Yeah, full Mac OS X does have significant hardware requirements, and I don't think Snow Leopard will lower them a lot.
+10,000
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 Touch?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who is the target market for an iphone? Or any smartphone for that matter. Didn't pagers work just fine? and why do we need email? can't we just walk to the person's house and talk to them? Don't ask stupid questions.
It's not really a dumb question if you calm down and open your mind.
It's not like this device is solving a problem that hasn't been solved yet, like email or cell phones did. This device isn't adding much to the pot, just slightly improving it for a very small number of people.
This product will come out after apple releases snow leopard. It will have a superdrive and an app store. It is not impossible in fact it's very possible. it wont have gps and it will have a low price. I called it.
I'd say $1799 is a realistic price point for a device with MacBook-like specs. There will probably be another model at $2099 or so.
I would not be surprised since the touch screen is such a big hit. Since the blue tooth option will be a standard a small keyboard option is not too bad.
We always hear that stuff, it ain't happenin'...
Like doctors and nurses?
I think a touch tablet could really take off in a medical setting.
We always hear that stuff, it ain't happenin'...
Please multi-quote, sir.
and I think you missed tgildred's [sarcasm] tags
Sorry about that, I condensed two into one...I guess I'm STILL missing them, where are they?
Like doctors and nurses?
I think a touch tablet could really take off in a medical setting.
Yeah, small market.
Absolute rubbish. For a number of reasons:
- App Store contains applications compiled natively for the iPhone's processor. The ARM processor. OSX runs on Intel processors, and an ARM port is stupid (they're slow, more rosetta transition problems).
- GPS is used because the iPhone is great for location aware applications. It's a handheld mobile device, so you might use it anywhere. OSX doesn't have these, and it doesn't need them - if you want location aware apps, buy an iPhone.
- Multitouch on a laptop is a bad idea. The only people who disagree are those idiot fanboys who think "cool technology + cool company = mega 1337" is a proper equation. Not only are there no OSX applications that take advantage of it, but the iPhone has shown that touch is only a good idea when other input devices are not practical. You couldn't use a mouse and keyboard for a handheld device, and physical buttons take too much space (which is very valuable on a device you have to fit in your pocket).
Touch doesn't work when the laptop is on a table, because you have to reach for it (arm strain). So the only use for touch is when it's not on a table - when the screen is right in front of your face. The only form factor that fits the bill is the tablet. But people don't want tablets - the market hasn't taken off at all. They're too big and heavy to lift in front of your face all the time, and you don't want to carry it around on your hip.
And then there's the problem of storage - what's the point in a laptop you have to keep close to your body, when you have to sit down and take it out of your bag? Just use the laptop on your lap. The tablet would either have to come with a special holster (nobody wants that), or fit in your pocket (like... erm... the iPhone).
The iPhone is the only place where touch technology makes any sense. A touch-enabled Mac may help the teenagers sleep at night, but it's a complete usability disaster.
- App Store contains applications compiled natively for the iPhone's processor. The ARM processor. OSX runs on Intel processors, and an ARM port is stupid (they're slow, more rosetta transition problems).
- GPS is used because the iPhone is great for location aware applications. It's a handheld mobile device, so you might use it anywhere. OSX doesn't have these, and it doesn't need them - if you want location aware apps, buy an iPhone.
- Multitouch on a laptop is a bad idea. The only people who disagree are those idiot fanboys who think "cool technology + cool company = mega 1337" is a proper equation. Not only are there no OSX applications that take advantage of it, but the iPhone has shown that touch is only a good idea when other input devices are not practical. You couldn't use a mouse and keyboard for a handheld device, and physical buttons take too much space (which is very valuable on a device you have to fit in your pocket).
Touch doesn't work when the laptop is on a table, because you have to reach for it (arm strain). So the only use for touch is when it's not on a table - when the screen is right in front of your face. The only form factor that fits the bill is the tablet. But people don't want tablets - the market hasn't taken off at all. They're too big and heavy to lift in front of your face all the time, and you don't want to carry it around on your hip.
And then there's the problem of storage - what's the point in a laptop you have to keep close to your body, when you have to sit down and take it out of your bag? Just use the laptop on your lap. The tablet would either have to come with a special holster (nobody wants that), or fit in your pocket (like... erm... the iPhone).
