I don't have a "lot of apps". If you subtract my iTunes folder, I am using about 90GB. The largest set of files I have on disk is my iPhoto library at 16GB.
I have no idea how someone would get by with only 64GB. You'd have to only email and web browse.
A typical consumer grade digital picture is about 1 MB. That means you have somewhere in the range of 15,000 pictures. You realize that you're usage is far from average, right?
And who does not have media (music, movies, images)? Everybody with an iPod (and we know they sold in huge numbers) has multiple GBs of music (otherwise they would not have gotten an iPod). And almost anybody has a digital camera.
Yeah, and 64GB, or 50 if you back out the OS and a few apps (Office, Safari) means you can fit about 10,000 songs AND 20,000 8MP pictures.
Is that enough for all the nerds on this board? Of course not. But for the other 90% of the world? Yeah, 10,000 songs and 20,000 pics is enough.
I wonder if Apple realizes that by pulling users downward to a MBA, it opens up a sales opportunity. People who might make do with just a MacBook Pro who buy a MBA are likely to feel a need for something more powerful and well-equipped at home or work. Having a laptop, they may turn to a desktop.
Does Apple offer much there, particularly in comparison to Windows desktops? Not really. The Mac Pro is too powerful, too expensive, and too large. The newest iMac is virtually impossible to upgrade or service. The Mac mini is too small and wimpy, in addition to being overpriced for the specs.
Selling more MBAs will leave an opening for Apple to sell more desktops, but only if Apple offers the form factors popular among Windows users. For instance, most users who need a lot of storage don't want to chain additional Thunderbolt drives across their desk. They want a mini-tower with space for at least three internal drives.
It would be really awesome if a 256GB option was available on the 11-inch. I can fit everything onto 128, but realistically my storage space would be somewhere between 128 and 256. That's the one thing I've been thinking about in preparation for my first Air.
Generally I run under 175GB so a minimal machine would be 256GB. However there may be real advantages to going even larger. For one wear leveling should be less of a performance drain compared to a almost fully committed disk. Currently I have a large external for ITunes, other media and less frequently used "stuff", a bigger drive would allow for buffering that big disk.
Note that bigger than 256GB does not imply 512GB, I'd settle for 384GB or some other number. I realize fat SSD's are expensive so settling for a little less makes lots of sense.
Actually there is good reason to want a bigger disk, I have a need to run virtual machines with other OS'es and it would be nice to be able to keep several of those VMs available for use in the the local store. So considering that it might make sense to minimize around 384 GB.
Apple's update page only lists required CPUs, the implication being that all Macs that shipped with those processors can run Lion as is. Which is not to say that maxing out memory wouldn't be beneficial at all.
I can't read the minds of Apples engineers as I'm on the east coast. So take the comments below as reasonable stabs at the possibilities
Quote:
Originally Posted by aiolos
I hope the 8GB RAM option is true, but as far as the ULV processors, go, I still don't understand why everyone thinks Apple will use the ULV processors. Since the GPU in now bundled with the CPU, and the power usage of those combined chips is 17W, I don't understand why they need to use them as the current MBA's use a 17W CPU + separate 10W GPU. That's 27W.
I don't think anybody has ruled out that. The problem is Apple wants to improve the AIR in many ways. For example battery load is a significant issue on this platform. To put it plainly AIR needs to run for longer periods of time on a recharge. There are other things to consider also, such as that power becomes a point load that is very compressed relative to a Core @ Duo and a graphics chip someplace else.
Lastly people know little about the power footprint of the TB port. Don't laugh the chip could use 0.1 watts or 10 watts nobody knows.
Quote:
Therefore Apple should be able to use LV processors, which are 25W. Am I missing something here because I don't see why Apple needs to drop performance to the ULV processors when the LV processors are in the same thermal design arena as what the current models employ.
All Apple really needs to do is offer up a solid performance boost over previous models. How they get there is not really a concern.
Quote:
Maybe the ULV's processors can be used on the 11 inch, which has had complaints about the battery life, but the 13" is more than capable of handling the LV processors.
They could also handle AMD Fusion processors. The funny thing here is that in many work loads the Fusion line is actually a lower power chip. Beyond that Intel hardware can be thermal hogs, the numbers that Intel publishes are not the chips maximum power.
Quote:
Space? I was under the impression RAM modules were a given size, and the density of the RAM on it was the difference. Also, how does more RAM = more power usage? You either access the RAM or you don't.
