E3 2013

[Vigo]

I haven't had the problem in recent history. Everywhere I go has an outlet, even standard below plane seats. I never had a day where I needed more than 5 hours of computer use away from any power source, and even so, it is not a big deal to simply pack an extra battery. Viola! you get 12 hours battery life out of a $400 laptop.

[knave]

shmokes - for PC notebooks in the 13" category I would suggest the Dell XPS 13. While some of the lesser models have questionable reputations I have had great success with the XPS line.

For what its worth I would pick up a Dell XPS before a Mac any day...its a no brainer for me.

http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-13-l321x-mlk/pd?~ck=mn

They have a 12" model but it's a bit tablet-y for my tastes.

I have received pretty good support overall from the company and it's nice to know I can go get drivers anytime.

[shmokes]

shmokes - for PC notebooks in the 13" category I would suggest the Dell XPS 13. While some of the lesser models have questionable reputations I have had great success with the XPS line.

For what its worth I would pick up a Dell XPS before a Mac any day...its a no brainer for me.

http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-13-l321x-mlk/pd?~ck=mn

They have a 12" model but it's a bit tablet-y for my tastes.

I have received pretty good support overall from the company and it's nice to know I can go get drivers anytime.

I appreciate the recommendation. This is a good example, though, of exactly what I'm talking about. That laptop looks pretty nice, but it's starting price is exactly $100 less than the Mac. For that $100 the Mac has a battery that lasts literally more than twice as long (5 hours vs. 12 hours), a processor that is a full generation ahead, 802.11ac versus 802.11n, thunderbolt vs. display port, an SD card slot, the phenomenal mag-safe power connector, by far the best trackpad in the business . . .

I mean, that Dell looks like a very good computer (strangely, it doesn't have a touch screen which is a total non-starter for Win 8, IMO). But compare the specs b/w the two and it's the Dell machine, not the Apple, that appears to be overpriced. How can Dell justify $1000 for an Ivy Bridge PC when Apple will sell you a lighter Haswell that meets or beats nearly every spec (in some cases substantially) starting at $1100? The Dell should be at least $300 less than the Macbook Air.

Apple notebooks are not overpriced.

BTW, I seriously considered the XPS 12, but in the end I decided that it's just a bit too big/heavy for a tablet. I'd buy the Asus Taichi 21 in a heartbeat if not for two fatal flaws. First, only the external screen is touch (this crazy laptop has a screen on both sides of the lid). And second, the thing gets, like, between 2 and 3 hours battery life. If Asus refreshes it soon and does nothing but enable touch on both sides and replace the Ivy Bridge CPU with a Haswell part (which would double the battery life), I'll order one tomorrow.

[Malenko]

Apple notebooks are not overpriced.

They have a 15" Macbook pro that starts at $2,800 , no Ethernet port built in, you need to pay $29 for one of those. No DVI or VGA adapter either, those are $29 as well..... on a $2800 base model laptop.

You may have meant "The 13" notebook I was looking at doesnt seem that over priced to me"

[Vigo]

Shmokes, sorry man, but I just don't understand the mentality. You are talking about cost savings, then delving into $1000 to $3000 laptops, and saying that battery life justifies the price. A 12 hour battery life is really not a fair justification to spend an extra 800 to a 2000 dollars more when you can get a laptop with two 6 hour batteries, or an external battery pack.

Talking about the price merit of this thing is kinda lame. If you were just saying that you want a sweet top of the line brand-spankin' new gadget, and were happy that apple didn't mark up the price to something lame like their desktops, that sentiment I can understand. For what it is, apple could charge $500 more. I get that. But is it cost saving? ehhhh.......no. I just don't see it. I would never recommend this to anyone on a budget.

Macs are, and have been for many years, computers for people who are willing to shovel out tons of cash for the newest toy. This laptop came out only 2 weeks ago, and apple spent millions in R&D to just push out the haswell processor before any competitors could release a similar elite ranking laptop with it. Wait a couple months if you can, and there will be a number of options out there that compete with the new macbook air. Do you really think that nobody but the mac is gonna use a haswell? Oh, and FYI. The haswell is the main reason why the battery life is so superior. So just wait a titch and you will see that precious battery life spec creep into other laptops of all price points.

But, waiting is exactly what apple doesn't want anyone to do. That is how they profit. Bait people that simply cannot wait a single moment to have the newest and shinest new toy on the market. It is a sales pitch for impulse buyers. Anyone who has ever stood outside the mac store in a line for a new gadget, and thought they we doing so to "save money" is a world class idiot.

