Warming-up for the all-new redesigned retina 2014 (2015?) MacBook Air

[skaertus]

do we think that a 12 inch retina mba screen would be too small for applications such as office etc. ive read the screen would measure around 11.88 inch marginally larger than a current 11mba. or am i mistaken here would such a high resolution actually magnify screen real estate if you see what i mean. i have an imac and need a road machine to go with it and the current mba with 512ssd at current price is tempting its just the screen quality again.

The 11.88-inch screen was not even a rumor. It was just a piece written by an analyst explaining why he thinks an 11.88-inch MacBook Air would make sense. The article is not based on any factual evidence, so it is probably just pure fiction. The link to the article is here: https://www.macrumors.com/2014/01/25/12-inch-retina-macbook-air/

However, there are credible rumors from suppliers that a 12-inch MacBook Air would debut sometime in 2014 or 2015. This screen is supposed to have a screen resolution of 2304x1440, but this is not confirmed. Such a screen would have a 16:10 format, which is the same ratio as the screen in the 13-inch MacBook Air and the 13 and 15-inch MacBook Pros. This screen format is more suitable for productivity apps then the 16:9 format used by the 11-inch MacBook Air and by nearly every Windows laptop.

Comparison between a 16:9 11.6-inch screen (11-inch Air) and a 16:10 12-inch screen: http://www.displaywars.com/11,6-inch-16x9-vs-12-inch-16x10

Comparison between a 16:10 13.3-inch screen (13-inch Air and Pro) and a 16:10 12-inch screen: http://www.displaywars.com/13,3-inch-16x10-vs-12-inch-16x10

Comparison between a 16:9 13.3-inch screen (most Windows laptops) and a 16:10 12-inch screen: http://www.displaywars.com/13,3-inch-16x9-vs-12-inch-16x10

Take your own conclusions.

 

[chleuasme]

The 11.88-inch screen was not even a rumor. It was just a piece written by an analyst explaining why he thinks an 11.88-inch MacBook Air would make sense. The article is not based on any factual evidence, so it is probably just pure fiction. The link to the article is here: https://www.macrumors.com/2014/01/25/12-inch-retina-macbook-air/

People were talking about this screen size and resolution before that particular guy wrote his piece and MB published an article based on it. The internet is larger than MR.

However, there are credible rumors from suppliers that a 12-inch MacBook Air would debut sometime in 2014 or 2015. This screen is supposed to have a screen resolution of 2304x1440, but this is not confirmed.

You conveniently omit to post the link to the ONLY source of this resolution rumor, from another analyst: https://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/0...n-on-apples-display-plans-for-future-devices/
The accuracy is low. They got wrong the resolution of the 4.7" iPhone, wrong the size of the 5.5" iPhone, wrong the release date of the iPhone 6, wrong the size of the Apple Watch two screens and release date, they tell us a larger iPad is coming (let's see), they tell us is coming two Apple TV sets (likely not credible Apple would release a TV set).

There is no other rumor with that size and resolution, that is the only one. We already had that discussion before.
But maybe this report can represent something, maybe that's been unit tests or prototypes, maybe some elements will reveal true (not everything is wrong in this report).
How can it be not confirmed but credible?! Yes, it's easy to make sense of it, relating it to the pixel density of rMBPs. But we can suppose it's exactly how an analyst would have come up to this resolution, just as it's easy to derive a 11.88" 16:9 screen doubling the current resolution of an rMBA11 and using the pixel density of the iPad Air.

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=19267885#post19267885

You propose 2304x1440 as the resolution for the screen of a 12" Air.
An height of 720 px would suck for OS X. The current 11.6" Air is already a pain to use with only 768 px. Even the iPad has 768 px vertically in landscape.
Yes, you can use scaled resolution on retina screens with OS X. But that’s not really great. The base resolution would still be a very constrained environment and a bad experience for the random user not changing the scaling. The default would suck.
I don’t see Apple releasing any laptop with less than 768 px vertically.

