MacBook Air 13" 4GB review... a la bilbaína

[KPOM]

Ah, that's the reason then. I have a TS256C model revision CJAA0201. I wonder why Apple has provided me a disk which is only 80 % the speed than yours. I'm sure I have paid as much for my MBA as you have paid for yours.

Revision CJAA0201 here, too.

I suspect this is a "running" upgrade, seeing as the OP has a newer machine. Note that the later Rev C MacBook Airs were equipped with Toshiba drives replacing the slower Samsung drives in the Rev B and early Rev C.

I don't fault Apple for improving the drive as production continues. Perhaps they got a better deal from Toshiba, or perhaps some better firmware came out that optimizes speed. If it's the latter, that might be something we'd be able to apply to our machines, but note that updating firmware on a drive is a destructive process (i.e. it erases everything), so it would be tricky.

 

[acedickson]

Great review and you've just made my decision more difficult. I have some concerns about the 13" MBA meeting all my needs in the near future when some of my design classes begin.

I'm not sure if they're realistic concerns about the performance when it comes to Adobe CS5. I'd hate to spend $1400 on the 13" 1.86 MBA w/ 4GB RAM, and lack the performance needed, when I could spend a few hundred more and get the baseline 15" MBP and have the performance I need

If only Apple would throw an i5 in the MBA like Samsung did with their series 9. Yes, battery life would suffer a bit but how sexy would a MBA be with an i5?

 

[torbjoern]

Revision CJAA0201 here, too.

I suspect this is a "running" upgrade, seeing as the OP has a newer machine. Note that the later Rev C MacBook Airs were equipped with Toshiba drives replacing the slower Samsung drives in the Rev B and early Rev C.

I don't fault Apple for improving the drive as production continues. Perhaps they got a better deal from Toshiba, or perhaps some better firmware came out that optimizes speed. If it's the latter, that might be something we'd be able to apply to our machines, but note that updating firmware on a drive is a destructive process (i.e. it erases everything), so it would be tricky.

I bought my MBA less than a week ago, and paid around USD 2400 for it (retail price in my country). Yet still I got the slower drive! Improvement?

thanks a lot, Apple!

 

[DeBilbao]

I'm not sure if they're realistic concerns about the performance when it comes to Adobe CS5. I'd hate to spend $1400 on the 13" 1.86 MBA w/ 4GB RAM, and lack the performance needed, when I could spend a few hundred more and get the baseline 15" MBP and have the performance I need

In my opinion CS5 runs fine in my 1.86 GHz 13" MacBook Air, as I said before, raw speed isn't everything and you will benefit a lot from an SSD drive, which the baseline MacBook Pro doesn't have.

You must consider that my review compares my MBA with a MBP upgraded with more RAM and SSD drive, and this is not the standard baseline MBP.

Sorry about making your decision more difficult, but it's not bad if my review made you think twice about something.

 

[DeBilbao]

If you want to run some benchmarks on Photoshop CS5 64 bits, you can try:

• Photoshop Speed Test @ http://clubofone.com/speedtest/
• diglloyd Benchmarks @ http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS5-Benchmarks.html

You must read the instructions on how to setup the scenario, it's important to get the best results.

I have run both in my MacBook Air and the results are:

Photoshop Speed Test: 55 seconds.

diglloyd Speed1: 82,33 (average of 3 iterations)
diglloyd Medium: 339,66 (average og 3 iterations)

I've also run those tests in my desktop PC: Asus P5B Deluxe, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 GHz@3.0 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 64GB Kingston SSDNow V+

Photoshop Speed Test: 23 seconds, less than a half of the time it took in the MBA.

diglloyd are a bit more difficult to run because the Script that runs it is designed only for Mac, but with a clock at hand I have run Speed1 and I've got 41 seconds, that is a measure around the 50% less.

It's a fact that if you use a much faster processor you'll get much faster operations in CS5, but I insist that the the user experience is not only made from math calcs, but from many other things.

By the way, the Mac Book Air didn't do that bad, did it?

 

[hatersgonnahate]

how's the 128gb space treating you? im on the fence of getting 256 but an additional $300 is something to think about.

would 128gb be fine if i do not store any music and video? im a graphic designer so i would need the space for photoshop, illustrator and dreamweaver. maybe some flash. no video or 3d editing though.

great review btw. im going to pull the trigger in the next few weeks.

 

[DeBilbao]

how's the 128gb space treating you? im on the fence of getting 256 but an additional $300 is something to think about.

would 128gb be fine if i do not store any music and video? im a graphic designer so i would need the space for photoshop, illustrator and dreamweaver. maybe some flash. no video or 3d editing though.

great review btw. im going to pull the trigger in the next few weeks.

128GB is OK for me and even though 256 GB could be better, as you said $300 is something to think about.

I have a lot of software installed, even a Windows 7 Enterprise virtualized with VMWare and 42% of free drive space.

