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.
MacBook, MacBook Pro and Ultra-Portable Updates
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can do this already through wifi/ethernet Although it doesn't work for movie DVDs because of the copy protection used.
Has everyone forgot about the patent that apple recently filed for the bottom loading disc drive? It wasn't a slot loading drive but a sort of old school disc tray that opens when you flip the computer over. Perhaps this is going to be on the ultraportable, instead of there being no disc drive at all.
Heres an article
Heres an article
wnurse
Could I diffidently suggest you (re)read my post? Here's a point by point version:
1 I'm doing academic presentations on the road, not watching DVDs for leisure.
2 I often have to use QT files and other media (audio files, largish PP files etc) in these presentations.
3 The people who commission me to do these presentations send me this stuff on DVDs.
4 I copy the QT files (etc) from the DVD to my hard drive.
5 I run the stuff from my laptop and thus don't need the optical drive.
6 I erase the stuff when I get home and load up the next presentation.
Just to recap the main points:
- I use my laptop for work, not leisure
- I'm not copying movie DVDs to my laptop
- the DVDs I copy to it, and use, are for work, and are not movie DVDs
- there are more than 5 of us who use our laptops like this, who need maximum portability, who have another computer (or other device) for watching our movie DVDs on, and who really don't need an optical drive when we are out on the road at work. We have that home.
I don't think so, I'm starting to see the point of an ultraportable (it's clearly not for me), as far as ports go, it probably should have USB and Firewire (I think you want to be able to plug in a mouse and an external drive.).
TBH Thinking a bit more I don't think a 13.3" ultra would hold many advantages over the MB currently, so I'm not convinced.
I also think that the MB not going to Santa Rosa sounds fishy too. I think AppleInsider may have been fed a lie.
dude - just get an external. I rarely use my optical drive. You obviously wouldn't be the target market. Optical is not needed.
laptop drive suck. use an external, put it onto a HD of some sort. Even a USB stick!!
Optical drives in notebooks are awful. Noisey. Don't need it!
Without an optical drive, how are you supposed to add your favorite apps? If this rumor is true, then Apple better think of a pretty nifty way to get new applications onto it. (Like an online downloading service where you pay for it, and then download the whole application. And i see this especially possible because of the way Apple thinks EVERYONE has a T3 connection at home. Kinda like how they think downloading movies off of iTunes only takes a matter of hours) Unless Apple feels like keeping all the applications closed to only Apple supplied programs. *cough cough, iPhone* oh...excuse me, I think I may have caught something...
Does anyone else remember the optical drive beneath the computer idea we heard about?
Would suit me - I NEVER use my drive!
Apple might impose a special Apple care, my point I was trying (and looking at it now failed!) to get across was that it might be an optional extra...
Why not 802.11n for the external optical?
And remember the patent posting about optical drives placed bottom center of an ultra-portable?
Besides, how often does anyone reinstall an OS from an optical disc anyway? In 7 years I think I have done it twice. This isn't windows.
Rocketman
I find the hubub about an ultraportable not having an optical drive rather ironic. Does anyone remember when the first iMac came out, the big colorful bubble ones way back in the day, and the controvery over them not having an internal floppy drive? People were up in arms!
Floppys were obsolete. CDs and DVDs are not.
I was just thinking that if this was a small 11" ultraportable with a 2.5" hard disk (not 1.8 as they are too slow), I could make it my only computer given the Core 2 Duo. I'm not really interested in having a 13" Macbook as my only computer as I don't really need a laptop, but I could see myself carrying something smaller every day to watch videos in a reasonably sized screen.
I was just thinking that if this was a small 11" ultraportable with a 2.5" hard disk (not 1.8 as they are too slow), I could make it my only computer given the Core 2 Duo. I'm not really interested in having a 13" Macbook as my only computer as I don't really need a laptop, but I could see myself carrying something smaller every day to watch videos in a reasonably sized screen.
1. Portable audio work. Recording and such.
2. Screen Real estate for Logic.
3. i do walk around with it and such, it is just a little heavy to walk around with ALL of the time.
4. I teach afterschool and if i ever show DVDs, my comp is the player because the program is not so organized. bigger=better with 5-10 kids.