I think I should also point out that, very very few people ever just get the base level laptop. People almost always at least get the apple plan, which I  checked and it is $250. $250 dollars for just the service warranty. You could buy a same size netbook for the cost of the service warranty on this thing. And for all the stuff you need a this thing for, a netbook can do 99% of it just as well. Why not just buy 5 Acer aspire ones? Same screen size, faster processor speed (1.6 dual core vs mac 1.3dc), bigger hard drive (320 gb hard drive vs macs 128gb). The battery life will still last you a day of travel with 8 hours life. This little $250 laptop is beating macs specs left and right. You can get one for each of your family members, as well as your parents or whomever you wish for the price of the base macbook air with its warranty.

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-AOD270-1375-Netbook-Processor-Espresso/dp/B007582KGM

[shmokes]

Shmokes, sorry man, but I just don't understand the mentality. You are talking about cost savings, then delving into $1000 to $3000 laptops, and saying that battery life justifies the price. A 12 hour battery life is really not a fair justification to spend an extra 800 to a 2000 dollars more when you can get a laptop with two 6 hour batteries, or an external battery pack.

What are you talking about? Apple's direct competitor to this laptop is $1100. Not $2000 or $3000. And Dell's laptop can be upgraded beyond the base price same as Apple's with extended warranties and accident insurance and everything.

Btw, Windows laptops already have Haswell too. For example, see discussion of Sony Vaio Pro (below). And if you want anyone to be take you seriously don't say silly things like a $350 netbook has a faster processor than a Macbook Air based on clock speed (hint, more than clock speed separates the Celeron from the Core family of processors) or that a 320 GB 5400 rpm hard drive is an upgrade over a 128 GB solid state drive.

[shmokes]

Apple notebooks are not overpriced.

They have a 15" Macbook pro that starts at $2,800 , no Ethernet port built in, you need to pay $29 for one of those. No DVI or VGA adapter either, those are $29 as well..... on a $2800 base model laptop.

You may have meant "The 13" notebook I was looking at doesnt seem that over priced to me"

You can't just look at a number without context. That's their loaded high-end laptop. They also have a 15" Macbook Pro starting at $1000 less than that. Look at the Dell Precision M6600. It's starting price is $4041. The M6700 starts at $5878. Would you be inclined to conclude that Dell, in general, sells overpriced laptops? Lenovo's Thinkpad W530 starts at $2449. Razer's high end laptop starts at $2500. Alienware's 14" laptop, when spec'd similarly to that model of Macbook Pro is $2700 (and they have substantially more expensive models than that).

Toshiba's direct competitor to the Macbook Air--as in they compare their product to the Macbook Air on the product page, starts at $1599 for the 13" version. Apple's 13" starts at $1099--$500 less! Sony's brand-spanking new VAIO Pro 11 and 13, which Sony has publicly said are aimed directly at the Macbook Air, start at $1149 and $1249 respectively, compared to Apple's $999 and $1099.

Anyway, it's neither here nor there. I didn't say that Apple has never and would never overprice any product. I said Apple laptops are not overpriced. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that I'm speaking in generalities. If you are unwilling to make that assumption, I amend my position: Apple laptops, in general, with an exception for Apple fanboys with way too much money, tend to not be overpriced in comparison to similarly equipped Windows laptops.

[Vigo]

What are you talking about? Apple's direct competitor to this laptop is $1100. Not $2000 or $3000. And Dell's laptop can be upgraded beyond the base price same as Apple's with extended warranties and accident insurance and everything.

What are you talking about? Just because there are competitors who offer latoptops for $1000+, doesn't mean that is your only other option.

The $1000 to $3000 number I mentioned is the price for macs. Competition can come in FAAAAR cheaper. Like, in the $250-$500 range.

The minute you start putting in hardware upgrades,  software (that should be standard) warranty and cables (that should come free) You can easily put this mac netbook into the 4-5k range.

I am comparing this bugger to machines that people regular people buy to do their work on....reread my previous post. You can purcahse 5, yes 5 Acer Aspire ones for the cost of the base model macbook air with warranty. They are one example of the kind of "competition" I'm referring to. That little bugger has faster processor, same size screen, much larger hard drive, and a great battery life. There isn't a whole lot that you can do on the Air that you cant do on a $250 laptop.

[Vigo]

Btw, Windows laptops already have Haswell too. For example, see discussion of Sony Vaio Pro (below). And if you want anyone to be take you seriously don't say silly things like a $350 netbook has a faster processor than a Macbook Air based on clock speed (hint, more than clock speed separates the Celeron from the Core family of processors) or that a 320 GB 5400 rpm hard drive is an upgrade over a 128 GB solid state drive.

You after this after I posted....didn't see right away...True, you are right about clock speed not being the only factor, but keep in mind we are talking about a laptop. For everyday computing, a 1.6 dual core is gonna stand up just fine with a 1.3 dual core, even if the 1.3 has a bigger cache. Yeah, the haswell will be cutting back on calculations and power consumption, but the atom is very power saving already and I already pointed out how a spare battery addresses the power issue completely.

