X220 (i5-2520M) vs. MacBook Air 13inch --> please no Fanboys

[dr_st]

As for USB3, I think it is like laserdisc in that it may get some traction, but will never become mainstream. USB, which uses the CPU for control is just too inefficient compared to technologies like FireWire and ThunderBolt that have their own controllers and as a result much faster and more consistent throughput.

You'd think so, but the situation is that Firewire is dead, while USB2, despite being inferior to it, is everywhere.

I very much like Light Peak / Thunderbolt, and I hope it becomes the next big thing, but nothing is certain. The availability of peripherals and the speed of vendor adoption will decide the battle, and so far, I have to sadly admit, USB3 is ahead.

[asiafish]

You'd think so, but the situation is that Firewire is dead, while USB2, despite being inferior to it, is everywhere.

I very much like Light Peak / Thunderbolt, and I hope it becomes the next big thing, but nothing is certain. The availability of peripherals and the speed of vendor adoption will decide the battle, and so far, I have to sadly admit, USB3 is ahead.

FireWire dead? Since when? Even at big box retailers like Best Buy there are plenty of external drives with FireWire 800, and of course FireWire is on every current Mac except the Air (which supports it through ThunderBolt). All of my external drives are FireWire capable, and except for my Air, all of my Macs can themselves be used as a giant external drive with FireWire target disk mode.

If FireWire is dead, nobody ever told Apple or any of the sellers of high-end external drives. With Apple being the number one brand of PCs over $1000 and with FireWire on almost every Apple computer I'd say FireWire, while nowhere near as common as USB, remains a vastly superior interface that is doing rather well.

[dr_st]

Correction - Firewire is not dead.

In the Mac world it's still alive. Outside of the MAC world it was never alive. It was stillborn.

As a PC user, I have used countless USB2 peripherals, and exactly zero Firewire peripherals. Yep, zero. That's despite having built-in Firewire on most of my desktops and some of my laptops. Not because I didn't want to. The opportunities/needs just never came up.

USB is on everything. Storage devices, thumb drives, printers/scanners, input devices, sound devices, network adapters, even low-end video/docking solutions, and probably a dozen other categories that I'm completely forgetting, as well as stupid gadgets (USB toothbrush anyone?)

Firewire is non-existent, except a small selection of high-end external hard drives and a similarly small number of video cameras. And even these usually have USB interfaces next to them, so 99% of the users will use them as USB.

And now that USB2 is no longer even remotely sufficient for serious data transfer - it's being replaced by eSATA and USB3, while Firewire forever remains marginal.

As an Apple user you may get a false impression that Firewire is doing rather well, but even among the Apple users - ask how much of them really use Firewire compared to USB.

So technically, Firewire may not be dead, but it most definitely has failed, big time. With its technical superiority to USB, it should have been prevalent, not marginal.

And I would hate to see Light Peak go down in a similar way. Even if it used as the ultimate docking connection for all Apple machines and peripherals in the next 10 years, I would still consider it a failures unless it reaches all mainstream PC platforms. Because the technology is awesome. It seems to me that Intel is really trying to push Light Peak outside the Apple microcosm, and there is some interest from OEMs, but nothing is certain so far.

[asiafish]

(snip)

Many Mac users likely have no idea what FireWire is, but those of us who do more than FaceBook or Angry Birds on our Macs have been using FireWire since the G3 era. Judging by the number of FireWire drives and cables at Best Buy, which is definitely PC-centric as retailers go, I must disagree. All of my external drives are USB AND FireWire, and I have only used the USB interfaces when connecting to a Windows PC or a MacBook Air.

Being mainstream is not the only definition of success, being available, superior and co mmon-enough that you don't have to hunt for it is enough for me.

As for FireWire on PCs, I believe it isn't popular because PC venders are too cheap/unwilling to license the 6 pin (bus powered) or newer FireWire ports. Those 4 pin ports that required a separate power supply made FireWire too inconvenient to bother with. I had such a port on one or two PC laptops and likewise never used it, despite having plenty of FireWire drives around. On my Apple machines it is the interface of choice.

