MacBook Air: SSD vs HDD

[Catch]

HAH!

sorry ssd mba owners, but apple owns you. They will shove down your throat whatever they think is best for you, and you eat that sh*t up like no other! (nice justifications on the posts above btw )


don't get me wrong, i am not hating on the mba. only the grossly overpriced SSD version =]

"When reviewing the HDD model, using a high I/O browser like Firefox or transferring files over the network to my hard drive threw me more beachballs than a Girls Gone Wild party and rendered the machine relatively useless. The SSD model exhibited little of this behavior—if I were to take my totally unscientific experience and translate it into a number, I would say that such slowdowns were reduced by 90 percent."

Once you have lived a little longer and had more experience with real life, you will understand that its easy to quote things other so called 'experts' say to support your argument. See what I did there sport?

I read the article and am still happy that for me the SSD model was the right choice. If the MBA turns out to be what I am hoping for I will be buying the same one for my wife. The article changed nothing for me. On the contrary, I think the SSD, judging by the article, will make opening applications and files will feel extremely snappy.

Thanks for posting the original articles, they were very informative.

Regards,

C

 

[notjustjay]

Surely its more the fact that you'd be using the screen constantly when viewing a video, rather than not when listening to music?

Well, the same could apply for the Macbook Air.

My 12" PowerBook G4 got over 5 hours in its day.. but that was with wifi and bluetooth off, screen set to 1 bar of brightness, sound off. What on earth could you possibly be doing with those settings, you ask? Taking notes at school, of course.

Contrast it to watching TV shows... you've got brightness turned up, sound turned up...

I'm not defending Apple as much as you think. Apple promised the 12" PBG4 could get 5 hours. I got 5 hours, but ONLY in the above conditions. Similarly, Apple promised the MBA would get 5 hours, and the Ars tester didn't get 5 hours, but he was not using the above conditions. Where's the story?

 

[arn]

Update: Several readers note that the SSD model had a 1.8GHz processor, rather than a 1.6GHz processor, so equivalent battery life is likely an improvement. Also, another big advantage to SSD is durability -- with no chance of a hard drive "crash".

 

[filman408]

only the grossly overpriced SSD version =]

Apple sell's it to us at-cost (wholesale).

If you look online for the same drive, places are asking around $1400+ for it.

 

[tstarks33]

"When reviewing the HDD model, using a high I/O browser like Firefox or transferring files over the network to my hard drive threw me more beachballs than a Girls Gone Wild party and rendered the machine relatively useless. The SSD model exhibited little of this behavior—if I were to take my totally unscientific experience and translate it into a number, I would say that such slowdowns were reduced by 90 percent."

Once you have lived a little longer and had more experience with real life, you will understand that its easy to quote things other so called 'experts' say to support your argument. See what I did there sport?

I read the article and am still happy that for me the SSD model was the right choice. If the MBA turns out to be what I am hoping for I will be buying the same one for my wife. The article changed nothing for me. On the contrary, I think the SSD, judging by the article, will make opening applications and files will feel extremely snappy.

Thanks for posting the original articles, they were very informative.

Regards,

C

There will be barely any noticeable different when opening programs. Don't buy SSD MBA for that reason...

 

[BWhaler]

Well, the MBA has been sitting on my desk today.

I reinstalled Leopard, installed about 6 programs, and did a whole bunch of configuration.

The battery has been a solid 3-4 hours I guess, so I'm not as sad as this morning.

I'm going to let the battery dry--it's minutes away from being dead, and do the calibration steps. Hopefully this will give me what I need.

So far, I have been pleased with the MBA. I didn't get one of the wobbly ones, the screen is better than most of the crap I have seen from Apple--the 30" and the last 3 MBP17's--so I can't complain.

I worry about battery life. Not having a swappable battery was a very aggressive decision for what must have been basically aesthetics. But this MBA better put out 5 hours with wireless, more time in "airplane mode."

But overall, I'm pretty pleased.