A 1280x800 or a 1366x768 screen with a pixel density around 110-130 ppi are mainly equivalent, they have the same count of pixel, the difference is aspect ratio and then comfort differences for some tasks.
A 1152x720 resolution would be a huge step back, we'd be in netbook territory.

 

[chleuasme]

oops, double post

 

[Moonjumper]

There are finally some news about the new MacBook Air. It appears that the next Air will indeed be fanless, and it will be so thin that there will not be space for the current ports, which will be sacrificed in favour of smaller ones.

The new USB Type C port is much better than the old styles, so I wouldn't call it a sacrifice. They also allow 100W, so the power adaptor could use a USB port, and have a pass-through for a data connection device.

 

[skaertus]

You conveniently omit to post the link to the ONLY source of this resolution rumor, from another analyst: https://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/0...n-on-apples-display-plans-for-future-devices/
The accuracy is low. They got wrong the resolution of the 4.7" iPhone, wrong the size of the 5.5" iPhone, wrong the release date of the iPhone 6, wrong the size of the Apple Watch two screens and release date, they tell us a larger iPad is coming (let's see), they tell us is coming two Apple TV sets (likely not credible Apple would release a TV set).

The sizes of the iPhone 6 were indeed wrong.

However, a 12-inch MacBook Air would indeed make sense. If Apple plans to release a laptop with a 16:10 aspect ratio, then 12-inch would be the minimum to accomodate the keyboard without a large frame around the screen edges: http://www.displaywars.com/11,6-inch-16x9-vs-12-inch-16x10

In fact, Apple would need a screen larger, than exact 12-inch, perhaps 12.5-inch.

A 11.88-inch screen, either 16:9 or 16:10, would not be large enough to allow the full-sized keyboard without large bezels such as the one in the 11.6-inch Air.

A 13.3-inch screen, or larger, would not make sense as the current 13.3-inch Pro already occupies that spot. To keep two 13.3-inch laptops – the Pro and the Air – made sense in the past because they were different things. The Pro was more powerful, had more hard disk space, and had an optical disk drive. The Air was thinner and lighter and had a faster SSD drive instead. Now, the retina Pro merged many of these attributes, and another 13.3-inch does not make much sense here.

So, that leaves us with the 12-inch range. As for the screen resolution, 2304x1440 is the only one that came up so far. And it matches both the screen ration (16:10) and the pixel density of the larger retina Pro models. A 1152x720 aspect ratio would indeed be far from ideal, but it does not need to necessarily use that, since the screen allows for other screen ratios as well and should go as far as 1440x900. But, of course, nothing is confirmed yet and the laptop can have a different screen resolution. Given the need for Apple to keep battery life on the high side, I do not know how would it achieve that by using an even higher resolution screen (such as 2560x1600 or 2880x1800).

 

[chleuasme]

Seeing how are already packed on a rMBP13 the trackpad, the keyboard, and the screen hinge, it's hard to imagine a new variant with a smaller 12" screen without 1. compensating around the screen with large bezels (cf MBA11, screens have same width), 2. eating on the trackpad (cf MBA11, the 13.3" screen is 18mm taller) to gain vertical space, and 3. at best eat around half an inch on the side of the keyboard to gain in width (cf MBA11). Or you'd end up with the footprint of a rMBP13.

The screen of a rMBP13 is more than an inch wider than a 1152 px wide screen at the same pixel density as the MBPs. The rMBP13 can't get much narrower or it would have to be thicker I guess, because the different ports and the keyboard need room concurrently.
One solution to get a thinner bezel on the side of the keyboard, or even lose it, would be to move the ports behind the screen (usability) or on the side of the trackpad (thickness). Or remove every ports (... or that's where the last USB revision is interesting, not being as deep as the current port).

At least, at constant height, a 16:9 screen is wider than a 8:5 screen. And that's probably the reason Apple chose this aspect ratio for its smaller MBA, despite usability issues with a screen with little vertical space, but with a sensible screen area difference vs the 13.3" MBA's screen.
But at constant width, a 8:5 screen then taller than a 16:9 screen (12" vs 11.6") would not give a laptop much different than the MBA11 (even if its screen is 17 mm taller) without having to sacrifice trackpad and ports, and close to a rMBP13 (screen 18 mm taller).

