Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
One could just ask: What's wrong about the MacBook Air, in its current incarnation?

To me, the answer is quite simple: Battery life and thermal envelope.
You are right, of course, although the primary factor that caused me to decide against getting the current MBA was its limited 2Gb of RAM. For reasons I have expressed in other threads in this Forum, that means the MBA couldn't satisfy my needs. What you have raised, plus the MBA's limited RAM give credence to the theory posited by some that Apple decided not to refresh the MBA in order that there be no danger a refreshed model might overshadow the newly released iPad. That's certainly what happened with me. I bought an iPad within hours after I learned that Apple had not refreshed the MBA. If nothing else, Steve Jobs is a marketing genius. :)
 
One could just ask: What's wrong about the MacBook Air, in its current incarnation?

To me, the answer is quite simple: Battery life and thermal envelope.

When you consider that the Air is aggressively marketed as a mobile device ("ultraportable"), 5 hours are nothing. Especially when compared to the 10 hour upgrade the MBP 13" just got, or to the many Windows netbooks around there. And while baseline performance seems just alright to me, I have the feeling that my MacBook Air chokes (throttles) on demanding video playback (H264), Flash and the like.

A possible solution could be just as simple:
Replace its guts with even lower voltage (ULV) components.

I still believe there might be a market for a portable Mac (running a full-featured Mac OS X, as opposed to the iPhone OS on the iPad) that is optimized towards portability instead of performance ("Pro" line) or price (MacBook white). Low voltage components seem well suited to that. However, I strongly doubt Apple will be making a step backwards and release a MacBook Air with lower performance than its predecessor.

Are the necessary components available?
I.e., does Intel make an ultra low voltage CPU providing at least the same performance as the current one?

The current generation MacBook Air uses a Low Voltage CPU
with 1.86GHz (Core 2 Duo SL9400) or 2.13 GHz (SL9600, respectively) with a 17W TDP. The fastest ULV CPU currently officially available from Intel is the Core 2 Duo SU9600 with a 10W TDP, clocking at 1.6GHz. Seeing that the SU9600 was released slightly more than a year ago, its next iteration could just be around the corner. And it could be just what Apple is waiting for: A CPU providing the same performance as the current MacBook Air, but at a lesser power draw.

I completely disagree with your assessments.

Look at what people complain about as to why they're not buying an MBA. It has nothing to do with the battery life or TDP of CPU/GPU. Most people who use an MBA, myself included, love the MBA's power and performance. Sure, if you're talking an original MBA, the Merom CPU and Intel GMA were problematic and the thing was always hot and remember the performance loss by utilizing Intel's GMA IGP. The Penryn SL9600 and SL9400 at 2.13 and 1.86 GHz have been amazing and can run nearly the speed of the MB while at half the TDP. In addition, the use of the Nvidia 9400m has allowed the MBA to compete with the MB with similar performance but weighing a lot less and being a lot thinner.

The MBA could be fine with the same SL9600 and Nvidia 320m... add in 4 GB of RAM and some more disk space, and the MBA would sell like hotcakes! Most people aren't complaining that their MBA cannot do what they want or it's too hot nor that the battery doesn't last long enough, they're complaining that they cannot run Windows 7 in a VM sharing out 2 GB of RAM or they're complaining they don't have the disk space they need. I believe you're confusing the problems with the current MBA and original MBA.

Also, the MBA doesn't "choke" on h.264. The MBA has problems running plug-ins in the browsers especially with Flash where Apple will not allow it to run h.264. Also, I can run my 2.13 GHz MBA with Windows 7 and get STUNNING performance with Flash and other plug-ins that run h.264 on the exact same hardware, MBA. The problem is OS X and Apple wanting everyone to pay to run the content within iTunes... that's FACT! Look at how the MBA runs HD content and h.264 outside of a browser or inside an application not running in a browser. Go use an MBA for a day in OS X and try to run free ad-based Flash content... then spend a day doing the exact same thing on the exact same MBA in Windows 7. You will quickly learn that the MBA's hardware is NO PROBLEM at all. The problem is when plug-ins don't have access to APIs the performance is inferior to that on the same hardware while running Windows 7 platform.

I completely disagree with every point in your thread. An ultra low voltage CPU isn't going to do anything different as it's going to run at 1.2 GHz and be even more disappointing in Windows... run cooler, but that's not a problem with the current MBA. Again, you're considering the original 20W TDP Merom CPU and its overheating issues. Sure, you're going to get more battery life but at a huge cost to performance. I will take my four hours of battery life over losing performance and capabilities of my Mac. What you really want is to not only stick us with Intel's ULV Core i-series CPU, you also want to stick us with Intel's most inferior GMA IGP. Remember, there's no Nvidia GPU with Intel's ULV Arrandale chips. Want to talk about losing 30-50% CPU performance and losing another 50% CPU performance over the 9400m... let alone consider the difference in the 320m at 80% superior to the 9400m. Do you realize what you're going to lose in performance to gain your battery life? Want to do it by adding more battery??? The whole advantage of the MBA is not its thinness it's the weight of the MBA. Sure, we can get a 24-hour battery in the MBA if we're willing to add a pound or two... really? That's what you want? You cannot have it both ways, in fact you're willing to lose on both fronts! Power and performance of the CPU and power and performance of the graphics... then you're willing to lose by getting rid of the 3 lb. MBA to get your 12-hour or more battery???

People, this logic makes no sense. Think about why you love the MBA? Even think about the 13" MBPs. Why would Apple not go with the MBA that really works? What worked for the MBA, Intel and Intel GMA with the original MBA, or Intel LV CPU and Nvidia 320m GPU which is the same strategy that works in the current MBA (remember that Apple can give us a performance boost in CPU with the savings of power for the 320m).

We absolutely have to give up either the performance or the weight and thinness to get your beloved 10+ hour battery. That is not a fair trade off nor one that I believe most would be willing to make. I tell you what... create a thread with a poll.

Ask people if they would prefer an MBA with a Core i7-640UM running at 1.2 GHz with sole use of Intel's GMA IGP to get 10 hours from their MBA, OR if they would rather have an SL9600 running at closer to 2 GHz with an Nvidia 320m. Explain the numbers of each. The Intel ULV option leaves them with a typical 30-50% loss in CPU performance (remember with the TDP savings in the 320m GPU the CPU can be de-throttled on the SL9x00), while the graphics would be a loss of at least 50% from the current MBA's 9400m (about 70% less than 320m). Also explain that the second option will give them a 30% boost in CPU from the same SL9600 by reducing the throttling, and an 80% boost in GPU over the 9400m by moving to the 320m that uses 35% less TDP than the 9400m.

