• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Apple Media Event, October 20th

Recommended Posts

Boz    1,324

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.

Eh? Why did I contradict myself.. faster CPU is always better.. there's no way around it.. it's a quad core processor allowing faster multitasking and similar things.. this always helps..

The battery life on the Acer is 6 hours.. on Apple is 5 hours.. so I don't know about your "battery drain".

Please.. there are no arguments here.. these new ultralight portable netbooks and laptops will always be faster than Apple's and a lot cheaper..it's just the way it is.. at <1" on Acer.. or <0.67" on Mac Book Air.. I'll live.. seriously..

Also.. I would like Mac Book Air because it's super sexy without a doubt.. but it's just insanely expensive and pretty weak..

For $600-$700 getting this Acer is a thing where I can throw it away after a year and get a new one.. at $1400 which is even remotely comparable 11.6" Mac Book Air.. I just can't justify it..and I make a decent living and have been buying Apple stuff.

It's ridiculously expensive for what you are getting.

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 Go to the gaming benchmarks on your link and you'll see that even the outdated 9400M outperforms the GMA HD.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.

Yep.. $1000 for a 1.4ghz processor and 2gb of ram which is pretty unusable..if you are seriously saying that OSX will run snappy on this config I'd definitely like to smoke the same thing ;)

I get 4gb of ram, quad core processor and 500gb storage with hdmi output, 1366x768 resolution on 11.6" display and a ton of other stuff for $750.. So $1400 is the only thing you can compare because the $1000 one is so weak it's not even comparable and even the $1400 it's still pretty weak compared to PC one but at least you can try to compare it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
giga    45

Yep.. $1000 for a 1.4ghz processor and 2gb of ram which is pretty unusable..

I get 4gb of ram, quad core processor and 500gb storage with hdmi output and a ton of other stuff for $750.. So $1400 is the only thing you can compare because the $1000 one is so weak it's not even comparable and even the $1400 it's still pretty weak compared to PC one but at least you can try to compare it.

Reviews seem to say it?s pretty useable, especially because of its SSD. Then again, people also seem to be using netbooks with much worse performing Atoms too, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

Eh? Why did I contradict myself.. faster CPU is always better.. there's no way around it.. it's a quad core processor allowing faster multitasking and similar things.. this always helps..

And a faster GPU is never better? Also, the Core i7 in the Acer isn't an actual Quad-Core. Dual-Core with hyper-threading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WelshBluebird    95

Yep.. $1000 for a 1.4ghz processor and 2gb of ram which is pretty unusable..if you are seriously saying that OSX will run snappy on this config I'd definitely like to smoke the same thing wink.gif

I was having a play around with a 11.6" air in an apple store yesterday, and the 1.4Ghz CPU and 2GB RAM is more than enough for light usage. Obviously, heavy multitasking and CPU / RAM intensive applications will suffer. But "normal" (Internet, email etc) usage is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThisIsStockerHD    105

Lol sure.

I don't know why I bother quoting anything you say on here because as soon as someone questions you about something you've said it just devolves in to 'oh I'm not arguing with you about this!, I'm to good to debate with you'.

Look dude if you are going to say something be ready to back it up or just don't say it in the first place.

Perhaps he just isn't trying to derail the thread with petty arguing, he has his views and you have yours.

So why dont we all hold hands and sing a song? :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boz    1,324

And a faster GPU is never better? Also, the Core i7 in the Acer isn't an actual Quad-Core. Dual-Core with hyper-threading.

I'm not saying it's not better.. but GPU alone with other weak parts won't make it magically fast.. it will improve some aspects but to be honest you will not feel any difference with that Nvidia 320m and this new (and yes this is the newer 2010 i7 with Intel HD GPU) in the OSX and work.. The difference is not like soooo insanely faster that you just won't be able to do anything with Intel HD version in i7 chip.. but as an overall system, this Acer will absolutely blow Mac Book Air away.

Hey, I'm buying a laptop and trying to get the best bang for the buck in performance, outputs, expandability and sure, I want it to look good, but if you know even remotely about computers, which I'm sure many of you do, you all know this Acer will absolutely kill Mac Book Air.. except "maybe" in gaming.. but again, I probably wouldn't run games on it anyways considering the screen is pretty small to begin with.

So what it does boil down too? Do you justify paying for a super slick laptop, $1000-$1400.. or to pay for (still very nice looking Acer or some other laptop) with better performance, more memory, better upgradability for 2-3 times less?

I am not dissing Apple for premium in some products.. And if it was $200-$300 more expensive than PC lappys with at least similar performance, even a bit subpar, I'd buy it because it's just a beautiful piece of industrial engineering.. but the prices they are charging.. and what you are getting.. it's just getting more insane every time they release something new..

