Apple Media Event, October 20th

[.Neo]

Remember that this was a media event, not WWDC, so they focused more on consumer-oriented features instead of developer-oriented features like OpenGL and bug fixes.

Exactly. Some people don't seem to understand that you have to adapt to the target group. Discussing OpenGL and bug fixes won't draw much attention at a media event.

It's becoming pretty tiresome to see people act as if Apple demoed everything there is to Mac OS X Lion during the last keynote.

[Southern Patriot]

Exactly. Some people don't seem to understand that you have to adapt to the target group. Discussing OpenGL and bug fixes won't draw much attention at a media event.

It's becoming pretty tiresome to see people act as if Apple demoed everything there is to Mac OS X Lion during the last keynote.

I totally agree. But people do this EVERY TIME Apple has one of these previews of their next OS. And if this had been at WWDC, and Apple focused on developer-related updates, people here would have been crying about how there were no new consumer-oriented features!

[Boz]

That 11.6" Mac Book Air looks sexy.. I'd definitely get it if it had serious specs.. as it is, it's really just an overpriced, underpowered netbook.

I would rather get this over that one, even if it's a little thicker:

Acer TimelineX 1830T

It features HD-capable i7 or i5 cpu, 1,366 by 768-pixel displays, HDMI output, 802.11b/g/n Wi-Fi, gigabit Ethernet, and an integrated 1.3 megapixel webcam alongside 4gb of ram and 320gb hard drive, 6 hours battery life. Windows 7 Home Premium and offer multi-gesture trackpads.

$899 with i7 processor and $599 with i5 processor.

Pretty slick looking at that

I guess you buy Mac Book Air when you want to look fancy. I'd buy it it was the same price as this Acer one even if it was under spec-ed.. Maybe if it was $699 or $799.. but to get it even close to Acer specs it will be $1400. That's pretty insane, no matter how hot it looks.

[Guest]

i7 in a netbook?

[.Neo]

I totally agree. But people do this EVERY TIME Apple has one of these previews of their next OS. And if this had been at WWDC, and Apple focused on developer-related updates, people here would have been crying about how there were no new consumer-oriented features!

Yeah that's right, there's always something.

[.Neo]

I guess you buy Mac Book Air when you want to look fancy. I'd buy it it was the same price as this Acer one even if it was under spec-ed.. Maybe if it was $699 or $799.. but to get it even close to Acer specs it will be $1400. That's pretty insane, no matter how hot it looks.

Seems like an OK ultraportable. How do the Intel graphics compare to the Nvidia ones used by Apple?

Can't stand the tiny buttoned trackpad it has though compared to the Magic Trackpad and trackpad of the MacBook line.

[Shaun N.]

I must say I'm not too much a fan of the iOS intergration, I guess we will see how it plays out.

[andrew_f]

I must say I'm not too much a fan of the iOS intergration, I guess we will see how it plays out.

It's not integration at all, it's just building on some successful ideas from iOS.

[Guest]

Seems like an OK ultraportable. How do the Intel graphics compare to the Nvidia ones used by Apple?

Can't stand the tiny buttoned trackpad it has though compared to the Magic Trackpad and trackpad of the MacBook line.

The Intel graphics are awful, which is part of the reason why Apple have stuck with C2D rather than an i3 in the 13" MacBook range.

[.Neo]

The Intel graphics are awful, which is part of the reason why Apple have stuck with C2D rather than an i3 in the 13" MacBook range.

Yeah I know Apple can't use Core iX processors if they want to use their current chipset because of the dispute between Nvidia and Intel. Not much Apple can do about that.

[Boz]

The Intel graphics are awful, which is part of the reason why Apple have stuck with C2D rather than an i3 in the 13" MacBook range.

new Intel graphics are not awful.. what are you talking about.. they are totally fine.. second, that Nvidia GPU in MBA is also weak.. it's an ok GPU for basic work stuff.. so is Intel HD..

Of course you won't be gaming with either so that's completely irrelevant for this type of computer.. but Intel's video is actually very very potent.. just some of the features are:

hardware acceleration of full HD content (Blu-ray, Flash, etc), enhanced 3d rendering, full support for DTS-MA and TrueHD Blu-ray audio, outputs to HDMI, DisplayPort, DVI and supports dual monitor output. What else do you want?!

Apple sacrificed performance because they couldn't fit a better CPU to make MBA so thin and it's much much cheaper for them. Their profit margin on MBA is insane.. I would bet probably around 40-50% on account of weak CPU and very little memory and soldered flash memory.

[WelshBluebird]

new Intel graphics are not awful.. what are you talking about.. they are totally fine.. second, that Nvidia GPU in MBA is also weak.. it's an ok GPU for basic work stuff.. so is Intel chipset..

