Yea I agree with this guy in saying I don't believe apple has any need or want to make a computer thats more affordable, especially since they really don't have to since their market share is growing more and more.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EEE-like MacBook Air?
- Thread starter gaetanomarano
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yea I agree with this guy in saying I don't believe apple has any need or want to make a computer thats more affordable, especially since they really don't have to since their market share is growing more and more.
How about a notebook called the macbook mini? With a 10 or 11 inch screen, 32gb ssd that would leave 22gb left after you have put osx on it. And you could have that over the air optical drive borrowing thing. Ow yer and it would be in that nice durable black macbook plastic to separate it from the air.
Yer I no im dreaming but that would awsome
Yer I no im dreaming but that would awsome
Apple don't do 'cheap'
Even if they did release a mini note you could almost guarantee it will be $900 + or more.. and people will still buy it.
If only HP hadn't screwed up the 2133 with the Via processor, it would have been a perfect powerbook styled mini or a poor choice of linux that doesn't even support the 2133's hardware fully
... curses them.The MSI Wind already looks like a miniature MacBook clone as it is
http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/view_message/30480059
and with just a tad more work you can get this
http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/view_message/30489548
Come on, let's cut the "underpowered", "too small", "not full featured", crap. Who wouldn't buy this
http://gizmodo.com/5020490/msi-wind-running-mac-os-x-also-thinks-its-a-mac-pro
if Apple sold it for $700 with OS X instead of MSI for $600 with Windows/Linux? Let's be honest, the only reason Apple doesn't do it is that it would cannibalize their more profitable models. Not because there is not enough interest or demand, or that it isn't useful/usable enough.
http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/view_message/30480059
and with just a tad more work you can get this
http://gathering.tweakers.net/forum/view_message/30489548
Come on, let's cut the "underpowered", "too small", "not full featured", crap. Who wouldn't buy this
http://gizmodo.com/5020490/msi-wind-running-mac-os-x-also-thinks-its-a-mac-pro
if Apple sold it for $700 with OS X instead of MSI for $600 with Windows/Linux? Let's be honest, the only reason Apple doesn't do it is that it would cannibalize their more profitable models. Not because there is not enough interest or demand, or that it isn't useful/usable enough.
Here's the thing: the EEE is hugely successful because its ultra portable, tiny, and cheap. I bought my 2g surf for studying at the library, watching movies, etc, and it works perfectly. It doesn't replace my macbook, nor would I expect it to.
If it were over 500, I probably wouldn't have bought it. It's perfect as a tiny extra machine. I don't mind using linux, I like learning a little bit more about a new OS. In the future, assuming mini notebooks keep up somewhat with tech trends, I could see myself replacing my macbook with a nice iMac or mac mini setup, and then getting a slightly more powerful netbook for surfing around and portability reasons.
I don't see Apple doing this for less than 500, though...it's just not their style. Only way I could see it happen is if they bundled it with a desktop: buy an iMac, get a portable minimacbook for 500, or something like that. Throw in mobile me and you can keep them up to date with each other easily. Since Apple has something against using bluetooth keyboards on the iPhone (WHY? Seriously. Would make it 900x better), they could bridge that ultraportable gap easily. But that's the only way I'd see them offering it at anything affordable.
If it were over 500, I probably wouldn't have bought it. It's perfect as a tiny extra machine. I don't mind using linux, I like learning a little bit more about a new OS. In the future, assuming mini notebooks keep up somewhat with tech trends, I could see myself replacing my macbook with a nice iMac or mac mini setup, and then getting a slightly more powerful netbook for surfing around and portability reasons.
I don't see Apple doing this for less than 500, though...it's just not their style. Only way I could see it happen is if they bundled it with a desktop: buy an iMac, get a portable minimacbook for 500, or something like that. Throw in mobile me and you can keep them up to date with each other easily. Since Apple has something against using bluetooth keyboards on the iPhone (WHY? Seriously. Would make it 900x better), they could bridge that ultraportable gap easily. But that's the only way I'd see them offering it at anything affordable.
It really pisses me off that Apple appears to be totally ignoring a huge market for small notebooks. The MSI Wind and EEE 901 have everything I need in a notebook. The problem is that Windows apps tend to be low-quality, and I have grown dependent on programs like Adium, OmniOutliner, OmniGraffle, Pages, Keynote, etc. as a student. These don't have similar-quality counterparts on Windows.
Basically I feel like Apple has abandoned innovation in the computer field. Previous Macs put useability and design first. The MB and MBP have been stagnant for years except for speed bumps. The MBA is good for bragging rights but ultimately useless for me, thanks to its huge footprint and crap battery life.
Ultimately, Asus and other manufacturers took Apple's place in leading the next hardware frontier, but they don't have the execution that Apple can do. And even if they had well-executed hardware designs (the Wind comes very close), the software will always let it down.
Give me a slower, smaller, longer-running laptop anyday. Who the hell needs even 1.6ghz to write papers or manipulate spreadsheets? (Well, that is arguable if you are using Numbers)
Basically I feel like Apple has abandoned innovation in the computer field. Previous Macs put useability and design first. The MB and MBP have been stagnant for years except for speed bumps. The MBA is good for bragging rights but ultimately useless for me, thanks to its huge footprint and crap battery life.
