Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacBook Air 11 1.6 Late 2010. What can you tell me about the performance?
- Thread starter gdourado
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was thinking about that, but today I saw a 2011 i5 4gb 128 for 450.
A new i5 4gb 128 costs 800. It is practically half the price.
I guess it kind of makes it worth it.
My only worry is the battery. 370 cycle counts.
Cheers!
Out of curiosity, anyone have pictures comparing the size of the 11 inch air and the 2013 13 retina?
I know the weight difference is around 500g, but I am more curious in seeing the difference in footprint, mainly due to the 11 inch air big bezels.
Cheers!
I know the weight difference is around 500g, but I am more curious in seeing the difference in footprint, mainly due to the 11 inch air big bezels.
Cheers!
I think apple "guarantees" 1000 cycles before the maximum capacity hits 80% of its original capacity, so u should be fine
I don't think they guarantee it, but according to their testing it should work something like that. remember, the health/capacity an go below 80% just to go up again later.
Furthermore there was an article a few months back, that compared macbook airs to pros batteries and the health of the airs dropped much faster. (I'll post the link as soon as I am at home)
That photo is enough to make me happy I didn't get the MBP and that I traded my 13" MBA for an 11".
You are really all over the place here. This kind of thread always puzzles me a bit. I always try to help by sharing my experiences, but YOU need to decide what YOU want. Same goes for many other things in life.
Hope you end up with a machine that you like.
yea, of course you're correct. and I don't even think so myself, but on the Apple website about batteries, that's what they say. I should've chosen a different wording, something like "Apple batteries are designed to...". That's also why I used those "".
Anyway, as long as you're still under warranty, I'm pretty sure they'll replace any battery that doesn't live up to their promise. I admit that's not very likely with a 2011 device today, and much less so with a 2010 one.
btw found the article about the batterylife of the airs vs pros:
http://www.ifweassume.com/2013/08/the-de-evolution-of-my-laptop-battery.html
http://www.ifweassume.com/2013/08/the-de-evolution-of-my-laptop-battery.html
After much debate, I have decided to spend some more and go for a new machine. SOmetimes when you try to save a couple hundred, it usually ends up beeing more expensive on the long run, so a new machine it is.
Now, which one is the main question.
My options are an 11 inch Air or a 13 retina pro.
The 13 inch air is out of consideration due to having a larger footprint than the retina and costing almost the same.
My choices:
- 13 retina MBP with 2.4 i5, 8gb and 256 SSD
- 11 MBA with 1.3 i5, 8gb and 256 SSD
The air is a bit cheaper, but price is not the main issue.
For my usage that I described above, which would be the better machine?
Cheers!
Now, which one is the main question.
My options are an 11 inch Air or a 13 retina pro.
The 13 inch air is out of consideration due to having a larger footprint than the retina and costing almost the same.
My choices:
- 13 retina MBP with 2.4 i5, 8gb and 256 SSD
- 11 MBA with 1.3 i5, 8gb and 256 SSD
The air is a bit cheaper, but price is not the main issue.
For my usage that I described above, which would be the better machine?
Cheers!
for thst kind of work yi guess the Air hardware ism ord thsn enogh (you probably wouldn't feel any difference), BUT the retina is awesome for surfing the web and watching some videos (I just have my gf 15" rmBp as comparison, but I guesx the 13" is as awesome at thid). Furthermore it has the more powerful hardware. so if money is not the issue and you don't travel for hours every day I'd go for the retina
Okay...
Here we go again...
TOday I saw an 11 inch Mid 2012 i7 2.0 with 8gb and 128gb, 140 Battery cycles, mint condition for 780.
A 2013 i5 1.3 8gb 128gb goes for 880.
So, 100 Euros difference. What do you think?
Thay both have USB 3.0.
The 2012 has a more powerfull CPU according to benchmarks.
The 2013 has a better integrated GPU, faster PCI storage and better batery.
I don't do games.
Which would you choose and why?
Cheers!
Here we go again...
TOday I saw an 11 inch Mid 2012 i7 2.0 with 8gb and 128gb, 140 Battery cycles, mint condition for 780.
A 2013 i5 1.3 8gb 128gb goes for 880.
So, 100 Euros difference. What do you think?
Thay both have USB 3.0.
The 2012 has a more powerfull CPU according to benchmarks.
The 2013 has a better integrated GPU, faster PCI storage and better batery.
I don't do games.
Which would you choose and why?
Cheers!
I still use my 2010 11" MBA as my only computer (both OSX and BootCamp). It is a great little machine that I can (and do) take everywhere.
I've been holding out for a new model with a retina display in the small 11" footprint. I certainly look forward to more storage space and a faster processor but its been the lack of a better display that's kept my money in the bank.
I'd be pretty damn mad if they try to convert us 11" MBA users to some iOS based device. That would be useless for my needs.
I've been holding out for a new model with a retina display in the small 11" footprint. I certainly look forward to more storage space and a faster processor but its been the lack of a better display that's kept my money in the bank.
I'd be pretty damn mad if they try to convert us 11" MBA users to some iOS based device. That would be useless for my needs.
I have the Late 2010 MBA 11" 1.6 4GB with an after market 232GB SSD and it works great still. Bought it new from Apple.
The only problems I have are an occasional blank screen crash. The culprit seems to be the nvida chip and MS Office. One other program I have also seems to contribute to the crash. I believe this is why Apple dumped the nvidia chip in subsequent models, it's a known issue.
I will probably update this year if Apple comes up with a new version.
Oh and the battery life is about 4 hours and has been consistent over the years. Also Maverick works great and in fact the OSX has only gotten better on this machine over the years.
The only problems I have are an occasional blank screen crash. The culprit seems to be the nvida chip and MS Office. One other program I have also seems to contribute to the crash. I believe this is why Apple dumped the nvidia chip in subsequent models, it's a known issue.
I will probably update this year if Apple comes up with a new version.
Oh and the battery life is about 4 hours and has been consistent over the years. Also Maverick works great and in fact the OSX has only gotten better on this machine over the years.
You'd think so, but I found quite the contrary.
I owned both the 320M and HD4000 MBAs simultaneously, and even with an extra 2gb of RAM, the HD4000 machine ran hugely behind the 320M in actual gaming performance, especially with the detail / resolution cranked up.
I mostly play older titles so it's easy to run at higher settings. I found that the more detailed the scenes got, the greater advantage the 320M had. Complex scenes would hit 10-15fps and become unplayable on the HD4000 while the 320M would push through them at 25-35fps.
Basically the HD4000 would have FPS spikes in simpler scenes but then drown as soon as the going got too heavy.
I ran clean OSX installs on both machines, and honestly thought I was missing something until I read a few matching stories from others that had actually owned both machines.
Why did I buy the newer model? Because like you I assumed that significantly higher benchmark scores meant significantly higher gaming performance. The reality was the opposite. I suspect the i5 is artificially boosting the scores compared to the c2d.
The HD5000 might have finally matched or slightly exceeded the old 320M, but I'd honestly sooner buy an Asus ultrabook (nVidia or Iris) instead of the current MBA that has graphics performance dating back three years.
I don't think you can even call the MBA an ultrabook anymore (there is little 'ultra' about it apart from battery life), which is a real shame because it essentially coined the term.
It's fine if you are just doing web and email. That spec is more than enough for you imo.
I have one of these. I've left it on Snow Leopard since I bought it in 2011 and it continues to function very well. I wouldn't want it as my only machine, but as a secondary (mobile) option it is ideal.