Actually, the nVidia GPU in the Air (and in the 13" MBP), is much more powerful than any of the Intel offerings (aside from the upcoming sandy bridge platform, which looks to be a decent competitor). If apple have underclocked the GPU in the air is a different question, but the GPU itself isn't half bad (from what I can see, its comparable to a dedicated 8600M).

[Guest]

new Intel graphics are not awful.. what are you talking about.. they are totally fine.. second, that Nvidia GPU in MBA is also weak.. it's an ok GPU for basic work stuff.. so is Intel chipset..

Of course you won't be gaming with either so that's completely irrelevant for this type of computer..

Apple sacrificed performance because they couldn't fit a better CPU to make MBA so thin and it's much much cheaper for them. Their profit margin on MBA is insane.. I would bet probably around 40-50% on account of weak CPU and very little memory and soldered flash memory.

Read here.

The Intel HD (which is what they would have used had they went with an Intel GPU) is woeful compared to the 320M.

[Boz]

Actually, the nVidia GPU in the Air (and in the 13" MBP), is much more powerful than any of the Intel offerings (aside from the upcoming sandy bridge platform, which looks to be a decent competitor). If apple have underclocked the GPU in the air is a different question, but the GPU itself isn't half bad (from what I can see, its comparable to a dedicated 8600M).

I'm not saying it's bad.. I'm just saying that Intel is not awful. Nvidia 330M is not much more powerful than new Intel HD chips..

[instant.human]

but Intel's video is actually very very potent.. just some of the features are:

hardware acceleration of full HD content (Blu-ray, Flash, etc), enhanced 3d rendering, full support for DTS-MA and TrueHD Blu-ray audio, outputs to HDMI, DisplayPort, DVI and supports dual monitor output. What else do you want?!

oh yeah right, those are all things I want to do on a netbook. :D

But you do have a valid point there and already stated that you probably would not go gaming with any of these devices, may it be the 11" MBA or any other netbook. ;)

[Elliott]

new Intel graphics are not awful.. what are you talking about.. they are totally fine.. second, that Nvidia GPU in MBA is also weak.. it's an ok GPU for basic work stuff.. so is Intel chipset..

Of course you won't be gaming with either so that's completely irrelevant for this type of computer..

Intel's integrated GPU on the iX chipsets are in no way equal or better than the Nvidia GeForce 320M graphics chipset. You can actually game with the 320M. Not so much with the Intel HD Graphics.

Apple sacrificed performance because they couldn't fit a better CPU to make MBA so thin and it's much much cheaper for them. Their profit margin on MBA is insane.. I would bet probably around 40-50% on account of weak CPU and very little memory and soldered flash memory.

It wouldn't be much harder or more expensive to package in an i3. What becomes a problem is still offering good performance for the other components (namely, graphics). The benefits of an i3?over a Core 2 Duo don't outweigh poor performance from Intel's integrated GPU.

And yes, the RAM is soldered. As for the SSD, no, it's not soldered. It's just taken out of its casing and reconfigured in a different form factor. It's still put into a slot (that looks like a mini PCI-e slot). That doesn't make it cheaper. It just makes it easier to fit in.

[Boz]

Read here.

The Intel HD (which is what they would have used had they went with an Intel GPU) is woeful compared to the 320M.

Yeah..sorry for not believing Apple's numbers..

I'm gonna look for some unbiased benchmarks.. I know that the new Intel HD chips have very very potent graphics.. gaming even..

So Steve Jobs can BS and try to explain why they went with prehistoric C2D..

I'm going to believe more the fact that it saves them money so they can make bigger margins, then it was a choice for them to pick to get some slighter faster performance..

Do you really expect to game on Mac Book Air? Of course not.. so this whole Jobs crapping around it pointless.. Intel HD will kick ass in all the things you will be doing on a ultraportable or a netbook.. which is browsing, watching video and web surfing.. where Intel HD has full hardware acceleration on both h.264 and Flash content..

I guarantee you that FLash will again, lag like crap on mac book air and you will complain how it's again Adobe's fault and not Apple's for choosing some custom solution for Nvidia to build for them aside from some standards.

I guess it's your prerogative to choose what you want, but I'd say that Acer kicks Mac Book Air's butt with i7 CPU and intel HD GPU from here to sunday and is more then half the price.

[Guest]

Intel's integrated GPU on the iX chipsets are in no way equal or better than the Nvidia GeForce 320M graphics chipset. You can actually game with the 320M. Not so much with the Intel HD Graphics.

It wouldn't be much harder or more expensive to package in an i3. What becomes a problem is still offering good performance for the other components (namely, graphics). The benefits of an i3 over a Core 2 Duo don't outweigh poor performance from Intel's integrated GPU.

Thank you.

[instant.human]

umm Flash does not lag at all on my late 2009 MBP.

But you do have a point somewhere...

Then again, the average user won't ever notice the difference. The average user does not look at benchmarks. The average user wants a machine that works. And the Acer, just as the MBA do just that... So it's up the the end user to decide wheather or not to buy a MBA or an Acer or whatever... As always...