[pianowizard]

As a PC user, I have used countless USB2 peripherals, and exactly zero Firewire peripherals.

I have used exactly two Firewire devices in my whole life, versus hundreds of USB ones.

Mods and Admins, I know it's starting to get tempting to close this thread but please don't, because I am learning a lot from this discussion. Close it when the debate gets nasty, but right now it's definitely civilized.

[dr_st]

Being mainstream is not the only definition of success, being available, superior and co mmon-enough that you don't have to hunt for it is enough for me.

I see your point, but I just disagree with it. It's true that it's not just about being mainstream (e.g., Thinkpads and other business machines are not mainstream, but are not failures), however for something such as a standard, I think the way to measure success is by how widespread it is.

Although Firewire is not as obscure as, say, DVD-RAM (a vastly superior storage format that died almost at birth), in the sense that you can get peripherals for it, I judge its success best on what I'd expect it can achieve considering its technological merits. And it is clearly an underachiever. It's not widespread enough. It's not as widespread as USB. Why not? It's better! Why are all you drives both USB _and_ Firewire? Because if they were only Firewire, they would be useless if you ever wanted to connect them to the majority of systems with no Firewire support. Why are there almost no Firewire peripherals outside these external hard drives?

As for FireWire on PCs, I believe it isn't popular because PC venders are too cheap/unwilling to license the 6 pin (bus powered) or newer FireWire ports. Those 4 pin ports that required a separate power supply made FireWire too inconvenient to bother with.

What you say is definitely true for laptops, however most desktops have full-fledge large 6-pin Firewire ports. And it still never caught on. The licensing issue you mention is probably one of the key contributors to the standard's failure to propagate. Why should anyone have to "license" Firewire when USB is free?

Bottom line is, I think it's a matter of definition of expectations. If Firewire's purpose was merely to serve as a proprietary high-speed connector for external storage, then by all means, its current status is fine, and you can say it had at least partial success (although if powered eSATA catches on, it will be the final nail in the coffin of Firewire). And maybe that really was the goal, but it's somewhat disappointing.

Light Peak, however, is clearly and openly being positioned as a universal connectivity technology, and as a full and better alternative to USB3. Therefore it would be completely unacceptable for it to end up as a niche product. It would be a failure.

Looking back to your original comment I replied to, about USB3 never becoming mainstream - well, it's already about as mainstream as Firewire ever was, and continues to catch adopters (even though it sucks!), so Light Peak has a very very tough battle ahead of it.

[ThinkRob]

Looking back to your original comment I replied to, about USB3 never becoming mainstream - well, it's already about as mainstream as Firewire ever was, and continues to catch adopters (even though it sucks!), so Light Peak has a very very tough battle ahead of it.

This might not be a useful analogy for the younger generation, but I think we could say this: so far, it looks like USB is VHS and Firewire is Betamax.

It seems pretty clear to me: licensing is what killed Firewire. Apple wanted (as I recall) $1/unit at introduction plus some other restrictions. USB had no such requirement.

Yes, interrupt-driven I/O sucks. Yes, DMA is much nicer*. But it's also a lot more complex. Your average peripheral maker is trying to save every yuan they can -- if it comes down to using I/O tech that requires a per-unit licensing fee and a dedicated controller, or simple spec. compliance and no controller... well... the battle's pretty much over at that point.

Now I think Light Peak is cool. Really cool. I was excited when I first saw Intel demo it. But I also think that the prospect of having to buy adapters will do for consumers what the Firewire licensing fees did for device makers: it will nickel and dime them out of the market. Yes, existing Apple users locked in to the platform probably won't mind. That's one of the costs of doing business (just like buying a new VGA/DVI adapter for their iBooks, PowerBooks, MacBooks, etc.) Light Peak will likely be a success in the Mac world. But for a I/O standard that's trying to establish itself in the greater PC market, the lack of existing devices is a killer; the folks who consider a $500 PC pricey are not going to want to drop $20 here and $20 there on adapters for all their gear.

