13" MBP sells in quantities far greater than the 13" MBA, and they only had enough components for 13? MBA at the time.
They had planned to offer the 13? MBA displays in the 13? MBP in the next revision in February but the the unprecedented success of the new MBAs made it impossible to source components for both machines.
They plan on going to double-resolution IPS panels for the next MBPs after Lion is launched and want the jump between the old and new designs to be as drastic as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetroRichie
Apple does a lot of things intentionally to drive consumers to higher-profit products.
I agree, but deliberately putting a lower quality screen in the MacBook Pro risks customers migrating towards the Air and, should they feel that they can survive with an inferior processor, they may not come back when the Pro gets a better screen and more powerful processor. As things stand the price points of the 13" Air and 13" Pro models are so close, that the Air wins through its form factor.
When you see the price of the aftermarket Blade SSD upgrades, I highly doubt the Air is higher margin than the 13" MBP.
Higher profit is not the same as higher margin. Apple is well on record as not deviating from a 40% margin on all of their products. But a higher-priced item at 40% margin is higher profit.
I'm almost expecting Apple to lower the base frequency on the CPU though. Even 1.4 and 1.6 GHz would offer a huge advantage over the current CPU's. Save a few GHz here and there to save battery life.
The interesting thing with respect to modern processors is that the base frequency isn't a big factor when you have Turbo Boost. The boosted speed gives you good performance until the processor overheats.
Thank you wizard69 that's very interesting, I did not know that.
I also hope they intro Res. Independence in 10.7. If so, perhaps they'll demo it at WWDC.
When you see the price of the aftermarket Blade SSD upgrades, I highly doubt the Air is higher margin than the 13" MBP.
It isn't and I actually thought that Apple even indicated lower margins on the AIR.
Quote:
The only sane reason of why 1440x900 isn't an option on the 13" MBP is that the part is simply unavailable.
There us no data to support that position. Meanwhile other vendors are not having screen availability issues.
Quote:
It's a ridiculous situation. The 11" MBA has more screen real estate than the 13" "Pro" machine...
This is totally out of left field. The real estate is based on the dimensions of the screen not it's pixel count. There has been discussions here about screens with double the resolution of the current MBP screens, I hope you guys don't think that doubles your screen area. The area remains the same. On top of that such high resolution screens would require resolution independence which the Mac current doesn't have. Just because something works on the iPad doesn't imply that the Mac can handle it in the current rev.
Being that WWDC is not far off at all we should be getting all the dirt on 10.7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic
Thank you wizard69 that's very interesting, I did not know that.
Turbo Boost is a fantastic new feature that really does work well. You would need a chart to figure out which processors boost how much but a few hundred MHz is nothing to sneeze at. I don't think Apple really wants AIRs to be all out performers anyways, they will balance performance against battery life. Even so I'm still expecting a significant performance boost.
Quote:
I also hope they intro Res. Independence in 10.7. If so, perhaps they'll demo it at WWDC.
Well we can hope so but honestly it would have leaked by now. If resolution independence is in Lion then a lot of the negatives with regards to high resolution screens goes away. It would also compliment things like Pinch to Zoom.
There us no data to support that position. Meanwhile other vendors are not having screen availability issues.
Agreed, agreed. I don't know why people believe Apple is only offering 1280x800 on the 13" MBP for any reason other than "because they want to." Apple has perhaps the most formidable and efficient operations business in not just their industry but across all industries--they secure whatever parts they damn well please, and at a much lower price point than their competitors. If they wanted to offer the same screen in the 13" Air in the Pro, they would do it. This is nothing more than a product differentiation game--an attempt to drive people to certain products by feature set for either higher profit or to fulfill some other possible corporate strategy (think, perhaps: moving people to the Air, which eliminates the DVD drive, which makes the Mac App Store more attractive). Those are your "only sane reasons" right there. That's why businesses make these kind of decisions. It has nothing to do with 1440x900 screens being rare commodities (which is kind of a laughable position, in of itself).