Ultimately, Asus and other manufacturers took Apple's place in leading the next hardware frontier, but they don't have the execution that Apple can do. And even if they had well-executed hardware designs (the Wind comes very close), the software will always let it down.
Give me a slower, smaller, longer-running laptop anyday. Who the hell needs even 1.6ghz to write papers or manipulate spreadsheets? (Well, that is arguable if you are using Numbers)
...its now called the intel atom processor and my eeePC1000H is on the way - to bridge the gap between my old computer and the MB update when ever it may happen
So does the MacBook Air. Undoubtedly. That's why it has a 13.3" screen and a full-size keyboard like on bigger notebooks or Desktop PCs. Battery life is only worse-than-could-be cause Apple needed a strong dual-core CPU for OS X (10.5), Rosetta and marketing purposes, and Intel didn't have anything better.
I believe, with Apple you can pretty much take one thing for granted:
They won't do crappy user interfaces by design.
They might charge some steep amounts on their hardware or service.
They might cut down on components (HD size, RAM, PC Card slots).
But again: They won't do crappy user interfaces by design.
That's why the MacBook Air got a 13.3"-widescreen display with comfortable resolution and a normal-sized keyboard. With Apps like MS Office, the menu bar wasn't always wide enough on my PowerBook 12" some years ago. And that has not exactly gotten better with Leopard. Unless they modify the OS X itself, the user experience just won't be on the same level on some 9-inch screen. But modifying OS X in that way would (almost) be the same as establishing a third extendable software platform (to complement the classic OS X platform and the iPhone/iPod touch platform). Something I cannot see them to do soon.
For pretty much the same reason does the iPod shuffle lack a display (it's just does not deliver a great user experience), or was Apple so reluctant to let the iPod have video support back then (small screen, insufficient CPU?, short battery runtime = no great user experience). They'll rather omit something or won't cater to a specific market than compromise on some things, especially user interfaces. And 9" screens are a so-so compromise (at least they're cheap).
The Air, with its full sized screen and keyboard, has significantly better usebility than some toy-sized 80% keyboard.
I think you're missing the point. It might be slim and light, but ultra portable it isn't.
AppliedMicro, you took the words right out of my mouth.
If a mini-laptop is going to run Mac OS X without serious limitations, then it'll be expensive and large (≈10", ≈$1000). Smaller than the MacBook Air, sure, but still much larger than an Eee or similar device. Such a device might cater to the "MacBook Air is not an ultra-portable" crowd, which is good, but I think a 11" MacBook Air might work just as well as that mini-laptop.
If a mini-laptop is going to reduce its hardware specs to minimize size and price (≈$500, ≈8"), then there'll be big sacrifices. You could barely multitask iLife and iWork without seriously lagging, and everything would be really cramped on the 800·500 (or whatever) display. The OS and apps themselves would take up many GB's of space that take away from the flash storage. You won't be running Photoshop or anything like that on the device, and at that point, why not just use the iPhone OS? It's designed for mobile devices, and I'm sure it can be extended to support multitasking, iLife, iWork, tabs, etc. A much better user experience with a significantly smaller footprint. Which comes to the next point.
This is another reason why, assuming Apple makes an iPhone OS mini-tablet, it will not just be an iPod touch with a bigger display.
I don't think Mac OS X on a mini-laptop would be a good user experience.
iMovie classic requires a 1024·768 display, and iWork's Contextual Format Bar needs a 1280·x display to fit its entire width. In iTunes 7's Album Art view, you can only see two full album art thumbnails at once on 1024·768 (default thumbnail size).
And it won't with Snow Leopard either. Snow Leopard will, however, reduce OS X's footprint, but it's not enough for a handheld device.
If a mini-laptop is going to run Mac OS X without serious limitations, then it'll be expensive and large (≈10", ≈$1000). Smaller than the MacBook Air, sure, but still much larger than an Eee or similar device. Such a device might cater to the "MacBook Air is not an ultra-portable" crowd, which is good, but I think a 11" MacBook Air might work just as well as that mini-laptop.
If a mini-laptop is going to reduce its hardware specs to minimize size and price (≈$500, ≈8"), then there'll be big sacrifices. You could barely multitask iLife and iWork without seriously lagging, and everything would be really cramped on the 800·500 (or whatever) display. The OS and apps themselves would take up many GB's of space that take away from the flash storage. You won't be running Photoshop or anything like that on the device, and at that point, why not just use the iPhone OS? It's designed for mobile devices, and I'm sure it can be extended to support multitasking, iLife, iWork, tabs, etc. A much better user experience with a significantly smaller footprint. Which comes to the next point.
Apple doesn't do hybrids. A product is either all the way in one area, or all the way in another. Nothing in-between. And a mini-laptop or tablet running Mac OS X is a really good definition of an in-between device.
This is another reason why, assuming Apple makes an iPhone OS mini-tablet, it will not just be an iPod touch with a bigger display.