 

[Analog Kid]

Obviously SSD drives will have their (dis)advantages, however besides the potential for speed and reduced energy consumption I would like to add another ingredient into the mix;

Reliability !

At least I have a feeling it'll be much more reliable than a traditional HD with moving parts. On the other hand the technology is still very much in its infancy whereas the traditional HD drive has been "tried and tested". Can anybody comment on it's reliability?

It's worth noting that reliability is the only benefit that Apple touts on their site. Reliability is a question of how you measure it though-- that iPod drive will probably out-live the display in a drop test. Those little 1.8" drives don't have much mass to get thrown around.

Right on my friend. The aspect of data loss/corruption means or could mean a loss of $1000s in a business environment. The extra $999 pales in comparison. In a personal home use it could mean the loss of valuable and irreplaceable photos, docs, financial data, etc.

The SSD is a wise choice if the above is meaningful to you. It's simply a better insurance against data loss.

A wiser choice might be the 10-12 external drives you could buy for the same cost. One drive gives you a backup and keeps your data safe if your laptop is stolen. A second drive gives you the above benefit plus protection against your house burning down. A third drive... you get the idea.

Also it is important to point out that with a HDD system starting and shutting down the systems causes a significant amount of I/O which has a significant impact upon battery life.

By shutting down, you don't mean sleep, right? I've heard sleeping is much slower with the SSD because of the long memory dump to disk.

 

[7racer]

Barefeats has acquired a MBA with SSD.

No formal numbers yet but he seems to like it

On Monday, February 4th, the local Apple Store business rep called me to say he had a MacBook Air 1.8GHz with SSD in stock. We jumped in the MINI and drove 70 miles to the store.

I'm having a blast with it.

I ran the QuickBench "small random read/write" test on the SSD. I compared that to the fastest MacBook Pro drive referenced in the table above. The SSD was two times faster in READ speed and equal to it WRITE speed. There's no spin up or latency so when you open the lid, "BAM!" Instant readiness.

The keyboard is better than the MacBooks. The keys are similar the new aluminum keyboards for desktops only black. The backlighting works as well as the MacBook Pro, which has always been one of my favorite features.

It's like the MINI Cooper S of Mac Laptops: small, light, quick, fun. You can't haul as much as a Chevy Suburban, but it's a gas, gas, gas. The "AirBook," as Bettay calls it, is the ultimate accessory for our MINI Cooper S "JCW." (Stay tuned for a complete review with performance graphs.)

 

[Gunga Din]

I think the consensus is definitely that it's wiser to wait till they can get a faster, hopefully cheaper SSD into the MBA. Could be awhile.

I dunno, though. If you have money coming out the wazoo, you really might as well. It's not going to save the world, but it sounds like it would save you a lot of irritation if you do much file transfer (like Firefox, backup, etc.).

This was my thought exactly. Apple should have waited 1 yr before incorporating SSD into any laptop, any ! The whole idea never made sense to me. The Air should have been released in 2009 and to make matters worse, it took time and development from the Macbook Pro update (which most of us would rather have).

I don't understand why most of you just can't deal with the fact that this laptop was a bad idea at this time. Now i'm looking to purchase my first Mac (Macbook Pro) so I have a very honest view. I don't care PC or Mac blah blah blah. I look at the product for what it is and feel too many of you are giving this machine too much credit.

 

[Resolution]

I look at the product for what it is and feel too many of you are giving this machine too much credit.

Agreed. Also, just because there are no mechanical parts in a SSD, doesn't mean it is invulnerable to damage or data loss. I'm getting the sense that a lot of people are suggesting this along with a bunch of other uneducated nonsense I've been reading on here lately.

 

[Gunga Din]

Agreed. Also, just because there are no mechanical parts in a SSD, doesn't mean it is invulnerable to damage or data loss. I'm getting the sense that a lot of people are suggesting this along with a bunch of other uneducated nonsense I've been reading on here lately.

Yes, I was thinking about that as well. The SSD sounds indestructable from what i'm hearing lol.

