I guess it’s great for the road warrior market, but it’s not all that innovative. If they want * me * to buy another laptop, they’re going to have to cut the price on the Mac Book Pro. That’s the only parameter I’m interesting in slimming down.
Based on history, I’d say that in about two weeks after these hit the market we’re going to be hearing a wave of stories about cracked or damaged screens either due to design/manufacturing issues or just because the machine is thinner than a Necco wafer.
Flash memory is very fast, cool, and draws very little power. Large flash drives like this have been the subject of much geeky conversation, and the general consensus is that it’s the way the industry will eventually go. Now, I personally wouldn’t pay the extra they’re asking for it, partly because the gain isn’t worth it and partly because technology prices drop so quickly. It’s encouraging to see, though.
The SSD is where the cost comes from. It’s a very fast option, and because it’s a somewhat new application solid state memory, it’s expensive. Personally, I’d rather take that $3100 and build a nasty desktop, or even a nasty regular laptop than blow it on that thing.
And neither would be as light or as compact. Some people value porbability more than you do (e.g. those who commute by train every day, or fly often), and are willing to sacrifice performance and/or pay a high price tag for it.
My newest PC purchase was actually a slight downgrade in terms of CPU performance, but the 2-lb reduction in weight and the added tablet capability were worth the price.
Smells like an exec toy. You know the kind. Cost lots and only so-so features. The only ones that can afford it are people with big expense accounts, and they don’t care about good resolution or performance to begin with.
The Apple site says it’s 0.76" and 3 pounds but it looks much thinner than that. Is that a typo?
If not, I have a 3-year-old Dell Latitude that is a little more than 3 pounds and 0.5" thick so what makes this Mac so much better? Unless that “0.76” is a typo.
Which model is that? Is that really the total thickness with the lid closed? I think my X61 is tiny, but the display alone is 0.5" thick. The base is another 0.75".
The back end is .76" thick… then it tapers down to .16" at the front end (where it opens).
Not sure what a Dell Latitude is, but are the other specs close to that of the MB Air? And one more thing, a Dell can’t run Mac OSX 10.5. That’s a big improvement right there. 
Here’s some hands-on pics.
I think it’s a bit of an optical illusion. You can’t really see the bottom of the laptop because it curves away.
$1800 isn’t unusual for a laptop for personal use or professional (not executive) use. And there’s more to “performance” than CPU speed. A 1.6-GHz system in your hands has much better “performance” than a 3 GHz quad-core system you left behind at the office.
(Although I agree with those who say weight is much more important than thickness.)
Oh, I agree completely. But one has to find the right niche. Personally, I can only sacrifice so much performance before the small size benefit isn’t worth it. I don’t need a laptop of any kind right now anyway, so I can’t determine where I would draw the line. Of course, I’m broke and my actual computing needs are far cry from my desired computing needs.
I’ve been looking at the Apple website trying to figure out how the battery life on this compares to the regular Macbook, although I haven’t been able to make a comparison. I would think that they would have put a smaller battery in this, just so it could be so thin. I think most people would prefer longer battery life over a thinner computer.
Well, as the Dope’s resident Apple Certified technician, all I can say is…
Meh…
sure, it LOOKS svelte and thin, but in terms of actual horsepower, it’s underwhelming, we’ve taken to calling it either the;
AnorexiMac
or
BulliMac
here in the store
as a standalone machine, it’d undoubtedly be a resounding failure, less power and storage, and slower than a MacBook, sharing the same integrated video chipset, and what appears to be a non-user-replaceable battery
however, as a companion machine to a Mac Pro or iMac, it’d be a big success, it’s just the right amount of power for use on the road for light-to-middling use, do the “heavy lifting” on the desktop machine, and the lighter work on the AnorexiMac
I’m more exited about the technology like the Multi-Touch Trackpad and Solid State Hard Drive migrating over to the MBP and MB
I DON’T like the loss of FireWire and one sole USB port though, and it looks like it’ll be a royal pain in the arse to repair…
Meh, not impressed…
I got a chance to play with one at MWSF. It’s surprisingly light, and the screen is spectacular.
It’s a bit pricey for me, but I can see it being coveted by the “road warror” set.
It felt VERY snappy, so I think performance will be fine.
If I put that thing in my backpack with my textbooks, I’d be terrified it would snap in half.
So I’m at home now with my Dell Latitude X300 and it is 3/4" thick. It’s a little thinner in the front because it tapers down, like this new Mac.
Specs on this are: 12.1" screen, 30 gig HD, either 512 mb or a gig (can’t remember if I added on) of RAM, 4-hour battery. two or three USB ports, 1 1394, internal network card. No internal optical drive–that’s what keeps the weight down, which is a little over 3 pounds. I don’t remember the processor but it was the best Pentium available at the time. Obviously the Duo Core hadn’t been invented yet, or at least was not available on this model. (The Latitude line is Dell’s “business” line of laptops.) The current iteration of this model has slots for at least 2 gigs of RAM, possibly four, Duo Core, and weighs 3 pounds. Latitude D430
The Mac is a little bigger and lighter (than my X300 but not lighter than the current iteration) which might be a big advantage to some people but thin ultralightweight laptops are not new. We’ve been buying them at this size and weight from Dell since 1999 or 2000 - the one I’ve got in front of me was bought in 2004 and that was at least the third iteration of the model that we had bought.
So this Mac sure is pretty and nice and it’s bigger but I’m not seeing this as some breakthrough. Maybe I just don’t get it.
Yes, I know “but it’s a Mac.” You Mac heads don’t need to tell me that.
This “Mac Head” (been a card-carrying Mac fanatic since '84) doesn’t get it either, i hate to say this, but this one is aimed at the “more money than common sense” crowd
the MacBook, yes, the base MB offers superior performance, a full compliment of ports, AND an optical drive, for less than the BulliMac, and it has a customer replaceable battery, and customer-upgradeable RAM and hard drive
nope, the AnorexiMac makes no sense 
give it time, and the Multi-Touch trackpad and perhaps even the Solid State Hard Drive should show up in the MacBook/MacBook Pro
You rang? 
I don’t have a lot of money, but I’ve been known to spend it foolishly.
I like cool looking Macs. Yep. I want one. I know I won’t get one, but I like the way it looks.
No user-replaceable battery, one USB, no Firewire (but who actually uses that right now?), no ethernet port, no optical drive? (!) and NO USER REPLACEABLE BATTERY!
Seriously, it seems it was made just so it could be made.
“Ooh, look, we have the thinnest laptop ever! It’s sexy! Buy it all you MacZombies!”
There does come a time when function is better than form.
Remember The Cube?
This is just another odditty.
That 64 gig HD chip is nice to see though. Maybe in a couple of years we’ll all get to retire our mechanical drives.