New MacBook Air Slower Than Older Model?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/26/new-macbook-air-slower-than-older-model/)

Macworld took a look (http://www.macworld.com/article/141296/2009/06/macbook_air_mid09.html?lsrc=top_1) at the newest MacBook Air models that were introduced at WWDC (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/08/apple-updates-macbook-air-and-drops-price-to-1499/). The MacBook Air received processor speed bumps as well as a dramatic $300-$700 price drop. Despite the clock speed increase, Macworld found that the new MacBook Airs were actually slower than their predecessors: What’s weird about the new high-end MacBook Air model is that although it cost dramatically less than its immediate predecessor, it was also slower than that model. The late-2008 1.86GHz MacBook Air was faster than the new top-of-the-line model in 11 of our 18 tests, and as a result, the old system’s final Speedmark score was slightly higher. The low-end 1.86GHz model did a better job versus its predecessor, besting it on most tests and improving on its Speedmark score.They speculate that it could, in part, be due to aggressive thermal management in the higher speed models, but don't have a definitive answer.

The conclusion, however, remains the same as it always has for the MacBook Air. According to Macworld, "if the Air always struck you as being overpriced and underpowered, these aren’t the laptops you’re looking for.".... "But if the specs that matter most to you are light weight and small size, the MacBook Air is the system for you."

Article Link: New MacBook Air Slower Than Older Model? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/26/new-macbook-air-slower-than-older-model/)

[david6545]

How can they be slower :confused:

[sbrhwkp3]

Form over function laptop.

[Grimace]

The Air is a second computer.

Highly portable for web browsing and MS Word types of usage. It's the closest Apple will get to the netbook form. I don't think anyone should expect to do any photo/video/audio editing on it!

[gangst]

So close to buying one, but this puts me off...why upgrade it, just to say you did?

I still have my doubts this will playback 720p mkv video without stutters.

[Donz0r]

The Air is a second computer.

Highly portable for web browsing and MS Word types of usage. It's the closest Apple will get to the netbook form. I don't think anyone should expect to do any photo/video/audio editing on it!

Yes.

Everyone's calmmering for an Apple netbook. The Air is Apple's underpowered, lightweight, ultra portable laptop.
The netbook market is cheap, loss leading, underpowered machines. Apple doesn't and will never make a laptop like that.

[twoodcc]

wow, now this is not good. apple might have messed up this time

[Detlev_73]

I was just at an Apple Store over the weekend and played around with the top-end MBAir. It boot up almost twice as fast as my early 2009 MacBook 13", and definitely WAY faster than my early 2008 MBAir. I don't know how they do these tests, but I call BS. Might actually get one of the new MBAirs in the next two months, and sell the MB...don't need the DVD, and after getting rid of my first MBAir I'm craving the light weight. It's a beautiful laptop. Just hope they don't discontinue it; I hope sales of it are going well.

[HHarm]

"Now it delivers speeds not usually found in ultra portable notebooks, thanks to a faster Intel Core 2 Duo running at 1.86GHz or 2.13GHz."

Not quite it seems.

[clayj]

Hey, I still love my 1st-generation 1.8 GHz 64 GB SSD MBA. It's a perfect laptop for someone who just wants to check e-mail, surf the web, and run some productivity apps and doesn't want to lug around some heavy brick of a notebook.

[wheezy]

The Air is a second computer.

Highly portable for web browsing and MS Word types of usage. It's the closest Apple will get to the netbook form. I don't think anyone should expect to do any photo/video/audio editing on it!

That's why I want one - My MacPro does all my heavy lifting, I just want something portable. My Whitebook does great, but it would be nice to have it be an Air instead. Cause... you know, I need two computers and all.... :rolleyes:

[vgermax]

Typically shoddy "testing" from Macworld. There's little wonder why print magazines lose ground to online publications. It's not a question of distribution or cost structure or a change in readership preferences or demographics or any other construct. The problem is content, online publications are miles ahead in terms of quality of content. AnandTech's review of the most significant change in the MacBook line (the non-removable batteries) is so far beyond anything Macworld publishes, that it's an embarrassment.

[njfuzzy]

The only way I could ever imagine buying a MacBook air is getting the previous generation model, clearance or refurb. This has been the case with every generation.

[davebarnes]

1. You can see all the numbers at http://marketingtactics.com/Speedmark/

2. I own the original AirBook and it is perfect for what it is.
a. Secondary computer.
b. Travel computer.
c. Dinghy to my yacht.

[pujapuri]

Thinking of getting the latest one with SSD. Does anyone know if the USB Ethernet is Gigabit?

[the-oz-man]

What do you expect from a $300-$700 price drop??? They had to make sacrifices somewhere to justify the profit loss.

[Diode]

Thinking of getting the latest one with SSD. Does anyone know if the USB Ethernet is Gigabit?

It's 10/100BASE-T

[daddywags214]

So close to buying one, but this puts me off...why upgrade it, just to say you did?

I still have my doubts this will playback 720p mkv video without stutters.

My gen 1 1.6 Air plays 720p mkv and h.264 no problem. :D

(also:) I use this as my second computer. I travel with it, I take it to work when I need to show someone stuff that I'm working on, and it's great for full web browsing around the house when the iPhone doesn't cut it. I used it for photo editing once in a pinch, but other than that, it's all about portability.

[hodgeheg]

Thinking of getting the latest one with SSD. Does anyone know if the USB Ethernet is Gigabit?

USB*2* Gigabit ethernet is impossible. The USB2 interface maxes out at 480Mbps peak, and sustains less. I imagine it's still 10/100.

USB3 gigabit ethernet should be possible, but we don't have USB 3 yet.

[MidiMonk]

How can they be slower :confused:

Because Apple is likely cheapening their parts, Apple is form over function.Makes those refurbished look good.

[Scott6666]

Scottsdale, you awake yet?

[Victor Odin]

Due to the inability to vent heat from a sub 1" thick platform, the laws of physics will not allow these computers to be high-performance.

The thinner they get, the slower they will have to get.

At least until new CPU's with even smaller manufacturing sizes are released.

I have a 2.6Ghz MBP, and I get 80C on the CPU and 90C on the GPU under render load.

The fans kick up to 6000, and the case is scalding to the touch (thank god for USB keyboards), but let's face it.

Apple thermal management = fans.

Seriously.

Just like everyone else.

That, and processor throttling.

All this "well, apple can design these blah blah blah" is not entirely true, and it is why the warranty is so insanely expensive (20-30% of the purchase price of the computer in some cases).

They have heat issues, because there is only so much you can do with a freaking fan.

Despite the Kool-Aid speak, fans are not revolutionary.

If I got an Mac Air, I would get the slowest Air available, because the beefy processors won't be able to run full speed anyway unless you are using it in an igloo.

[hitekalex]

These Macworld tests are are a bunch of BS. See this thread, people consistently report higher Geekbench scores with MBA 2.13, as compared to older models:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=427141

[ooo]

My gen 1 1.6 Air plays 720p mkv and h.264 no problem. :D

(also:) I use this as my second computer. I travel with it, I take it to work when I need to show someone stuff that I'm working on, and it's great for full web browsing around the house when the iPhone doesn't cut it. I used it for photo editing once in a pinch, but other than that, it's all about portability.


I'm using it as a second computer as well, same first gen 1.6ghz and it runs without any issues. I use lightroom and xcode on this machine as well. I'm looking forward to seeing a 4gbs version of this machine.

[Goona]

This is not possible, there is something wrong with their tests.

[jamesryanbell]

Hilarious. LOL!!!

"OOOH I GOT A GOOD DEAL NOW!"

No you got a slower computer.

[Victor Odin]

This is not possible, there is something wrong with their tests.

If it showed the opposite, would "something be wrong with the tests"?

Come on, guys. You need to snap the **** out of it.

The guy running the test wasn't MPA hater. He loved the things.

And it absolutely IS possible.

Why would it not be?

Apple goes for design, not speed.

The newer iMacs are slower in some areas than the old ones. Even last year, The ATI 2600 kicked the snot out of the upgraded Nvidia 8800 in iMovie.

[kas23]

Whatever, this doesn't matter. I'm sure the people who own a MBA wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Besides, if one is so concerned about speed, they shouldn't be buying a MBA anyways.

If it showed the opposite, would "something be wrong with the tests"?

Come on, guys. You need to snap the **** out of it.

The guy running the test wasn't MPA hater. He loved the things.

And it absolutely IS possible.

Why would it not be?

Plus, I'm sure he was surprised enough to run the test over again to ensure precision.

[hiimamac]

How can they be slower :confused:

Updates not si bad this time around. That sait I am not surprues it's a Snafu. But seems rather odd given the mac parts are faster.

[chromos]

These Macworld tests are are a bunch of BS. See this thread, people consistently report higher Geekbench scores with MBA 2.13, as compared to older models:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=427141

Thanks for this. I was in the market for the 2.13 but was very much concerned about the Macworld tests. I was esp. pleased to see the score of the MBA under Snow Leopard...

[gGGg]

maybe I'm reading the graph the wrong way but there's something weird:
for example in the Compressor MPEG encode test the lower end model is significantly faster than the high end model. How is this possible?? This happens also in other tests like Cinema 4D rendering, iMovie HD, iTunes, and Finder (only the zip archive one). Still the 1.86Ghz model gets an overall score of 156, and the 2.13 of 175.
Does this even make sense?

[johnqh]

Typically shoddy "testing" from Macworld. There's little wonder why print magazines lose ground to online publications. It's not a question of distribution or cost structure or a change in readership preferences or demographics or any other construct. The problem is content, online publications are miles ahead in terms of quality of content. AnandTech's review of the most significant change in the MacBook line (the non-removable batteries) is so far beyond anything Macworld publishes, that it's an embarrassment.

I totally agree with you.

Their so-called "testing" is just using some benchmark software. There is no methodology.

A simple explanation is spotlight. If Spotlight is on and doing background indexing of the file system, it can easily slow down the "benchmark".

I have found the online publications do their best on making sure they are comparing apple to apples - same OS, same settings, etc. MacWorld wouldn't even tell what OS they are running on. A simple point release in the OS may make a big difference too.

They should have know that their testing is invalid when the 1.86G 2009 MBA performs better than 2.13G 2009 in most of their tests. They are the same generation. Actually, for most of the tests, the 1.86G 2009 performs better than the 1.86G 2008.

[*LTD*]

Big deal. LOL.

Like you'll notice the difference.

[Manatee]

The Air is a second computer.

Agreed. I have a couple of MacBook Pro models, and the Air. The Air goes almost everywhere with me. I use it for e-mail, surfing, taking meeting notes, writing up documentation, managing all my photos and documents in "the cloud". It's plenty fast for all of that, and it's a joy to use.

For some, it really could be an "only" laptop, but you need to accept the limitations -- lack of ports, only 2GB RAM, not the fastest processor.

In any case, it'll never appeal to the user who's choosing mostly on price, but for those of use who have bought into the Apple camp, the Air really has a place.

[iLLucionist]

Form over function laptop.

You don't get it. With the air, form IS the function.

[NC MacGuy]

I knew my first and second gen. were better than gen. 3 since they cost more.;)

Speed? I don't need no stinkin' speed!
I just love the way it fits ever so tightly in my metrosexual man-bag. ohhh, you sexy beast you.