Well, all that to say a 11.6" 16:9, a 11.8" 8:5, a 11.9" 16:9 or a 12" 8:5 screen would probably not make much of a difference, the constraints are very similar and imply same trade-offs. The value of the Air line is lightness.

 

[skaertus]

Seeing how are already packed on a rMBP13 the trackpad, the keyboard, and the screen hinge, it's hard to imagine a new variant with a smaller 12" screen without 1. compensating around the screen with large bezels (cf MBA11, screens have same width), 2. eating on the trackpad (cf MBA11, the 13.3" screen is 18mm taller) to gain vertical space, and 3. at best eat around half an inch on the side of the keyboard to gain in width (cf MBA11). Or you'd end up with the footprint of a rMBP13.

The screen of a rMBP13 is more than an inch wider than a 1152 px wide screen at the same pixel density as the MBPs. The rMBP13 can't get much narrower or it would have to be thicker I guess, because the different ports and the keyboard need room concurrently.
One solution to get a thinner bezel on the side of the keyboard, or even lose it, would be to move the ports behind the screen (usability) or on the side of the trackpad (thickness). Or remove every ports (... or that's where the last USB revision is interesting, not being as deep as the current port).

At least, at constant height, a 16:9 screen is wider than a 8:5 screen. And that's probably the reason Apple chose this aspect ratio for its smaller MBA, despite usability issues with a screen with little vertical space, but with a sensible screen area difference vs the 13.3" MBA's screen.
But at constant width, a 8:5 screen then taller than a 16:9 screen (12" vs 11.6") would not give a laptop much different than the MBA11 (even if its screen is 17 mm taller) without having to sacrifice trackpad and ports, and close to a rMBP13 (screen 18 mm taller).

Well, all that to say a 11.6" 16:9, a 11.8" 8:5, a 11.9" 16:9 or a 12" 8:5 screen would probably not make much of a difference, the constraints are very similar and imply same trade-offs. The value of the Air line is lightness.

I agree. But what if Apple chooses a 12.5-inch screen instead of a 12-inch one? Wouldn't it allow a thinner bezel and a full-sized trackpad? Look at this comparison: http://www.displaywars.com/12,5-inch-16x10-vs-11,6-inch-16x9

A 12.5-inch screen is still much smaller than the 13.3-inch of the Pro, but bigger enough than the 11.6-inch. Would you think this is feasible?

As for the resolution, it is still a wild card. I have seen no reports about the resolution apart from that one I mentioned before.

What would be your guess on the screen size, aspect ratio and resolution of the forthcoming Air?

 

[chleuasme]

what if Apple chooses a 12.5-inch screen instead of a 12-inch one? Wouldn't it allow a thinner bezel and a full-sized trackpad

A 12.5-inch screen is still much smaller than the 13.3-inch of the Pro, but bigger enough than the 11.6-inch. Would you think this is feasible?

Hey, you're the one coming over and over with a 12" 2x 1152x720 screen. Of course a larger screen would make many things possible.

Considering we approximately have 1280x800~1366x768 and 1440x900~1520x855,
We could say 11.6" 16:9 is equivalent to 11.35" 8:5 and 13.3" 8:5 is equivalent to 13.66" 16:9,
And then if we want only one screen size between the two current Air models, we have either 12.3" 8:5 or 12.6" 16:9 as perfect choices in the middle, and then, for example 1366x854 or 1440x810 at about 130 ppi to respect the range of pixel densities of current 1x Airs.

But anyway I don't think it's the right approach to the problem, ofc =)

[And well, we'd then get a larger resolution than the [r]MBP13 with the example above, which would be even more awkward than now when the Air line at least exists with two models.
That makes in definitive 1366x768 a more viable choice to me, say under 12.5" to keep it compact, giving the same screen estate as the [r]MBP13 but in 16:9 and with a slightly higher pixel density around 130 ppi (and potentially at 2x).]

What would be your guess on the screen size, aspect ratio and resolution of the forthcoming Air?

