PDA

View Full Version : New MBA 13" 128 or 256 SSD?




AlexNapo
Aug 12, 2013, 05:31 AM
Hello everyone,
I will be buying a new MBA 13" soon. Here in India only two options to choose between i5/4/128 and i5/4/256.:(

What model should i choose? though Money is no constraint and I have external hard disks too.

1.Will 128 SSD be enough to run windows 8 with onboard 4Gb RAM? :confused:
2.Is there any brand and speed differences between 128 and 256 models? Yeah i know 256 is faster than 128 but could we see any real world differences?

Thanks.



maflynn
Aug 12, 2013, 05:40 AM
I'd personally go with the 256GB just because when I had a 128GB SSD I easily ran out of space.

krizko
Aug 12, 2013, 07:05 AM
With USB 3.0, I have no problem managing 128GB and various external drives for additional storage. Depends on your setup I suppose.

Boyd01
Aug 12, 2013, 08:22 AM
If you can afford 256gb, why in the world would you get 128? Trust me, you won't say "damn, my SSD is just too big" in the future. :D

I had a 2011 13" MBA with 256gb and just upgraded to a 2013 11" MBA with 512gb. You can never have too much disk space.

kahkityoong
Aug 12, 2013, 08:29 AM
With USB 3.0, I have no problem managing 128GB and various external drives for additional storage. Depends on your setup I suppose.

To me appeal of the MBA is its compactness and mobility. It seems a pity to be bogged down by having to carry around and plug in external drives. 128GB only if 256 breaks the bank.

jadAce
Aug 12, 2013, 01:49 PM
To me appeal of the MBA is its compactness and mobility. It seems a pity to be bogged down by having to carry around and plug in external drives. 128GB only if 256 breaks the bank.

+1.

What I have learned from these forums is, when you buy a Mac, you buy the best one possible, because it's a significant investment that you want to address all of your needs and reasons for buying it in the first place.
Also, with the MBA, you wouldn't be able to upgrade the SSD yourself in the future. So you might as well get as much storage as you can afford to get.
256 would be significantly better!

--

So if I understand correctly, the 8 GB RAM models are not available in India?

AlexNapo
Aug 12, 2013, 02:10 PM
+1.

What I have learned from these forums is, when you buy a Mac, you buy the best one possible, because it's a significant investment that you want to address all of your needs and reasons for buying it in the first place.
Also, with the MBA, you wouldn't be able to upgrade the SSD yourself in the future. So you might as well get as much storage as you can afford to get.
256 would be significantly better!

--

So if I understand correctly, the 8 GB RAM models are not available in India?

Yes of course BTO models are not available in India. :mad:

Scepticalscribe
Aug 12, 2013, 02:21 PM
My advice - along with almost everyone else who has posted - would be to choose the option with 256GB.

I used to have a 128GB (bought in 2010); while it was an excellent computer, and more than perfectly adequate, I found as time went on that I really needed more space.

Seriously, if money is no obstacle, choose the 256GB option. You will never regret having more space, but you may well regret not having enough.

jadAce
Aug 12, 2013, 09:00 PM
Yes of course BTO models are not available in India. :mad:

Not even Mumbai or New Delhi? But then again, my guess would be that Windows machines are available in a wider range of configs.

Anyways, just to reiterate, definitely go for the most powerful you can get (which is the 256), and if you need even more storage than that, the portable hard drives should work out.

MT0227
Aug 12, 2013, 10:37 PM
First... it's do I spend the extra $$ so I can carry everything, but at some point that option becomes no longer possible; you can never have enough on-board storage. I think a server based approach is the best and most cost effective in the long run. Once you can break grips with having to carry everything vs. carrying what you need, this approach works best. So...keep the savings and put it toward a NAS setup.

I purchased the a new MBA 11" 128GB as my mobile computer for work and travel. The programs I use, plus OSX leaves me with plenty of space for working on existing projects, music and movies. I also do some photo editing on the side.

All my files sit on the NAS and I just carry what I need for the time I will be away from my LAN. Howerver, as long as I have an internet connection I can simply access my NAS to retrieve anything I need or forgot. All my hard earned cash will now be going to speed and performance as opposed to space when it's time for another purchase.