[*LTD*]

You don't get it. With the air, form IS the function.

+1

Form is the whole point with the Air.

And IIRC the Air boasts the best peformance in a notebook of its size. I'm thinking Dell Adamo here as the competitor.

By the way, what happened to the Adamo, anyway?

[iLLucionist]

Agreed. I have a couple of MacBook Pro models, and the Air. The Air goes almost everywhere with me. I use it for e-mail, surfing, taking meeting notes, writing up documentation, managing all my photos and documents in "the cloud". It's plenty fast for all of that, and it's a joy to use.

For some, it really could be an "only" laptop, but you need to accept the limitations -- lack of ports, only 2GB RAM, not the fastest processor.

In any case, it'll never appeal to the user who's choosing mostly on price, but for those of use who have bought into the Apple camp, the Air really has a place.

I must say, however, with the SSD, it is faster than my MBP, even with illustrator. Plays 1080p perfectly, don't get the rainbow cursor in illustrator. Just amazing speed.

Perhaps for RAW editing you need a MBP, but otherwise (iLife, iWork, Mac:Office, 1080, iTunes) I find the Air more than satisfying.

[ddTaylor]

The Air is a second computer.

Highly portable for web browsing and MS Word types of usage. It's the closest Apple will get to the netbook form. I don't think anyone should expect to do any photo/video/audio editing on it!

Why not? I do photo editing and even video work on my netbook (Acer Aspire One) with 1.5GB RAM and 160GB HD. I also think you are incorrect on the netbook/tablet computer from Apple. I think they have one ready for production IF they choose to go that direction - and I hope they will.

The computer should NOT be slower than last years model - PERIOD. That said - it is NOT just a second computer as I use one most of the day. If I need to do serious work I use my new(er) '07 MBP with 4GB RAM and 320GB 7200 RPM HD. I do not own a desktop so the MBP is the closest I have to a full-sized computer.

The MBA has the ability to be more than what Apple has allowed it to become - they have purposely crippled the system in order to delineate models and specifications. It is NOT (for the price) a second computer and many people who own one at the current price use it as their primary notebook computer - so why should we not expect more from it? It is a GREAT TIME to pick-up a used model form last year at a BARGAIN and get one that is better, faster and generally a fantastic notebook for just about anyone who does not want to play 3D graphics intensive applications.

It is a broad statement to say people will not edit photo or video on it when I do - and do that and more on my Atom based hack-book. Arrogant? Maybe - uninformed - definitely. Why should expect more from our money and hold companies accountable when they do something the customer feels is just plain odd.

I do not care that they reduced the price as it is a new model with technically better specifications yet it does not perform as well as the previous model and that is silly - regardless of the price.

The above is my take on the facts - and as my wife and children often tell me...I am just plain wrong - so take it for what it is worth.

D

[Goona]

If it showed the opposite, would "something be wrong with the tests"?

Come on, guys. You need to snap the **** out of it.

The guy running the test wasn't MPA hater. He loved the things.

And it absolutely IS possible.

Why would it not be?

Apple goes for design, not speed.

The newer iMacs are slower in some areas than the old ones. Even last year, The ATI 2600 kicked the snot out of the upgraded Nvidia 8800 in iMovie.

So why are others getting different results? :rolleyes:

[iLLucionist]

Big deal. LOL.

Like you'll notice the difference.

Most won't, because they'll stick to their 'ultra-portable' Vaio's keeping complaing about the 'overpriced' Air. Ultra-portable full-function not-lagging pc laptop? With Vista you mean? Don't see it happen.

Not to bash, but comparing the Air with a 'ultra-light' pc laptop is just comparing squares with circles.

[Victor Odin]

I totally agree with you.

Their so-called "testing" is just using some benchmark software. There is no methodology.

A simple explanation is spotlight. If Spotlight is on and doing background indexing of the file system, it can easily slow down the "benchmark".

I have found the online publications do their best on making sure they are comparing apple to apples - same OS, same settings, etc. MacWorld wouldn't even tell what OS they are running on. A simple point release in the OS may make a big difference too.

They should have know that their testing is invalid when the 1.86G 2009 MBA performs better than 2.13G 2009 in most of their tests. They are the same generation. Actually, for most of the tests, the 1.86G 2009 performs better than the 1.86G 2008.

You are angry with MacWorld because they did not give you the results you wanted. How do you know that the 1.8 wasn't running spotlight in the background and isn't even faster than the benchmark says it is?

You have a pre-determined expectation, and anything that doesn't validate that expectation if "flawed" because the Apples Church says that Apple Poops gold nuggets with a gold scent.

This outcome is EASILY explainable.

If the thermal management of the newer MBA's are inferior, they will run slower. As processors heat up, they do not run applications as quickly. Period.

There, I just provided a perfectly rational explanation.

The cult members will not be able to wrap there mind around it, but most likely everyone else will.

Heat matters in computing.

A lot.

As a matter of fact, it is arguably the most important limiting factor in semiconductor technology.

You can have a bazillion Ghz processor in a computer, but if it's not cooled, it's going to throttle.

A well-cooled, slower processor, motherboard chipset, etc may very well be faster.

[Goona]

+1

Form is the whole point with the Air.

And IIRC the Air boasts the best peformance in a notebook of its size. I'm thinking Dell Adamo here as the competitor.

By the way, what happened to the Adamo, anyway?

Yeah I'm sure an Adamo would be a way better choice.

[Victor Odin]

So why are others getting different results? :rolleyes:

Every computer is different. They all have different thermal profiles.

You friend's MBA may run faster or slower than yours. Every piece of silicon is different.

If one runs hotter than the other, then it may be slower.

Here's some more smilies for you :D:confused::eek:;):p

[ddTaylor]

Yes.

Everyone's calmmering for an Apple netbook. The Air is Apple's underpowered, lightweight, ultra portable laptop.
The netbook market is cheap, loss leading, underpowered machines. Apple doesn't and will never make a laptop like that.

When did you last use a netbook from Acer and Asus or Dell or even IBM? They are NOT underpowered and they are NOT loss leaders. They are low profit items but they are not loss-leaders as that would make NO SENSE to sell a netbook at a loss when that segment of the portable market makes up more than 30%. You may not like them but they are not underpowered and they are not loss leaders - Apple should enter the netbook market and they should increase the performance of the MBA to better compete with other machines in this price class. That makes sense along with the introduction of a netbook/tablet computer to be introduced later this summer.

Please see my previous post regarding what can and is being done on a hack-book based on the Atom 270 processor - 1.5gb ram and 160gb hd.

Try it and maybe you will find it performs well enough to output 720P video well - and works for more than just word processing, web-work and other light-duty applications. You might be surprised.

D

[PygmySurfer]

Yes.

Everyone's calmmering for an Apple netbook. The Air is Apple's underpowered, lightweight, ultra portable laptop.
The netbook market is cheap, loss leading, underpowered machines. Apple doesn't and will never make a laptop like that.

I don't think so. There's no way all of those companies out there selling netbooks aren't making a profit.

Exactly how can a netbook be a loss leader, anyway? What are the vendors hoping to sell to customers to make up for the loss of profit on the netbook? The whole idea of a loss leader is to entice customers to purchase additional items (ie: video game consoles are sold at a loss, at least when they first launch, they make up the money on software).

[Shiner]

You are angry with MacWorld because they did not give you the results you wanted. How do you know that the 1.8 wasn't running spotlight in the background and isn't even faster than the benchmark says it is?

You have a pre-determined expectation, and anything that doesn't validate that expectation if "flawed" because the Apples Church says that Apple Poops gold nuggets with a gold scent.

This outcome is EASILY explainable.

If the thermal management of the newer MBA's are inferior, they will run slower. As processors heat up, they do not run applications as quickly. Period.

There, I just provided a perfectly rational explanation.

The cult members will not be able to wrap there mind around it, but most likely everyone else will.

Heat matters in computing.

A lot.

As a matter of fact, it is arguably the most important limiting factor in semiconductor technology.

You can have a bazillion Ghz processor in a computer, but if it's not cooled, it's going to throttle.

A well-cooled, slower processor, motherboard chipset, etc may very well be faster.

+1

This is exactly the reason for the slower speeds. Earlier versions (I had a rev A) had horrible heat and fan issues. All apple did was throttle the processor. If you can't cool the thing right (something apple has failed to do on all of their laptops) they will go slower.

[Goona]

When did you last use a netbook from Acer and Asus or Dell or even IBM? They are NOT underpowered and they are NOT loss leaders. They are low profit items but they are not loss-leaders as that would make NO SENSE to sell a netbook at a loss when that segment of the portable market makes up more than 30%. You may not like them but they are not underpowered and they are not loss leaders - Apple should enter the netbook market and they should increase the performance of the MBA to better compete with other machines in this price class. That makes sense along with the introduction of a netbook/tablet computer to be introduced later this summer.

Please see my previous post regarding what can and is being done on a hack-book based on the Atom 270 processor - 1.5gb ram and 160gb hd.

Try it and maybe you will find it performs well enough to output 720P video well - and works for more than just word processing, web-work and other light-duty applications. You might be surprised.

D

Like the Adamo?

[QCassidy352]

And it absolutely IS possible.

Why would it not be?

Apple goes for design, not speed.

The newer iMacs are slower in some areas than the old ones. Even last year, The ATI 2600 kicked the snot out of the upgraded Nvidia 8800 in iMovie.

Bad analogy. The 2600 is a totally different part from the 8800, so even though the 8800 is more advanced overall, nothing guarantees it will beat the 2600 in every aspect. In this case, we're talking about a faster clocked version of the same chip.

The fact that "apple goes for design not speed" (which I'll just accept as true for the moment) really has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about two generations of laptop with the same design and more or less the same internals except that the newer one has a faster clocked processor. And yet it benchmarks slower. Do you see how that's a) inexplicable, and b) not at all related to any point you made?

[iLLucionist]

+1

Form is the whole point with the Air.

And IIRC the Air boasts the best peformance in a notebook of its size. I'm thinking Dell Adamo here as the competitor.

By the way, what happened to the Adamo, anyway?

You can simply order the Adamo right? It isn't gone or something. Btw it looks like it's from another planet.

[benpatient]

MBA may be light, but it is too "big" in a length and width kind of way for me to ever consider one.

If it's going to be the size of a platter, it needs to have some ports on it.

I'm waiting for the 10" air.

[Hattig]

These Macworld tests are are a bunch of BS. See this thread, people consistently report higher Geekbench scores with MBA 2.13, as compared to older models:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=427141

Interesting:

Geekbench Scores
3234 (MBA 2.13 Ghz running Snow Leopard WWDC build)
2682 (MBA 2.13 running 10.5.7)
2541 (MBA 2.13 running from restored Leopard image)
2485 (1.8GHz MBA w/ 1.8HDD)
2189 (MBA 1.6 80GB Rev. A)

[Victor Odin]

And yet it benchmarks slower. Do you see how that's a) inexplicable, and b) not at all related to any point you made?

No.

Heat is almost always the limiting factor in laptop design.

This phenomenon can be 100% explained by thermal management (or a lack thereof).

Unless you are 100% positive that nothing has changed with regards to thermal management between generations, then you cannot draw a linear equation of faster rated processor = faster computer.

CPU's don't always run at their rated speed.

CPU's run slower as they heat, regardless of clock speed.

