I wouldn't exactly call this an ultra-portable people. Ultra-portables are normally screens 10" or smaller. I don't know if I would want to pay extra for an aluminum MacBook. If Apple wants my $$ then they should put out a real ultra-portable notebook be it in the MacBook or MacBook Pro line. The 15" MBP is the perfect size for a good, all around notebook. The 17" is perfect as a desktop replacement (if that desktop is an iMac of course). A 13.3" MacBook Pro? No use for me. A 10" MacBook Pro? Will buy in a heartbeat to use it as a UMPC or, here's a new one Mr. Jobs: a UMMAC.
With no bezel around the display, SSD instead of HD, no optical drive to allow it's ~0.7" thickness, less than 2 pounds weight, 7-9 hours battery life, and multi-touch screen or track pad and I'd pay. Oh I'd pay.
It all depends on what else is in the box. If they throw in high powered gpu, and plenty of memory and decent hard drive (SSD would be preferred), well then I'd buy it.
YOU wouldn't. Many people would. A common definition of an ultra-portable is WEIGHT being less than 4 pounds, with no stipulation on size (as it is implied by weight that it cannot be too big). I have Toshiba Portege R-100 which is 1.8 pounds and 12" - about the size and weight of a notebook - if that's not an ultraportable, I don't know what is. A 10" or less is a TOY, not a computer. I would welcome a 13" 2 pound SSD drive MacBook ultraportable - and buy one most likely.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I wouldn't exactly call this an ultra-portable people. Ultra-portables are normally screens 10" or smaller. I don't know if I would want to pay extra for an aluminum MacBook. If Apple wants my $$ then they should put out a real ultra-portable notebook be it in the MacBook or MacBook Pro line. The 15" MBP is the perfect size for a good, all around notebook. The 17" is perfect as a desktop replacement (if that desktop is an iMac of course). A 13.3" MacBook Pro? No use for me. A 10" MacBook Pro? Will buy in a heartbeat to use it as a UMPC or, here's a new one Mr. Jobs: a UMMAC.
With no bezel around the display, SSD instead of HD, no optical drive to allow it's ~0.7" thickness, less than 2 pounds weight, 7-9 hours battery life, and multi-touch screen or track pad and I'd pay. Oh I'd pay.
It all depends on what else is in the box. If they throw in high powered gpu, and plenty of memory and decent hard drive (SSD would be preferred), well then I'd buy it.
YOU wouldn't. Many people would. A common definition of an ultra-portable is WEIGHT being less than 4 pounds, with no stipulation on size (as it is implied by weight that it cannot be too big). I have Toshiba Portege R-100 which is 1.8 pounds and 12" - about the size and weight of a notebook - if that's not an ultraportable, I don't know what is. A 10" or less is a TOY, not a computer. I would welcome a 13" 2 pound SSD drive MacBook ultraportable - and buy one most likely.