Thinking of getting one for the family to use since now Apple has them Refurbished for $1100, but is the 1.8" SSD drive inside able to be swaped out?
Last edited:
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.
Previous Gen MacBook Air SSD Question
- Thread starter Wicked1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not worth it at that price. The current model is a MUCH better deal. The old model is a lemon.
Yes, the old MBA had upgradeable HD/SSD. However, I agree with the poster above, the current gen is much better deal.
I have the new 13" MBA with the 2.13/256/4GB Ram etc, but I did not want to spend another $1800 on a family laptop, that's why I asked, but I guess I can just get a Refurbished uMBP 2.4 for $1100 or just a plain MB for $900 after my school discount.
Nobody said anything about 1800$. The base 13" would be just fine and costs only 1299$, even less if you get a discount. MB or base MBP would be okay as well
i´d disagree with the statements above - the rev c 2,1 ssd is quite ok for the refurb pricing, it is nearly as fast as the newer model and late rev c already have the new faster toshiba ssds that are used in the rev d as well, just to give you an idea of the performance:
a) rev b 1.6 samsung ssd:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=328882
b) rev c 2,1 toshiba ssd:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=477355
c) rev d
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=489224
The difference between b) and c) will not really be noticeable... only real advantage of the new model: 4gb ram - would suit vmware just fine
a) rev b 1.6 samsung ssd:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=328882
b) rev c 2,1 toshiba ssd:
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=477355
c) rev d
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=489224
The difference between b) and c) will not really be noticeable... only real advantage of the new model: 4gb ram - would suit vmware just fine
+ Better battery life, GPU, screen, trackpad, cooler operation, SD card slot, second USB.... Do I have to continue? IMO new one is much, much better deal.
Rev C refurb is a great computer
I just bought a refurb Rev C MBA with the 128GB SSD. It's a great machine. It's my second MBA, upgrading from an original Rev A MBA I used as my main computer for two years. I've been using apple laptops for 17 years, and the original MBA was the best computer I ever had... until I got the Rev C, which is even better.
The new MBAs are nice (see above post- cool running, SD card slot, longer battery life etc.) but things you should know about the new MBAs:
1. No illuminated keyboard on new MBA models, but the Rev C's got it
2. Glass trackpad = no separate trackpad button, which I like (old habits die hard). The older Airs have the actual button.
3. As much as everyone loves the new MBAs, they're actually Rev A's of a whole new line, not simply an update to an existing product. Rev A's of a new product often have some kind of glitch, or inflated price, or look really bad in comparison to the Rev B of the same product. Think of the original MBA compared to later revisions; the original iPhone pricing; the original black intel macbook (ran really hot)... the list goes on. The new MBAs seem to be pretty good, but who knows?
Either way, both the Rev C's and the new MBAs are good machines. My personal preference is for the Rev C's as I like the glowing keyboard, real trackpad button, slightly lower price, and product line maturity. I don't need a faster portable machine, 4 hours of battery is good enough for my usage, and 2GB of RAM will do me for the next 24 months. I've also got an extra $200 compared to buying new. If that fits your profile, then I recommend the older MBAs. If you need to use the computer all day without charging, need to run a virtual machine, or you really like the no-button trackpad, then the newer machines are the way to go.
I just bought a refurb Rev C MBA with the 128GB SSD. It's a great machine. It's my second MBA, upgrading from an original Rev A MBA I used as my main computer for two years. I've been using apple laptops for 17 years, and the original MBA was the best computer I ever had... until I got the Rev C, which is even better.
The new MBAs are nice (see above post- cool running, SD card slot, longer battery life etc.) but things you should know about the new MBAs:
1. No illuminated keyboard on new MBA models, but the Rev C's got it
2. Glass trackpad = no separate trackpad button, which I like (old habits die hard). The older Airs have the actual button.
3. As much as everyone loves the new MBAs, they're actually Rev A's of a whole new line, not simply an update to an existing product. Rev A's of a new product often have some kind of glitch, or inflated price, or look really bad in comparison to the Rev B of the same product. Think of the original MBA compared to later revisions; the original iPhone pricing; the original black intel macbook (ran really hot)... the list goes on. The new MBAs seem to be pretty good, but who knows?
Either way, both the Rev C's and the new MBAs are good machines. My personal preference is for the Rev C's as I like the glowing keyboard, real trackpad button, slightly lower price, and product line maturity. I don't need a faster portable machine, 4 hours of battery is good enough for my usage, and 2GB of RAM will do me for the next 24 months. I've also got an extra $200 compared to buying new. If that fits your profile, then I recommend the older MBAs. If you need to use the computer all day without charging, need to run a virtual machine, or you really like the no-button trackpad, then the newer machines are the way to go.
better battery life could be an issue, yes.
the rev c with disabled bluetooth, 50% display brightness and no kb backlit could last 4.5 -5 hours when doing light browsing tasks (at the moment it shows 3:50 with a 75% charged battery
have a look at the xbench tests, the newer gpu is not really faster, in open gl and the user interface tests the newer nvidia chip is slower, probably a driver / energysaving thing, so the gpu performance is not really worth the premium
cooler operation is something i highly doubt, the cpus are identical, so both would need to generate the same heat... it might be a throttling thing here, perhaps the newer macbook air has some coolbook-like capabilities.
for me it was a tough decision:
would i want the new one with a little bit better battery, 4gb ram, higher res display and pay 1808 Euros (i wanted the 2.13 cpu that is only available with the 256gb ssd (something i would not need)
or could i settle with the 1099 refurb offer for a machine that is as fast as the 1808 one, and still has a backlit keyboard, a feature i really like. 700 Euros was a premium i just could not justify for the small advantages the newer version offers me....