Such as the AppleTV... for instance...?! However, if your on the move - since its a laptop - this option will probably, not of course, be available.
Personally, only time I've used a CD for is to import music, mostly. Most of my software comes from internet ( shareware / freeware etc ).
Unless broadband wireless IS available in which case it's the better option for some people.
And Apple would like you to get most of your movies from iTMS too in the very near future.
because it costs quite a bit money to miniaturize electonics. it would be very easy to make a laptop that was 2 inches thick. it would be considerbly more expensive to make 1 inch thick laptop. and it would cost even more to make even thinner laptop. then we need to remember that ultraportables quite often use ultra low voltage-version of the cpu, and those cost extra.
making portable electronics small and light costs money. and smaller and lighter it is, more expensive it gets.
How thin can you go?
I can imagine a thin laptop being much more subceptible to bending and cracking of the screen, specialy with large screens like a 13 incher one.
Let see: 1/2 inch laptop, carried in a fairly stiff case surrounded by 4 inches of dense foam. Stll light but bulky to carry.
As the screen becomes smaller, the ratio of the screen size to the total thickness is reduced so it is less flexible (in the bending/warping sense).
13 inch is way too big, but great on the eyes and resolution.
12 and 11 is more reasonable but it is not usable by a lot of people over 30 years old without a magnifying glass.
Young ones will have great success with an 11 incher, but us older folks will need to stick with 13, 15, 17 normal laptops.
I am most definitly not in the market for an ultra, for me I like desktop replacement laptops like the 15 and 17 as my eyes are bad and I need the screen real state for photo work and video work.
To the young folks, enjoy the ultra and protect it well.
I can imagine a thin laptop being much more subceptible to bending and cracking of the screen, specialy with large screens like a 13 incher one.
Let see: 1/2 inch laptop, carried in a fairly stiff case surrounded by 4 inches of dense foam. Stll light but bulky to carry.
As the screen becomes smaller, the ratio of the screen size to the total thickness is reduced so it is less flexible (in the bending/warping sense).
13 inch is way too big, but great on the eyes and resolution.
12 and 11 is more reasonable but it is not usable by a lot of people over 30 years old without a magnifying glass.
Young ones will have great success with an 11 incher, but us older folks will need to stick with 13, 15, 17 normal laptops.
I am most definitly not in the market for an ultra, for me I like desktop replacement laptops like the 15 and 17 as my eyes are bad and I need the screen real state for photo work and video work.
To the young folks, enjoy the ultra and protect it well.
Well it doesn't take rocket science to go out and buy one. They are running pretty cheap these days.
"Ultra-Portable" with 13" screen?
I really don't see how a portable with a 13" screen can be described as "Ultra-Portable", no matter how thin it is.
You forgot about the resolution-independant interface for Leopard and beyond. In fact, the smaller the pixels are, the better it will be.
I really don't see how a portable with a 13" screen can be described as "Ultra-Portable", no matter how thin it is.
EagerDragon said:
You forgot about the resolution-independant interface for Leopard and beyond. In fact, the smaller the pixels are, the better it will be.
I'd really encourage you to try to spend a significant period of time using a Sony TX and then decide whether you could use one as your only computer.
Also, the 11" TX is thick enough as it is, relatively, and uses a 1.8" HD because the form factor doesn't even allow for a full 2.5" drive. Putting a 2.5" drive in an 11" screen laptop would sort of defeat the purpose.
-Zadillo
At the time, floppies were not considered obsolete, at least not in the Windows world. Apple's rejection of the floppy drive and mass marketing of a read/write optical drive was one of the factors that lead to the floppy drive's obsolescence.
As for marketing an ultraportable as an only computer, this is unlikely. The size of an ultraportable limits its usability to some extent. The target market is professionals who have a desktop Mac at home and want something to use while commuting, IMO. The key features will focus on syncing data with your home computer.
Yes, LED backlit displays are brighter. If you are near a CompUSA, BestBuy, SonyStyle store, or other store that carries Sony laptops, look for the premium SZ Vaio laptops (models like the SZ370, SZ460, etc..... any model number SZ350 or SZ450 and above.... models like the SZ430 are non-premium and have non-LED backlit screens) or the Sony TX. These both use LED-backlit screens and give you an idea of what we are in store for.