PDA

View Full Version : POLL: Your direct subjective experience with 1.6/80 vs 1.8/SSD?




netdog
Feb 7, 2008, 12:39 PM
The benchmarks say not much of a difference between the two drives, but a lot of people here wh tried both demos reported that the SSD felt much faster. Please put your subjective experiences here regarding this issue.



ahaxton
Feb 7, 2008, 01:30 PM
Thought I would post my thoughts:
SSD is really quite a big step up in my opinion. Its cooler to the touch after extended use. Its a lot faster for my OCD switching between things constantly for work. For the elements they say SSD is not a real improvement for, I don't notice since what really matters for me is app launches and general stuff like that. Battery power I think is one of the most noticeable things apart from the speed of the drive. It really does extend it a whole lot in the battery department. Under my regular work day I have ranged from just over 5 hours of battery life to the 6 range.

I also have a few theories about the fan issue, wobbling, and battery issues people claim. I think their all bugs (besides wobbling) that are in some way related to how everything software and hardware works together. I think the HDD version at this point is more prone to the speedy fan issue, wobbling and battery charging bug.
I think the SSD option is worth the extra money for most people.

kuwisdelu
Feb 7, 2008, 01:40 PM
Everyone saying that the SSD's speed isn't clearly faster than the HDD doesn't realize what people use computers for day-to-day and what kind of disk access matters w/r/t time.

The SSD is slower for things like extensive, sequential read/writes, which would include things like encoding a video (I think it would include this, someone correct me if I'm wrong). This is the kind of thing most people will start and just let their computer work on, realizing that it's going to take a long time regardless of how many seconds faster one is than the other. The SSD will be slower for tasks where time really doesn't matter all that much to most people.

The SSD will be much faster for random read/writes, which is what everyone does the most often. It will open files quicker, open applications quicker, feel more responsive to you while you work on just about everything that's supposed to be quick to begin with. That's what matters to most people, and that's why it's worth the money to some of them.

netdog
Feb 9, 2008, 08:49 AM
After playing around with both for quite a while at Regent Street (restarting, loading apps, loading data, saving data), I have to say that the difference wasn't great as some led me to believe. This whole "real world" experience of the SSD model being fast despite the erratic benchmarks didn't really hold true in my experience.

In real world everyday computing (writing, surfing, emailing), apart from an occasional pause on the HD model, the difference was negligible. My advice is that unless you need better data security, save the money and buy the HD model. You can always swap the drive later when PATA drives get cheaper and faster.

izibo
Feb 9, 2008, 12:28 PM
After playing around with both for quite a while at Regent Street (restarting, loading apps, loading data, saving data), I have to say that the difference wasn't great as some led me to believe. This whole "real world" experience of the SSD model being fast despite the erratic benchmarks didn't really hold true in my experience.

In real world everyday computing (writing, surfing, emailing), apart from an occasional pause on the HD model, the difference was negligible. My advice is that unless you need better data security, save the money and buy the HD model. You can always swap the drive later when PATA drives get cheaper and faster.

I couldn't agree more. I walked in ready to buy a SSD model the other afternoon. The speed difference is amazing when you cold boot a machine. Applications launch faster, it really is great.

But, once you open Firefox or Word once, it is stored in RAM so that the subsequent launches are just as fast HDD vs SSD. If you just put your MacBook to sleep and never shut it down, I couldn't see this being a big deal whatsoever.

Save the money, my $0.02

ddd269
Feb 9, 2008, 03:15 PM
I'm sure there are measurable benefit there somewhere, like cold boot, etc. But, if you don't really care or can't feel the difference, the $900 difference in price is not worth it right now. Maybe if it was about $500 difference just for the sake of new technology..?

I must applaud the buyers that go for the new tech as those buyers help reduce the cost for the rest of us in subsequent development/production.

I'm waiting for the SSD to come down in price where I can just swap the drive out with the HDD. Maybe by that time, a new MBA will come out... and you know how the vicious cycle goes. mmmust have new Mac.