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.
Why 1" laptops?
- Thread starter Alonzo1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why not?Alonzo1 said:
They're definitely a lot more attractive than those 2-4 inch Windows portables that are out there. I can't believe people actually buy those things.
Apple are unlikely to produce a portable brick in Steve Job's tenure. 1" is a marketing ploy admittedly, but the ethos behind it is a sound one. They want to produce a laptop that is a comprimise between four key areas:
I want a laptop that is a comprimise between four things:
And I think that most people on this forum would agree with me.
The only possible thing I can think of that would require a brick sized laptop is a games machine. Why I would want a portable games machine I am not sure as it will always be less powerful than a desktop fully configured. I want computing power on the road, not gaming power.
- Power
- Size
- Weight
- Extensibility
I want a laptop that is a comprimise between four things:
- Power
- Size
- Weight
- Extensibility
And I think that most people on this forum would agree with me.
The only possible thing I can think of that would require a brick sized laptop is a games machine. Why I would want a portable games machine I am not sure as it will always be less powerful than a desktop fully configured. I want computing power on the road, not gaming power.
evilgEEk said:Why not?
They're definitely a lot more attractive than those 2-4 inch Windows portables that are out there. I can't believe people actually buy those things.
I agree.
I guess my real question is: for all laptops in general, is 1" the balance between power and design?
On another note,
I do intensive things like video editing and 3D animation, and it would be convienient for me to give my projects that kind of mobility.
Alonzo1 said:
Now that is something I want to see to. I only ever have a laptop as I cannot be bothered to lock myself away in a room away from my family to muck around on a computer when doing the general day-to-day stuff. Secondly I cannot afford 2 machines...
So I want the MBP for video editing and it is important that it handle it comfortably, preferably with absolute ease..... we will see.
Shipping date is today in the UK, although I would put a large chunk of money on a bet that states that nobody in the UK is going to receive an email today stating that their order has been shipped.
25 mm is a good compromise between small size and performance, considering that laptop hard drives have a height of around 9-12 mm. Need some room for cooling and all that.
Alonzo1 said:
Apple arnt making 1'' laptops! You cant do anything on a 1'' screen. I think you're getting mixed up with the iPod- even their screens are bigger then that.
Are you being serious? The 1'' refers to the thickness of the laptop, not the size of the screen.geese said:
The thinner the better I say.
Well I wish they could have made them a bit thicker. The current MacBook Pros are too thin to be able to fit a DL 8x Superdrive.
I look forward to the 17inch version in a month or two. Hopefully that will include a faster CPU (2.13Ghz) and a DL Superdrive (or even a BlueRay drive).
I look forward to the 17inch version in a month or two. Hopefully that will include a faster CPU (2.13Ghz) and a DL Superdrive (or even a BlueRay drive).
hvfsl said:
Is this really the reason the MBP has no DL drive? I find it hard to believe that Apple decided to forego the drive in order to chop off ... what... about 1.5 mm of thickness, vis-à-vis the last PB 15"?
It's the rumor. No one can has thought up a better idea of why the DL drives are gone.mkrishnan said:
grapes911 said:It's the rumor. No one can has thought up a better idea of why the DL drives are gone.
Interesting.
It's hard for me to believe, but I guess I wouldn't put it past Apple. This reminds me that I need to buy some recordable DVDs and christen *my* DL drive in my iMac.
grapes911 said:It's the rumor. No one can has thought up a better idea of why the DL drives are gone.
I can, the DL media is almost non-existent (at least around here) and when I can find it its alot more expensive than the regular single layer. also the dual layers are 1/2 the speed writing to DL media. Thats why I think they are gone, they are useless.
I recently watched the MacBreak ep. from MWSF. During the interview with the Apple rep, it is mentioned that the size of DL drives is too big - basically the industry doesn't produce anything suitable.
DL was a transition media. It was a temporary fix for the time between SL and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.
It's still so expensive that it's about $2/disc at the cheapest i've seen. You can get a single layer for $0.30. Why would you want to do it. Plus, when I've attempted to rip movies onto a DL, they never worked right. I guess they had problems with the layers and the burning process.
It's still so expensive that it's about $2/disc at the cheapest i've seen. You can get a single layer for $0.30. Why would you want to do it. Plus, when I've attempted to rip movies onto a DL, they never worked right. I guess they had problems with the layers and the burning process.
Is this a joke? No kidding they are more expensive. I wouldn't say they are non-existent. They are in every computer store. If they are so useless, why did Apple keep them in other product lines? It seems to me a useless product would be totally removed.NWAMacTech said:
I could see Apple thinking: Hmmm....the DL drives don't fit. The non-DL drives do. Since they are not used as much let's leave them out of this revision and hopefully we can added them again in the near future.
grapes911 said:
Also, keeping them in the lines allowed those who do use them to keep using them, and it kept people from whining about them being gone, like they are now.
grapes911 said:
The way I understood it, DL was always part of the read DVD spec. Aren't there lots of DVD movies that are DL? So I have a hard time seeing DL as a transitional format. Eventually, one of the two HD formats will win. But either way, you're guaranteed that DL will work, because it's part of the original core DVD format. Or is this completely wrong?
I think you are right because I know for a fact that some PS2 games are DL and they even work on the first PS2 release. I don't even remember hearing about DL back then, but obviously someone had the foresight to allow older DVD-ROM drives to read DL. I believe this is true with movies too.
grapes911 said:
Some movie cases say that there may be a slight pause during layer changes, or something to this effect. I think this is what they're referring to.