I don't get why millions of people can't understand CPU logic...

[KnightWRX]

Except in this example apple was the first to use technology, new technology in a way no other competitor had. Tying a music store to a massive mp3 player. There really wasn't any MP3 players that offered a hard drive. This was not playing it safe but taking a huge chance.

The Creative NOMAD Jukebox says you lie.

And the iPod wasn't a hit as soon as it launched, quite the contrary. It struggled immensely in that first year, being that it was tied to the Mac platform. Only when they caved a released a Windows version did the thing start selling.

This was all way before the iTunes Music Store.

 

[maflynn]

The Creative NOMAD Jukebox says you lie.

First off I take offense that you called me a liar, secondly it was a long time ago and its easy to get my facts wrong. There's a better way to continue a discussion without insulting me.

 

[Apple OC]

some people just want to ... keep up with the Jones'S

Apple has played this card since day one

 

[KPOM]

The Creative NOMAD Jukebox says you lie.

And the iPod wasn't a hit as soon as it launched, quite the contrary. It struggled immensely in that first year, being that it was tied to the Mac platform. Only when they caved a released a Windows version did the thing start selling.

This was all way before the iTunes Music Store.

I'd argue that Apple used Mac exclusivity to "get it right" before releasing the iPod to the larger market. I bought one of the original iPods before I even owned a Mac, and used one of the many workarounds to get it to run on my Windows PC. My first visit to an Apple Store was to get it reformatted when I screwed up with one of the early hacks.

It was clear to me in December 2001 that iPod would be eventually a hit, even though it wasn't a top seller two months after its much-hyped release. History may be repeating itself, albeit on a slower timescale, with the MacBook Air. It looked good when it was first released, but it took a few more iterations to take off.

Rumor has it that someone showed Bill Gates an iPod in October 2001 shortly after it was announced and that he was impressed with it. He was then told it was an Apple product, and at that point he realized MS had missed the boat.

 

[Rafterman]

some people just want to ... keep up with the Jones'S

To me, this is the biggest crock. I do not nor do I know anyone rich enough or shallow enough who buys things just to "keep up with the Jones's". Few people can afford to do that. People who say that are part of those "I'm too cool to get caught up in it" crowd, so they must belittle it. I don't mean to offend, but that phrase just gets me irritated. It implies the arrogance that because some people don't need something, then no one else does either and if they do get it, they are just shallow wannabes.

 

[Fuchal]

Everyone is trying to defend the Macbook Air's CPU and comparing it to the megahertz myth, but the fact of the matter is that Apple doesn't claim the Air is as fast as an i5 or i7 CPU. It is what it is, a peppy little mini-machine. It doesn't need to be a MacBook Pro, an iMac, and a netbook all in one.

If you need to crunch numbers all day, the Air is not your laptop. If you need an extremely portable little notebook, the Air is for you.

if you need an extremely portable little notebook with a 2.8Ghz i7 in it, the fact is you'll have to wait another 5 years.

 

[KPOM]

if you need an extremely portable little notebook with a 2.8Ghz i7 in it, the fact is you'll have to wait another 5 years.

I think it will come in another 2 years, myself. Sandy Bridge is coming next year, so I won't be surprised to see a Core i5 and decent GPU in something the size of the Air (perhaps the Air itself) next year.

 

[mark28]

A good analogy would be to compare to cars. Some people may think that a BMW M5 with 500 bhp should be faster than an Ariel Atom with 200 bhp and yet it isn't in either a straight line or a corner due to weight and grip.

I suppose the SSD could therefore be compared to removing a ton of weight or fitting super grippy tyres. People just need to realize that computer performance is governed by much more than processor speed but the marketing people told them for years that bigger numbers are automatically better.

Not really a good comparison. You can put a SSD also in those other laptops.

 

[Fuchal]

I think it will come in another 2 years, myself. Sandy Bridge is coming next year, so I won't be surprised to see a Core i5 and decent GPU in something the size of the Air (perhaps the Air itself) next year.

I guess the bigger question is will Apple be able to cool it properly?

 

[Apple OC]

To me, this is the biggest crock. I do not nor do I know anyone rich enough or shallow enough who buys things just to "keep up with the Jones's". Few people can afford to do that. People who say that are part of those "I'm too cool to get caught up in it" crowd, so they must belittle it. I don't mean to offend, but that phrase just gets me irritated. It implies the arrogance that because some people don't need something, then no one else does either and if they do get it, they are just shallow wannabes.

Maybe the Jones'S do not live in your neighbourhood ... but in Manhattan NewYork (pop. 10 million) and in Toronto (pop. 4 million) ... we have tons of Jones'S

 

[KPOM]

Not really a good comparison. You can put a SSD also in those other laptops.