My prediction: Light Peak takes off in the Mac world more or less "by fiat", but sees limited adoption in the rest of the market -- its success coming mainly in the form of video support and niche markets (video production, limited enterprise use, etc.)

But hey, what do I know? We all probably remember "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame."

* For everything but security. From a security standpoint: EWWWGETITOFFME!!!

[asiafish]

(snip)

To me the difference is that USB3 is obscure even in the Wintel ecosystem (and non-existence in the Apple ecosystem), while FireWire has been the dominant storage interface in the Mac ecosystem for over a decade with no sign of declining until replaced by ThunderBolt, which at present it lives alongside and through an adapter is compatible with. eSATA is far superior to USB3, yet that too is largely ignored in the consumer PC market and at least at Best Buy, is far less available than FireWire for external storage.

Powered eSATA won't on its replace FireWire because Apple alone is a big enough market to sustain it. ThunderBolt may very well replace FireWire and I hope it does as I just love the idea that one tiny port on a 2.3 lb laptop can support and thereby replace so many different ports and standards. I understand that many people dislike needing to buy adapters. Personally, I see the flipside and would rather buy a $30 adapter than have to carry a bulkier or even an uglier laptop just to accommodate a bunch of legacy ports. Back in the late 90s I was very happy to see PS2 and serial ports start disappearing in favor of USB, which replaces both with a much cleaner port.

Displayport was similarly attractive when it came out some years ago on MacBooks and ThinkPads (ThunderBolt is backwards compatible to DP) as it allows modern digital connection, legacy VGA support and can carry audio and almost any format, with DRM (lacking in DVI). Again, I can carry my 2.3lb Air (or 3.3lb X220i) and a small HDMI, DVI or VGA adapter and connect to anything. Sure, the X220i has a VGA port, but I'd rather have the case just a smidge smaller, one less hole in the case and just that much less weight and carry a VGA adapter on the rare instance I might want to connect to something that requires it. I have just such a VGA adapter I take with me when I might use someone else's projector, and an HDMI adapter lives in my projector's carry case. Most of the time I don't bring any adapters at all when I travel. The X220i will likely be used much the same way, and I highly doubt I will even plug anything into that VGA port.

I'm not even suggesting that your view is wrong, just that I don't agree with it. I am certainly no authority when it comes to what is a better approach for connectivity, at least not beyond my own preferences.

I do agree and join the request not to close this thread. People can definitely disagree on something while still discussing it in a civil manner and learn a thing or two in both directions in the process.

[asiafish]

Light Peak will likely be a success in the Mac world. But for a I/O standard that's trying to establish itself in the greater PC market, the lack of existing devices is a killer; the folks who consider a $500 PC pricey are not going to want to drop $20 here and $20 there on adapters for all their gear.

I freely admit that I am something of a snob when it comes to gear, and always go for quality over price. Its just a philosophy, I prefer to make do without something or buy used if I can't afford the product I really want. Fortunately I'm not poor, so I don't usually have to compromise with low-end gear.

As far as Mac users buying new adapters when Apple changes standards, you can also look at it as very economical. For instance, I have a very nice 30" Dell monitor that has DVI as its connection. In 2006 it connected directly to my 15" MacBook Pro of the time, and in 2008 I bought a little $30 adapter to connect to my new MacBook Pro. That adapter still works today on my current MacBook Air's ThunderBolt port or on the mini-displayport on my 2010 MacBook Pro. So in the five years I've owned this monitor I've bought one $30 adapter.

My projector uses HDMI and VGA. In the bag I have a $30 mini displayport to HDMI adapter. I will probably move that adapter to my living room for the TV and get separate displayport to HDMI and mini-DP to DP adapters (plugged into each other) so that I can use the projector whether I carry the X220i or MacBook Air. Of course, I could also go the mini-DP to VGA route and support both computers with one VGA cable and one adapter.