There are also issues of electromigration with heat, but until you can accept the premise that Apple doesn't always do the perfect thing, the explanation will be lost on you.

[polaris20]

The Air is a second computer.

Highly portable for web browsing and MS Word types of usage. It's the closest Apple will get to the netbook form. I don't think anyone should expect to do any photo/video/audio editing on it!

I would argue that you can still do audio and light video on it too. I've been editing video and audio all the way back to the PIII 1Ghz days.

[bananas]

I'm getting another MBA, this time with SSD. This thing is just great. It's much more powerful than Lenovo X301, which is the second most interesting laptop IMHO. The only thing that is better in the X301 is the resolution. I hope that Apple will soon upgrade the MBA to 1440x900 too.

EDIT: and while you're upgrading it, please make it 4 GB RAM.

[rumody]

Form over function laptop.
Totally agree. I think they should keep the brick-form factor of the pro unibodies, and just try to make it thinner. Without a CD, that will be a great portable computer:

http://macbookair.rumody.com/

[derek1984]

Why I never considered buying a MBA: No optical drive. And the newer Macbooks are thin and light enough.

[andreab35]

Haha, I just looked at this and laughed.
I don't know how this can be true.

You think performance will change for these laptops once Snow Leopard rolls out?

[bananas]

so the bad benchmark result must be due to SATA firmware issues that MacBook Pro had too? I'm sure it will be fixed soon.

[*LTD*]

Yeah I'm sure an Adamo would be a way better choice.

Why? It's a Windows box.

[applecultvictim]

Macworld are slightly less bozos than famous bozos anandtech.

They must have messed up here.

Or intel hasn't got the thermals right and apple had to cut down to allow it to perform well, what with the gen A fiasco not wanting to repeat.

In either case it's either a fluke result or something apple had to do.

And more so these tests don't come close to real life use.

Also it's kinda stupid to call an ultraportable underpowered, which ultra portable is NOT underpowered you bozos? It comes with the territory.


The air is still the best computer for all the on the go professionals or students, stylish, fast (relative to the competition) with a marvelous screen and now it's also a very very good deall pricewise. Nothing in the pc world can even come close.

It's a winner in all fronts, and it's not apple's fault that quadcores have not become availble for ultraportables.

[BRLawyer]

How can they be slower :confused:

Unclear to me as well; it's easier to say that Speedmark scores are extremely fluid and NEVER to be trusted.

[Shadow]

Every computer is different. They all have different thermal profiles.

You friend's MBA may run faster or slower than yours. Every piece of silicon is different.

If one runs hotter than the other, then it may be slower.

Here's some more smilies for you :D:confused::eek:;):p

Actually I would argue exactly the opposite. Every piece of silicon is pretty much identical to similar units; otherwise the failure rate would be astronomical. Granted, there are small variations between machines, but this is to do with the environment they're in and the software they're running rather than significant differences between similar chips and whatnot.

[BRLawyer]

so the bad benchmark result must be due to SATA firmware issues that MacBook Pro had too? I'm sure it will be fixed soon.

Since the very beginning of that story it was said that the new MBA was NOT affected by these issues...

[Victor Odin]

It's a winner in all fronts, and it's not apple's fault that quadcores have not become availble for ultraportables.

Apple doesn't have quadcores for anything portable at all.

Not even the 17" Mac Book Pro.

Heck, not even iMac, and that's not even portable.

It's not Apple's fault, though.

It's the mean magic wizard's fault. It's a never ending struggle between good and evil, and Apple is tirelessly fighting to absolve the world of sin and wrongdoing.

Kind of like Jesus, only way better.

[applecultvictim]

Apple doesn't have quadcores for anything portable at all.

Not even the 17" Mac Book Pro.

Heck, not even iMac, and that's not even portable.

It's not Apple's fault, though.

It's the mean magic wizard's fault. It's a never ending struggle between good and evil, and Apple is tirelessly fighting to absolve the world of sin and wrongdoing.

Kind of like Jesus, only way better.

Thanks for the irony, I kinda liked it despite it mocking me. :)

On a serious note however I said ULTRAPORTABLE not portable, and quads are not available there. Apple has put THE BEST ultraportable cpu they could get their hands on in the air. Is there anything else they could have done, tell me?

Exactly. So how is it their fault?

[hitekalex]

Thanks for this. I was in the market for the 2.13 but was very much concerned about the Macworld tests. I was esp. pleased to see the score of the MBA under Snow Leopard...

Yep, typing this on MBA 2.13 running Snow Leopard. The thing flies.

[Gasu E.]

Please! This is Apple! It's not "slow", it's "craftsmanlike."
:rolleyes:

[Victor Odin]

Actually I would argue exactly the opposite. Every piece of silicon is pretty much identical to similar units

And you would be wrong. Most CPU's are stamped from the same sheet yet are highly variable. The ones that can tolerate more heat are rated for higher speeds. The ones that can tolerate less heat are rated for slower speeds. There are a large amount that are simply discarded.

otherwise the failure rate would be astronomical.

It is fairly high. Not all CPU's are put into machines. They are tested, and if they fail, they test them at a slower speed. If they pass at that speed, that is the speed at which they are rated.

All processors are more or less the same die and are theoretically capable of running at the highest clock speed, but are extremely variable.

The ones that "fail" are slowed down until they no longer fail and sold to OEM's or equipment makers.

This happens even when they come out of the exact same fab.

Granted, there are small variations between machines, but this is to do with the environment they're in and the software they're running rather than significant differences between similar chips and whatnot.

You are incorrect.

It is also why true benchmarking is hard unless you use a large sample.

The same CPU can run 5-10C hotter than another, and still be within themal spec. The hotter one will throttle more quickly though and will be more prone to electromigration.

Fortunately, most people will not notice.

Will your new MBA be faster than the old one?

Maybe. It's entirely possible.

Then agin, maybe not.

Unless Apple is garantee that you will see x% better performance in a particular app, you won't be able to do anything anyway.

The point is that I don't think the people who did the tests are rabid Mac bashers. I don't think this was some large conspiracy to crap on the MBA.

To the contrary, they like it.

Perhaps they also had a hotter than usual chip. They should have posted temps. This would have helped us figure it out.

The outcome of the test is also EASILY explainable for those that care to consider the explanation.

Some will hear nothing of it, though.

There is logic, and there is religion.

Mac users are kind of split down the middle as to how they approach things.

[Victor Odin]

Thanks for the irony, I kinda liked it despite it mocking me. :)

On a serious note however I said ULTRAPORTABLE not portable, and quads are not available there. Apple has put THE BEST ultraportable cpu they could get their hands on in the air. Is there anything else they could have done, tell me?

Exactly. So how is it their fault?

The point was ... even if there was an ultra-portable quadcore, I have no idea why you think they would use it when such chips are available for other laptops ... yet are missing from all portable Apple products.

If Apple had any interest whatsoever in portable quad-core, they could have accomplished it.

Obviously, they do not.

I don't know that it's a "fault", but it is a choice that they make.

[applecultvictim]

The point was ... even if there was an ultra-portable quadcore, I have no idea why you think they would use it when such chips are available for other laptops ... yet are missing from all Apple products.

Yeah but that's hypothetical, you can't hold them responsible with the logic that they are doing so and so, but had the situation been different (available ultraportable quads) they would be doing this and that, and this and that would be wrong. You just can't judge someone like that.

But even going along with*your logic. Both the air and the iphone are very sharply placed in terms of tec, the imac isn't. Thus the former would get all the latest and best hardware while the imac would again be as is more slower in adoption. But to tell you the truth for most people a quad vs. a dual core imac wont make much difference while it makes a ton of difference in ultra mobile apps, hence apple are quick there.

[Stephen123]

It's both funny and sad how folks are arguing about the MacWorld tests being valid or not, and the strange relationship between clock speed and benchmarks while completely ignoring the Geekbench results being posted here which contradict the MacWorld results.

[nick9191]

Smells like bull to me.

The old Rev B used the SL9300 in the low end, and the SL9400 in the high end. The new model uses the SL9400 in the low end, and the SL9600 in the high end.

How can it possibly be slower? Same chip generation, presumably same board.

[Victor Odin]

Yeah but that's hypothetical, you can't hold them responsible with the logic that they are doing so and so, but had the situation been different (available ultraportable quads) they would be doing this and that, and this and that would be wrong. You just can't judge someone like that.

Are you an imbecile or do you just play one on the Internet?

There is no evidence for your premise. None. There is a great deal of evidence for mine, however.

It's not hypothetical, Apple does not have quad-cores in their highest end $4,000 laptops. There is no quad-core option. This is not theory. This is fact.

Can we "blame" Apple for that?

The fastest, top-of-the-line Mac "pro" portable has no quad CPU, when quads are obviously available, and have been for some time. Even the newest 17" portable has no quad.

This being the case, your assertion that they would put quads in the Mac Book Air is patently absurd on it's face.


But even going along with*your logic. Both the air and the iphone are very sharply placed in terms of tec, the imac isn't.

The iPhone is just now getting features that I have been enjoying for 4 years on other devices.

Ergo, I disagree with your premise.

I'm still enjoying the hell out of my A2DP, as I have been since 2006.

Are you?

Wait ... Apple hasn't told you that you want it yet.

You'll probably like it when they "invent" it, though.

Thus the former would get all the latest and best hardware while the imac would again be as is more slower in adoption. But to tell you the truth for most people a quad vs. a dual core imac wont make much difference while it makes a ton of difference in ultra mobile apps, hence apple are quick there.

Then why doesn't one, single, solitary Mac laptop have one?

[BRLawyer]

Smells like bull to me.

The old Rev B used the SL9300 in the low end, and the SL9400 in the high end. The new model uses the SL9400 in the low end, and the SL9600 in the high end.

How can it possibly be slower? Same chip generation, presumably same board.

As I said above, Speedbench is NOT reliable, as its final results do NOT reflect real-life usage and are widely subject to variations...kinda like XBench actually.

[johnqh]

You are angry with MacWorld because they did not give you the results you wanted. How do you know that the 1.8 wasn't running spotlight in the background and isn't even faster than the benchmark says it is?


First, I don't even own a MBA, so I don't care either way.

However, forget about comparing to previous generation. Look at the result of the 2009 1.86G vs 2.13G.

If you still think that test is valid, I can only say you have lost it.

When the test doesn't make sense, it is up to the tester to investigate and find out what's causing it. It could be anything (OS, spotlight, or maybe as you said, heat). MacWorld did not do that. That's where it is lacking comparing to the other tech sites.

So, all we have here are guesses (good or bad). That's not what a publication like MacWorld should do with their testing.

[MysterMac]

the macbook air looks very much to me like a product which isnt yet in its final state. As an original unibody Macbook owner I know - soon itll have a better battery, more ports and surely - a glass trackpad. (yes I know the Mb has the glass trackpad) I won't buy one yet, once bitten twice shy, apple.

[nick9191]

Are you an imbecile or do you just play one on the Internet?

It's not hypothetical, Apple does not have quad-cores in their highest end $4,000 laptops. There is no quad-core option. This is not theory. This is fact.

The fastest, top-of-the-line Mac "pro" portable has no quad CPU, when quads are obviously available, and have been for some time. Even the newest 17" portable has no quad.

This being the case, your assertion that they would put quads in the Mac Book Air is patently absurd on it's face.




