[Argent]

jmincey said:

As for the eco-friendliness of this model, I think it's fair to say that organizations like Greenpeace have played a role in pushing Apple to be more conscientious about this. I don't think that's a stretch in the least.

I think you're giving Greenpeace way too much credit. I'd say the fact that Al Gore is an Apple board member played a role in pushing Apple to be more conscientious about this.

[Edgejr]

Yea, perhaps it's expensive. But it was so popular it all the traffic crashed the Apple Store! It's back up now.

[John_Scott]

I like the ideal of the thin MacBook. But the lack of a optical drive is a deal breaker for me. I certainly cannot see spending this kind of money just to get thin. Their comes a point that you eliminate too many features to get to the MacBook Air.

[doglesby]

MacCheetah3 said:

I will be interested in seeing benchmarks of the hard drives in these, see if that extra $1,300 is really worth an extra 400MHz ( 200MHz x 2 ) and 16GB less of storage.

I guarantee that the performance boost will come from the solid-state drive rather than the processor. You're dropping a 4200 rpm disk for flash. Then there's the battery life. But, yeah, $3,100 for a system that pretty much has to be a second computer. Ouch.

[surfguitarshredder]

Steve Jobs' claims that the new Macbook Air is environmentally friendly. Absurd. that claim is eco-profiteering in the tradition of mega-corporate propaganda. Eco-profiteers are the same old profiteers that destroy the environment any time there is profit in it, but now they point to every instance of consumption reduction as a demonstration of how much they care about the environment.
An example would be an executive from Exxon-Mobile proclaiming that the corporation has upgraded it's computers to new systems made by IBM that use less electricity, therefore Exxon-Mobile is taking action to save the environment. The problem with this claim is that Exxon-Mobile didn't upgrade its old computers so that they could save electricity, they upgraded their old computers so that they could have faster computers. It just so happens that computers that run cooler run faster, and running cooler means consuming less electricity. An accidental side benefit of the computer upgrade was that Exxon-Mobile used slightly less energy in it's computer department, but in reality, Exxon-Mobile consumes huge amounts of electricity, and the new computer upgrade didn't even reduce their entire electricity consumption by 1%. More importantly, Exxon-Mobile is an organization that is hugely destructive to the environment. Their claims of being ecologically correct are deceptions aimed at getting consumers to feel less alienated towards them so that they can sell even more products that they stripped from the environment.
I am not comparing Apple to Exxon-Mobile as destroyers of the environment. Apple is far less destructive than Exxon-Mobile ever was, but to claim that a computer and consumer electronics corporation is environmentally friendly is absurd. They are environmentally unfriendly, and the new Macbook Air sales will cause more environmental destruction than repair. Let's all just see it for what it is: super-consumerism.

[icerabbit]

I hope MacWorld will thoroughly review its screen.
Are the color depth and viewing angles better than those of a regular MacBook?
I have not been impressed with our MacBook. Its viewing angle is simply too narrow. If you are not spot on centered, colors shift etc. From Apple's ad online, I can see it the MacBook Air also uses a glossy screen (big minus in my opinion) so I am 'worried' the MacBook Air will simply use the same old MacBook panel, with a newer glass in front and backlight (weight-savings & green glass + LED backlight) .

[markwk52]

It's always easy to criticize it for NOT being something - it's not a macbook, it's not a tablet, it's not cheap. For what it is, and what it does, I think it will pull a huge reaction, in no small part because it's so effin COOL and beautifully designed. I predict lots of travelers will spring for the 64GB solid state, because the Time Capsule option so perfectly anticipates what must complement a no-optical sub-notebook.

And it's a big part of every Apple roll-out to generate desire in second-gen buyers. Most people (including me) will not spring for an Air right away, but I'll see them at Startbucks and in airports and on planes, and by the time they intro an update late this year, and very possibly lower the price (they do that too), I'll go for it.

What I HATE is that my ol' Powerbook suddenly looks ugly. I resent that!

[caldercay]

Intel Unveils Metro, World's Thinnest Laptop, Almost Skinny as a RAZR
http://gizmodo.com/g...razr-263359.php

[smax013]

buuuudy said:

$1799?!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?

PHUK THAT

I'll wait for a skinny book that does all that, has a nice screen, and can play DVDs.

Oh wait... www.apple.com/macbookpro/

Only $100 more (with the Optical drive).

:rolleyes:

Worst. New. Product. Ever.

I don't know why you expected something different. It is basically historical fact that the smaller and lighter the notebook, the more it costs. Why would you expect anything different just because it is a Mac? Without a doubt, best bang for your buck comes from going with heavier, bigger laptops. The "smallest" factor is a "feature" and all features (whether memory, hard drives, etc or small size) cost money. It cost more to miniaturize things.



As to worst product ever...maybe for your use, but I suspect that they will be a LOT of people who travel a lot who want a small, light laptop and don't need an optical drive (most business people are NOT watching movies on DVDs on their flights, but working on presentations, emails or spreadsheets...at least I find that to be the case when they sit next to me on flights). Only one USB port and no Firewire ports is kind of troubling, but still may not be an issue for most who would want this laptop.

[jmincey]

To surfguitarshredder:
The question is not whether the MacBook Air is eco-friendly in comparison with a potted plant or an organic garden but rather whether it is eco-friendly in comparison with other products of its type and class. And by that measure, it may well be eco-friendly.



By your rationale, hybrid cars are not eco-friendly either; but would it be all the same to you that we all drive SUVs as to drive hybrids?

[gfair]

Looks like a very nice laptop, but damn that second-tier model is expensive. $1800 for the tier 1 model, and $3100 for the tier two model. For the extra bucks you get 200 more MHz and a 64 GB SSD drive? Damn. I don't want to be pessemistic, but that model will not sell. You can get fully loaded laptops for that price.

[Walt_Basil]

I'll tell you one thing it can do that your G4 (or mine for that matter) won't - install the next version of Mac OS X. ;-)

[daneb]

Really nice for school/traveling. And the price? Not out of line for a notebook that small. Look at other sub-notebooks with these specs (oh, wait there aren't any!), or similar specs and you're going to pay as much if not more.

[pkeene]

A notebok this crippled needs a dock. But, then what would be the point?

So, you have to add a USB modem, a USB optical drive, a USB card reader, a USB hub and you still have a bigger footprint than a 12" PB. I don't get the target market for this.

Another "cool" tool with little in the way of productivity potential.

Sigh.

Peter