New MacBook Air Slower Than Older Model?

[NC MacGuy]

Physical strength isn't the issue. I'm 6' 2" and 180lbs and will be leaving in a few minutes to go climb on my 800lb Harley. Having a wisp-thin notebook option - even if it means giving up some other things - is a good thing.

I ride a motor scooter too. The Air fits in a nice small bag which fits in my back sack. It's a tight fit. The 15" MBP is too big. I'd need a side car with the 17".

How about the tray table in coach, or the commuter train?
Ouch - 17" fail.

Yepp. I may take 3-6 flights a week. I have to unpack and repack my laptop for each flight's security. When I see people fumbling with their 17"ers it's almost comical. Two weeks ago I saw a guy almost in tears as he yanked his new looking MacBoatPro out of the bin too fast and got a big ass dent in the front as he hit the side wall on the X-ray roller belt exit. Awe shucks, I picked mine up with one weakly anemic hand and shoved it into it's MetroSexual man bag home at the same time I was slipping on my shoes. He had a nice anti-gloss too. Too bad, so sad.

The 17" is unusable in anything but the terminal or first class air travel.

I have bowel movements that weigh more than two pounds. If I drink a bottle of Evian I carry more than two extra pounds. Given the thin-ness of the 17" MBP, aside from $$$, I don't know why anyone would go for a lessor size.

I'm having bowel issues at the moment and I'd kill to take a two pound dump. It's not necessarily the thinness or weight, it's the overall large dimensions. I carried around a 12" G3 that weighed as much as your MacBoatPro for a few years. It didn't kill me but why if you don't have too?

I've got a very small briefcase/manbag that can hold a small portfolio, SD 790 camera & charger, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, iPod charger, LG Dare cell phone, MBA charger, a few files, cables and other business essentials. Great thing about it is when I get lucky enough to ride one of the commuter jets all the airlines are quickly adopting, I can fit my bag under the seat in front of me. The "A" side on a three seat across Embraer has pretty tight foot room and you'd be one looking for some of that elusive one sided overhead space which is becoming oh so rare.

If I went from house to office in a car or public transportation, a 17" may work nicely. As it is I've got a BT keyboard, mouse and a 24" monitor at my desk and the Air works amazingly well for me once in office and docked. If there were no market for 8,9,10,12,13,15 laptops or netbooks there would only be 17"ers. As it is, people like smaller electronics. You are a minority my friend. Rationalize all you like but I see multitudes more 13-15" laptops than 17". Really. Take a count sometime. Apple or otherwise.

I could easily afford a 17" MacBoatPro but why? Apple has appealed to a demographic that obviously appreciates a smaller form factor & without extra ports. It's not about bragging rights or showing off, it's about what really does work for me and other semi-hardcore road warriors.

 

[Sehnsucht]

How about the tray table in coach, or the commuter train?

Ouch - 17" fail.

I've seen people lugging 17" ThinkPads in those places. And the ThinkPads are a hell of a lot bigger/heavier/thicker than the 17" MBP.

I flew Southwest once (just like everyone else does: just once) and the guy sitting next to me had this huge hulking monster on his lap. It may be a tight squeeze, but a 17" laptop is still portable enough.

 

[AidenShaw]

I've seen people lugging 17" ThinkPads in those places. And the ThinkPads are a hell of a lot bigger/heavier/thicker than the 17" MBP.

I flew Southwest once (just like everyone else does: just once) and the guy sitting next to me had this huge hulking monster on his lap. It may be a tight squeeze, but a 17" laptop is still portable enough.

You don't understand debate, do you?

The discussion is about why some people will buy the MBA for its size and portability - even though bulkier, heavier Macbooks offer more performance for the price.

Bringing up a Lenovo system that's big and bulky is a nonsensical tangent.

Some people want small Macbooks, even if they're underpowered and expensive relative to other Macbooks.

What on earth do big Lenovos have to do with the discussion?

(And, I do have a big 1920x1200 Thinkpad - which travels in checked baggage if I need it for a trip. One of my 12" laptops is in the b-class cabin with me.)

 

[Sehnsucht]

You don't understand debate, do you?

The discussion is about why some people will buy the MBA for its size and portability - even though bulkier, heavier Macbooks offer more performance for the price.

Bringing up a Lenovo system that's big and bulky is a nonsensical tangent.

Some people want small Macbooks, even if they're underpowered and expensive relative to other Macbooks.

What on earth do big Lenovos have to do with the discussion?

Sighhh...

