PDA

View Full Version : 1.4 4GB or 1.6 4GB. Any info from users appreciated.




MacRumorUser
Jan 28, 2011, 01:03 PM
Hi Guys, I normally hate should I buy threads but I have done a lot of googling and could do with some hindsight from like minded mac minds.

Well I've decided to treat myself to a macbook air and can not decide which to get. Hard Drive size is not an issue so 64gb is fine 128gb will probably remain 80gb free so as I say it's a non issue.

However reading some sites in regards to benchmarks.

All are comparing the 1.6 4GB model to the stock 1.4 2GB model.

What I would be interested to know is what is the base 1.4 4GB like in comparison to the 1.6 4GB.

The reason I ask is the 1.4 4GB is 929 and the 1.6 4GB is 1129 albeit with the addition of the bigger HDD as well, which as I say is a non issue.

200 is a good 20% more cost wise.

If we are to presume that the 10% benchmark difference posted all over in regards to the 1.6/4gb to 1.4/2gb - this is reduced/negated somewhat when the 1.4 has 4GB ??

At this stage I'm veering towards the 1.4 but would be happy to hear from users of either and especially the 1.4 4GB. Thanks



Jezak
Jan 28, 2011, 01:14 PM
I have now owned both with 4GB or RAM and can tell you from experience that I noticed no performance increase from the 1.4 to the 1.6 in my usage pattern. I use the 11in air to surf the web, write code, build websites, blog, email, and play some games (WoW, Emulation stuff).

The extra harddrive space of the 1.6 was worth the price for my wife when we bought the second 11in air and I agree with her.

MacRumorUser
Jan 28, 2011, 01:26 PM
Thanks Jezak :) appreciate your feedback :)

Pretty much what I plan to do with it. I have a main machine (mac pro) and a 64GB 3G ipad - but need somthing just to tinker away on writing code for a new side project I'm working on, the couple of nights I don't have access to my main machine, as well as edit the odd photoshop file etc.

I love my ipad, but there are somethings you just can not do with it.

BlackMax
Jan 28, 2011, 02:11 PM
Here is a pretty good article on this topic from AnandTech.

Apple's 11-inch Upgraded MacBook Air: Do 1.6GHz and 4GB Make a Difference? (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4000/apples-11inch-upgraded-macbook-air-review-do-16ghz-and-4gb-make-a-difference)

Ronnoco
Jan 28, 2011, 02:27 PM
Everything I had read about the 1.4GHz 11" was that the ONE drawback was the very weak processor...I figured that I would upgrade to the highest I could to try and counter that weakness as much as possible...I do a lot of Handbrake converting and it is reasonable on the 1.6GHz...I'm glad I did the upgrade...After reading the AnandTech article that BlackMax so kindly posted, I see that it isn't just my imagination :D

MacRumorUser
Jan 28, 2011, 03:32 PM
Ihave read the article previously and for the most part its very informative however it was exactly because of articles such as this that I phrased my question.

The article is written really as a comparison to the stock model, it doesn't really address the situation of the 1.4 if it had 4gb of Ram initially, and I wonder would they have been so critical of processor if it had.

macproguy77
Jan 28, 2011, 09:56 PM
Here is a pretty good article on this topic from AnandTech.

Apple's 11-inch Upgraded MacBook Air: Do 1.6GHz and 4GB Make a Difference? (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4000/apples-11inch-upgraded-macbook-air-review-do-16ghz-and-4gb-make-a-difference)


This article recommended the CPU and Memory upgrades.
However, it had the opposite effect on me.
It confirmed that my decision to buy the 11" base model (1.4 / 2Gig ) was the correct one.

The upgraded cpu and memory resulted in a measly 15% increase in speed at best.
So a task that took 100 seconds, now took 115 seconds with the base model.

Who can't wait 15 more seconds for a 300+ dollar savings?
Or better yet, a task that takes 30 seconds would take 34.5 seconds on the base model.
Not to mention I'll get sightly better battery life.
I'm so glad I read this article.. you guys all had be convinced I needed the upgrades, but I found a 920.00 deal on a base model and bought it because it was cheap. I had some doubts and remorse today, but those are now gone.
SWEET!!!

