Problem with bigger screens is that they suck power. The more resolution, the more horsepower you need to drive a screen, which slows things down.
The screen in the Zenbook Prime does consume more energy than the screen in the MacBook Air, but I don't know by how much. It is brighter and has a higher resolution; of course it is a better screen, a much better one. The trade-off is that it sucks more battery, but I don't think the difference would be huge.
As for horsepower, the integrated video card used by Intel in Ivy Bridge processors (the HD 4000) is more than enough to handle either 1440x900 or 1920x1080 resolutions, so, in any case, the laptop will not suffer from slowdowns. Of course the 1920x1080 screen sucks more horsepower, but the difference will be negligible with the HD 4000. It can even handle the 2560x1600 resolution of the 13-inch MacBook Air with a retina display (although, in that case, a better video card would be desirable). Be aware, however, that you won't be able to play games with your MacBook Air/Zenbook Prime, because they are not meant to, and the video card is not powerful enough.
The good thing about the Mac Air, is that it is so beautifully built, and its beautiful to use. And that is not a Mac OS X - its the hardware. The touch pad is a world apart, and that is something you use all the time. Like - all the time. Its such a basic difference, its weird that Apple have been allowed to have such a huge advantage. Same too with the keyboard.
You should test the keyboard and trackpad yourself at a store. As I said, the keyboard in the first-gen Asus Zenbook was much worse than MacBook Air's, but it has been dramatically improved. As for the trackpad, it's great in the MAcBook Air, but that's also because software works so well with it.
But if you prefer an external mouse on a notebook, then the Asus comes more into the picture.
Depending on how trackpad drivers for Zenbook Prime are under Windows 8, a mouse may be very helpful.
The issue with Mac Airs, is that if you upgrade them heaps, they loose their great value. Although the 8GB of Ram is a mandatory upgrade. Not so sure about going up to 256 SSD though ... if you can handle an external mini USB-3 drive, then that might be more valuable. But looking at them in the shop - yeh, they have heaps of appeal. But in the real world, they are not there yet.
If you plan to run Windows on a virtual machine, then the upgrade to 8 GB RAM and 256 GB of SSD are something you should consider.
Curious the previous user likes the Mac Pro 13" Retina. Fact is there's not enough horsepower to drive those screens, they have to many pixels. The next generation will be the one to consider.
Yes, I do like it. The HD 4000 provides enough horsepower to run the 13-inch MacBook Pro with a retina display. I haven't noticed any lag while testing it at the store and I haven't seen many complaints here (although I have seen some). The big issue seems to be when you use the 1680x1050 mode, and the video card has to render a 3360x2100 resolution. Depending on the kind of applications you wish to run at 2560x1600, however, the integrated video card may be a problem.
The next generation will be equipped with Haswell, which will bring a much faster video card. It will certainly have more than enough horsepower to drive such high resolutions without gripe.
The bottom line is that there certainly is some debate on whether the integrated video card is enough to handle 2560x1600. But, if you're not considering the 13-inch MacBook Pro with a retina display, the HD 4000 is more than enough to run either 1440x900 or 1920x1080, unless you have some specific graphic needs.
Incidentally, the Mac Air's screen, although not as bright, is still very good and it has more anti-glare in it than other Apple 13" notebook displays.
Yes, it is good, but far from great. But it pales in comparison with the one of the Zenbook Prime. And you can't even compare it with the one in the 13-inch retina model. Other models have also superseded it. Just compare them at a store. There's no match. But that will depend on how important the screen is for you, of course.
Also, Asus are not over engineered. Apple notebooks are. And using alloy in the body work is far from what Apple do - they use a special alloy that they have a unique source of, and they mill it from a blank piece. The milling increases the strength of the alloy expotentially, providing a superior product from other technologies.
Someone posted some reviews. CNet's from this month, has comparison charts - the Air won easily the key comparisons, and was with small margins in the one's it did not win.
http://www.cnet.com/laptops/asus-zenbook-ux32a-db31/4505-3121_7-35372459-2.html
As for the reviews, they always express the subjective opinions of the reviewers. Pay attention to the details. Things that are important to the reviewer may not be for you, and vice-versa. Both are very good laptops, and you have to weigh which one is the better for you. There's no one-size-fits-all.
Go to a store, look at them side-by-side, test the screen, the speakers, the keyboard and the trackpad and choose the one that feels better for you. This real-world experience is very important.
And consider depreciation - the Air's don't fall in value very much at all, and when compared to Asus etc, they are much cheaper to buy, if one considers the spectacular fall in value that an Asus carries.
Macs tend to devaluate less than other brands. That is important if you keep your laptop for 2 years and then wants to exchange it. However, if you are going to stick with the laptop for 4 or 5 years, the price which you will get in 2017 for selling it will be so low, anyway, that the difference will be negligible.
So if you are happy to buy the Asus, buy one second hand, they are so much much cheaper. If you dare.
If you dare. As the laptop is kind of new, I don't know if there are too many second hand for sale...
) that is on its last legs and needs to be replaced.