The iPhone is the only place where touch technology makes any sense. A touch-enabled Mac may help the teenagers sleep at night, but it's a complete usability disaster.
It's actually a rather large market with deep, deep, pockets.
The MBP and MBA ship with multi touch technology right now at it works great. It doesn't need to be limited to the screen.
I guess I'm STILL missing them, where are they?
You have to want to see them. When you truly believe... then they will present themselves to you.
Hehe.I read that in MacLife August or was it July that the speculated time of release of the Mac Tablet would be in 2010. Can they be wrong?
There is a 1600·900 13.3" screen available (for the upcoming Sony Z series).
iPods and iPhones have a much higher DPI than Macs.
Could this mean that 1600·900 screen may come to the Mac tablet?
That being said I think the rest of the specifications will be similar to the MacBook.
iPods and iPhones have a much higher DPI than Macs.
Could this mean that 1600·900 screen may come to the Mac tablet?
That being said I think the rest of the specifications will be similar to the MacBook.
hard enough?
Seriously though, with a few more tweaks I'd grab it too. I think it's only the pricepoint creating so many naysayers.
And if they don't put an optical drive in the MBA, I don't see how it'll appear in this hypothetical 7" iPhone stated in the OP. Makes no sense
Between iPhone and MBA, I think the angle's covered. I've maintained that since I don't know when.
Add a '1' in front and you've just about nailed it. It's almost certain to be priced between the MB and MBA, if true. $1299, if they really dig deep.$499-$799
And what do you think a Sudden Motion Sensor is? An accelerometer.
People have the common sense not to do that with the notebooks now. What would change?"slot-loading Superdrive" and "Accelerometer" in the same device won't play well together. Try violently shaking your MacBook while playing a DVD and see what happens.
A tablet would be a handheld, mobile device.
It's not a laptop, for one, and it's already being adopted in Apple notebooks, for two.
A touchscreen is not implemented at the application level.
You have to reach for a keyboard, too. This makes no sense.
What? It's a folio-sized device, roughly the size of a sheet of paper. You carry it or put it in your briefcase. It's too large for a holster, regardless of weight.
I'm not personally a fan of tablets myself, but if you use a laptop on your lap, you can use a tablet on your lap. There's no reason you'd have to hold it in the air straight in front of you or put it close to your face.
The problem is that existing tablets don't offer anything. They're just laptops with funny screens. Shed a few pounds and half an inch or more, develop multitouch into a functional paradigm as they've already gotten well underway (conventional touchscreens don't support rapid typing or complex mouse operations), and work it out to be a syncing device (like an iPhone), and suddenly it becomes a useful tool for some.
Y'all,
After 3 years with an HP TC1100 can say a tablet works. Scientific notation, journaling, reading books, surfing, etc. work. Need consistent handwriting and to teach it your own shorcuts, and, voila, works well. The battery is going and it is slow for multiple pages, excel and (simple) games but does work. Would buy an updated one - will definitely not pay the price of the modbook. Would like to try the modbook but $'s are a factor. Will buy over the current iphone. What say you?
After 3 years with an HP TC1100 can say a tablet works. Scientific notation, journaling, reading books, surfing, etc. work. Need consistent handwriting and to teach it your own shorcuts, and, voila, works well. The battery is going and it is slow for multiple pages, excel and (simple) games but does work. Would buy an updated one - will definitely not pay the price of the modbook. Would like to try the modbook but $'s are a factor. Will buy over the current iphone. What say you?
I guess an interesting idea but not one that I would be interested in buying
I enjoy my MBP with keyboard and iPhone the way it is. I like how the two are different as they both serve different functions
Not interested in a touch screen for my desktop or laptop in the future
I enjoy my MBP with keyboard and iPhone the way it is. I like how the two are different as they both serve different functions
Not interested in a touch screen for my desktop or laptop in the future
anyone seen this thing floating around yet?
That is one sexy thing!If it comes out, I'm gonna get it. hahaha
An interesting concept, but not possible with current technology. It would have to be bigger to support anything resembling a useful battery life and desktop OS X.
Not tremendously bigger, but noticeably. You're also more likely to get a read-only (or ~2x RW) optical drive in something that small, because of noise, vibration, and counterbalance problems. But that's probably fine, since it's not going to have great specs (RAM or storage space) for authoring discs anyway.