 seem like child?s play. iOS is still the fastest, smoothest OS I?ve used on any ARM-based device; even on newer Nokias with modern CPUs using Symbian which was originally designed for much, much, much slower HW.
Apple really did an incredible job of throwing away the scrape and rebuilding as needed. And the great thing for Mac users is this efficiency has already come back to the desktop variety. I will be surprised if Apple doesn?t use the concepts it learned for building the iOS GUI in the next version of Mac OS GUI. I don?t mean making your iMac touch-based, but the concepts themselves of dropping the complex aspects of ?PC? OSes in favour of a true user-friendly OS.
Indeed, writing compact, "efficient" code is not as easy as writing bloated stuff. One can only hope that Apple will learn from their experience with iOS. That probably depends upon the extent to which the two teams speak to each other or are assigned to the other's projects. It is all too easy for the right hand not to know what the left hand is doing in a large organization (which Apple is), particularly one which is as compartmentalized (for security, among other reasons) as Apple is.
The ability to adapt the OS to changing architectures is one which will benefit Apple in both the near term and the long term as CPUs evolve and the CPU relationship with the GPU changes. Intel is clearly moving from the "multi-core" CPU to the "many-core CPU" and Apple may stand to benefit from this more quickly than other platforms because of their work with Grand Central Dispatch and Open CL. Now if only the software vendors would get with the program. In the mean time, the OS will bear the responsibility for simply assigning different apps to different cores when they are not being utilized as appears to be all too common these days.
I particularly look forward to the ARM processors which are expected to come online in the next two years as they offer many appealing possibilities.
That is a better example than the one I posed. They are both dogs, with different abilities and sizes, but they come from the same source genetic offshoot.
Going to ARM was definitely for power consumption reasons, but Apple had to do a lot more than recompile for ARM. What they did makes the transfer from PPC to x86 seem like child?s play. iOS is still the fastest, smoothest OS I?ve used on any ARM-based device; even on newer Nokias with modern CPUs using Symbian which was originally designed for much, much, much slower HW.
Apple really did an incredible job of throwing away the scrape and rebuilding as needed. And the great thing for Mac users is this efficiency has already come back to the desktop variety. I will be surprised if Apple doesn?t use the concepts it learned for building the iOS GUI in the next version of Mac OS GUI. I don?t mean making your iMac touch-based, but the concepts themselves of dropping the complex aspects of ?PC? OSes in favour of a true user-friendly OS.
i think it is a great exercise that shows why stallman can't stand it that most people refer to linux kernel based distros as 'linux'. it would be like referring to all apple products running on darwin as calling them 'darwin'.
Finally a replacement for my venerable 12in Powerbook? But the price will be a huge decider...
I suspect that a lot of people would happily spring for an 11.6 inch MacBook that was not quite as svelte as the MacBook Air. There are a few examples in the Windoze world which illustrate the point that there is a market for a small form factor laptop that has good processing power. Not everyone's needs are met by netbooks or iPads.
I suspect that a lot of people would happily spring for an 11.6 inch MacBook that was not quite as svelte as the MacBook Air. There are a few examples in the Windoze world which illustrate the point that there is a market for a small form factor laptop that has good processing power. Not everyone's needs are met by netbooks or iPads.
Price and capability are critical here, we don't need a repeat of the AIR.
I suspect that a lot of people would happily spring for an 11.6 inch MacBook that was not quite as svelte as the MacBook Air. There are a few examples in the Windoze world which illustrate the point that there is a market for a small form factor laptop that has good processing power. Not everyone's needs are met by netbooks or iPads.
I’m more inclined to expect something along the lines of the Toshiba Portege R700, but with the engineering and expense taken to include a smaller and lower-power Core-i7. If the R700 running Windows can get 5 hours out of a 3 lb. machine I think Apple can pull off an actual 8 hours with internet use from a CPU with have the wattage. Of course, there is significant battery drain from the display with 11.6 will increase the duration, even after you account for having to use a smaller battery in the device, though a smaller footprint does mean a lighter chassis.
I don’t think Apple will use Atom CPUs, I don’t think Apple is porting Mac OS X to run on ARM, ad I haven’t heard a single viable argument for Apple not to use the SFF CULV chips that Apple had Intel dust off and put in production for them. I think the 2.26GHz 18W TDP that Intel started selling this month are the most likely at this point, but they cost $346 (1k unit price), which is a lot more than Atom so these chuckleheads who think it should be priced like a notebook are not thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Price and capability are critical here, we don't need a repeat of the AIR.
I’m not sure what there is to repeat. Apple made a new class of computer, then the major players copied Apple but couldn’t meet their price point. Now technology has moved ahead quite a bit and, as shown above, a 3 lb. notebook 35W Core-i7 can get 5 hours of internet usage running Windows. Apple can best this in many ways, but you seem to want expensive HW at a price lower than the MacBook simply because the HW is slower than the MacBook. That doesn’t make any sense for this specialized machine that won’t have the economy of scale that other Macs have.
I?m more inclined to expect something along the lines of the Toshiba Portege R700, but with the engineering and expense taken to include a smaller and lower-power Core-i7. If the R700 running Windows can get 5 hours out of a 3 lb. machine I think Apple can pull off an actual 8 hours with internet use from a CPU with have the wattage. Of course, there is significant battery drain from the display with 11.6 will increase the duration, even after you account for having to use a smaller battery in the device, though a smaller footprint does mean a lighter chassis.