The original point was that Apple sacrificed usibility with the Air's design, but because of its full sized keyboard and screen they didn't. If the point had been that the air is too large to be considered an ultraportable then I would agree. They only sacrificed the ability to call it ultraportable.
With Netbook-sized machines defining what is considered to be ultraportable I think we need a new category for those porky 11" laptops. When you now have a 8" laptops there is no way you can consider 11" and 12" ultra portable. Its just more portable. We could take an existing term and make it extra snazzy by messing with the capitalization, subNOTE maybe?
since when has apple been about stripped back computers with less than normal functionality, come on there will never be a mac notebook slower than the macbook!!!
The Duo series and the original iBooks all had fewer ports compared to the full sized Powerbooks. The 2400c needed a separate floppy. I found them all great to use, but the 2400's 80% keyboard really was a pain to use for anything much and I have slim fingers.
included in the OP's list is the idea that Apple would sell this ultra portable for half the price of the Air......and that's exactly why what he wants will never happen! if it did, I would buy one!
I considered an eee for a bit but then I got a chance to try one.......ouch! talk about SLOW !!!!
I considered an eee for a bit but then I got a chance to try one.......ouch! talk about SLOW !!!!
And it runs Linux or Windows XP. An Apple version with Mac OS X would be even slower, and that's why Apple won't release an Eee-like Mac.
...yes they are if you were trying any model lower than the 901/1000...they only had 900 Mhz celeron processors in them...
...the 901/1000 have the new 45 Nm Intel Atom processor in them and they can be over clocked to 1.9 Ghz via user interface and max out at 2 GB of DDR2 RAM as well...
How much of a sacrifice is that?
Depends on how you define "portable"...
For me, it's more about weight than size.
Regarding size, portability is a rather "binary" concept, so to speak:
a) Does it (comfortably) fit into my pants pocket? Yes or no?
b) Does it fit into my small backback I carry to university, or into my briefcase / business case I carry to work? Yes or no?*
Any serious backpack, briefcase etc. is of course designed to hold a few files and sheets or a small folder, "A4" sheet size it is called in Europe (≈ 8" x 12").* And the MacBook Air goes beautifully alongside them in the bag, especially since it's s thin. We have all seen the TV ad, have we? Now, if Apple would make the footprint 10, 20 or even 50% smaller, the product doesn't get better in my opinion - it rather gets worse! Screen size and / or resolution and keyboard will be smaller, the cooling system will be less efficient, etc.
To cut it short: Larger is better, as long as it fits into a briefcase or similar.
Unless, of course, I can put the thing into my trousers, and carry it on my body all-day, like an iPhone.
No need to make the MBA smaller.*
Regarding weight, less is always better, unless too much stability and sturdiness is sacrified. But mind you, the MacBook Air weighs in at about the same as the 10" Asus EEE (which I think is more about affordability and weight than size; it's not very thin either).
I don't see Apple, offering anything "in-between" soon.
And frankly, except for maybe the price point, I don't really miss anything there in Apple's line-up.
I would welcome some price drop for the MBA however
* women with their fashionable but often smaller handbags might disagree in that regard though
I agree with AppliedMirco. I have an EeeePC which I used before I bought my Air. I just found it too small to type on an the screen was a joke. Not enough resolution and too hard to read. It was still too big to carry in my pocket so it went in the bag. The Air is a proper computer. Does everything I need, has a real keyboard, the screen is devine, is not much heavier than the Eeeee and fits in the same bag.
I keep an iPhone3G in my pocket for those time when I want instant email and web access.
I keep an iPhone3G in my pocket for those time when I want instant email and web access.
That is a *very* small segment of the market you're talking about... it is also a segment of the market where no device has been successful.
Apple genius is evolution in developed (or at the very least, developing) market segments.
Maybe this will help:
Also think about the iPhone and iPod touch. If the SSDs increase in capacity and the OS shrinks in demands then we get closer to a fully functioning computer in a small form factor - and if the rear touch area ever becomes a reality that would also be a great boost too. Once workable and convenient versions of Excel, Word, etc. or equivalents are on this machine it covers the majority of business needs - of course you'll never be able to use InDesign, Illustrator or Photoshop, etc. but the majority of everyday users don't anyway, they type a document and email it off.
...which would probably take at least considerable months, if not years, as the functionality is apparently non-existent. And I strongly doubt Apple to have given Microsoft (a potential rival in this market) inside information about an upcoming device as this.
And there's only so much much scope to shrink user interfaces. Common word documents, PDFs and the like are formatted to fit onto a standard sheet of paper, printed - which probably isn't going to change anytime soon. Unless you equip users with magnifying glasses or "beam" contents directly in user's eyes, there is no elegant and consistent way to shrink them. Granted, Apples Safari zooming technique is pretty nifty - but this works on web sites, containing few textual information.
Am I going to flick through dozens of pages of Word documents or PDFs zooming in and out on some 4" or 5" screen? Definitely not. Not even on a smallish 9" if I can avoid that...
And things like toolbars, palettes, and sidebars generally have a fixed width, making a lower limit on the size of the display they are on.
the first 701. I know the new ones are faster and bigger but the Air still rules.