Option one - Intel Core i7, ULV 1.2 GHz, Intel GMA graphics, 1/2 lb. weight added... 10-hour battery.

Option two - Intel C2D, LV 2 GHz, Nvidia 320m graphics... 4/5-hour battery depending on how CPU/GPU are optimized.

Remind them where the original MBA was with its Intel graphics. Remind them that they will lose not just CPU performance but the Intel ULV will give them approximately 25% of the graphics capabilities of the 320m.
 
If that rumor about future Macs using AMD is true, I'm going to guess that a 2011 Llano MacBook Air may be the next "large" MacBook Air update.

Remind them where the original MBA was with its Intel graphics. Remind them that they will lose not just CPU performance but the Intel ULV will give them approximately 25% of the graphics capabilities of the 320m.
The GPU decision for Apple in the 13" MacBook Pro (and MacBook Air) wasn't the GMA HD vs. the 9400M. It was the GMA HD vs. the 320M, and the 320 is the clear winner there.
 
If that rumor about future Macs using AMD is true, I'm going to guess that a 2011 Llano MacBook Air may be the next "large" MacBook Air update.

Yes, I was looking at the AMD lineup and roadmap also. I don't know that we're ultimately headed there, yet. But it's interesting news/rumor. As I read in one article about it, Apple could just be using AMD to leverage its relationship with Intel. Certainly Intel will think a lot more about its axing of Nvidia and the GPU/chipset if that move costs Intel not just its chipset business but also its CPU business. Apple is a big player, and maybe as important as the sales to Apple is the brand image to be in Apple's Mac computers. Don't conclude this as finished, and don't consider Nvidia out of the game yet.

I am fully for something that focuses less on the CPU performance gains and much more on the graphics gains. We can really improve computing by focusing more on the GPU at this time. We have CPUs that wouldn't be fully utilized for many years if we focused on taking advantage of the CPU with better software. In addition, how about improving the drive controllers and the drive performance well beyond Intel's SSDs.

I would appreciate the AMD CPUs more because they would probably include ATI graphics in a super system of sorts. While some will be disappointed Intel CPUs were gone, most would be ecstatic to move to much better ATI graphics. Apple has focused on the graphics gains over the CPU gains with its move to stick with C2D and improve the GPU to the 320m.

Regarding your last paragraph to me...

iMacmatician said:
The GPU decision for Apple in the 13" MacBook Pro (and MacBook Air) wasn't the GMA HD vs. the 9400M. It was the GMA HD vs. the 320M, and the 320 is the clear winner there.

Please tell me what this means? I did compare both the 9400m and the 320m. I used both numbers to explain what we have and where we could go with each set of statistics reported. I didn't just include one, as both were used in comparison. Obviously, my hypothesis is Apple used the 320m and C2D in the 13" MBP not just because it was the best choice for the MBP, but because it was the best choice for Apple's entire 13" mobility products line's chipset/components which includes the 13" MBP, 13" MB, 13" MBA, Mac mini and 21.5" iMac products.
 
I completely disagree with your assessments.
Look at what people complain about as to why they're not buying an MBA. It has nothing to do with the battery life or TDP of CPU/GPU. Most people who use an MBA, myself included, love the MBA's power and performance

Coming from an iMac owner who wants an ultra-portable mac laptop, for me to spend the $$$$ for a MBA I would need 4GB of RAM and min 5 hour battery life to even consider. The MBA form factor is great, but the specs are just not on par with its price. Let's compare it to my Samsung-NC150 netbook:

Price: Advantage Netbook. 20% of of the MBA's cost.
Battery: Advantage Netbook. 2x MBA.
Ports: Advantage Netbook: VGA, SD, 3 USB, ethernet
RAM capacity: Identical at 2GB
OS: Advantage MBA, though Win 7 is surprisingly stable
Screen: Big Advantage MBA
Weight: Draw
Storage: Draw. SSD is nice but netbook HD is 33% larger than MBA biggest storage option.
Video: Advantage MBA - though neither are very good at video
Portability: Advantage Netbook. A bit thicker, but much smaller overall and no case/manila folder required.
Input: Advantage MBA keyboard is backlit, trackpad larger
Processor/Speed: Slight advantage MBA. Sure the MBA is faster, but if you are primarily running MS Office, the Windows office apps are so much faster than the mac counterparts, there's not much difference in terms of usability

I honestly hope the next MBA updates raise it to a useful value proposition, but between the options of a netbook or a MBP, I can't imagine very many people find the MBA appealing these days.
 
Coming from an iMac owner who wants an ultra-portable mac laptop, for me to spend the $$$$ for a MBA I would need 4GB of RAM and min 5 hour battery life to even consider. The MBA form factor is great, but the specs are just not on par with its price. Let's compare it to my Samsung-NC150 netbook:

Price: Advantage Netbook. 20% of of the MBA's cost.
Battery: Advantage Netbook. 2x MBA.
Ports: Advantage Netbook: VGA, SD, 3 USB, ethernet
RAM capacity: Identical at 2GB
OS: Advantage MBA, though Win 7 is surprisingly stable
Screen: Big Advantage MBA
Weight: Draw
Storage: Draw. SSD is nice but netbook HD is 33% larger than MBA biggest storage option.
Video: Advantage MBA - though neither are very good at video
Portability: Advantage Netbook. A bit thicker, but much smaller overall and no case/manila folder required.
Input: Advantage MBA keyboard is backlit, trackpad larger
Processor/Speed: Slight advantage MBA. Sure the MBA is faster, but if you are primarily running MS Office, the Windows office apps are so much faster than the mac counterparts, there's not much difference in terms of usability

I honestly hope the next MBA updates raise it to a useful value proposition, but between the options of a netbook or a MBP, I can't imagine very many people find the MBA appealing these days.

Um, okay. You and I are talking two different things if you're satisfied with a netbook or even want to compare it to an MBA. The MBA owner gets a full-sized beautiful LED backlit display and a full-sized keyboard to type on. Those are the reasons why it's successful. In addition, it has the power of an MB yet the weight and thinness of an ultraportable.

I am comparing the MBA with an ultra low voltage Intel Core i-series CPU with Intel's GMA graphics vs. an MBA with a C2D SL9600 and Nvidia 320m. The 4 GB of RAM is a given in the upgrade. Now, do you want 10 hours and half the CPU capabilities and 1/4 of the graphics capabilities, or five hours and a hell of a performing Mac just like the 13" MB?

My posts are not to compare the MBA to a worthless netbook. A netbook isn't worth the time of day for me to argue its one point of greatness, CHEAP! Built cheap too!

Anyone want to debate the two future MBA options? Or are we going to get challenged by netbook owners some more?
 