You mentioned the key point: if you try to store all your music, photos and videos... you'll need even more of thos 256 GB.

 

[topmounter]

I get 185/197 and I have the TS256C as well.

I get the same results with the TS256C... is this just a function of the larger drive? Or does anyone have a higher performance version of the 250GB drive?

 

[acedickson]

It's a fact that if you use a much faster processor you'll get much faster operations in CS5, but I insist that the the user experience is not only made from math calcs, but from many other things.

By the way, the Mac Book Air didn't do that bad, did it?

Yeah it's not bad actually. I'm considering buying the Air, giving it a go, then selling it and moving up to the Pro if necessary.

how's the 128gb space treating you? im on the fence of getting 256 but an additional $300 is something to think about.

would 128gb be fine if i do not store any music and video? im a graphic designer so i would need the space for photoshop, illustrator and dreamweaver. maybe some flash. no video or 3d editing though.

great review btw. im going to pull the trigger in the next few weeks.

I've got a NAS running freeNAS that I store most everything on and cloud storage is getting better and better with dropbox and such. I highly recommend a NAS bc I can FTP in from anywhere and get to anything I don't have local.

 

[gwsat]

I get the same results with the TS256C... is this just a function of the larger drive? Or does anyone have a higher performance version of the 250GB drive?

I think the slower AJA System Test scores are simply a result of the 256GB flash storage producing somewhat slower numbers that the 128GB version. I wouldn't worry about it. I have had a 13 inch MBA with 256GB of flash storage since October and could not be happier with it. Like the OP, I bought it in order to run VMware Fusion with Windows 7 in tandem with OS X. I have found to my delight that my MBA handles this load just as fast and with as much stability as my 17 inch 2.4GHz Santa Rosa MBP did, although the MBP has 6GB of RAM. Try the MBA, you'll like it.

 

[JPizzzle]

It's not just the 256 with the slower drive, I have a 11" 128 bought less then a week ago 2/1/11 with the slower. Suckkkkkks might return but what's the point, hate knowing I paid the same amount as someone and got a slower drive.

 

[axu539]

there is another issue though. I read that Samsung drives had really bad garbage collection, whereas the slightly slower Toshiba drive had really good garbage collection. If this is the case, I'd prefer the slower, since the faster speeds of the Samsung would end up disappearing eventually anyway.

 

[gwsat]

there is another issue though. I read that Samsung drives had really bad garbage collection, whereas the slightly slower Toshiba drive had really good garbage collection. If this is the case, I'd prefer the slower, since the faster speeds of the Samsung would end up disappearing eventually anyway.

In any event, in everyday use you're not going to be able to see a significant difference in the speed of operations between one manufacturer's flash storage and another's. To me it is a mistake to obsess over these things because they are mostly indiscernible to real users using real apps. I don't care if it takes 3 seconds to open an application instead of 2 and suspect that most other users are equally unconcerned.

Let's look at the record. The OP's AJA write speed was 208.9. My write result using the same settings was 190.0. Similarly, the OP's read time was 259.6 and mine was 207.8. What this boils down to is that my write time was 90 percent of the OP's and my read time was 80 percent of the OP's. Does anybody claim that a difference this marginal can be seen in the actual operation of an MBA?

 

[Hellhammer]

Does anybody claim that a difference this marginal can be seen in the actual operation of an MBA?

Sustained speeds are more or less negligible. What really matters are the random speeds as those are what your day to day tasks consist of. I don't think anyone has tested the random speeds yet.

But you're right. Even though the random speeds were better, it's unlikely that you would notice the difference in everyday usage unless you're using a stopwatch.

 

[gwsat]

Sustained speeds are more or less negligible. What really matters are the random speeds as those are what your day to day tasks consist of. I don't think anyone has tested the random speeds yet.

But you're right. Even though the random speeds were better, it's unlikely that you would notice the difference in everyday usage unless you're using a stopwatch.

Thanks, you explained it better than I did. I accept as true the old rule of thumb that users aren't going to notice much difference in the relative speeds of any two computers unless the overall I/O speed of the faster computer is at least twice that of the slower. That is, as you correctly observed, unless you are obsessive enough to measure the difference with a stopwatch. As an old time computer nerd I take second place to no man when it comes to obsessiveness but even I have my limits.

 

[KPOM]

how's the 128gb space treating you? im on the fence of getting 256 but an additional $300 is something to think about.

would 128gb be fine if i do not store any music and video? im a graphic designer so i would need the space for photoshop, illustrator and dreamweaver. maybe some flash. no video or 3d editing though.

great review btw. im going to pull the trigger in the next few weeks.

The only reason I went with 256GB this time is that I do store videos, and on my Rev B, I was getting within 20GB of capacity after loading Windows 7 in a Boot Camp partition. Even now, I'm still only around 100GB used out of 150 (I use a 128GB external SSD as a backup drive), but I want the flexibility to store the rest of my media on the SSD.

