I was under the impression that the SSD on the MacBook Pro was much faster than the conventional HD, and thus considering the 13" MacBook Pro. Is this not really true?
And isn't the 2.7 i7 noticeably faster than the 2.3 i5 or the 2,4 Core 2 Duo?
I guess we'll eventually get to a tipping point where the mass storage will become so fast that the amount of RAM installed will become less of an issue.
Thank you for saying this. This is what people need to hear. From my experience, the 13" Air runs great with 4GB of RAM. I have no experience with the 11" and its 2GB except at the Apple store, where it too seems just fine.
I was under the impression that the SSD on the MacBook Pro was much faster than the conventional HD, and thus considering the 13" MacBook Pro. Is this not really true?
And isn't the 2.7 i7 noticeably faster than the 2.3 i5 or the 2,4 Core 2 Duo?
Thanks all !
You'll probably notice a difference when it comes to tasks like compressing video, but day to day browsing and email, you won't se any difference between the i5 and i7. They both drag the c2d out back and take it out Casino style tho
A superb MacBook Air line, horribly marred only by their lack of a modern, FaceTime HD camera. It makes no sense whatsoever. Apple's cost to add such a camera is insignificant.
They probably could not squeeze an HD camera into this thin, thin, thin bezel. They also could leave it out intentionally to help save battery life (I can say for sure that FaceTime HD camera in my 2011 MBP sucks battery juice like no other).
8GB RAM would significantly reduce paging, and thus wear on the SSD.
This means more paging and a faster road to hardware failure.
Unless you're going to be running a web server off that thing, the wear rates of modern SSD's will most likely never come into play for the vast majority of consumers. I'd have liked 4GB to be the absolute baseline though, that said.
I think everyone here could be confusing/conflating the issue. Both i5 and i7 chips have this turbo boost feature, but only the i7's have the ability to double the number of cores in a virtual sense. I really doubt Apple somehow blocked the i7's in the MBA from creating virtual cores, this is the only thing that separates it from the i5. If it can't do that, it has no reason for being, no performance benefit whatsoever over an i5. So while it does make sense for them to block the turboboosting for heat reasons, I don't think there's any reason for them to block an i7 from creating virtual cores.
And incidentally there's a real tangible benefit from having those virtual cores, this can be as much as another 50% in speed over the equivalent i5. It's very worth it for threaded processing.
From the literature I've read it would appear the thermal saving measure here is that these are low mhz dual core i7's when your typical i7 runs a full 1ghz higher and will be quad core. That would mean the MBA runs with 4 cores (2 real, 2 virtual) and your typical desktop i7 runs with 8 cores (4 real, 4 virtual). I can live with that compromise, I'm sure they will make up that difference to some extent by being later generation/smaller die.
Actually, Intel's website says that the ULV i5 processor actually DOES have Hyperthreading.
So the real difference between the 2 is just clock speed. I find it hard to believe Apple would really block the TurboBoost feature in the MBA's. Then what is the point of the i7 processors? If they're operating at only their base frequency of 1.8Ghz (for the i7) and can never get to the 2.9Ghz TurboBoost speed, then it would've made more sense to keep the Core 2 Duo's and upgrade the graphics to the 330M, or whatever the next iteration of the 320M was.
However, the benchmarks posted on MacRumors for the new MBA's indicate that performance is substantially higher than the previous generation, which makes me think that TurboBoost being turned off is bogus.
Considering the Mini store page, under the Processor Learn More option, it says both hyperthreading and turbo are active....I think that whole issue is dead
And it sticks out of the slot. Apple don't use a push-to-eject spring-loaded slot (which results in the memory card edge lying flush with the computer's casework edge when the card is fully inserted) unlike most other manufacturers.
Come on Melgross, this is a classic case of British vs. American treatment of collective nouns. In British English, "Apple don't" (treating "Apple" as if it were a plural) and "Apple doesn't" (treating "Apple" as if it were a singular) are equally acceptable.
Come on Melgross, this is a classic case of British vs. American treatment of collective nouns. In British English, "Apple don't" (treating "Apple" as if it were a plural) and "Apple doesn't" (treating "Apple" as if it were a singular) are equally acceptable.
It reads really oddly over here. It may be correct either way there, but not here.
It reads really oddly over here. It may be correct either way there, but not here.
LOL you are both awesome.
I agree with Mr. H though, the way the SD card reader is designed is so un-Apple. It's hard to tell if it's "in" or "out" but worse still, it can't stay in there as a second hard drive, as I think many of us would want to use it as. (a cheap way of adding say 32 or 64 gigs, costing only $30 for 32 gigs for example).