I don?t think Apple will use Atom CPUs, I don?t think Apple is porting Mac OS X to run on ARM, ad I haven?t heard a single viable argument for Apple not to use the SFF CULV chips that Apple had Intel dust off and put in production for them. I think the 2.26GHz 18W TDP that Intel started selling this month are the most likely at this point, but they cost $346 (1k unit price), which is a lot more than Atom so these chuckleheads who think it should be priced like a notebook are not thinking.
I?m not sure what there is to repeat. Apple made a new class of computer, then the major players copied Apple but couldn?t meet their price point. Now technology has moved ahead quite a bit and, as shown above, a 3 lb. notebook 35W Core-i7 can get 5 hours of internet usage running Windows. Apple can best this in many ways, but you seem to want expensive HW at a price lower than the MacBook simply because the HW is slower than the MacBook. That doesn?t make any sense for this specialized machine that won?t have the economy of scale that other Macs have.
No Atoms, please!
Think of this as a sports car...plenty of power in a compact package. I know that there are a lot of people who are tired of lugging around 8 to 11 pounds of laptop (includes power supply and so on) and want something both smaller and lighter, but are simply not thrilled with the low power the Atom based netbooks (although they do meet the needs of a good many people at a very reasonable price).
Oh, and please, please, please make a non-glare screen standard. These things are intended to be used in places where the lighting is usually less than perfect.
Even a six hour battery life would be tolerable, but eight would be a game changer.
Though your point about the price of the CPU is well taken, by the time Apple would manage to get anything to market the prices would almost certainly have come down and/or the successor CPU would have greater capability with lower power consumption and better power management.
Interesting to see all these ideas floating about merging MB and Air, iPad and Air, OS X and iOS. I fall in the category of wanting a MBP 12 (but never had one- it was iBook 12 for me). I also feel they went too far with the Air. Not everyone has WiFi access everywhere.
Even if it is not a hybrid OSX/iOS, it must have more functionality: at least the real-world power of a MB, more storage (or easily upgradeable?), 2nd USB, ethernet, and it can add 100 or so gm of weight. And maybe a mm here or there. My current MBP15 is too heavy for frequent travel, and our MBP13 is not that much better. I believe some Air competitors in the PC world have managed better (for me...) trade-offs. Apple, of course, can't offer solutions for all, but they must understand that if it is too slow, too limited or too expensive, you drastically reduce its appeal. Air suffers all three.
I wouldn't mind if the thickness did not taper off. It also has to run the new 27 display, so it must have suitable graphics power too. Even though I dislike less the glossy displays ever since getting an iMac27, I still wonder whether it is a technical/cost issue or marketing/inventory one for not offering museum glass/non-reflecting options?
We Apple users value their products highly and will pay more for the increased usability of OSX/iOS (within reason) and their increased longevity/usefulness compared to most PC products- which means it actually costs us less in the long run....
I just read recently that Apple is now 2nd biggest corporation world-wide? Great! But I wonder, would the Apple philosophy be diluted if it were to offer some of the features users are requesting? External storage on iProducts, matte screens, Air2 (see above), full iWork inter-operability between Mac and iPad, etc. And err, the iPhone officially and without contract (in my country at least), at a reasonable price?
Those MBA are great looking and well engineered, but man those price points are way too high... $1499 is a lot of money...
Yes. $1499 is still to high with the CPU still to slow and with the ipad at $499, The CPU should be quad .and express slot/matte option brought back for $899, esoecialy with the ipad
at $499 and does most of what the ipad does. Peace
But sports cars have small gas tanks and gas sucking engines.
Apple would never make anything like that. They are more likely to make a gas-mileage king which can nevertheless go 65 on the highway.
Have you ever tried a Mazda MX-5 (Miata)? It gets great gas mileage as did the cars after which it was fashioned...the MGB and TR-3 & 4. They drive a long way on a small amount of energy because they are efficient. On the other hand, they can not haul a half ton of building materials to a work site. Different tools for different jobs.
ATOM is dead upon arrival, Intel took a good idea and screwed it up!
However I get starry eyed over AMDs new Bobcat based Fusion product. This could effectively produce a very nice extremely compact laptop with long battery life. For many the most important thing is a long battery life.
Quote:
Think of this as a sports car...plenty of power in a compact package. I know that there are a lot of people who are tired of lugging around 8 to 11 pounds of laptop (includes power supply and so on) and want something both smaller and lighter, but are simply not thrilled with the low power the Atom based netbooks (although they do meet the needs of a good many people at a very reasonable price).
Apparently Bobcat delivers about double the performance with an excellent GPU. I find that appealing for an ultra compact machine.
Quote:
Oh, and please, please, please make a non-glare screen standard. These things are intended to be used in places where the lighting is usually less than perfect.
Not going to happen. People like sharp screens.
Quote:
Even a six hour battery life would be tolerable, but eight would be a game changer.
The target should be twelve. Really! Yes I'm talking about an ultra compact machine here. Maybe even with 3G/4G built in. There is nothing worst than having to shut down because your laptop went dead an 1/8 th of the way through a trip.
Quote:
Though your point about the price of the CPU is well taken, by the time Apple would manage to get anything to market the prices would almost certainly have come down and/or the successor CPU would have greater capability with lower power consumption and better power management.
With Bobcat there is no reason for Apple to have to use high price Intel hardware anymore. Especially for long run time devices. We aren't talking top of the line MBPs here so performance only needs to be good enough.
Quote:
Cheers
Actually the next few month ought to be cheery. A lot of new hardware should hit the marketplace real soon now.
