4 ms·

I am typing this on a 2008 MBA that is now over five years old and looks brand new ... so there's that. BUT, I cannot help but notice that existing macbook air

by rsync 13y ago

I am typing this on a 2008 MBA that is now over five years old and looks brand new ... so there's that. BUT, I cannot help but notice that existing macbook airs, five years later, have only very marginally increased their resolution - even as we're 2.25 years into the retina era. ... and over here are a bunch of Lenovo and Samsung netbooks with screen resolutions of 3200 x 1800[1] or so ... So something is definitely slipping a bit. Don't give me blah-blah-battery-life - they should just figure it out. That's why they exist. And they're not. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/technology-companies/10290912/Lenovo-unveils-Yoga-2-Pro-at-IFA-2013.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/technology-companies/1...

saltyknuckles 13y ago
A retina screen will probably make it heavier (don't know for sure). The air is meant for portability, battery life, it's more minimal. If you want the retina you can get yourself a macbook pro 13 inch retina for about the same price. Apples goals are different from the other PC makers. Slipping? Hardly, just remember who made high resolution actually matter.
- comex 13y ago
  It's worth noting that the 3200x1800 laptop in the linked article is 0.01 kg heavier than the 13" MacBook Air. However, it has 3 hours less quoted battery life, and may have sacrificed on quality in other ways.
comex 13y ago
Apple kickstarted laptops with high-resolution displays with the 15" Retina MBP less than a year ago; they still have one of the few high-resolution 15" laptops on the market. They also have a 13" version, although it is not as light as the MacBook Air. Most of those 3200x1800 products aren't out yet. Give them time. (However, it is true that that 3200x1800 display is considerably higher resolution than the Retina MBPs. I'm curious where this is going.)
Nowyouknow 13y ago
Is a high resolution screen really necessary on a 13" device? I know we want great color reproduction, but that's why I have my 21" external monitor. I've just switched over to the new MBA (first Apple computer ever) and before I did so I did a heck of a lot of research. Originally I wanted a touchscreen laptop with Windows 8 and 1080p, because, shit, here I am contemplating dropping a lot of cash on a new computer, might as well get spec'd out. I tried everything out in stores, I think the only Windows computer I really liked was the Acer S7(?). However, touch screen on my laptop was a no-go (don't see the practicality of it). Just couldn't get comfortable with it. The lack of Haswell and battery life was also a deal breaker after I tried out the MBA13. Sure I compromised on resolution, but I think I won big overall. 12 hours of battery life, Boot Camp (that I haven't even taken advantage of, but it's nice to know I have the option), OSX, and a great trackpad? I'll take that all day, every day. Paired with my external monitor, mouse and keyboard. I think this thing is going to last me a LONG time. i5/8GB/256GB
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  I want gorgeous text and the option for more screen real estate. "150%" scaling (if it worked properly) would be a nice tradeoff. But I'd settle for the specs of a T/W530 on a X-series chassis.

by rsync 13y ago

saltyknuckles 13y ago

A retina screen will probably make it heavier (don't know for sure). The air is meant for portability, battery life, it's more minimal. If you want the retina you can get yourself a macbook pro 13 inch retina for about the same price. Apples goals are different from the other PC makers. Slipping? Hardly, just remember who made high resolution actually matter.

comex 13y ago
It's worth noting that the 3200x1800 laptop in the linked article is 0.01 kg heavier than the 13" MacBook Air. However, it has 3 hours less quoted battery life, and may have sacrificed on quality in other ways.

comex 13y ago

Apple kickstarted laptops with high-resolution displays with the 15" Retina MBP less than a year ago; they still have one of the few high-resolution 15" laptops on the market. They also have a 13" version, although it is not as light as the MacBook Air. Most of those 3200x1800 products aren't out yet. Give them time. (However, it is true that that 3200x1800 display is considerably higher resolution than the Retina MBPs. I'm curious where this is going.)

Nowyouknow 13y ago

Is a high resolution screen really necessary on a 13" device? I know we want great color reproduction, but that's why I have my 21" external monitor. I've just switched over to the new MBA (first Apple computer ever) and before I did so I did a heck of a lot of research. Originally I wanted a touchscreen laptop with Windows 8 and 1080p, because, shit, here I am contemplating dropping a lot of cash on a new computer, might as well get spec'd out. I tried everything out in stores, I think the only Windows computer I really liked was the Acer S7(?). However, touch screen on my laptop was a no-go (don't see the practicality of it). Just couldn't get comfortable with it. The lack of Haswell and battery life was also a deal breaker after I tried out the MBA13. Sure I compromised on resolution, but I think I won big overall. 12 hours of battery life, Boot Camp (that I haven't even taken advantage of, but it's nice to know I have the option), OSX, and a great trackpad? I'll take that all day, every day. Paired with my external monitor, mouse and keyboard. I think this thing is going to last me a LONG time. i5/8GB/256GB

MichaelGG 13y ago
I want gorgeous text and the option for more screen real estate. "150%" scaling (if it worked properly) would be a nice tradeoff. But I'd settle for the specs of a T/W530 on a X-series chassis.