Then why doesn't one, single, solitary Mac laptop have one?

The only Quad Core mobile chips on the market consume a lot of power. This means that current Quad Core laptops need to be ridiculously thick, run ridiculously hot, and have ridiculously poor battery life. Apple doesn't want this, Apple will wait until Q4 when better mobile chips come out.

[gkarris]

If that's the case, shouldn't SL speed things back up?

[Eidorian]

The only Quad Core mobile chips on the market consume a lot of power. This means that current Quad Core laptops need to be ridiculously thick, run ridiculously hot, and have ridiculously poor battery life. Apple doesn't want this, Apple will wait until Q4 when better mobile chips come out.Tell me more.

[BRLawyer]

laptops need to be ridiculously thick, run ridiculously hot, and have ridiculously poor battery life.

These laptops are also known as Windows PCs...Alienwares even more so...:rolleyes:

[daddywags214]

Also, it's worth mentioning that I bought mine refurb for $1000, which I thought to be good value for money. Not sure if I'd have paid $1500 for one new. I usually buy refurb laptops, anyway.

[Eidorian]

These laptops are also known as Windows PCs...Alienwares even more so...:rolleyes:Apple only cares about two numbers for their notebooks.

Clock speed and battery life. There isn't much of a reason to diversify the lines if they can't slap on one more clock speed multiplier or show how many hours you could get in the proper test conditions.

The "most powerful/fastest MacBook (Pro) yet" is just going to be a new dual core sliding into the same price point that the old one did just a minute before. Arrandale is going to create a mess with the drop in clock speeds and IGP issues. Not to mention how Intel is handling the new Core naming scheme in addition to figuring out clock speed comparisons.

[DELLsFan]

Form over function laptop.

Yes, exactly.

The Air is a second computer.

Highly portable for web browsing and MS Word types of usage. It's the closest Apple will get to the netbook form. I don't think anyone should expect to do any photo/video/audio editing on it!

Hopefully, it's not the closest they'll get. The MBA is a niche product designed for a niche market. There should be no illusions though - the Air is NOT a netbook.

You don't get it. With the air, form IS the function.

No he got it right. No one should expect the MBA to FUNCTION like other Macs.

Why? It's a Windows box.

Yes ... and Win 7 probably runs beautifully on the Adamo. I've brought a couple old clunker gray boxes back to life with the Release Candidate! It's what Vista should have been. Don't get me wrong now ... I love my iMac and OS X, but now I am a superstar with the family - breathing new life into their old Windows machines.

[nick9191]

Tell me more.
Arrandale (Core i3). Due in Q4, based on Nehalem. I'd say Q4 09 or Q1 10 we will see them in a Mac notebook. Not sure on clock speeds, Tallest Skill will fill you in.

The iMac on the other hand might get Clarksfield. These chips draw more power, but since it's thicker and has no battery to worry about, it's not such an issue. These are due in Q3 2009, but they have the downfall of low clock speeds (1.6- 2.0ghz). They would probably be kept as BTO, if introduced at all, since the low clock speeds would be marketing suicide, despite of course being much faster.

[Eidorian]

Arrandale (Core i3). Due in Q4, based on Nehalem. I'd say Q4 09 or Q1 10 we will see them in a notebook.

The iMac on the other hand might get Clarksfield. These chips draw more power, but since it's thicker and has no battery to worry about, it's not such an issue. These are due in Q3 2009, but they have the downfall of low clock speeds (1.6- 2.0ghz). Not sure on clock speeds for Arrandale, Tallest Skill will fill you in.Arrandale isn't a quad core. Clarksfield does fall into the same 45-55W that the iMac can handle.

You also run into what the heck you're going to use for an IGP solution as well unless Apple wants to graciously return us to an all discrete graphics hardware line. It might surprise you what discussion (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=668803) does go on around here. You're still looking at Q1 2010.

[BRLawyer]

Apple only cares about two numbers for their notebooks.

Clock speed and battery life. There isn't much of a reason to diversify the lines if they can't slap on one more clock speed multiplier or show how many hours you could get in the proper test conditions.

The "most powerful/fastest MacBook (Pro) yet" is just going to be a new dual core sliding into the same price point that the old one did just a minute before. Arrandale is going to create a mess with the drop in clock speeds and IGP issues. Not to mention how Intel is handling the new Core naming scheme in addition to figuring out clock speed comparisons.

Proper test conditions? You mean Walt's statement that MBPs have the best battery life EVER to grace a notebook of that size?

[Eidorian]

Proper test conditions? You mean Walt's statement that MBPs have the best battery life EVER to grace a notebook of that size?Under the test conditions.

[nick9191]

Arrandale isn't a quad core. Clarksfield does fall into the same 45-55W that the iMac can handle.

You also run into what the heck you're going to use for an IGP solution as well unless Apple wants to graciously return us to an all discrete graphics hardware line. It might surprise you what discussion (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=668803) does go on around here. You're still looking at Q1 2010.
Fair enough. Although I hear the baseline Clarksfield is 35w, meaning we could see it as BTO for the MacBook Pro. If not then we'll be waiting for Sandy Bridge in 2010.

[djellison]

It boot up almost twice as fast as my early 2009 MacBook 13", and definitely WAY faster than my early 2008 MBAir.

Your MBAir has the HDD not a SDD, right? Boot up times are massively improved with SSD's - and you can bet your ass the ones in the shop are top spec, with SSD's.

[Eidorian]

Fair enough. Although I hear the baseline Clarksfield is 35w, meaning we could see it as BTO for the MacBook Pro. If not then we'll be waiting for Sandy Bridge in 2010.It will be a surprise to see what Apple does finally turn out for Arrandale/Clarksfield.

For the lower wattage Clarksfield procesors you're going to be sacrificing hyperthreading, clock speed, PCI-Express speeds, and the supported memory controller speeds to meet those requirements. Then again you don't have to deal with a northbridge to cool.

Plenty of things are up in the air with DMI taking over on the PCI-Express controller hopping onto the processor. I'd like to see what solutions other vendors have before I make any more predictions.

[bigdaddyp]

I must say, however, with the SSD, it is faster than my MBP, even with illustrator. Plays 1080p perfectly, don't get the rainbow cursor in illustrator. Just amazing speed.

Perhaps for RAW editing you need a MBP, but otherwise (iLife, iWork, Mac:Office, 1080, iTunes) I find the Air more than satisfying.

Can it play stuff from hulu without stuttering? Dang flash anyways.:mad:

[Victor Odin]

I think Apple is FAR more wrapped up in it's MP3 players to give much thought to bringing these new platforms to the computer hardware.

At this point, computers are Apple's second (or even third) tier concern after iPod's and iPhone's.

The latest iMac "upgrade" was kind of silly.

Dedicated graphics to on-board graphics in the middle. Sweet!

Unless you get the 4850 or stick 8Gb of RAM into your machine, there was really no point to any of it.

Perhaps Snow Leapord will take advantage of the "new" machines, but I wouldn't count on Apple putting all of this new tech to work as soon as it is released.

I had a quad core Dell at 2.93Ghz and an 8800GTX two years ago. I hated Windows, but the hardware was still better than what you could get from Apple in early 2009.

In many ways, it still crushes every Apple that doesn't have an ATI 48xx.

Apple is not about pushing the speed envelope. It's about software and looking pretty.

OS X is great, but I don't think they are stressing over hardware.

[winterspan]

So close to buying one, but this puts me off...why upgrade it, just to say you did?

I still have my doubts this will playback 720p mkv video without stutters.

MKV is only a container, it is not a codec. Considering the MB Air now has the nVidia 9400 chipset, it should play HD content just fine if you are using a codec that gets offloaded to the GPU like H264. Similar, a 1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo should be able to play regular MPEG-2 and DiVX video @ 720P as well. I'm sure there are millions of tests if you google...

[Eidorian]

MKV is only a container, it is not a codec. Considering the MB Air now has the nVidia 9400 chipset, it should play HD content just fine if you are using a codec that gets offloaded to the GPU like H264. Similar, a 1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo should be able to play regular MPEG-2 and DiVX video @ 720P as well. I'm sure there are millions of tests if you google...Now if we could get hardware acceleration for h.264 in a MKV container in OS X. :rolleyes:

Hell hardware accelerated DVD playback would be a nice start.

[gGGg]

Maybe the problem is caused by the excessive heat of the new MacBook Air, as others have said, but I think it is probaly not MacBook Air's fault: it's SUMMER's fault. The MacBook Air Rev B was introduced in October (cold) while the new one in June (hot). If macworld dind't repeat the tests for the old MacBook Air, the new one probably underclocked itself (even the first macbook air disabled a core when temperature was too hot) to avoid overheating
Just a theory

[BRLawyer]

Maybe the problem is caused by the excessive heat of the new MacBook Air, as others have said, but I think it is probaly not MacBook Air's fault: it's SUMMER's fault. The MacBook Air Rev B was introduced in October (cold) while the new one in June (hot). If macworld dind't repeat the tests for the old MacBook Air, the new one probably underclocked itself (even the first macbook air disabled a core when temperature was too hot) to avoid overheating
Just a theory

I would assume MW does its tests under the SAME environmental conditions...:rolleyes:

[Victor Odin]

Maybe the problem is caused by the excessive heat of the new MacBook Air, as others have said, but I think it is probaly not MacBook Air's fault: it's SUMMER's fault.

Somebody please shoot me.

I want to tender my resignation from the human species.

[Victor Odin]

I am hereby taking up a collection to help buy air conditioning for MacWorld's San Francisco office.

It's the end of June, and the high is going to be a whopping 65 degrees in the Bay Area today, and I don't want to see mother nature further sabotaging Apple in this manner.

The guy does have a point, though. I think Autumn may have been the cause of the 4850/wi-fi lockups in the new iMacs. Ever since Steve Jobs started calling it "fall", that season has had it out for Apple.

[Eidorian]

I am hereby taking up a collection to help buy air conditioning for MacWorld's San Francisco office.

It's the end of June, and the high is going to be a whopping 65 degrees in the Bay Area today, and I don't want to see mother nature further sabotaging Apple in this manner.You would hope that they would have mastered interior climate control at MacWorld's office by now.

[gGGg]

I would assume MW does its tests under the SAME environmental conditions...:rolleyes:
Are you sure they didn't just take the old benchmarks and compared them with the new one? If they dind't (i coulden't find the old review) my theory is just... stupid

[mr.steevo]

Maybe the problem is caused by the excessive heat of the new MacBook Air, as others have said, but I think it is probaly not MacBook Air's fault: it's SUMMER's fault.

Somebody please shoot me.

I want to tender my resignation from the human species.

No, he's right.

I've met Summer. She's terrible with computers.

s.

[gGGg]

ohhhh guys, you're so polemical, you shoud calm down :)
However, most of the computers i've had in my life "inexplicably" slowed down in summer. Summer is really ruthless, I think I'm gonna cry :( (or shoud I visit the Norh Pole?)

[Detlev_73]

Your MBAir has the HDD not a SDD, right? Boot up times are massively improved with SSD's - and you can bet your ass the ones in the shop are top spec, with SSD's.

Yes, mine had (sold it) the HD not the SSD, and this generation MBAir has a bus-speed that's twice as fast as the original.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

What’s weird about the new high-end MacBook Air model is that although it cost dramatically less than its immediate predecessor, it was also slower than that model.