As far as the solid state drive goes, again, it's a laptop. You should always have your valuable data on a home computer or external HHD anyway. I'd be willing to take double storage any day, because I have music and video on my laptop and care about having the space more than anything. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot that $1000 I get to stuff in my pocket for making the trade up to a bigger, traditional drive.


Listen, maybe you should stop beating around the bush and pretending you want this because it is a cost effective choice. Just admit you want a fancy toy and are completely willing to pay a premium price for a toy with all the bells and whistles, and are not willing to wait for a cheaper alternative to come along.  I am only debating the one thing you asked me to be debating, that nothing can beat the macbook air when it come to specs and price. I shoveled out a $250 laptop that does go toe to toe with it on most everything that matters on a laptop. If you want me to start pointing out $500 and $750 laptops, I would be happy to show you how much they can thwomp a macbook air.

[shmokes]

I don't think I'm beating around the bush at all. I've made it pretty clear what class of computer I am looking for (hint: the class that includes a Macbook air). Your responses are like proving that a steak house has bad prices by pointing out how inexpensive a peanut butter/jelly sandwich is.

And, let's be clear. We're talking about a steak, not caviar. The Macbook Air costs a grand, which is not expensive for a laptop in that class. In fact, it is probably the least expensive laptop in its class, in spite of a compelling argument that it is the best laptop in its class.

[ark_ader]

I don't think I'm beating around the bush at all. I've made it pretty clear what class of computer I am looking for (hint: the class that includes a Macbook air). Your responses are like proving that a steak house has bad prices by pointing out how inexpensive a peanut butter/jelly sandwich is.

And, let's be clear. We're talking about a steak, not caviar. The Macbook Air costs a grand, which is not expensive for a laptop in that class. In fact, it is probably the least expensive laptop in its class, in spite of a compelling argument that it is the best laptop in its class.

Sounds like you are flush.

I wish I could gamble $1K on a Macbook.  Wait... I did already! 

[shmokes]

I just need a laptop. I actually have no current intention of getting a Macbook Air. If it had a touch screen I'd get it in a heartbeat and install Win 8 via bootcamp. But for now I'm waiting and hoping something comes along soon from another manufacturer. If nothing comes out in the next couple months I'll probably bite the bullet and switch to Mac. Which is a fine OS. Claims to the contrary are just stupidity. I prefer Win 8, but OSx is a perfectly good OS (in fact most of what made Win 7 awesome was copped from OSx).

[Howard_Casto]

I just need a laptop. I actually have no current intention of getting a Macbook Air. If it had a touch screen I'd get it in a heartbeat and install Win 8 via bootcamp. But for now I'm waiting and hoping something comes along soon from another manufacturer. If nothing comes out in the next couple months I'll probably bite the bullet and switch to Mac. Which is a fine OS. Claims to the contrary are just stupidity. I prefer Win 8, but OSx is a perfectly good OS (in fact most of what made Win 7 awesome was copped from OSx).

There's nothing wrong with the OS, nothing at all.  It's just if you want some actual software to run on it and a few choices in terms of what kinds of software you want to run... you are probably going to want to stick to a windows pc.  What made windows 7 awesome is the fact that it had a ton of cool mac-like features... only it was windows, so you could run your programs on it. 

I mean yeah, if you are just going to use it for browsing the net and some minor stuff none of that matters, but then again, if that is all you are going to use it for, why wouldn't you just do what Vigo suggested and get one of these 250-500 dollar laptops that are currently flooding the market?  They are plenty powerful enough for everyday tasks. 

I've read article after article saying that due to win 8's less than stellar launch and the fact that tablets have caught on so well, laptop sales are at an all time low and the price is only going to go down...for pc-based laptops that is.  Apple kind of regulates it's prices. 

[shmokes]

This isn't just for browsing the web. But even if it were, I have a netbook now and using it for anything at all, web browsing and word processing included, is unpleasant.

As for software availability on Mac . . . I dunno. I think that's becoming less and less an issue. I have no interest in gaming on a laptop. At all. Obviously someone who wanted to game on their laptop would be mad to get a Mac. But that doesn't even factor for me. Also, this trend will continue. Walk into any college classroom and have a look from the lecturer's point of view. It's a sea of glowing apples. If an alien came to earth and walked into a college classroom, he would come to the perfectly justified conclusion that Apple has a near-monopoly on the personal computer market. These are future professionals and developers. They know and will develop more and more for Mac. Businesses will accommodate them more and more too (my work is struggling with this very thing right now--introducing Macs to our infrastructure because that's what their employees know and want to work on).

And hey, I have a Windows phone, so I'm obviously not scared of a platform lacking in apps. 