This is usually a secondary device anyway, so it doesn't need to be lightning quick.. Difference is negligible for me.. Glad I saved the money.. And, look on the bright side. I'll be quicker to upgrade next refresh since I saved 400 bucks this time around.

rrl
Jan 29, 2011, 11:59 AM
You're over thinking this, so I'll make it easy: Max it out and don't look back. This device will be a relatively long-term work horse for you; don't leave any performance on the table. There. No regrets. Done.

Enjoy!

ccsicecoke
Jan 29, 2011, 01:09 PM
This article recommended the CPU and Memory upgrades.
However, it had the opposite effect on me.
It confirmed that my decision to buy the 11" base model (1.4 / 2Gig ) was the correct one.

The upgraded cpu and memory resulted in a measly 15% increase in speed at best.
So a task that took 100 seconds, now took 115 seconds with the base model.

Who can't wait 15 more seconds for a 300+ dollar savings?
Or better yet, a task that takes 30 seconds would take 34.5 seconds on the base model.
Not to mention I'll get sightly better battery life.


The faster CPU would result in more battery life if both of them are based on same architecture. While in idle state, the 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz CULV have the same power consumption. But if computer deals with heavy task, faster CPU would finish the task and go back to idle state more quickly, hence consumes less power

Ronnoco
Jan 29, 2011, 01:18 PM
You're over thinking this, so I'll make it easy: Max it out and don't look back. This device will be a relatively long-term work horse for you; don't leave any performance on the table. There. No regrets. Done.

Enjoy!
This was my thinking...I had the extra money to spend, I wanted the best possible performance in the 11.6" form factor...I went for the 1.6GHz, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD version...couldn't be happier...:D

bmat
Jan 29, 2011, 01:50 PM
I have a 11.6 ultimate, and my wife has a 11.6 1.4 with 4GB RAM. I've noticed no difference between using her computer versus mine.

MacRumorUser
Jan 29, 2011, 02:41 PM
I have a 11.6 ultimate, and my wife has a 11.6 1.4 with 4GB RAM. I've noticed no difference between using her computer versus mine.

That is what I suspected and appreciate the first hand feedback. Thanks bmat :)



You're over thinking this, so I'll make it easy: Max it out and don't look back. This device will be a relatively long-term work horse for you; don't leave any performance on the table. There. No regrets. Done.

Enjoy!


Not really. I'm rationalising spending €200 more on a product that I don't necessarily need to spend if it makes only a nominal difference. The MacBook air will do some work but not really a work horse :)

KPOM
Jan 29, 2011, 04:07 PM
I was debating between the 1.86GHz 4GB and 2.13GHz 4GB version and went with the 2.13GHz primarily for psychological reasons (I already had a 1.86GHz Rev B). I'm happy with my purchase and would probably do it again. That said, I'd readily advise others to stick with the "base" configuration if that's all they need. The difference is not likely to be that noticeable.

Since it's not a "workhorse" I'd suggest the 4GB 1.4GHz model. Put the rest toward your next MacBook Air. I'm likely to skip the Rev E, but will seriously look at the Rev F assuming it has the Ivy Bridge chip and its IGP represents a step up from the NVIDIA 320M (the move to Sandy Bridge is looking more lateral since the CPU is a boost, but the IGP is a slight downgrade).

iRun26.2
Jan 29, 2011, 04:08 PM
This was my thinking...I had the extra money to spend, I wanted the best possible performance in the 11.6" form factor...I went for the 1.6GHz, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD version...couldn't be happier...:D

I agree 100%! Upgrade to the maximum unless you are really strapped for cash. You will never have the someday question "I wonder if I should have upgraded the...". It is such an awesome computer!

hcho3
Jan 29, 2011, 04:12 PM
Here is a suggestion.