Most people who use an MBA, myself included, love the MBA's power and performance.
No. They love it because of its design and portability. While many appreciate that its power, display and keyboard is way ahead of current notebooks, power and performance is definitely NOT the primary selling point.

add in 4 GB of RAM and some more disk space, and the MBA would sell like hotcakes!
I absolutely don't think so. The Air is regarded as a less capable machine (performance, lack of optical drive) machine at an even higher price point than the other 13 inch machines. Which doesn't change with a HD/CPU upgrade. There is no physical way to make it as capable and powerful as the 13" MBP.

Most people aren't complaining that their MBA cannot do what they want (…)
they're complaining that they cannot run Windows 7 in a VM sharing out 2 GB of RAM or they're complaining they don't have the disk space they need.
People WANT to run Windows 7 in a VM and complain that it cannot (run well), while at the same time they are NOT complaining that it cannot do what they want?

You're contradicting yourself here.

None, not a single of my customers complained about Windows 7 (in a VM) performance on the Air, let alone shied away from buying one because of it. Now this only my personal observation. But I do sell Macs for a living.

run cooler, but that's not a problem with the current MBA. Again, you're considering the original 20W TDP Merom CPU and its overheating issues
I do use the current generation MacBook Air everyday.
It has been recently cleaned by our technician, so there's no issue with dust inside.
And customers are telling me the same.

An ultra low voltage CPU isn't going to do anything different as it's going to run at 1.2 GHz.

What you really want is to not only stick us with Intel's ULV Core i-series CPU, you also want to stick us with Intel's most inferior GMA IGP. Remember, there's no Nvidia GPU with Intel's ULV Arrandale chips. Want to talk about losing 30-50% CPU performance and losing another 50% CPU performance over the 9400m... let alone consider the difference in the 320m at 80% superior to the 9400m. Do you realize what you're going to lose in performance to gain your battery life?
Not at all.
This goes against everything I actually wrote in my previous post.
ULV CPUs running at up to 1.6 GHz exist today.
I explicitly mentioned the Core 2 Duo SU9600, which is of course NOT based on the new Core microarchitecture.
Die-shrink the thing, and we have a winner.
Pair it with a Geforce 9400GM (or whatever), and we would be seeing improvements in battery life.

Why shouldn't Apple be able to do it?
See, that's almost exactly what Apple did with the MBP 13".
And you yourself stated it in the other thread:
Improvements in battery life on the MBP 13" are (more than anything) based on lower power draw, not on larger battery capacity.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/9685498/

Do you realize what you're going to lose in performance to gain your battery life? Want to do it by adding more battery??? The whole advantage of the MBA is not its thinness it's the weight of the MBA. Sure, we can get a 24-hour battery in the MBA if we're willing to add a pound or two... really? That's what you want? You cannot have it both ways, in fact you're willing to lose on both fronts! Power and performance of the CPU and power and performance of the graphics... then you're willing to lose by getting rid of the 3 lb. MBA to get your 12-hour or more battery???
Bollocks.
A Core 2 Duo can be shrinked without losing performance.
If Apple can improve battery life on the 13" MBP, they could do it on the Air as well - without losing performance.

We absolutely have to give up either the performance or the weight and thinness to get your beloved 10+ hour battery.
10 hours is out of the question, because of the smaller battery (and the displays should draw about the same).
My point is: We do NOT have to sacrifice performance for an IMPROVEMENT in battery life.
And as I stated above: Scaling back performance is the last thing I expect Apple to do.

Option one - Intel Core i7, ULV 1.2 GHz, Intel GMA graphics, 1/2 lb. weight added... 10-hour battery.
Option two - Intel C2D, LV 2 GHz, Nvidia 320m graphics... 4/5-hour battery depending on how CPU/GPU are optimized.
Option three: Intel C2D ULV at 1.8 - 2.0GHz, GeForce 320M: Same weight, same performance - longer battery life.
 
Look at what people complain about as to why they're not buying an MBA. It has nothing to do with the battery life
The MBA is advertised by Apple as an "ultraportable".
So battery life is only a secondary consideration in an "ultraportable"?
This logic is totally beyond me.

When a company advertises similarly-sized books having twice (!) the battery life of its "ultraportables" (along with more features, better performance and a significantly lower price tag), I believe they are in some serious trouble in finding a good selling proposition for the latter.
 
No. They love it because of its design and portability. While many appreciate that its power, display and keyboard is way ahead of current notebooks, power and performance is definitely NOT the primary selling point.


I absolutely don't think so. The Air is regarded as a less capable machine (performance, lack of optical drive) machine at an even higher price point than the other 13 inch machines. Which doesn't change with a HD/CPU upgrade. There is no physical way to make it as capable and powerful as the 13" MBP.


People WANT to run Windows 7 in a VM and complain that it cannot (run well), while at the same time they are NOT complaining that it cannot do what they want?

You're contradicting yourself here.

None, not a single of my customers complained about Windows 7 (in a VM) performance on the Air, let alone shied away from buying one because of it. Now this only my personal observation. But I do sell Macs for a living.


I do use the current generation MacBook Air everyday.
It has been recently cleaned by our technician, so there's no issue with dust inside.
And customers are telling me the same.


Not at all.
This goes against everything I actually wrote in my previous post.
ULV CPUs running at up to 1.6 GHz exist today.
I explicitly mentioned the Core 2 Duo SU9600, which is of course NOT based on the new Core microarchitecture.
Die-shrink the thing, and we have a winner.
Pair it with a Geforce 9400GM (or whatever), and we would be seeing improvements in battery life.

Why shouldn't Apple be able to do it?
See, that's almost exactly what Apple did with the MBP 13".
And you yourself stated it in the other thread:
Improvements in battery life on the MBP 13" are (more than anything) based on lower power draw, not on larger battery capacity.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/9685498/


Bollocks.
A Core 2 Duo can be shrinked without losing performance.
If Apple can improve battery life on the 13" MBP, they could do it on the Air as well - without losing performance.


10 hours is out of the question, because of the smaller battery (and the displays should draw about the same).
My point is: We do NOT have to sacrifice performance for an IMPROVEMENT in battery life.
And as I stated above: Scaling back performance is the last thing I expect Apple to do.


Option three: Intel C2D ULV at 1.8 - 2.0GHz, GeForce 320M: Same weight, same performance - longer battery life.


It is obvious we love the MBA because of its weight first, its thinness second, and the fact that it performs similar to a MB within those limitations to weight and size. Obviously weight and size are a GIVEN. From there, we NEED the power and performance, so it's not just a netbook. We want a real Mac that is the full-sized display and keyboard. So we're willing to pay more money to get the lower weight and thinner form factor while retaining the same footprint with full performance to meet the demands of a Mac user... not meet the netbook demands for someone surfing the web or checking their email on the go.