[Vigo]

Well, to be fair, Apple cuts some serious sweet deals for educational institutions. In itself it is an excellent strategy to get kids hooked. Many schools, starting at middle school now issue ipads to students as well.

There is honestly not much incentive, other than what you mentioned, to have businesses utilize macs. It is not a serious business machine outside of the graphic design / media arts arenas. Business developers just won't touch it as a platform. The ones that do seem to just seem to squeeze it all in a web based platform to avoid dealing with the mac issue altogether.

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah what he said.  You must be going to different colleges than me because around here at least, you won't even see a mac laptop unless you go up to the art/design dept. 

Now ipads... that's another story, but that is an entirely different discussion involving Android vs iOS instead of Windows vs OSx


I think you really need to look shmokes.  These 250 dollar laptops are not netbooks, they are typically 2-3 ghz dual core rigs.  For a couple hundred more, you are in the quad core and beyond territory.  I think Asus just released a new laptop that's superior or on par with the air in just about every way, only it's just 700 bucks.  I'll agree with you that the dell laptop mentioned was a bit over-priced, but then again when I think of price-gouging, I first think of Apple and then Sony and Dell tie for second place, so it's a bad example. 

Here are some recent laptop deals... check it out:

http://dealnews.com/features/best-laptop-deals/

[Malenko]

I guess I need to find a comparable Asus laptop or something. Dells are overpriced and Lenovo is their business line which I feel is even more expensive.

[knave]

The Dell should be at least $300 less than the Macbook Air.

The XPS line goes on sale all the time. I am invited to buy any one I want for 35% off frequently. I looked and right now the XPS 12 would cost me $629.85 after the discount.

Does Apple offer deals like that?

I don't know wht you want a laptop with a touch screen. I've thought about it on many occasions and always come to the conclusions that the ergonomics of it would be a pain for day to day use...I like a mouse.

I also think that any it is hard to get any real use out of a computer with a smaller than 13 or 14 inch screen.

[ark_ader]

What's wrong with a hackintosh?  Asus laptops seems to be the best at getting sound and wifi to work.

Or are all past that?

[shmokes]

What's wrong with a hackintosh?  Asus laptops seems to be the best at getting sound and wifi to work.

Or are all past that?

My entire complaint is that I want to run Windows 8, but Windows 8 hardware sucks compared to Apple hardware. And your suggestion is that I run MacOS on Windows hardware?

[shmokes]

The XPS line goes on sale all the time. I am invited to buy any one I want for 35% off frequently. I looked and right now the XPS 12 would cost me $629.85 after the discount.

That's actually pretty tempting . . . I've already seriously considered the XPS 12. I just decided that it was a bit thicker and heavier than I'd like, especially in tablet form. But at that price . . .

[Malenko]

My entire complaint is that I want to run Windows 8, but Windows 8 hardware sucks compared to Apple hardware. And your suggestion is that I run MacOS on Windows hardware?

Bad news, you cant run windows 8 on apple hardware

[ark_ader]

My entire complaint is that I want to run Windows 8, but Windows 8 hardware sucks compared to Apple hardware. And your suggestion is that I run MacOS on Windows hardware?

Bad news, you cant run windows 8 on apple hardware

You can with Mountain Lion, that is the problem.  Only installs of Windows 7 and 8, but if you use Fusion or VirtualBox you can.  I do on my mac[book] mini and it runs OK.

What's wrong with a hackintosh?  Asus laptops seems to be the best at getting sound and wifi to work.

Or are all past that?

My entire complaint is that I want to run Windows 8, but Windows 8 hardware sucks compared to Apple hardware. And your suggestion is that I run MacOS on Windows hardware?

No I thought you was one of those freaks that likes to buy expensive Mac products so they can run Mac OSX.  If I was wanting to run Windows 8, I would (and will BTW) buy a Samsung Windows 8 Slate Ativ Pro.  With an i5 it is no slouch.  Well better than the lighter version with the crappy Atom.



 

[shmokes]

one of those freaks that likes to buy expensive Mac products so they can run Mac OSX.

No, I'm not one of those. On the other hand, I refer you again to the links I provided above. Show me a Windows laptop that competes directly against a Macbook Air (size, weight, internal specs, etc.) and I will show you a laptop that costs more than the "expensive" Mac product. Macbooks are very competitive in every category, including price.

[Malenko]

Bad news, you cant run windows 8 on apple hardware

You can with Mountain Lion, that is the problem.  Only installs of Windows 7 and 8, but if you use Fusion or VirtualBox you can.