Letting aside iOS laptop discussions we had page 25 =) I think they still need a lower-end line of laptop, the one that the Air became. I consider Apple won't make a ~12" rMBP, they won't approach lower prices this way.

I've no idea what's in their plans, if they want one size as rumored or two sizes as now. I don't know if continuing with 15W TDP chips would allow them to differentiate to an hypothetical rMBP12 (i mean, that's probably what they'd have to use) and the pro line other than with size. I don't know if lower TDP intel chips have finally enough horsepower for a decent desktop experience with OS X.

If Core M chips are the thing and in the plans, one could imagine just as now two sizes of screen (the same two size or different ones, and it's never been a problem for Apple to sell two 13" models Air and Pro), or follow the rumors with a seducing simplification of the offer with only a third size smaller than the Pro line (and it could be anything under 13", see last example above, the differentiation would not be anyway on the size of the screen, but on the body type i.e. ultra-ultra thinness).

My problem is with the idea of a 1152x720 Core M based netbook, that sounds really like a bad idea, you can't do anything serious on OS X with such a small resolution. I have a really hard time considering anything under 1280x800 or 1366x768; these resolutions are already very limiting.
I'd welcome as proposed before in the thread a big revamp of the Pro line with a switch in resolutions to incorporate a smaller size: 11.8" 2560x1600, 13.3" 2880x1800, 15.4" 3360x2100. But they'd still need a low-end line of laptops (either Core M or why not iOS+ARM) built around thinness and then lower expectations on performances.
Maybe they simply will keep the same as now, but as the Pro line translated to thinner bodies with the switch to retina making the distinction more tenuous (MBA13 vs rMBP13), they will do the same to their Air line with same two models with the help of Core M building "thinner than ever" new MacBooks.

 

[skaertus]

Hey, you're the one coming over and over with a 12" 2x 1152x720 screen. Of course a larger screen would make many things possible.

Considering we approximately have 1280x800~1366x768 and 1440x900~1520x855,
We could say 11.6" 16:9 is equivalent to 11.35" 8:5 and 13.3" 8:5 is equivalent to 13.66" 16:9,
And then if we want only one screen size between the two current Air models, we have either 12.3" 8:5 or 12.6" 16:9 as perfect choices in the middle, and then, for example 1366x854 or 1440x810 at about 130 ppi to respect the range of pixel densities of current 1x Airs.

But anyway I don't think it's the right approach to the problem, ofc =)

[And well, we'd then get a larger resolution than the [r]MBP13 with the example above, which would be even more awkward than now when the Air line at least exists with two models.
That makes in definitive 1366x768 a more viable choice to me, say under 12.5" to keep it compact, giving the same screen estate as the [r]MBP13 but in 16:9 and with a slightly higher pixel density around 130 ppi (and potentially at 2x).]



Letting aside iOS laptop discussions we had page 25 =) I think they still need a lower-end line of laptop, the one that the Air became. I consider Apple won't make a ~12" rMBP, they won't approach lower prices this way.

I've no idea what's in their plans, if they want one size as rumored or two sizes as now. I don't know if continuing with 15W TDP chips would allow them to differentiate to an hypothetical rMBP12 (i mean, that's probably what they'd have to use) and the pro line other than with size. I don't know if lower TDP intel chips have finally enough horsepower for a decent desktop experience with OS X.

If Core M chips are the thing and in the plans, one could imagine just as now two sizes of screen (the same two size or different ones, and it's never been a problem for Apple to sell two 13" models Air and Pro), or follow the rumors with a seducing simplification of the offer with only a third size smaller than the Pro line (and it could be anything under 13", see last example above, the differentiation would not be anyway on the size of the screen, but on the body type i.e. ultra-ultra thinness).

My problem is with the idea of a 1152x720 Core M based netbook, that sounds really like a bad idea, you can't do anything serious on OS X with such a small resolution. I have a really hard time considering anything under 1280x800 or 1366x768; these resolutions are already very limiting.
I'd welcome as proposed before in the thread a big revamp of the Pro line with a switch in resolutions to incorporate a smaller size: 11.8" 2560x1600, 13.3" 2880x1800, 15.4" 3360x2100. But they'd still need a low-end line of laptops (either Core M or why not iOS+ARM) built around thinness and then lower expectations on performances.
Maybe they simply will keep the same as now, but as the Pro line translated to thinner bodies with the switch to retina making the distinction more tenuous (MBA13 vs rMBP13), they will do the same to their Air line with same two models with the help of Core M building "thinner than ever" new MacBooks.