Is an MBA less powerful than an MB or MBP, ABSOLUTELY. Is an MBA not powerful? BS. Not even close. The MBA is more powerful (in terms of clock speed) than ANY ultraportable on the market with a 2.13 GHz CPU. But the MBP isn't more powerful than a Mac Pro nor even a real PC professional laptop, but we don't say an MBP isn't powerful just because there are more powerful computers.

You're not listening to or reading what MBA users want. If you think that 4 GB of RAM is not the number one request for people who would buy the MBA but... [list reason here], then go read some more or ask a larger percentage of the MBA market buyer.

People want 4 GB of RAM, and they want larger disk space. Most people DON'T want an optical drive. Hell, half the MBP users think the optical drive is useless as long as it's not even Blu Ray capable. You saying an optical drive is powerful is about as relevant as saying an external HDD is powerful... and certainly the MBA works fine without the optical drive or with an external optical drive. The optical drive has nothing to do with POWER. In fact, the optical drive with only CD/DVD is a dead technology and most think it's a joke that Apple still keeps it around unless it gives us Blu Ray. Even then, most MBP buyers would prefer to lose the weight and have an external optical drive when needed. The optical drive is a feature, a dead one at that, but it's nothing to do with POWER or performance.

Most people love the MBA because it's nearly as capable as an MB. It has a full-sized 13" display, and a full-sized keyboard. This means the user doesn't get less of an experience, and that the portability is in savings of weight and thinness of the MBA rather than making the user's experience inferior like a netbook! It's more powerful than any netbook out there... I have already discussed power here but one last analogy. The average Mac notebook user doesn't need more power or performance than the MBA has available, but some might need a FW port, or more screen space for photos/graphics, or more drive space than 128 GB. And they might even want an optical drive... but most people buy a MB over an MBA because it's cheaper. If the MBA were the same price, with the same specs as today, more people would buy the MBA because it's powerful enough.

You and your Windows 7 observations don't even read what the people in these forums say. Not to mention, the over 30 people I personally/professionally know with MBAs who use them for various programs and professions... I have spoken with many of these people who would love to run Windows 7 virtually on their MBA or even in boot camp. Most that don't or that have tried and failed cite lack of RAM to run it virtually and lack of drive space to run it in Boot Camp. This is obvious stuff to anyone that reads these forums, even if you don't believe my numbers the proof is just as obvious by reading threads in this forum. Go do some reading and tell me you are actually seeing something different. Seems like a bunch of speculating on your behalf. I am using actual data from colleagues and user reports right off these forums to determine what I believe are the qualities of the MBA and the problems with the MBA.

I run Windows 7 on my MBA and get about 4X the performance as OS X when using it for entertainment purposes, like Flash or HD playback. My problem, 2 GB of RAM doesn't even meet the minimum RAM requirement from OS X (1 GB) and Windows 7 (1 GB). Before you go tell me that the MBA has 2 GB of RAM, realize that 256 MB of RAM is shared right to the graphics. I have to run Windows 7 in Boot Camp because my MBA doesn't have enough RAM. And I would prefer to not have to take my 128 GB SSD and save space for Windows... so a 256 GB SSD would be greatly preferred.

You think dust inside your MBA means it has a problem? Perhaps you should clean the space around the MBA... I don't know what to say other than clean up a bit. Seeing dust inside of computers doesn't mean it's terribly flawed and running too hot and needs an ultra low voltage CPU rather than its low voltage CPU. Nice myth!

I don't know what to say about ULV over LV other than, why the hell did Apple use a low voltage SL9x00 CPU over the CULV chips to begin with? Because Apple wants us to have more than 1-1.2 GHz of power and performance. Apple could have gone that route and saved itself a lot of energy and added battery life a long time ago. Apple used the MBA to prove we can get a MB level of performance from an ultraportable. That is the competitive advantage of the MBA over other Mac notebooks and other ultraportables. It sounds like you want a Mac netbook... go buy an iPad, because that's as close as Apple will give you to a netbook!

Your bullocks statement was rather odd. We all know that a C2D can be "shrunken" down and give us the same level of clock speed for less energy. Look at the 2.13 GHz SL9600 CPU! It uses 17W vs. the MB's C2D that uses 35W, and both are giving the user clock speed capabilities close to 2 GHz. The SL9600 is saving space and energy, isn't that obvious? I don't know what you're expecting, an ultra low voltage that has better graphics than an Nvidia 320m and more clock speed than 2 GHz? It's not here yet! We all know energy requirements are one part of the performance factors. It's an offset... the more energy efficiency the less performance or much greater cost to produce the CPU (look at SL9600 17W C2D over a 35w TDP C2D at around 2 GHz). The more power, the less energy efficiency we're going to get. This is all within a range. RIGHT NOW, the Low Voltage Core i7 is at 1.2 GHz and boosts from there. It also offers a grossly inferior GMA IGP. It also doesn't allow Apple to use its preferred Nvidia GPU/chipset. Why would Apple use an SU9x00 CPU now? Why would Apple go smaller and less powerful? Why when its strategy was to keep the MBA powerful (relative, powerful enough to keep the average Mac user happy - remember Apple says people wouldn't be happy with a small Mac netbook that doesn't offer not just display and keyboard but the power to keep the OS X user happy - the chip you're talking about is contrary to Apple's statements and policy with the MBA). I believe the MBA is great power given the minimal space used to house and cool the components and the weight limit of 3 lb.

Your statement about battery is ridiculous. I am saying we ARE going to lose performance to go to your beloved SU9x00 CPUs... and if you think we aren't LOOK AT THE CLOCK SPEEDS AND PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES OF THE TWO CHIPS! The SL9600 blows away the ultra low voltage variant. We do not get to DOUBLE the battery life to ten hours without sacrificing performance and going to the ULTRA low voltage CPU you are touting. And consider power and performance of both the CPU and GPU as a whole.

Now, you have misrepresented what I have stated... go back and read any one of my posts and see that what I state is the same every time. I am not bringing up gimmicks like there's dust in my MBA, nor am I saying we can go ultra low voltage and get the same performance and double the battery life. I am being honest about the truth of technology. We are not going to get 10 hours of battery by going to ultra low voltage CPUs without losing badly in terms of performance and capabilities of the SL9600 and Nvidia 320m.

If you think going to an SU9600 is going to give us a magical transformation, I believe you're sadly mistaken. If you believe going from 2.13 GHz down to 1.6 GHz isn't a loss in performance POTENTIAL, I believe you're sadly mistaken. If you believe going to an ultra low voltage CPU will give us a real 10-hour battery without losing performance and capabilities, I believe you're sadly mistaken.