1. If you planning to keep it long period of time like 3 years or more, go for max. Don't look back.

2. If you are not, then go for slower processor. However, everything gets outdated these days as soon as you buy them.


Also, I don't understand why it's such a big deal to spend extra 100 dollars on a laptop. The processor upgrade is just merely 100 dollars. If you are worrying about cashing out 100 dollars more on a laptop that costs 1000. Then, perhaps, you are so cheap and you shouldn't even get this laptop.

ditosou
Jan 29, 2011, 04:28 PM
merely my opinion:

if you plan a "short" usage for the machine (e.g. 1,2 years) get the base model. Otherwise... get the ultimate model.

iRun26.2
Jan 29, 2011, 04:54 PM
merely my opinion:

if you plan a "short" usage for the machine (e.g. 1,2 years) get the base model. Otherwise... get the ultimate model.

I think, though, that it also depends on what you are planning on using it for during the period of time you plan on keeping it. I would pay the extra $100 for a 14% increase in speed for processor intensive things because some of my programs do some heavy number crunching (yet I still wanted the 11.6" form factor).

KPOM
Jan 29, 2011, 05:28 PM
Also, I don't understand why it's such a big deal to spend extra 100 dollars on a laptop. The processor upgrade is just merely 100 dollars. If you are worrying about cashing out 100 dollars more on a laptop that costs 1000. Then, perhaps, you are so cheap and you shouldn't even get this laptop.

In the OP's case, since the 64GB SSD is sufficient, going up to the 1.6GHz model would also require purchasing a bigger SSD than what he or she needs.

impulse462
Jan 29, 2011, 06:00 PM
The faster CPU would result in more battery life if both of them are based on same architecture. While in idle state, the 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz CULV have the same power consumption. But if computer deals with heavy task, faster CPU would finish the task and go back to idle state more quickly, hence consumes less power

While I agree, that what you said * theoretically* makes sense, which it does, it is incorrect.

Even though the SU9400 and SU9600 draw the same amount of volts, that extra 200mhz in clock speed results in more energy being used, which in-turn results in a slightly less battery life.

This anandtech article explains it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4000/apples-11inch-upgraded-macbook-air-review-do-16ghz-and-4gb-make-a-difference

Ronnoco
Jan 29, 2011, 06:26 PM
I think, though, that it also depends on what you are planning on using it for during the period of time you plan on keeping it. I would pay the extra $100 for a 14% increase in speed for processor intensive things because some of my programs do some heavy number crunching (yet I still wanted the 11.6" form factor).
We must be of "The Borg"...:eek::D

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b161/oreilly1/borg.jpg

iRun26.2
Jan 29, 2011, 07:25 PM
We must be of "The Borg"...:eek::D

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b161/oreilly1/borg.jpg

Those were my favorite few episodes! :)

hcho3
Jan 29, 2011, 07:52 PM
In the OP's case, since the 64GB SSD is sufficient, going up to the 1.6GHz model would also require purchasing a bigger SSD than what he or she needs.

Please save me from that 64GB storage story. If you buying a laptop and if you have any serious intent to use it, anyone would know that 64GB storage is a joke. How much space will it be left after Snow leopard has been installed, hmmmm?

People complain the storage on 64GB iPad is too small.

If you are worried about 200-300 dollars, then perhaps, this laptop is too much for the OP, period. Go buy yourself a refurbished unit.

Jaro65
Jan 29, 2011, 08:01 PM
Please save me from that 64GB storage story. If you buying a laptop and if you have any serious intent to use it, anyone would know that 64GB storage is a joke. How much space will it be left after Snow leopard has been installed, hmmmm?

People complain the storage on 64GB iPad is too small.

If you are worried about 200-300 dollars, then perhaps, this laptop is too much for the OP, period. Go buy yourself a refurbished unit.

Indeed. A refurbished machine could be a great way to go.

iRun26.2
Jan 29, 2011, 08:42 PM
Indeed. A refurbished machine could be a great way to go.

From reading these forums early on, it sure sounded like a lot of people bought one version and them changed their mind and got a different one. I'm sure there are plenty of refurbed units that are in pretty good shape. (Although I'm pretty happy to have gotten a brand spanking new one). :)

ccsicecoke
Jan 29, 2011, 09:00 PM
While I agree, that what you said * theoretically* makes sense, which it does, it is incorrect.

Even though the SU9400 and SU9600 draw the same amount of volts, that extra 200mhz in clock speed results in more energy being used, which in-turn results in a slightly less battery life.