I agree that an aspect ratio of 1152x720 does not make sense, especially because it would represent a downgrade. However, a resolution of 2304x1440 could support any scaled "retina" resolution as 1280x800 or 1440x900 for instance. But I agree a better approach would be to use a higher resolution.

I also agree that a better approach would be to increase resolution of all the Pro line as well. It would be nice to see the Air with a 2560x1600 resolution and the Pro line with 2880x1800 and 3360x2100 respectively (or even higher). However, I do not see that happening for the time being.

Although an aspect ratio of 16:9 would be an easier solution for reducing the bezel, I still think Apple will opt for an aspect ratio of 16:10. I think Apple could significantly reduce the bezel while keeping the full-sized keyboard if it used a 12.5-inch screen with an aspect ratio of 16:10.

As for pricing, I do not think Apple will have much room for increasing it. The recently announced Asus Zenbook UX305 is expected to cost US$ 799. It will come with a Core M processor, a fanless design, a 13-inch 3200x1800 screen, 4 GB RAM and a 128 GB SSD, and it will weigh only 1.2kg. I do not think there will be room for Apple to charge more than US$ 1,000 with this kind of competition, unless the new Air turns out to be really extraordinary (and I fail to see what it can bring that has not already been unveiled by competitors.

 

[skaertus]

Some new reports are claiming that a hybrid 12.9-inch iPad running both iOS and OS X is in development by Apple: https://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/07/report-12-9-ipad-integrated-ios-os-x/.

Would this be the new 12-inch MacBook? I don't think Apple would release such a product, even if it actually exists as a prototype inside Apple's labs.

 

[thewusman]

Some new reports are claiming that a hybrid 12.9-inch iPad running both iOS and OS X is in development by Apple: https://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/07/report-12-9-ipad-integrated-ios-os-x/.

Would this be the new 12-inch MacBook? I don't think Apple would release such a product, even if it actually exists as a prototype inside Apple's labs.

Agree - don't see this happening.

Microsoft has gone down this route and it is hard, only with 8.1 is it finally ok, and needs Windows 10 to make it mainstream.

Basically Windows 8/8.1 Modern UI or Metro is a sandboxed environment with new API's, so Microsoft has pasted an "iOS" layer onto the traditional win32.exe landscape.

Many hurdles to blending OSX and iOS into one. Introducing limited feature sets to each and vice versa seems to be the path Apple has chosen, and even that is not easy.

 

[skaertus]

Agree - don't see this happening.

Microsoft has gone down this route and it is hard, only with 8.1 is it finally ok, and needs Windows 10 to make it mainstream.

Basically Windows 8/8.1 Modern UI or Metro is a sandboxed environment with new API's, so Microsoft has pasted an "iOS" layer onto the traditional win32.exe landscape.

Many hurdles to blending OSX and iOS into one. Introducing limited feature sets to each and vice versa seems to be the path Apple has chosen, and even that is not easy.

Yes, this is not Apple's approach.

I like Microsoft's intention of making an OS that fits both laptops and tablets. You should not have two devices that do similar things and perform similar functions.

However, Apple is right in the sense that a mixture of these two approaches is, at best, awkward as it is now.

Neither approach is great, as I see it. Microsoft is not being able to make the two live in harmony and it has, to a large extent, messed up an otherwise good desktop OS. And now it is taking steps backwards to fix it. And Apple is not being able to deliver a good OS for tablets, as iOS is oversimplified considering the potential of the iPad.

I am coming to the conclusion that a tablet is not needed at all. At least I don't need one. The iPad launched this crazy rush for tablets, but it has been the only successful one so far. And even the iPad seems to be fading away as lots of people are losing their interest on the device – I don't blame them, as four years after its release the iPad still has very limited features.