You can also put grippy tires on a car that didn't come with them.

 

[darngooddesign]

So why do benchmarks show the 2.13 13" MBA only being 10% slower than the i5 15" MBP?

Because that test relied on disk performance and they compared it to an i5 with a regular drive. They did not test it against an i5 with a SSD. The tests they ran which were more CPU oriented the i5 was on average twice as fast as the maxed 13".

 

[andyd409]

Think for a moment about CPU speed vs. cost.

The bottom of the line MBA with 1.4 cost $999, the MBA with 128 GB cost $1199 (the only 11.6 with 1.6 GHz as an option) so in order to get the 1.6 GHz you have to upgrade to the 128 GB MBA (not a bad thing, just the way it is) then $100 more for the 1.6 GHz CPU which is not much change from the 1.4 GHz CPU.

I seem to remember some advice someone once told me about upgrading the CPU. The advice was that the upgrade was only worth doing if there was at least a 50 percent increase in CPU speed. This upgrade did not pass that criteria, in fact the only upgrade strictly from a clock speed point of view that comes within the criteria is when one considers the upgrade from the 1.4 GHz to he 2.13 GHz CPU (ignore screen size for the moment), but that upgrade would cost $700. From just a CPU speed that doesn’t seem cost effective. Yeah, for the extra $700 you get 192 GB more flash and a bigger screen (does everyone want the bigger screen/computer size? Not me, I just want maximum portability).

So thinking just about the incremental upgrades, none of them seem cost effective to me as none of the incremental upgrades are great boosts in performance.

As many have posted it seems more cost effective to upgrade the RAM to 4GB and the flash to 128 GB (or 256 GB) than to upgrade the CPU.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy

 

[hmg]

I wonder what has changed in general computing (software & usage) recently that requires us to have CPUs that are significantly faster than the ones form 2 years ago? 2 years ago our computers were fast enough for video editing, cd ripping, developing (Xcode), music etc... What "we" were always waiting for was disk access and that has now been fixed by using SSDs.''
I get that if you're a hardcore gamer you might want some box that gives you 5 more frames/sec than the next guy, but for just about anything else a few seconds (or percentage points) per task just does not matter!

 

[KPOM]

I wonder what has changed in general computing (software & usage) recently that requires us to have CPUs that are significantly faster than the ones form 2 years ago? 2 years ago our computers were fast enough for video editing, cd ripping, developing (Xcode), music etc... What "we" were always waiting for was disk access and that has now been fixed by using SSDs.''

Computing power is like time. Projects always fill up whatever is available.

Faster processors make efficient programming less "necessary." At least clock speeds seem to have hit a brick wall around 3GHz. Then things shifted to cores, dedicated GPUs, and now to I/O (with the new Core 2010 designs). Meanwhile, clock speeds largely have been scaled back in the name of power consumption.

SSD is a major leap forward, and it's becoming mainstream. The release of the Air with no standard hard drive option is a watershed event. For years disk speeds were the major bottleneck. Now that SSDs are a solution, it will be on to the next bottleneck.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

From a pure pure computational standpoint. The i5 or any new processor wins. But in real life performance, that number translation isn't one to one.

This is why netbooks are as popular as they are.. because people are realizing what they really need. I think it it just bothers more people than others because of the price tag, but when you consider what you get, its not that bad of deal. you get and overall computational experience thats pretty good.

 

[dacapo]

Now that SSDs are a solution, it will be on to the next bottleneck.

Just curious, what is that "next bottleneck"?

(And I'm not talking about USB2, because that's an external port. I'm talking about the internal performance.)

 

[dgree03]

From a pure pure computational standpoint. The i5 or any new processor wins. But in real life performance, that number translation isn't one to one.

This is why netbooks are as popular as they are.. because people are realizing what they really need. I think it it just bothers more people than others because of the price tag, but when you consider what you get, its not that bad of deal. you get and overall computational experience thats pretty good.

How many netbooks cost $999 entry level?

And the one "ultra portable" that does cost that much destroys the 11.6 MBA.

Dell MX11.

I think the attraction to the MBA is just the looks and obviously OSX(to people who have used it).

Heck I am attracted to the MBA. Does mean that it is up to snuff spec wise with other players in the game.

 

[robeddie]

If Intel and Nvidia ever sort out their little issue then we will see ULV i3,i5 etc inside the rest of the Macbook range until then just because it is running on 'outdated' technology does not make it redundant.