This anandtech article explains it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4000/apples-11inch-upgraded-macbook-air-review-do-16ghz-and-4gb-make-a-difference

I believe the battery shortage is mainly caused by extra 2GB ram. No evidence though. To be fair, Anandtech should compare between 1.4/4GB and 1.6/4GB, not 1.4/2GB and 1.6/4GB

KPOM
Jan 29, 2011, 09:25 PM
Please save me from that 64GB storage story. If you buying a laptop and if you have any serious intent to use it, anyone would know that 64GB storage is a joke. How much space will it be left after Snow leopard has been installed, hmmmm?

People complain the storage on 64GB iPad is too small.

If you are worried about 200-300 dollars, then perhaps, this laptop is too much for the OP, period. Go buy yourself a refurbished unit.

Re-read the original post. The OP said about 80GB of a 128GB drive would be unused. Just because you need it doesn't mean everyone does. If you aren't storing much media or setting up a Boot Camp partition then 64GB might well be enough. I just took a look at my own Mac partition. I'm using 66GB, of which 16GB are for iTunes media, and 10GB are for pictures. Thus, I can certainly see how 60GB might be "enough" for someone. Also, it's possible to supplement with external storage later, or even install a bigger SSD later (third party solutions already exist).

IOW, why spend $1400 if an $1100 notebook will suit your needs?

2IS
Jan 29, 2011, 10:54 PM
IOW, why spend $1400 if an $1100 notebook will suit your needs?

The question is how long will it suit your needs? Are you going to spend 1100 now and another 1100 a year later or are you going to spend $1400 and extend the useful life of the unit atleast antoher year if not two?

I can EASILY see how the 64gb storage will be your very first bottlneck, well before you need more memory or more processing power.

blow45
Jan 29, 2011, 10:59 PM
yeah but storage is easily upgradable whilst memory isn't, and 2gb of memory is serious bottleneck in any modern system, not even comparable with cpu speeds. In a couple of years the cpu's will be much better, but still the c2d will hold out pretty well IF it does have 4gbs of ram.

macproguy77
Jan 29, 2011, 11:02 PM
The faster CPU would result in more battery life if both of them are based on same architecture. While in idle state, the 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz CULV have the same power consumption. But if computer deals with heavy task, faster CPU would finish the task and go back to idle state more quickly, hence consumes less power

Not true. Read the article. The 1.4 got a little better battery life.

blow45
Jan 29, 2011, 11:06 PM
Not true. Read the article. The 1.4 got a little better battery life.

yeah well, it's not like it's a large sample test (and all that jazz), it's just two airs compared, that could be coincidental and attributed to other factors, I don't buy it, if they want to make a proper test how bout at least comparing 10 airs with one configuration and 10 airs with the other (at least)... A 6% reduction overall in battery life can easily be attributed to any chance manufacturing (battery) or configuration (os) factor...

macproguy77
Jan 29, 2011, 11:13 PM
Well the difference in battery is tiny anyway

And I'm happy with my 920.00 base model with 2 gig of ram. I'll give it less than 2 years before I have that bad boy on eBay anyway to help fund the purchase of apples next new invention. .

firewood
Jan 30, 2011, 12:22 AM
...and 2gb of memory is serious bottleneck in any modern system, ...

I have a 4gb model, and the Activity Monitor tool rarely shows it using more than 2gb, even with multiple apps, iOS developer tools, and web sites open, except when running a VM (for which is what I mainly use the extra 2gb).

Snow Leopard actually seems to use less memory than some older versions of Mac OS X.

2IS
Jan 30, 2011, 01:21 AM
yeah well, it's not like it's a large sample test (and all that jazz), it's just two airs compared, that could be coincidental and attributed to other factors, I don't buy it, if they want to make a proper test how bout at least comparing 10 airs with one configuration and 10 airs with the other (at least)... A 6% reduction overall in battery life can easily be attributed to any chance manufacturing (battery) or configuration (os) factor...

Regardless of the reason, it shows that what he said about the different processors is simply not accurate.

MacRumorUser
Jan 30, 2011, 02:23 AM
64gb in an air is enough space for me :)

As I say I have an octo 2.8 12gb ram and 4x1.5TB of storage for work.