 

[ApplNat]

I'm so glad I purchased my 13" Macbook Air when it came out. It's a great Mac, the resolution is fine for me, the form factor and weight are superb, and I have zero need for a iPad of any size because I'm a touch typist and always need/want a keyboard.

While I would like a Retina screen (because that would be cool), I'm glad I didn't wait. The Pro was really more than I was willing to pay at the time.

 

[jfrancis04]

Any decent mockups of the rumored 12in retina macbook air out there yet?

I'm very curious to see if the space gray/silver/gold rumors end up being true and how they implement the colors into the device.

 

[skaertus]

Any decent mockups of the rumored 12in retina macbook air out there yet?

I'm very curious to see if the space gray/silver/gold rumors end up being true and how they implement the colors into the device.

I have not seen any new mockups...

There had been some old mockups of a black MacBook Air, if I am not mistaken... but I have not seen them for a while.

Have you tried Google Images?

----------

I'm so glad I purchased my 13" Macbook Air when it came out. It's a great Mac, the resolution is fine for me, the form factor and weight are superb, and I have zero need for a iPad of any size because I'm a touch typist and always need/want a keyboard.

While I would like a Retina screen (because that would be cool), I'm glad I didn't wait. The Pro was really more than I was willing to pay at the time.

Nice. When did you buy it?

I guess that, according to the latest rumors, Apple is not releasing the new 12-inch retina model so soon.

Perhaps the cheaper Air is what is guaranteeing Apple's raising market share and Apple does not want to get rid of it so soon.

 

[jmoore5196]

This is the point I've made before: Apple has sense enough to avoid screwing around with something that works. Current MBAs in both sizes are still in considerable demand. Apple will not deliberately kill a cash cow for the sake of radical change.

I'd note that I posted this comment nine months ago. No one can accuse you of being an early adopter!

 

[skaertus]

I'd note that I posted this comment nine months ago. No one can accuse you of being an early adopter!

Yes, this is true.

On the other hand, competition is getting stiffer.

Laptops equipped with Core M processors are being announced and there is little that Apple could do to surprise us all if it releases the MacBook Air in mid-2015 only.

The Asus Zenbook UX305 is a looker, very thin and light, and it will cost US$ 800 onwards apparently. http://www.asus.com/Notebooks_Ultrabooks/ASUS_ZenBook_UX305/

And Lenovo announced the Yoga 3 Pro yesterday. It is thinner and lighter, has a 3200x1800 screen, a giant watchband to make it hinge, a fanless design and it charges via USB. Very cool, isn't it?

 

[psik]

Yes, this is true.

On the other hand, competition is getting stiffer.

Laptops equipped with Core M processors are being announced and there is little that Apple could do to surprise us all if it releases the MacBook Air in mid-2015 only.

The Asus Zenbook UX305 is a looker, very thin and light, and it will cost US$ 800 onwards apparently. http://www.asus.com/Notebooks_Ultrabooks/ASUS_ZenBook_UX305/

And Lenovo announced the Yoga 3 Pro yesterday. It is thinner and lighter, has a 3200x1800 screen, a giant watchband to make it hinge, a fanless design and it charges via USB. Very cool, isn't it?

How does might Intel core M broadwell compare in terms of performance with the Has well chips in 13" rmbps right now?

 

[Woochoo]

Yes, this is true.

On the other hand, competition is getting stiffer.

Laptops equipped with Core M processors are being announced and there is little that Apple could do to surprise us all if it releases the MacBook Air in mid-2015 only.

The Asus Zenbook UX305 is a looker, very thin and light, and it will cost US$ 800 onwards apparently. http://www.asus.com/Notebooks_Ultrabooks/ASUS_ZenBook_UX305/

And Lenovo announced the Yoga 3 Pro yesterday. It is thinner and lighter, has a 3200x1800 screen, a giant watchband to make it hinge, a fanless design and it charges via USB. Very cool, isn't it?