In the case of dynamic memory you have more cells to refresh, thus more transistors to power. While power per bit has gone down over the years, you are still implying a doubling of RAM.
Quote:
Apply generally always provides a BTO RAM upgrade, so if they change the base amount to 4GB as this article implies, I would expect an 8GB option.
Snow Leopard wouldn't even use up half that space. If you don't have media files, why isn't the remaining 30GBs or so big enough for you?
30 GB isn't much if you install XCode and Eclipse. Plus a few general purpose productivity apps.
The thing that was shocking to me is that I zoomed past 70GB in the first couple of day of owner ship of m MaC book Pro. That was without much junk installed too.
Especially considering Thunderbolt will allow you to use an external drive when at work or at home that runs just as fast as if it were inside the case.
I do such right now with my MBP and honestly it isn't ideal
And how did you come to the conclusion that the Air needs help in the battery department? From personal use? My late 2010 MBA goes and entire day (8+ hours) at the office on a single charge. Do you own one? I'd like to see a Window's-only laptop go that long.?
Lenovo T series, newest ones (though 30 hours is probably with screen brightness lowest and nothing running lol)
but nothing can be as thin and light-- while keeping it with the really long battery life
I have no idea how someone would get by with only 64GB. You'd have to only email and web browse.
I don't know how people get by with anything less than 160GB. After you download a few 1080p movies, FLAC music and an iPhoto library you're SOL. Of course people are using external drives for media but it's nice to have that initial space on your main HD when you're not at home etc. These days you need at least a 256GB HD stock.
Regarding digital pictures being 1MB: I don't think so. My 10 megapixel SLR pictures at the lowest setting ring in above 2 megabytes, and that is technology from 2005. Most cameras today have at least 12 megapixels and most people shoot on normal or fine and their shots take 3-5 megapixels per JPEG image, or 15-20 per RAW.
Apple's update page only lists required CPUs, the implication being that all Macs that shipped with those processors can run Lion as is. Which is not to say that maxing out memory wouldn't be beneficial at all.
There is a 2GB minimum, but my experience with Lion makes me totally agree. 4GB minimum for standard performance. Even with Snow Leopard, if you can go to a maximum of 8GB then do it. RAM has rarely been as cheap as it is now. My MacBook Pro (Early 2011) palpably sped up when I went to the full 8GB. Mac Pro users should try going above 8GB as the kernel starts to scale the maximum limits of things like processes.
Yeah guess what? If you want a MACBOOK AIR, then stop trying to treat it like a server.
I don't want a MBA, I feel perfectly happy with my 13" MBP, I am just saying that a MBA cannot serve as your main and only computer unless your storage demands are unusually low or you feel the weight advantage of a 13" Air vs. a 13" Pro (2.9 vs. 4.5 lb) is worth the the hassle of juggling your media files between an external and your internal disk. And dealing with multiple computers is even more hassle than outsourcing your media files.
Yeah, Apple just can't shift those iMacs; and the horrible reviews they get.
Time for a Dell box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling
I wonder if Apple realizes that by pulling users downward to a MBA, it opens up a sales opportunity. People who might make do with just a MacBook Pro who buy a MBA are likely to feel a need for something more powerful and well-equipped at home or work. Having a laptop, they may turn to a desktop.
Does Apple offer much there, particularly in comparison to Windows desktops? Not really. The Mac Pro is too powerful, too expensive, and too large. The newest iMac is virtually impossible to upgrade or service. The Mac mini is too small and wimpy, in addition to being overpriced for the specs.
Selling more MBAs will leave an opening for Apple to sell more desktops, but only if Apple offers the form factors popular among Windows users. For instance, most users who need a lot of storage don't want to chain additional Thunderbolt drives across their desk. They want a mini-tower with space for at least three internal drives.
1) IPS displays 7 years ago aren't something to brag about in a portable as your edit shows.
The displays are nice. My edit shows that the others aspects of the computer (weight, battery) make them less useful as portables.
Quote:
2) Apple uses TN panels just like all portables in their category but they've shown time-and-time again to be quality panels.
This is true. But they use TN panels to save on cost. They use IPS in ipad and iphone because they are superior panels.
Quote:
3) Which Dells were these and what was the extra charge for these panels? I think HP EliteBooks still charge over a $500 premium for IPS. I think 16:9 1920x1280 is 150ppi for a 15.4" display. I can't think of any other configuration it could be to get closer with a 15.4" display.