Also remember the marketing implications of going from a 2.13 GHz MBA to a 1.6 GHz MBA. Remember all of that in the whole picture of the computer and ultraportable business. Apple factors the whole picture into its decision. We have heard and read about Apple going to ultra low voltage or CULV CPUs in the past, but Apple found an even better Penryn SL9x00 when the original Merom CPU was problematic. Apple has had chances to go SU/CULV CPUs, but it chose Penryn SL9x00!

We can gain same battery life one of a few ways, but it's not going to double the battery life to ten hours. When dealing with technology, there are sacrifices. The SL9600 has been Apple's choice to date, so thinking it's going to go backwards to a less powerful CULV CPU doesn't make sense given the facts or Apple's history or the marketing loss of going "backwards."

How about we come back the day the MBA's are updated and see what happens. I am saying we're more likely to get a C2D SL9600 and Nvidia 320m than a Core i7-6x0LM, and more likely to get a Core i7-6x0LM than a Core i7-6x0UM, and more likely to get a Core i7-6x0UM than an SU9x00 C2D. Also, if Apple would have went with an Arrandale CPU and dedicated graphics in the 13" MBP it would have been more likely to go with a Core i7-6x0UM so it could afford the TDP required from a dedicated graphics solution.

Apple can boost the performance of the current SL9600 CPU by about 30% given the same power requirements and cooling required with the Nvidia 320m. I predict we will see marketing numbers that say 30% faster with the same SL9600 CPU. And Apple will say we will get 50% to 80% graphics boost in switching to the 320m. Apple can throttle the GPU and still give us a much better all around performer focusing on closer to the 2.13 GHz clock speed of the SL9600 or running the GPU at a higher speed.

Your arguments are not very convincing. Until you can show with facts, a representative sample, and even Apple's history, that it wants to go to CULV CPUs, I am not going to buy the argument you're selling. It just doesn't add up. In addition, you're not even considering the marketing ramifications of switching to the CULV chips, let alone the performance losses of doing that.

If Apple hadn't stated that it doesn't want to be in the market you're pitching, and if Apple hadn't introduced the iPad to dominate and destroy the netbook market, maybe your theory would have some merit. However, I don't see it as happening in this market, in these times, or with this technology out there. When chips get better clock speeds and more performance characteristics with ultra low voltage variants, maybe. But right now the performance capabilities of the low voltage CPUs blow away anything CULV has to offer. One last point. Look at the Core i7 low voltage CPUs. The Core i7-640LM runs at 2.13 GHz and boosts all the way to 2.93 GHz. The Core i7-640UM runs at 1.2 GHz... where is the MBA now? and why would the MBA go backwards? end of story!
 
Regarding your last paragraph to me...



Please tell me what this means? I did compare both the 9400m and the 320m. I used both numbers to explain what we have and where we could go with each set of statistics reported. I didn't just include one, as both were used in comparison. Obviously, my hypothesis is Apple used the 320m and C2D in the 13" MBP not just because it was the best choice for the MBP, but because it was the best choice for Apple's entire 13" mobility products line's chipset/components which includes the 13" MBP, 13" MB, 13" MBA, Mac mini and 21.5" iMac products.
I just mentioned that because you said the ULV [GMA HD?] has 25% the performance of the 320M. Looking at the MacBook Pro, if there wasn't a 9400M successor by now, then a Core i3 + GMA HD wouldn't look as bad compared to Core 2 + 9400M than it would with a Core 2 + 320M. The arrival of the 320M as a 9400M successor means that Apple has more of a reason to stick with Core 2 for the MacBook Pro (and probably other products using the 9400M) than to go Core i3.
 
I have a feeling that Apple will introduce a 1440x900 display in the revised MBA (probably not AG).. does anyone else beside me think this is possible ?
 
You're not listening to or reading what MBA users want. If you think that 4 GB of RAM is not the number one request for people who would buy the MBA but... [list reason here], then go read some more or ask a larger percentage of the MBA market buyer.
I talk to customers 5 days a week.
The number one reason against the MacBook Air is the price.
Almost no one showing interest in the Air talks about RAM limitations.
These people want to have a portable machine to get Web/Mail/Office work done.
They don't need 4 GB of RAM.

Having 4 GB of RAM is about power & performance.
The MacBook Air is NOT about power or performance.

Most people love the MBA because it's nearly as capable as an MB. It has a full-sized 13" display, and a full-sized keyboard. This means the user doesn't get less of an experience
Yep. But the Air does not need to equal the MBP's performance to offer a similar experience to these customers.

You and your Windows 7 observations don't even read what the people in these forums say. This is obvious stuff to anyone that reads these forums, even if you don't believe my numbers the proof is just as obvious by reading threads in this forum. Go do some reading and tell me you are actually seeing something different. Seems like a bunch of speculating on your behalf.
No - it's observation on my own behalf.
I don't think the people frequenting these forums are representative of the average Mac buyer.

Anyway... may we can cut this discussion short in regards to the 4 GB RAM. Apple's entire line (save for the entry-level Mac mini) comes with 4 GB minimum, so it's only appropriate for the MBA to follow suit.

You think dust inside your MBA means it has a problem?
Seeing dust inside of computers doesn't mean it's terribly flawed
Dust and dirt are the most common causes for thermal problems on computers, especially on notebooks. However, my MacBook Air has been professionally cleaned.

I don't know what to say about ULV over LV other than, why the hell did Apple use a low voltage SL9x00 CPU over the CULV chips to begin with?
To achieve performance similar to the earlier C2D MacBooks.
Which is just "good enough".

I don't know what you're expecting, an ultra low voltage that has better graphics than an Nvidia 320m and more clock speed than 2 GHz? It's not here yet!
Does the Air need a higher clock speed? I don't think so.
What would I like to have, what would I consider reasonable?
Same clock at lower power draw.

Why would Apple use an SU9x00 CPU now? Why would Apple go smaller and less powerful?
They wouldn't.
That's what I am saying all the time.
If a one-year old ULV runs at up to 1.6 GHz, its next generation might be on par with the current LV CPU.

We do not get to DOUBLE the battery life to ten hours without sacrificing performance and going to the ULTRA low voltage CPU you are touting.
I am being honest about the truth of technology. We are not going to get 10 hours of battery by going to ultra low voltage CPUs
We can gain same battery life one of a few ways, but it's not going to double the battery life to ten hours.
Now where did I ever make the assumption 10 hours of battery runtime would be possible on the Air (without sacrificing performance)?
Never did I.
However, I do believe the Air needs BETTER battery life.
As enlarging its form factor is not an option, Apple needs to put lower voltage parts in it.
Today's performance is just good enough.
Way better than PC netbooks, which have hardly made any progress performance-wise since their advent.

