That's basically what this is, no?

post_break 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

13" is not 11" As someone who used their 11" for years, it was a workhorse. A slow workhorse, but I still yearn for that size.

	▲	adastra22 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Those measurements are screen area. The old 11” had bezels that were almost an inch wide on each side. The actual laptop dimensions are almost exactly the same.
	▲	kube-system 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The 11" MacBook Air was also not 11". It was 11.6". The footprint of the Air was 11.8" x 7.56". The Neo is 11.71" x 8.12". If you liked the size of that one, you'll like this.
	▲	stefanfisk 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I had the 11” dual core i7 and I wouldn’t even call it slow (for its time). Loved that little machine and I keep longing for that form factor but with modern specs.
	▲	Schiendelman 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I think the bezels are so much smaller that this may be almost exactly the size of the old 11" MBA.
	▲	jen20 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I was thinking yesterday while reading the Thinkpad repairability story that I would pay an unreasonable amount for basically this laptop in the chassis of an X220, with a 7 row keyboard and Mac touchpad.

▲

stetrain 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a 13" 16:9 screen. A little smaller than the current 13.6" 16:10 MacBook Air in display size but not really any more portable. Weight is the same as the 13.6" MacBook Air.

▲

gbjw 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Don't think it's 16:9, just lower PPI than the air -- Neo: 2408x1506, Air: 2560x1664.

	▲	stetrain 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yep, you're right.

▲

kasperset 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes. I think Air is a better buy if you are going to have a "laptop". I wish it was lot lighter if I am losing features against MacBook Air.

	▲	stetrain 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, this is spiritually more of a successor to the old plastic MacBook or iBook lines. Not a successor to the premium ultra-portable 12" MacBook. That seems like a product they could also potentially revive with Apple Silicon.

▲

throwaway27448 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a 13" and is ~2.5x as heavy.

	▲	NoLinkToMe 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No it isn't. It's 1.08kg vs 1.23kg, or 13% heavier. And indeed it's 13 inch but the dimensions are quite similar, there is a 0.8% difference in width (with the 11 inch being wider surprisingly, due to the bezels) and a 7% difference in height (11 inch being shorter). At its thickest point the 11 inch is. 33% thicker. In terms of volume the 13 inch isn't any bigger. Just look up the specs.