Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by periopdoc, Oct 20, 2010.
BTO in store for 100 bucks a pop.
90 bucks a pop if you qualify for educational discount.
Someone else with more than 1 brain cell on the MR forums. Nice to meet you.
I've had much fun watch them scurry around whining about the 2GB Air for the past 10 mins
I'm in love with the 11.6 - I can kit a 11.6 OS X machine with Flash 128GB, 4GB RAM and 1.6Ghz.
Dream come true - been wanting this literally for years.
Why I just killed two last night. Sweet Sweet Moose's Drool.
I think I have 1.5 cells left.
seems like the 2.13 is only available with the 256SSD config
Oddly, when going to purchase, you are offered the ram upgrade but not the processor upgrade.
Anyone else having this issue?
You have to select the high-end model with more NAND Flash if you want to upgrade the CPU.
Is there any particular reason for this? I really wasn't planning on spending $1600 just to get the option to spend another $100 for the faster CPU. I was really hoping for the faster CPU and 128gb of storage.
To get more money out of you? I know this is pretty typical in the PC world, like you have to pay for the higher res screen, for example, to get the higher end gpu, when all you want is just the gpu upgrade.
You can upgrade to 1.6gGhz CPU on the 11.6 but that's it.
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. In the PC world most vendors give you lots of options for each independent component. It's Apple who constantly plays the annoying games of "Oh, you wanted more VRAM? OK, well you must take a faster CPU, larger hard drive, and that one only comes in glossy!" Drives me insane and makes choices more difficult at times.
Yep, the choices are a bit maddening.
What I want is a 13" MBA with 64gb flash, 4gb ram, and the 2.13Ghz processor.
Since the 64->128 upgrade on the 11" is $200, and the 4GB and 2.13Ghz upgrades are $100 each, this should still come out even at $1299.
Instead, to get the 2.13Ghz option and 4gb of ram, you have to go up to $1799.
You would be surprised. Like in Vaio F in order to get the 1920x1080 res screen you have to get the nvidia GT425(a $50 option on top of the $150 for the FHD screen) when for some the GT310 is sufficient enough. Sony, rep even told me the GT310 works fine for the FHD res, and not sure they did that way. Saw a similar thing on HP and Dells site. Granted this isn't the case all the time, but it still kind of common.
You do understand that it takes a better GPU to drive the display right? They are simply ensuring that the GPU matches the same standards for performance with the higher res display.
I do, but when older/less capable gpus vs GT310 can run fine with the higher res, I don't see why not the GT310 can't.