I should be more clear, you cant install Windows as the host OS (AFAIK). If you're using fusion or VirtualBox you are running Windows in a shell or VM on the MacOS, which isn't quite the same, unless times have changed and you can go right into Windows without first going into OSX

No, I'm not one of those. On the other hand, I refer you again to the links I provided above. Show me a Windows laptop that competes directly against a Macbook Air (size, weight, internal specs, etc.) and I will show you a laptop that costs more than the "expensive" Mac product. Macbooks are very competitive in every category, including price.

http://www.amazon.com/VivoBook-S400CA-DH51T-14-1-Inch-Touch-Ultrabook/dp/B009F1JL5A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353272562&sr=8-1&keywords=S400CA-DH51T
14" touch LCD , Free 1 yr warranty that INCLUDES accidental damage protection, free 3yr 32GB webstorage,  VGA port, HDMI port, Ethernet jack, no backlit keyboard and 5 hours of battery under use. Im sure Macbook airs are lighter, this one is 4lbs.  Also, its ASUS.

Im going to sort of digress,  I am jaded when it comes to macs, in my line of work, they give the MACs to the idiots to use, so all I deal with in terms of macs, are idiots.

[Vigo]

No, I'm not one of those. On the other hand, I refer you again to the links I provided above. Show me a Windows laptop that competes directly against a Macbook Air (size, weight, internal specs, etc.) and I will show you a laptop that costs more than the "expensive" Mac product. Macbooks are very competitive in every category, including price.

http://www.amazon.com/VivoBook-S400CA-DH51T-14-1-Inch-Touch-Ultrabook/dp/B009F1JL5A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353272562&sr=8-1&keywords=S400CA-DH51T
14" touch LCD , Free 1 yr warranty that INCLUDES accidental damage protection, free 3yr 32GB webstorage,  VGA port, HDMI port, Ethernet jack, no backlit keyboard and 5 hours of battery under use. Im sure Macbook airs are lighter, this one is 4lbs.  Also, its ASUS.

Im going to sort of digress,  I am jaded when it comes to macs, in my line of work, they give the MACs to the idiots to use, so all I deal with in terms of macs, are idiots.

Mmmm. I love me some Asus. I was gonna post this guy below, because it aligns itself with the with the $1100 macbook's specs very well, but Malenko's lappy post is a bit more enticing considering the price and larger screen size. This guy is 2.9lbs, so it is actually lighter than the macbook air. Same size SSD HD, free 1 year dmg protection. Has an HDMI which the macbook doesn't. Same speed and class processor. Higher resolution screen (1920 x 1080 vs macs 1440 by 900). and Ahem...Touchscreen.

Oh, the SSD is 6gb per second. There are reports coming in that the macbook air SSD drives have spotty speeds and are roughly around 700mb per sec.

Top that off with a touchscreen, and that $800 price tag is smelling awfully good. Yeah, it is 7 hour battery life, but I would be willing to get a second battery for the $300 in savings. Really, the battery is the only thing I see the mac as winning on, and 7 hours battery life a really a whole day of computer use unplugged.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230671&name=Laptops-Notebooks

[ark_ader]

I think slates are the way to go.  Laptops are great, but what is really in need is a device that is light, portable and has a good battery life.

Like I said many times before, I get so much work done on a slate now then ever on a laptop.

On a laptop I need a desk to operate it, the slate is cradled in my arm and with swipe I can work the input with one finger or via the S pen as I do on my Note.

It is a boon for when I work on PCs, or when my boss surprises me with a request for data.  The other guys have to run to their desk while I log into my PC and send the report right there and then.  I know this is not what you are wanting to hear Shmokes but the paradigm is very strong and hard to ignore unless you are chained to your desk or couch.

So the Samsung Windows 8 Slate Ativ Pro covers all that and it has a keyboard cover if you need it.

It is the future, and I do not see any iPads coming even close to this product let alone a Macbook.

Also I would test drive it before you buy it, and with those limited options you are right to plum for an Apple product due to its availability for trial. 

But it will be a waste of money, as the macbook is just a reorientation of a slate with inferior graphics to boot.

[shmokes]

Mmmm. I love me some Asus. I was gonna post this guy below, because it aligns itself with the with the $1100 macbook's specs very well, but Malenko's lappy post is a bit more enticing considering the price and larger screen size. This guy is 2.9lbs, so it is actually lighter than the macbook air. Same size SSD HD, free 1 year dmg protection. Has an HDMI which the macbook doesn't. Same speed and class processor. Higher resolution screen (1920 x 1080 vs macs 1440 by 900). and Ahem...Touchscreen.

I don't mean to sound like an ---uvula---. Seriously. But while both of those look like good machines at relatively good prices (at least the first one on price), they are not what I'm looking for. The first one is disqualified right out of the gate based on size. My initial requirements were something like, ". . . 11 inch, but I would settle for a 13 inch." 4 lbs plus another half-pound at least for the power adapter is too heavy for my needs.

