PDA

View Full Version : Macbook Air Specs leaked on Apple.com?


S600MBUSA
Jan 14, 2008, 06:48 PM
I didn't see this posted; anyone seen this. Fake or not? Supposed screenshot from Apple store. (http://www.macbookairblog.com/post/23698665)

Eidorian
Jan 14, 2008, 06:49 PM
The 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo and the SSD drive capacities are quite off for a thin computer.

An Intel LV/ULV with 32/64/128 GB SSD would have been somewhat more believable.

MacRonin
Jan 14, 2008, 06:55 PM
How about this optionů?

Apple Cinema SHD Display (40" flat panel) [add $2999]

Eric Lewis
Jan 14, 2008, 06:56 PM
look on apple.com/store


then click macbook

then black

configure and look its the same but the hard drive is different

fake

MHIoscar
Jan 14, 2008, 06:57 PM
:apple:

match311
Jan 14, 2008, 06:57 PM
Its good photoshop but not believable enough.

S600MBUSA
Jan 14, 2008, 07:06 PM
Well, for me, the thing that seems most suspicious is the 2.8 gHz chip. Seems like way too much energy use and heat for an ultraportable.

WildCowboy
Jan 14, 2008, 07:09 PM
Throw in a graphics card capable of running a 40" display and you've got a toaster on your hands.

gazfocus
Jan 14, 2008, 07:09 PM
could be real :confused:

MacRumorUser
Jan 14, 2008, 07:11 PM
60GB ? Not a chance

SSD available in increments like this...

4 / 8 / 16 / 32 / 64 / 128 / 256

Even if they could put two drive together to act as one there is still no chance of a 60GB using those calculations.



Fake....

gazfocus
Jan 14, 2008, 07:20 PM
Yeah, I think it's fake... The Ultra Portable Mac is most likely to have some low powered CPU, not a 2.8GHz...who you trying to kid?

I must admit, I love the idea, but to have that kind of CPU and be the same price as the current (past...depending when you're reading this) 2.2GHz Macbook Pro, is just a ridiculous idea.

scienide09
Jan 14, 2008, 07:21 PM
Clearly fake.

Read the descriptions of the BTO options -- they all say "MacBook", not "MacBook Air". It would make no sense to drop the model name, or give and incomplete name, when Apple is consistent everywhere else. The BTO options for the MBP all say "MacBook Pro" in their descriptions, and the same is true for the Mac Pro and iMac BTO options.

MacRumorUser
Jan 14, 2008, 07:22 PM
^ True. An ultra-portable is not meant to be a powerhouse desktop replacement workstation.

If were lucky we will have a 1.5 Core2Duo

2.8 not a chance in hell.

ClassicMac247
Jan 14, 2008, 07:24 PM
yes this was already posted, and the specs given are highly unlikely for a thin ultra portable laptop.

canucks-17
Jan 14, 2008, 07:26 PM
80GB SSD BTO, WTF? Have they even come out with that? I know theres 128GB

eliotschreiner
Jan 14, 2008, 07:34 PM
4 GB of memory? 2.8 GHz core 2 duo? A graphics card (which, by the way, isn't even noted) that could support a 40" monitor?

That's a stretch... to the moon and back.

WildPalms
Jan 14, 2008, 07:57 PM
Every customize page says "Customize your Mac."

It doesnt specify the model, as this screenshot does, and that seems fake.

Tallest Skil
Jan 14, 2008, 08:00 PM
4 / 8 / 16 / 32 / 64 / 128 / 256

Even if they could put two drive together to act as one there is still no chance of a 60GB using those calculations.

Um, I beg to differ.

32+16+8+4=60GB. *gasp* Apple's offering RAID 0+1 in the ultraportable! :D

eric55lv
Jan 14, 2008, 08:11 PM
But remember that also happened with the Power Mac G5 so it might be real

scienide09
Jan 14, 2008, 08:20 PM
Um, I beg to differ.

32+16+8+4=60GB. *gasp* Apple's offering RAID 0+1 in the ultraportable! :D

I saw that combination too. But the post you were quoting specifically said that there was no combination of putting two of them together to create 60 GB.
I don't think 4 separate SSD drives in one unit would help with the size issue.

gazfocus
Jan 14, 2008, 08:32 PM
lol would cost a bit more than the suggested $1999 with that many SSD drives

Mal
Jan 14, 2008, 11:38 PM
Sorry, but it's just a poor quality Photoshop. Take a look at the spacing before the pricing on the RAM versus the supposed SSD drives (which, as noted, don't exist in those sizes). Very poorly done.

jW

ArmyKnight12
Jan 15, 2008, 12:16 AM
garbage!

phungy
Jan 15, 2008, 12:22 AM
garbage!

I agree. Zoom in and you'll see the "SSD Solid State" font doesn't match.

w8ing4intelmacs
Jan 15, 2008, 01:05 AM
obviously a fake. i would have believed it if it were in an elevator though :)

bigjohn
Jan 15, 2008, 03:01 AM
Fake or not, I like the supposed form-factor, I don't like the price - $1999 for something with a max 32GB SSD drive?

We all gotta remember that this is a 'cool toy' not a 'high-powered machine'. I'd buy it today at $999, but for $1999 I'd buy something else, like my new Mac Pro or a better MacBook Pro or an LCD tv or anything else.

MacinDoc
Jan 15, 2008, 03:14 AM
Definitely would need to have a ULV processor. And a 64 GB flash drive. Fake.

aswitcher
Jan 15, 2008, 03:18 AM
Shame its a fake.