Apple can boost the performance of the current SL9600 CPU by about 30% given the same power requirements and cooling required with the Nvidia 320m. I predict we will see marketing numbers that say 30% faster with the same SL9600 CPU. And Apple will say we will get 50% to 80% graphics boost in switching to the 320m. Apple can throttle the GPU and still give us a much better all around performer focusing on closer to the 2.13 GHz clock speed of the SL9600 or running the GPU at a higher speed.
Apple just doesn't need to boost performance.
They are going to have to boost battery life.

If you think going to an SU9600 is going to give us a magical transformation, I believe you're sadly mistaken. If you believe going from 2.13 GHz down to 1.6 GHz isn't a loss in performance POTENTIAL, I believe you're sadly mistaken.
Now it's you who is misrepresenting what I stated.
Never, ever did I suggest Apple might (or should) go down in performance on the Air (e.g., by replacing the SL9400/SL9600 with a slower part). In fact, I explicitly stated just the opposite.

The SU9600 is slightly over a year old.
By now, Intel should probably be able to make a ULV part that achieves the same performance at a lower voltage
 
I talk to customers 5 days a week.
The number one reason against the MacBook Air is the price.
Almost no one showing interest in the Air talks about RAM limitations.
These people want to have a portable machine to get Web/Mail/Office work done.
They don't need 4 GB of RAM.

Having 4 GB of RAM is about power & performance.
The MacBook Air is NOT about power or performance.


Yep. But the Air does not need to equal the MBP's performance to offer a similar experience to these customers.


No - it's observation on my own behalf.
I don't think the people frequenting these forums are representative of the average Mac buyer.

Anyway... may we can cut this discussion short in regards to the 4 GB RAM. Apple's entire line (save for the entry-level Mac mini) comes with 4 GB minimum, so it's only appropriate for the MBA to follow suit.


Dust and dirt are the most common causes for thermal problems on computers, especially on notebooks. However, my MacBook Air has been professionally cleaned.


To achieve performance similar to the earlier C2D MacBooks.
Which is just "good enough".


Does the Air need a higher clock speed? I don't think so.
What would I like to have, what would I consider reasonable?
Same clock at lower power draw.


They wouldn't.
That's what I am saying all the time.
If a one-year old ULV runs at up to 1.6 GHz, its next generation might be on par with the current LV CPU.


Now where did I ever make the assumption 10 hours of battery runtime would be possible on the Air (without sacrificing performance)?
Never did I.
However, I do believe the Air needs BETTER battery life.
As enlarging its form factor is not an option, Apple needs to put lower voltage parts in it.
Today's performance is just good enough.
Way better than PC netbooks, which have hardly made any progress performance-wise since their advent.


Apple just doesn't need to boost performance.
They are going to have to boost battery life.


Now it's you who is misrepresenting what I stated.
Never, ever did I suggest Apple might (or should) go down in performance on the Air (e.g., by replacing the SL9400/SL9600 with a slower part). In fact, I explicitly stated just the opposite.

The SU9600 is slightly over a year old.
By now, Intel should probably be able to make a ULV part that achieves the same performance at a lower voltage

You absolutely did say Apple could use an SU9600. In addition, I even gave you the list of Intel Core i7 CPUs available. The ultra low voltage variety is at 1 to 1.2 GHz max (they boost from there, but the boost isn't a determination of actual performance - the biggest problem is the GMA die and the 32nm CPU die share the boost performance between them whether the CPU is being requested for computing or graphics). What you're missing is that Intel changed the specs of ultra low voltage CPUs. They're now included with the GMA IGP DIE on chip. The result is about half the graphics performance of the 9400m... so doesn't even come close to comparing with 320m. Now, go to Intel.com and look up all the CPUs already released and the roadmap for the future. Either way, the low voltage chips you wanted have been changed and no longer benefit just low voltage CPU but also factor in the graphics. You're not going to get 1.6 GHz all the time... and you can go read this all over the web. Also, the Nvidia GPU/chipsets cannot be paired with the Nehalem/Arrandale CPUs.

Going back to the MBA itself and your interaction with customers... consider the ACTUAL INTENDED TARGET MARKET for the MBA. Don't think oh this guy isn't buying an MBA because it costs more. He wasn't the target in the first place. Look at the actual target market buyer and ask that person why they are or are not choosing the MBA right now. The vast majority will give you one of two reasons. Number one, I need more than 2 GB of RAM for this or that. Number two, I need more drive space than 120/128 GB. You are thinking like a salesperson selling computers to all buyers and not thinking about the logic in sales or the target market for each product. Of course the MBA isn't going to sell to someone that wants to pay $1000 for a MB. I cannot believe I am wasting my time explaining this to you.

I am done wasting my time here. If someone wants to have a serious discussion about the current aspects of the MBA, future potential of the MBA, the target market buyer for the MBA, or anything else related to the MBA I am willing to debate. But we cannot even debate when you're not willing to even look for yourself to see what Intel is no producing, and you're just guessing that ultra low voltage means a 2.4 GHz CPU now because it was at 1.6 GHz last year. Obviously you didn't say 2.4 GHz but the point is you don't bring facts to the table, you say SU chips and leave it at that. Apple doesn't have a history of using an SU chip, as it used the SL chips for obvious reasons. Could Apple use ultra low voltage in the next MBA, sure but it's not going to be a C2D SU, it will be a Core i7 and it will be a huge hit in performance down to 1.2 GHz.

I am not trying to misrepresent what you have said, but you're not very clear and your arguments are so poorly designed and stated that I have to guess as to what you mean or are intending to imply next. It's a waste... and pointless!

Go get your MBA professionally cleaned, AGAIN. Please.
 
remember with the TDP savings in the 320m GPU the CPU can be de-throttled on the SL9x00
a 30% boost in CPU from the same SL9600 by reducing the throttling, and an 80% boost in GPU over the 9400m by moving to the 320m that uses 35% less TDP than the 9400m.
Let me get this straight:
By employing a GPU with 35% lower TDP, we might be able get 30% higher CPU performance - just be un-throttling the exact same CPU?
Any evidence to back this up?

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
(Otherwise the industry's best engineering at Intel/Apple/NVIDIA would have it implemented already)

However, I do agree that C2D SL9600 / NVIDIA 320M / 4GB seems to be the most reasonable (and thus most probable?) upgrade path for the MacBook Air.
 
