MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Mac Notebooks (http://forums.macnn.com/mac-notebooks/)
-   -   What is the processing power of the new 13" MBA expected to be versus the 13" MBP? (http://forums.macnn.com/69/mac-notebooks/443110/what-processing-power-new-13-mba/)

 
Veltliner Jul 6, 2011 01:08 AM
What is the processing power of the new 13" MBA expected to be versus the 13" MBP?
I'm in the market for a 13" MBP as the laptop and desktop replacement for the next year until I finally can buy a Mac Pro.

Shall I wait for the MBA introduction or will the MBA not be as good as the MBP?
 
OreoCookie Jul 6, 2011 02:58 AM
The MacBook Air will (in all likelihood) use a low-power variant of the same dual-core Sandybridge Intel cpu that you will also find in the 13" MacBook Pro. This means its (base and peak) clock speed will be lower. Considering the performance of the Sandybridge platform (the fastest mid-2010 Core i7 MacBook Pro is slightly slower than the slowest Sandybridge-based 13" MacBook Pro), it's not unreasonable that the MacBook Air will compare favorably against a Core 2 Duo-based Mac.

What is more, the MacBook Air has a pretty good SSD as it stands now (~260-270 MB/s) and rumors are that the next MacBook Air will use a significantly faster SSD (~400 MB/s in high power mode, ~200 MB/s in low power mode). So many operations (app launching, loading and saving of large documents) will be significantly faster on the Air than on the 13" MacBook Pro (unless also equipped with a fast SSD).

What's your current machine?
 
SierraDragon Jul 6, 2011 05:42 AM
Just wait and see. It will be really soon now...
 
P Jul 6, 2011 07:02 AM
The CPU models that are rumored to be used are very similar in clockspeed to the current MBP13" with the turbo on, and the cache is even slightly larger. I would recommend that you wait for the new MBA - I have a feeling that it will be a great model. Only downside is the lack of keyboard backlighting.
 
Veltliner Jul 7, 2011 02:15 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4091341)
The MacBook Air will (in all likelihood) use a low-power variant of the same dual-core Sandybridge Intel cpu that you will also find in the 13" MacBook Pro. This means its (base and peak) clock speed will be lower. Considering the performance of the Sandybridge platform (the fastest mid-2010 Core i7 MacBook Pro is slightly slower than the slowest Sandybridge-based 13" MacBook Pro), it's not unreasonable that the MacBook Air will compare favorably against a Core 2 Duo-based Mac.

What is more, the MacBook Air has a pretty good SSD as it stands now (~260-270 MB/s) and rumors are that the next MacBook Air will use a significantly faster SSD (~400 MB/s in high power mode, ~200 MB/s in low power mode). So many operations (app launching, loading and saving of large documents) will be significantly faster on the Air than on the 13" MacBook Pro (unless also equipped with a fast SSD).

What's your current machine?
A 24" white iMac, the last one with a matte display (2.16 Core 2 Duo).

So you think the new MBA will go as fast as the current 13" MBP i5?

What about FireWire 800? The current MBA doesn't have it.

A critical component might be the maximum RAM. Also, the SSD is soldered to the motherboard, just like the RAM. One thing fails, you lose everything.
 
Veltliner Jul 7, 2011 02:17 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by P (Post 4091357)
The CPU models that are rumored to be used are very similar in clockspeed to the current MBP13" with the turbo on, and the cache is even slightly larger. I would recommend that you wait for the new MBA - I have a feeling that it will be a great model. Only downside is the lack of keyboard backlighting.
I'm hopping up and down because I can't wait. But I see I need to.

I wouldn't call the lack of keyboard backlighting a killer.

It's just incredible that the MBA, once a stylish, but sluggish toy, now gets to compete with the MBP in processing power.
 
Veltliner Jul 7, 2011 02:18 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by SierraDragon (Post 4091347)
Just wait and see. It will be really soon now...
Could be that Lion and the new MBA come out at the same time...
 
OreoCookie Jul 7, 2011 04:07 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Veltliner (Post 4091581)
A 24" white iMac, the last one with a matte display (2.16 Core 2 Duo).
Expect any new Mac to be substantially faster.
Quote, Originally Posted by Veltliner (Post 4091581)
What about FireWire 800? The current MBA doesn't have it.
Unlikely, but you can expect a Thundbolt port. In the long run, I expect Thunderbolt to supplant FireWire.
Quote, Originally Posted by Veltliner (Post 4091581)
A critical component might be the maximum RAM. Also, the SSD is soldered to the motherboard, just like the RAM. One thing fails, you lose everything.
That's not the first time: my first Mac, a PowerBook G3 Kanga, had RAM soldered onto the mainboard (and yet, it sucked when one of the modules failed).
Quote, Originally Posted by Veltliner (Post 4091582)
It's just incredible that the MBA, once a stylish, but sluggish toy, now gets to compete with the MBP in processing power.
The current incarnation is by no means slow. That's mainly due to the fast SSD that's built-in.
 
Veltliner Jul 7, 2011 01:23 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4091590)

That's not the first time: my first Mac, a PowerBook G3 Kanga, had RAM soldered onto the mainboard (and yet, it sucked when one of the modules failed).
Would you say if such an event happened to a new MBA that you have to EXCHANGE everything, or can the failing module be "soldered off" and another one put back on?
 