XBench is ancient and synthetic. Take a look at some real benchmarks, 2010 MBA is nearly three times faster in CoD4.
I highly doubt you need the 2.13GHz CPU. In real world, the difference is negligible. I just don't see how the old one for 1099€ could be a better deal. Base 13" is only 200€ more and at least IMO offers great features. Of course it's your money, not mine.
just remember that Speedmark tests SSD performance as well - the Toshiba SSD in the last Rev C Airs is a lot faster than in the first ones. Do you know if Speedmark is a free download? I could test my Rev C then? (link above is not working)
Yeah, but CoD4 is CoD4, it doesn't test SSD performance. Looks like SpeedMark isn't an app, it's just a script that automates the tasks included in the benchmarks
http://www.macworld.com/info/speedmark.html
ah, ok, i get it now, thanks for the explanation
seems as if the link above is working now. Just had a look at the benchmarks:MacBook Air 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo (Mid 2009)
vs
13” MacBook Air 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo, 256GB FS, 4GB RAM (BTO)
quite interesting numbers, if they tested the old rev c ssd, then the c with the toshiba ssd would be at least twice as fast in disc intensive tests. i usually don´t play on my air (cod4 runs great on my ps3
have a look at:zip / unzip 2 gb folder / pages open word doc / itunes 10 aac 2 mp3: rev c is much faster
import movie / iphoto jpeg import / handbrake: rev c is twice as fast
photoshop runs faster on the older machine as well
it seems as if the new 2.13 cpu does not run at full speed - probably due to heat / battery issues. why would i want to buy a cpu speed limited machine? that´s like buying an m3 with a 60mph speed limiter.... in some cpu intensive tasks, the new 1,86 outperforms the 2.13 (at least if i understood those numbers correctly)
Last edited:
ah, ok, i get it now, thanks for the explanation
MacBook Air 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo (Mid 2009)
vs
13 MacBook Air 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo, 256GB FS, 4GB RAM (BTO)
quite interesting numbers, if they tested the old rev c ssd, then the c with the toshiba ssd would be at least twice as fast in disc intensive tests. i usually don´t play on my air (cod4 runs great on my ps3
zip / unzip 2 gb folder / pages open word doc / itunes 10 aac 2 mp3: rev c is much faster
import movie / iphoto jpeg import / handbrake: rev c is twice as fast
photoshop runs faster on the older machine as well
it seems as if the new 2.13 cpu does not run at full speed - probably due to heat / battery issues. why would i want to buy a cpu speed limited machine? that´s like buying an m3 with a 60mph speed limiter.... in some cpu intensive tasks, the new 1,86 outperforms the 2.13 (at least if i understood those numbers correctly)
Ummh.. Lower is better in the tasks you mentioned. It's seconds, current gen is much faster in those tasks.
See AT's review if you haven't already, it talks about the CPU throttling and is very interesting in other aspects as well
ah, ok, i get it now, thanks for the explanation
MacBook Air 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo (Mid 2009)
vs
13 MacBook Air 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo, 256GB FS, 4GB RAM (BTO)
quite interesting numbers, if they tested the old rev c ssd, then the c with the toshiba ssd would be at least twice as fast in disc intensive tests. i usually don´t play on my air (cod4 runs great on my ps3
zip / unzip 2 gb folder / pages open word doc / itunes 10 aac 2 mp3: rev c is much faster
import movie / iphoto jpeg import / handbrake: rev c is twice as fast
photoshop runs faster on the older machine as well
it seems as if the new 2.13 cpu does not run at full speed - probably due to heat / battery issues. why would i want to buy a cpu speed limited machine? that´s like buying an m3 with a 60mph speed limiter.... in some cpu intensive tasks, the new 1,86 outperforms the 2.13 (at least if i understood those numbers correctly)
Actually, there is not a single test where the Rev C 2.13GHz outperforms the Rev D 2.13 GHz. The chart is a bit confusing since in some of the tests, the higher number is better (speed ratings) while in other tests the lower number is better (measures of time to complete task). If anything, the Rev C was the one that had heat issues.
The 2.13GHz Rev D compares favorably to the 1.86GHz Rev D, apart from a few tests like the Duplicate 1GB file test that aren't CPU intensive. The 2.13GHz Rev D also compares well to the stock Core 2 Duo 13" MacBook Pro and even the Core i5 MacBook Pro in a few tests. The Core i5 MacBook Pro really shines in the AAC to MP3 encoding, Pages Open Word, CineBench CPU, and Multitasking tests, probably because of the hyperthreading and elimination of the front side bus in the Core i-series chips.
No No I meant, I did not want to spend $1800 on a new one like mine for everyone to share, I just need something simple and cheap just for the kids to use for school or my wife if she needs more than her iPad, that's what I meant.
oh, ok seems as if i have shot myself in the foot
To get a sense, look for the scores where the late-2010 model MacBook Airs outperform the 2.4GHz MacBook Pro or Core i5 MacBook Pro. The only reason they would do so is that the test is disk intensive. On those tasks, expect the later-model Rev C with the Toshiba SSD to perform more similarly to the Rev D. On other tests (CPU- or GPU-intensive tasks), the Rev D is likely to continue to perform better because it won't throttle down as much as the Rev C.