I would love to get a 13in MBA to complement my Vaio TT, but a C2D cpu with a nvidia 320m gpu with only 256mb of shared ram isn't appealing to me. Now if it had a 1gb of non-shared ram or the 320m with a better newer cpu I would for sure get one. An extra ram slot would be nice, so would the option for a matte screen. I could save my cash for the Vaio Z(I hear I can get one for $1650 new for a base, which is fine for me), and would love to get one, but making OSX fully work is a bit more work than I like. I already have a windows machine, and I like the MBA because it runs OSX easily and is compact.
If Apple wants better performance and lower power usage, why didn't they go with the ATI gpu, like something like the switchable 5350 combo(with an integrated ATI gpu)? I know the 13in Acer TimelineX is getting something like 8-9 hours with the full i5 cpu(not LV or ULV) and switchable ATI 5670 combo.
Agreed. But a lot of this is more appealing as a tech/geek "number" than real usage requirements. I remember reading about the actual VRAM used by most apps, games, and etc. It is very rare that more than 256 MB of VRAM is successfully used especially by any app most Mac users are using. In addition, 512 MB of VRAM shows about 8% improvement in speed in the very most VRAM intensive games. One GB of VRAM is even less useful... meaning the ROI for the cost of the VRAM is a waste.
However, the MBA right now would be a lot better if it had 256 MB of VRAM dedicated and another 2 GB of system RAM. Don't get me wrong, 2 GB is insufficient either way, but I see a problem with Windows 7 and OS X running at the same time without enough RAM to run the BARE MINIMUM amounts of system RAM of 1 GB per OS.
We all wish the MBA could accept a dedicated graphics card, along with 1 GB of VRAM, but would we really use it? I doubt it. How about 256 MB of dedicated RAM and 4 GB of system RAM... absolutely a lot more useful. If a dedicated card will not fit in the MBA, there is no point beating the issue. The thing is, let's have SJ tell us if that's the point... we know dedicated would fit in the 13" MBP, but we also know Apple uses one chipset/GPU across all 13" Mac notebooks and the iMac 21" and Mac mini that use the same chipsets. So it all comes down to one product that works across all of its Macs that use the smaller chipset/form factors.
I believe the problem we're all having is that we're not getting even HALF of what we're paying for. And Apple looks at this as an opportunity to sell us something that they don't have to pay for because we're not going to use it anyways. So let's say Apple cannot successfully implement a dedicated card within the TDP of the entire system... a real possibility especially with a Low Voltage card. If Apple switched to the ultra low voltage Arrandale CPUs we would lose a lot in total system performance. We would drop down to a 1.2 GHz CPU. Is that a real solution? I don't think so.
I believe the other problem we're all having is we all want progress. We all remember exactly what the MBA was when introduced in October 2008... it was the best ultraportable and beat every competitor in every single feature. Now, competitors can beat the MBA at every single feature. We want Apple to update it to provide us with the competitive advantage in our MBAs over every bit of the competition, and we want our money to be worth it for a new MBA. Apple is disappointing us, and let's face it the iPhone OS has killed Apple's care for the Mac. Even if Apple still wants to make the Mac a success, Apple and Jobs are so much more focused on the iPhone OS products that it leaves little time to give a damn about the Mac let alone the MBA.
I never thought I would say this, but I believe Apple should just go back to being a Mac computer company. Perhaps Apple would be better off to split itself into two companies or at least two very differently focused and completely split divisions with their own goals and strategies focusing on how each does individually with almost zero cross-platform workers, managers, and executives... one Mac OS X computer company and one consumer electronics company. Seriously, I am not joking here. If we had two Apple companies, we would still get the servicing and competition from the Mac computers on one side without interfering or taking from the iPhone OS products. The biggest proof that this is the problem is the factual reporting that Apple has dedicated nearly its entire workforce in terms of engineers, programmers, and etc, into working on iPhone OS products to ensure their success. OS X 10.7 has been put on the backburner, and it's completely obvious that the Pro Mac users have been put on the backburner too. Apple and Jobs have forgotten that the Mac users built this company and more importantly the branding, and Jobs has completely failed the Mac users time and time again ever since introducing his ***** iPhone OS.
In addition, the LUXURY competitive advantage of Macs are quickly going away. Forget about the professionals for a minute... how about the luxury of owning a Mac like the MBA... the competitors have all caught up. Luxury is the super thinness of the MBA, the backlit keyboard, the LED backlit display, the aluminum case that looks cool, the lightweight form factor yet full display and keyboard, and even mini display port to drive a 30" ACD. All of these features are quickly becoming available on other ultraportables. In addition, all of the competitive advantages of OS X are gone. Perhaps Apple has given up on the computer market? It just wants to sell low-end products that appeal to consumers. What happened to all of the BTO options on Macs? The MBA has NONE. MBPs have fewer and fewer.
Either way, us Mac users are going to have to adjust or migrate over to competitive products like Sony offers. I suspect other brands will successfully challenge in these luxury markets. There are a lot of people willing to spend a lot of money to get the computers and components we want. It doesn't matter if we don't use all of those components capabilities, when we're paying Apple thousands of dollars for Macs we expect exactly what we're paying for... the advantage! These advantages are all of the little things like backlit keyboard, and all of the big things like CPU, graphics, and BluRay. The advantages are much greater on a computer like Sony's Vaio Z, and that's why Apple has gone so wrong! Apple used to have all of the advantages, but it's quickly losing all of those advantages.
just made 250 Million in revenue from iPad sales... I think they have their priorities straight 