What I meant was, I don't see why some people are willing to trade performance for "portability" (even though a heavy 17" MacBook Pro or ThinkPad is still portable in the sense that it's a laptop that can be put in a bag and taken with the user.) I would much rather have the 17" MBP, even though it's "bulky," than a MBA or any other netbook. The Air is too underpowered and the screen is too small. The tradeoff of power for weight isn't worth it.

 

[NC MacGuy]

Sighhh...

What I meant was, I don't see why some people are willing to trade performance for "portability" (even though a heavy 17" MacBook Pro or ThinkPad is still portable in the sense that it's a laptop that can be put in a bag and taken with the user.) I would much rather have the 17" MBP, even though it's "bulky," than a MBA or any other netbook. The Air is too underpowered and the screen is too small. The tradeoff of power for weight isn't worth it.

Your opinion, I strongly disagree with it though. How often do you travel via air? Do it a lot and if you ever do, you will change your mind. I fell in love with my 12" PB and have been looking for the most portable capable laptop, preferably w. OSX ever since. I travel enough that I can't avoid Southwest. I can't write off any carrier. Imagine three to five weeks straight schlepping a 17" from commuter terminal d to the main concourse more than a mile away. Maybe it's an age thing but I like to think I got smarter in my years. I have a 15" that I think is too big and there's absolutely no way you can convince me that a 17" laptop by Apple or anyone else would be good for a serious business traveller. Unless of course it folded like a napkin.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

If you're talking about airplanes, I'd rather have a Netbook hacked to run OS X. For the price of an iPod Touch you can have a full fledged computer that is the perfect size for travel and doesn't cost so much that you would be scared for something to happen to it. I've got a MBP and the thing even with a good discount was still very expensive. I'm not crazy about taking it on airline trips when a much less powerful computer would do just as well. I got the MBP more for portable studio use and local trips. Airline travel for vacations isn't my first choice for $2000 laptops. OTOH, I've taken several trips with just my iPod Touch and for light web access, e-mail, etc. it's fine.

 

[gctwnl]

It's 10/100BASE-T

Yep. Belkin has a USB-Gigabit adapter, but USB will not be able to saturate that fully as USB 2.0 itself maxes out at 480Mbps. Still it could be roughly 5 times as fast as Apple's USB-EThernet adapter and that is not negligable.

 

[gctwnl]

If I got an Mac Air, I would get the slowest Air available, because the beefy processors won't be able to run full speed anyway unless you are using it in an igloo.

If you are running high speed permanently, you are right. But for short bursts the faster model will not feel the slow down because of thermal management.

 

[Victor Odin]

To be honest, if I need "ultra-portable" web/email/music, what have you -- I pull out my device that fits in my pocket.

There are handheld computers now that fit the bill if I need super-ultra portability. I don't carry a laptop at all if all I need is access to email or the web. The technology has really matured to the point that these devices ARE super micro-laptops.

As an OPINION ... iPhone/Blackberry/Palm Pre's are making $1,500 4lb laptops somewhat less practical.

If I want to watch a movie on a flight, I pull out my handheld. It also lessens the possibility that Bratford and Shitney sitting next to me will dump soda all over my keyboard.

When I get to my destination, I pull out a machine that is more powerful than some desktops, has a larger screen than many business center monitors, and what has it burdened me?

Two pounds.

And the hell with "short bursts of work". I've had my MBP handbraking for damn near a week while I've worked on basic tasks in the foreground. I would hate to make a "short burst" consideration for a $1,500 machine. Laptops in that price range should be able to crunch at 100% 24/7/365.

I really do challenge the notion that the 17" is "bulky".

Compared to an iPhone your Macbook Air is "bulky".

The word really doesn't mean anything definitive.

"Bulky" to me means that it is unusable in most places that a smaller laptop would be usable. Save for the back of an airline tray (which I don't use terribly often), I have not found this to be the case.

That is the ONLY place I have found that a 13" will fit where a 17" will not, and I'm not buying a machine for the few hours per year I use it on an airplane. Lately, it seems it's too turbulent most of the time anyway and I get paranoid about the disk throwing a head against the platter while flying above a storm.

In the day and age where truly portable computers fit in your hand, and where $400 "beater" netbooks (which don't have thermal issues because they are pretty slow) are ubiquitous, personally, I think a paper thin overheating-yet-still-underpowered laptop is probably losing relevance.

Let's face it, if these things were selling like hotcakes, the prices would not be nearly as slashed.