128GB sounds like it would work for you.

 

[gwsat]

The only reason I went with 256GB this time is that I do store videos, and on my Rev B, I was getting within 20GB of capacity after loading Windows 7 in a Boot Camp partition. Even now, I'm still only around 100GB used out of 150 (I use a 128GB external SSD as a backup drive), but I want the flexibility to store the rest of my media on the SSD.

128GB sounds like it would work for you.

My decision to get the 256GB MBA instead of the (cheaper) 128GB one was based on sheer laziness more than anything else. My best case scenario plan was than an MBA would be able to handle everything my 17 inch 2.4GHz Santa Rosa MBP did. Because I needed to run Windows in a rather large VMware Fusion partition my MBP was using 126GB of storage. It just seemed simpler to get the 256GB MBA, migrate everything to it from the MBP and go on from there. That's what I did and, as noted in earlier posts, I couldn't be happier.

My MBA is the third Mac laptop I have owned since 2003. The first was a 17 inch Powerbook G4, which was followed by the MBP in 2008, and, most recently a 13 inch Ultimate MBA, which I got in October. Each one of them has been the best computer I ever had up til then. I took a bit of a chance with the MBA because until I actually tried it, I wasn't sure that its 4GB of RAM would be able to satisfactorily handle running Windows 7 and a couple of Windows apps in Fusion's Unity mode simultaneously with half a dozen OS X apps. The MBA handles this load with the greatest of ease so I am at least as happy with it as I was with its two predecessors, maybe more satisfied because the MBA weighs only 2.9 pounds.

 

[CoolkcaH]

Hi thanks for the review I received my new 13'' 4GB MBA, but I'm having problems calibrating the screen with Supercal.

I have a 9CF0 screen and the same problem described here.

I'm using the latest version.

Did anyone have this problem? Thanks

 

[KPOM]

Hi thanks for the review I received my new 13'' 4GB MBA, but I'm having problems calibrating the screen with Supercal.

I have a 9CF0 screen and the same problem described here.

I'm using the latest version.

Did anyone have this problem? Thanks

I used the older PowerPC version (you'll need to download Rosetta). For some reason the Intel version didn't display the boxes properly.

 

[DarwinOSX]

Of course they have.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3991/apples-2010-macbook-air-11-13inch-reviewed
Plenty of others have too.

I don't think anyone has tested the random speeds yet.

Generic comments about drives do not apply to the customizedSSD's in the MBA.

there is another issue though. I read that Samsung drives had really bad garbage collection, whereas the slightly slower Toshiba drive had really good garbage collection. If this is the case, I'd prefer the slower, since the faster speeds of the Samsung would end up disappearing eventually anyway.

It wouldn't be an MBA because it would not be thin and light with great battery life.

Great review and you've just made my decision more difficult. I have some concerns about the 13" MBA meeting all my needs in the near future when some of my design classes begin.

I'm not sure if they're realistic concerns about the performance when it comes to Adobe CS5. I'd hate to spend $1400 on the 13" 1.86 MBA w/ 4GB RAM, and lack the performance needed, when I could spend a few hundred more and get the baseline 15" MBP and have the performance I need

If only Apple would throw an i5 in the MBA like Samsung did with their series 9. Yes, battery life would suffer a bit but how sexy would a MBA be with an i5?

 

[Hellhammer]

Of course they have.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3991/apples-2010-macbook-air-11-13inch-reviewed
Plenty of others have too.

I was talking about the new Samsung SSDs in MBAs. SSDs used in AT's review are older Toshibas.

 

[drmalan]

I think the slower AJA System Test scores are simply a result of the 256GB flash storage producing somewhat slower numbers that the 128GB version. I wouldn't worry about it. I have had a 13 inch MBA with 256GB of flash storage since October and could not be happier with it. Like the OP, I bought it in order to run VMware Fusion with Windows 7 in tandem with OS X. I have found to my delight that my MBA handles this load just as fast and with as much stability as my 17 inch 2.4GHz Santa Rosa MBP did, although the MBP has 6GB of RAM. Try the MBA, you'll like it.

just purchased the ultimate 13" MBA with 256 ssd last night.
AJA shows
Write 210.3
Read 256.2
SSD is revision AXM09A1Q

So it's not a 128 vs 256 issue. It's a difference in drives

 

[GNice]

Excellent review and lots of good info in additional comments made by others. Great thread!

 

[gwsat]

just purchased the ultimate 13" MBA with 256 ssd last night.
AJA shows
Write 210.3
Read 256.2
SSD is revision AXM09A1Q

So it's not a 128 vs 256 issue. It's a difference in drives

Good for you! You won't regret it.

 

[revelated]

Disregard. Phony picture.