What happens now with the SD card is very dangerous. For example, I have a hard case I put my MBP in and it's just big enough for the computer, not but a millimeter in either direction on each side of extra space. To use it with a card in, I have to prop it up on one side, on the lip, so it's slanted a bit downward to the other side. If it slips, the weight of the MBP is applied onto the card. Also if you were to move the MBP around you might catch on something if the card were hanging out. Very bad design, again I'm surprised it passed the first design review, let alone stuck around. And I take it the reader still won't do SDXC either? Overall I'm glad Apple went with the card reader, it definitely makes sense for the air. Air users want portability and it means not having to lug around the camera's USB cable, and it's faster as well.
Nevertheless, my wife will be getting the new 11" Air. Would I be correct to assume that the Intel HD 3000 graphics uses less battery than a NVIDIA 320M? (The slightly slower speed would be worth the extra battery gain in my opinion).
What happens now with the SD card is very dangerous.
It's too thin to give it a lip to pull it out and a spring mechanism can break over time so it's probably designed the best way to be durable. Having to remove the card every time is a bit inconvenient but it can be used to keep infrequently accessed files on.
Very bad design, again I'm surprised it passed the first design review, let alone stuck around.
To expand on what Marvin said, I'm sure the design is quite deliberate - no moving parts maximises durability of the port, and not having to accommodate the whole depth of a card or an eject mechanism minimises the space taken up by the port.
It's possible that they experimented with a design where you could fully insert the card, with small indents machined into the casing above and below the card edge to allow you to "pinch" the card to remove it, but rejected it because they couldn't make the indents large enough for adult fingertips.
To expand on what Marvin said, I'm sure the design is quite deliberate - no moving parts maximises durability of the port, and not having to accommodate the whole depth of a card or an eject mechanism minimises the space taken up by the port.
It's possible that they experimented with a design where you could fully insert the card, with small indents machined into the casing above and below the card edge to allow you to "pinch" the card to remove it, but rejected it because they couldn't make the indents large enough for adult fingertips.
You make good points and I see what both of you are are saying. However, that does not explain the crappy design in MacBook Pros. And I still think it'd be nice if they somehow created a lip and let it go all the way in on the Air, even without a spring. But perhaps that would be too unreliable, delicate, and costly as you said Mr. H.
You make good points and I see what both of you are are saying. However, that does not explain the crappy design in MacBook Pros. And I still think it'd be nice if they somehow created a lip and let it go all the way in on the Air, even without a spring. But perhaps that would be too unreliable, delicate, and costly as you said Mr. H.
Your statement of "crappy design" points to your misunderstanding the purpose of the SD card slot in Macs. It is not designed to be a boot drive or integral to the Mac's operation, but as a way to transfer data, hence it's not designed to fit completely inside the device like it would in a digital camera. You can certainly use it in an atypical way but I don't see why someone would choose to, say, use it as a boot drive over a deive with actual speed and capacity to make it viable.
I've tried to use a 16GB SD card Class 6 as a restore drive and it was too slow, taking minutes to boot. Creating a partition on the internal drive or via a USB drive make a lot more sense. Note that USB drives don't sit inside the machine either.
Personally I say don't waste the space and resort to actual "crappy design" by making my notebook more likely to break down due to having more moving parts. We're finally stepping forward by eliminating the ODD, lets not take a step backwards.
Your statement of "crappy design" points to your misunderstanding the purpose of the SD card slot in Macs. It is not designed to be a boot drive or integral to the Mac's operation, but as a way to transfer data, hence it's not designed to fit completely inside the device like it would in a digital camera. You can certainly use it in an atypical way but I don't see why someone would choose to, say, use it as a boot drive over a deive with actual speed and capacity to make it viable.
I've tried to use a 16GB SD card Class 6 as a restore drive and it was too slow, taking minutes to boot. Creating a partition on the internal drive or via a USB drive make a lot more sense. Note that USB drives don't sit inside the machine either.
Personally I say don't waste the space and resort to actual "crappy design" by making my notebook more likely to break down due to having more moving parts. We're finally stepping forward by eliminating the ODD, lets not take a step backwards.
I didn't mean as a boot drive, I meant as a secondary drive to store media or other longterm storage. I think that would be perfect, considering large SSDs are still 400 or 500$.
Comments
I was all worked up but screw it.
One, you can't get the i7 unless you go high end with the 13 inch $1500.00 model.
Two, I read that gamers and serious video folk will be disappointed buy the performance.