Now had I bought consumer grade PCs I would not have been able to connect that lovely monitor at all to most PCs of 2006, and still would not today as most consumer machines are VGA and HDMI only.

[dr_st]

To me the difference is that USB3 is obscure even in the Wintel ecosystem (and non-existence in the Apple ecosystem), while FireWire has been the dominant storage interface in the Mac ecosystem for over a decade with no sign of declining until replaced by ThunderBolt, which at present it lives alongside and through an adapter is compatible with. eSATA is far superior to USB3, yet that too is largely ignored in the consumer PC market and at least at Best Buy, is far less available than FireWire for external storage.

Again, you only concentrate on the storage side of things. In the external storage department Firewire still holds its own, that's true, but I doubt that this was the niche that was envisioned by the architects of the standard. In any case, if we suddently woke up in a world with no Firewire, it would have very little impact on anything than if we suddenly woke up in a world without USB. That's another way to measure a standard's success.

No matter how you look it, USB won the war with Firewire, in knock-out. That is assuming you saw it as a war to begin with. Maybe I am missing something here. I wasn't around when the standards first came out.

Powered eSATA won't on its replace FireWire because Apple alone is a big enough market to sustain it.

That's completely true. Apple alone can sustain many things, that is part of their greatness. However as a PC user, if something is on Apple only - to me it's as good as non-existent.

ThunderBolt may very well replace FireWire and I hope it does as I just love the idea that one tiny port on a 2.3 lb laptop can support and thereby replace so many different ports and standards.

And indeed I hope it does eventually replace all the ports and standards and all sorts of platforms, and not just Firewire on Apple computers.

I understand that many people dislike needing to buy adapters. Personally, I see the flipside and would rather buy a $30 adapter than have to carry a bulkier or even an uglier laptop just to accommodate a bunch of legacy ports.

Well, if the standard is really successful - eventually you won't need any adapters - since everything will converge to it. That's a matter of time. But that brings us to another interesting topic - adapters versus building ports in. It is not clear that one approach is universally better. Everyone remembers the famous Lenovo video comparing the X300 to the first release of the Air ("we don't add it on, we build it in") - which made the Air look really silly. And all these extra ports did not make the X300 uglier (it's a very elegant machine, of course in the Thinkpad style, not Apple style), or heavier. Of course it was not as thin as the Air, but it was thin enough.

[asiafish]

That's completely true. Apple alone can sustain many things, that is part of their greatness. However as a PC user, if something is on Apple only - to me it's as good as non-existent.

I'm primarily an Apple user. My entire office runs on Macs, with only one Windows machine, a Small Business Server that used to quite a bit, but now only hosts Exchange email (calendar and other functions are in a Mac-only suite called DayLite). For that use, all of my external drives are FireWire 800, though I do insist on a USB interface as a secondary for use on my MacBook Air.

Adding a ThinkPad X220i actually requires some adaptation as all of my disks are in Apple's HSF+ format and I am unwilling to change to a Windows or *nix standard. I bought a program called MacDrive to access Apple volumes through Windows 7 to overcome that. My drives will obviously be limited to USB2 when connected to the ThinkPad.

The whole X220i purchase was more my inner geek having some extra cash than any need to step outside the Apple ecosystem. If I wanted longer battery life I could just as easily have bought one of those big external batteries for my Air for a lot cheaper than the ThinkPad.

[dr_st]

The whole X220i purchase was more my inner geek having some extra cash than any need to step outside the Apple ecosystem. If I wanted longer battery life I could just as easily have bought one of those big external batteries for my Air for a lot cheaper than the ThinkPad.

I do hope that the opportunity for my inner geek to explore Apple's ecosystem will also come up! However, I still refuse to actually buy any of their products with my own money (this is an ideological thing). However, should my wife suddenly decide that she wants a Macbook (seeing as she already has and enjoys both an iPhone and an iPad), I would not object to tinkering with it a bit and learning the Apple side of things.