Also have a 64gb iPad 3G
160 GB iPod classic and a
32gb iPhone 4
AppleTV 2

Audio & Video will not be stored on this device. Snow Leopard uses 5-6Gb after a clean install and removing foreign languages and printer drivers. Add possibly 10-15gb more applications and I'm still barely using 1/2 storage.

So forget debating storage requirements ;)


As for refurb or new the prices and models I quoted were refurbished prices ;) (i always tend to go refur bought two 27" imac core i7's last year that way too) hence I can not alter the config of those devices further.

PinkiPalermo
Jan 30, 2011, 10:22 AM
Personally I reckon that 1,4 Ghz should be enough for most tasks. The CPU rarely is the bottleneck. I believe an additional 2 GB of RAM is an absolute must when buying a MBA.

MacRumorUser
Jan 30, 2011, 11:07 AM
Oh well it's all now mute, as the 1.4 4GB has gone from the Refurb store.


Will wait a week and see if it re-appears. If it does not then I will go for the 1.6 as I want 4GB regardless.

Thanks for your feedback on this thread. MRU!

rrl
Jan 30, 2011, 11:43 AM
The MacBook air will do some work but not really a work horse :)

No? I own a Macmini2,1 (1.83 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 80 GB hard drive, Intel GMA 950) and it was my main computer for years. I made it do unspeakable things, but it just laughed and spun beach balls when I was being unreasonable. My MBA (1.6 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 128 GB hard drive, NVIDIA GeForce 320M) can expect no less.

My Apple products are tougher than they are pretty. And that's saying something. Same goes for horses.

2IS
Jan 30, 2011, 12:00 PM
No? I own a Macmini2,1 (1.83 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 80 GB hard drive, Intel GMA 950) and it was my main computer for years. I made it do unspeakable things, but it just laughed and spun beach balls when I was being unreasonable. My MBA (1.6 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 128 GB hard drive, NVIDIA GeForce 320M) can expect no less.

My Apple products are tougher than they are pretty. And that's saying something. Same goes for horses.

"unspeakable" things means different things to different people. I run apps on my desktop which would run like crap if at all on my MBA. If the MBA is your main computer and it does EVERYTHING you ask it to do and does it well, what you're doing is quite simply not all that demanding. The MBA is a great laptop but lets not pretend its some sort of powerhouse of a computer.

huffboy
Jan 30, 2011, 12:13 PM
I don't think a 1.6 will make a MBA last for more years. If a 1.4 can't handle the task, chances are the 1.6 won't be able to do so too. :o

Acorn
Jan 30, 2011, 12:34 PM
I have a nasty itch to buy the 11 inch base model. i will be using it to type code. im not rewriting OSX or anything so i know it will be fine. I prefer to work on a smaller screen. helps keep the functions smaller ;)

but yea the 1.4 seems fine.

negatv1
Jan 30, 2011, 09:48 PM
Interesting to note that even the base model 11.6 benchmarks(geekbench) pretty close to that of the first/second generation Intel Macbooks. benchmarks @everymac (http://www.everymac.com/mac-benchmarks/index-mac-benchmarks.html)

Kind of crazy to think about something as wafer thin as these machines are, outperforming all but the most powerful (and power hungry) Power Mac G5's that I'm sure are still being used out there.

Acronyc
Jan 30, 2011, 10:32 PM
I had a similar concern when I first got my Air, but ended up going with the 1.4/4GB RAM/128GB SSD model. A few days after I ordered, I started to regret not getting the 1.6 CPU, so I called up to see if I could change it. The Apple Japan store told me theyd have to cancel my order and Id have to go through the entire process again. I had a three week trip abroad coming up less than a week later, and there was no way I would get my Air before I left if I canceled and reordered. I needed it for my trip, so I stuck with the 1.4, and my Air arrived the night before I left.

After using it for two months now, I have no regrets with sticking with the 1.4 as it has worked perfectly fine for all of my needs. Its a secondary computer for me, but its been working so well Ive found its almost becoming my main computer. My typical usage includes internet, email, a lot of writing, a bit of coding, iTunes and a little gaming (Starcarft II and PoP lately). Its worked perfectly for me in all of these scenarios and I think the 1.6 processor would only give me a marginal if even noticeable increase in performance.

