Anyone else regretting buying the MBA?

[aberrero]

It's really nice using the Mac as a Mac on a big HD screen, too. My mini is my first Mac since my Quadra 840 AV: I jumped ship to windows 95, and it's good to be back.

I bought my DP to HDMI cable yesterday, hopefully it will get here sometime this week and I can start using it on the big screen.

Anyway, for me, no regrets with the 13.3". The proportions and weight are perfect. Big enough and fast enough to be usable but still one of the tiniest laptops ever made. The 11" compromises too much, and while it is a good upgrade from a netbook, I don't think it is a good replacement for the HP Envy 15 I had before. In some ways I kinda regret not getting 4GB ram, but I still think that Apples price is a rip off, and there are many other things I would rather spend a hundred bucks on, like 8 GB of ram for my desktop, for example.

 

[bcaslis]

It makes perfect sense to me.

Why are you so concerned about what I call the smaller MBA? I've asked this before in several threads and the only thing I can fathom is that somehow my calling it a netbook hurts your feelings. Nobody ever admits to that but I'm guessing it must be true.

If I've hurt your feelings by referring to an inanimate object as a 'netbook,' I'm sorry. If I haven't...then why are you still continuing to infer malicious intent when there clearly isn't any?

Do you NEED to feel like I'm trying to be hurtful to give yourself relevance in this discussion?

The objection nearly everyone has raised with you that you seem to deliberately not get is that the 11" is by no means what virtually everyone else calls a netbook. It seems impossible that you don't get this. Rather it seems like you continue to do this just to get a reaction.

 

[meiluj]

I for one have no regrets whatsoever. I bought the 13" ultimate (though I simply love the 11"MBA) due to my lifestyle:

1) I do my work on the run so my lap top has to be light.
2) I realize that I do my work only during office hours and simply chill out once I get home and so the idea of having two computers simply is a waste of money (in my case at least).
3) I need to run a program which needs to run on parallels, requires 4 gig of RAM and a higher processor.
4) I find that I do not squint on the 13" as much as on the 11" (I am 43 years old and wearing reading glasses!).

.....and so the 13" it is.

I still look at the 11" longingly and admire people who have it but I just cannot justify having one.

 

[Pipper99]

I really had to assess (actually, reassess) my needs honestly when I was considering a new Macbook. I was planning on getting the top of the line 17" MPB to "futureproof" my purchase, then the new Airs came out. I wasn't impressed when I saw them at the Apple store, but after I read the reviews and the experience of the people on this forum, I gave the Air a serious look. I don't know why it makes me feel a little inadequate to say that I don't do 3D rendering, Photoshop, work with computationally massive applications, etc, but I don't, and I likely never will. Photography is a hobby, and I like learning about editing photos, but Photoshop Elements is more than I will likely ever need, and in truth, iPhoto will probably be fine for me for years. I use Quicken to track my finances, use the internet to pay bills, prepare my tax return, shop, read news and entertainment, email, Facebook, listen to and watch podcasts, stream Netflix, light word processing, read pdfs, etc. I guess that I don't do much "real work" on my personal computer (all of my work related stuff is done on a laptop that's provided by my employer), so I found that the 13" MBA is just right for me. The screen looks tiny when the Air is off, but when I'm using it, it's quite spacious. I can take it comfortably everywhere, and for the first time I feel like I don't have to worry about the battery running out. When I pick up a Macbook Pro now, it feels so heavy. The MBA is a great machine for me. Instead of regretting my purchase, I've grown more fond of the MBA each day.

We each have so many variables to consider that make the purchase of a personal computer very "personal".

 

[aberrero]

You really don't want to do photography work on a laptop. It is fine for playing around with some pictures, but to do real RAW editing it is just completely inadequate without a ridiculously expensive workstation-class system.

Desktops on the other hand are perfect for the task, and you can build an extremely powerful system for very cheap.