The second one actually appears to not have a touchscreen. Which is an automatic nonstarter. That may sound like unfair quibbling coming from someone seemingly extolling the virtues of Apple, but the lack of a touchscreen doesn't hobble MacOS. MacOS's lack of a touch-based OS factors pretty heavily into my desire for Windows 8 over MacOS, though. Hence . . . touchscreen is a must. Also, they aren't the same processor . . . the Asus is a 3rd Gen Core, the Mac is a 4th Gen. Also, although I would consider a laptop with an HDMI port, that's a huge downgrade from a Thunderbolt port. The Thunderbolt port can drive multiple independent external monitors, which would be nice for someone like me who wants to be able to dock this thing at a desk and use it as my primary machine. The port can, additionally, drive all manner of other devices like external drives and stuff with pretty insane throughput. And, of course, it can connect to any HDMI input via a cheap Thunderbolt/Mini-DisplayPort to HDMI cable. In short, the HDMI port on that laptop is a con, not a pro--I'm pretty sure objectively, but definitely for me. And then . . . it's $1100. In what world can you recommend that machine in one breath and say that the Mac is overpriced in the next?

[Vigo]

I have no idea how this went from objective views of the what laptop offers the best specs with the best price, into a personal view of what you like, but whatever...I get you are shoppin'.

I guess the only part that sounds a bit dooshy is simply when you are trying to say that the mac air is the best laptop at the best price, period. In reality you have an extremely specific set of wants, from exact screen size to exact weight and keyboard style and focus on battery life, but are willing to overlook things like lack of touchscreen, or smaller HD capacity and slower HD speed (for being a SSD). It makes no sense how you push the exact laptop you want as a universal truth of what is best.

I know at the same time I come off as a sarcastic ass about everything apple. The truth is that I have fallen for the promises of apple one too many times and I am jaded over the way they operate. It gets annoying the way they dictate and tell me what I want and don't want. I mean, just look how apple still today wants to tell me there is no need for a right mouse button. After years of ass-backwardsry, they finally caved a few years ago, but only will have it as an optional side feature that has to be specially configured. 

As far as the touchscreen bit on the Asus goes. I must have links the regular model instead of the touch model. My bad. They were both on sale on Newegg yesterday, but now I see that sale is over. I wish I knew what the touch model was going for. You point about touchsceen being important for a window machine but not a mac kinda makes sense, but if I had a windows 8 with no touchscreen, I would just get the classic shell start button added and call it a day. Meaning, I think it can be equally as unimportant on a windows 8 machine.

As far as processor goes, no there really is no significant processing difference between the 3rd and 4th gen. Really. The only notable upgrade the haswell introduces is less power consumption. I think there is some caching improvements, but not really impressive enough to worry about. So it helps the battery, but that is viewed as a different spec anyway.

And you can argue that the thunderbolt is an improvement over HDMI, but there are are a number major flaws with that logic. First, you say the reason you would want it is to hook up dual monitors for a home station. Lets forget completely that the zenbook I linked has both an HDMI and Mini-dvi port for such a purpose. Even if this wasn't the case, a standard laptop docking station generally offers dual monitor support. And you are still gonna need a docking port for your thunderbolt. There is only one port for many functions, why plug it up with your monitors?

The other flaw is that you are praising the mac for money savings, but if you really want to use the thunderbolt dual monitor feature, then you are gonna need to get thunderbolt monitors. Those are far more expensive than regular monitors. Like $1000 for a 27 inch as compared to $300 for non thunderbolt. Buying two would leave you spending $2000 on top of your $1000 laptop. Are you really gonna tell me it is an improvement to have a thunderbolt for dual monitors, and tell me how you would be saving money with the mac at the same time?

I think it is also worth saying that there is simply not as much support all around for thunderbolt. Having anything thunderbolt right now is gonna add a hefty premium. Also, who knows if it will really take off at this point. Firewire was a huge pain for me with my past macs. Just simply finding and buying a firewire devices sucked, and to top it off, I couldn't use them on my PCs. For what its worth though, I really do think thunderbolt is a step in the right direction, I am just not super optimistic about its future and won't early adopt on anything that will cause me to spend more on its peripherals.

[Howard_Casto]

I won't get into an argument over which laptop is best, but I will go on record in saying that thunderbolt is stupid just like every other proprietary video connector apple has pushed on it's consumers in the past was stupid.  It's this kind of crap that ensures that apple computers will never be on a competitive level with pcs.  Apple always makes their connectors and data protocols just different enough to where it's difficult to impossible to use regular pc stuff.. it's a self imposed hardware monopoly.

Hdmi/Dvi is the standard, deal with it.  There is no real distinction between tvs and computer monitors at this point and this is decidedly a good thing.  Since tvs are far more popular than computers and the same manufacturers are making both, it lowers the cost and gives you a ton more options.  Any time there is a set standard that works well and a company comes out with their own proprietary connector that essentially does the same thing you'd be a fool to willingly use the less popular version. 

