MacBook Air SSD vs HDD Battery Life Revisted

[Pressure]

Anand from Anandtech has reviewed the MacBook Air.

Source: The MacBook Air: Thoroughly Reviewed (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3226&p=1)

This is a 23-page review so brace yourself with your drink of choice and sip it slowly while digesting it.

He covers a lot of ground and even shows how to install a Solid State Drive.

The interesting part is that the MacBook Air beats the original MacBook Pro Core Duo 2.0Ghz in most things and as a result I feel fairly sad about my original MacBook Pro Core Duo 2.16Ghz ;)

Enjoy :)

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Anandtech provides another review (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3226&p=23) of the MacBook Air, however, unique to their review is an objective battery test comparing the Solid State Drive (SSD) vs the Hard Disk Drive (HDD) of the MacBook Air. In this case, they actually installed the SSD drive (same as Apple's) into the MacBook Air themselves and kindly provided instructions (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3226&p=13) for readers to do it themselves.

To review, their standardized battery tests (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/07/standardized-battery-test-results-for-the-macbook-air/) involved the following scripted tasks:

1) Use Wifi to browse 20 pages in a loop, spending 20 seconds on each page, while playing MP3s in iTunes.
2) Play a DVD image (off the internal hard drive) in a loop.
3) Download 10GB of files, Web browsing loop from #1, play two 480p Xvid videos in a loop.

In running these tests (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3226&p=16) on both SSD and HDD MacBook Air, they found that the Solid State Drive did make a difference in battery life (contrary to previous reports (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/06/more-ssd-and-hdd-comparisons-and-testing-methodology/)), with an improvement of up to 16.8% (43 minutes) in the best case.

Anandtech also compared the MacBook Air's battery life to the 2006 Core Duo 2.0GHz MacBook Pro and the current Core 2 Duo 2.6GHz MacBook Pro. Battery life on the previous generation Core Duo MacBook Pro was much worse than the Air, but the SSD Air's battery compared favorably against the new MacBook Pro -- besting it in Battery Test #1 and #2.

The SSD upgrade remains a costly ($999) upgrade for the MacBook Air, but prices are expected to drop over time.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/14/macbook-air-ssd-vs-hdd-battery-life-revisted/)

[bcgamer]

It seems the power-saving advantage of SSD is more effective when the file system is idle (web browsing), virtually no power consumption as opposed to the HDD.

[aLoC]

Why is the SSD improvement so small? I would have though taking out a component with a *motor* would make a huge difference.

[arn]

It seems the power-saving advantage of SSD is more effective when the file system is idle (web browsing), virtually no power consumption as opposed to the HDD.

Why is the SSD improvement so small? I would have though taking out a component with a *motor* would make a huge difference.

I think the reason it makes more of a difference in the less-intensive tasks is that the hard drive is only a small portion of the power draw on the system. If you are taxing the system, the processor is using up more power, dwarfing any power savings on the drive itself.

arn

[davidjearly]

Also, as the standard drive is a 1.8" HDD and not a 2.5", wouldn't it be consuming much less power anyway?

In other words, are people expecting the difference to be larger as they are not taking into account that battery life would be much poorer if it was a 2.5" HDD that was installed by default?

I don't think I'm explaining myself very clearly, but it early here.

[gepeterd]

Maybe a stupid question, but howlong does the mb air run idle:confused:

Whitout doing anything....:rolleyes:

:apple:

[MacFly123]

I just saw the MBA in person for the first time today and WOW it was beyond words incredible. Having said that, as a video guy, and just general use, the MBA is really for a VERY SPECIFIC demographic I think. For who it targets it is awesome, but I think that target is very limiting.

[kewo]

Please compare to MB and MBP!

The 10 or 15% improvement seems significant enough. Even if there is ZERO power consumption from the SSD, you will probably still have a max 20% gain. You have to remember the drives are only a portion of the power. There is still the overhead from the processor, display, etc.

[steve31]

I am getting over 5 hours on my air ssd while web surfing.

[kewo]

Maybe a stupid question, but howlong does the mb air run idle:confused:

Whitout doing anything....:rolleyes:

:apple:

5+ hours for me. Seems like a strange question though. You might as well close the notebook. The MBA turns on INSTANTLY.

If you turn off wifi and are just writing a document, 4+ hours is easily attainable.

[kewo]

I am getting over 5 hours on my air ssd while web surfing.