Additionally, if you have multiple devices, setting up a NAS should help keep your files organised to one device, making back-ups of your critical data more efficient as opposed to it being across several devices.

All the best with your new MBA!

jav6454
Aug 12, 2013, 10:48 PM
I'd go with 128GB and then get a portable external.

Boyd01
Aug 12, 2013, 11:02 PM
Remember, the OP wrote "Money is no constraint". So what possible justification could there be for getting a smaller SSD?

jav6454
Aug 12, 2013, 11:04 PM
Even if I can afford a bigger SSD, it doesn't make it the right choice at this point in time if you are looking for space.

Why not stay with the option given and then just spend a few more bucks on what would arguably be more space than what an SSD might bring?

I would, even if money were no problem.

Doublea6
Aug 12, 2013, 11:48 PM
I'd just like to add that the 256 ssd is faster then the 128 ssd. It has almost double the read and write speeds.

kahkityoong
Aug 12, 2013, 11:48 PM
Remember, the OP wrote "Money is no constraint". So what possible justification could there be for getting a smaller SSD?

None. The 256 SSD is significantly faster than the 128 too if I'm not mistaken.

AlexNapo
Aug 13, 2013, 12:44 AM
Not even Mumbai or New Delhi? But then again, my guess would be that Windows machines are available in a wider range of configs.

Anyways, just to reiterate, definitely go for the most powerful you can get (which is the 256), and if you need even more storage than that, the portable hard drives should work out.

Yes when i mentioned India - It referred to whole country, No exceptions!:cool:

AlexNapo
Aug 13, 2013, 12:59 AM
"Money is no constraint" but Affordability is different from what you actually Need.
I need to run Windows 8, will 128 be enough for the partition..etc?
I can buy one Airport time capsule(2TB) instead of spending ~250$ more for 256 SSD.

Am i right? Guys...

yliu
Aug 13, 2013, 01:16 AM
"Money is no constraint" but Affordability is different from what you actually Need.
I need to run Windows 8, will 128 be enough for the partition..etc?
I can buy one Airport time capsule(2TB) instead of spending ~250$ more for 256 SSD.

Am i right? Guys...

I never installed Windows on a Mac, but I know that they take up a lot of space. I believe 15-20 GB on my PC. You would have to partition your hard drive too, where you should partition AT LEAST 30 - 60 GB of space for windows.

This leaves you with 60GB for mac and 60 for windows.

Install a couple of apps, music, videos documents and there will be little space remaining.

TIme Capsule does work as an external hard drive, however you can only access the data if you are at home or wherever the TimeCapsule is set up. So while you are getting more space for your money with external storage options, you have to consider if you are willing to carry a hard drive with yourself everywhere or not.

Macbook Air is an ultra book, it is designed for people who dont want to carry a lot of stuff. If you need space, consider the Macbook Pro. You can get Macbook Pros with hard drive (for more space) or SSD. You can also remove the optical drive and replace it with a second hard drive.

kodeman53
Aug 13, 2013, 03:06 AM
You would have to partition your hard drive too, where you should partition AT LEAST 30 - 60 GB of space for windows.
Wrong. You do not have to partition your hard drive to run Windows on a Mac.

krizko
Aug 13, 2013, 06:03 AM
First... it's do I spend the extra $$ so I can carry everything, but at some point that option becomes no longer possible; you can never have enough on-board storage. I think a server based approach is the best and most cost effective in the long run. Once you can break grips with having to carry everything vs. carrying what you need, this approach works best. So...keep the savings and put it toward a NAS setup.

I purchased the a new MBA 11" 128GB as my mobile computer for work and travel. The programs I use, plus OSX leaves me with plenty of space for working on existing projects, music and movies. I also do some photo editing on the side.

All my files sit on the NAS and I just carry what I need for the time I will be away from my LAN. Howerver, as long as I have an internet connection I can simply access my NAS to retrieve anything I need or forgot. All my hard earned cash will now be going to speed and performance as opposed to space when it's time for another purchase.