[Malenko]

". . . 11 inch, but I would settle for a 13 inch." 4 lbs plus another half-pound at least for the power adapter is too heavy for my needs.

Well the 11.6" tablets come with an i3 , but only weigh 3lbs, and cost $430  VGA, HDMI, Ethernet,etc etc etc also come standard along with the 1 year complete warranty (which includes 2 way free shipping for RMAs)

http://www.amazon.com/VivoBook-X202E-DH31T-11-6-Inch-Touch-Laptop/dp/B009F1I1C4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350915880&sr=8-1&keywords=x202e

Are macbook Airs touch screens? because you said you would run windows 8 on it, but said you wanted touch for windows 8.

[shmokes]

I think it can be equally as unimportant on a windows 8 machine.

And you are still gonna need a docking port for your thunderbolt. There is only one port for many functions, why plug it up with your monitors?

To these two points, the touchscreen could never be as unimportant on a Windows machine as it is on a Mac (to me). If it were, my problem would be instantly solved. If I wanted a laptop built like a Macbook Air, but with a non-touch OS, I would have done with it and buy a Macbook Air. If you take away touch, you take away a Windows 8's advantage over Mac OS.

My understanding of Thunderbolt (which could be wrong . . . I've never, for example, used a Thunderbolt port) is that nothing ever "plugs" it up. Rather each device has an input and output so you can daisy chain many devices to a single port. I mean . . . I'm sure there's some limited number that can be connected, but I don't think it would cap out at just a couple of typical monitors. Also, it would be able to drive newer ultra high-res monitors that have none or limited support over HDMI. The cost of monitors doesn't concern me. If the standard is successful, it'll be commodity. Every monitor will have one.

[shmokes]

I won't get into an argument over which laptop is best, but I will go on record in saying that thunderbolt is stupid just like every other proprietary video connector apple has pushed on it's consumers in the past was stupid.  It's this kind of crap that ensures that apple computers will never be on a competitive level with pcs.  Apple always makes their connectors and data protocols just different enough to where it's difficult to impossible to use regular pc stuff.. it's a self imposed hardware monopoly.

Hdmi/Dvi is the standard, deal with it.  There is no real distinction between tvs and computer monitors at this point and this is decidedly a good thing.  Since tvs are far more popular than computers and the same manufacturers are making both, it lowers the cost and gives you a ton more options.  Any time there is a set standard that works well and a company comes out with their own proprietary connector that essentially does the same thing you'd be a fool to willingly use the less popular version.

There's a lot of wrongness here. Most important is probably the (pretty common) misconception that Thunderbolt is Apple. It's not. It's Intel. And it's pretty awesome. It's basically DisplayPort (itself substantially better than HDMI) and PCI Express smashed together into a single, tiny port. That makes for some extraordinary power and versatility. Also, it's totally backward compatible. A Thunderbolt port can plug right into any HDMI input. Anyway, the thing about it being Intel and not Apple, is that Intel is building it into its own chipsets, and pushing it as a standard to PC makers too, many of whom are beginning to put it in their computers. Apple was the first-adopter, though, and they really played up its specialness. Your misconception is justified.

DVI sucks. The female connectors are huge and thus de facto incompatible with Ultrabooks and the cable can't carry sound. And the male connectors practically double the size of a laptop . And they have those obnoxious thumbscrew relics of the VGA d-sub connectors. Also both HDMI and DVI are limited in max resolution (I think some 30" monitors needed to be driven by two separate DVI signals), not to mention that most laptops with only an HDMI or DVI can't drive multiple external monitors.

[Rigby]

There's a lot of wrongness here. Most important is probably the (pretty common) misconception that Thunderbolt is Apple. It's not. It's Intel. And it's pretty awesome. It's basically DisplayPort (itself substantially better than HDMI) and PCI Express smashed together into a single, tiny port. That makes for some extraordinary power and versatility. Also, it's totally backward compatible. A Thunderbolt port can plug right into any HDMI input. Anyway, the thing about it being Intel and not Apple, is that Intel is building it into its own chipsets, and pushing it as a standard to PC makers too, many of whom are beginning to put it in their computers. Apple was the first-adopter, though, and they really played up its specialness. Your misconception is justified.

DVI sucks. The female connectors are huge and thus de facto incompatible with Ultrabooks and the cable can't carry sound. And the male connectors practically double the size of a laptop . And they have those obnoxious thumbscrew relics of the VGA d-sub connectors. Also both HDMI and DVI are limited in max resolution (I think some 30" monitors needed to be driven by two separate DVI signals), not to mention that most laptops with only an HDMI or DVI can't drive multiple external monitors.