 

[gothamm]

"When reviewing the HDD model, using a high I/O browser like Firefox or transferring files over the network to my hard drive threw me more beachballs than a Girls Gone Wild party and rendered the machine relatively useless. The SSD model exhibited little of this behavior—if I were to take my totally unscientific experience and translate it into a number, I would say that such slowdowns were reduced by 90 percent."

Once you have lived a little longer and had more experience with real life, you will understand that its easy to quote things other so called 'experts' say to support your argument. See what I did there sport?

I read the article and am still happy that for me the SSD model was the right choice. If the MBA turns out to be what I am hoping for I will be buying the same one for my wife. The article changed nothing for me. On the contrary, I think the SSD, judging by the article, will make opening applications and files will feel extremely snappy.

Thanks for posting the original articles, they were very informative.

Regards,

C

I like your points and elaborate explanation but dude...its $1300 dollars. how can you possibly justify the 10-15% performance boost (if that)

 

[jragosta]

If Ars' results hold up in the least, then I can't wait to read the subjective spin that will ensue. Its already transcended comical...absurdity is sure to follow.

It's already here. People are whining about the SSD's speed without thinking about what they do with their computer.

Hint: Which do you do more often - sequential writes (where SSD is slightly slower) or random reads (where SSD is something like 7-10 times as fast).

In terms of how responsive your computer feels, random reads are far more important. There are already reports that it feels much snappier.

And that doesn't even consider the likely benefits in reliability.

Your usage may differ, but saying that anyone buying SSD is an idiot isn't justified- since some people apparently see the benefit of it.

Well, I would assume he's talking about price to performance ratio. If something costs over $1000 more, yet is barely faster (and slower in some respects) than the cheaper model, many folks would call that overpriced.

Only if those folks choose to whine about something they don't understand.

AND if those people aren't bright enough to realize that benchmark performance is only one of the features that SSD offers.

I walk around with my mbp on all the time and don't have any issues. Just don't jump on a trampoline while watching a TV show and you should be fine.

There are plenty of reports of 1.8" disk failures, so I wouldn't be so sure that no one is going to ever have a problem just because YOU haven't had a problem on your MBP.

I noticed in this review they don't show the random/sequential stats for a regular speed hard drive (laptop or desktop or scsi). They just compared ssd with the 4200 rpm drive. Most laptops come with drives at least 5400 rpm and you can get some faster. Desktop drives and SCSI go up to 10,000+ rpm. While that may not do much for the random read/writes, it should put the sequential read/writes of the SSD to shame.

Sure it would - if you ever figure out how to put a 10,000 rpm SCSI drive into a 3 lb laptop that's 3/4" thick. (and that doesn't even consider that SSD would still win on random reads - which are more important for 'snappiness' than sequential reads/writes).

They compared SSD to 4200 rpm because that's the only other choice people have with the MBA. Duh.

"When reviewing the HDD model, using a high I/O browser like Firefox or transferring files over the network to my hard drive threw me more beachballs than a Girls Gone Wild party and rendered the machine relatively useless. The SSD model exhibited little of this behavior—if I were to take my totally unscientific experience and translate it into a number, I would say that such slowdowns were reduced by 90 percent."

Funny how the Apple bashers all missed that part.

There will be barely any noticeable different when opening programs. Don't buy SSD MBA for that reason...

And your evidence for this statement is........?

 

[Salty Pirate]

My 2 cents:

I went to the apple store and tried them both out. I felt the SSD was way faster for opening and closing programs, which I do alot of.

So I bought the 1.8/SSD and it rocks. I am getting 4-5 hours from the battery and this thing "feels" much faster than my MPB 2.4 GHz w/ 4 GB RAM and a 200 GB 7200 disk.

I did experience the slowdown thing when I was moving my 13 GB itunes library off a USB drive, but how often do you do that? That is such a non-issue! Jacquie, IMHO is way off in her review. How can you claim a technology that eliminates the "slowdowns" by 90% and makes everything teh snap, how is that not a justified $1000 upgrade?