There's something I don't understand about Zenbook (if the info i've searched for isn't wrong): it has an Intel HD 5300, but it's max res is 2560x1600. Why does the web says it's capable of a 3200x1800 res? Anyway, in an ultrabook that carries a QHD display, the minium amount of RAM these days (we're almost on 2015) should be 8GB.

 

[skaertus]

How does might Intel core M broadwell compare in terms of performance with the Has well chips in 13" rmbps right now?

I don't think benchmarks are out yet. Are they?

----------

There's something I don't understand about Zenbook (if the info i've searched for isn't wrong): it has an Intel HD 5300, but it's max res is 2560x1600. Why does the web says it's capable of a 3200x1800 res? Anyway, in an ultrabook that carries a QHD display, the minium amount of RAM these days (we're almost on 2015) should be 8GB.

The Intel HD 5300 supports resolutions up to 3840x2160 as far as I have heard.

The Zenbook UX301, which has a Haswell processor inside, has a 2560x1440 resolution screen. The forthcoming Zenbook UX305, which will feature Core M (and will likely be cheaper), will have a 3200x1800 resolution screen.

I don't know why it should have a minimum of 8 GB. 4 GB seems to be enough for most tasks, and for multi-tasking as well, especially for affordable machines such as this Zenbook is supposed to be. Of course 8 GB is welcome.

 

[skaertus]

Now every single product in Apple's line-up seem to have at least a model with a retina display, with the exception of the MacBook Air. While Apple surprised everyone with the apparently dazzling retina iMac, it seems like that it will have to come up with more than a retina display for its forthcoming Air to make a statement.

 

[johngwheeler]

Not ARM, but it might be Broadwell Core M

I definitely hope it doesn't happen. And I guess it won't be this time. Apple will not dumb down the MacBook Air. That would be the demise of the Mac, as the Air seems to be the best-selling model around.

I don't think the MBA will go to ARM in the next year or two unless it combines ARM with Intel in a hybrid iOS / Mac OS X convertible.

What is possible is using Broadwell Core M low-power CPUs. This are out now for ultra books and larger tablets, and even the most powerful model has a TDP of only 4.5-6W.

Being Intel x86, these would run the existing Mac OS X without changes, and could ensure a really thin, possibly fanless, design.

It would probably be less powerful than current machines, but given Apple's tendency to deliberately hobble performance on its cheaper computers (e.g. new Mini with no quad-core, entry-level iMac), it could be possible. Want a full Core i5/i7 processor? Get a rMBP....

John

 

[skaertus]

I don't think the MBA will go to ARM in the next year or two unless it combines ARM with Intel in a hybrid iOS / Mac OS X convertible.

What is possible is using Broadwell Core M low-power CPUs. This are out now for ultra books and larger tablets, and even the most powerful model has a TDP of only 4.5-6W.

Being Intel x86, these would run the existing Mac OS X without changes, and could ensure a really thin, possibly fanless, design.

It would probably be less powerful than current machines, but given Apple's tendency to deliberately hobble performance on its cheaper computers (e.g. new Mini with no quad-core, entry-level iMac), it could be possible. Want a full Core i5/i7 processor? Get a rMBP....

John

I don't think the Mac will go to ARM, and perhaps it won't go at all. An ARM-based Mac would mean it would not run Windows on Boot Camp or virtual machines, but only through an emulator. And lots of software would have to be re-written. I don't think it would be worth it.

Core M, though, is a possibility.

But then, if manufacturers are already announcing their Core M machines, why didn't Apple unveil a Core M MacBook Air yesterday?

Hummm... perhaps because the next MacBook Air will not feature a Core M processor? Or because of production delays?

 

[skaertus]

This article published today on Engadget summarizes a few things we have already been discussing here: http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/17/why-apple-doesnt-have-a-retina-macbook-air/

 

[AAPL21]

That article got me wondering, would it be possible to have a fanless Broadwell-U laptop? I'm guess Apple could have made prototypes of A.) Fanless Macbook Retina with Core-M, B.) Spinning-Fan Macbook Retina with Broadwell-U and decided against the first one at the end. This is assuming that Engadget article is correct.

Anyways, the wait just got longer.

It's been WAY too long.