Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Jaro65

macrumors 68040
Mar 27, 2009
3,830
943
Seattle, WA
I just don't understand the 2GB of RAM in 2010. That was the fundamental reason that stopped me from buying the previous MBA. It may be fine for just running the OS X, but I need to run Win 7 in VM. Maybe this would still work because it would be cached to flash storage? Anyway, for me this is a bummer.

Just noticed that it can go up to 4GB. That's better, but really the least amount that I was hoping for.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,493
4,053

Not the same C2D on the smaller one. A slower C2D with slower front side bus ( 800 vs old 1066) , 1/2 the L3 cache ( 3MB instead of 6MB ) , and lower clock speed. It comes in at 10W instead of 17W. However, they have definitely given up performance to get back that 7W . It costs less too so that's where subset of price reduction from.

That is exactly why some will still buy the MacBook even though the price is the same $999. ( more screen , better processor , traded for reasonable amount of weight. )
 

CaoCao

macrumors 6502a
Jul 27, 2010
783
2
Why couldn't Apple have made 4GB RAM standard on the 13" and the upper 11" and made it possible to (for a hefty fee) have 8GB RAM?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.