Agreed, agreed. I don't know why people believe Apple is only offering 1280x800 on the 13" MBP for any reason other than "because they want to." Apple has perhaps the most formidable and efficient operations business in not just their industry but across all industries--they secure whatever parts they damn well please, and at a much lower price point than their competitors. If they wanted to offer the same screen in the 13" Air in the Pro, they would do it. This is nothing more than a product differentiation game--an attempt to drive people to certain products by feature set for either higher profit or to fulfill some other possible corporate strategy (think, perhaps: moving people to the Air, which eliminates the DVD drive, which makes the Mac App Store more attractive). Those are your "only sane reasons" right there. That's why businesses make these kind of decisions. It has nothing to do with 1440x900 screens being rare commodities (which is kind of a laughable position, in of itself).
I'm still convinced that Apple sell the lower resolution screen because many people prefer that resolution. It is a simple matter that everything is closer to WYSIWYG, and less of an eye strain. If someone doesn't think these high resolutions screens are not a problem just go to any WiFi public access point and watch some middle age or older person try to use one of these machines.
Until they have at least some sort of resolution independence I don't see Apple making huge advances in screen resolution on Mac OS devices. People seem to have a misunderstanding that indicates that they believe that the Mac can use the higher resolution screens as easily as the iOS devices. Apple has been talking about resolution independence for years now, but I've yet to see any results.
Interesting article reporting that Intel are going to shift laptop cpu production towards ULV chips. I think this is a recognition by Intel that most laptop users are not cpu constrained.
Intel stated that this was a result of Apple's involvement. They said that Apple has helped shape their CPU roadmap.
I'd say it's interesting and worrying at the same time. It means that Intel will hold back performance on portable products in the interests of increasing battery-life.
Right now, a Macbook Pro has a 77.5 W/h battery with a 7 hour battery life so an average draw of around 11W taken up by the display, peripherals and electronics. If Intel drops the TDP from 35W to 10-15W, that could bring that average consumption down to under 5W, which would allow for a 15 hour battery life, which is plenty to go an entire day without a recharge.
Or allow Apple to reduce the battery size and make thinner/lighter machines.
They may do this on the desktop side too of course but if not, they will widen the gap between laptop and desktop CPUs after bringing them so close together.
At least it means there will be a 15" Air though because the MBP will have a ULV chip at some point in the future. Then maybe the 13" Air and Pro can finally merge leaving a single lineup with all ULV and 11", 13", 15" and 17" screens.
I am quite certain that "most people" do not do that, but that is irrelevant to the point. Apple seems to think there is value in a higher resolution on a 13" machine. But apparently they don't want to sell 13" MBPs to people who care about screen resolution.
Most people I have seen (YMMV) do exactly that, as I do. I want Res Ind. or at least the text resizing throughout the OS like Windows 7. Wizard you're making me sad but I guess you're right...we would have seen Res Ind. by now in Lion if it had it I'd assume.
Given that I've not heard any rumblings about resolution independence at all. If Apple is saving it for WWDC then they have done an excellent job of keeping a secret.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic
Most people I have seen (YMMV) do exactly that, as I do.
Yep that is exactly what I see and frankly from a variety of users. The only good thing here is that the text is often sharper on the high resolution screens.
Quote:
I want Res Ind. or at least the text resizing throughout the OS like Windows 7. Wizard you're making me sad but I guess you're right...we would have seen Res Ind. by now in Lion if it had it I'd assume.
I'd personally would like to see pinch to zoom, zoom the whole app. Well at least an alternative pinch to zoom gesture.
In any event I've spent more than a little time looking at the laptops in the Apple store, especially the new AIRs. They are really nice but sadly come up short for me in two ways. One of them is the screen size. The other is the lack of on board secondary storage. A 15" AIR could address all of these issues and still boost performance over the current models.
Given that I've not heard any rumblings about resolution independence at all. If Apple is saving it for WWDC then they have done an excellent job of keeping a secret.
Yep that is exactly what I see and frankly from a variety of users. The only good thing here is that the text is often sharper on the high resolution screens.
Sadly, I don't expect resolution independence until Mac OS XI. My guess is that it's just too big of a change to introduce into 10.7 or 10.8 or 10.9. Maybe by then we'll have monitors with high enough resolutions to make meaningful advantage of it?
Sadly, I don't expect resolution independence until Mac OS XI. My guess is that it's just too big of a change to introduce into 10.7 or 10.8 or 10.9. Maybe by then we'll have monitors with high enough resolutions to make meaningful advantage of it?