I guess good luck to anyone who buys it.. I guess for you, it's worth it. I just don't see it at all.. it's pretty crazy to pay those prices. And I have a lot of Apple products I use every day.

And don't get me started on their new Mac Pros which are now like $6500. I'm still upset about that because they've really started being nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
threetonesun    1,204

CPU speeds are overrated, and have been for a while. I guess if you're doing mobile video editing it's a concern, but Apple makes better laptops for that. Every case I've heard of CPU speeds (gaming, video ripping/conversion, photo processing) are examples of things better done on a dedicated desktop.

IMO, weight, battery life, and screen quality are > everything in a laptop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boz    1,324

Reviews seem to say it's pretty useable, especially because of its SSD. Then again, people also seem to be using netbooks with much worse performing Atoms too, right?

yeah. I'm sure they don't mind a bit of a performance hit with Atom processors since they paid $300 for those netbooks.

CPU speeds are overrated, and have been for a while. I guess if you're doing mobile video editing it's a concern, but Apple makes better laptops for that. Every case I've heard of CPU speeds (gaming, video ripping/conversion, photo processing) are examples of things better done on a dedicated desktop.

IMO, weight, battery life, and screen quality are > everything in a laptop.

Well 2.3 pounds vs 3 pounds for Acer is not a huge difference.. battery life is better on Acer (11.6 MBA is 5 hours, Acer is 6 hours).. Screen is higer resolution on 11.6" Acer than on Mac Book Air.. 1366x768 on Acer vs 1280x800 I think.. even if they were same the display on Acer is LED backlit.. again don't know about MBA. Same resolution display, both LED backlit.

plus it has Blu-ray support, HDMI outputs, dual monitor output, 8 gb ram expandability, i7 CPU and 5 times more storage... I just don't see how it's even comparable. and it costs $750

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynnoj    23

yeah. I'm sure they don't mind a bit of a performance hit with Atom processors since they paid $300 for those netbooks.

Well 2.3 pounds vs 3 pounds for Acer is not a huge difference.. battery life is better on Acer (11.6 MBA is 5 hours, Acer is 6 hours).. Screen is higer resolution on 11.6" Acer than on Mac Book Air.. 1366x768 on Acer vs 1280x800 I think.. even if they were same the display on Acer is LED backlit.. again don't know about MBA. Same resolution display, both LED backlit.

plus it has Blu-ray support, HDMI outputs, dual monitor output, 8 gb ram expandability, i7 CPU and 5 times more storage... I just don't see how it's even comparable. and it costs $750

One big difference you seem to have overlooked: the Air is running OS X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boz    1,324

One big difference you seem to have overlooked: the Air is running OS X.

So? I use both.. that's not really a huge selling point.. I personally think (I use OSX every day as a main OS) that Windows 7 is a better OS.. not that I hate OSX.. I like it.. but it's really not a deal breaker.. Windows 7 is a very very nice OS..

I do get it though, you like it much more than Windows.. But that's a pretty big premium to pay to use OSX.. Again, something I can't justify personally and it's not a matter of not being able to afford it.. it's kind of matter of principle ..

But I think there's not point in discussing this any longer cause we all know where we stand.. those who will buy Mac Book Air will be happy with lower performance and are willing to pay twice the price for a slick body and OSX..

I guess it just ticks me a bit when these same folks start explaining and justifying how their purchase is better in this and that, when it's not.. if you are paying this money at least be honest and say how it is.. "I knew I wasn't getting the best performance but I love how it looks and I can't imagine running anything else but OSX" and leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
threetonesun    1,204

yeah. I'm sure they don't mind a bit of a performance hit with Atom processors since they paid $300 for those netbooks.

Well 2.3 pounds vs 3 pounds for Acer is not a huge difference.. battery life is better on Acer (11.6 MBA is 5 hours, Acer is 6 hours).. Screen is higer resolution on 11.6" Acer than on Mac Book Air.. 1366x768 on Acer vs 1280x800 I think.. even if they were same the display on Acer is LED backlit.. again don't know about MBA. Same resolution display, both LED backlit.

plus it has Blu-ray support, HDMI outputs, dual monitor output, 8 gb ram expandability, i7 CPU and 5 times more storage... I just don't see how it's even comparable. and it costs $750

I'd argue .7 lb is quite a bit in this form factor. Also, the MBA battery has a crazy long standby time, also probably useful for the people it is geared towards.

I agree on the rest of course, but Apple is very good at making hardware that is targeted at a specific audience, and then letting their brand sell the rest. I know people with both iPhones and iPads, and I can't explain that for the life of me, but people still buy them. Clearly we're at a point where the difference between a smart device, a laptop, and the PC you do most of your work on is at a crossroads, and Apple is more or less R&Ding their takes on it on the public at large.