I sometimes see 5hrs, but not often. Only if you are on a page for a few minutes at a time will you see 5 hrs. When reading news, and constantly browsing, I get around 3.5 hours.

[Xeem]

I think that part of the Air's problem is that people often still seem to think that a SSD is supposed to add even more battery life than the fairly notable 10-15% that Anand shows it can add to routine activities.

[fblack]

An extra 31 minutes in DVD playback is not too bad imho. :cool:

[irun5k]

Are there any statistics out there that examine manufacturing variances in hardware components and batteries?

I sometimes wonder if the huge gap in people's experiences (even when things *sound* relatively equal) is due to differences in the physical hardware.

What made me start wondering about this is the fact that my iPhone seems to need charging constantly even though during the work week it is in standby almost 100% of the time. I had a similar problem with my MacBook and Apple helped me determine that the battery was defective and they replaced it for free.

But anyway, perhaps there are capacity differences in the batteries that are produced, or perhaps a given component has a higher current draw than another "identical" component?

[itickings]

Lots of negative votes as usual, as well as unrealistic expectations. The 11% improvement in the heavy-duty test is nothing but impressive. CPU and wireless in use draw lots of power.

Even removing the drive completely wouldn't increase battery life enough for people to vote positive ;)

[achtung!]

Lots of negative votes as usual, as well as unrealistic expectations. The 11% improvement in the heavy-duty test is nothing but impressive. CPU and wireless in use draw lots of power.

Even removing the drive completely wouldn't increase battery life enough for people to vote positive ;)

the 11% improvement in the heavy-duty test is everything but impressive. for such a slow machine, compared to the the balance between speed and price of the macbook pro, it should have reached, at least, 6 hours battery life. ;) and the expectations weren't unrealistic, unrealistic is this toys' price. :cool:

[flamejob]

OMG.. how many times does this need to get revisited???

The $1000 you pay gets you a small increase in battery longevity.

The end.

[Resolution]

OMG.. how many times does this need to get revisited???


Probably as many times as necessary to somehow justify the ridiculous $1000 price tag. :cool:

[SiliconAddict]

I think the reason it makes more of a difference in the less-intensive tasks is that the hard drive is only a small portion of the power draw on the system. If you are taxing the system, the processor is using up more power, dwarfing any power savings on the drive itself.

arn

I just want to ditto on this comment. The two biggest power draws in a laptop are the LCD and the CPU. Hard drives now a days have so much cache and are so fast that impact is virtually nonexistent. But overall speed is important. the faster the drive can get done doing its thing the sooner it can spin down.

I find it ironic that the MBA is the first Macintel to actually meet the battery life that was found on the PPC PowerMacs.

Probably as many times as necessary to somehow justify the ridiculous $1000 price tag. :cool:

Heh. For a second I thought you meant the system was $1000 not the drive and was going to object. If the MBA was $1000 I would have gone out and ordered one on day one. Instead I got myself a referb Tablet PC that was 3 figures, gets 4 hours on a 6 cell battery with its ULV Intel, isn't nearly as light as the MBP but is a far more feature rich, and allows me to take notes on the thing. Good supplemental system to my MBP.

[treblah]

Probably as many times as necessary to somehow justify the ridiculous $1000 price tag. :cool:

It's only ridiculous until you try to purchase it somewhere else (http://www.king-cart.com/cgi-bin/cart.cgi?store=dvnation&product_name=Samsung+64GB+ZIF+SSD&exact_match=exact). ;)

[Buschmaster]

When you think about it, those numbers are actually pretty good.

Think about the percentages. Sometimes I get 5 hours with my MacBook if I'm doing just the right things for parts of it. (Class and then aim/light browsing - Computer able to dim screen or even turn off screen from time to time)

If I got another 10% on that, that's 30 minutes, and so even more improvement than that ~17% could reach an extra hour.

Not that the extra $1000 is something I would even consider in a computer right now...

[SinfonianShrek]

Ok... Is it just me or are people missing the big point behind the idea of an SSD in the MBA?

First of all, I HIGHLY doubt that the primary reason the SSD is a DTO option is for savings on battery life. I may get flamed for this but I figure the SSD was offered for two primary reasons: 1) Boot/Load times, 2) Durability.

One of the most common complaints I hear about computers is how long it takes them to boot up and/or load applications. Users want an instantaneous result to their clicking. The SSD drive can shave time off both processes making them noticeably shorter.

The MBA was obviously meant to be used on the go. I've had to replace so many hard drives because they received a solid bump from a fall, or other mishap, and failed. The SSD drives remove that concern. You'd have to directly strike the drive (hard, with a hammer, ruining the rest of the computer) in order to cause the same kind of failure.