I don't get this statement. What the heck is "weird" about a CHEAPER model being slower??? Gee, do you think that maybe, just maybe reducing costs could result in a less powerful product or do more expensive computers just cost more because they look pretty? If the new model was MORE EXPENSIVE then yes, I would expect it to be FASTER. Clearly, the Macbook Air was not a big seller because of its high cost. Apple addressed that and now people still aren't happy because it's slightly slower. Amazing.

[Dreamail]

This is clearly a thermal issue.

If you read forum posts about the original MBA they all run very hot and if you remember the first batch was notorious for switching off the second core for heat reasons.

This just looks like Apple finally recognized that this is not fixable unless they throttle the CPU even further. Hope this help running the new revision cooler than Rev B.


More and more it seems that the MBA is over-engineered. Not really fully nailed yet.

And I'm sure Apple is currently mulling over whether they should invest more time and money to re-engineer it, or whether they should just let the MBA slowly fade into the background...

Seeing that Rev C. hasn't really seen much of a change at all, I think Apple long decided on the latter.
They just don't want to lose face by killing it right away.

[Bregalad]

It will be a surprise to see what Apple does finally turn out for Arrandale/Clarksfield.

For the lower wattage Clarksfield procesors you're going to be sacrificing hyperthreading, clock speed, PCI-Express speeds, and the supported memory controller speeds to meet those requirements. Then again you don't have to deal with a northbridge to cool.

Plenty of things are up in the air with DMI taking over on the PCI-Express controller hopping onto the processor. I'd like to see what solutions other vendors have before I make any more predictions.

I think Apple would be wise to completely skip Arrandale/Clarksfield and wait for 32nm Westmere chips.

Not only will it be hard to market a 2.0GHz machine as being an improvement over the existing 3.06GHz machine, the 2.0GHz Clarksfield is expected to cost $400 more than the 3.06 Penryn.

I don't believe the world is ready for a $3000 iMac that, for many tasks, can't keep up with a $1200 refurb.

I wouldn't count on seeing Sandy Bridge until 2011. The economy is still down, AMD isn't presenting any serious threat and Intel likes to get a full year out of each tick and tock. Unless external forces change dramatically in the next year I would bet Westmere will be the chip du jour throughout 2010.

[iMacmatician]

I think Apple would be wise to completely skip Arrandale/Clarksfield and wait for 32nm Westmere chips.Arrandale is Westmere. Plus, Clarksfield may not make it to 32 nm.

I wouldn't count on seeing Sandy Bridge until 2011.Sandy Bridge appears to be early 2011 for midrange and high-end variants and 2012 for low-end variants.

[madmaxmedia]

There probably haven't been big changes in the hardware for cost savings, the CPU's didn't change. It was mostly perceived as a price drop by Apple than anything else. So we all are surprised if performance is less than before. That's not too hard to understand (even if your general points are still correct.)

I think the possibility that CPU speeds are being throttled more is a very sound hypothesis for lower performance. If indeed performance has decreased in this new rev, which we don't really know for sure.

I don't get this statement. What the heck is "weird" about a CHEAPER model being slower??? Gee, do you think that maybe, just maybe reducing costs could result in a less powerful product or do more expensive computers just cost more because they look pretty? If the new model was MORE EXPENSIVE then yes, I would expect it to be FASTER. Clearly, the Macbook Air was not a big seller because of its high cost. Apple addressed that and now people still aren't happy because it's slightly slower. Amazing.

[Ubik1981]

This is clearly a thermal issue.


it seems that the MBA is over-engineered. Not really fully nailed yet.

And I'm sure Apple is currently mulling over whether they should invest more time and money to re-engineer it, or whether they should just let the MBA slowly fade into the background...

Seeing that Rev C. hasn't really seen much of a change at all, I think Apple long decided on the latter.
They just don't want to lose face by killing it right away.

This sounds very reasonable, but I hope you are wrong... can’t wait to get the next (hopefully improved) version of the MBA in late 2009 or early 2010.

[Maven1975]

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!

Look.. Here the deal.

The battery life depends on Apples aggressive thermal management. If I want to play games, even MAME, I have to use Coolbook to override OSX management/throttling. (At the cost of Battery Life)

With Windows 7 64 under Bootcamp, you can clearly see the improvement. L4D, COD4 an other games play much better than the 1.86.

This is a bunch of crap. Good job MacRumors posting the obvious when it comes to ALL ultra portables on the market. However, most of them accomplish this by using low end or ULV chips that are slow in the first place.

BTW.. My 2.16 xbench score is 154. Old 1.86 was 126

Actually, all Apple needs to do is add and power saving and high performance setting.

[Macintox]

what about a slow toshiba SSD instead of a fast Samsung ?

[seedster2]

I knew upon entering the thread that many would question the results.

But the same people who condemn and scrutinize negative results never seem to invest similar time and resources to doing the same with positive reports:rolleyes:

Anyhow, having returned a 1st generation MB AIR, I can see how the results could be plausible. Apple is stuck with the thin design as it's biggest selling point (it could still be lighter and narrower). The thing just does not dissipate heat effectively and processors will throttle back under the slightest stress.

If huge price chops are any indicator, it's a form over function design that will likely see a slow death. It's one of the few apple products that I have had several geniuses and employees discourage me from buying.

[Eidorian]

I think Apple would be wise to completely skip Arrandale/Clarksfield and wait for 32nm Westmere chips.
Clarksfield is 45nm and Arrandale is 32nm.

Not only will it be hard to market a 2.0GHz machine as being an improvement over the existing 3.06GHz machine, the 2.0GHz Clarksfield is expected to cost $400 more than the 3.06 Penryn.

I don't believe the world is ready for a $3000 iMac that, for many tasks, can't keep up with a $1200 refurb.$300 to $500 for a mobile quad falls in quite nicely with the current mobile Core 2 Quad crop.

Then again the iMac isn't using a quad core processor today. Yet another mess Apple needs to explain and is going to feel the pain of these new slower clocked Intel processors. 32nm isn't going to render much higher clock speeds either.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple just kept dropping in faster mobile Core 2 Duo processors and even overclocking some to give the impression of progress.

[abhibeckert]

I own the previous gen macbook air and it's nice and fast, unless it gets hot. After that it is dog slow. The faster the clock speed, the faster it will get hot.

This gives terrible results when you push the CPU (eg: a bench test like the one given), but in *real use* it's nice and fast, since normal people only spike the processor to 100% for a few seconds at a time, followed by minutes of near idle usage.

It seems likely the top end model gets a bad score because of the poor cooling at ultraportable form factors, but in real use it would be faster.

I'd like to see a bench test of, for example, resizing a 10MB photo, or launching an app, or web pages with a heavy of javascript (as in gmail. not sunspider).

[zami]

Frankly I'd take a Dell Mini 9 running OS X over a MacBook Air for the same money. More USB ports, Ethernet, and above all vastly superior portability.

Despite running only a 1.6 Atom the performance is ridiculously close to the MacBook Air.

So many of us would have paid Apple decent money for a Mac Netbook, we didn't want a 13" laptop however thin it is.

[windywoo]

The netbook market is cheap, loss leading, underpowered machines. Apple doesn't and will never make a laptop like that.

Yeah, Apple would rather make underpowered expensive machines.

Also, you quoted a post that said the Air is a second machine. A second machine doesn't have to be powerful, but you would expect it to be cheaper than your main machine.

[Victor Odin]

One thing I don't completely get about the MBA.

How weak are you mofos?

How minuscule is your backpack or briefcase?

Are you elves or something?

I stick a 17" MBP in my messenger-type bag everywhere I go, and the 7lb (or whatever it is) is hardly noticeable.

Granted I am 6'3" and 190lbs, but still. I'm pretty sure that my grandmother can carry it.

If you can get a regular 15" MBP with a fast processor, twice the ram, larger drive, discrete graphics card and larger screen vs. a 13" air for about the same price ... is the two pounds and half inch savings REALLY worth it?

I mean, no offense ... but damn.

Aren't you just wasting space in the computer bag that could be filled with better hardware in a slightly larger package?

If you are built like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, I get it.

I just don't what the allure is for a computer the width of a sheet of paper.

Past a certain point of "smallness", it's just a bragging point. I can't imagine someone saying "You know, I was going to take my Macbook with me, but it's just sooooo huge". Thank god for the Air and the whopping one pound savings. Now I can bring it with me!!!

Why not just drive a go-cart instead of a full-sized car too?

After all, it's smaller.

I've used the illustrious Air, and it's got a "gee-whiz" thing going, but I just can't imagine giving up specs to save a pound and an inch.

I find the 17" inch to be very managable on all but airline back seats, and the 15" is more than thin and light enough for even pixies.

Any Air users stressing about performance needs to get their cranium examined.

If you cared anything about performance, you would get a proper laptop which any seven year old can manage with ease, and which realistically ... fits anywhere the air does.

You don't really carry them around in legal envelopes do you?

[Maven1975]

First off, I would buy a tablet or smaller device is Apple made one toughguy. I work on my feet 10+ hours a day in the design feild. Your telling me that loosing 2+ lbs and a god awful glassy screen is not worth it in my position? 17 inch? I'd rather carry a server in a backpack.

Stop being an ass.

One thing I don't completely get about the MBA.

How weak are you mofos?

How minuscule is your backpack or briefcase?

Are you elves or something?

I stick a 17" MBP in my messenger-type bag everywhere I go, and the 7lb (or whatever it is) is hardly noticeable.

Granted I am 6'3" and 190lbs, but still. I'm pretty sure that my grandmother can carry it.

If you can get a regular 15" MBP with a fast processor, twice the ram, larger drive, discrete graphics card and larger screen vs. a 13" air for about the same price ... is the two pounds and half inch savings REALLY worth it?

I mean, no offense ... but damn.

Aren't you just wasting space in the computer bag that could be filled with better hardware in a slightly larger package?

If you are built like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, I get it.

I just don't what the allure is for a computer the width of a sheet of paper.

Past a certain point of "smallness", it's just a bragging point. I can't imagine someone saying "You know, I was going to take my Macbook with me, but it's just sooooo huge". Thank god for the Air and the whopping one pound savings. Now I can bring it with me!!!

Why not just drive a go-cart instead of a full-sized car too?

After all, it's smaller.

I've used the illustrious Air, and it's got a "gee-whiz" thing going, but I just can't imagine giving up specs to save a pound and an inch.

I find the 17" inch to be very managable on all but airline back seats, and the 15" is more than thin and light enough for even pixies.

Any Air users stressing about performance needs to get their cranium examined.

If you cared anything about performance, you would get a proper laptop which any seven year old can manage with ease, and which realistically ... fits anywhere the air does.

You don't really carry them around in legal envelopes do you?

[trose]

A bit off topic... but Apple had it right with the 12" PowerBook G4.
Tiny, beautiful, and still very functional without all these heat problems.

[gothamm]

One thing I don't completely get about the MBA.

How weak are you mofos?

How minuscule is your backpack or briefcase?

Are you elves or something?

I stick a 17" MBP in my messenger-type bag everywhere I go, and the 7lb (or whatever it is) is hardly noticeable.

Granted I am 6'3" and 190lbs, but still. I'm pretty sure that my grandmother can carry it.

