Ok, so a small increasein battery life with faster access. That is a goodthing, but the price point still makes it undoable in my mind.
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 SSD vs HDD Battery Life Revisted
- Thread starter Pressure
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Always the price....
I use my 12" PB mostly for class (where I am now, haha) and 16% battery life would be amazing. The only thing that prevented me from buying the Air is the price, (being a college student) so i bought a macbook for $700 less for more machine. As soon as the prices are more reasonable, i will be all over the Air.
I use my 12" PB mostly for class (where I am now, haha) and 16% battery life would be amazing. The only thing that prevented me from buying the Air is the price, (being a college student) so i bought a macbook for $700 less for more machine. As soon as the prices are more reasonable, i will be all over the Air.
Not like I needed new tests to make me feel better about my decision to get the SSD model, but its good to know that there is considerable advantage. 43 minutes longer battery life when browsing web pages is substantial since I use mine on the road. Traveling with the Air instead of my MBP is such a different experience. It feels so much lighter and cooler on my lap in the airport waiting for a flight.
If you don't care, move on. Many people find these test results very interesting. This is the most controlled test yet, and I think the improvement is very impressive. As others have said, a large portion of the battery drain comes from things other than the drive, so to see a 11-15% increase on the total from the replacement of just the drive is really great.
Probably as many times as necessary to somehow justify the ridiculous $1000 price tag.
Have you actually looked around at what these things cost? The new Lenovo x300 comes with a 64 GB SSD standard... and a $2800 price tag standard as well. If it's not worth it to you, then fine, but these things do cost a lot.
Too bad he used Xbench
I was sorry to see Anandtech use Xbench for their disk tests. With all due respect to the author of Xbench, the hard drive test is quite limited in scope.
Take a gander at our MacBook Air HDD vs SSD test results using QuickBench 4.03 from SpeedTools.com:
http://www.barefeats.com/macair1.html
I've sent an email to Mr. Anand asking him to retest using QuickBench.
I was sorry to see Anandtech use Xbench for their disk tests. With all due respect to the author of Xbench, the hard drive test is quite limited in scope.
Take a gander at our MacBook Air HDD vs SSD test results using QuickBench 4.03 from SpeedTools.com:
http://www.barefeats.com/macair1.html
I've sent an email to Mr. Anand asking him to retest using QuickBench.
according to bearfeats...the load time is more than a small increase in performance
http://www.barefeats.com/macair1.html
oops...just saw bearfeats post...
True enough... It cracks me up when some people imply that the $1,000 price for SSD is a case of Apple being outrageous. Now what they charge for RAM on the other hand...
As you essentially said, at least the MBA gives you the choice -- take the SSD for $1,000 or leave it. For those who are then concerned that the 80GB 4200 RPMs is too small and/or too slow, then the MBA isn't the right choice for you -- move along, please check out MB or MBP instead, etc.
Those times aren't half bad. It's a shame battery technology hasn't progressed further so we could have even better times.
Some day...
Some day...
I really don't understand the naysayers. If you can't afford $1000 for the benefits of ssd, then get a cheaper system. I'm not in the market for an Air or the SSD option, but I find no reason to bash it.
But SSD does have benefits, and for some, it is worth the extra grand. Speed increases are nice, though perhaps not critical. Increased battery life is great. As others have said, the drive is only one part in the system, the processor, display, and wireless chew up a fair portion of battery time as well. So a 15% improvement is an impressive gain for one component.
But the durability is probably the key feature for many people. HDs are simply unreliable. 2 of 6 apple laptops I have purchased either for myself or for others have had hard drive failure within a year. My MBP has an accelerometer, and I love it because my laptop is definitely used as a portable, so it receives it's share of bumps. But even with that sudden motion protection, hd's still wear out over time. And if you have critical data or projects you're working on, or perhaps you're traveling to a presentation for a potential client, you really don't have any protection if your drive fails (unless you backup all the time, hopefully apple get the wireless time machine working better). Most backup schemes don't work well enough to keep people backing up regularly. I manually backed up my computer monthly and still lost a lot of critical work 2 weeks before finals when my drive suddenly died in that period.
So, for some, peace of mind is worth $1000. Even my avatar is an indication of the frailness of hdds. It's of the latest dead drive I had to replace.
But SSD does have benefits, and for some, it is worth the extra grand. Speed increases are nice, though perhaps not critical. Increased battery life is great. As others have said, the drive is only one part in the system, the processor, display, and wireless chew up a fair portion of battery time as well. So a 15% improvement is an impressive gain for one component.
But the durability is probably the key feature for many people. HDs are simply unreliable. 2 of 6 apple laptops I have purchased either for myself or for others have had hard drive failure within a year. My MBP has an accelerometer, and I love it because my laptop is definitely used as a portable, so it receives it's share of bumps. But even with that sudden motion protection, hd's still wear out over time. And if you have critical data or projects you're working on, or perhaps you're traveling to a presentation for a potential client, you really don't have any protection if your drive fails (unless you backup all the time, hopefully apple get the wireless time machine working better). Most backup schemes don't work well enough to keep people backing up regularly. I manually backed up my computer monthly and still lost a lot of critical work 2 weeks before finals when my drive suddenly died in that period.
