battery life with SS disk

[elmo151]

I assume that the quoted battery life of 5 hours is for the conventional disk drive. Should it not be longer for the solid state drive?

 

[samh004]

Probably but you'll have to wait for them to ship before you find out.

 

[Catch]

I assume that the quoted battery life of 5 hours is for the conventional disk drive. Should it not be longer for the solid state drive?

I really hope so as well. With marketing spin the way it is I would only be a little bit surprised if they had measured it with the SSD. I spent extra on that drive as I am hoping for more than 5 hours. Heres to hoping that they did the decent thing and used the 'standard' drive when arriving at those numbers. I can see some upset people otherwise...

Regards,

C

 

[Chaszmyr]

While common wisdom suggests that SSDs make for better battery life than HDDs, I think we'll see about the same battery life from the Air either way. If the 5 hours quoted was for SSD equipped models and HDDs got less, Apple would have people upset with them, and if the 5 hours quoted was with HDDs and SSDs got better, Apple would surely point that out as a selling point for the upgrade they are charging $999 for.

 

[Catch]

While common wisdom suggests that SSDs make for better battery life than HDDs, I think we'll see about the same battery life from the Air either way. If the 5 hours quoted was for SSD equipped models and HDDs got less, Apple would have people upset with them, and if the 5 hours quoted was with HDDs and SSDs got better, Apple would surely point that out as a selling point for the upgrade they are charging $999 for.

I would be very surprised and disappointed if I did not get more battery life from the SSD. Thats the only reason I ordered it. Well, that and heat, but still...

Ce la vie I guess... we have to wait and see

C

 

[Hansii]

I would be very surprised and disappointed if I did not get more battery life from the SSD. Thats the only reason I ordered it. Well, that and heat, but still...

Ce la vie I guess... we have to wait and see

C

Speed is the only real reason to get the SSD, almost 100 times faster random access is what's most important to me. And SSD's use almost no power, about 3W compared to maybe 10W for normal HDD.

 

[elmo151]

SSD's use almost no power, about 3W compared to maybe 10W for normal HDD.

that's got to mean a longer battery life.

 

[Catch]

Speed is the only real reason to get the SSD, almost 100 times faster random access is what's most important to me. And SSD's use almost no power, about 3W compared to maybe 10W for normal HDD.

For some that will probably be the case. However, I think that speed is much less relevant in this laptop. The thing is already not as fast as a MB, so why spend $1k to get more speed? Surely if speed is a major factor one would go with a MB at the very least and more likely a MBP.

In an ultra portable I would think that battery life, and to a lesser degree heat, would be the main concern?

Regards,

C

 

[eddietr]

For some that will probably be the case. However, I think that speed is much less relevant in this laptop. The thing is already not as fast as a MB, so why spend $1k to get more speed? Surely if speed is a major factor one would go with a MB at the very least and more likely a MBP.

In an ultra portable I would think that battery life, and to a lesser degree heat, would be the main concern?

Regards,

C

I ordered the SSD partly because of speed. Yes, if I wanted ultimate overall speed and didn't care about weight or size, I'd stick to my MBP. Or find a way to pack my 8-core MP in my luggage.

But given that I want the smaller package of the MBA, I still want it to be as fast as possible within that size.

That and reduced noise, heat, power. I only wish 128GB SSD were practical. I'm sure I'll be trying to replace that $1000 64GB SSD by the end of this year.

 

[elmo151]

Speed is the only real reason to get the SSD, almost 100 times faster random access i.

that should mean very fast paging; the 2GB memory limitation will be much less restrictive than first thought.

 

[eddietr]

that should mean very fast paging; the 2GB memory limitation will be much less restrictive than first thought.

I don't know about that. Write performance on SSDs is a problem.

I'm very interested in testing the performance of the SSD on things that involve lots of reading and writing.

Building (software) and swapping will both be interesting.

 

[Hansii]

This is a goood SSD review http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/battleship/

This article takes it to the extreme with 9 SSD disks in RAID, but the benchmarks also list the speed with just one SSD. I beleive the disk he uses is the fastest SSD on sale and he tests it againts the WD Raptor 10 000RPM which is the fastest regular disk on sale.

For some that will probably be the case. However, I think that speed is much less relevant in this laptop. The thing is already not as fast as a MB, so why spend $1k to get more speed? Surely if speed is a major factor one would go with a MB at the very least and more likely a MBP.

In an ultra portable I would think that battery life, and to a lesser degree heat, would be the main concern?

Regards,

C

I see your point, i would agree that in a ultra portable those factors could be more important

 

[Cybergypsy]

I have read less then 5% increase....on the web

 

[Catch]

My favorite sentence of the whole article:

"One single SSD will give you below .1ms access time, so your torque is going to create the snappy feeling and instantaneous file loads."

I'm feeling like a kid in a candy store! Ship them already!

C

 

[Cybergypsy]

if you want speed put a SSD in a macbook pro, like they just did