ATOM is dead upon arrival, Intel took a good idea and screwed it up!
However I get starry eyed over AMDs new Bobcat based Fusion product. This could effectively produce a very nice extremely compact laptop with long battery life. For many the most important thing is a long battery life.
Apparently Bobcat delivers about double the performance with an excellent GPU. I find that appealing for an ultra compact machine.
Not going to happen. People like sharp screens.
The target should be twelve. Really! Yes I'm talking about an ultra compact machine here. Maybe even with 3G/4G built in. There is nothing worst than having to shut down because your laptop went dead an 1/8 th of the way through a trip.
With Bobcat there is no reason for Apple to have to use high price Intel hardware anymore. Especially for long run time devices. We aren't talking top of the line MBPs here so performance only needs to be good enough.
Actually the next few month ought to be cheery. A lot of new hardware should hit the marketplace real soon now.
wizard,
Just a couple of things.
The difference between eight hours and twelve is huge. Substantial compromises must be made to move from one to the other which I think many people might not like. That is not to say that there is not a place for such a product, but it would be more like a netbook than a compact laptop. Dijon Sanders might have said "both". ;-)
The point of a non-glare screen is to be able to see and use the thing in less than ideal circumstances. How much sharper one of the other screens might be in ideal conditions is irrelevant. You would not believe how Apple was savaged in photography forums before the non-glare screens were offered on the 15 inch MBP. If not standard, the non-glare screens must be an option.
Though I have seen articles about the Bobcat/Fustion (most likely Ontario) platform which show promise, I wonder if it has sufficient processing power for the type of device I have described. I suspect that it may not, at least in part because AMD have aimed it at the hand held market which leads me to think that it may not be adequate for more than very casual photo editing. For a netbook equivalent that is sufficient, but Apple have committed to their own ARM line of processors for the iPad lineup and a netbook category device is likely to get a multi-core version of it I should think. The device I have in mind should run OS X even if it is a version that has been trimmed down, not iOS. I should hope that Apple have had some "hackintosh" netbooks under testing to see just what the possibilities may be.
One windoze box I have seen that was quite attractive had, I believe, discreet graphics along with integrated graphics and could "change gears" as needed. It was simply a small laptop which, while heavier than a netbook, was still quite light and small. (It would look rotund next to a MB Air but would appear svelte.) It would be perfect for field work in PhotoShop and carrying around all or most of the day at airports, meetings, or whatever when traveling. At this size the keyboard is either full size or sufficiently close to it that touch typing is quite natural.
If nothing else, tossing an AMD product into the lineup will keep Intel focused on providing Apple with new and interesting products in the future.
I am looking forward to the hardware offerings in the next few months. It could be a very happy new year indeed!
The difference between eight hours and twelve is huge. Substantial compromises must be made to move from one to the other which I think many people might not like.
That depends upon the state of the art at the time. Both batteries and electronics are improving steadily. The problem with advertised battery lifetimes is that they are ideal as new times. You shoot for the long run time because average usage seldom is and batteries age.
Quote:
That is not to say that there is not a place for such a product, but it would be more like a netbook than a compact laptop. Dijon Sanders might have said "both". ;-)
Or more like AIR without the mistakes. But really what is the difference between a compact laptop and a netbook?
Quote:
The point of a non-glare screen is to be able to see and use the thing in less than ideal circumstances. How much sharper one of the other screens might be in ideal conditions is irrelevant. You would not believe how Apple was savaged in photography forums before the non-glare screens were offered on the 15 inch MBP.
Yeah I can just imagine the intelligence in that crowd. Matte screens are a very poor choice for the professional photographer.
Quote:
If not standard, the non-glare screens must be an option.
I'm all for options but honestly if Apple sold enough matte screens to justify the trouble they would be available on all platforms. The reality is for most people a matte screen is a joke and close to useless.
Quote:
Though I have seen articles about the Bobcat/Fustion (most likely Ontario) platform which show promise, I wonder if it has sufficient processing power for the type of device I have described.
Ontario would likely hot have the power to drive a laptop well. There is also another offering in Zacate. Zacate should be able to drive a low end.
Your question is good one.
Quote:
I suspect that it may not, at least in part because AMD have aimed it at the hand held market which leads me to think that it may not be adequate for more than very casual photo editing. For a netbook equivalent that is sufficient, but Apple have committed to their own ARM line of processors for the iPad lineup and a netbook category device is likely to get a multi-core version of it I should think. The device I have in mind should run OS X even if it is a version that has been trimmed down, not iOS. I should hope that Apple have had some "hackintosh" netbooks under testing to see just what the possibilities may be.
One windoze box I have seen that was quite attractive had, I believe, discreet graphics along with integrated graphics and could "change gears" as needed. It was simply a small laptop which, while heavier than a netbook, was still quite light and small. (It would look rotund next to a MB Air but would appear svelte.) It would be perfect for field work in PhotoShop and carrying around all or most of the day at airports, meetings, or whatever when traveling. At this size the keyboard is either full size or sufficiently close to it that touch typing is quite natural.
If nothing else, tossing an AMD product into the lineup will keep Intel focused on providing Apple with new and interesting products in the future.
I am looking forward to the hardware offerings in the next few months. It could be a very happy new year indeed!
The photographers wanting the non-glare screen were using their laptops in the field,..the great out of doors. They needed to check out the images they had captured on something larger than a 3 inch LCD with limited resolution before they head somewhere else and would have to make a trip back if it was not what they wanted. Although they do some (non-destructive) adjustments in the field, their final PS work is done at home on a much larger screen either by themselves or their PS guy. (Most of them do not have a dedicated PS guy.)