I've been deploying systems with SSD drives and have not had a single one come back bad. At least 1 in every 30 HDDs, regardless of manufacturer is either DOA or needs to be replaced within 6 months.

Now, while I myself don't have the moolah to shell out for an Air, especially with the SSD, I still recommend it to anyone who asks despite the lofty price tag.

There are far more concernes than just battery life, folks.

[krye]

So that'll be the worst $1000 ever spent! No thanks.

[jjd]

Clock speed and screen brightness are always going to be the main drivers of batt draw - and they are constants of course.

I don't have an MBA and haven't yet decided to pull the trigger. But, if I get one I am going SSD. Not because of batt life. Partially because of speed. But mainly because of durability. This is an ultraportable and I worry about a 1.8" drive in that environment. Yes I know iPods are even MORE ultraportable and get more abuse. But, they are not asked to do the work of a laptop with a Core 2 Duo... I think if there was a standard HD on board I would go with that (ie at least 5400 RPM and 2.5"). And indeed I don't like the limited capacity of the SSD. Then again if it was 2.5" it would be a MacBook I guess...

The other thing this tests emphasizes however is that swapping out the HDD for SSD is doable. One reasonable approach would be to buy the HDD model now with a view to swapping in an SSD in say 6 to 8 months. Presumably $900 wll buy you a 128gig SSD by then?

[ziwi]

Ok, so a small increasein battery life with faster access. That is a goodthing, but the price point still makes it undoable in my mind.

[ucfgrad93]

As mentioned before, this is a small increase in performance but at a huge cost. Not worth it in my opinion.

[DukeSnyd]

When you think about it, those numbers are actually pretty good.

Think about the percentages. Sometimes I get 5 hours with my MacBook if I'm doing just the right things for parts of it. (Class and then aim/light browsing - Computer able to dim screen or even turn off screen from time to time)


I use my 12" PB mostly for class (where I am now, haha) and 16% battery life would be amazing. The only thing that prevented me from buying the Air is the price, (being a college student) so i bought a macbook for $700 less for more machine. As soon as the prices are more reasonable, i will be all over the Air.

[will99]

It may be expensive but Safari feels more snappier on it.

[asdavis10]

Not like I needed new tests to make me feel better about my decision to get the SSD model, but its good to know that there is considerable advantage. 43 minutes longer battery life when browsing web pages is substantial since I use mine on the road. Traveling with the Air instead of my MBP is such a different experience. It feels so much lighter and cooler on my lap in the airport waiting for a flight.

[QCassidy352]

OMG.. how many times does this need to get revisited???

The $1000 you pay gets you a small increase in battery longevity.

The end.

If you don't care, move on. Many people find these test results very interesting. This is the most controlled test yet, and I think the improvement is very impressive. As others have said, a large portion of the battery drain comes from things other than the drive, so to see a 11-15% increase on the total from the replacement of just the drive is really great.

Probably as many times as necessary to somehow justify the ridiculous $1000 price tag. :cool:

Have you actually looked around at what these things cost? The new Lenovo x300 comes with a 64 GB SSD standard... and a $2800 price tag standard as well. If it's not worth it to you, then fine, but these things do cost a lot.

[barefeats]

I was sorry to see Anandtech use Xbench for their disk tests. With all due respect to the author of Xbench, the hard drive test is quite limited in scope.

Take a gander at our MacBook Air HDD vs SSD test results using QuickBench 4.03 from SpeedTools.com:
http://www.barefeats.com/macair1.html

I've sent an email to Mr. Anand asking him to retest using QuickBench.

[7racer]

As mentioned before, this is a small increase in performance but at a huge cost. Not worth it in my opinion.

according to bearfeats...the load time is more than a small increase in performance

http://www.barefeats.com/macair1.html

oops...just saw bearfeats post...

[asdavis10]

If you don't care, move on. Many people find these test results very interesting. This is the most controlled test yet, and I think the improvement is very impressive. As others have said, a large portion of the battery drain comes from things other than the drive, so to see a 11-15% increase on the total from the replacement of just the drive is really great.



Have you actually looked around at what these things cost? The new Lenovo x300 comes with a 64 GB SSD standard... and a $2800 price tag standard as well. If it's not worth it to you, then fine, but these things do cost a lot.

Not to mention the x300's 1.2GHz processor. Ouch. Talk about slow.