Additionally, if you have multiple devices, setting up a NAS should help keep your files organised to one device, making back-ups of your critical data more efficient as opposed to it being across several devices.

All the best with your new MBA!

This was more eloquently put that my post, but this is akin to my setup. I am able to manage between portable USB 3.0 hard drives, flash drives and network storage without issue on my 128GB drive.

Boyd01
Aug 13, 2013, 10:05 AM
Wrong. You do not have to partition your hard drive to run Windows on a Mac.

I think "it depends". I had Windows XP installed on my 2008 MBP, but maybe something has changed since then? My experience was that if you actually wanted to boot your Mac into Windows, then you needed to partition the hard drive and devote one partition solely to Windows. With this setup, your Mac really *is* a Windows machine - at startup you can choose whether you want to boot into either Windows or MacOSX.

If you just want to run Windows in a virtual machine however, such as Parallels, then you don't need to partition the hard drive. The entire Windows file system will be stored as though it were a single MacOSX file. The advantage here is that you don't need to partition the drive and the file containing Windows grows and shrinks as needed. You will also be running Windows and MacOSX side by side and can seamleassly switch between Mac and Windows programs.

The disadvantage is that you take a performance hit from running a virtual machine. I guess Parallels has gotten better since 2008, but the performance hit was pretty significant when I used it. I had my old MBP setup so I could either boot directly into windows *or* use Parallels. In order to do this, it was necessary to partition the hard drive. My old MBP only had a 160GB hard drive and I think I used a 30gb partition for Windows.

MT0227
Aug 13, 2013, 01:21 PM
TIme Capsule does work as an external hard drive, however you can only access the data if you are at home or wherever the TimeCapsule is set up. So while you are getting more space for your money with external storage options, you have to consider if you are willing to carry a hard drive with yourself everywhere or not.

This is correct, Time Capsule is only accessable within your LAN; there are much better alternatives. The money you save from just getting the AP Extreme Base(no HD) plus the SSD savings gets you on your way to an entry level NAS configuration that can be accessed over your LAN or WAN (any internet connection).


Macbook Air is an ultra book, it is designed for people who dont want to carry a lot of stuff. If you need space, consider the Macbook Pro. You can get Macbook Pros with hard drive (for more space) or SSD. You can also remove the optical drive and replace it with a second hard drive.


Not sure I agree. You need to size your Internal HD based upon your required free space after install of your OS(s) and programs. Portabilty should be measured by the (a) space needed as opposed to (b) the space needed to carry everything. There's a big difference.

My setup:

11" MBA 128GB <=> 2TB Raid 1 NAS (File Server) <=> Portable USB 3 External HD (NAS Back-up)

I'm about to increase my NAS to a 4TB Raid 5 shortly. The cost is simply the cost of the drive ($125).

This way I manage what I need and have access to what I forgot I needed. BTW, portable 1TB drives attached to an MBA doesn't undermine its portability, the combined weight is still less than most comparable laptops with similar storage.

AlexNapo
Aug 13, 2013, 02:41 PM
This is correct, Time Capsule is only accessable within your LAN; there are much better alternatives. The money you save from just getting the AP Extreme Base(no HD) plus the SSD savings gets you on your way to an entry level NAS configuration that can be accessed over your LAN or WAN (any internet connection).





Not sure I agree. You need to size your Internal HD based upon your required free space after install of your OS(s) and programs. Portabilty should be measured by the (a) space needed as opposed to (b) the space needed to carry everything. There's a big difference.

My setup:

11" MBA 128GB <=> 2TB Raid 1 NAS (File Server) <=> Portable USB 3 External HD (NAS Back-up)

I'm about to increase my NAS to a 4TB Raid 5 shortly. The cost is simply the cost of the drive ($125).

This way I manage what I need and have access to what I forgot I needed. BTW, portable 1TB drives attached to a MBA doesn't undermine its portability, the combined weight and is still less than most comparable laptops with similar storage combined.

Very well put! I do not want to store everything I have into my MBA but what I need for that particular day/trip is enough to store in 128 SSD. So getting a NAS makes sensible option, at least for Me! Thanks to everyone..!:)