[asiafish]

I do hope that the opportunity for my inner geek to explore Apple's ecosystem will also come up! However, I still refuse to actually buy any of their products with my own money (this is an ideological thing). However, should my wife suddenly decide that she wants a Macbook (seeing as she already has and enjoys both an iPhone and an iPad), I would not object to tinkering with it a bit and learning the Apple side of things.

Ideological? Its a computer, not a religion or political candidate. I buy computers based on whether it meets my wants or needs, not on ideology.

[pianowizard]

I do hope that the opportunity for my inner geek to explore Apple's ecosystem will also come up!

I hope so as well. So far, the only Apple products I have ever owned were a PowerBook G3 with very loose hinges, and two Stargate Atlantis episodes that I purchased from iTunes. This laptop was in my possession from Aug 2004 to Feb 2006 but I turned it on only like three times, and each time for only several minutes!

[dr_st]

Ideological? Its a computer, not a religion or political candidate. I buy computers based on whether it meets my wants or needs, not on ideology.

Well, then we can just say that most of their products don't meet my needs, and those that can meet my needs, do not meet my wants. But there is always some curiosity and desire to learn new things.

[asiafish]

Well, then we can just say that most of their products don't meet my needs, and those that can meet my needs, do not meet my wants. But there is always some curiosity and desire to learn new things.

I agree. When I hear "ideology", I tend to think of reasons for not buying such as the greenpeace stuff or labor issues in China. Those reasons, to me, tend to be the same regardless of which company's name is on the computer.

Other "ideological" issues may be things like Apple's approval process for iOS apps or refusal to allow Flash. Again, if this affects you personally, such as apps you really want or need not being available or you frequently depend on, enjoy or work in Flash websites, then by all means those are valid reasons, but correct me if I'm wrong, those are FUNCTIONAL, not IDEOLOGICAL reasons not to choose product A over product B.

For instance, I only buy Macs for my business because our calendar and case management system is a Mac-only multi-user system called DayLite 3 by Market Circle. DayLite isn't the only such software, but it is the one that I found best met my wants and needs for the way my business operates. Refusing to buy Windows systems or try to incorporate Linux is not ideological, it is functional (lack of DayLite).

Ideologically I am against advertising-based systems and do not like giving another company the "rights" to my data or access to my confidential information. It is for ideological reasons that I host my own email accounts (Microsoft Exchange) and use DayLite instead of one of the many cloud-based law firm management suites. It is also for ideological reasons that I don't use any Google services and won't own an Android-based phone, as I just have this nagging feeling that Google is watching me with such devices and services.

Apple has many ideological issues that some people despise, but for me they are a good match as I could care less about software being "open", but care a great deal about my data being under my control. I also really like elegance in whatever product I am using, and elegance in both the hardware and the software is deep in Apple's philosophy. It is no different than choosing (and paying for) a high quality analog watch even though a multifunction digital watch is more accurate and does more things for far less money.

[dr_st]

I don't quite understand you here, asiafish...

You have your own reasons not to use Google services, and you clearly define them as ideological. You understand that Apple has many ideological issues that people despise, and yet you don't seem to believe that I can have ideological reasons not to use their products?

[asiafish]

I don't quite understand you here, asiafish...

You have your own reasons not to use Google services, and you clearly define them as ideological. You understand that Apple has many ideological issues that people despise, and yet you don't seem to understand that I can have ideological reasons not to use their products?

Its not that I don't understand that you can have ideological reasons, just that most reasons that people cite (need Flash, need an app not available) are not ideological at all, but functional.

Then there are the many anti-Apple zealots who refuse to buy anything made by Apple because they think Apple is exploiting Chinese workers (isn't everybody?) or because they think Steve Jobs is somehow brainwashing people (silly).

Ideology very rarely relates directly to a physical product, so ideological reasons to avoid a company would almost have to be unrelated to the product itself. My grandmother, a Hungarian Jew, for example refused to ride in a German car because of ideological reasons related to the holocaust. No manager working at BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche or Volkswagen in the mid 1990s had any role in the holocaust 50 years earlier except perhaps as a child member (Hitler Youth). Still, those companies did profit from slave labor and she considered them tainted.