I have been told by Apple employees that the reason for the lack of non-glare screens is that the company wants a green certification and, supposedly, the non-glare screen production involves some non-green waste products (and hence the $50 upcharge). Just give people the option. (I would note that the same complaints have been lodged in the Windows community.)
In my view, the short version of the difference between a netbook and a small laptop is that the netbook is a device meant mostly for email, internet browsing, some document creation and very limited image editing with some light gaming and video tossed in for good measure. It is CPU and GPU limited for many tasks although some of them are becoming HD video capable. The netbook typically weighs a little over a kilo and is, of course, small and should have enough battery life to get through the day. A small laptop, again, in my view, is a very capable CPU/GPU machine which, while smaller and lighter than current offerings is still a fully capable laptop. It is "the real deal". Battery life should be good, but probably not that of a netbook due to the trade-off for processing power in the small laptop. The small laptop would be suitable for driving a large monitor at the office or at home.
Another "know it when you see it" difference between the two is price. To get the price of netbooks down there are obvious trade-offs. A small laptop should be less expensive than a large laptop, but is definitely priced as a fully featured laptop because of its content.
Comments
You of all people should know that a 1.6GHz 18W TDP CULV C2D was going for about $350 in 2008 making it impossible for Apple to sell the MBA for $600. Furthermore, you should know that is this slower CPU costs more than the 2.4GHz 35W TDP C2D because of it's worse power efficency and larger size. How could that entire system be under $600 on just HW costs? It's literally impossible for what's included.
It is pretty clear that the market place doesn't value Intel ULV processors in the same way Intel does. As for that $600 point I don't know where that came from, but the joke with AIR is the entire platfom not just the processor.
We can rehash the specifics if you want but the sales figures are evidence that the market can't digest the joke. Not being able to justify the extra expense of the poorly performing ULV processor is only part of the digestion problem. The AIR comes up significantly short in other areas too.
Saying it's an overpriced joke is as silly as saying an iPhone for $700 with an 800MHz CPU, 512MHz RAM, 32GB storage and 3.5" display are an overpriced joke when compared to pretty much any PC in the world when you compare specs.
The big difference here is that iPhone lives up to user expectations.
I'm using an extreme example to show that the MBA is a specialized satellite computing device, not designed to be you main computer like a MB or MBP.
Is it not marketed as a laptop? If we where talking about the iPad, it would be clear that Apples intention is for iPad to be a satellite device. AIR on the otherhand is clearly marketed as an ultraportable laptop, but yet comes up short when judged against peoples expectations.
Before the ipa release I predicted that Apple would change the name again to exclude iPhone as it obviously made little sense and could hurt the brand of their other devices if people think they simply install one into the other and call it a day. The iPad OS is clearly tailored for the HW, yet the trolls on this forums enjoyed saying how wrong I was in January when that didn't come to pass. Turns out I was just ahead of the curve by a few months.
Memory is fuzzy but I might be remembering that. Apples had a hard time properly naming iOS, I believe that part of the issue is coming up with a name that minimizes consumer confusion. Apples path is the direct opposite of Microsofts here. Windows Phone 7 or whatever they call it is bound to confuse some.
In any event it looks like iOS has some staying power now. I suspect it will be showing up in a lot of devices in the future even if not declared as such. The new Apple TV is one example but iOS could easily drive future routers, storage devices and other gadgets Apple dreams up.
What is funny here is that 20 some odd years ago i dreamed of having this much computing power on my desk at home. Back then the college I was attending had SUN work stations for Comp Sci students to use. The thought of being able to afford such capability didn't exist. Now i can put better performance in my pocket.
That little bit of history is in part why I'm so negative with respect to AIR. There is no reason for a small & light device like AIR to give up as much as it did these days. Similar machines from PC manufactures only reinforces this point. You can argue about my points but I still have to return to the overwheming fact that the market has rejected AIR. Maybe the reasons are different than my overall classification of the machine as a joke. The PC phrase could be: it lacks value to justify its price.
Dave
I?d say your definition of iOS is incorrect. Apple seems to have clearly made the difference between the OSes the CPU architecture,
The only reason that iOS runs on ARM is due to the low power nature of the processor. I don't think there was a decision made at Apple to make the architecture iOS is running on a distinguishing feature. That make no more sense than saying OS/X is characterised by runnin on i86. For one thing OS/X didn't start out on i86, for another i'm rather confident that Apple works to keep the OS portable.
but iOS for iDevices could not run on iDevices by a simply recompiling for ARM. They had to rewrite the frameworks, apps, etc., not just create a new GUI.
Some things have to be targeted for the device that the code will be running on but that happens for all OS'es. As to the frameworks here the story is much the same, new hardware and concepts require new code. What people mis here is that some of the development done for iOS actually got ported back into Mac OS. This allowed Mac OS to benefit from new approaches taken in iPhone development.
That puts OS X as the umbrella OS for Mac OS and iOS. They come from the same source and use the same kernel as well as other, higher-level code, but they are distinct OSes and we should expect iOS to be recompiled to be Mac OS XI or a notebook with an ARM CPU running Mac OS X.
Well we shouldn't expect anything. In any event aren't you contradicting yourself here?
Touch capabilities will likely come to Mac OS relatively soon. In this manner I have little doubt, however I don't expect a direct port of iOS. Rather I expect Apple to blend Touch with Macs current mouse and keyboard centric interface. Touch on the desktop isn't all it is cracked up to be, but certainly has its uses. Thus Apple will not give up the Mac interface.
