Apple's 2010 MacBook Air (11 & 13 inch) Thoroughly Reviewed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 26, 2010 10:08 PM EST- Posted in
- Mac
- Apple
- MacBook Air
- Laptops
The Screen: Very Good
Many netbooks and notebooks have shipped with 11.6 inch screens. They deliver a good balance between screen size and portability. But the 11.6-inch displays we’ve encountered in the past have been crap. It’s not rocket science, but rather a matter of cost. The majority of users will pick a cheap, bright, glossy display over something with better viewing angles, higher resolution or more accurate colors. And when you’re competing mostly based on price, it’s tough to make a decision that won’t increase sales (I’d argue that it makes the most important part of your customers happier but then again, I don’t run Acer/ASUS/Dell/Gateway).
Apple opts out of low margin competition. The cheapest MacBook Air starts at $999. You pay a premium, and part of that premium goes towards the best 11.6-inch display we’ve ever tested.
Most 11-inch screens don’t get very bright and have sub-par contrast ratios. The 11-inch MacBook Air has neither of these characteristics. It’s 127% brighter than the Alienware M11x R2 and has twice the contrast ratio of anything in its class. It’s not the most amazing display we’ve ever seen, but it’s way better than the majority of what’s out there. In actual use it does look good. The contrast ratio in particular sells the display.
The 13-inch panel is pretty close in performance. The max brightness is a bit higher and black level a bit lower. The resulting increase in contrast ratio is appreciable. For the most part you don’t make any quality tradeoffs when going with one MBA over another. It just boils down to screen size and resolution.
Both the 11 and 13-inch MBAs use TN panels, but they are better than your standard TN panel. Viewed above center the display washes out, viewed below center the display gets very dark.
The dark underside of TN panels
Color reproduction is above average, but not quite as good as the 15-inch MacBook Pro we reviewed earlier in the year.
Color gamut isn’t very impressive at all. It’s in line with what you’d expect from a panels of these sizes though.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
185 Comments
View All Comments
Sabresiberian - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
When someone resorts to name-calling they lose respect from me. Putting down people with a medical or educational diagnosis in the process causes me to think even less of them.Put a reasonable argument out there, back it up with some numbers, then let it go if the other party doesn't get it; it's all you can do. If you resort to name-calling that is about you, not him (or her) and your state of mind. If you feel tempted to bash someone by calling them " [expletives deleted]" then take a moment - go punch a pillow and scream at it or whatever you need to - and get clear before you post.
If your intent is to just make people mad and isn't to actually have a discussion - well, there's nothing I can say about that except, have a nice life, and enjoy your stiff neck, back aches, and ulcers.
;)
huai - Monday, November 1, 2010 - link
MBA currently has space on its board for 2 chips:C2D CPU
Nvidia Chipset w/ integrated GPU and USB2.0 controllers
You propose a 5 chip solution:
Core i CPU
Intel Chipset (which doesn't support USB3.0)
3rd party USB 3.0 controller
Dedicated GPU
Optimus
Where's the space going to come for this? Are you willing to cut battery life by a third to make room?
freefallgrue - Thursday, November 4, 2010 - link
No FireWire? Get real.michael2k - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
No, the MacBook 13 needs to become cheaper. If the "elite" MBA11 is $999, the MB13 should be $899.Four screen sizes is a non issue, any more than it is for Dell, Lenovo, or HP.
1) 11.6" is great as an entry point as it allows for a full sized keyboard
2) 13.3" is great as a portable as it allows for speakers and a full sized keyboard
3) 15" allows for greater performance without loss in portability
4) 17" maximizes performance for a tradeoff in portability
The pro terminology is perfect as it indicates more performance. The problem is that the 13" MBP shouldn't be a Pro since it lacks a Core i3; if we get rid of any, it should be the 13" MBP.
If you want a logical and maximal pricing structure:
MB 11: $899
MBA 11: $999
MB 13: $999 (no optical but only 4 pounds)
MBA 13: $1299
MBP 13: $1299 (no optical but core i3)
MBP 15: $1599
MBP 17: $1799
martyrant - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Macs make fancy looking products, but as you notice you compare apples to apples because at a lower price range these products would be getting smashed against $1000 price-point laptop PCs.I just don't get the appeal for paying for less, but I do know there's a lot of less-than-brilliant people out there that can't tell when they are being owned by advertising and no matter what anyone does there's always going to be those less-than-brilliant (yes, that's sarcasm) roaming the planet, so by all means dump your money into a cult like company.
I just find it funny that Anandtech got all Apple over the past 3-4 years, I don't remember seeing that many Mac reviews prior to that. You getting a kick back now?
hmurchison - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Yes but the problem is we Mac users don't want to run Windows or Linux for the sake of hardware that looks better on paper. As Anand said in his review...the tight integration of the OS and the hardware means that Apple extracts more performance out their computers than what is typical of the industry.It's not about Advertising it's about design and aesthetics that extend from the hardware to the software. To some it's appealing much as a BMW is more appealing than say a Ford to car lovers.
With 50 million Mac users and 3-4x times that amount of iPod/iphone/iPad users Apple left Cult status a LONG time ago. $300 a share isn't a cult ..that's good biz.
martyrant - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Have you heard Steve Jobs talk? That's cult like.And everything you just said proves my point, you got owned by advertising (design and aesthetics? lol, c'mon).
You are on a IT site, with most of us probably knowing how to dremel, cut, and completely customize our cases, hardware, and software (yeah, we can program too!)
Macs are for people who can't customize their own computers (both design, aesthetically, and software) themselves and like to pay out the bum to feel part of the cult.
AMDJunkie - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
"You are on a IT site, with most of us probably knowing how to dremel, cut, and completely customize our cases, hardware, and software (yeah, we can program too!)"Very good. Make a laptop from the ground up with the exact same dimensions, fit, finish, as the MacBook Air; while also surpassing it in benchmark prowess, appearance of speed, and battery life. And since you can program too, might as well make your own OS while you're at it. I suppose you could appropriate another and make your own modifications to it, as long as it works as well as what Apple has.
Go on...
Riiiiight. Just because they're designed to appeal to aesthetes does not mean there is not quite a bit of engineering that goes into these. When you go through the iFixIt, or take it apart for yourself and reassemble it, you'll have a greater appreciation for Apple's "toys."
Also, keep on trollin'.
sprockkets - Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - link
Tell me what the value is on a $1000 plastic Macbook with an outdated processor, ram capacity and everything else.Sorry, OSX isn't worth the extra $500 premium.
martyrant - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link
Point is, if I wanted to, it could be done. Why would I have to write my own OS when it's possible to modify and customize one of the better ones out there? (If you noticed, I haven't bashed OS X at all, simply their price point on their hardware).Mac users are just used to paying more for less, which is the point in all my trolling points.
Sounds like a bunch of idiots to me.