BUT. I think they're on the right track, more so than Acer. 8gb/Blu-ray etc is nice, but the future for a device like this is cloud computing. I think this will be even more obvious once Google Chrome based laptops start hitting the market. Apple is building some gigantic data centers, and Google already has them. Sure, we'll need better wireless/cell networks soon too, but I think Apple will, in the future, make the case that content should be the same whether it's on your phone, or your laptop, or your desktop at work, or anywhere you chose to access your stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quillz    1,011

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

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xtreme $niper    51

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.

Sorry if this was already mentioned, but I skipped two pages to say that the Intel GPUs currently do not support OpenCL. The Nvidia GPU does, so since it is a vital part of the Snow Leopard APIs, it makes no sense for Apple to put a chip in their system that cannot perform those tasks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acnpt    39

Why?

The heat, the fans, the noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quillz    1,011

blink.gif

Why not explain why a i3 in a 13'' notebook is a bad idea instead of just posting emoticons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynnoj    23

Why not explain why a i3 in a 13'' notebook is a bad idea instead of just posting emoticons.

i3? I think you misread. I said an i7 in a 13" portable is retarded.

But acnpt covered the primary reasons above. I'd also cite battery life as a potential issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boz    1,324

i3? I think you misread. I said an i7 in a 13" portable is retarded.

But acnpt covered the primary reasons above. I'd also cite battery life as a potential issue.

Battery life is longer than on mac book air.. so you can stop repeating this "issue".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynnoj    23

Battery life is longer than on mac book air.. so you can stop repeating this "issue".

According to a stat sheet, yes. I'd like to see how it performs under these tasks you claim would benefit from an i7.

Got any real benchmarks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,482

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.

Why Jobs went with C2D - profit margins.

And why can't you game on the MBA? Folks game on less CPU than that...on Windows 7-based notebooks, netbooks, and *desktops* (heck, my Celeron DC-based 7 x64 desktop is less powerful than the MBA, and I play SC 2 on that!).

And Flash works in SL today (and always has; the issue is with Flash on iOS, not SL or Leopard or even Tiger).

Now, there are things you can't do on SL that you can on Windows (however, how much of that is due to Jobs, and how much is due to developers choosing to go where the customers are); Adobe has, until recently, had most of the development tools on the Mac, while the clients for Windows got the attention (as opposed to Windows dev tools and clientware for OS X). Now, it's Windows (and specifically the x64 side) getting the hotshot Adobe dev tools after years of languishing (the only Windows products from Adobe that have been multicore-aware have been Photoshop and Premiere) which is likely why Jobs is throwing a hissyfit (multimedia development has always been Apple's ace in the hole; now, suddenly, it isn't).

Until recently, there were Certain Markets that Jobs (and Apple) could rely on (especially in education). Now it finds itself actually having to compete (and most importantly, compete against Microsoft) in those markets - worst of all, it has to compete on price, which is something it has traditionally been ill-equipped to do. Jobs' security blanket (the education market, especially the creative arts) is being roasted right in front of him. (That is a big reason why Xserve went away - it can't compete against commodity-priced Windows-based servers from either Dell *or* HP, let alone the Acer Group. What Apple will do with OS X Server is anyone's guess.)

Flash doesn't require CI/QE (and never has) on Macs; however, the hardware-acceleration bar is higher on Macs than it is on Windows simply because there is a smaller pool of permissible hardware on Macs as opposed to Windows. (This is very much why I said that the lack of a lower-end desktop was going to come back and bite Jobs - and Apple - on the butt. Apple had a very large hole in the desktop market between the mini and Pro - and the hole is way too big to be filled by just iMacs. This is, in fact, the old Performa market, and Apple has *nothing* for that space.

As to why there are few current Mac games, it is largely that the gamer-capable Mac hardware (some iMacs, most Mac Pros, and higher-end MacBooks, including Pros and Airs) have gaming as a secondary, tertiary, or even quaternary use at best (simply due to their high prices compared to similar Windows-based desktops and portables). Windows wins based on *volume*; where Apple competes on quality, not price. Acer alone (under its own brand) produces more hardware than Apple. It's not going to win a quality war against Apple (and no company in the Acer Group wants to go there); however, Acer can, will, and does, outproduce Apple in terms of sheer volume; Acer will fight that battle against Apple anytime.

It's the auto market all over again (or even the old days of computer memory, when the bottom was about to be yanked out from under just about everyone) - when a product becomes a commodity or utility, volume, not quality, decides the winner. (In automobiles, as in all industrial or factory operations, it's labor that has become the commodity/utility, which is why nations with low labor costs and large labor pools - such as India and the PRC - cause nightmares for not just the US, but the EU as well. The EU is doing some things that the US refuses to do in that area - however, it will still eventually be forced to knuckle under.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.