I'm really hoping that Jobs demos HiDPI in Lion next week.
This is totally out of left field. The real estate is based on the dimensions of the screen not it's pixel count. There has been discussions here about screens with double the resolution of the current MBP screens, I hope you guys don't think that doubles your screen area. The area remains the same. On top of that such high resolution screens would require resolution independence which the Mac current doesn't have. Just because something works on the iPad doesn't imply that the Mac can handle it in the current rev.
Ehm... I don't understand what you're saying. I think we might be in violent agreement here. Because Mac OSX DOESN'T have resolution independence, more pixels means more screen real estate. I can fit just as much stuff on a new 17" MBP's screen as I can on a discontinued 24" iMac, because they have the exact same resolution. You can fit two full size browser windows or two word documents next to each other on both screens, everything will just look much smaller on the 17". The 11" MBA has more pixels in the screen than the 13" MBP, hence, OSX can fit more stuff on the screen.
I'm not saying that's a good thing for everybody, the smaller system fonts on the MBA can be a serious usability issue for people with bad eyes. But, from the OS's perspective, and for people with good eyes, the 11" MBA has a "bigger" screen (offers more real estate) than the 13" MBP. Therefore, the 1440x900 screen seems a very trivial BTO option for the 13" MBP. I really don't understand why Apple doesn't offer it. The only sane reason I can think of is lack of supply, but as you already indicated, that seems unplausible.
At least it means there will be a 15" Air though because the MBP will have a ULV chip at some point in the future. Then maybe the 13" Air and Pro can finally merge leaving a single lineup with all ULV and 11", 13", 15" and 17" screens.
I see it differently.
I think think the MBPs will keep 35 watt cpus. Intel will keep making them, but will call them "extreme" parts and charge a premium for them. In a MBP that commands a premium price thats not a big deal.
Otherwise I agree that we may see a MBA family in different sizes aimed at a mainstream crowd.
I think think the MBPs will keep 35 watt cpus. Intel will keep making them, but will call them "extreme" parts and charge a premium for them. In a MBP that commands a premium price thats not a big deal.
Otherwise I agree that we may see a MBA family in different sizes aimed at a mainstream crowd.
Intel seems to have clarified what they are doing at Computex:
They will bring all CPUs down to the 15-20W range TDP with Ivy Bridge but the turbo mode will go above the TDP subject to the temperatures. Due to the limited cooling, MBAs won't be able to go as high as the larger MBPs.
They will bring all CPUs down to the 15-20W range TDP with Ivy Bridge but the turbo mode will go above the TDP subject to the temperatures. Due to the limited cooling, MBAs won't be able to go as high as the larger MBPs.
In your (and anyone else's) opinion, is Atom getting fast enough to be viable option for the MBA?
They will bring all CPUs down to the 15-20W range TDP with Ivy Bridge but the turbo mode will go above the TDP subject to the temperatures. Due to the limited cooling, MBAs won't be able to go as high as the larger MBPs.
I would bet that the mobile CPUS that can "turbo" to 35 watts will be an "extreme" part. That way Intel can charge a premium for them.
Intel will offer performance mobile CPUs. There are users who need and are willing to pay for them.
In your (and anyone else's) opinion, is Atom getting fast enough to be viable option for the MBA?
The Atom chips are designed to be the cheapest and ugliest CPUs you can get. Basically the lowest performance you can get away with. They are the new Celerons.
The Macbook Air on the other hand isn't designed this way. It's designed as a machine that gives you ultimate portability without compromising on performance.
A ULV Ivy Bridge chip is far more suitable as it doesn't have disabled features like Atom that benefit virtualization and it has a better roadmap. At Computex, Intel said they have plans to get Atom into phones and tablets:
All the TDPs drop down a notch. If Intel bring out a sub 2.5W Atom with an IGP bundled, that could make for a reasonably powered iPad that would run x86 apps. Although mobile apps have to be recompiled anyway and wouldn't immediately mean desktop-class Mac apps reach the iPad, it would mean an app built for an x86 iPad would run at native speed under Lion without modification (assuming the UI was scalable).
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
I would bet that the mobile CPUS that can "turbo" to 35 watts will be an "extreme" part. That way Intel can charge a premium for them.