[droo94]

If you don't care, move on. Many people find these test results very interesting. This is the most controlled test yet, and I think the improvement is very impressive. As others have said, a large portion of the battery drain comes from things other than the drive, so to see a 11-15% increase on the total from the replacement of just the drive is really great.



Have you actually looked around at what these things cost? The new Lenovo x300 comes with a 64 GB SSD standard... and a $2800 price tag standard as well. If it's not worth it to you, then fine, but these things do cost a lot.

True enough... It cracks me up when some people imply that the $1,000 price for SSD is a case of Apple being outrageous. Now what they charge for RAM on the other hand...

As you essentially said, at least the MBA gives you the choice -- take the SSD for $1,000 or leave it. For those who are then concerned that the 80GB 4200 RPMs is too small and/or too slow, then the MBA isn't the right choice for you -- move along, please check out MB or MBP instead, etc.

[bmcgrath]

Those times aren't half bad. It's a shame battery technology hasn't progressed further so we could have even better times.

Some day...

[kylos]

I really don't understand the naysayers. If you can't afford $1000 for the benefits of ssd, then get a cheaper system. I'm not in the market for an Air or the SSD option, but I find no reason to bash it.

But SSD does have benefits, and for some, it is worth the extra grand. Speed increases are nice, though perhaps not critical. Increased battery life is great. As others have said, the drive is only one part in the system, the processor, display, and wireless chew up a fair portion of battery time as well. So a 15% improvement is an impressive gain for one component.

But the durability is probably the key feature for many people. HDs are simply unreliable. 2 of 6 apple laptops I have purchased either for myself or for others have had hard drive failure within a year. My MBP has an accelerometer, and I love it because my laptop is definitely used as a portable, so it receives it's share of bumps. But even with that sudden motion protection, hd's still wear out over time. And if you have critical data or projects you're working on, or perhaps you're traveling to a presentation for a potential client, you really don't have any protection if your drive fails (unless you backup all the time, hopefully apple get the wireless time machine working better). Most backup schemes don't work well enough to keep people backing up regularly. I manually backed up my computer monthly and still lost a lot of critical work 2 weeks before finals when my drive suddenly died in that period.

So, for some, peace of mind is worth $1000. Even my avatar is an indication of the frailness of hdds. It's of the latest dead drive I had to replace.

[gnasher729]

I was sorry to see Anandtech use Xbench for their disk tests. With all due respect to the author of Xbench, the hard drive test is quite limited in scope.

Take a gander at our MacBook Air HDD vs SSD test results using QuickBench 4.03 from SpeedTools.com:
http://www.barefeats.com/macair1.html

I've sent an email to Mr. Anand asking him to retest using QuickBench.

From the article: "NOTE: The 250G, 320G, and 200G notebook drives were empty. The 64G SSD was 31% full. " Hard drives are faster on the outside tracks, which are used when the drive is empty. As the drive fills, the inner tracks will be used which are slower. So the hard drives will be slower once they start getting full.

[shawnce]

I find it ironic that the MBA is the first Macintel to actually meet the battery life that was found on the PPC PowerMacs. I assume you meant PowerBooks.

MBA has a 37-watt-hour battery
PowerBook G4 12" had a 47-watt-hour battery

MBA outperforms the PowerBook G4 12" and has similar battery life.

[jragosta]

the 11% improvement in the heavy-duty test is everything but impressive. for such a slow machine, compared to the the balance between speed and price of the macbook pro, it should have reached, at least, 6 hours battery life. ;) and the expectations weren't unrealistic, unrealistic is this toys' price. :cool:

Slow machine? Have you compared it to other ultralights? Most of them are 1.0 or 1.2 GHz processors - the MBA has 1.6 to 1.8.

Unrealistic price? have you compared it to other ultralights - which invariably cost considerably more?

[matthewHUB]

i was in class this morning taking notes on Word 2008.

With Wifi and half brightness (perfect for the room i was in) i had 5:52

without wifi, it was 6:39 and then when i touched it after the display had been sleeping it said 8:54!!! so i'm guessing idle time of around 8 hours if the display sleeps.

this was really great.

[pjarvi]

I would like to see a test where the system is left to just sit idle. No screensaver, no music, no videos, no sleep, no turning the monitor off, just let it sit idle. Get a good baseline for how long the battery can last. Then do all these little scripted tests (wifi, music, movies, etc...).