Inspiron 8600 (128ppi) and Latitude D820 (147ppi) Price premium was 100 and 200 if I recall. The D820 has 1920x1200 16:10 (as most notebooks of this vintage) The screen is gorgeous, better than any apple notebook I have seen.
Quote:
4) 128ppi isn't a substantial gain over the 118ppi in the 13" MBA. 147ppi is surely better but I wouldn't qualify that as substantial, either. I'd call the HiDPI hinted at in Lion with RI (220-280ppi) to be substantially better. I'm also not concerned about IPS over TN. If Apple can feasibly offer IPS in their notebooks as standard without sacrificing battery life or incurring an excessive cost they will, otherwise they will use industry leading TN panels.
Agreed. But they could offer superior screen as an option. I repeat my point from before, once you use the IPS high ppi screen on iphone 4, every other screen looks pathetic in comparison. Not saying notebook needs that high ppi, but 150 or higher would be nice.
I don't want a MBA, I feel perfectly happy with my 13" MBP, I am just saying that a MBA cannot serve as your main and only computer unless your storage demands are unusually low or you feel the weight advantage of a 13" Air vs. a 13" Pro (2.9 vs. 4.5 lb) is worth the the hassle of juggling your media files between an external and your internal disk. And dealing with multiple computers is even more hassle than outsourcing your media files.
Nobody would deny that. The MBA is not supposed to be one's main and only computer. If a person really wants to go against design, there exists something called an external hard drive which can provide cheap, unlimited storage that ISNT confined to a tiny, heat sensitive case.
a MBA cannot serve as your main and only computer unless your storage demands are unusually low or you feel the weight advantage of a 13" Air vs. a 13" Pro (2.9 vs. 4.5 lb) is worth the the hassle of juggling your media files between an external and your internal disk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Nobody would deny that. The MBA is not supposed to be one's main and only computer
I emphatically disagree with these two posters. My main and only computer is a 2010 15" MacBook Pro with a 128GB SSD. My next computer will have a 256GB SSD. It will be a MacBook Air if Apple release a 15" model. Otherwise, I'll wait.
Comments
Snow Leopard wouldn't even use up half that space. If you don't have media files, why isn't the remaining 30GBs or so big enough for you?
Well DUH! He has a 1000MP camera! A couple of those pictures use up a gig in no time!
I don't have a "lot of apps". If you subtract my iTunes folder, I am using about 90GB. The largest set of files I have on disk is my iPhoto library at 16GB.
I have no idea how someone would get by with only 64GB. You'd have to only email and web browse.
A typical consumer grade digital picture is about 1 MB. That means you have somewhere in the range of 15,000 pictures. You realize that you're usage is far from average, right?
And who does not have media (music, movies, images)? Everybody with an iPod (and we know they sold in huge numbers) has multiple GBs of music (otherwise they would not have gotten an iPod). And almost anybody has a digital camera.
Yeah, and 64GB, or 50 if you back out the OS and a few apps (Office, Safari) means you can fit about 10,000 songs AND 20,000 8MP pictures.
Is that enough for all the nerds on this board? Of course not. But for the other 90% of the world? Yeah, 10,000 songs and 20,000 pics is enough.
Yeah, and 64GB, or 50 if you back out the OS and a few apps (Office, Safari) means you can fit about 10,000 songs AND 20,000 8MP pictures.
Is that enough for all the nerds on this board? Of course not. But for the other 90% of the world? Yeah, 10,000 songs and 20,000 pics is enough.
10 ripped movies -> about 70 GB (if you want to keep the DVD extras you cannot just keep the recompressed movie file)
10 000 12 MP raw files -> about 200 GB
Does Apple offer much there, particularly in comparison to Windows desktops? Not really. The Mac Pro is too powerful, too expensive, and too large. The newest iMac is virtually impossible to upgrade or service. The Mac mini is too small and wimpy, in addition to being overpriced for the specs.
Selling more MBAs will leave an opening for Apple to sell more desktops, but only if Apple offers the form factors popular among Windows users. For instance, most users who need a lot of storage don't want to chain additional Thunderbolt drives across their desk. They want a mini-tower with space for at least three internal drives.
It would be really awesome if a 256GB option was available on the 11-inch. I can fit everything onto 128, but realistically my storage space would be somewhere between 128 and 256. That's the one thing I've been thinking about in preparation for my first Air.