Hell I am selling my Z11 maxed out with 8gb of ram for one of these MBA's and after playing around with one in my local apple store it felt just as snappy as my Z11 with an i5-520m inside it.

CPU performance is a very small part of the over all performance of the laptop and SSD's to me are much more of a benefit then a few MHZ's

+1

And worth repeating, IMO

 

[darngooddesign]

It's the same with notebooks. Apple was one of the last to release a subnotebook. Air was a game-changer in terms of industrial design in 2008. Now it's a game-changer because Jobs is making it mainstream, and pushing SSDs as mainstream storage solutions.

1992 - Powerbook Duo
1997 - Powerbook 2400c

The Creative NOMAD Jukebox says you lie...

First off I take offense that you called me a liar, secondly it was a long time ago and its easy to get my facts wrong. There's a better way to continue a discussion without insulting me.

He didn't call you a liar, the Creative NOMAD did.

 

[snorkelman]

How many netbooks cost $999 entry level?

And the one "ultra portable" that does cost that much destroys the 11.6 MBA.

Dell MX11.

I think the attraction to the MBA is just the looks and obviously OSX(to people who have used it).

it weighs just over 2 kilos the 11"MBA weighs just over one.

If you can live without OSX and bear 1.5 kilos or more, then sure there's plenty of choices from 6 or 700 bucks and up that will give you the same or more bang for your bucks with a similar desktop foot print, longer battery life ethernet etc.

But if you're looking at the 'tops out around a kilo' bracket there isn't

 

[aberrero]

If it's so sane, can you point to these comparable PCs with either better specs or lower prices ?

I think I covered a bunch earlier, yet you people keep insisting these mythical ultra portables that crush the MBA exist.

Seriously, time to backup your claims kids.

I wouldn't need to back up my claims if you would just do research instead of posting things trying to prove yourself correct. You already found all the evidence against you, now it is just time to read it.

First you talked about the M11x having a C2d CPU, yes, the old model and low end model do, but the $950 model has a Core i5UM. Same form factor, same dedicated nvidia card, new processor technology. Alienware seemed to have no trouble upgrading their systems or fitting a dedicated GPU in a small form factor. Same with Sony on the Z.

Then you criticized the Core processors for having low clock speeds, but clearly you haven't looked at their specs. The M11x has a choice of a 1.066ghz i5 and 1.2ghz i7. Why are these OK but 1.4Ghz C2d isn't?

Because they have turbo mode, and the i5 will run at 1.866Ghz and the i7 will run at 2.266Ghz. The C2D is stuck at 1.4Ghz all the time.

The other thing is the integrated memory controller. This is basically the single biggest way to improve a CPUs efficiency, it is what allowed AMD to be competitive with Intel for so long, and it is what allowed Intel to jump ahead when they added it (this was in 2008, BTW, and the CPUs in the MBA still don't have it). Add to that the Hyperthreading, which makes the dual core look like a quad core, and now you have a significantly faster system, somewhere around 20-25% faster at the same clockspeed. This is why the 2.4Ghz i5 can run circles around the 2.8Ghz C2D in the old MBP15.

 

[aberrero]

As many have posted it seems more cost effective to upgrade the RAM to 4GB and the flash to 128 GB (or 256 GB) than to upgrade the CPU.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy

This is why you should get the base 13". There is a pretty big difference in benchmarks between the 1.4ghz and 1.86Ghz. Yes, the 1.6Ghz isn't worth it, but you are much better off getting a 13", 1.86, 2GB ram than to get an 11" with a 1.4Ghz and 4GB ram(unless you are doing one of only a handful of tasks that requires lots of ram but little CPU power).

 

[hmg]

Faster processors make efficient programming less "necessary."

There is never an excuse for that, but at least we don't have to hand-optimize 68K assembly anymore! Hahaha

 

[drjsway]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)



Seems to me like you're the one who doesn't understand CPU "logic". The 1.4 ghz c2d is not only half the clock speed of the a typical pc purchase, but an entire generation behind.

So yes, maybe the speed limit is 40 mph. But the v12 SUV will get you to 40 faster than the hybrid civic, and do it while carrying your family.

And you can easily buy a *faster and better* SSD than what apple offers right off of newegg to throw into that machine with the i5 or i7.

The point isn't that the MBA is fast. It's not fast... At all. The point is that this isn't a notebook for people that are looking for speed. They don't need the SUV.

Speed is why I have an i7 desktop. The MBA's internals are horribly slow... But the form factor is unparalleled. That's they key.

CPU = Top Speed
SSD = Acceleration

Yes, the MacBook Air will get you to 40 faster than your i7 desktop if you don't have a SSD.