I don’t think anyone’s picked up on this yet.
No, the MacBook Air is a full OSX laptop which will run any Apple program (possibly with the exception of a very few that need high end graphics processors – mostly advanced games, I think).
I think you’re thinking of the iPad Air, which is iOS and therefore won’t run Scrivener (yet.)
HTH
Actually, I was just referring to a rumor I heard that Apple is going to release a 12-inch version of the Macbook Air that runs on the iOS. I know that the current 11 and 13 inch versions are full OSX Mavericks machines since … well … I have one (13 inch i5 128 GB SSD with GBs RAM). Got it as a belated Christmas present this year surprisingly from a family member I’d least expect. At first, it was just going to be a writing machine, but come to find out, it’s far from wimpy. Heck, I’m even playing Skyrim on this thing and it works about as well as my old gaming laptop. Of course, that laptop was 5 and a half years old, but hey, it’s still kicking seeing as how it has a top in graphics card in it (for late 2008 when I got it). It will run any game available on Mac as of late 2013, albeit probably on low settings. The integrated graphics cards in intel machines have really gotten good as of late, challenging the lower end discreet cards from Nvidia and ATI.
There is something to be said about the inherent capabilities of Mac’s OSX. Features like built in Grammar and Spell checking, not to mention references like the dictionary and quite excellent thesaurus that have never seemed to fail me, give OS X a fell that is unique. I frequently compile to ebook as I use my Kindle Fire HD to proofread quite a bit when I don’t have my laptop handy, and for some reason, Scrivener for Mac’s compile features seem to work a lot more smoothly and provide a lot more features. The OS is much easier to learn than Windows. And you have to take into consideration that I just got my Macbook Air in January, used to be a strong defender of Windows 7 and made the same arguments a lot of you here have made, and there hasn’t been a lot of time for me to learn how to use this little powerhouse. In other words, the MacBook Air will handle a lot; maybe not as flashy as something beefier, but it will get the job done.
That being said, Scrivener for Windows will get the job done, and I’ve yet to really get in to the extra features that the Mac version provides, but I don’t find myself using the Windows version at all now that I’ve got the Mac version (and familiarized myself with some of the differences).
Others have understood the post just as you do, so I thankfully defer to your reading! 
Just hope it’s a one-liner: “all features 99.99% the same (save for CTRL instead of CMD, etc.)” 
But you don’t have a Mac, do you, for side-by-side comparisons…?
Yes, agreed. But then I read somewhere that even a seemingly basic bit of functionality like draggable corkboard index cards (sorry, not sure for the exact terminology here) is missing, currently, on the PC side, so it makes me wonder what else could be, too.
Indeed, it was: still can’t get over the fact that the PC version is seven years behind the Mac – how ever did L&L get on without ~80-90% of the software market!! :mrgreen:
Well, having read some more Macbook Air reviews, my biggest reason for going Apple (aside from Scrivener, which sounds damned intriguing) is how supposedly their touchpad is so much better (no inexplicable shenanigans due to hardware-software unity at one-stop-shop Apple) – and that’s just gone poof! 
Thanks, Pigfender. You’re right, of course…but still. 
[attachment=0]Screen Shot 2014-04-01 at 13.08.45.png[/attachment]
Yes, now that is cool. I even know people who would actually use such a feature on a frequent basis!
Well, I can’t imagine why that would be the case but I haven’t heard anything like that until now. Though now I’ve read that the Macbook Air also suffers from touchpad issues (misinterpreted gestures, etc.) and, with feature parity due for Scrivener versions at that time anyway, I’m happily staying Wintel-exclusive after all.
It was just a rumor I bumped into the other day. I don’t know why you’d want to put iOS in something like an Macbook since it’s already got the full deal in it (mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks), but hey, some people seem to like the idea. I think the key word here is “Rumor.”
Probably the idea is to do something like the Microsoft Surface, with the slick touch screen interface of an iPad, but the option of an integrated keyboard.
(Never mind that Bluetooth keyboards for the iPad exist already, and Microsoft had to take a huge writeoff on the Surface because no one except hardware reviewers liked them.)
Katherine
I have to say that in several key ways the Mac version is considerably better than the Windows version.
The two biggies for me are:
1/ .mobi export options - Miles better on the Mac, which is kinda a big deal if you are regularly producing Kindle books.
2/ Snaphot Compare - The ability to compare and revert parts of snapshots is a Mac feature, not a Windows one (which has snapshots, but they aren’t as flexible).
I must say that I too have considered getting a Mac purely to run the Mac version of Scrivener.
Unfortunately Mac laptops are very expensive, so its not a goer at this precise second.
I do think that that “differences between Mac and Windows” thread should be updated much more regularly than it is by Admin here. The last time was about a year ago now, and yet comparing is the first thought that crosses anyones mind when they are looking at the two versions, so it is a little frustrating to not be sure how accurate that post is.