Basic parts are $150 for a quad or even six-core processor, another 150 for 8GB ram, 100 for a nice motherboard and another hundred for a 2TB hard drive. Buy a Dell U2311h display for $300 or less and maybe a $150 for a case/psu/dvd/keyboard/mouse and you are set. Throw in a video card too, if you need it. Total price of under $1000 and you have a system that is basically just insanely fast.

I would much rather spend $1000 on a desktop like this and another thousand or so on a MBA than spend $2000+ on a big, heavy MBP.

 

[a2applegirl]

You really don't want to do photography work on a laptop. It is fine for playing around with some pictures, but to do real RAW editing it is just completely inadequate without a ridiculously expensive workstation-class system.

Desktops on the other hand are perfect for the task, and you can build an extremely powerful system for very cheap.

Basic parts are $150 for a quad or even six-core processor, another 150 for 8GB ram, 100 for a nice motherboard and another hundred for a 2TB hard drive. Buy a Dell U2311h display for $300 or less and maybe a $150 for a case/psu/dvd/keyboard/mouse and you are set. Throw in a video card too, if you need it. Total price of under $1000 and you have a system that is basically just insanely fast.

I would much rather spend $1000 on a desktop like this and another thousand or so on a MBA than spend $2000+ on a big, heavy MBP.

My 15" I7 mbp is my main machine and I edit raw files in photoshop all the time on it. A lot of us really don't want to have to build a system ourselves.

 

[a2applegirl]

The objection nearly everyone has raised with you that you seem to deliberately not get is that the 11" is by no means what virtually everyone else calls a netbook. It seems impossible that you don't get this. Rather it seems like you continue to do this just to get a reaction.

I disagree with you. The term "netbook" has evolved to mean ultraportable computer. Here is the wikipedia entry for "netbook".

Netbook
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Netbooks are a category of small, lightweight, and inexpensive laptop computers.

At their inception in late 2007 — as smaller notebooks optimized for low weight and low cost[1] — netbooks omitted certain features (e.g., the optical drive), featured smaller screens and keyboards, and offered reduced specification and computing power. Over the course of their evolution, netbooks have ranged in size from below 5" screen diagonal[2] to 12".[3] A typical weight is 1 kg (2-3 pounds). Often significantly less expensive than other laptops,[4] by mid-2009, some wireless data carriers began to offer netbooks to users "free of charge", with an extended service contract purchase.[5]

In the short period since their appearance, netbooks have grown in size and features, now converging with new smaller, lighter notebooks. By August 2009, when comparing a Dell netbook to a Dell notebook, CNET called netbooks "nothing more than smaller, cheaper notebooks," noting, "the specs are so similar that the average shopper would likely be confused as to why one is better than the other," and "the only conclusion is that there really is no distinction between the devices."

 

[neteng101]

The term "netbook" has evolved to mean ultraportable computer.

Inaccurate - remember wikipedia is just an opinion nothing more written by people. If you actually research and see what manufacturers like Asus, Dell, Lenovo and so on are selling as netbooks, for any machine with Intel processors, all their netbooks have one thing in common - the Atom processor.

Consumers who are smart can tell the difference between a netbook and ultraportable. Those who are ignorant and less technically inclined though might make an all too common mistake.

But call it whatever you please, its really not worth mincing words over to this extent. Just irritating to someone like me because it is technically inaccurate to call the 11.6" MBA as a netbook. There's PC laptops that aren't netbooks with 11.6" screens too, they're really much more capable machines.

Netbooks are pathetic machines that can't do very much - even the Ion based ones struggle if you ask too much of a workload from them.

 

[bcaslis]

I disagree with you. The term "netbook" has evolved to mean ultraportable computer. Here is the wikipedia entry for "netbook".

Netbook
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Netbooks are a category of small, lightweight, and inexpensive laptop computers.

...[/B]

Gee, thanks. I wasn't capable of looking up wikipedia myself. If wikipedia says it, it mus be right!

 

[Bluemeanie1976]

Does it really matter if you call it an ultraportable, or a netbook? Really?