As a side note I could see Apple bypassing a heavy stress on Touch on the desktop for more advanced tech.
The only reason that iOS runs on ARM is due to the low power nature of the processor. I don't think there was a decision made at Apple to make the architecture iOS is running on a distinguishing feature. That make no more sense than saying OS/X is characterised by runnin on i86. For one thing OS/X didn't start out on i86, for another i'm rather confident that Apple works to keep the OS portable.
PPC and x86 chips they used were for desktop-class machines. There is no contradiction unless you want to argue that you can?t classify a person as both a primate and Homo sapiens, when they are different tiered classifications. A Tech Taxonomy, as previously stated.
iOS is under OS X and Mac OS is under OS X. Both share kernel, frameworks and other code, but they are distinct OSes and can easily be defined as different. If you only define an OS as the kernel then you?ll disagree with this point but you?ll be limiting your view of OS X and many other things in the world if you disallow the concept of one term have multiple meanings depending on the context.
PPC and x86 chips they used were for desktop-class machines. There is no contradiction unless you want to argue that you can?t classify a person as both a primate and Homo sapiens, when they are different tiered classifications. A Tech Taxonomy, as previously stated.
iOS is under OS X and Mac OS is under OS X. Both share kernel, frameworks and other code, but they are distinct OSes and can easily be defined as different. If you only define an OS as the kernel then you?ll disagree with this point but you?ll be limiting your view of OS X and many other things in the world if you disallow the concept of one term have multiple meanings depending on the context.
A Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua are both Canines, but they certainly are different critters.
No being a software person, this seems as though everyone is making too fine a point of the parentage of iOS. It seems to me that it is fairly simple. Apple needed to use the ARM processor for the same reason that everyone else uses it...power consumption...and they did whatever it was that was necessary to come up with a useable OS and application set that users would find familiar (in the GUI).
I know that this ignores the devilish details which are where the thing is made to actually work, but that is what it looks like to someone who is not 'on the inside'.
Cheers
A Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua are both Canines, but they certainly are different critters.
No being a software person, this seems as though everyone is making too fine a point of the parentage of iOS. It seems to me that it is fairly simple. Apple needed to use the ARM processor for the same reason that everyone else uses it...power consumption...and they did whatever it was that was necessary to come up with a useable OS and application set that users would find familiar (in the GUI).
I know that this ignores the devilish details which are where the thing is made to actually work, but that is what it looks like to someone who is not 'on the inside'.
Cheers
That is a better example than the one I posed. They are both dogs, with different abilities and sizes, but they come from the same source genetic offshoot.
Going to ARM was definitely for power consumption reasons, but Apple had to do a lot more than recompile for ARM. What they did makes the transfer from PPC to x86 seem like child?s play. iOS is still the fastest, smoothest OS I?ve used on any ARM-based device; even on newer Nokias with modern CPUs using Symbian which was originally designed for much, much, much slower HW.
Apple really did an incredible job of throwing away the scrape and rebuilding as needed. And the great thing for Mac users is this efficiency has already come back to the desktop variety. I will be surprised if Apple doesn?t use the concepts it learned for building the iOS GUI in the next version of Mac OS GUI. I don?t mean making your iMac touch-based, but the concepts themselves of dropping the complex aspects of ?PC? OSes in favour of a true user-friendly OS.
PPC and x86 chips they used were for desktop-class machines. There is no contradiction unless you want to argue that you can?t classify a person as both a primate and Homo sapiens, when they are different tiered classifications. A Tech Taxonomy, as previously stated.
iOS is under OS X and Mac OS is under OS X. Both share kernel, frameworks and other code, but they are distinct OSes and can easily be defined as different. If you only define an OS as the kernel then you?ll disagree with this point but you?ll be limiting your view of OS X and many other things in the world if you disallow the concept of one term have multiple meanings depending on the context.
That is a better example than the one I posed. They are both dogs, with different abilities and sizes, but they come from the same source genetic offshoot.
Going to ARM was definitely for power consumption reasons, but Apple had to do a lot more than recompile for ARM. What they did makes the transfer from PPC to x86 seem like child?s play. iOS is still the fastest, smoothest OS I?ve used on any ARM-based device; even on newer Nokias with modern CPUs using Symbian which was originally designed for much, much, much slower HW.
Apple really did an incredible job of throwing away the scrape and rebuilding as needed. And the great thing for Mac users is this efficiency has already come back to the desktop variety. I will be surprised if Apple doesn?t use the concepts it learned for building the iOS GUI in the next version of Mac OS GUI. I don?t mean making your iMac touch-based, but the concepts themselves of dropping the complex aspects of ?PC? OSes in favour of a true user-friendly OS.
Indeed, writing compact, "efficient" code is not as easy as writing bloated stuff. One can only hope that Apple will learn from their experience with iOS. That probably depends upon the extent to which the two teams speak to each other or are assigned to the other's projects. It is all too easy for the right hand not to know what the left hand is doing in a large organization (which Apple is), particularly one which is as compartmentalized (for security, among other reasons) as Apple is.
The ability to adapt the OS to changing architectures is one which will benefit Apple in both the near term and the long term as CPUs evolve and the CPU relationship with the GPU changes. Intel is clearly moving from the "multi-core" CPU to the "many-core CPU" and Apple may stand to benefit from this more quickly than other platforms because of their work with Grand Central Dispatch and Open CL. Now if only the software vendors would get with the program. In the mean time, the OS will bear the responsibility for simply assigning different apps to different cores when they are not being utilized as appears to be all too common these days.