Generally I run under 175GB so a minimal machine would be 256GB. However there may be real advantages to going even larger. For one wear leveling should be less of a performance drain compared to a almost fully committed disk. Currently I have a large external for ITunes, other media and less frequently used "stuff", a bigger drive would allow for buffering that big disk.
Note that bigger than 256GB does not imply 512GB, I'd settle for 384GB or some other number. I realize fat SSD's are expensive so settling for a little less makes lots of sense.
Actually there is good reason to want a bigger disk, I have a need to run virtual machines with other OS'es and it would be nice to be able to keep several of those VMs available for use in the the local store. So considering that it might make sense to minimize around 384 GB.
Lion needs 4GB.
Cite?
Apple's update page only lists required CPUs, the implication being that all Macs that shipped with those processors can run Lion as is. Which is not to say that maxing out memory wouldn't be beneficial at all.
I hope the 8GB RAM option is true, but as far as the ULV processors, go, I still don't understand why everyone thinks Apple will use the ULV processors. Since the GPU in now bundled with the CPU, and the power usage of those combined chips is 17W, I don't understand why they need to use them as the current MBA's use a 17W CPU + separate 10W GPU. That's 27W.
I don't think anybody has ruled out that. The problem is Apple wants to improve the AIR in many ways. For example battery load is a significant issue on this platform. To put it plainly AIR needs to run for longer periods of time on a recharge. There are other things to consider also, such as that power becomes a point load that is very compressed relative to a Core @ Duo and a graphics chip someplace else.
Lastly people know little about the power footprint of the TB port. Don't laugh the chip could use 0.1 watts or 10 watts nobody knows.
Therefore Apple should be able to use LV processors, which are 25W. Am I missing something here because I don't see why Apple needs to drop performance to the ULV processors when the LV processors are in the same thermal design arena as what the current models employ.
All Apple really needs to do is offer up a solid performance boost over previous models. How they get there is not really a concern.
Maybe the ULV's processors can be used on the 11 inch, which has had complaints about the battery life, but the 13" is more than capable of handling the LV processors.
They could also handle AMD Fusion processors. The funny thing here is that in many work loads the Fusion line is actually a lower power chip. Beyond that Intel hardware can be thermal hogs, the numbers that Intel publishes are not the chips maximum power.
Space? I was under the impression RAM modules were a given size, and the density of the RAM on it was the difference. Also, how does more RAM = more power usage? You either access the RAM or you don't.
In the case of dynamic memory you have more cells to refresh, thus more transistors to power. While power per bit has gone down over the years, you are still implying a doubling of RAM.
Apply generally always provides a BTO RAM upgrade, so if they change the base amount to 4GB as this article implies, I would expect an 8GB option.
Now you are talking!
Snow Leopard wouldn't even use up half that space. If you don't have media files, why isn't the remaining 30GBs or so big enough for you?
30 GB isn't much if you install XCode and Eclipse. Plus a few general purpose productivity apps.
The thing that was shocking to me is that I zoomed past 70GB in the first couple of day of owner ship of m MaC book Pro. That was without much junk installed too.
Especially considering Thunderbolt will allow you to use an external drive when at work or at home that runs just as fast as if it were inside the case.
I do such right now with my MBP and honestly it isn't ideal
And how did you come to the conclusion that the Air needs help in the battery department? From personal use? My late 2010 MBA goes and entire day (8+ hours) at the office on a single charge. Do you own one? I'd like to see a Window's-only laptop go that long.?
Lenovo T series, newest ones (though 30 hours is probably with screen brightness lowest and nothing running lol)
but nothing can be as thin and light-- while keeping it with the really long battery life
10 ripped movies -> about 70 GB (if you want to keep the DVD extras you cannot just keep the recompressed movie file)
10 000 12 MP raw files -> about 200 GB
Yeah guess what? If you want a MACBOOK AIR, then stop trying to treat it like a server.
I have no idea how someone would get by with only 64GB. You'd have to only email and web browse.
I don't know how people get by with anything less than 160GB. After you download a few 1080p movies, FLAC music and an iPhoto library you're SOL. Of course people are using external drives for media but it's nice to have that initial space on your main HD when you're not at home etc. These days you need at least a 256GB HD stock.
Cite?
Apple's update page only lists required CPUs, the implication being that all Macs that shipped with those processors can run Lion as is. Which is not to say that maxing out memory wouldn't be beneficial at all.