If you can get a regular 15" MBP with a fast processor, twice the ram, larger drive, discrete graphics card and larger screen vs. a 13" air for about the same price ... is the two pounds and half inch savings REALLY worth it?

I mean, no offense ... but damn.

Aren't you just wasting space in the computer bag that could be filled with better hardware in a slightly larger package?

If you are built like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, I get it.

I just don't what the allure is for a computer the width of a sheet of paper.

Past a certain point of "smallness", it's just a bragging point. I can't imagine someone saying "You know, I was going to take my Macbook with me, but it's just sooooo huge". Thank god for the Air and the whopping one pound savings. Now I can bring it with me!!!

Why not just drive a go-cart instead of a full-sized car too?

After all, it's smaller.

I've used the illustrious Air, and it's got a "gee-whiz" thing going, but I just can't imagine giving up specs to save a pound and an inch.

I find the 17" inch to be very managable on all but airline back seats, and the 15" is more than thin and light enough for even pixies.

Any Air users stressing about performance needs to get their cranium examined.

If you cared anything about performance, you would get a proper laptop which any seven year old can manage with ease, and which realistically ... fits anywhere the air does.

You don't really carry them around in legal envelopes do you?

hehe, point well made sir.

I have always wondered about this as well. Macrumors members really really need to hit the gym.

Success of the macbook air is nothing more than a heap of marketing coupled with pseudo-rationalization on the part of people who buy it.

I remember this one poster writing about how he has to walk 2 miles to school everyday, and how a laptop 1.3 lbs. lighter made all the difference.

this person is seriously malnourished, and definitely needs some spinach.

its amazing how people rationalize their purchases, such as this student. He must be really happy with a slightly lighter laptop, whilst lugging around 15 lb. textbooks simultaneously.

[Maven1975]

A bit off topic... but Apple had it right with the 12" PowerBook G4.
Tiny, beautiful, and still very functional without all these heat problems.

True, but todays componets put out WAY more heat than those in that era. Look at the 13 MBP, my MBA xbenches faster than the 2.56! (without the MBP having SSD) one could also argue that the MBA is the most durable Apple product out without all the glsss.

[rvcohen]

;)triple crown BS. I just rep[laced 3 days ago my 2008 MB air for the new 2,13 ghz.Much, much,much faster

[Eidorian]

True, but todays componets put out WAY more heat than those in that era. Look at the 13 MBP, my MBA xbenches faster than the 2.56! (without the MBP having SSD) one could also argue that the MBA is the most durable Apple product out without all the glsss.Please do tell. Especially with all this process shrinking and voltage lowering.

[Maven1975]

Please do tell. Especially with all this process shrinking and voltage lowering.

Wow.. I don't even know how to reply to this. So in your opinion ALL computers are getting cooler? I find the oposite witout even scratching the surface of replying to your comment.

Hence the need for Apple to throttle the CPU

[Eidorian]

Wow.. I don't even know how to reply to this. So in your opinion ALL computers are getting cooler? I find the opisite witout even scratching the surface of replying to your comment.Dare we pit an Atom against the G4? That's truly sacrificing performance for low power and heat.

Not to mention all the other CULV and ULV processors. Please do tell how with 45 and 32nm we're getting hotter hardware and worse performance.

[Bubba Satori]

Yes.

Everyone's calmmering for an Apple netbook. The Air is Apple's underpowered, lightweight, ultra portable laptop.
The netbook market is cheap and underpowered.

You left out overpriced for the Macbook Air. :D


Underpowered for email, web surfing, picture viewing, listening to music and word processing ? How much power do you need to type ? And for $250-$400.

They are excellent for those uses, which is why they are so popular, except to Cupertino cultists, who feel obligated to defend Apple's refusal to create a product for a market segment.

[ibosie]

The Air is a second computer.

Highly portable for web browsing and MS Word types of usage. It's the closest Apple will get to the netbook form. I don't think anyone should expect to do any photo/video/audio editing on it!

What's really quite surprising is that you can do a certain amount of audio and video editing. Here's my 1.86Ghz SSD Rev B model running logic - I sometimes need to touch up a project in After Effects too. Now the main computer is a Mac Pro but still the Air can be quite useful out and about.

http://i610.photobucket.com/albums/tt184/ibosie/th_MacbookAirLogicPro8.png (http://s610.photobucket.com/albums/tt184/ibosie/?action=view&current=MacbookAirLogicPro8.png)

[BRLawyer]

Arrandale/Clarksfield

Westmere

Penryn.

Sandy Bridge

Am I the only one that thinks these "code names" are just plain overhyped and stupidly confusing? In the end, the overall performance gains for most of these "evolutions" is, like, 10% over the previous "generation"...yet people love to quote Intel's roadmap for no objective reason...

The next one after Sandy Bridge is what? Lackawanna County? Or perhaps LAKSHADWEEP?

[Regaj]

One thing I don't completely get about the MBA.

How weak are you mofos?

How minuscule is your backpack or briefcase?

Are you elves or something?

I stick a 17" MBP in my messenger-type bag everywhere I go, and the 7lb (or whatever it is) is hardly noticeable.

Granted I am 6'3" and 190lbs, but still. I'm pretty sure that my grandmother can carry it.

If you can get a regular 15" MBP with a fast processor, twice the ram, larger drive, discrete graphics card and larger screen vs. a 13" air for about the same price ... is the two pounds and half inch savings REALLY worth it?

I mean, no offense ... but damn.

Aren't you just wasting space in the computer bag that could be filled with better hardware in a slightly larger package?

If you are built like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, I get it.

I just don't what the allure is for a computer the width of a sheet of paper.

Past a certain point of "smallness", it's just a bragging point. I can't imagine someone saying "You know, I was going to take my Macbook with me, but it's just sooooo huge". Thank god for the Air and the whopping one pound savings. Now I can bring it with me!!!

Why not just drive a go-cart instead of a full-sized car too?

After all, it's smaller.

I've used the illustrious Air, and it's got a "gee-whiz" thing going, but I just can't imagine giving up specs to save a pound and an inch.

I find the 17" inch to be very managable on all but airline back seats, and the 15" is more than thin and light enough for even pixies.

Any Air users stressing about performance needs to get their cranium examined.

If you cared anything about performance, you would get a proper laptop which any seven year old can manage with ease, and which realistically ... fits anywhere the air does.

You don't really carry them around in legal envelopes do you?


And now, Victor, your vaunted logic has failed you. I enjoy your posts because you bring intelligence and discrimination and rationality to the party.

Alas. You've now fallen for the "it doesn't make sense to me, so it must be fallacious" emotional argument that all the high school kids here like to post.
(and no offense to intelligent high school kids... I use the characterization loosely).

The Air has its place for some, else we wouldn't have the computer in the first place; and this forum wouldn't exist. And, yes, both size and weight matter. To some. Else we'd all still be toting around Compaq luggables.

Physical strength isn't the issue. I'm 6' 2" and 180lbs and will be leaving in a few minutes to go climb on my 800lb Harley. Having a wisp-thin notebook option - even if it means giving up some other things - is a good thing.

Just because I prefer a crisp, 3lb trigger break on my rifles doesn't mean I'm challenged when handed one with a 6lb trigger.

It ain't about strength.

And it's not about system capability - which exists on a continuum and which every prospective purchaser of the Air has presumably evaluated.

[BRLawyer]

And now, Victor, your vaunted logic has failed you. I enjoy your posts because you bring intelligence and discrimination and rationality to the party.

Alas. You've now fallen for the "it doesn't make sense to me, so it must be fallacious" emotional argument that all the high school kids here like to post.
(and no offense to intelligent high school kids... I use the characterization loosely).

The Air has its place for some, else we wouldn't have the computer in the first place; and this forum wouldn't exist. And, yes, both size and weight matter. To some. Else we'd all still be toting around Compaq luggables.

Physical strength isn't the issue. I'm 6' 2" and 180lbs and will be leaving in a few minutes to go climb on my 800lb Harley. Having a wisp-thin notebook option - even if it means giving up some other things - is a good thing.

Just because I prefer a crisp, 3lb trigger break on my rifles doesn't mean I'm challenged when handed one with a 6lb trigger.

It ain't about strength.

And it's not about system capability - which exists on a continuum and which every prospective purchaser of the Air has presumably evaluated.

Thanks for bringing some sense to this discussion. The MBA exists for a purpose and is the best notebook in its category, period.

[Victor Odin]

Alas. You've now fallen for the "it doesn't make sense to me, so it must be fallacious" emotional argument that all the high school kids here like to post.


Fair enough.

I do believe the primary point was valid, however.

Obviously, it has a market.

This I suppose was the point that I could have made more succinctly ... if performance was of any true consequence, is the extra 2lbs (or whatever it is) really enough to nullify that gain in performance?

At this point in time, Core2 is really all their is.

As the form factor shrinks, this will impose a hardship on this line of CPU's ... including making faster CPU's ... slower.

Were a 10% performance difference of any consequence to a mobile user, I remain perplexed as to why someone wouldn't get a laptop.

"Normal" Mac laptops are already incredibly thin, and offer a great deal more performance with a comparatively negligible gain in size.


I'm not sure what the "ultra-thin" form factor accomplishes (again, they don't make computer bags that small), but I concede that people like it. For whatever reason.

I understand 3lbs vs. 20lbs, but 3lbs vs. 5lbs with the performance hit it entrails ... well, to each their own.

What becomes apparent, however, is that MBA users place thinness above all else.

Thinness = thermal issues.

Thermal issues = slowness, longevity, and stability in some cases.

Yet, you have MBA users in utter disbelief (to the point that they blame the axis of the earth) about this simple "impossible" test that shows what very well could be a thermal related slowdown.

If people are truly concerned about performance, I do remain someone surprised that they don't go ahead and get a whopping 1" thick Macbook Pro which can give them more power for less money.

I don't think people truly realize how negligible the size difference is in every, single, solitary situation practical situation.

I've never really seen it addressed before here.

Unless you really need to slip the computer under a door, there is simply no situation in which a MBA would "fit" but a MB wouldn't.

They are equally as portable, IMHO.

I don't think it's unreasonable to opine that people who are concerned with performance may want to evaluate whether or not they are truly getting anything in return for the thermal limitations which will be omnipresent on a device such as the MBA.

The "impossible" things they see happening are a natural consequence of this form factor, and the "ultra-thin" marketing, as interesting as it may be, may not have any practical advantages in any real-world situation whatsoever.

This is not fact, but sheer opinion. Sometimes I have one.

If one guy on the planet says "you know, he's right, they MBP's are really small ... and the paper thin computer has never really worked to my advantage in any real way ... I think I'll get a faster machine which is still tiny", then hey ...

That's the whole point of the post.

I really don't think I'm going to convert anyone, but I think the observations are legitimate.

[Victor Odin]

Thanks for bringing some sense to this discussion. The MBA exists for a purpose and is the best notebook in its category, period.

It's good to see that other people use logic and keep emotion out of their replys.

Then again, he did say "period", which I am pretty sure satisfies the scientific method to ascertain fact.

Face it. On the Internet:

Pro what I like = sense

Anything else = heresy born out of demonic possession and a rabid hatred of our lord and Savior Steve Jobs who died for our sins and built an iPod powered time machine to go back and inseminate Eve thus giving birth to the human species.

Critique is fair, but it's only intellectually honest if it is equitable.