As a previous poster mentioned, the high end 11.6 inch does have the option for a i7. I think it's $150 more so around $1350 for the 11.6
And isn't the 2.7 i7 noticeably faster than the 2.3 i5 or the 2,4 Core 2 Duo?
Thanks all !
I guess we'll eventually get to a tipping point where the mass storage will become so fast that the amount of RAM installed will become less of an issue.
Thank you for saying this. This is what people need to hear. From my experience, the 13" Air runs great with 4GB of RAM. I have no experience with the 11" and its 2GB except at the Apple store, where it too seems just fine.
I was under the impression that the SSD on the MacBook Pro was much faster than the conventional HD, and thus considering the 13" MacBook Pro. Is this not really true?
And isn't the 2.7 i7 noticeably faster than the 2.3 i5 or the 2,4 Core 2 Duo?
Thanks all !
You'll probably notice a difference when it comes to tasks like compressing video, but day to day browsing and email, you won't se any difference between the i5 and i7. They both drag the c2d out back and take it out Casino style tho
maaaan i'm disappointed about the flash size. the appleinsider article which mentioned the size upgrade for the base model was totally misleading
TAKE HEED.
This nonsense is exactly why I'm so pessimistic. People complaining about optimistic crap that was never going to happen in the first place.
A superb MacBook Air line, horribly marred only by their lack of a modern, FaceTime HD camera. It makes no sense whatsoever. Apple's cost to add such a camera is insignificant.
They probably could not squeeze an HD camera into this thin, thin, thin bezel. They also could leave it out intentionally to help save battery life (I can say for sure that FaceTime HD camera in my 2011 MBP sucks battery juice like no other).
8GB or even 16GB RAM option
8GB RAM would significantly reduce paging, and thus wear on the SSD.
This means more paging and a faster road to hardware failure.
Unless you're going to be running a web server off that thing, the wear rates of modern SSD's will most likely never come into play for the vast majority of consumers. I'd have liked 4GB to be the absolute baseline though, that said.
I think everyone here could be confusing/conflating the issue. Both i5 and i7 chips have this turbo boost feature, but only the i7's have the ability to double the number of cores in a virtual sense. I really doubt Apple somehow blocked the i7's in the MBA from creating virtual cores, this is the only thing that separates it from the i5. If it can't do that, it has no reason for being, no performance benefit whatsoever over an i5. So while it does make sense for them to block the turboboosting for heat reasons, I don't think there's any reason for them to block an i7 from creating virtual cores.
And incidentally there's a real tangible benefit from having those virtual cores, this can be as much as another 50% in speed over the equivalent i5. It's very worth it for threaded processing.
From the literature I've read it would appear the thermal saving measure here is that these are low mhz dual core i7's when your typical i7 runs a full 1ghz higher and will be quad core. That would mean the MBA runs with 4 cores (2 real, 2 virtual) and your typical desktop i7 runs with 8 cores (4 real, 4 virtual). I can live with that compromise, I'm sure they will make up that difference to some extent by being later generation/smaller die.
Actually, Intel's website says that the ULV i5 processor actually DOES have Hyperthreading.
i5 link
i7 link
So the real difference between the 2 is just clock speed. I find it hard to believe Apple would really block the TurboBoost feature in the MBA's. Then what is the point of the i7 processors? If they're operating at only their base frequency of 1.8Ghz (for the i7) and can never get to the 2.9Ghz TurboBoost speed, then it would've made more sense to keep the Core 2 Duo's and upgrade the graphics to the 330M, or whatever the next iteration of the 320M was.
However, the benchmarks posted on MacRumors for the new MBA's indicate that performance is substantially higher than the previous generation, which makes me think that TurboBoost being turned off is bogus.
And it sticks out of the slot. Apple don't use a push-to-eject spring-loaded slot (which results in the memory card edge lying flush with the computer's casework edge when the card is fully inserted) unlike most other manufacturers.
"Apple don't use"?
This is very unlike you.
"Apple don't use"?
This is very unlike you.
Come on Melgross, this is a classic case of British vs. American treatment of collective nouns. In British English, "Apple don't" (treating "Apple" as if it were a plural) and "Apple doesn't" (treating "Apple" as if it were a singular) are equally acceptable.
Come on Melgross, this is a classic case of British vs. American treatment of collective nouns. In British English, "Apple don't" (treating "Apple" as if it were a plural) and "Apple doesn't" (treating "Apple" as if it were a singular) are equally acceptable.
It reads really oddly over here. It may be correct either way there, but not here.
It reads really oddly over here. It may be correct either way there, but not here.
LOL you are both awesome.