There is a 2GB minimum, but my experience with Lion makes me totally agree. 4GB minimum for standard performance. Even with Snow Leopard, if you can go to a maximum of 8GB then do it. RAM has rarely been as cheap as it is now. My MacBook Pro (Early 2011) palpably sped up when I went to the full 8GB. Mac Pro users should try going above 8GB as the kernel starts to scale the maximum limits of things like processes.
Yeah guess what? If you want a MACBOOK AIR, then stop trying to treat it like a server.
I don't want a MBA, I feel perfectly happy with my 13" MBP, I am just saying that a MBA cannot serve as your main and only computer unless your storage demands are unusually low or you feel the weight advantage of a 13" Air vs. a 13" Pro (2.9 vs. 4.5 lb) is worth the the hassle of juggling your media files between an external and your internal disk. And dealing with multiple computers is even more hassle than outsourcing your media files.
Time for a Dell box.
I wonder if Apple realizes that by pulling users downward to a MBA, it opens up a sales opportunity. People who might make do with just a MacBook Pro who buy a MBA are likely to feel a need for something more powerful and well-equipped at home or work. Having a laptop, they may turn to a desktop.
Does Apple offer much there, particularly in comparison to Windows desktops? Not really. The Mac Pro is too powerful, too expensive, and too large. The newest iMac is virtually impossible to upgrade or service. The Mac mini is too small and wimpy, in addition to being overpriced for the specs.
Selling more MBAs will leave an opening for Apple to sell more desktops, but only if Apple offers the form factors popular among Windows users. For instance, most users who need a lot of storage don't want to chain additional Thunderbolt drives across their desk. They want a mini-tower with space for at least three internal drives.
1) IPS displays 7 years ago aren't something to brag about in a portable as your edit shows.
The displays are nice. My edit shows that the others aspects of the computer (weight, battery) make them less useful as portables.
2) Apple uses TN panels just like all portables in their category but they've shown time-and-time again to be quality panels.
This is true. But they use TN panels to save on cost. They use IPS in ipad and iphone because they are superior panels.
3) Which Dells were these and what was the extra charge for these panels? I think HP EliteBooks still charge over a $500 premium for IPS. I think 16:9 1920x1280 is 150ppi for a 15.4" display. I can't think of any other configuration it could be to get closer with a 15.4" display.
Inspiron 8600 (128ppi) and Latitude D820 (147ppi) Price premium was 100 and 200 if I recall. The D820 has 1920x1200 16:10 (as most notebooks of this vintage) The screen is gorgeous, better than any apple notebook I have seen.
4) 128ppi isn't a substantial gain over the 118ppi in the 13" MBA. 147ppi is surely better but I wouldn't qualify that as substantial, either. I'd call the HiDPI hinted at in Lion with RI (220-280ppi) to be substantially better. I'm also not concerned about IPS over TN. If Apple can feasibly offer IPS in their notebooks as standard without sacrificing battery life or incurring an excessive cost they will, otherwise they will use industry leading TN panels.
Agreed. But they could offer superior screen as an option. I repeat my point from before, once you use the IPS high ppi screen on iphone 4, every other screen looks pathetic in comparison. Not saying notebook needs that high ppi, but 150 or higher would be nice.
I don't want a MBA, I feel perfectly happy with my 13" MBP, I am just saying that a MBA cannot serve as your main and only computer unless your storage demands are unusually low or you feel the weight advantage of a 13" Air vs. a 13" Pro (2.9 vs. 4.5 lb) is worth the the hassle of juggling your media files between an external and your internal disk. And dealing with multiple computers is even more hassle than outsourcing your media files.
Nobody would deny that. The MBA is not supposed to be one's main and only computer. If a person really wants to go against design, there exists something called an external hard drive which can provide cheap, unlimited storage that ISNT confined to a tiny, heat sensitive case.
a MBA cannot serve as your main and only computer unless your storage demands are unusually low or you feel the weight advantage of a 13" Air vs. a 13" Pro (2.9 vs. 4.5 lb) is worth the the hassle of juggling your media files between an external and your internal disk.
Nobody would deny that. The MBA is not supposed to be one's main and only computer
I emphatically disagree with these two posters. My main and only computer is a 2010 15" MacBook Pro with a 128GB SSD. My next computer will have a 256GB SSD. It will be a MacBook Air if Apple release a 15" model. Otherwise, I'll wait.