John Jacob said:
The PB17 was 1" thick, the PB15 was 1.1" and the PB12 was 1.2". If you have ever seen the iBook-12" and the PB-12" side-by-side, there is a HUGE difference in portability (even if there wasn't all that much of a difference in specs).
Actually, the 15" and 17" were both 1" thick, the 12" PB was 1.1" or 1.2" thick, while the iBook was 1.3" thick, so that "huge difference in portability" between 12" iBook and 12" PB was only 0.1" or maybe 0.2". Didn't seem like much before, either.
And chances are, I wouldnt notice the weight difference between my 13" MB and a lighter 13" MacBook unless the significance was huge, and that would almost be impossible if the case was sturdy. They could make it cheap ass, but I'd rather they give me something good. If they made it carbon fibre, the cost would increase and they'd save like 0.4 lbs or something.
And besides, all internal components of the MBs and other WinPC laptops is going to be around the same, so unless Apple starts using lower capacity HDs, or smaller 1.8" HDs in laptops, or
10.4" (!!) screens, I don't think going from 13.3" to 12" makes a difference.
Piarco said:
Hence no 13.3" MBP. God knows I'd get one if it had a dedicated GPU. As it stands I'll have to move to a MBP unless the next major MB upgrade is Aperture compliant. Which unfortunately I doubt.
If it was aperture compliant, it would also need a higher resolution screen. And besides the technical requirements, in practical terms, the resolution of the MB isn't really high enough to use Aperture effectively.....not unless you use an external monitor. Imagine a 13" laptop with such a high resolution. The text would be painfully small.
On the other hand, Adobe Lightroom runs well, isn't slow, and actually handles RAW files better than Aperture. It also offers more editing functions.