[ayeying]

SSD uses less power vs a HDD. But currently, the different is marginal. My current 250GB hdd uses 1.9watts while my older 120GB uses 2.1 watts. I've saved 0.2 watts from switching hdds. So what, my battery life barely got me what? 10 minutes?

Right now, the main advantage of SSD is that its more durable then HDD, doesn't break that often and lasts A LOT longer then a HDD. Faster access vs a HDD since a HDD actually needs to spin to a location and move the head to retrieve information, SSD doesn't.

Unless you need data safety and fast data access (we all do, but some of use don't need insane fast data access... yet) you can easily stick with HDD for another few years until prices for a 64GB comes to down to about maybe 200 bucks.

[MacFly123]

My question is how long are they going to leave that freaking MWSF tab up??? It is beyond ridiculous now! :rolleyes:

[Resolution]

Have you actually looked around at what these things cost? The new Lenovo x300 comes with a 64 GB SSD standard... and a $2800 price tag standard as well. If it's not worth it to you, then fine, but these things do cost a lot.

I knew what they cost long before the rumors started about a SSD option for the Air, and you can't possibly compare a feature-rich (and cheaper) notebook such as the x300 (which also fits in side an envelope (http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20080213/x300/)) to the Macbook Air. The Lenovo has everything the Air should have had. Don't get me wrong. I really do love what Apple has done with the Macbook Air, but the price is not right for the featureless design unless throwing away cash for gimmicks appeals to you.

[digitalbiker]

I would like to see a test where the system is left to just sit idle. No screensaver, no music, no videos, no sleep, no turning the monitor off, just let it sit idle. Get a good baseline for how long the battery can last. Then do all these little scripted tests (wifi, music, movies, etc...).

I'm not sure this has any value, as a lot of components (i.e. HDD, CPU) go idle and power down. The only thing you would be measuring would be the screen current draw.

So basically you would be getting the battery rating w/hr. less LCD use. Almost all laptops with the same size LCD and same battery rating would have the same battery life.

What's the point? Why not just go by the battery rating?

[lazyrighteye]

An extra 31 minutes in DVD playback is not too bad imho. :cool:

Worth the additional $999?

[maokh]

I am getting over 5 hours on my air ssd while web surfing.

I am getting about 5 hours as well. Maybe within a few minutes.

You see, i dont typically watch 2 movies at once while downloading 10GB of files while clicking links every 20 seconds.

If the hard drive is idle, most laptops will put it to sleep (including the mac). Its not like its going to leave the disc spinning a 5k rpm for no reason.

[fastbite]

Try to sell test results to my friends, or sisters, or parents -- Sorry "test what?" They surf and write and watch and not much more than that. What they see is a marvel, a jewl, something so bloody cool -- Apple is telling them you can get what you need and it looks sexy as hell. So they buy it (I can not, as I don't have the dosh right now -- but if I had... **** the specs)

[achtung!]

Slow machine? Have you compared it to other ultralights? Most of them are 1.0 or 1.2 GHz processors - the MBA has 1.6 to 1.8.

Unrealistic price? have you compared it to other ultralights - which invariably cost considerably more?

maybe you should read my post again. damn, what you people do to have more posts! LOL ;) "compared to the balance between speed and price of the macbook pro". so i think that what macbooks pro have to offer is much more rewarding when comparing price tags. but hey, maybe i'm not too good explaining myself in english, so perhaps i could try in portuguese:

Se calhar ias perceber melhor o que te estou a dizer se voltasses a ler o meu post. Fiz a comparação apenas com o preço que o macbook pro tem, e naquilo que ele tem para oferecer. acho genericamente muito mais compensador. acho simples de perceber!

do i make myself clear now!? :D


(...) for such a slow machine, compared to the the balance between speed and price of the macbook pro, it should have reached, at least, 6 hours battery life. ;) and the expectations weren't unrealistic, unrealistic is this toys' price. :cool:

[fblack]

Worth the additional $999?

I was responding to criticism about performance. For example:

Why is the SSD improvement so small?

I think an extra 31 minutes in DVD playback is not bad. As far as price v.s. performance, to me personally its not worth purchasing an SSD. I don't have that kind of money to blow. I think only people with deep pockets, or a lust for the newest tech are going to run out and get an SSD at this time. I don't think they are the regular consumer, so price may not be an issue for these people. These people may also have speakers in their home to complement the MBA. http://gizmodo.com/search/Gradient%20Helsinki
:D
I find the technology interesting, but I also recognize its still new and very pricey. In another 2-3 years it should be much more affordable and I expect to find it in a very thin apple touchscreen tablet or slate.

