Possible New Macbook Air

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by boogieman, Oct 15, 2008.

  1. boogieman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    #1
    I currently own a early 2008 macbook pro 17 2.6ghz. I am looking into getting the new air with 1.8 and ssd. I am curious as if I should go with the 1.8 and do a 120 drive or should i do the ssd. I dont plan on gaming on it since I can do that on my pro or my macpro. It gets really difficult lugging this macbook pro around all day. My main concern is which is faster the ssd or the 120. Any help that you guys could point my way would be greatly appreciated. If I need to know more please point them out to me.
     
  2. glitch44 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    #2
    if you have the money, the SSD is of course faster.
     
  3. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #3
    Nope, the SSD is more reliable because it doesn't have moving parts. Speed tests have been mixed.
     
  4. TJunkers macrumors 6502a

    TJunkers

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Location:
    New Jersey
  5. boogieman thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    #5

    That is amazing how in some it is faster and in the others it tottally lags. Im still up in the air (LOL) over what to do. I just do not like the new macbooks and the pros. Im afraid I will be unhappy with the air as I love my macbook pro.
     
  6. glitch44 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    #6
    True, some reviews have noted lower sequential read and write speeds, but I'd argue most evidence suggests faster real world numbers:

    "We saw speed gains in our real-world tests too. The SSD Mac was 50 percent faster in our Photoshop CS3 Action test, 33 percent faster when exporting a GarageBand track to iTunes, 57 percent faster when creating a PDF in Adobe InDesign, and 171 percent faster when adding 196 JPEGs to iPhoto. Any task that would spin the hard drive platters in a normal Mac is crazy fast in an SSD-equipped Mac—booting was 148 percent faster than on the normal MacBook Pro, and launching Photoshop CS3 was 229 percent faster. Flash memory is easier on the battery—the SSD Mac lasted 3 hours and 14 minutes doing normal office tasks, a 14 percent gain."

    The thing I'm wondering is if the new 128gb drives are along the lines of the new Samsung Multi-Level Cell flash SATA II drives that boast 200MBps read and 160MBps sequential write speeds, solving the whole problem.
     
  7. FFTWarren macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    #7
    idk a ton about mac but on the order page it shows you cant get a 1.8 with the 120 you have to get the 128ssd with the 1.8.
     
  8. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #8
    You can customize a 1.6GHz to a 1.86GHz with the 120GB
     
  9. FFTWarren macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, LA, USA
    #9
    oh ok I got ya cuz on the 1.86 it doesnt show any options other than a superdrive and stuff like that. Thanks for the info
     
  10. ducatidoc macrumors regular

    ducatidoc

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    #10
    anyone else notice how the new SSD info doesnt designate if its a PATA or SATA linkage? (yes, the HDD is listed as SATA but not the SSD). correctly if im wrong, but if its still PATA we will be looking at terrible speeds once again... sigh.
     
  11. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #11
    The SSD also uses SATA due to the change of chipset/controllers
     
  12. ntrigue macrumors 68040

    ntrigue

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    #12
    Better battery life with SSD. No concern with the head crashing under turbulent conditions. It will make the entire interface FASTER.
     
  13. iPave macrumors member

    iPave

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #13
    Save your money and go for 1.6/hd model. The ssd is better than hd, but not so much better that it would be worth of 450 euros or 500 dollars. The difference between 1.6Ghz and 1.8Ghz is also so tiny that I'd rather save money for something else(iPod for example).

    Btw: better battery life with ssd MacBook Air is ********.
     
  14. aleksandra. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Location:
    Warsaw, Poland
    #14
    I would wait and see what brand of SSD Apple offers (it'll probably be the same as in MB and MBP, but in Air there's a 1.8" drive, so it isn't certain). Then look at the reviews of this SSD. Then decide.
     
  15. thr61 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    #15
    Same question...

    I am in the same boat. I am going to order (today) the 1.6 MBA 2.0. I just can't decide between the SSD or conventional HD. I end up just under $2500 once I add on the super-drive, ethernet, and applecare -- it is closer to $2,000 with the 120GB disk.

    My usage is primarily email, Word, Excel, Web and some mind-mapping tools. No photoshop or intense image, music, or video editing. I never watch movies on my notebooks (I travel with my Kindle).

    Opinions on this?
     

Share This Page