I would imagine that very, very few people in the world today can pinpoint Apple as contributing to something like the holocaust. Apple has never done anything to try and reduce your or my civil rights, has never persecuted a given racial or ethnic group, and certainly has never tried to physically harm anyone. They have over their 36 year history really only tried to do one thing, which is the same thing that all other corporations try to do; make money. While there are plenty of ideological reasons for the anti-Apple crowd to rant an rave, none of them are TRUE ideological issues at all, but rather functional or product issues, such as lack of Flash.

Google is much the same, however I believe they do blur the line toward true ideological issue more than Apple does. They as a corporate mission try to make what is private public.

Another true ideological issue with Google relates to their self-driving car. I may be way out in left field here, but I see this as the beginning of the end of self-driven vehicles and I refuse to give my money to a company that is trying to, eventually, take away my cars and motorcycles, whcih are passionate hobbies of mine, and replace them with self-driven appliances. I recognize that most people would regard self-driven cars as a step forward, but it is something that I personally cannot support.

[pianowizard]

I suppose the desire to own something unique can be considered ideological. I want my phone and laptops to be at least somewhat unique. My Toughbook Y5 is extremely unique (at least in the U.S. and in the year 2011), and we don't see lots of Latitude D820's and HTC Touch Pro2's around either. By contrast, iPhones and MacBooks are everywhere. Many people have the "Wow, everyone has this toy! I want one too!" mentality, but I certainly don't.

But such ideology is only a minor reason that I don't have Apple products. The main reason is that my current laptops and phone meet my needs much better than anything Apple has ever made.

[dr_st]

Well, asiafish, I can assure you that my anti-Apple ideology has to do neither with the functional limitations of their products, nor with any political or pseudo-political claims. And it has nothing to do with any specific products. I just don't like their business model, their approach to product design, and their vendor-customer relationship philosophy, that's all.

[asiafish]

Well, asiafish, I can assure you that my anti-Apple ideology has to do neither with the functional limitations of their products, nor with any political or pseudo-political claims. And it has nothing to do with any specific products. I just don't like their business model, their approach to product design, and their vendor-customer relationship philosophy, that's all.

Product design or "I don't like the product" is not really ideology. I don't like minivans, but my not buying a minivan has nothing to do with ideology, but rather just the fact that I don't like minivans and hence don't consider them.

I don't like eggs because I think they don't taste good. No ideology at all.

Business model I don't get. What business model? For profit corporation? High-end only product offerings? Really, I don't don't get it on this one.

I've dealt with a few computer venders before. Dell had horrible service with regard to a laptop that failed at the end of the warranty period. I ordered it on June 4, 2003 and it arrived June 6, 2003. The laptop went completely dead on June 5, 2004, either one day before or one day after the warranty expired. Dell's response was simply to say "screw you".

Toshiba and Lenovo are two PC companies that I've had excellent customer service from in the past, and remain companies that I would be happy to patronize again in the future.

Apple has also given me excellent customer service over the years, repairing or replacing defective machines when under warranty, and replacing one machine that failed just outside of warranty through their customer relations department intervening. I rank all three of those companies as having excellent vender-customer relations, and Apple's customer satisfaction ratings certainly bear this out.

I still don't get your anti-Apple bias on anything other than product design, which is entirely legitimate. I don't laptops festooned with glowing "eyes" in the lid, and as such won't even look at an Alienware. No different than not looking at red business suits because you don't like the color.

[erik]

I still don't get your anti-Apple bias on anything other than product design, which is entirely legitimate.

I just don't like their business model, their approach to product design, and their vendor-customer relationship philosophy, that's all.

it sounds like this has already been answered.   not everyone likes apple and that's completely fair.   we shouldn't need to debate one's reasoning behind their personal decisions.

with that said, can we agree to disagree and move back on topic?   it would be appreciated.

