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!