Anyway, this is just my perspective and I realize Im not a heavy user, but for average use the 1.4 has been fine. All of the comparisons Ive seen put the 1.4/2GB against the 1.6/4GB, which is a little unfair, I think, and itd be nice to see some tests comparing a 1.4/4GB and a 1.6/4GB to better gauge the performance boost the extra 200mhz provides.

hcho3
Jan 30, 2011, 10:37 PM
Re-read the original post. The OP said about 80GB of a 128GB drive would be unused. Just because you need it doesn't mean everyone does. If you aren't storing much media or setting up a Boot Camp partition then 64GB might well be enough. I just took a look at my own Mac partition. I'm using 66GB, of which 16GB are for iTunes media, and 10GB are for pictures. Thus, I can certainly see how 60GB might be "enough" for someone. Also, it's possible to supplement with external storage later, or even install a bigger SSD later (third party solutions already exist).

IOW, why spend $1400 if an $1100 notebook will suit your needs?

How about you re-read? I only expressed my opinion about my impression on 64GB storage and 128GB storage. 64GB storage is a joke on any netbook or laptop, period. I never said I need it nor I have tried to force it on OP. Expressing one's idea on forum is not against any policy. You are however offending me by saying re-read. Because I have clearly read it.

KPOM
Jan 31, 2011, 05:29 AM
How about you re-read? I only expressed my opinion about my impression on 64GB storage and 128GB storage. 64GB storage is a joke on any netbook or laptop, period.

How is it a joke? Are you not a "real" computer user if you don't have more than 64GB on your hard drive?

Mr. Savage
Jan 31, 2011, 03:16 PM
64GB storage is a joke on any netbook or laptop, period. .

How is it a joke? Are you not a "real" computer user if you don't have more than 64GB on your hard drive?

No, he's right KPOM. I remember shortly after the new MBAs were released I went to my local Starbucks and as soon as I walked in I noticed a group of people standing huddled around a table. A guy had just picked up an 11 inch and everyone was marvelling over it. They were all like: "Look how skinny it is. Fast too! What an amazing computer—I want one!"

I assumed I was a tad more savvy about this particular machine than most of the onlookers so I requested of the owner that he open up System Profiler which he did, a little reluctantly it seemed to me.

I immediately pointed out the 64 GB SSD to the gathering and almost in unison they gasped and then burst out laughing and pointing at the tiny little thing.

"What am I supposed to do with that?" one of the girls roared.

"Geez, that's pretty small, Mister," giggled another. "My boyfriend's is, like, twice the size!"

Another, more sympathetic, girl chimed in: "Awww, guys, stop... I think it's kinda cute."

But there was simply no stopping the ridicule being heaped on the poor man with the tiny little harddrive. His face glowed bright red and he almost looked about to cry. A shameful incident from which he may very well never recover had just occurred. He quickly slammed the lid closed in an attempt to hide his humiliating little secret. But it was too late and he knew it. He got up, and without making eye contact with anyone, slinked away. "I gotta go." was all he said and no-one has seen him since.

Perhaps related, perhaps not, sales of the base 11 inch MBA with the 64 GB SSD have been steadily declining at local retailers and show no signs of recovering any time soon.


No, in all seriousness stating that 64 GB is a "joke. period." without taking into consideration the owner's usage/needs is a patently absurd statement. Especially when the OP already expressed that it is enough for him and not a concern. I won't even get into the earlier posts where the poster quoted above (not KPOM, who is consistently among the most helpful and knowledgeable members of this forum) accuses the OP of simply being "cheap". Aye yi yi.

2IS
Jan 31, 2011, 04:07 PM
No, he's right KPOM. I remember shortly after the new MBAs were released I went to my local Starbucks and as soon as I walked in I noticed a group of people standing huddled around a table. A guy had just picked up an 11 inch and everyone was marvelling over it. They were all like: "Look how skinny it is. Fast too! What an amazing computerI want one!"

I assumed I was a tad more savvy about this particular machine than most of the onlookers so I requested of the owner that he open up System Profiler which he did, a little reluctantly it seemed to me.