Going back to the MBA itself and your interaction with customers... consider the ACTUAL INTENDED TARGET MARKET for the MBA. Don't think oh this guy isn't buying an MBA because it costs more. He wasn't the target in the first place. Look at the actual target market buyer and ask that person why they are or are not choosing the MBA right now. The vast majority will give you one of two reasons. Number one, I need more than 2 GB of RAM for this or that. Number two, I need more drive space than 120/128 GB. You are thinking like a salesperson selling computers to all buyers and not thinking about the logic in sales or the target market for each product. Of course the MBA isn't going to sell to someone that wants to pay $1000 for a MB. I cannot believe I am wasting my time explaining this to you.
Scottsdale -- I agree with your conclusion that most potential buyers who pass over the MBA do so either because of its limited 2GB of RAM or its 120 to 128Gb hard drive size. To me, the MBA is, indeed, about "power and performance." Until and unless Apple finds a way to market an MBA that can do what my 2007 Santa Rosa MBP has been able to do for two plus years, I won't be interested.
 
Let me get this straight:
By employing a GPU with 35% lower TDP, we might be able get 30% higher CPU performance - just be un-throttling the exact same CPU?
Any evidence to back this up?

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
(Otherwise the industry's best engineering at Intel/Apple/NVIDIA would have it implemented already)

However, I do agree that C2D SL9600 / NVIDIA 320M / 4GB seems to be the most reasonable (and thus most probable?) upgrade path for the MacBook Air.

Absolutely. Right now, Apple is using a 2.13 GHz SL9600 in the high-end MBA. It is actually throttled. We have to assume it's throttled because Apple is trying to reduce heat and use less energy. However, a 2.13 GHz CPU is marketed as a 2.13 GHz CPU. It's not marketed as a 2.13 GHz CPU that is throttled. Apple uses the branding of a 2.13 GHz CPU as part of the sales marketing. I find it hard to believe Apple would have an easy time selling a 1.2 GHz CPU in the next MBA... especially because it's not going to be faster than the current CPU no matter how it's marketed.

The MBA is currently at 29W TDP. The SL9x00 is 17W, and the Nvidia 9400m is 12W. Let's guess that since the CPU is throttled (and so is the GPU), that the total TDP is closer to 25W. Run the SL9600 without throttling at 17W. Run the 320m without throttling at 8W, and the MBA is at 25W TDP. That is the exact same as the Core i7-640LM. So we're getting a GPU that's about 300% faster with the 320m over the GMA IGP included with the Core i7. Now, let's say Apple cannot run both the SL9600 and the 320m fully, wouldn't it choose to run the CPU fully and throttle the GPU more? We would still get a graphics improvement and a CPU speed improvement.

I see a C2D SL9600 with a 320m now giving us some decent improvements - however, the real improvements MBA buyers are looking for are 4 GB of RAM and larger drive space options. In Early 2011, I don't know what happens. But if the AMD/ATI news is correct, we get a CPU that probably will be similar to the current CPU but incredible graphics compared to what we currently have. This could be Apple's strategy to get out of the Intel Arrandale vs. Nvidia GPU/chipset battle. And in the end, I believe we will all get a better experience with AMD/ATI than we could with Intel Arrandale and Intel HD graphics. Even if the next generation Intel CPUs have double the graphics performance they're still at the same level or behind the then two-year-old graphics of the Nvidia 9400m.

I say bring on the SL9600 and 320m NOW! Give us 4 GB of RAM! Give us a 256 GB SSD or give us a 32 GB of NAND Flash space for our OS and Apps and either an HDD or SSD for the drive itself! Give us a glass trackpad! Give us something else that truly blows us away - something truly innovative and a real advantage not available in the PC alternatives!
 
Scottsdale -- I agree with your conclusion that most potential buyers who pass over the MBA do so either because of its limited 2GB of RAM or its 120 to 128Gb hard drive size. To me, the MBA is, indeed, about "power and performance." Until and unless Apple finds a way to market an MBA that can do what my 2007 Santa Rosa MBP has been able to do for two plus years, I won't be interested.

Ehrm, you mean it has to have 6 GB of RAM? I don't know about that. I am hopeful for 4 GB of RAM soldered to the board. But maybe it will have two RAM slots allowing us 8 GB of RAM! That sure would be one hell of an MBA. Maybe too good.

Apple likes us to have only one or two reasons to upgrade with each update so over two updates we want to buy a new one. I see 8 GB of RAM as being an option in the update after this update, but I hope I am wrong. Let's remember, incremental improvements are the Apple way. The only time an update/upgrade happens like October 2008 is when Apple massively screwed up as it did with the original MBA, ha ha - okay it wasn't funny, I was screwed by Apple and bought an original MBA too!

So do you need a 15" display and an 8600 GT graphics too or is 6 GB of RAM or more your demand for a purchase order? I would suspect that the 320m performs similarly to the 8600? Remember Apple only supported 4 GB of RAM in that MBP. Also, 4 GB of RAM will easily allow us to allocate 2.75 GB of RAM to OS X (3 GB including 256 MB GPU VRAM), and 1 GB of RAM for Windows 7 virtually. That would be amazing coming from 2 GB of RAM total when 256 MB is shared out for the GPU.
 
Ehrm, you mean it has to have 6 GB of RAM? I don't know about that. I am hopeful for 4 GB of RAM soldered to the board. But maybe it will have two RAM slots allowing us 8 GB of RAM! That sure would be one hell of an MBA. Maybe too good.
I would buy an MBA with only 4Gb of soldered RAM but only if if I could know to a certainty that I could run Fusion and Windows 7 in Unity mode as quickly and satisfactorily with 4Gb of RAM as well as I am able to do now with 6Gb. Unfortunately, I haven't heard anybody claim that, at least not yet. If our dreams came true and Apple made two RAM slots available in the MBA I would upgrade it to 8GB because even the 6Gb on my MBP sometimes seem marginal .
 
I would buy an MBA with only 4Gb of soldered RAM but only if if I could know to a certainty that I could run Fusion and Windows 7 in Unity mode as quickly and satisfactorily with 4Gb of RAM as well as I am able to do now with 6Gb. Unfortunately, I haven't heard anybody claim that, at least not yet. If our dreams came true and Apple made two RAM slots available in the MBA I would upgrade it to 8GB because even the 6Gb on my MBP sometimes seem marginal .

I suspect you will have a much longer wait than those of us waiting for 4 GB of RAM. Apple just disappoints too often for those wanting more than a marginal update. I think 4 GB of RAM is about a 90% possibility. I believe that two RAM slots is about 15% possibility. If Apple could have fit two RAM slots in the original MBA I believe they would have already done it. In addition, the last update didn't bring 4 GB of RAM although everyone guaranteed it. It was obviously too costly to make two different boards for the MBAs, so Apple made one board and just two different CPUs. Had it been made with one RAM slot, Apple could have put 2 GB in one and 4 GB in the other... HOWEVER, one 4 GB RAM DIMM was/is awfully expensive. Because of the costs of using 2 X 2 GB RAM vs. 1 X 4 GB RAM, Apple will have to keep it soldered to the board until a major update that allows two RAM slots. It's too costly to even have one RAM slot and that's all the space allows for.

