Many people have pointed out the fact that the footprint of the MacBook Air is no smaller than the regular MacBook as a flaw, claiming that it's not a true ultraportable because of this. Obviously, Apple decided to do a different direction than many ultraportables, and wanted a full-size keyboard and screen, opting for thinness over a smaller footprint. Personally, I think that was a pretty good choice--it offers a different kind of ultraportable from the others out on the market. At the same time, I think it would be pretty cool if Apple also released at 12" MacBook Pro to replace the old 12" PowerBook. For my own use, I see the usefulness of a thin, light computer over a smaller footprint in that I'm going to be carrying a bag anyway. My bag also has notebooks in it and possibly textbooks, all of which are at the very least the same footprint size as the MacBook Air, so a smaller footprint wouldn't help me any, while the thinness may mean I could carry an extra textbook or a few more notebooks. Also, I'm not sure I could justify sacrificing much more screen real estate (for my purposes) just to have a smaller footprint, which won't help me much. Now obviously, many others disagree, and want a smaller footprint, not seeing the point of thinness. I'm wondering how a smaller footprint is very useful, which is why I'm asking (not saying it isn't, just curious why people like what they do). So I'd like to hear what everyone here's reasons are for wanting what they do. Do you prefer small footprint or thinness? Which do you find more useful, and why? Edit for wordmunger's point: Also, who finds weight most important, and how do all three influence your decisions?