It's certainly what they tend to do. It will be interesting to see what steps they take in future to ensure the higher-end chips are worthwhile to consumers. So many times these days I hear that people will 'just get a netbook' because it's all they need. Once Ivy Bridge has quad cores, the focus will be far more on shrinking batteries and ultimately getting Mac Pro performance on passively cooled hardware.
Ehm... I don't understand what you're saying. I think we might be in violent agreement here. Because Mac OSX DOESN'T have resolution independence, more pixels means more screen real estate. I can fit just as much stuff on a new 17" MBP's screen as I can on a discontinued 24" iMac, because they have the exact same resolution. You can fit two full size browser windows or two word documents next to each other on both screens, everything will just look much smaller on the 17".
This is precisely the problem, everything looks smaller. Because of that it is extremely common for people to blow up whatever they are working on to a scale that mimics existing sizes on other machines. One common example here is in the viewing of PDFs. A maybe less common but similar example is CAD drawings. Comfortable viewing requires that the text and other elements of the document be large enough for comfortable extended viewing.
Quote:
The 11" MBA has more pixels in the screen than the 13" MBP, hence, OSX can fit more stuff on the screen.
You believe you can but this is certainly not true for many users. Honestly I don't even believe you do so for extended length of time. Who knows some people are comfortable with a screen ten inches from their nose. In the end though people are actually fitting less stuff on those screens not more.
Quote:
I'm not saying that's a good thing for everybody, the smaller system fonts on the MBA can be a serious usability issue for people with bad eyes. But, from the OS's perspective, and for people with good eyes, the 11" MBA has a "bigger" screen (offers more real estate) than the 13" MBP. Therefore, the 1440x900 screen seems a very trivial BTO option for the 13" MBP. I really don't understand why Apple doesn't offer it. The only sane reason I can think of is lack of supply, but as you already indicated, that seems unplausible.
I don't buy your logic here. You need to be able to use that screen in a regular manner. Your argument goes out the door when you spend anytime with a document zoomed to the same size you would see on another Mac.
By the I'm not dismissing the utility of ultra compact laptops like the AIRs. I was actually contemplating getting one before the iPad came out. But it wouldn't be replacing my Mac Book Pro. It is simply an issue of usability.
Comments
Apple does a lot of things intentionally to drive consumers to higher-profit products.
I agree, but deliberately putting a lower quality screen in the MacBook Pro risks customers migrating towards the Air and, should they feel that they can survive with an inferior processor, they may not come back when the Pro gets a better screen and more powerful processor. As things stand the price points of the 13" Air and 13" Pro models are so close, that the Air wins through its form factor.
Apple does a lot of things intentionally to drive consumers to higher-profit products.
When you see the price of the aftermarket Blade SSD upgrades, I highly doubt the Air is higher margin than the 13" MBP.
The only sane reason of why 1440x900 isn't an option on the 13" MBP is that the part is simply unavailable.
It's a ridiculous situation. The 11" MBA has more screen real estate than the 13" "Pro" machine...
When you see the price of the aftermarket Blade SSD upgrades, I highly doubt the Air is higher margin than the 13" MBP.
Higher profit is not the same as higher margin. Apple is well on record as not deviating from a 40% margin on all of their products. But a higher-priced item at 40% margin is higher profit.
I'm almost expecting Apple to lower the base frequency on the CPU though. Even 1.4 and 1.6 GHz would offer a huge advantage over the current CPU's. Save a few GHz here and there to save battery life.
The interesting thing with respect to modern processors is that the base frequency isn't a big factor when you have Turbo Boost. The boosted speed gives you good performance until the processor overheats.
Thank you wizard69 that's very interesting, I did not know that.
I also hope they intro Res. Independence in 10.7. If so, perhaps they'll demo it at WWDC.
When you see the price of the aftermarket Blade SSD upgrades, I highly doubt the Air is higher margin than the 13" MBP.
It isn't and I actually thought that Apple even indicated lower margins on the AIR.
The only sane reason of why 1440x900 isn't an option on the 13" MBP is that the part is simply unavailable.
There us no data to support that position. Meanwhile other vendors are not having screen availability issues.
It's a ridiculous situation. The 11" MBA has more screen real estate than the 13" "Pro" machine...