Therefore, I am now going to predict that both low-end and high-end MBAs get 4 GB of RAM in the next revision. It just makes more sense to manufacture one board than two as that's what Apple has done until now. The differences will probably be smaller vs. larger SSD and possibly an HD display in the high-end. I also see the high-end MBA going up to $1899/$1999. The price has to go up for a 256 GB SSD, and I believe the display tech could further justify this.
 
Scottsdale -- I agree that it is far more likely Apple will only put 4Gb of soldered RAM in the revised MBA, rather than two RAM slots. The technology for ultra lightweight computers is at a clumsy stage right now. SSDs have become a requirement but are still extortionately expensive. That's going to get better, of course, and probably quickly. What all of this boils down to for me is that the appearance of an MBA that would fill my needs at a price i would be willing to pay appears unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future.
 
Absolutely. Right now, Apple is using a 2.13 GHz SL9600 in the high-end MBA. It is actually throttled. We have to assume it's throttled because Apple is trying to reduce heat and use less energy. However, a 2.13 GHz CPU is marketed as a 2.13 GHz CPU. It's not marketed as a 2.13 GHz CPU that is throttled. Apple uses the branding of a 2.13 GHz CPU as part of the sales marketing. I find it hard to believe Apple would have an easy time selling a 1.2 GHz CPU in the next MBA... especially because it's not going to be faster than the current CPU no matter how it's marketed.

The MBA is currently at 29W TDP. The SL9x00 is 17W, and the Nvidia 9400m is 12W. Let's guess that since the CPU is throttled (and so is the GPU), that the total TDP is closer to 25W. Run the SL9600 without throttling at 17W. Run the 320m without throttling at 8W, and the MBA is at 25W TDP. That is the exact same as the Core i7-640LM. So we're getting a GPU that's about 300% faster with the 320m over the GMA IGP included with the Core i7. Now, let's say Apple cannot run both the SL9600 and the 320m fully, wouldn't it choose to run the CPU fully and throttle the GPU more? We would still get a graphics improvement and a CPU speed improvement.

I see a C2D SL9600 with a 320m now giving us some decent improvements - however, the real improvements MBA buyers are looking for are 4 GB of RAM and larger drive space options. In Early 2011, I don't know what happens. But if the AMD/ATI news is correct, we get a CPU that probably will be similar to the current CPU but incredible graphics compared to what we currently have. This could be Apple's strategy to get out of the Intel Arrandale vs. Nvidia GPU/chipset battle. And in the end, I believe we will all get a better experience with AMD/ATI than we could with Intel Arrandale and Intel HD graphics. Even if the next generation Intel CPUs have double the graphics performance they're still at the same level or behind the then two-year-old graphics of the Nvidia 9400m.

I say bring on the SL9600 and 320m NOW! Give us 4 GB of RAM! Give us a 256 GB SSD or give us a 32 GB of NAND Flash space for our OS and Apps and either an HDD or SSD for the drive itself! Give us a glass trackpad! Give us something else that truly blows us away - something truly innovative and a real advantage not available in the PC alternatives!

Scottsdale - I would agree with what you have said here as well, for me it would be nice if hard drive was not the 1.8" size but normal 2.5" size and 9 mm height allowing more choices of upgrading the SSD. Another concern for me in general is that OS X does not yet support TRIM in SSD's ( which from I read in most forums is needed for peak performance over long term in SSD's ).

In the least as you stated 4 GB of RAM is needed.

Dan
 
I would really like to thank scottsdale to start off, everything I read on this site posted by you seams great.

Before the iPad was announced I had an idea that the MBA would cannibalize the basic macbook... this was wrong. I do, however, believe that apple is still looking to move all their products to ARM (everyone dreams of ripping my head off and drinking my blood). Apple loves control, and they love to be secretive and unpredictable: Intel gives them no control, is very open about their roadmap, and lastly are playing bully to nvidia.

Lets face it, the only thing good about amd is ati, if I were to buy a pc with an amd core I would get it with an ati card not nvidia. Intel is making it very difficult for companies to continue to use nvidia's cards, and are therefore they are taking away control from apple.

Apple doesn't want to go with amd because they have badly underpowered cards for their power consumption. For obvious reasons apple wouldn't go back to IBM and power pc. They really only have one more choice: ARM.

ARM will give them an excellent control, and will allow apple to truly develop a new product; a high power ARM processor for desktop use. Of course none of this will happen tomorrow or the next day or in 2010, or 2012, but I am sure it is coming.
 
I would really like to thank scottsdale to start off, everything I read on this site posted by you seams great.

Before the iPad was announced I had an idea that the MBA would cannibalize the basic macbook... this was wrong. I do, however, believe that apple is still looking to move all their products to ARM (everyone dreams of ripping my head off and drinking my blood). Apple loves control, and they love to be secretive and unpredictable: Intel gives them no control, is very open about their roadmap, and lastly are playing bully to nvidia.

Lets face it, the only thing good about amd is ati, if I were to buy a pc with an amd core I would get it with an ati card not nvidia. Intel is making it very difficult for companies to continue to use nvidia's cards, and are therefore they are taking away control from apple.

Apple doesn't want to go with amd because they have badly underpowered cards for their power consumption. For obvious reasons apple wouldn't go back to IBM and power pc. They really only have one more choice: ARM.

ARM will give them an excellent control, and will allow apple to truly develop a new product; a high power ARM processor for desktop use. Of course none of this will happen tomorrow or the next day or in 2010, or 2012, but I am sure it is coming.

I completely agree with your ARM assessments.

People always reply saying oh Apple won't get an X86 license or this or that when I say Apple will make their own CPUs. Then I mention I mean an ARM SoC design, and people really go crazy to that prophecy, LOL.

In reality, it's obvious to see Apple wants complete control of its Macs. In Apple's perfect world, people will not see or read the Intel CPU is a 2.13 GHz, SL9600 with 6 MB L2 cache. Apple wants the user to read, our fastest Mac ever that runs all of your apps and games flawlessly in the thinnest and lightest Mac ever.

I definitely believe the long-term strategy will be to move the Mac to a custom Apple A(X) ARM CPU. It will definitely be a SoC design with a lot of cores (like 32 or 64 cores). It will have an OS and apps meant solely to capitalize on multiple processes or spreading the OS/app workload out to many cores. The software will be truly made to take advantage of every bit of resource available.

I cannot wait for the OS that runs on a truly optimized SoC design by Apple. It should be incredible especially when apps are written specifically to take advantage of all of the capabilities designed by each chip Apple would use for each specific set of tasks that would be required from the Mac using each chip.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.