I particularly look forward to the ARM processors which are expected to come online in the next two years as they offer many appealing possibilities.
That is a better example than the one I posed. They are both dogs, with different abilities and sizes, but they come from the same source genetic offshoot.
Going to ARM was definitely for power consumption reasons, but Apple had to do a lot more than recompile for ARM. What they did makes the transfer from PPC to x86 seem like child?s play. iOS is still the fastest, smoothest OS I?ve used on any ARM-based device; even on newer Nokias with modern CPUs using Symbian which was originally designed for much, much, much slower HW.
Apple really did an incredible job of throwing away the scrape and rebuilding as needed. And the great thing for Mac users is this efficiency has already come back to the desktop variety. I will be surprised if Apple doesn?t use the concepts it learned for building the iOS GUI in the next version of Mac OS GUI. I don?t mean making your iMac touch-based, but the concepts themselves of dropping the complex aspects of ?PC? OSes in favour of a true user-friendly OS.
i think it is a great exercise that shows why stallman can't stand it that most people refer to linux kernel based distros as 'linux'. it would be like referring to all apple products running on darwin as calling them 'darwin'.
Finally a replacement for my venerable 12in Powerbook? But the price will be a huge decider...
I suspect that a lot of people would happily spring for an 11.6 inch MacBook that was not quite as svelte as the MacBook Air. There are a few examples in the Windoze world which illustrate the point that there is a market for a small form factor laptop that has good processing power. Not everyone's needs are met by netbooks or iPads.
I suspect that a lot of people would happily spring for an 11.6 inch MacBook that was not quite as svelte as the MacBook Air. There are a few examples in the Windoze world which illustrate the point that there is a market for a small form factor laptop that has good processing power. Not everyone's needs are met by netbooks or iPads.
Price and capability are critical here, we don't need a repeat of the AIR.
I suspect that a lot of people would happily spring for an 11.6 inch MacBook that was not quite as svelte as the MacBook Air. There are a few examples in the Windoze world which illustrate the point that there is a market for a small form factor laptop that has good processing power. Not everyone's needs are met by netbooks or iPads.
I’m more inclined to expect something along the lines of the Toshiba Portege R700, but with the engineering and expense taken to include a smaller and lower-power Core-i7. If the R700 running Windows can get 5 hours out of a 3 lb. machine I think Apple can pull off an actual 8 hours with internet use from a CPU with have the wattage. Of course, there is significant battery drain from the display with 11.6 will increase the duration, even after you account for having to use a smaller battery in the device, though a smaller footprint does mean a lighter chassis.I don’t think Apple will use Atom CPUs, I don’t think Apple is porting Mac OS X to run on ARM, ad I haven’t heard a single viable argument for Apple not to use the SFF CULV chips that Apple had Intel dust off and put in production for them. I think the 2.26GHz 18W TDP that Intel started selling this month are the most likely at this point, but they cost $346 (1k unit price), which is a lot more than Atom so these chuckleheads who think it should be priced like a notebook are not thinking.
Price and capability are critical here, we don't need a repeat of the AIR.
I’m not sure what there is to repeat. Apple made a new class of computer, then the major players copied Apple but couldn’t meet their price point. Now technology has moved ahead quite a bit and, as shown above, a 3 lb. notebook 35W Core-i7 can get 5 hours of internet usage running Windows. Apple can best this in many ways, but you seem to want expensive HW at a price lower than the MacBook simply because the HW is slower than the MacBook. That doesn’t make any sense for this specialized machine that won’t have the economy of scale that other Macs have.
I?m more inclined to expect something along the lines of the Toshiba Portege R700, but with the engineering and expense taken to include a smaller and lower-power Core-i7. If the R700 running Windows can get 5 hours out of a 3 lb. machine I think Apple can pull off an actual 8 hours with internet use from a CPU with have the wattage. Of course, there is significant battery drain from the display with 11.6 will increase the duration, even after you account for having to use a smaller battery in the device, though a smaller footprint does mean a lighter chassis.I don?t think Apple will use Atom CPUs, I don?t think Apple is porting Mac OS X to run on ARM, ad I haven?t heard a single viable argument for Apple not to use the SFF CULV chips that Apple had Intel dust off and put in production for them. I think the 2.26GHz 18W TDP that Intel started selling this month are the most likely at this point, but they cost $346 (1k unit price), which is a lot more than Atom so these chuckleheads who think it should be priced like a notebook are not thinking.
I?m not sure what there is to repeat. Apple made a new class of computer, then the major players copied Apple but couldn?t meet their price point. Now technology has moved ahead quite a bit and, as shown above, a 3 lb. notebook 35W Core-i7 can get 5 hours of internet usage running Windows. Apple can best this in many ways, but you seem to want expensive HW at a price lower than the MacBook simply because the HW is slower than the MacBook. That doesn?t make any sense for this specialized machine that won?t have the economy of scale that other Macs have.
No Atoms, please!
Think of this as a sports car...plenty of power in a compact package. I know that there are a lot of people who are tired of lugging around 8 to 11 pounds of laptop (includes power supply and so on) and want something both smaller and lighter, but are simply not thrilled with the low power the Atom based netbooks (although they do meet the needs of a good many people at a very reasonable price).
Oh, and please, please, please make a non-glare screen standard. These things are intended to be used in places where the lighting is usually less than perfect.