This is totally out of left field. The real estate is based on the dimensions of the screen not it's pixel count. There has been discussions here about screens with double the resolution of the current MBP screens, I hope you guys don't think that doubles your screen area. The area remains the same. On top of that such high resolution screens would require resolution independence which the Mac current doesn't have. Just because something works on the iPad doesn't imply that the Mac can handle it in the current rev.
Thank you wizard69 that's very interesting, I did not know that.
Turbo Boost is a fantastic new feature that really does work well. You would need a chart to figure out which processors boost how much but a few hundred MHz is nothing to sneeze at. I don't think Apple really wants AIRs to be all out performers anyways, they will balance performance against battery life. Even so I'm still expecting a significant performance boost.
I also hope they intro Res. Independence in 10.7. If so, perhaps they'll demo it at WWDC.
Well we can hope so but honestly it would have leaked by now. If resolution independence is in Lion then a lot of the negatives with regards to high resolution screens goes away. It would also compliment things like Pinch to Zoom.
There us no data to support that position. Meanwhile other vendors are not having screen availability issues.
Agreed, agreed. I don't know why people believe Apple is only offering 1280x800 on the 13" MBP for any reason other than "because they want to." Apple has perhaps the most formidable and efficient operations business in not just their industry but across all industries--they secure whatever parts they damn well please, and at a much lower price point than their competitors. If they wanted to offer the same screen in the 13" Air in the Pro, they would do it. This is nothing more than a product differentiation game--an attempt to drive people to certain products by feature set for either higher profit or to fulfill some other possible corporate strategy (think, perhaps: moving people to the Air, which eliminates the DVD drive, which makes the Mac App Store more attractive). Those are your "only sane reasons" right there. That's why businesses make these kind of decisions. It has nothing to do with 1440x900 screens being rare commodities (which is kind of a laughable position, in of itself).
Agreed, agreed. I don't know why people believe Apple is only offering 1280x800 on the 13" MBP for any reason other than "because they want to." Apple has perhaps the most formidable and efficient operations business in not just their industry but across all industries--they secure whatever parts they damn well please, and at a much lower price point than their competitors. If they wanted to offer the same screen in the 13" Air in the Pro, they would do it. This is nothing more than a product differentiation game--an attempt to drive people to certain products by feature set for either higher profit or to fulfill some other possible corporate strategy (think, perhaps: moving people to the Air, which eliminates the DVD drive, which makes the Mac App Store more attractive). Those are your "only sane reasons" right there. That's why businesses make these kind of decisions. It has nothing to do with 1440x900 screens being rare commodities (which is kind of a laughable position, in of itself).
I'm still convinced that Apple sell the lower resolution screen because many people prefer that resolution. It is a simple matter that everything is closer to WYSIWYG, and less of an eye strain. If someone doesn't think these high resolutions screens are not a problem just go to any WiFi public access point and watch some middle age or older person try to use one of these machines.
Until they have at least some sort of resolution independence I don't see Apple making huge advances in screen resolution on Mac OS devices. People seem to have a misunderstanding that indicates that they believe that the Mac can use the higher resolution screens as easily as the iOS devices. Apple has been talking about resolution independence for years now, but I've yet to see any results.
Interesting article reporting that Intel are going to shift laptop cpu production towards ULV chips. I think this is a recognition by Intel that most laptop users are not cpu constrained.
Intel stated that this was a result of Apple's involvement. They said that Apple has helped shape their CPU roadmap.
I'd say it's interesting and worrying at the same time. It means that Intel will hold back performance on portable products in the interests of increasing battery-life.
Right now, a Macbook Pro has a 77.5 W/h battery with a 7 hour battery life so an average draw of around 11W taken up by the display, peripherals and electronics. If Intel drops the TDP from 35W to 10-15W, that could bring that average consumption down to under 5W, which would allow for a 15 hour battery life, which is plenty to go an entire day without a recharge.
Or allow Apple to reduce the battery size and make thinner/lighter machines.
They may do this on the desktop side too of course but if not, they will widen the gap between laptop and desktop CPUs after bringing them so close together.
At least it means there will be a 15" Air though because the MBP will have a ULV chip at some point in the future. Then maybe the 13" Air and Pro can finally merge leaving a single lineup with all ULV and 11", 13", 15" and 17" screens.