[itickings]

maybe you should read my post again. damn, what you people do to have more posts! LOL ;) "compared to the balance between speed and price of the macbook pro". so i think that what macbooks pro have to offer is much more rewarding when comparing price tags.

If you need light portable computing, are you really sure that a MBP would be the more rewarding choice?

If the size and weight of a MBP are acceptable, then it would be foolish to pay premium for a niche device, but it would be equally foolish to get a MBP if it is too large/heavy, just because it has more raw power than the MBA...

There is really no point in trying to debate if it is a MBA or a MBP that gives more value per dollar spent, they are targeting completely different use cases.

...regarding that complaining about others not reading your posts correctly, how well did you read mine that you initially replied to? ;)

[achtung!]

posted by itickings If you need light portable computing, are you really sure that a MBP would be the more rewarding choice?

If the size and weight of a MBP are acceptable, then it would be foolish to pay premium for a niche device, but it would be equally foolish to get a MBP if it is too large/heavy, just because it has more raw power than the MBA...

There is really no point in trying to debate if it is a MBA or a MBP that gives more value per dollar spent, they are targeting completely different use cases.

...regarding that complaining about others not reading your posts correctly, how well did you read mine that you initially replied to?

i know that the MBP and the MBA have different niches. i just think that the price gap should be bigger (mba should cost less) considering the specs and the intangible value of each one. from my point of view, apple is asking too much for the intangible value of the macbook air, cause tangibly, the macbook pro beats the air easily. intangibility can't be measure, so we can say it's a revolutionary product and ask for more 'cause of it. being thinner than others is enough reason to charge more? maybe for them, not for me. i think this high price is to cover the 100 macbook air prototypes they did. lol i am curious about the other 99. but hey, if this state of things make those apple guys happy (and i'm sure they're pretty satisfied), who am i to disagree! i won't be buying one, but if you buy one, i won't shoot you, 'cause i will have pity! :D

...regarding that complaining about the reading, i've read your post "as much well" as you've read mine! :cool:

[targat]

For me the improvement is just a minor. And upgrading for a $999 is very heavy.:(

[twoodcc]

better news for the Air. the SSD still isn't worth the price, at least to me

[peterl1966]

Is there any difference in the recharging time between the two? I own a MBA HD and it literally takes longer to charge it than the actual battery time. I am easily looking at 6+ hours to recharge this thing.

[Tosser]

Is there any difference in the recharging time between the two? I own a MBA HD and it literally takes longer to charge it than the actual battery time. I am easily looking at 6+ hours to recharge this thing.

From going through various forums, it seems it was designed to be a slow charging wedge. In my opinion, though, there is no reason why it should charge that slowly. They should have given it a more powerful charger and charging circuitry.

[Flyer0815]

From going through various forums, it seems it was designed to be a slow charging wedge. In my opinion, though, there is no reason why it should charge that slowly. They should have given it a more powerful charger and charging circuitry.

At work I use my MBP charger for my MBA and i still get pitiful charging time.. upwards of 4 or 5 hours. It's pretty much the same with my MBA charger. I hope this is some minor glitch that can be fixed with a firmware update (like the MBP battery firmware update a few months ago).

[Tosser]

At work I use my MBP charger for my MBA and i still get pitiful charging time.. upwards of 4 or 5 hours. It's pretty much the same with my MBA charger. I hope this is some minor glitch that can be fixed with a firmware update (like the MBP battery firmware update a few months ago).

Yup, hence I also mentioned a more powerful charging circuitry (in the MBA, that is) should have been done. And it _could_ have been done. Otherwise we who happen to own MBPs would really have hit a wall.

[Analog Kid]

From the article: "NOTE: The 250G, 320G, and 200G notebook drives were empty. The 64G SSD was 31% full. " Hard drives are faster on the outside tracks, which are used when the drive is empty. As the drive fills, the inner tracks will be used which are slower. So the hard drives will be slower once they start getting full.
Anybody know how the SSDs handle dirty blocks? The slowest operation on Flash is erasure, so if that isn't being handled while idle then the SSDs will also slow down considerably when full...

[amacisbetter]

I'm suprised at the battery life. The typical person buying a Macbook Air would probaly just use it for internet browsing/email/listening to music and when doing that with the SSD it almost made it to 5hrs. I don't think the average user will buy the SSD though so the battery life isn't as great with the hard drive, but still. Not a bad estimate in my opinion.