[Regaj]

I'd offer that - for me - the Air is vastly more portable than my 15" MBP. It's far less about its thinness than about weight and its overall size.

Is it my first choice for a primary computer? No, absolutely not. That's why I have a MBP.

But as a second computer I find the Air... sublime. Somewhere along the way it's weight and form factor crossed that subconscious threshold of "it's inconsequential to carry this with me". While my MBP remains very much on the other side of that line.

Which means I'll carry the Air, when I wouldn't have carried the MBP.

And that's the whole point. For me.

[iPhoneNYC]

Like the new iPhone, Apple should just add a "S" - but this one stands for slow. They could also add an "O" as well for overpriced.

[windywoo]

Make the screen 12", the SSD about 32GB and then you have a truly "secondary" machine. The Air doesn't have enough bang to do much of anything but the lightest work, so why bother with a big hard drive and 2GB of RAM? Or the graphics card?

Its another indicator of how Apple's "DNA" won't allow them to make anything thats not designed to appeal to posers with too much money.

Who is the fool with two laptops? Why do you ever buy a Macbook Pro as your main machine and then not carry it around? You could have got a mini or an iMac with better specs.

[bloodycape]

I guess the real issue I am having with the MBA is not its speed, but its weight. For a laptop that thin/small and sparse on ports and stuff it still kind of heavy, when you start comparing it to other 13in and even fully loaded 12in machines. I know the selling point is osx, but if this is only for word, email, and a few other light task ubuntu(or some flavor of linux) should be sufficient on some of these PC that are lighter, and/or more powerful. Man I must be the only one that found the MBA heavy for a computer with its dimensions, and I am not even out of shape, or weak as use to carry around a 15in MBP for the longest time with out an issue.

For example, the Sony Vaio Z(specially the 700 line) that just came out weighs the same as the MBA. Why is that a machine that has same cpu as the MBP, intel graphics & nvida graphics, is over an 1in thick, and has dvd/blu-ray drive weigh the same as the MBA? Does the aluminum on the MBA vs what the Z is made of(plastic & carbon?) make it weigh the same despite spec in balance. For the sake of it we add the price in they both start around the same price(I know the Z can go up to 4k, but that for a decked out model with the all option ticked). Now maybe if the MBA became a little lighter, or had more features at the same weight it would be a more justified purchase vs the 13in MBP IMHO. So, what if can't fit in a manila envelope, not a big deal to me as the extra power and cost saving is a better trade off.

[NC MacGuy]

Make the screen 12", the SSD about 32GB and then you have a truly "secondary" machine. The Air doesn't have enough bang to do much of anything but the lightest work, so why bother with a big hard drive and 2GB of RAM? Or the graphics card?

I've had both a Rev. A & B and that's not entirely true. The MBA may be lacking in some ways but it can handle a lot more than people give it credit for. I thought I needed another computer for when the Air would be overburdened but can honestly say that it rarely is.

[jrichie]

I have an air, and must say it is the perfect second computer. I also agree with others that it is no slouch either and is perfect for a small amount of heavy work [that's what the mac pro is for].

It must not be considered as a primary usage computer but more of a companion computer. I use mine everywhere as it is always in my bag and is so light you hardly notice it.

My previous notebook was a 13" mac book [aluminium] and the difference is very noticeable.

God knows how you can lumber a 17" macbookpro around............

Each to their own!!!!

[deconstruct60]

God knows how you can lumber a 17" macbookpro around............

Each to their own!!!!

Actually fairly easily.

http://www.spireusa.com/products/laptop-bags.htm

All of the current Spire backpacks fit the MBP 17". Put the weight, 3-7 lbs, in line with the rest of weight of the upper half of your body (30-100+ lbs) and the difference is not that large of a percentage.

Dropped onto one shoulder or tugging on one arm. Yeah that would be more noticeable , but there is no technical reason to carry either weight (3 or 7) that way.

If don't pack the Volt to the gills with stuff can fit in under the seat in front on even smaller regional jets where the overhead bins are very cramped.

The Mac Book Pro 17" is thinner/lighter than many Windows PC 17" implementations. But, yes is it bigger/heavier than an Air. It is more a question of how much "power" need when portable. If relatively lightweight stuff then an a Air is OK. If need to bring your Mac Pro job to the field.. then MBP 17" is going to be closest can get (with an Apple product).

[jrichie]

http://www.spireusa.com/products/laptop-bags.htm

err, I don't think so. How can you buy a mac then buy one of those bags........

However, I think my point was that I don't need a macpro in the field 99% of the time. I have been down this route before with a macbookpro 15", and I feel now that having an air and a macpro is the perfect solution for me.

I can't see me buying a larger laptop again.....

[Maserati7200]

get a whopping 1" thick Macbook Pro which can give them more power for less money.

Make that 0.95 inches :D

[windywoo]

I've had both a Rev. A & B and that's not entirely true. The MBA may be lacking in some ways but it can handle a lot more than people give it credit for. I thought I needed another computer for when the Air would be overburdened but can honestly say that it rarely is.

So is the Air a second machine or not? It doesn't seem to fit any niche except expensive luxury.

[NC MacGuy]

So is the Air a second machine or not? It doesn't seem to fit any niche except expensive luxury.

I have lots of machines. The Air is my main computer. I've only used my MBP for handbraking movies and a few other tasks where I was shuffling cd's back and forth and had multiple graphics programs open. I have used handbrake on my Air and it does work. My MBP is more a luxury. If I HAD TO, I could get by 100% with my Air. I never use ethernet. Wifi 100%. USB works fine. It drives a 24" display easily. Battery life is good and it's light. I travel a lot and the convenience of carrying the computer for extended times as well as the ease of throwing it in the bin at the Airport more than makes up for the things I use less frequently than I thought when I bought it.

[Eidorian]

I have lots of machines. The Air is my main computer. I've only used my MBP for handbraking movies and a few other tasks where I was shuffling cd's back and forth and had multiple graphics programs open. I have used handbrake on my Air and it does work. My MBP is more a luxury. If I HAD TO, I could get by 100% with my Air. I never use ethernet. Wifi 100%. USB works fine. It drives a 24" display easily. Battery life is good and it's light. I travel a lot and the convenience of carrying the computer for extended times as well as the ease of throwing it in the bin at the Airport more than makes up for the things I use less frequently than I thought when I bought it.How well does it handle HandBrake?

[NC MacGuy]

How well does it handle HandBrake?

It handles it just fine. Gets hot as hades but don't they all? I've actually HB'd from DVD and if I remember correctly it gets around 30FPS at 80ºC+/-. Not speedy but okay. It can be a workable situation if it's all you got. I choose to just set up the MBP with onboard optical for HB'ing.

[Gunga Din]

I agree with Vic on most pts. If u have the money for the Air, why not get one of the new 13" MBPs. Surely the difference in wt and portability is even more negligible.

My 15" is ported all over the house with no issues and when I take it on a trip, I don't think, " wow wish I had that Air, this 15" is killing my back ".

The Air is for the WOW effect. Simple as that. I thought about the Air in every single situation and could not for the life of me justify it over any of Apple's other notebooks. The only reason I came up with.... was the WOW effect. It would be nice to show it off. Honestly, thats all that crosses my mind when considering the Air and how cool i'll look in a coffee shop or book store with it. Braging rights etc.

[Victor Odin]

God knows how you can lumber a 17" macbookpro around............

Surely you jest.

The 17" is .98" inches thick (that's less than one inch) and weights 6.6lbs.

This is 1.1lbs heavier than a 15", and 2.1lb heavier than a 13", and the same thickness.

It fits in my laptop bag perfectly.

The extra whopping two pounds gives me a full 1920x1200, discrete graphics, a large hard drive, an optical drive, and it can stand in as a complete desktop if need be. I used it for 9 months as a primary.

Does only God himself know how I lug two extra pounds from a strap that hangs off my shoulder?

Only the Lord Christ himself knows this?

I mean ... REALLY?

Unless you are just as sensitive as the Princess and the Pea, you don't notice the two pounds.

Scratch that. *I* don't notice it.

I have bowel movements that weigh more than two pounds. If I drink a bottle of Evian I carry more than two extra pounds. Given the thin-ness of the 17" MBP, aside from $$$, I don't know why anyone would go for a lessor size.

It's of almost zero size consequence. Because they make them so small, I will likely never get smaller than a 17" again ... if I can afford it.

It's all about personal preference, and I get that ... but I do not believe that only a deity can carry a sub 1" thick laptop.

Unless you are implying that I, myself, am equivalent to our Lord and savior Steve Jobs (who died for our sins) himself, in which case -- I'm flattered.

I'll try to get Snow Leopard out soon, in addition to ridding the world of plagues and violence.

[madmaxmedia]

Am I the only one that thinks these "code names" are just plain overhyped and stupidly confusing? In the end, the overall performance gains for most of these "evolutions" is, like, 10% over the previous "generation"...yet people love to quote Intel's roadmap for no objective reason...

The next one after Sandy Bridge is what? Lackawanna County? Or perhaps LAKSHADWEEP?

LOL, but the code names are so mysterious, they must portend great new revolutionary things!!!

The current lineup is already very powerful, and will get incrementally more powerful in each generation (sometimes more than others.) But the way these code names are described, sometimes it makes you feel your brand new 2.5 GHz is going to be a piece of crap in a year.

Frankly, the biggest changes to Apple's lineups lately have been stuff other than the CPU.

[AidenShaw]

It fits in my laptop bag perfectly.

How about the tray table in coach, or the commuter train?

Ouch - 17" fail. ;)

[NC MacGuy]

Physical strength isn't the issue. I'm 6' 2" and 180lbs and will be leaving in a few minutes to go climb on my 800lb Harley. Having a wisp-thin notebook option - even if it means giving up some other things - is a good thing.

I ride a motor scooter too. The Air fits in a nice small bag which fits in my back sack. It's a tight fit. The 15" MBP is too big. I'd need a side car with the 17".

How about the tray table in coach, or the commuter train?
Ouch - 17" fail. ;)

Yepp. I may take 3-6 flights a week. I have to unpack and repack my laptop for each flight's security. When I see people fumbling with their 17"ers it's almost comical. Two weeks ago I saw a guy almost in tears as he yanked his new looking MacBoatPro out of the bin too fast and got a big ass dent in the front as he hit the side wall on the X-ray roller belt exit. Awe shucks, I picked mine up with one weakly anemic hand and shoved it into it's MetroSexual man bag home at the same time I was slipping on my shoes. He had a nice anti-gloss too. Too bad, so sad.:(

The 17" is unusable in anything but the terminal or first class air travel.

I have bowel movements that weigh more than two pounds. If I drink a bottle of Evian I carry more than two extra pounds. Given the thin-ness of the 17" MBP, aside from $$$, I don't know why anyone would go for a lessor size.

I'm having bowel issues at the moment and I'd kill to take a two pound dump.:p It's not necessarily the thinness or weight, it's the overall large dimensions. I carried around a 12" G3 that weighed as much as your MacBoatPro for a few years. It didn't kill me but why if you don't have too?

I've got a very small briefcase/manbag that can hold a small portfolio, SD 790 camera & charger, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, iPod charger, LG Dare cell phone, MBA charger, a few files, cables and other business essentials. Great thing about it is when I get lucky enough to ride one of the commuter jets all the airlines are quickly adopting, I can fit my bag under the seat in front of me. The "A" side on a three seat across Embraer has pretty tight foot room and you'd be one looking for some of that elusive one sided overhead space which is becoming oh so rare.

