Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you travel a lot, every half-pound matters.
I've travelled a lot and I'd trade a half pound for (15% or so?) for a 60% faster processor!
Well, I would not.
Apple Just Cannibalized the MacBook Air
61–70 of 82 posts
Re: Apple Just Cannibalized the MacBook Air
#62Unless they come out with an 11" Macbook Pro, I'm sticking with the Air. If you have a 13" Air then yes, the pros have made more sense for awhile IMO. For me the 11" Air with 8 gigs of ram, i7 processor and a solid state drive plus a Thunderbolt display is the ideal setup. Super portable and powerful enough for anything but the latest 3d gaming plus the display for when I'm in the office.
I'd like to hear more about your experience working on the 11", when you're away from the external display. Are you cramped because of the resolution? Keyboard and trackpad?
Up until recently, the 11" air had a higher resolution than the 13" macbook pros so you didn't feel cramped as far as resolution went. With expose it is easy to move around between windows and that helps a lot. If I'm doing a photoshop session I really like to be on the big display but most of the time I don't really notice when I'm without it. I work from home a lot and don't have a display there. It's fine.
Re: Apple Just Cannibalized the MacBook Air
#63Can't believe nobody mentioned this, but for me the Air is still the winner because it has more usable screen space. The 13" rMBP, while nice, only has an effective resolution of 1280x800, which I find to be unusable. With the Air you get 1440x900 at a DPI that's still pretty nice.
huh? the pro has more pixels, and you can scale the ui up/down as you prefer. i'm pretty sure you get way more effective screen space at the highest density setting.
The highest density(native res) is too small to work with, half resolution that scales every pixel 4x gives you actually less workspace than the Air does. Anything in between is blurry. Really, the Retina crammed a lot of pixels into that screen,but without any effective way to use them efficiently.
Re: Apple Just Cannibalized the MacBook Air
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Battery life is a way bigger deal than a 1.7g versus 2.8g CPU. My 2010 MBA with its circa-2008 CPU (Apple hung on to the Core 2 Duo for a long time) is plenty fast for me, even for development work. At this point, I'd much rather have a machine that I only had to charge once a week.
I think you sort of missed what I'm saying - we're talking about a MBP that has better battery life already than your 2010 MBA. The 2013 MBP has a 9-hour battery life compared to the 12-hour 2013 MBA battery life. That's a "difference" but is that extra three hours of battery life worth trading for a 60% faster processor? I don't see that as a good trade off.
Sorry, I read out the word "the". I thought you were saying "battery life is good enough."
I would rather have the 3 extra hours than the 60% faster processor (though I would rather have the retina display than the 3 extra hours). My aging MBA compiles LLVM, the biggest thing I ever build these days, in 10-12 minutes. Do I care if that number is 7-8 instead? Not really.
On the other hand, three extra hours can mean leaving the charger at home.
Re: Apple Just Cannibalized the MacBook Air
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you travel a lot, every half-pound matters.
I've travelled a lot and I'd trade a half pound for (15% or so?) for a 60% faster processor!
There is also a concept of 'fast enough'. My 2013 MBA is fast enough for anything I want to do on it. Actually, my 2011 MBA was fast enough as well - I only upgraded because of awesome battery life in the 2013 model.
Further to that, I specifically chose the slower processor option (i5 vs i7) because i7 would reduce battery life (even if by 30 minutes).
Re: Apple Just Cannibalized the MacBook Air
#66The author is a moron. The MBA is a much better machine for the average user and their pricing reflects that. As a developer, I would take the 13" MBA over the MBP. Also the author forgets the 11" Macbook Air. This is just dumb. I don't think the author understands how business works, or more specifically how Apple works.
What are your specific reasons, why would you take the 13" MBA over the 13 MBP?
1. Battery life
2. Weight
3. Cost - you don't have to spec up MBA and go with base model
Re: Apple Just Cannibalized the MacBook Air
#67IMHO the "real" MBA, from the point of view of what happens when you use it as your main computer, is the 11" version, and there is a huge difference between that computer and the MBP 13". The MBA11 means that your computer is from the point of view of portability no much more than an iPad with a keyboard. It has a minimal weight, minimal impact even on a very small table, and when you close it you can walk with it i…
Among the apple products, the 11" air seems like a oddball option to me. Two things
1. For people who say it is like an iPad with a keyboard, I find that the iOS apps I use (games, camera, touch based things) are very different than those on the MBA (Developer tools + Adobe stuff). So not sure what the connection to the iPad is. It is not even touch enabled. How can you say you are getting an iPad/Tablet experience without touch??
2. I find the 11" pretty cramped (keyboard space and screen size) to be honest. Especially if you spend more than a few minutes working. Looks like you find it too, given you have to put in additional paraphernalia (keyboards, external disks etc.) to make it work. It also has a much poorer battery life compared to the 13" counterpart.
Re: Apple Just Cannibalized the MacBook Air
#68The battery life is missing from the table, probably because it contradicts the author's linkbait title.
Is the battery life that big of a deal? It's something like 9 hours to 12 hours (or something close) for MBP vs MBA. I just don't see that as a major difference - it's not like a 1.7g vs 2.8g CPU.
The rated CPU speed is nearly meaningless for machine responsiveness or even bursts of heavy usage (Photoshop edits; compiling changed files) given the dynamic voltage and frequency scaling ("Turbo"). Both the "1.7 GHz" 4650U in the Air and the "2.8 GHz" turbo to the same peak of 3.3 GHz, have the same sized cache, same memory interface, same base GPU clock, nearly the same peak turbo GPU clock, and cost the exact same number of dollars. They are the "same" CPU, with different tuning for sustained thermal allowances.
Re: Apple Just Cannibalized the MacBook Air
#69The battery life is missing from the table, probably because it contradicts the author's linkbait title.
Is the battery life that big of a deal? It's something like 9 hours to 12 hours (or something close) for MBP vs MBA. I just don't see that as a major difference - it's not like a 1.7g vs 2.8g CPU.
9 to 12 hours in year one, vs 6.5 to 9.5 in year 3
Re: Apple Just Cannibalized the MacBook Air
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
huh? the pro has more pixels, and you can scale the ui up/down as you prefer. i'm pretty sure you get way more effective screen space at the highest density setting.
The highest density(native res) is too small to work with, half resolution that scales every pixel 4x gives you actually less workspace than the Air does. Anything in between is blurry. Really, the Retina crammed a lot of pixels into that screen,but without any effective way to use them efficiently.
They allow native res access now?