 

[a2applegirl]

Gee, thanks. I wasn't capable of looking up wikipedia myself. If wikipedia says it, it mus be right!

Well Wikipedia is at least as reliable a source as your own posts.

 

[feflower]

Just change the entry in Wikipedia to whatever you want; and then you will always be right...

 

[teski]

You really don't want to do photography work on a laptop. It is fine for playing around with some pictures, but to do real RAW editing it is just completely inadequate without a ridiculously expensive workstation-class system.

Desktops on the other hand are perfect for the task, and you can build an extremely powerful system for very cheap.

Basic parts are $150 for a quad or even six-core processor, another 150 for 8GB ram, 100 for a nice motherboard and another hundred for a 2TB hard drive. Buy a Dell U2311h display for $300 or less and maybe a $150 for a case/psu/dvd/keyboard/mouse and you are set. Throw in a video card too, if you need it. Total price of under $1000 and you have a system that is basically just insanely fast.

I would much rather spend $1000 on a desktop like this and another thousand or so on a MBA than spend $2000+ on a big, heavy MBP.

LOL. That is such a silly statement. ALL of my RAW editing for the last few years has been done on a Core 2 Duo MBPro without any issue. I've also done a bunch on my Air without problems. You don't need a $3,000 workstation these days to work on RAW files.

 

[bcaslis]

Well Wikipedia is at least as reliable a source as your own posts.

Well, I guess that must prove it!

 

[aberrero]

LOL. That is such a silly statement. ALL of my RAW editing for the last few years has been done on a Core 2 Duo MBPro without any issue. I've also done a bunch on my Air without problems. You don't need a $3,000 workstation these days to work on RAW files.

And I used to do it on a dual core with 2GB of ram, and it worked, but it is nowhere near as fun as doing it on a triple core with 4gb of ram, and I am really looking at building a system with the specs I listed next year because even my current rig isn't as fast as I want it to be. RAW editing is extremely intensive and while it is possible to run Aperture like I did for a little while on my 1.6ghz atom netbook hackintosh, the more power you have the better hte experience.

It isn't like with a web browser or something where it doesn't matter how fast your system is. With RAW editing, it scales pretty much linearly, and I think you want a minimum of 4GB ram, ideally 6GB and 8GB just for fun. 4, 6 or 8 core processors kind of follow the same lines. 4-core minimum and 6-core preferable.


More important than the specs though is the display. I thought I had a pretty good TN panel with decent calibration, but when I got my IPS display I realized how I often made some pretty big editing mistakes due to my LCD inaccuracies. I just can't go back to doing photo editing on a dual core TN laptop now.

 

[KnightWRX]

I disagree with you. The term "netbook" has evolved to mean ultraportable computer. Here is the wikipedia entry for "netbook".

Netbook
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Netbooks are a category of small, lightweight, and inexpensive laptop computers.

Maybe I'm just not rich enough, but the Air is not inexpensive.

Anyway, my point was more about abuse of the word netbook, which derails these threads each and everytime. There's just no reason to use the word rather than plainly say MBA 11.6".

The objection nearly everyone has raised with you that you seem to deliberately not get is that the 11" is by no means what virtually everyone else calls a netbook. It seems impossible that you don't get this. Rather it seems like you continue to do this just to get a reaction.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed he does that.

 

[bowlerman625]

Does it really matter if you call it an ultraportable, or a netbook? Really?

The battle over the name for the class of the laptop is just plain silly.

 

[Corax]

Maybe I'm just not rich enough, but the Air is not inexpensive.

Anyway, my point was more about abuse of the word netbook, which derails these threads each and everytime. There's just no reason to use the word rather than plainly say MBA 11.6".



Glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed he does that.

Actually I really don't care how anyone wants to call it, but I'm with KnightWRX.
MBA is simply much shorter than blabla netdingy... plus the confusion it may create amongst some users.