If I went from house to office in a car or public transportation, a 17" may work nicely. As it is I've got a BT keyboard, mouse and a 24" monitor at my desk and the Air works amazingly well for me once in office and docked. If there were no market for 8,9,10,12,13,15 laptops or netbooks there would only be 17"ers. As it is, people like smaller electronics. You are a minority my friend. Rationalize all you like but I see multitudes more 13-15" laptops than 17". Really. Take a count sometime. Apple or otherwise.

I could easily afford a 17" MacBoatPro but why? Apple has appealed to a demographic that obviously appreciates a smaller form factor & without extra ports. It's not about bragging rights or showing off, it's about what really does work for me and other semi-hardcore road warriors.

[Sehnsucht]

How about the tray table in coach, or the commuter train?

Ouch - 17" fail. ;)

I've seen people lugging 17" ThinkPads in those places. And the ThinkPads are a hell of a lot bigger/heavier/thicker than the 17" MBP.

I flew Southwest once (just like everyone else does: just once) and the guy sitting next to me had this huge hulking monster on his lap. It may be a tight squeeze, but a 17" laptop is still portable enough.

[AidenShaw]

I've seen people lugging 17" ThinkPads in those places. And the ThinkPads are a hell of a lot bigger/heavier/thicker than the 17" MBP.

I flew Southwest once (just like everyone else does: just once) and the guy sitting next to me had this huge hulking monster on his lap. It may be a tight squeeze, but a 17" laptop is still portable enough.

You don't understand debate, do you?

The discussion is about why some people will buy the MBA for its size and portability - even though bulkier, heavier Macbooks offer more performance for the price.

Bringing up a Lenovo system that's big and bulky is a nonsensical tangent.

Some people want small Macbooks, even if they're underpowered and expensive relative to other Macbooks.

What on earth do big Lenovos have to do with the discussion?

(And, I do have a big 1920x1200 Thinkpad - which travels in checked baggage if I need it for a trip. One of my 12" laptops is in the b-class cabin with me.)

[Sehnsucht]

You don't understand debate, do you?

The discussion is about why some people will buy the MBA for its size and portability - even though bulkier, heavier Macbooks offer more performance for the price.

Bringing up a Lenovo system that's big and bulky is a nonsensical tangent.

Some people want small Macbooks, even if they're underpowered and expensive relative to other Macbooks.

What on earth do big Lenovos have to do with the discussion?



:mad:

Sighhh...

What I meant was, I don't see why some people are willing to trade performance for "portability" (even though a heavy 17" MacBook Pro or ThinkPad is still portable in the sense that it's a laptop that can be put in a bag and taken with the user.) I would much rather have the 17" MBP, even though it's "bulky," than a MBA or any other netbook. The Air is too underpowered and the screen is too small. The tradeoff of power for weight isn't worth it.

[NC MacGuy]

:mad:

Sighhh...

What I meant was, I don't see why some people are willing to trade performance for "portability" (even though a heavy 17" MacBook Pro or ThinkPad is still portable in the sense that it's a laptop that can be put in a bag and taken with the user.) I would much rather have the 17" MBP, even though it's "bulky," than a MBA or any other netbook. The Air is too underpowered and the screen is too small. The tradeoff of power for weight isn't worth it.

Your opinion, I strongly disagree with it though. How often do you travel via air? Do it a lot and if you ever do, you will change your mind. I fell in love with my 12" PB and have been looking for the most portable capable laptop, preferably w. OSX ever since. I travel enough that I can't avoid Southwest. I can't write off any carrier. Imagine three to five weeks straight schlepping a 17" from commuter terminal d to the main concourse more than a mile away. Maybe it's an age thing but I like to think I got smarter in my years. I have a 15" that I think is too big and there's absolutely no way you can convince me that a 17" laptop by Apple or anyone else would be good for a serious business traveller. Unless of course it folded like a napkin.;)

[MagnusVonMagnum]

If you're talking about airplanes, I'd rather have a Netbook hacked to run OS X. For the price of an iPod Touch you can have a full fledged computer that is the perfect size for travel and doesn't cost so much that you would be scared for something to happen to it. I've got a MBP and the thing even with a good discount was still very expensive. I'm not crazy about taking it on airline trips when a much less powerful computer would do just as well. I got the MBP more for portable studio use and local trips. Airline travel for vacations isn't my first choice for $2000 laptops. OTOH, I've taken several trips with just my iPod Touch and for light web access, e-mail, etc. it's fine.

[gctwnl]

It's 10/100BASE-T
Yep. Belkin has a USB-Gigabit adapter, but USB will not be able to saturate that fully as USB 2.0 itself maxes out at 480Mbps. Still it could be roughly 5 times as fast as Apple's USB-EThernet adapter and that is not negligable.

[gctwnl]

If I got an Mac Air, I would get the slowest Air available, because the beefy processors won't be able to run full speed anyway unless you are using it in an igloo.
If you are running high speed permanently, you are right. But for short bursts the faster model will not feel the slow down because of thermal management.

[Victor Odin]

To be honest, if I need "ultra-portable" web/email/music, what have you -- I pull out my device that fits in my pocket.

There are handheld computers now that fit the bill if I need super-ultra portability. I don't carry a laptop at all if all I need is access to email or the web. The technology has really matured to the point that these devices ARE super micro-laptops.

As an OPINION ... iPhone/Blackberry/Palm Pre's are making $1,500 4lb laptops somewhat less practical.

If I want to watch a movie on a flight, I pull out my handheld. It also lessens the possibility that Bratford and Shitney sitting next to me will dump soda all over my keyboard.

When I get to my destination, I pull out a machine that is more powerful than some desktops, has a larger screen than many business center monitors, and what has it burdened me?

Two pounds.

And the hell with "short bursts of work". I've had my MBP handbraking for damn near a week while I've worked on basic tasks in the foreground. I would hate to make a "short burst" consideration for a $1,500 machine. Laptops in that price range should be able to crunch at 100% 24/7/365.

I really do challenge the notion that the 17" is "bulky".

Compared to an iPhone your Macbook Air is "bulky".

The word really doesn't mean anything definitive.

"Bulky" to me means that it is unusable in most places that a smaller laptop would be usable. Save for the back of an airline tray (which I don't use terribly often), I have not found this to be the case.

That is the ONLY place I have found that a 13" will fit where a 17" will not, and I'm not buying a machine for the few hours per year I use it on an airplane. Lately, it seems it's too turbulent most of the time anyway and I get paranoid about the disk throwing a head against the platter while flying above a storm.

In the day and age where truly portable computers fit in your hand, and where $400 "beater" netbooks (which don't have thermal issues because they are pretty slow) are ubiquitous, personally, I think a paper thin overheating-yet-still-underpowered laptop is probably losing relevance.

Let's face it, if these things were selling like hotcakes, the prices would not be nearly as slashed.

I think the 13" and 15" MB's slay everything else on unit-sales because they give the most power and portability per $.

The 17" is worth it for people who use it as a primary machine, but it is probably too costly for most people.

I don't crap on people who use the AIR (there is a market for foot-fetish porn too), but I think a reasonably priced laptop -- which is still incredibly small -- with the addition of a decent handheld device makes more sense in 2009 than a paper thin laptop AND a a handheld.

Perhaps if I had the choice of one or the other, I would be more inclined for a "thin" laptop, but I have both.

Some of these ultra-lights simply duplicate the functionality of handhelds (on the go web and email and music/video), and if you go to work and dock a 15" MBP with a 9600GT, large hard drive, and faster processor -- your work experience would probably be even smoother. For a whopping two pound difference.

And the guy who banged his laptop on the X-Ray machine could have banged his iPhone just as well.

It proved nothing. I know people who have dropped their 13" inchers.

I've seen few widespread problems among people who are used to handling their machines.

People who are clumsy or aren't paying attention are likely to damage anything.

I wouldn't take one anecdote of a guy banging a computer at the airport as some kind of ringing endorsement for computers with weak power-per-dollar ratios.

I've seen people drop their cellphones.

Does that mean that they are too "bulky"?

[airplaneman]

This is not possible, there is something wrong with their tests.

agreed:cool:

[Victor Odin]

agreed:cool:


It's an anti-Scientol, I mean an anti-Apple conspiracy, man!

These testers just don't like us because we are superior human beings, so they try to bring us down.

It's kind of like the Third Reich, only much, much worse.

I have dream. A dream that one day all computer benchmarks will show the true superiority of Apple. Oh yes, I have a dream ... a dream in which those of superior intellect and liberal values will not be judged by the fruit on their computer, but by the content of their hard drives.

[entatlrg]

I really do challenge the notion that the 17" is "bulky".


I'll accept that challenge ... the 17" is INDEED bulky. I just returned one.

Computing to a degree must have a "pleasure to use" factor and the 17" imo only meets that criteria when sitting on a desk and you're enjoying it's high res screen viewing movies, video, photo's etc.

Otherwise, it's bulky and heavy and cumbersome, not 'fun' to pull out of a bag and use real quick, or in our car, on your lap anywhere .... you can't compare it to a MBA or 13" / 15" MBP....

You Sir, are in the single digit percentage who share your thoughts I'm sure, but hey, if they 17" does it for you, great ... just realize other sizes do it for others too, that's why they make many sizes of notebooks of course :)

[Hostbot]

For me the bigger the screen, the better. More space to work, and I'm a heavy multi-tasker. the best option for portability and power I would say is the new 13" MBP. The MBA is missing alot of needed features. I think they could have slapped an Eithernet port on. Granted the MBA is for a certain class of travelers, but the damn thing has no room for those who are also in need of multimedia features, such as a *Cough*DVD-RW*Cough*.

-={Hostbot}=-

[Firefly2002]

yeah, well, Macworld's speedmark test isn't exactly a great benchmark.

It has little to do with CPU speed and a lot more to do with hard drive speed.

[hiley]

Just got the new 2.13ghz MBA and it completely thrashes my friend's old 1.86ghz. Whatever the lab results may say, real-life says otherwise. It feels superfast and zippier, to the point that it does everything faster than my own human responses. There is no lag in anything and it feels zippier than my 2.4ghz iMac!

[bbotte]

Just got the new 2.13ghz MBA and it completely thrashes my friend's old 1.86ghz. Whatever the lab results may say, real-life says otherwise. It feels superfast and zippier, to the point that it does everything faster than my own human responses. There is no lag in anything and it feels zippier than my 2.4ghz iMac!

So you are saying you can tell a difference in clock speed of only 270mhz? I mean we are seriously talking about nano seconds here..... Is everyone in slow motion for you all the time? Are you one of the X-men?

I have used mine and one of the new ones, they seem to be the same to me. I like both. I noticed a difference between the Rev A and The Revision B because of the difference of the 9400M in video. That really was it. The thing has been great for me, as all I do is surf, e-mail, pictures, iPhone/iTunes and the occasional hop on my Virtual machine of Xp for IE. I'm buying a second, a refurbished 1.86 to save the couple of hundred bucks. I just wish Apple would give me a credit like they did with the early iPhone peeps. My machine plumeted $800 new and I didn't have it for 6 months yet. Oh well. I'll spend more, it's like crack.