I agree with Mr. H though, the way the SD card reader is designed is so un-Apple. It's hard to tell if it's "in" or "out" but worse still, it can't stay in there as a second hard drive, as I think many of us would want to use it as. (a cheap way of adding say 32 or 64 gigs, costing only $30 for 32 gigs for example).
What happens now with the SD card is very dangerous. For example, I have a hard case I put my MBP in and it's just big enough for the computer, not but a millimeter in either direction on each side of extra space. To use it with a card in, I have to prop it up on one side, on the lip, so it's slanted a bit downward to the other side. If it slips, the weight of the MBP is applied onto the card. Also if you were to move the MBP around you might catch on something if the card were hanging out. Very bad design, again I'm surprised it passed the first design review, let alone stuck around. And I take it the reader still won't do SDXC either? Overall I'm glad Apple went with the card reader, it definitely makes sense for the air. Air users want portability and it means not having to lug around the camera's USB cable, and it's faster as well.
Nevertheless, my wife will be getting the new 11" Air. Would I be correct to assume that the Intel HD 3000 graphics uses less battery than a NVIDIA 320M? (The slightly slower speed would be worth the extra battery gain in my opinion).
What happens now with the SD card is very dangerous.
It's too thin to give it a lip to pull it out and a spring mechanism can break over time so it's probably designed the best way to be durable. Having to remove the card every time is a bit inconvenient but it can be used to keep infrequently accessed files on.
Very bad design, again I'm surprised it passed the first design review, let alone stuck around.
To expand on what Marvin said, I'm sure the design is quite deliberate - no moving parts maximises durability of the port, and not having to accommodate the whole depth of a card or an eject mechanism minimises the space taken up by the port.
It's possible that they experimented with a design where you could fully insert the card, with small indents machined into the casing above and below the card edge to allow you to "pinch" the card to remove it, but rejected it because they couldn't make the indents large enough for adult fingertips.
To expand on what Marvin said, I'm sure the design is quite deliberate - no moving parts maximises durability of the port, and not having to accommodate the whole depth of a card or an eject mechanism minimises the space taken up by the port.
It's possible that they experimented with a design where you could fully insert the card, with small indents machined into the casing above and below the card edge to allow you to "pinch" the card to remove it, but rejected it because they couldn't make the indents large enough for adult fingertips.
You make good points and I see what both of you are are saying. However, that does not explain the crappy design in MacBook Pros. And I still think it'd be nice if they somehow created a lip and let it go all the way in on the Air, even without a spring. But perhaps that would be too unreliable, delicate, and costly as you said Mr. H.
You make good points and I see what both of you are are saying. However, that does not explain the crappy design in MacBook Pros. And I still think it'd be nice if they somehow created a lip and let it go all the way in on the Air, even without a spring. But perhaps that would be too unreliable, delicate, and costly as you said Mr. H.
Your statement of "crappy design" points to your misunderstanding the purpose of the SD card slot in Macs. It is not designed to be a boot drive or integral to the Mac's operation, but as a way to transfer data, hence it's not designed to fit completely inside the device like it would in a digital camera. You can certainly use it in an atypical way but I don't see why someone would choose to, say, use it as a boot drive over a deive with actual speed and capacity to make it viable.
I've tried to use a 16GB SD card Class 6 as a restore drive and it was too slow, taking minutes to boot. Creating a partition on the internal drive or via a USB drive make a lot more sense. Note that USB drives don't sit inside the machine either.
Personally I say don't waste the space and resort to actual "crappy design" by making my notebook more likely to break down due to having more moving parts. We're finally stepping forward by eliminating the ODD, lets not take a step backwards.
Your statement of "crappy design" points to your misunderstanding the purpose of the SD card slot in Macs. It is not designed to be a boot drive or integral to the Mac's operation, but as a way to transfer data, hence it's not designed to fit completely inside the device like it would in a digital camera. You can certainly use it in an atypical way but I don't see why someone would choose to, say, use it as a boot drive over a deive with actual speed and capacity to make it viable.
I've tried to use a 16GB SD card Class 6 as a restore drive and it was too slow, taking minutes to boot. Creating a partition on the internal drive or via a USB drive make a lot more sense. Note that USB drives don't sit inside the machine either.
Personally I say don't waste the space and resort to actual "crappy design" by making my notebook more likely to break down due to having more moving parts. We're finally stepping forward by eliminating the ODD, lets not take a step backwards.
I didn't mean as a boot drive, I meant as a secondary drive to store media or other longterm storage. I think that would be perfect, considering large SSDs are still 400 or 500$.