[ghersh]

I have decided to postpone buying my next machine for a couple of years. But if it were right now - well, I need at least 900 pixels of vertical resolution, so x220 is no go. x201s would have been great, of course. I saw one new on eBay for $1700 (8GB of memory and Intel SSD, I think 128GB or so).

With 13 inch MacBook Air I get an overall high quality and desired vertical resolution. I'm gonna miss trackpoint and I'm a bit concerned that the maximum memory capacity of 4GB. I may need more, for editing large multimedia files. But then, of course, since I do need to run Windows (I have quite a few applications I'm using, not available under OSX), I would have to get Windows License, set up dual boot (or wipe out OSX completely), so it's additional hassle for me.

So, at this point it's pretty much a toss up. If, eventually, there will be x2** with 1600 x 900 pixels, that's what I'm gonna get. If not, as it stands now MacBook Air 13 inch is the only alternative (like, 13 inch, desired resolution). Seems like Sony might be another option, but I saw few reviews and they complain about the overall quality (body and keyboard).

Stuff like ideology etc means nothing to me. Computer is a productivity tool for me and nothing more than that. Those who buy computer to make a statement have nothing better to do with their lives.

[asiafish]

Everyone remembers the famous Lenovo video comparing the X300 to the first release of the Air ("we don't add it on, we build it in") - which made the Air look really silly. And all these extra ports did not make the X300 uglier (it's a very elegant machine, of course in the Thinkpad style, not Apple style), or heavier. Of course it was not as thin as the Air, but it was thin enough.

Of course that video was hilarious. It was also quite an exaggeration of how anyone would use an Air. I've been using a MacBook Air as my primary laptop since the first speed bump in late 2008 (nVidia graphics, still 1 USB and mini displayport). I never had any issue at all about connectivity. On the road mostly I only plugged in AC power, though occasionally I would plug in a USB hard drive. In the Apple world wireless mice use Bluetooth, not USB, so its the PC with its USB transmitter that looks silly while the Mac just pairs to the mouse and works.

In the office that original MacBook Air required three wires; AC power, USB (to a powered hub already connected to everything) and mini displayport to my external monitor. The new MacBook Air does even better with ThunderBolt replacing USB and giving me access to the FireWire port and wired Ethernet on my ThunderBolt display (bought today, WOW!!!!!). On the road, I still use a bluetooth mouse (on the rare occasions I bother with an external) and tend to not plug in anything except an external hard drive, and thats only on longer trips.

Now looking at that X300 or the X220 or X1 of today, those machines are far more versatile in their ability to plug things directly into the laptop (as opposed to plugging things into the ThunderBolt display or a hub), but the docking ports, RJ11 port, VGA port and all of the extra USB and displayports sure take a lot of space compared to that single ThunderBolt port. My current MacBook Air is A LOT cleaner-looking than the X220 that competes against it, in part because it has only five holes in the sides (2 USB, 1 TB, 1 MagSafe and 1 audio out).

Neither approach is better, but rather each has its merits. I like minimalist designs, and as such would rather carry with me the absolute smallest, lightest and sleekest computer that can do what I want to do. In my regular daily work that is the 11" MacBook Air. For longer trips where I need more than 6 hours (I regularly exceed 6 hours on my 5 hour Air) unplugged runtime, the 13" Air or the X220 are the most attractive options, depending on the runtime required. Since I occasionally need upwards of 15 hours (army weekend or trans-Pacific flight) I opted for the X220 with 9 cell which at 3.4 lbs, is the smallest and lightest computer out there that will give me the functionality I require while still meeting my snobbish standard for look and feel of my equipment. I'll likely get the slice battery as well, pushing weight to 4 lbs and runtime to 20 hours. Of course I'll never use the expresscard slot, the SD card port or more than one of the USB ports. Probably won't ever either of the display outputs either, but who knows.

[wolfman]

I still don't understand why so many people claim they need more than 4GB of RAM.

