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.
your vote and why (2010 upgraded 11 vs loaded 13 vs base 2011 11")
- Thread starter nashville man
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I really missed the backlit keyboard when I went from a MBP to the 2010 Air, but for me it's a (really) nice-to-have, not a must-have.
Just like everyone else, I always thought it was an unnecessary feature. I've been typing for the last 15 years, I can type over X words per minute without looking, the screen provides enough light to see any keys I need to find... but then I got a 2011 MBA and it blew everything I once thought out the door. Definitely never going back.
It's like buying a car without power locks. Yeah, it's no big deal... you can just spend the extra second unlocking it yourself, but wouldn't you rather have power locks? Now it's an industry standard, just like backlit keyboards are becoming.
It's one of the main reasons I went 2011 over 2010. For my uses, I doubt I would have seen much of a performance difference between the two years, but the backlit keyboard seemed neat to me. Thunderbolt seemed like future proofing, but I have yet to make any use of it. I'll probably get a new MBA before I actually ever get a thunderbolt device
It's like buying a car without power locks. Yeah, it's no big deal... you can just spend the extra second unlocking it yourself, but wouldn't you rather have power locks? Now it's an industry standard, just like backlit keyboards are becoming.
It's one of the main reasons I went 2011 over 2010. For my uses, I doubt I would have seen much of a performance difference between the two years, but the backlit keyboard seemed neat to me. Thunderbolt seemed like future proofing, but I have yet to make any use of it. I'll probably get a new MBA before I actually ever get a thunderbolt device
Go with D. I had a late 2007 15" MacBook Pro up until October when i upgraded. I went with the 11" MBA 256/4GB. Honestly i could have gone with with the 128 because i use my NAS for my music library.
I really enjoy the 11" better then the 15" its extremely light and the backlit keyboard is a must. I never thought it would be, but when i was using my sisters MacBook earlier this week (without the back light) i really missed my MBA.
Size really isn't that big of a deal, and honestly, if you want you could plug a monitor if you really need the real estate. I do once in a while but if your just going to be web browsing and using word and excel then the 11" is a perfect fit.
I too love the backlit KB on my air, I only wish my iMac's bluetooth keyboard was backlit as well.
I had the 2010 13" with 128 SSD. I traded it in for the "D" last August. I really like the 11" mobility and find no issues with less screen size. Since I take mine with me daily for work and move it around the house often, the 11" is perfect for me.
What an over-exaggeraiton. You think C2D is completely obsolete technology? Rubbish! I have a 2011 iMac and a 2010 MBA, and there is absolutely no difference in processing times in basic tasks. The only time you would realise a difference between an i5 and a C2D is when it comes to video encoding/etc; in other words, CPU intensive tasks. Email, internet, word processing, etc, is NOT a CPU-intensive task, and the bottleneck is the hard drive (which the MBA replaces with an SSD).
People on this forum seem to think you need the biggest and baddest for the most basic of tasks. Sometimes a bit of common sense goes a long way. I run a 10 year old Lenovo ThinkPad with a single core pentium and 512 MB of RAM (with a lightweight linux distro), and its perfectly usable for stuff like internet browsing and word processing.
What an over-exaggeration.
1) I never said the C2D is completely obsolete technology, did I? I said I would never get a computer with a C2D. That means exactly what it means. Can people not have their own preferences?
2) You say the only difference in noticing a performance difference in CPUs is in CPU intensive tasks? Thanks. I had no idea
How do you not know I don't do video encoding, etc? If you're inferring I was referencing the OP, then yes, the OP never mentioned video encoding him/herself, but who's to say he/she will never get into it? Better safe than sorry, right? Besides, every application is CPU intensive to an extent, just some greater than others. In my OP, I specifically stated that considering a 2011 would help staying equipped for future OS changes, applications, etc in the future. You can't possibly say that's a false statement.3) I never stated people need the biggest and baddest for the most basic tasks. My OP was a vote for future-proofing. He/she asked for our opinions, and I gave him/her mine.
4) Yes, common sense sure does go a long way. So does not assuming things.
5) Great for your 10 year old Lenovo, but as I specifically mentioned, if the OP wanted to stay with a then-current build of OSX in the future and not have to resort to running a lightweight linux distro, it would be advantageous to have a CPU released a year ago, rather than one that debuted over three years ago. Would you not agree?
Also, Lenovo didn't buy IBM's ThinkPad line until 2005, so at most your Lenovo is just shy of 7 years old. If it's 10 years old, it'd be IBM, yeah?
What an over-exaggeration.
1) I never said the C2D is completely obsolete technology, did I? I said I would never get a computer with a C2D. That means exactly what it means. Can people not have their own preferences?
2) You say the only difference in noticing a performance difference in CPUs is in CPU intensive tasks? Thanks. I had no idea
3) I never stated people need the biggest and baddest for the most basic tasks. My OP was a vote for future-proofing. He/she asked for our opinions, and I gave him/her mine.
4) Yes, common sense sure does go a long way. So does not assuming things.
5) Great for your 10 year old Lenovo, but as I specifically mentioned, if the OP wanted to stay with a then-current build of OSX in the future and not have to resort to running a lightweight linux distro, it would be advantageous to have a CPU released a year ago, rather than one that debuted over three years ago. Would you not agree?
Also, Lenovo didn't buy IBM's ThinkPad line until 2005, so at most your Lenovo is just shy of 7 years old. If it's 10 years old, it'd be IBM, yeah?
1. Fair enough, but I feel that you are over-exaggerating how 'old' C2D is.
2/3/4. OP stated his uses; noting was CPU intensive. He could do that stuff on older architecture than C2D if he really want to. What kind of argument is ''oh he might pick up a professional piece of work, so lets pay for it now!''. OP clearly has no intention of running CPU intensive tasks, so he literally has no need for an i5. C2D/4 GB RAM is perfectly future proof for many years to come.
5.The C2D architecture is not the same throughout the years. The 2010 used C2D cores that were produced (and designed)...in 2010/09! It is not the same old architecture, it is updated and is a piece of hardware which really isnt going to be a bottle neck for basic computing needs, even in the future.
And yes, you are right; my ThinkPad isnt quite 10 years old, it was a ball-park figure, but you can nit-pick if you like.
Hmm. perhaps the C2D isn't exactly obsolete, but why buy a CPU which is several years old, if such a thing can be avoided?
C2D architecture isnt the same all throughout its history. Although the C2D came out years ago, it has changed over time to become more efficient/etc, they just kept the same name.