Macbook Air is a big deal

[jp700p]

$999 is kinda out of my budget, so i'm waiting for someone to build an affordable laptop that I can put into stand-by mode aka "instant-on". I agree with cnet (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20020245-1.html) saying its not really the deal of the century. I have tried out Acer Timeline, but its way too underpowered (can't game anything) and feels very plastic. Doesn't feel $899. Just looking at the Macbook Air looks like it costs more then $999.

I definately agree that its the future of laptops (http://techyalert.com/?p=87). But i'm pissed that its still using the old core 2 duo processors (http://dvice.com/archives/2010/10/the-new-macbook.php). Why couldn't they shove something more modern? I feel like if i'm paying $1000, could they have at least used a modified i3 core?

But then again, the iPad was brushed off as an ipod touch on steroids. And we know how that went.

 

[xper]

You dont want that computer due to the fact that it is a poor gaming machine? well the Air will not be the right for you either.

 

[jp700p]

You dont want that computer due to the fact that it is a poor gaming machine? well the Air will not be the right for you either.

The Air has a 320M. I have a MBP 13" 2009 and I game fine on it (On low settings). However, drive space might be an issue. Games now a days take up at least 8GB space. A few of those and your done on the MBA.

 

[xper]

The Air has a 320M. I have a MBP 13" 2009 and I game fine on it (On low settings). However, drive space might be an issue. Games now a days take up at least 8GB space. A few of those and your done on the MBA.

Yes and how fun is gaming with crappy graphics, yes sure the 320M is pretty speedy but if you only can game on low settings it ruins the whole gaming experience, atlest for me it does.

 

[C64]

I definately agree that its the future of laptops (http://techyalert.com/?p=87). But i'm pissed that its still using the old core 2 duo processors (http://dvice.com/archives/2010/10/the-new-macbook.php). Why couldn't they shove something more modern? I feel like if i'm paying $1000, could they have at least used a modified i3 core?

As Alex Lindsay (http://www.twit.tv) says: Apple is a 90/90 company: what do 90% of the people do/need/use 90% of the time? Nowadays, the CPU isn't the bottle neck of the computer anymore. It's as simple as that. Most people only use a fraction of the C2D power. Yes, there are new cores available, but it doesn't anyone really needs it.

The real bottle neck is the hard drive. And using flash storage solves a lot of problems for most of the people out there. Especially for those using the machine for relatively light work. Flash storage is faaast, and with day-to-day stuff you'll notice this way more than a minimal C2D vs i3 difference. Also, flash storage means OS X can swap to this fast storage when it runs out of RAM, solving a lot of slow downs.

The times that you could simply compare GHzs and CPU types are long gone. It's a combination of all the components, and the ones in the new MBA are pretty good. These "puppies" are fast.