 

[a2applegirl]

LOL. That is such a silly statement. ALL of my RAW editing for the last few years has been done on a Core 2 Duo MBPro without any issue. I've also done a bunch on my Air without problems. You don't need a $3,000 workstation these days to work on RAW files.

I agree. I have processed raw files on my 11.6" air with no problems. I also process them everyday on my mbp as it is my main computer.

 

[a2applegirl]

Well, I guess that must prove it!

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I put that post there to simply show that many people do not see the distinction between netbooks and ultraportables anymore.

 

[ReallyBigFeet]

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I put that post there to simply show that many people do not see the distinction between netbooks and ultraportables anymore.

Except for those who tend to have rather low self-esteem and take umbrage at having their device lumped in with something they consider an inferior product. Personally, having owned (still own but want to kill it) a prior-generation netbook and not having any issues calling what it was, I don't see the problem here. But I guess these same people had issues calling those netbooks "netbooks" as well.

Probably the same people who have an issue with calling their Porsche/BMW/Jaguar/Mercedes "a car." They exist on every forum for every brand. No different here.

 

[Corax]

Except for those who tend to have rather low self-esteem and take umbrage at having their device lumped in with something they consider an inferior product. Personally, having owned (still own but want to kill it) a prior-generation netbook and not having any issues calling what it was, I don't see the problem here. But I guess these same people had issues calling those netbooks "netbooks" as well.

Probably the same people who have an issue with calling their Porsche/BMW/Jaguar/Mercedes "a car." They exist on every forum for every brand. No different here.

Wuahahaha Like calling a Mac a PC...(well, it essentially is)

 

[Jiten]

Consumers who are smart can tell the difference between a netbook and ultraportable. Those who are ignorant and less technically inclined though might make an all too common mistake.

I totally agree. Considering the majority of the folks reading these forums are more knowledgable on computers then the average joe, it surprises me that there are Macrumors.com readers who still cannot or refuse to distinguish the difference between an ultraportable and a netbook.

 

[a2applegirl]

I totally agree. Considering the majority of the folks reading these forums are more knowledgable on computers then the average joe, it surprises me that there are Macrumors.com readers who still cannot or refuse to distinguish the difference between an ultraportable and a netbook.

I am quite educated I assure you. The first netbooks were using Window's xp and had less than a gig of ram, and less than 50gb of storage. Gradually, the specs on them improved and the line between a netbook and an ultraportable notebook went away.

If you look at the Sony Vaio laptops, they are the epitome of what used to be called an "ultraportable". They are expensive, light, and have a recent version of Windows (as opposed to xp) and a full complement of ports. Memory is maxed at 2gb for their ultraportables, and their flash based harddrives are smaller than the ones you would find in a full sized laptop.

If you look as asus and acer, who make what is considered the epitome of netbooks, the specs are pretty much the same as the sony specs now. The line has blurred and even gone away. The acer and asus netbooks now carry 2 gigs ram, windows 7, a full complement of ports, and a larger harddrive.

So from where I am sitting I do not see a difference.

 

[KnightWRX]

I am quite educated I assure you. The first netbooks were using Window's xp and had less than a gig of ram, and less than 50gb of storage.

The first Netbook, the Asus eeePC shipped in 2007 as model 700, initially shipped with Xandros Linux as its operating system. Windows XP came later after Microsoft saw the success of these things. It was a direct response to the success that OLPC had with it's 1 for the price 2 deal on XO-1s (Yes, that is correct, you bought 2, you received 1 and a child in a poor country got the 2nd). OLPC being a non-profit did not want to market the cheap laptops (and really, the XO-1 is barely what you could call a laptop, it's mostly an educational tool) to consumers and so Asus saw there a potential market.

This is the origin of the netbook, a smallish computer at less 200-300$ that could be used mostly to surf the web and read e-mail. The name netbook actually came much later and was nailed by media precisely because these machines had limited capabilities that mostly just permitted surfing the net.

So just your 2 initial phrases here have shown that you do not really follow this industry and actually know about the history behind Netbooks.