I am quite certain that "most people" do not do that, but that is irrelevant to the point. Apple seems to think there is value in a higher resolution on a 13" machine. But apparently they don't want to sell 13" MBPs to people who care about screen resolution.
Most people I have seen (YMMV) do exactly that, as I do. I want Res Ind. or at least the text resizing throughout the OS like Windows 7. Wizard you're making me sad but I guess you're right...we would have seen Res Ind. by now in Lion if it had it I'd assume.
Most people I have seen (YMMV) do exactly that, as I do.
Yep that is exactly what I see and frankly from a variety of users. The only good thing here is that the text is often sharper on the high resolution screens.
I want Res Ind. or at least the text resizing throughout the OS like Windows 7. Wizard you're making me sad but I guess you're right...we would have seen Res Ind. by now in Lion if it had it I'd assume.
I'd personally would like to see pinch to zoom, zoom the whole app. Well at least an alternative pinch to zoom gesture.
In any event I've spent more than a little time looking at the laptops in the Apple store, especially the new AIRs. They are really nice but sadly come up short for me in two ways. One of them is the screen size. The other is the lack of on board secondary storage. A 15" AIR could address all of these issues and still boost performance over the current models.
Given that I've not heard any rumblings about resolution independence at all. If Apple is saving it for WWDC then they have done an excellent job of keeping a secret.
Yep that is exactly what I see and frankly from a variety of users. The only good thing here is that the text is often sharper on the high resolution screens.
Sadly, I don't expect resolution independence until Mac OS XI. My guess is that it's just too big of a change to introduce into 10.7 or 10.8 or 10.9. Maybe by then we'll have monitors with high enough resolutions to make meaningful advantage of it?
Sadly, I don't expect resolution independence until Mac OS XI. My guess is that it's just too big of a change to introduce into 10.7 or 10.8 or 10.9. Maybe by then we'll have monitors with high enough resolutions to make meaningful advantage of it?
I'm really hoping that Jobs demos HiDPI in Lion next week.
This is totally out of left field. The real estate is based on the dimensions of the screen not it's pixel count. There has been discussions here about screens with double the resolution of the current MBP screens, I hope you guys don't think that doubles your screen area. The area remains the same. On top of that such high resolution screens would require resolution independence which the Mac current doesn't have. Just because something works on the iPad doesn't imply that the Mac can handle it in the current rev.
Ehm... I don't understand what you're saying. I think we might be in violent agreement here. Because Mac OSX DOESN'T have resolution independence, more pixels means more screen real estate. I can fit just as much stuff on a new 17" MBP's screen as I can on a discontinued 24" iMac, because they have the exact same resolution. You can fit two full size browser windows or two word documents next to each other on both screens, everything will just look much smaller on the 17". The 11" MBA has more pixels in the screen than the 13" MBP, hence, OSX can fit more stuff on the screen.
I'm not saying that's a good thing for everybody, the smaller system fonts on the MBA can be a serious usability issue for people with bad eyes. But, from the OS's perspective, and for people with good eyes, the 11" MBA has a "bigger" screen (offers more real estate) than the 13" MBP. Therefore, the 1440x900 screen seems a very trivial BTO option for the 13" MBP. I really don't understand why Apple doesn't offer it. The only sane reason I can think of is lack of supply, but as you already indicated, that seems unplausible.
At least it means there will be a 15" Air though because the MBP will have a ULV chip at some point in the future. Then maybe the 13" Air and Pro can finally merge leaving a single lineup with all ULV and 11", 13", 15" and 17" screens.
I see it differently.
I think think the MBPs will keep 35 watt cpus. Intel will keep making them, but will call them "extreme" parts and charge a premium for them. In a MBP that commands a premium price thats not a big deal.
Otherwise I agree that we may see a MBA family in different sizes aimed at a mainstream crowd.
I see it differently.
I think think the MBPs will keep 35 watt cpus. Intel will keep making them, but will call them "extreme" parts and charge a premium for them. In a MBP that commands a premium price thats not a big deal.
Otherwise I agree that we may see a MBA family in different sizes aimed at a mainstream crowd.
Intel seems to have clarified what they are doing at Computex:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4378/i...nfigurable-tdp
They will bring all CPUs down to the 15-20W range TDP with Ivy Bridge but the turbo mode will go above the TDP subject to the temperatures. Due to the limited cooling, MBAs won't be able to go as high as the larger MBPs.
