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 (value, options?)
- Thread starter fkazem
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Uhg, don't waste your money bud. You can get so much more for so much less if you go with the MacBook Pro.
I would say go for the SSD drive if you get the Air because the standard drive is only PATA and not SATA which is much slower. But if you do, it will cost well over $3000, which is why the MacBook Pro is a much better option.
I would say go for the SSD drive if you get the Air because the standard drive is only PATA and not SATA which is much slower. But if you do, it will cost well over $3000, which is why the MacBook Pro is a much better option.
I would have to say skip the SSD HDD- it is faster than the PATA HDD, but not worth the huge price difference in my opinion. 
Ugh, stop pushing your model preference on people. Some people really do prefer lightweight portable over a desktop replacement portable.
That being said don't get the SSD unless you're filthy rich and have money to burn. SSDs will nose dive in price in the coming years so no point paying a premium now.
That being said don't get the SSD unless you're filthy rich and have money to burn. SSDs will nose dive in price in the coming years so no point paying a premium now.
"... much slower...." Just exactly (or even approximately) how much slower is a PATA vs. a SATA drive? I'd love to know. Is it proportional to the difference in RPM, or is it even greater than that? Please tell, this could help a lot of potential buyers.
Supposedly they're something like 100x faster than a hard drive. Honestly from all the hands on reports I've read people think the MBAs with the hard drive are plenty fast (probably due to the 2 gb of ram).
I could make up a bunch of numbers too. You're assuming a lot (price, time, the hard drives in MBAs not being able to be swapped with SSDs by an Apple Tech, the speed difference actually mattering to the person, etc...)
The fact is that a better computer is always around a year in the future. Always. Look at what you have now, look at what is available now and decide based on that.
The fact is that a better computer is always around a year in the future. Always. Look at what you have now, look at what is available now and decide based on that.
Thanks but (assuming you were responding to my question) I meant the difference between a PATA (the cheaper HD option inside the new MBA) and a SATA hard drive (the kind in MBs and MBPs), not between a PATA drive and a solid state drive. David above said that a SATA drive was "much faster." I just wondered how much.
Ah well the MBP has a 7200 rpm drive, I think (opposed to 4200). So basically it is decent for things like video editing and such. I wouldn't attempt to do such a thing on an MBA (for a variety of reasons).
So it really is just proportional to the difference in RPM speed? There isn't any additional (significant) difference arising out of PATA vs. SATA?
Interesting about the heat issue. So maybe Apple couldn't put a 5400 rpm HD in there due to temperature, with the MBA being so thin and all.
One other question: I've read elsewhere that the cache is the same as on other Mac laptops. Does this at least help ameliorate some of the slowness we might experience with the (non-SSD) hard drive?
And while we're on the subject: what exactly does the cache do? (Sorry if I seem to be getting OT, but to me it's not OT, as it might make a difference in my purchasing decisions.)
Interesting about the heat issue. So maybe Apple couldn't put a 5400 rpm HD in there due to temperature, with the MBA being so thin and all.
One other question: I've read elsewhere that the cache is the same as on other Mac laptops. Does this at least help ameliorate some of the slowness we might experience with the (non-SSD) hard drive?
And while we're on the subject: what exactly does the cache do? (Sorry if I seem to be getting OT, but to me it's not OT, as it might make a difference in my purchasing decisions.)
Not just the rotational speed - the smaller the platter is, the less data passes under the heads in one rotation (the track length, therefore the amount of data bits, is the perimeter of the platter. Smaller platter = shorter track length)
So at a given rotational speed, a 3.5" drive will outperform a 2.5" drive which will in turn outperform a 1.8" drive.
PATA vs SATA will make a minimal difference for a single drive -- 100 MB/s (ATA/100) vs 150 MB/s (SATA-150) - A good 3.5" drive mechanism itself is capable of around 80 MB/s depending on the drive.
Doesn't that imply that the data stored near the spindle is "slower" than the data near the edge of the platter?
Seems odd. I though that was all fixed in the early EIDE days by making the sectors fixed length and variable in number according to the perimeter of the track, so that the linear data density remained roughly constant. Or am I thinking of something else.
Don't forget too that the random seek time for a smaller drive can be shorter since the heads don't eed to travel as far, which could also negate the effects we are talking about.
B
Just a thought, cos I am no geek or engineer, but wouldn't the thinness be a plus point for heat dissipation? All the parts are within a fraction of an inch of the (cool) external air?
Bump? This is a huge concern for me because an SSD is the single most performance improving option for booting and running files. Ram is unlikely to be upgraded, but 2gb is plenty for having like 5 browsers, itunes, and torrent software.