Virtual Machines are the main reason why I need more than 4gb of RAM and most of the folks I know that claim to need more than 4gb of RAM claim virtual machines as the reason as well. I'll run a simulated application development environment locally with a VM for websphere, VM for DB2 and a host for my IDE (for example). Often times if I am remote I will also run a Windows XP VM for the sole reason of getting my mail from work as their SSL VPN appliance isn't configured to allow Linux clients (but is a Linux appliance... go figure).

[ZaZ]

The two interesting notebooks on the market to me are the 13" Air, for the 900 vertical resolution, and the X220. I debated them and ultimately went with the X220 mainly for the better matte screen, the stick and the dual drives. I also didn't want wait for the Air refresh. My X220i is a great notebook, but I think I easily could chose the Air and been very happy with my decision.

[asiafish]

The two interesting notebooks on the market to me are the 13" Air, for the 900 vertical resolution, and the X220. I debated them and ultimately went with the X220 mainly for the better matte screen, the stick and the dual drives. I also didn't want wait for the Air refresh. My X220i is a great notebook, but I think I easily could chose the Air and been very happy with my decision.

They are both outstanding, each with advantages and disadvantages over the other.

The previous Air while equipped with a much slower processor has a much better graphics chip. Overall performance between the 2010 and 2011 Air is about the same, the new one faster for pure processing and the old one faster in graphics-heavy applications such as games.

[ThinkRob]

Virtual Machines are the main reason why I need more than 4gb of RAM and most of the folks I know that claim to need more than 4gb of RAM claim virtual machines as the reason as well. I'll run a simulated application development environment locally with a VM for websphere, VM for DB2 and a host for my IDE (for example). Often times if I am remote I will also run a Windows XP VM for the sole reason of getting my mail from work as their SSL VPN appliance isn't configured to allow Linux clients (but is a Linux appliance... go figure).

Same here. I don't have much need for them anymore (they've been mostly replaced with real boxen), but previously I was running a couple VMs every day (www, DB, etc.) Even with page merging and other tricks, that adds up fast. Add in an IDE that eats RAM like there's no tomorrow, plus your browser, music player, etc. and you get above 4 GB pretty quickly.

That said, I think quite a few people overestimate exactly how much RAM they need. It seems that "I need more RAM" is the modern equivalent of what "I need to clear my cookies" was in the early 90s.

[pianowizard]

That said, I think quite a few people overestimate exactly how much RAM they need.

Yep, that's exactly what I was referring to. I knew about the RAM requirement of Virtual Machines, but many if not most of the people claiming "4GB RAM isn't enough" aren't using VM.

[rumbero]

That said, I think quite a few people overestimate exactly how much RAM they need."

Yep, that's exactly what I was referring to. I knew about the RAM requirement of Virtual Machines, but many if not most of the people claiming "4GB RAM isn't enough" aren't using VM.

Using Linux, in which i also do use VM's on a regular basis, i do enjoy the benefits of 8GB RAM on my trusty T61+ even while not using any VM. Just the fact that any swapping simply has vanished due to the large memory is already pure gold.

Another thing which people might want to consider is that the more RAM one has built in, the safer are any future memory requirements by newer and greedier software and operating systems. Not everybody requires raw CPU speed and number crunching power or even high level GPU performance in one's machine, and would be well off with sufficient RAM and possibly the addition of an SSD drive to rather speed up random data access. I guess if my good old T23 back in it's former days being my main machine would have been able to support more than just 1GB RAM, i would have waited even longer before finally upgrading to a T61.

Personally, i will rather try to keep this nice T61+ with UXGA Flexview screen as long as possible, than buy any of the newer Thinkpad offerings with inferior screen options. The possiblity of adding up to 8GB of RAM and an SSD actually make this possible, since CPU speed should be of no concern anymore for normal daily use thanks to those nice Core2Duo processors in existance. In fact, i am currently assembling a second T61+ barebone with the very same characteristics, in order to have a fallback machine in case my daily work horse should develop any issues.