Even a six hour battery life would be tolerable, but eight would be a game changer.
Though your point about the price of the CPU is well taken, by the time Apple would manage to get anything to market the prices would almost certainly have come down and/or the successor CPU would have greater capability with lower power consumption and better power management.
Cheers
Even if it is not a hybrid OSX/iOS, it must have more functionality: at least the real-world power of a MB, more storage (or easily upgradeable?), 2nd USB, ethernet, and it can add 100 or so gm of weight. And maybe a mm here or there. My current MBP15 is too heavy for frequent travel, and our MBP13 is not that much better. I believe some Air competitors in the PC world have managed better (for me...) trade-offs. Apple, of course, can't offer solutions for all, but they must understand that if it is too slow, too limited or too expensive, you drastically reduce its appeal. Air suffers all three.
I wouldn't mind if the thickness did not taper off. It also has to run the new 27 display, so it must have suitable graphics power too. Even though I dislike less the glossy displays ever since getting an iMac27, I still wonder whether it is a technical/cost issue or marketing/inventory one for not offering museum glass/non-reflecting options?
We Apple users value their products highly and will pay more for the increased usability of OSX/iOS (within reason) and their increased longevity/usefulness compared to most PC products- which means it actually costs us less in the long run....
I just read recently that Apple is now 2nd biggest corporation world-wide? Great! But I wonder, would the Apple philosophy be diluted if it were to offer some of the features users are requesting? External storage on iProducts, matte screens, Air2 (see above), full iWork inter-operability between Mac and iPad, etc. And err, the iPhone officially and without contract (in my country at least), at a reasonable price?
Those MBA are great looking and well engineered, but man those price points are way too high... $1499 is a lot of money...
Yes. $1499 is still to high with the CPU still to slow and with the ipad at $499, The CPU should be quad .and express slot/matte option brought back for $899, esoecialy with the ipad
at $499 and does most of what the ipad does. Peace
But sports cars have small gas tanks and gas sucking engines.
Apple would never make anything like that. They are more likely to make a gas-mileage king which can nevertheless go 65 on the highway.
http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster
Interestingly, there's no USB port or Blu-ray, and the batteries are not user replaceable.
EDIT: crap, looks like I've been victimized by the new Newtron/tekstud alias.
But sports cars have small gas tanks and gas sucking engines.
Apple would never make anything like that. They are more likely to make a gas-mileage king which can nevertheless go 65 on the highway.
Have you ever tried a Mazda MX-5 (Miata)? It gets great gas mileage as did the cars after which it was fashioned...the MGB and TR-3 & 4. They drive a long way on a small amount of energy because they are efficient. On the other hand, they can not haul a half ton of building materials to a work site. Different tools for different jobs.
P.S. Don't forget a Porsche Boxter.
No Atoms, please!
ATOM is dead upon arrival, Intel took a good idea and screwed it up!
However I get starry eyed over AMDs new Bobcat based Fusion product. This could effectively produce a very nice extremely compact laptop with long battery life. For many the most important thing is a long battery life.
Think of this as a sports car...plenty of power in a compact package. I know that there are a lot of people who are tired of lugging around 8 to 11 pounds of laptop (includes power supply and so on) and want something both smaller and lighter, but are simply not thrilled with the low power the Atom based netbooks (although they do meet the needs of a good many people at a very reasonable price).
Apparently Bobcat delivers about double the performance with an excellent GPU. I find that appealing for an ultra compact machine.
Oh, and please, please, please make a non-glare screen standard. These things are intended to be used in places where the lighting is usually less than perfect.
Not going to happen. People like sharp screens.
Even a six hour battery life would be tolerable, but eight would be a game changer.
The target should be twelve. Really! Yes I'm talking about an ultra compact machine here. Maybe even with 3G/4G built in. There is nothing worst than having to shut down because your laptop went dead an 1/8 th of the way through a trip.
Though your point about the price of the CPU is well taken, by the time Apple would manage to get anything to market the prices would almost certainly have come down and/or the successor CPU would have greater capability with lower power consumption and better power management.
With Bobcat there is no reason for Apple to have to use high price Intel hardware anymore. Especially for long run time devices. We aren't talking top of the line MBPs here so performance only needs to be good enough.
Cheers
Actually the next few month ought to be cheery. A lot of new hardware should hit the marketplace real soon now.
ATOM is dead upon arrival, Intel took a good idea and screwed it up!
However I get starry eyed over AMDs new Bobcat based Fusion product. This could effectively produce a very nice extremely compact laptop with long battery life. For many the most important thing is a long battery life.
Apparently Bobcat delivers about double the performance with an excellent GPU. I find that appealing for an ultra compact machine.
Not going to happen. People like sharp screens.
The target should be twelve. Really! Yes I'm talking about an ultra compact machine here. Maybe even with 3G/4G built in. There is nothing worst than having to shut down because your laptop went dead an 1/8 th of the way through a trip.
With Bobcat there is no reason for Apple to have to use high price Intel hardware anymore. Especially for long run time devices. We aren't talking top of the line MBPs here so performance only needs to be good enough.
Actually the next few month ought to be cheery. A lot of new hardware should hit the marketplace real soon now.
wizard,
Just a couple of things.
The difference between eight hours and twelve is huge. Substantial compromises must be made to move from one to the other which I think many people might not like. That is not to say that there is not a place for such a product, but it would be more like a netbook than a compact laptop. Dijon Sanders might have said "both". ;-)
The point of a non-glare screen is to be able to see and use the thing in less than ideal circumstances. How much sharper one of the other screens might be in ideal conditions is irrelevant. You would not believe how Apple was savaged in photography forums before the non-glare screens were offered on the 15 inch MBP. If not standard, the non-glare screens must be an option.