I love my MBA. I love the form factor, I love the weight or lack of it on my shoulder and I love the performance.

 

[Tosser]

Maybe there is a battery vendor problem here, I wonder. Some people in the forums have reported excellent battery life with their SSD. I remember one person unplugged an MBA SSD in an Apple store and it showed 7 hours of battery life remaining.

I'll be interested in Ars Technica's followup investigation of the battery discrepancies.

Haha, if it really is a battery vendor problem, a lot of people will p.o'd when they have to send it back to have it fixed. So much for the "neatness" of the non-replaceable battery.

 

[Analog Kid]

It's already here. People are whining about the SSD's speed without thinking about what they do with their computer.

Hint: Which do you do more often - sequential writes (where SSD is slightly slower) or random reads (where SSD is something like 7-10 times as fast).

I've seen this assertion that the system performs more random reads than anything else a lot in these threads, but I haven't yet seen any real support for that assertion.

There is merit in simply improving the subjective performance even at the penalty of true performance-- Be did that with their massive threading through their UI. All those threads incurred overhead and actually reduced the available processing, but it gave the impression of a much snappier system. This is what the "I went to the Apple store and launched 6 applications at once" test demonstrates.

I think those two effects should be separated out though: getting more work done in a day versus a more pleasant feeling while that work is being done.

 

[Starfall]

Surely its more the fact that you'd be using the screen constantly when viewing a video, rather than not when listening to music?

Tired of people desperately trying to defend Apple......they made a sucky product. Get over it.....

Decoding an H.264 video stream is a fairly CPU-intensive task and will draw down the battery faster than, say, standard internet and word processing tasks will. So it seems inaccurate to represent "watching a few TV shows" as light to moderate usage.

 

[UMHurricanes34]

This is very interesting. Very interesting, indeed.

I don't think this is a short-coming of Apple, but of the SSD technology itself in it's current state.

That being said, I really don't think it's worth the outrageous prices that suppliers are selling these drives for, but hopefully the Air will move SSD in volumes and help drive prices down.

 

[benryu94]

well the macbook air was definently the predictednew gen laptop apple was comin out with but i really find it redundant. Yes it's so very thin and so very portable but think about losing it, dropping it. My point and hope is that apple predicted this redundancy. The sells are reflecting on it...

 

[ob81]

I was going to invest in the SSD. So happy I waited. I was holding off because I wasn't 100% sure that I wanted an Air, but I knew I would eventually get one. After these numbers, I would be a freaking idiot to trade my Macbook in for one.

More money to make the system comfortable, less battery life, less space, equal portability. Someone may say that the Macbook Air isn't made for me. At these specs, you are damn right. It isn't made for a lot of people.

"But it's thin!"

 

[plasmaflow]

Thoughts on the SSD HDD debate.

I went into the Apple store and spent some time working on both models. I rebooted, launched multiple applications at once and used iPhoto. I have to say that I am definitely going to get the SSD. The Ars review states that the extra usability doesn't justify the extra $1300. I disagree.

I use my computer all the time (currently a MBP CD 2.16, 2GB ram, 100GB 7200RPM, drive, matte screen). I travel a lot with it. I use it for photos, a little programming, surfing, email, movies, and music. I also run Fusion on it with XP (have to for work). Using my computer is not a casual thing for me. It is a critical tool that I could not function without.

With respect to the SSD v. HDD models of the Air, the difference in app launching speed (in particular the Office apps) can be stark. In addition, and more importantly, the system slow down when the disk is being heavily accessed on the HDD is palpable. It isn't like the computer is slow. Rather, it is unusable for a brief time. Now it seems that the Ars reviewer thought that getting rid of this brief moment wasn't worth the $1300, and it is there that our opinions diverge.

Waiting for a tool to be ready puts the tool between you and your work. When I have to wait for my system, I have to disengage from my work. When I have to disengage from my work, I get distracted and lose my state of flow. I can't overstate how important it is to me to be able to maintain that state. It makes my work about my work and not about what I am using to get my work done. Imagine if a sculptor had to wait for his chisel to be ready for a strike. That would suck. I realize that sometimes we have to wait for a tool to be ready; technology can only move so fast. However, if you can make it so you don't have to wait, do it.