So, for some, peace of mind is worth $1000. Even my avatar is an indication of the frailness of hdds. It's of the latest dead drive I had to replace.
From the article: "NOTE: The 250G, 320G, and 200G notebook drives were empty. The 64G SSD was 31% full. " Hard drives are faster on the outside tracks, which are used when the drive is empty. As the drive fills, the inner tracks will be used which are slower. So the hard drives will be slower once they start getting full.
I assume you meant PowerBooks.
MBA has a 37-watt-hour battery
PowerBook G4 12" had a 47-watt-hour battery
MBA outperforms the PowerBook G4 12" and has similar battery life.
the 11% improvement in the heavy-duty test is everything but impressive. for such a slow machine, compared to the the balance between speed and price of the macbook pro, it should have reached, at least, 6 hours battery life.
Slow machine? Have you compared it to other ultralights? Most of them are 1.0 or 1.2 GHz processors - the MBA has 1.6 to 1.8.
Unrealistic price? have you compared it to other ultralights - which invariably cost considerably more?
i was in class this morning taking notes on Word 2008.
With Wifi and half brightness (perfect for the room i was in) i had 5:52
without wifi, it was 6:39 and then when i touched it after the display had been sleeping it said 8:54!!! so i'm guessing idle time of around 8 hours if the display sleeps.
this was really great.
With Wifi and half brightness (perfect for the room i was in) i had 5:52
without wifi, it was 6:39 and then when i touched it after the display had been sleeping it said 8:54!!! so i'm guessing idle time of around 8 hours if the display sleeps.
this was really great.
I would like to see a test where the system is left to just sit idle. No screensaver, no music, no videos, no sleep, no turning the monitor off, just let it sit idle. Get a good baseline for how long the battery can last. Then do all these little scripted tests (wifi, music, movies, etc...).
SSD uses less power vs a HDD. But currently, the different is marginal. My current 250GB hdd uses 1.9watts while my older 120GB uses 2.1 watts. I've saved 0.2 watts from switching hdds. So what, my battery life barely got me what? 10 minutes?
Right now, the main advantage of SSD is that its more durable then HDD, doesn't break that often and lasts A LOT longer then a HDD. Faster access vs a HDD since a HDD actually needs to spin to a location and move the head to retrieve information, SSD doesn't.
Unless you need data safety and fast data access (we all do, but some of use don't need insane fast data access... yet) you can easily stick with HDD for another few years until prices for a 64GB comes to down to about maybe 200 bucks.
Right now, the main advantage of SSD is that its more durable then HDD, doesn't break that often and lasts A LOT longer then a HDD. Faster access vs a HDD since a HDD actually needs to spin to a location and move the head to retrieve information, SSD doesn't.
Unless you need data safety and fast data access (we all do, but some of use don't need insane fast data access... yet) you can easily stick with HDD for another few years until prices for a 64GB comes to down to about maybe 200 bucks.
I knew what they cost long before the rumors started about a SSD option for the Air, and you can't possibly compare a feature-rich (and cheaper) notebook such as the x300 (which also fits in side an envelope) to the Macbook Air. The Lenovo has everything the Air should have had. Don't get me wrong. I really do love what Apple has done with the Macbook Air, but the price is not right for the featureless design unless throwing away cash for gimmicks appeals to you.
I'm not sure this has any value, as a lot of components (i.e. HDD, CPU) go idle and power down. The only thing you would be measuring would be the screen current draw.
So basically you would be getting the battery rating w/hr. less LCD use. Almost all laptops with the same size LCD and same battery rating would have the same battery life.
What's the point? Why not just go by the battery rating?
An extra 31 minutes in DVD playback is not too bad imho.
Worth the additional $999?
I am getting about 5 hours as well. Maybe within a few minutes.
You see, i dont typically watch 2 movies at once while downloading 10GB of files while clicking links every 20 seconds.
If the hard drive is idle, most laptops will put it to sleep (including the mac). Its not like its going to leave the disc spinning a 5k rpm for no reason.
Try to sell test results to my friends, or sisters, or parents -- Sorry "test what?" They surf and write and watch and not much more than that. What they see is a marvel, a jewl, something so bloody cool -- Apple is telling them you can get what you need and it looks sexy as hell. So they buy it (I can not, as I don't have the dosh right now -- but if I had... **** the specs)
maybe you should read my post again. damn, what you people do to have more posts! LOL
"compared to the balance between speed and price of the macbook pro". so i think that what macbooks pro have to offer is much more rewarding when comparing price tags. but hey, maybe i'm not too good explaining myself in english, so perhaps i could try in portuguese: Se calhar ias perceber melhor o que te estou a dizer se voltasses a ler o meu post. Fiz a comparação apenas com o preço que o macbook pro tem, e naquilo que ele tem para oferecer. acho genericamente muito mais compensador. acho simples de perceber!
do i make myself clear now!?
(...) for such a slow machine, compared to the the balance between speed and price of the macbook pro, it should have reached, at least, 6 hours battery life.