Though I have seen articles about the Bobcat/Fustion (most likely Ontario) platform which show promise, I wonder if it has sufficient processing power for the type of device I have described. I suspect that it may not, at least in part because AMD have aimed it at the hand held market which leads me to think that it may not be adequate for more than very casual photo editing. For a netbook equivalent that is sufficient, but Apple have committed to their own ARM line of processors for the iPad lineup and a netbook category device is likely to get a multi-core version of it I should think. The device I have in mind should run OS X even if it is a version that has been trimmed down, not iOS. I should hope that Apple have had some "hackintosh" netbooks under testing to see just what the possibilities may be.
One windoze box I have seen that was quite attractive had, I believe, discreet graphics along with integrated graphics and could "change gears" as needed. It was simply a small laptop which, while heavier than a netbook, was still quite light and small. (It would look rotund next to a MB Air but would appear svelte.) It would be perfect for field work in PhotoShop and carrying around all or most of the day at airports, meetings, or whatever when traveling. At this size the keyboard is either full size or sufficiently close to it that touch typing is quite natural.
If nothing else, tossing an AMD product into the lineup will keep Intel focused on providing Apple with new and interesting products in the future.
I am looking forward to the hardware offerings in the next few months. It could be a very happy new year indeed!
wizard,
Just a couple of things.
The difference between eight hours and twelve is huge. Substantial compromises must be made to move from one to the other which I think many people might not like.
That depends upon the state of the art at the time. Both batteries and electronics are improving steadily. The problem with advertised battery lifetimes is that they are ideal as new times. You shoot for the long run time because average usage seldom is and batteries age.
That is not to say that there is not a place for such a product, but it would be more like a netbook than a compact laptop. Dijon Sanders might have said "both". ;-)
Or more like AIR without the mistakes. But really what is the difference between a compact laptop and a netbook?
The point of a non-glare screen is to be able to see and use the thing in less than ideal circumstances. How much sharper one of the other screens might be in ideal conditions is irrelevant. You would not believe how Apple was savaged in photography forums before the non-glare screens were offered on the 15 inch MBP.
Yeah I can just imagine the intelligence in that crowd. Matte screens are a very poor choice for the professional photographer.
If not standard, the non-glare screens must be an option.
I'm all for options but honestly if Apple sold enough matte screens to justify the trouble they would be available on all platforms. The reality is for most people a matte screen is a joke and close to useless.
Though I have seen articles about the Bobcat/Fustion (most likely Ontario) platform which show promise, I wonder if it has sufficient processing power for the type of device I have described.
Ontario would likely hot have the power to drive a laptop well. There is also another offering in Zacate. Zacate should be able to drive a low end.
Your question is good one.
I suspect that it may not, at least in part because AMD have aimed it at the hand held market which leads me to think that it may not be adequate for more than very casual photo editing. For a netbook equivalent that is sufficient, but Apple have committed to their own ARM line of processors for the iPad lineup and a netbook category device is likely to get a multi-core version of it I should think. The device I have in mind should run OS X even if it is a version that has been trimmed down, not iOS. I should hope that Apple have had some "hackintosh" netbooks under testing to see just what the possibilities may be.
One windoze box I have seen that was quite attractive had, I believe, discreet graphics along with integrated graphics and could "change gears" as needed. It was simply a small laptop which, while heavier than a netbook, was still quite light and small. (It would look rotund next to a MB Air but would appear svelte.) It would be perfect for field work in PhotoShop and carrying around all or most of the day at airports, meetings, or whatever when traveling. At this size the keyboard is either full size or sufficiently close to it that touch typing is quite natural.
If nothing else, tossing an AMD product into the lineup will keep Intel focused on providing Apple with new and interesting products in the future.
I am looking forward to the hardware offerings in the next few months. It could be a very happy new year indeed!
The photographers wanting the non-glare screen were using their laptops in the field,..the great out of doors. They needed to check out the images they had captured on something larger than a 3 inch LCD with limited resolution before they head somewhere else and would have to make a trip back if it was not what they wanted. Although they do some (non-destructive) adjustments in the field, their final PS work is done at home on a much larger screen either by themselves or their PS guy. (Most of them do not have a dedicated PS guy.)
I have been told by Apple employees that the reason for the lack of non-glare screens is that the company wants a green certification and, supposedly, the non-glare screen production involves some non-green waste products (and hence the $50 upcharge). Just give people the option. (I would note that the same complaints have been lodged in the Windows community.)
In my view, the short version of the difference between a netbook and a small laptop is that the netbook is a device meant mostly for email, internet browsing, some document creation and very limited image editing with some light gaming and video tossed in for good measure. It is CPU and GPU limited for many tasks although some of them are becoming HD video capable. The netbook typically weighs a little over a kilo and is, of course, small and should have enough battery life to get through the day. A small laptop, again, in my view, is a very capable CPU/GPU machine which, while smaller and lighter than current offerings is still a fully capable laptop. It is "the real deal". Battery life should be good, but probably not that of a netbook due to the trade-off for processing power in the small laptop. The small laptop would be suitable for driving a large monitor at the office or at home.
Another "know it when you see it" difference between the two is price. To get the price of netbooks down there are obvious trade-offs. A small laptop should be less expensive than a large laptop, but is definitely priced as a fully featured laptop because of its content.