[giga Veteran]

Yeah..sorry for not believing Apple's numbers..

I'm gonna look for some unbiased benchmarks.. I know that the new Intel HD chips have very very potent graphics.. gaming even..

So Steve Jobs can BS and try to explain why they went with prehistoric C2D..

I'm going to believe more the fact that it saves them money so they can make bigger margins, then it was a choice for them to pick to get some slighter faster performance..

Do you really expect to game on Mac Book Air? Of course not.. so this whole Jobs crapping around it pointless.. Intel HD will kick ass in all the things you will be doing on a ultraportable or a netbook.. which is browsing, watching video and web surfing.. where Intel HD has full hardware acceleration on both h.264 and Flash content..

I guarantee you that FLash will again, lag like crap on mac book air and you will complain how it's again Adobe's fault and not Apple's for choosing some custom solution for Nvidia to build for them aside from some standards.

I guess it's your prerogative to choose what you want, but I'd say that Acer kicks Mac Book Air's butt with i7 CPU and intel HD GPU from here to sunday and is more then half the price.

It?s not even close: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

Here?s your gaming:

[Guest]

An i7 in a 13"(?) portable is laughable.

[Boz]

It's not even close: http://www.notebookc...List.844.0.html

Here's your gaming:

I have no idea who does those benchmarks

Here.. from a bit more reputable source:

http://www.bit-tech....s-performance/7

I would hardly say it's bad.. it outperforms 9400 in quite a things.. and is pretty acceptable in gaming.. having almost 30 fps average in MW2 (at 1280x800)..

and again.. no one who buys Mac Book Air or this Acer is looking for gaming.. I'd rather have a bit weaker but great performance with video and blu-ray and all that with Intel HD than having a custom GPU from Apple that doesn't do half of things Intel does because Apple doesn't support Blu-ray to begin with. This Acer can rock 1080P with full hardware acceleration, full Flash hardware acceleration etc.. Those things run like buttah.

Hey I'm not gonna argue here.. if you believe that paying $1400 for an average performing Mac Book Air over $599-$750 (you can get the i7 Acer on newegg.com for $710 I think).. that's great..

I'm just pointing out that it's pretty crazy and why I just can't pay for it.. it's subpar performance in CPU and memory over the PC offering.

An i7 in a 13"(?) portable is laughable.

Why is it laughable? Something wrong with performance?

What's laughable is people justifying $1400 for mediocre performance because of sexy case.

[Guest]

Why is it laughable? Something wrong with performance?

What's laughable is people justifying $1400 for mediocre performance because of sexy case.

You just completely contradicted yourself. The Air doesn't need a 320M for gaming, yet the Acer needs an i7 to do email and browse the web? I think you completely misunderstand the 'netbook' market.

The audience that buy these devices are the people who do very basic computing, or have specific mobile needs. They don't need an i7 which is going to be a total drain on battery life. The Air is stupidly light and thin for a reason.

[.Neo]

Boz, you keep going on about Blu-ray but the Acer doesn't even have a Blu-ray player to begin with. I doubt many will be buying this thing to hook up an external Blu-ray drive to watch movies on a 11,6-inch screen or to output it to a TV. It's the same story as gaming really.

What's laughable is people justifying $1400 for mediocre performance because of sexy case.

Then don't buy it if you feel that way. I have no idea who you are trying to convince here and as to why exactly.

[giga Veteran]

I have no idea who does those benchmarks

Here.. from a bit more reputable source:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-performance/7

I would hardly say it's bad.. it outperforms 9400 in quite a things.. and is pretty acceptable in gaming.. having almost 30 fps average in MW2 (at 1280x800)..

and again.. no one who buys Mac Book Air or this Acer is looking for gaming.. I'd rather have a bit weaker but great performance with video and blu-ray and all that with Intel HD than having a custom GPU from Apple that doesn't do half of things Intel does because Apple doesn't support Blu-ray to begin with.

Hey I'm not gonna argue here.. if you believe that paying $1400 for an average performing Mac Book Air over $599-$750 (you can get the i7 Acer on newegg.com for $710 I think).. that's great..

I'm just pointing out that it's pretty crazy and why I just can't pay for it.. it's subpar performance in CPU and memory over the PC offering.

Why is it laughable? Something wrong with performance?

What's laughable is people justifying $1400 for mediocre performance because of sexy case.

Acceptable is relative. Go to the gaming benchmarks on your link and you’ll see that even the outdated 9400M outperforms the GMA HD. (the GMA HD in your link is actually clocked higher than than the Asus notebook you linked to.)

Plus, a GPU isn’t solely limited to gaming. OS X and its applications make wide use of Core Animation, Core Image, and H.264 acceleration. I’m not sure why you’re saying the Air is $1400 too. It starts at $999.