-1 ^^^ Oh yeah, well my Mac Pro 3.0 can take your MBAir 1.86 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Just reminds me of those days in the sandbox when we'd brag that my Dad can beat up your Dad... lol
The point isn't my Mac beats your Mac.
The point is another "unaware" poster yapping about my statement.
So no not a sandbox moment but a legitimate attempt to educate a high and mighty MBP "2.5" GHz owner that CPU and RAM only go so far when comes to general tasks on a computer. The SSD in the MBA changes the game on what a 1.86 GHz CPU and 2 GB of 1066 MHz RAM means. In truth, the poster needs to be aware that the MBA's SSD vastly improves common computer performance of opening large files, opening apps, and bootup times. His MBP "2.5" GHz with 667 MHz RAM means far different types of performance for MOST users.
Funny that someone like this would pay an extra $100 to upgrade their HDD from a 5400 rpm to 7200 rpm model to get a 33% drive spin speed increase to open apps slightly faster or boot slightly faster. Yet an SSD vastly changes those tasks with read speeds equivalents of 1000% gain. Funny that someone would brag that the MBA only has 2 GB of RAM vs his "MBP's" 4 GB of RAM. Again not factoring in that 4 GB at 667 MHz vs 2 GB at 1066 MHz again isn't "DOUBLE" the speed. Again for MOST users a 2 GB of 1066 MHz RAM configuration will outperform 4 GB of 667 MHz RAM.
Not to mention, as a mobile device the SSD far outperforms and is much more reliable than an HDD.
The point is, yet again, an unaware individual wants to compare his CPU speed and total RAM size to state I am wrong for calling the MBA very powerful. In the future, SSDs are going to get faster and faster and people will learn that for common user "speed" difference notices the SSD can make a bigger difference than CPU and RAM.
The true uneducated "sandbox" moment came when poster compared CPU clock speed and slower 667 MHz RAM at double capacity to state how his "MBP 2.5 GHz" was the version of "real power" over a lowly MBA.
A tech savvy individual would understand that for MOST people 2 GB of RAM at 1066 MHz is going to outperform the Older 4 GB of 667 MHz RAM. 100% more RAM that MOST users will not use more than 2 GB of RAM. And consider the double the RAM is again like comparing apples and oranges, when the newer technology is faster RAM. Comparing clock speeds of CPU is really NOT going to mean vastly faster at a 34% clock speed from 1.86 GHz to 2.5 GHz.
This is really more of the old age argument in the "sandbox" that mine is BIGGER than yours and therefore greater.
All rev B MBA owners using SSD can understand the noticeable speed differences of the SSD - heck they paid for it. Many others have written about switching from a MBP that by all common uses was SLOWER than a MacBook Air with SSD. This is called PROGRESS via TECHNOLOGY. Technology is what we're talking about yet someone want to compare a 34% faster clock speed and double the RAM (even while we all know the numbers on 667 MHz vs 1066 MHz RAM), and states how it's BIGGER yet therefore better. While simply not able to fathom that for MOST the SSD will make a NOTICEABLY faster/bigger difference as that "technology" simply affects on a bigger scale, the common user's experience of "SPEED."
So is this another "sandbox" moment, or is the SSD progress? I prefer to think that other factors of technology also influence most users performance of new Macs. What's next? I look forward to the future of technology, and I think people need to get past CPU clock speed or total amount of RAM as a measure of speed. The game is changing, and fast. Go tell a new Mac Pro user that your MBP at 2.5 GHz is faster than a Mac Pro with a 2.26 GHz Nehalem CPU. There it is a factor of something different than CPU clock speed also. Computing capabilities are being defined by more than a simple measure of clock speed.
I look forward to the future of the MBA, and I hope Apple can find more ways to make a seemingly less powerful computer FASTER for MOST of us.
Go SSD!