I immediately pointed out the 64 GB SSD to the gathering and almost in unison they gasped and then burst out laughing and pointing at the tiny little thing.

"What am I supposed to do with that?" one of the girls roared.

"Geez, that's pretty small, Mister," giggled another. "My boyfriend's is, like, twice the size!"

Another, more sympathetic, girl chimed in: "Awww, guys, stop... I think it's kinda cute."


So you were hanging out with a group of geeks is the only thing I got out of this.

Though I do agree 64gb is small, but that's for my usage.

SammySlim
Jan 31, 2011, 04:52 PM
FWIW, I run Ubuntu 10.10 in a VM just fine with 2 GB on my 1.4/128 MBA. And having said that, I think that if future-proofing is your concern, 4 GB is the way to go rather than 1.6 vs. 1.4. I plan to use mine for about 2 years and then give it to one of my kids or resell it later. That's also one reason I went cheaper - less invested up front.

Cheers

hcho3
Jan 31, 2011, 05:29 PM
How is it a joke? Are you not a "real" computer user if you don't have more than 64GB on your hard drive?

Again. U are not op. I expressed my opinion, and u may express IRS, but don't words in my mouth. 64 is small period.

MikePA
Jan 31, 2011, 05:44 PM
Again. U are not op. I expressed my opinion, and u may express IRS, but don't words in my mouth. 64 is small period.

Alert! Alert! Alert! Amazing discovery. Macbook Airs trade 'hard drive' space for device size and power consumption. Also reported, there is no free lunch. Details at 11:00.

2IS
Jan 31, 2011, 06:37 PM
Alert! Alert! Alert! Amazing discovery. Macbook Airs trade 'hard drive' space for device size and power consumption. Also reported, there is no free lunch. Details at 11:00.

I guess you forgot there is a 128GB option which is the point of this discussion.

louden
Jan 31, 2011, 07:01 PM
The way I see it, these mba's will do fine when comparing performance between this model and the next. The bigger issue will be the ability for any new ones (whenever they come out) to last much longer than 4-5 hours (for the 11) on a charge. That will make all current users salivate for the next iteration.

Until then - this is a great machine and makes an awesome second computer. I went for the larger HD, more memory and faster proc- and I don't think I've pegged it - and I use this to do most of my development on when I'm not in the office. This has become my laptop. And it still doesn't take more than 60 seconds to compile any apps I've built in XCode, and I don't see any problems running django and ruby web apps...

KPOM
Jan 31, 2011, 08:25 PM
Again. U are not op. I expressed my opinion, and u may express IRS, but don't words in my mouth. 64 is small period.

However, I was trying to address the OP's question, which for him is essentially whether the boost to 1.6GB is worth the additional cost to him. It isn't a 100 difference because he says 64GB is sufficient. If that's the case, then the cost for him to get the 1.6GHz processor is the cost to get both the 128GB SSD and the 1.6GHz processor.

MacRumorUser
Feb 1, 2011, 01:44 AM
KPOM is correct, and the poster who said that we were discussing HDD size missed the entire point of the thread. It was to gauge people who have actually had first hand experience of the 1.4 4Gb model and the 1.6 4GB model and whether in that situation the 200mhz still provides the 10% differential that benchmarking the 2Gb 1.4 to the 4Gb 1.6 yields.

Everybody's usage is different. I have explained my intent for the machine, and as for future proofing - I'm a Apple geek with a credit card and the chances are if I got 18 months out of the Air I will be doing very well ;)

Future proofing doesn't work for me. The only Mac that has ever lasted 3 years has been my macpro's (on my 2nd) & powermacs before them. Laptop wise I tend to buy once every 12-18 months.

I'm going to go for the 1.4 4gb model assuming it comes into the refurb store again soon. If by the end of the week it has not I'll decide whether to just go for the 1.6 or give the store a little longer.

Thanks :) MRU





edit: curses!!!!
Procrastination is a bitch! now the 1.6 and the 1.4 4gb are both out of stock on the refurb. :rolleyes:

MacRumorUser
Feb 3, 2011, 03:17 AM
Ok final update I guess...

Refurb store refreshed. I managed to order the 1.4 4GB model.