SSD vs. PATA in the MBA?

[roland.g]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

I have read quite a bit this week on the MBA, mostly bashing with some praise. Personally I like it. Small, light, sexy, a great 2nd Mac. I will consider getting a rev. B or depending on the changes, a refurb rev. A. And I don't even need one so much as I like the weight factor for travel and using around the house as well as some writing I need to do.

I think the specs are fine for all that and I am not a huge fan of the MacBook. I would only buy the black one and with 2GB that's $1,649 vs. $1,799. I'll pay $150 for the reduced weight and aluminum case.

But I wouldn't pay another K for an SSD drive.

So that's my question:

1. Difference in battery life...

2. Difference in data performance/reading/writing...

Between the PATA vs SSD drives. And how will the PATA compare to the current 5400 drives in MBs for number 2.

 

[etorres]

It depends on what you plan on using the MBA for. I, like most people who buy the MBA, already have another mac so it wont be our primary computer. I will mostly use it for websurfing and school work, so the 1.6 Ghz core 2 duo and pata drive are good enough. Its funny the Jobs didnt mention any significant boost in battery life with the SSD drive in his keynote address. This might mean that there probably isnt a significant boost. As for speed the SSD is faster than the pata drive hands down, but the difference will not probably be boticed by the casual user. Add to that the $1000 premium AND smaller capacity and I dont believe it's such a great deal. Maybe that was the reason Jobs downplayed the SSD.

If you dont absolutely want an MBA now and can wait another 7 months or so, then by all means wait for rev B or refurbished rev A.

 

[Screwball]

You must not know the differences between a 4200 RPM PATA hdd and a SSD drive, if you say the gap is not noticable! Not to be vulgar, but if you sat a blind man in front of those two he would yell " Diiyyuum, effin' snappy " ( the SSD, that is )

 

[roland.g]

I don't think I will be using it for anything that I would need really great performance but at the same time don't want to be worried about poor performance. I agree that I would rather have 80 than 64 plus I would not shell out the $1000 for the SSD.

That said, I don't want to find out that the 5 hr battery is SSD and that the moving parts of the PATA reduce that time. I also don't want it to be too slow but saying that, I still use my wife's 2003 rev. A 12" PB with a 4200 RPM PATA drive and 640MB RAM, and my rev. A Intel 1.66 Core Duo (Yonah) Mini also had a 5400 RPM SATA drive. So I am familiar with using slower drives.

For me this would be a 2nd machine to my 2.8Ghz 24" iMac with 4GB RAM and 750GB HDD. And yes, I would most certainly wait for the rev. Bs to see what changes are made and then if there isn't much get either a rev. A refurb or depending on how much the savings are wait for the rev. Bs to go refurb as well. I certainly won't be in a hurry. I was just curious about battery live and HDD performance, b/c if those 2 factors were too poor on the PATA side, then I would consider a MacBook.

 

[We Healthy]

I would say the difference in hard drive performance would be enormous. SSD mean super quick booting and general speeds. The PATA is essentially the one in ipod classics. i wouldn't buy the 1800 dollar model, only the 3000 dollar model.


... BAtterie life is supposed to improve tenfold sometime.... just saw it on the tube. single charge... 1 day of battery life.... soon ill be complaining the my lappy doesn't get more than 2 days of battery life.