Intel seems to have clarified what they are doing at Computex:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4378/i...nfigurable-tdp
They will bring all CPUs down to the 15-20W range TDP with Ivy Bridge but the turbo mode will go above the TDP subject to the temperatures. Due to the limited cooling, MBAs won't be able to go as high as the larger MBPs.
In your (and anyone else's) opinion, is Atom getting fast enough to be viable option for the MBA?
Intel seems to have clarified what they are doing at Computex:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4378/i...nfigurable-tdp
They will bring all CPUs down to the 15-20W range TDP with Ivy Bridge but the turbo mode will go above the TDP subject to the temperatures. Due to the limited cooling, MBAs won't be able to go as high as the larger MBPs.
I would bet that the mobile CPUS that can "turbo" to 35 watts will be an "extreme" part. That way Intel can charge a premium for them.
Intel will offer performance mobile CPUs. There are users who need and are willing to pay for them.
In your (and anyone else's) opinion, is Atom getting fast enough to be viable option for the MBA?
The Atom chips are designed to be the cheapest and ugliest CPUs you can get. Basically the lowest performance you can get away with. They are the new Celerons.
The Macbook Air on the other hand isn't designed this way. It's designed as a machine that gives you ultimate portability without compromising on performance.
A ULV Ivy Bridge chip is far more suitable as it doesn't have disabled features like Atom that benefit virtualization and it has a better roadmap. At Computex, Intel said they have plans to get Atom into phones and tablets:
http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf...maps-announced
All the TDPs drop down a notch. If Intel bring out a sub 2.5W Atom with an IGP bundled, that could make for a reasonably powered iPad that would run x86 apps. Although mobile apps have to be recompiled anyway and wouldn't immediately mean desktop-class Mac apps reach the iPad, it would mean an app built for an x86 iPad would run at native speed under Lion without modification (assuming the UI was scalable).
I would bet that the mobile CPUS that can "turbo" to 35 watts will be an "extreme" part. That way Intel can charge a premium for them.
It's certainly what they tend to do. It will be interesting to see what steps they take in future to ensure the higher-end chips are worthwhile to consumers. So many times these days I hear that people will 'just get a netbook' because it's all they need. Once Ivy Bridge has quad cores, the focus will be far more on shrinking batteries and ultimately getting Mac Pro performance on passively cooled hardware.
Ehm... I don't understand what you're saying. I think we might be in violent agreement here. Because Mac OSX DOESN'T have resolution independence, more pixels means more screen real estate. I can fit just as much stuff on a new 17" MBP's screen as I can on a discontinued 24" iMac, because they have the exact same resolution. You can fit two full size browser windows or two word documents next to each other on both screens, everything will just look much smaller on the 17".
This is precisely the problem, everything looks smaller. Because of that it is extremely common for people to blow up whatever they are working on to a scale that mimics existing sizes on other machines. One common example here is in the viewing of PDFs. A maybe less common but similar example is CAD drawings. Comfortable viewing requires that the text and other elements of the document be large enough for comfortable extended viewing.
The 11" MBA has more pixels in the screen than the 13" MBP, hence, OSX can fit more stuff on the screen.
You believe you can but this is certainly not true for many users. Honestly I don't even believe you do so for extended length of time. Who knows some people are comfortable with a screen ten inches from their nose. In the end though people are actually fitting less stuff on those screens not more.
I'm not saying that's a good thing for everybody, the smaller system fonts on the MBA can be a serious usability issue for people with bad eyes. But, from the OS's perspective, and for people with good eyes, the 11" MBA has a "bigger" screen (offers more real estate) than the 13" MBP. Therefore, the 1440x900 screen seems a very trivial BTO option for the 13" MBP. I really don't understand why Apple doesn't offer it. The only sane reason I can think of is lack of supply, but as you already indicated, that seems unplausible.
I don't buy your logic here. You need to be able to use that screen in a regular manner. Your argument goes out the door when you spend anytime with a document zoomed to the same size you would see on another Mac.
By the I'm not dismissing the utility of ultra compact laptops like the AIRs. I was actually contemplating getting one before the iPad came out. But it wouldn't be replacing my Mac Book Pro. It is simply an issue of usability.