I think the 13" and 15" MB's slay everything else on unit-sales because they give the most power and portability per $.

The 17" is worth it for people who use it as a primary machine, but it is probably too costly for most people.

I don't crap on people who use the AIR (there is a market for foot-fetish porn too), but I think a reasonably priced laptop -- which is still incredibly small -- with the addition of a decent handheld device makes more sense in 2009 than a paper thin laptop AND a a handheld.

Perhaps if I had the choice of one or the other, I would be more inclined for a "thin" laptop, but I have both.

Some of these ultra-lights simply duplicate the functionality of handhelds (on the go web and email and music/video), and if you go to work and dock a 15" MBP with a 9600GT, large hard drive, and faster processor -- your work experience would probably be even smoother. For a whopping two pound difference.

And the guy who banged his laptop on the X-Ray machine could have banged his iPhone just as well.

It proved nothing. I know people who have dropped their 13" inchers.

I've seen few widespread problems among people who are used to handling their machines.

People who are clumsy or aren't paying attention are likely to damage anything.

I wouldn't take one anecdote of a guy banging a computer at the airport as some kind of ringing endorsement for computers with weak power-per-dollar ratios.

I've seen people drop their cellphones.

Does that mean that they are too "bulky"?

 

[airplaneman]

This is not possible, there is something wrong with their tests.

agreed

 

[Victor Odin]

agreed

It's an anti-Scientol, I mean an anti-Apple conspiracy, man!

These testers just don't like us because we are superior human beings, so they try to bring us down.

It's kind of like the Third Reich, only much, much worse.

I have dream. A dream that one day all computer benchmarks will show the true superiority of Apple. Oh yes, I have a dream ... a dream in which those of superior intellect and liberal values will not be judged by the fruit on their computer, but by the content of their hard drives.

 

[entatlrg]

I really do challenge the notion that the 17" is "bulky".

I'll accept that challenge ... the 17" is INDEED bulky. I just returned one.

Computing to a degree must have a "pleasure to use" factor and the 17" imo only meets that criteria when sitting on a desk and you're enjoying it's high res screen viewing movies, video, photo's etc.

Otherwise, it's bulky and heavy and cumbersome, not 'fun' to pull out of a bag and use real quick, or in our car, on your lap anywhere .... you can't compare it to a MBA or 13" / 15" MBP....

You Sir, are in the single digit percentage who share your thoughts I'm sure, but hey, if they 17" does it for you, great ... just realize other sizes do it for others too, that's why they make many sizes of notebooks of course

 

[Hostbot]

For me the bigger the screen, the better. More space to work, and I'm a heavy multi-tasker. the best option for portability and power I would say is the new 13" MBP. The MBA is missing alot of needed features. I think they could have slapped an Eithernet port on. Granted the MBA is for a certain class of travelers, but the damn thing has no room for those who are also in need of multimedia features, such as a *Cough*DVD-RW*Cough*.

-={Hostbot}=-

 

[Firefly2002]

yeah, well, Macworld's speedmark test isn't exactly a great benchmark.

It has little to do with CPU speed and a lot more to do with hard drive speed.

 

[hiley]

total rubbish! 2.13 MBA is SUPERFAST!

Just got the new 2.13ghz MBA and it completely thrashes my friend's old 1.86ghz. Whatever the lab results may say, real-life says otherwise. It feels superfast and zippier, to the point that it does everything faster than my own human responses. There is no lag in anything and it feels zippier than my 2.4ghz iMac!

 

[bbotte]

Just got the new 2.13ghz MBA and it completely thrashes my friend's old 1.86ghz. Whatever the lab results may say, real-life says otherwise. It feels superfast and zippier, to the point that it does everything faster than my own human responses. There is no lag in anything and it feels zippier than my 2.4ghz iMac!

So you are saying you can tell a difference in clock speed of only 270mhz? I mean we are seriously talking about nano seconds here..... Is everyone in slow motion for you all the time? Are you one of the X-men?

I have used mine and one of the new ones, they seem to be the same to me. I like both. I noticed a difference between the Rev A and The Revision B because of the difference of the 9400M in video. That really was it. The thing has been great for me, as all I do is surf, e-mail, pictures, iPhone/iTunes and the occasional hop on my Virtual machine of Xp for IE. I'm buying a second, a refurbished 1.86 to save the couple of hundred bucks. I just wish Apple would give me a credit like they did with the early iPhone peeps. My machine plumeted $800 new and I didn't have it for 6 months yet. Oh well. I'll spend more, it's like crack.