I am running three monitors now. 1600x1200 right and left wing monitors with a 2560 x 1440 center monitor. Scrivener runs fine on the 2560 x 1440 center monitor. The width allows the binder, composition window, and inspector to be displayed very crisply and not feel crowded.
The icons, which aren’t designed for high resolution monitors, are really tiny so I have to use them more by position than appearance. I’m told that issue is actively in work. I’m sure it will be fixed sooner or later.
I used to have a 2560 x 1600 center monitor (left over from when I designed houses using 3D CAD) and that was even better. The wing monitors turned portrait were the same pixel height. When that big monitor died, I spent a little more than half as much on the 2560 x 1440 monitor. If I had it to do again, I’d get the 2560 x 1600 instead. I’d recommend two of the 2560 x 1600 monitors in place of three 2560 x 1440 monitors. The extra height is really useful and there is so much room you can have two or more applications open and easily accessible on the monitor that isn’t running Scrivener.
Fitch
Just in case it might be of interest to someone, I’ve successfully run Scrivener for MacOS (Mavericks) under both VirtualBox and VMware Workstation, the former being easier to setup but the latter providing better performance by allowing two CPUs to be assigned to the VM.
VMware also allows you to run a VM on the background, so by using TeamViewer on the virtual system I’m able to access my “Mac” from any other system I have at hand, without loss of visual quality or responsiveness.
And it only costed me US$40 for a 2-GB DDR2 memory upgrade for my old desktop.
I run Scrivener on a Macbook Pro 15" 2014, and a Hacintosh.
Works a treat on either. Reality is a Hac works exactly as a Mac. I built the Hac as a technical exercise to get a very high performance unit for video production a couple of years ago. It boots directly to OSX Mavericks (updated from the original Lion)
I’ve priced up a top end unit, and the latest Mac Pro is as cheap as building a similarly powerful Hac, possibly even a little cheaper.
As someone mentioned a Mac Mini is a good option, low cost and as powerful as most PC’s you’d buy from a PC outlet.
I am sorry to interrupt and certainly do not want to get political, but I may ask how the term “ethical” applies to a company like Apple which does such beauties here:
“iCloud Uploads Local Data Outside of iCloud Drive” – datavibe.net/~sneak/20141023/wtf-icloud/
No, I don’t think ethics should count as a valid argument here. Sorry.
But no worries, currently stuck on the famous IOBluetooth error anyway.
That is a specious argument. Your logic means that I no longer need to follow any law or ethical position of another party breaks a law or ethical position.
Think about it.
I had never seen it that way before, really. You left me thinking about it. So, according to this, would installing Mac OS X as a dual boot on a Windows machine fall into the ethical ambiguity too, since it’s not an Apple hardware? 
Not any longer.
Perviously apple expressly forbid using their OS on anything other than apple hardware. Now that apple is ALLOWING OSX on VM, you can make a supportable argument that you can install it on any hardware that does not require “tricking” OSX to install.
The quotes are the key point.
What would be “tricking” then? Using Unibeast and/or Multibeast? Using a custom distro like Niresh? Tampering with the WiFi hardware to make it work? All of them?
the original hackintosh “hack” utilized a crack to circumvent the apple install lock. the fact that the (apple) provided no alternative for install other then their HW made any effort to circumvent the DRM … illegal.
I stopped looking at hackentosh once I hit that point.
BUT
now you can legally install in a VM. per apple. So… not sure how much the old DRM rule still applies.
Not really. I don’t promote breaking laws, I ask for some critical thinking about ethical behaviour of a company when weighting ethical or moral arguments in favour of that company and its policy. Although I can fully understand that one can find it “ambiguous”.
Furthermore than, such a discussion online usually leads nowhere and should best be done in person and not digitally. Otherwise we end up knee-deep in a purely hypothetical and therefore pointless world-spanning ethical and moral responsibilities discussion before long.
Personal ethics are about what I do, not about what you do. That is, saying that an individual or company behaves in an unethical way does not relieve me of any of my own moral responsibilities. (In fact, it may impose additional ones, such as an obligation not to do business with that company.)
Now, there are often vast differences between what is “legal” and what is “ethical,” and one could make an argument that there is nothing unethical about circumventing DRM in order to use legally purchased software on legally purchased hardware. But the validity (or not) of that argument is independent of the ethics of the DRM vendor.
Edit: Too often, anti-DRM arguments boil down to “they have a lot of money, so it isn’t really stealing.” Nothing ethical about that position at all.
Katherine
My conflict is that if DRM is legally applied to protect a legal position, and is specifically illegal to circumvent it, there is no legal way to bypass it.
Ethics are not even part of the picture.