I'll summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong:  "DisplayPort and Thunderbold are superior.  It is known," said Jiqui.  "It is known," said Irri.

[Rigby]

I won't get into an argument over which laptop is best, but I will go on record in saying that thunderbolt is stupid just like every other proprietary video connector apple has pushed on it's consumers in the past was stupid.  It's this kind of crap that ensures that apple computers will never be on a competitive level with pcs.  Apple always makes their connectors and data protocols just different enough to where it's difficult to impossible to use regular pc stuff.. it's a self imposed hardware monopoly.

Hdmi/Dvi is the standard, deal with it.  There is no real distinction between tvs and computer monitors at this point and this is decidedly a good thing.  Since tvs are far more popular than computers and the same manufacturers are making both, it lowers the cost and gives you a ton more options.  Any time there is a set standard that works well and a company comes out with their own proprietary connector that essentially does the same thing you'd be a fool to willingly use the less popular version.

The merger of TV & PC monitor has served only to nearly completely eliminate development of resolutions beyond "Full HD" because to a bonehead consumer, "Full HD" sounds like "this monitor goes to eleven" when in fact it's a middling resolution.

1920x1080 monitors have been around since 1995.  Think about that.  Where are the 4k PC monitors for $400?  They would be here were it not for "Full HD" and the connotation that "this is as high as it goes."

DisplayPort is greater HDMI in every way except in the number of televisions that support it.  Thunderbolt is greater than DisplayPort in nearly every way.

HDMI is very useful, but old & busted tech.

[edekoning]

Lets also not forget that all that HD Ready / Full HD nonsense practically killed of the 1920x1200 displays!

[Vigo]

My understanding of Thunderbolt (which could be wrong . . . I've never, for example, used a Thunderbolt port) is that nothing ever "plugs" it up. Rather each device has an input and output so you can daisy chain many devices to a single port.

I think that one is only true in theory at this time. My understanding of it is that it has the capability to be daisy chained, but a the devices and cables you purchase, even if from apple direct, do not have an output to daisy chain from. I took a look over at apple, and I don't see any of their thunderbolt cables or devices having an output. They do sell a thunderbolt dock though.

Also, it would be able to drive newer ultra high-res monitors that have none or limited support over HDMI. The cost of monitors doesn't concern me. If the standard is successful, it'll be commodity. Every monitor will have one.

Wow. Your argument has just taken one giant turn for the stupid. I assume you are talking about those 4k ultras that are just coming out.  Are you still trying to argue about the money saving merits of a macbook air, or just trolling at this point? Now you are talking about buying 2 ultra 4ks to run on your macbook air? WTF?  This is what every mac arguement eventually turns to. The mac guy trying to point out how their device is an investment in future technology.  Well, good thing that you have this macbook ahead of time, because after you invest 10 thousand (minimum) on dual 4ks ultras, you will have your little macbook to utilize all that Ultra HD with. What can you do with it? Pop in a blu-ray? No, it doesn't come with a drive. Play an ultra HD game? Do video editing? No, no It wouldn't be fast enough to handle the processing needs. Youtube? Yes, you can watch youtube on your dual ultra 4k HDs.... 

[Rigby]

DisplayPort monitors are just now getting the necessary output ports to actually do daisy chaining.  Thunderbolt chipsets won't bother implementing if DisplayPort daisy chaining doesn't take off, likely.

The daisy chain functionality is implemented by the chipset, and early chipsets won't have it.  In the lab at my employer, though, we have a single laptop driving 4 DisplayPort monitors running at 1980x1080@60Hz, which is a neat thing to see.

[shmokes]

Sheesh, Vigo, such drama. The point is simply that it makes little sense to list HDMI as superior to Thunderbolt, as you did. Thus, I listed several capabilities unique to Thunderbolt, some immediately useful, some more niche or hypothetical (for now, at least). The point is simply that HDMI is inferior and has literally nothing to recommend it technologically over Thunderbolt. I didn't say I will only buy Thunderbolt. I pointed out the fairly incontrovertible fact that it's superior (and backward compatible anyway), so given a choice between the two, all else being equal, I would obviously choose Thunderbolt.

[Vigo]

Oh Pardon me.



I thought you were trying to trying to explain a sensible reason why a person would want a thundercat port on their mac netbook when trying to save money.

I had no idea you were just spewing garbage for the sake proving to yourself of "being right". I know what a thunderdome port is well enough to know it is not for the average consumer on their little laptop. The fact that you need an adaptor to run almost anything on through this port right now is more than enough to merit needed to prove my point. The other fact that anything compatible with it costs a hefty premium, and offers little to no advantage to the consumer in terms of capibility.

If you were gonna buy a mac tower, then I see the merit in a thunderbird port. On a netbook? Its an annoyance that pushes you to toss cash down the shitter.