In contrast, when my system is quick and responsive, I stay focused and fluid. The computer becomes an extension of me rather than an impediment to me.

With respect to the cash, I am all about saving a buck, but spending $1800 on something that will frustrate me v. spending $3000 on something that won't isn't even a decision. I have learned that trying to save money on things that I use all the time is usually a waste of money. Many things are expensive for a good reason: they serve a need better than a lower priced alternative. In addition, if I bought the HDD, when that Word icon bounced for the 12th time and my music started to stutter because Fusion was slaying my hard drive, that extra $1300 in the bank would be cold comfort.

A couple other examples:

Luggage: I bought a Tumi travel bag about 6 years ago. I have no idea what I paid for it; I just remember that it was a lot more expensive than just about every other bag I looked at. I still use it today and love it. I have friends with crappy luggage that they have replaced 3 times in the past 6 years. And even when it was new, the straps didn't hold; the wheels were wobbly.

Knives: Have you ever used a high-quality chef's knife? It is a pleasure. My wife has an incredibly expensive set of high-quality knives because she loves to cook. The knives make her cooking experience that much more enjoyable (the knife stays out of her way and becomes an extension of her). Sure, she could probably get the job done with a set of steak knives from K-Mart, but how much would that suck?

The stuff that we buy shouldn't frustrate us or get in our way. I'm not saying that the HDD (or a duffel bag or a K-Mart steak knife ) will make everyone miserable. For a lot of users, the 1.6 HDD is perfect. For goodness sake, it is a 3 lb. slab of 3/4 inch (or less) aluminum that runs (pretty darn quickly) Mac OS X. If I were one of those users, I would happily buy it and save $1300. I just know that I'm not. I know that I will be using the computer in such a way that those system slow downs will occur and that the unresponsiveness will drive me up a wall.

The bottom line is, if I bought the HDD, after using it for a while I would feel like I wasted $1800. When I get the SSD, I won't even think about what I spent on it.

Peace.

 

[MayaTlab]

With my base model MBA I get 4h30 of battery life with the brightness at 40%, bluetooth off, sound off, a strong wifi connection and the MBA set to "maximum battery life".

However as soon as I go on websites which use Flash the battery life is reduced, since Apple has not yet released a decent Java driver, thus resulting in an intensive processor work.

 

[shadowfax]

well the macbook air was definently the predictednew gen laptop apple was comin out with but i really find it redundant. Yes it's so very thin and so very portable but think about losing it, dropping it. My point and hope is that apple predicted this redundancy. The sells are reflecting on it...

I'm confused by a lot of what you are saying, but I will say this, having damaged a laptop before: it doesn't matter if I paid $1200 for a MacBook or $2500 for a MacBook Pro, or $3100 for an MBA (or for that matter $3200 for a 1GHz TiBook in 2002), it's a sick feeling to lose/break it. And no matter what you spent on it, it's awful. I would not buy a cheaper laptop just because I thought it would be less of a loss if it were damaged/lost.

 

[phuong]

Perhaps what this shows is that a larger footprint laptop (say the next MBP) could usefully use both SSD and HDD. Use a small capacity SSD for the OS and a large capacity HDD for storage...

somebody already did that. he replaced the optical drive with a SSD. http://www.ryanblock.com/2007/11/the-first-macbook-pro-with-a-64gb-ssd/

 

[nanok]

Wirelessly posted (Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/3.1.8295/1724; sv; U; ssr))

What about drive noise, fan speed and heat? There's a LOT of talk about performance in the SSD vs. HDD debate, but for me (surfer/writer) the main attractions with the ssd would be a possibly more quiet and cooler notebook. I got a thinkpad now and I hate the hdd clicky noise, I want total silence, like the old cube - how far from silent is the ssd option?
best regards, nanok (sweden)