Veltliner Jul 7, 2011 01:57 PM
And it should get the intel3000 integrated graphics and be able to power an external 24" display?

If I can't hook up a large display I have to go with the 13" MBP.
 
Spheric Harlot Jul 7, 2011 02:13 PM
I'd be surprised if it couldn't, given that the *current* generation handles the 27" Cinema Display without any problems.
 
Spheric Harlot Jul 7, 2011 02:17 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Veltliner (Post 4091581)
Also, the SSD is soldered to the motherboard, just like the RAM. One thing fails, you lose everything.
No, it's not.
 
OreoCookie Jul 7, 2011 03:01 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Veltliner (Post 4091684)
Would you say if such an event happened to a new MBA that you have to EXCHANGE everything, or can the failing module be "soldered off" and another one put back on?
If the RAM fails, you need to change the motherboard. Right now, the SSD is a separate `stick' which can be upgraded. There are rumors that the next-gen will have the SSD soldered on, so we'll have to wait and see if that's the case.
 
SierraDragon Jul 7, 2011 05:18 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Veltliner (Post 4091582)
...the MBA, once a stylish, but sluggish toy, now gets to compete with the MBP in processing power.
Absolutely true. I purchased and set up an early MBA for my boss at the time, and the early MBAs were stylish but definitely sluggish. Do note that the 2011 MBA processing power will likely compete with the much-less-powerful 13" MBP, but not with 15/17" MBPs.

Sandy Bridge chipsets rock, and my bet is that new MBAs will be sweet boxes on average apps. However make no mistake about overall laptop strength in comparison to larger sizes. SSD makes for great i/o, but MBAs and 13" MBPs are and will be much weaker than the larger sizes. A 15/17" MBP is 60-70% stronger in CPU and 3x stronger in GPU than a 13" MBP.

Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4091590)
...The current incarnation is by no means slow. That's mainly due to the fast SSD that's built-in.
Also true. Even low end C2D CPUs do a pretty good job for "average" apps. Use a boot SSD and performance is "snappy" for average apps.

As to the OP: "What is the processing power of the new 13" MBA expected to be versus the 13" MBP?"
I expect that a 2011 MBA with SSD will be perceived by most users as "faster" than a 2011 13" MBP with stock notebook hard drive. We will see soon.

SSD for boot is a huge improvement over a stock notebook drive, with years of successful usage on Mac laptops. I have said this before but I am repeating because some still claim SSD's time is not here yet.

-Allen
 
SierraDragon Jul 9, 2011 06:46 PM
FCP is one of Veltliner's apps so I asked Rob at barefeats.com if maybe he could add the 13" MBP to his tests of various hardware running Motion and of Final Cut Pro to see how well 2011 integrated graphics perform, comparatively. He said he does have a 13" MBP in the lab right now and would try to do it, so we may see upgraded test results soon.
 
SierraDragon Jul 12, 2011 07:16 PM
As discussed in the previous post, comparative FCP test results for the 2011 13" MBP vs. others are up at barefeats.com.

Final Cut Pro X on three different Macs
 
SierraDragon Jul 13, 2011 02:07 PM
Comparative Motion test results for the 2011 13" MBP vs. others also are up at barefeats.com.

Apple Motion 5 - various GPUs
 
Veltliner Jul 22, 2011 01:20 AM
So, now that it's out, what would be the best purchase decision?

13" MBA over 13" MBP is a no-brainer.

But what about 13"MBA versus 15"MBP? This is more difficult. I mean, the MBA is more sexy, but maybe one doesn't want sex ALL the time ;) In Final Cut Pro X and Photoshop the 15" MBP will still likely be much faster.
 
SierraDragon Jul 25, 2011 11:54 PM
More MBA tests:

2011 MacBook Air - early benchmarks

And barefeats.com commentary:
"Though more than adequate for mere mortal tasks (Safari, Mail, etc.), the 2011 MacBook Air remains at the bottom of the Mac "food chain" when running apps that stress the CPU, GPU, and memory. This will be further illustrated with soon-to-be posted tests using After Effects, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, etc."
 
OreoCookie Jul 26, 2011 03:35 AM
The barefeats benchmarks posted up to now are kinda pointless: they still don't compare the Air to last-gen MacBook Pros.
 
SierraDragon Jul 26, 2011 05:38 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4097241)
The barefeats benchmarks posted up to now are kinda pointless: they still don't compare the Air to last-gen MacBook Pros.
Last year's MBPs were compared to this year's MBPs back in February:

2011 MacBook Pro -- CPU crunch

And 2010 MBPs were compared to 2011 MBPs and an MBA at:

2011 MacBook Pro GPUs - weak vs strong

Combine those looks at relative strengths with the July 22 comparison of MBPs versus MBAs and one gets the comparative picture:

2011 MacBook Air - early benchmarks

Anyway IMO the point is not how MBAs compare to earlier MBA/MBP/iMac/Mini generations as much as it is how strongly each 2011 computer choice runs [[insert your apps here] 2011 applications. Or more importantly, our expectations of how a box bought today will run 2012 OS and apps - but we cannot test that, only make educated guesses based on testing 2011 OS/apps.

Agreed it is of interest how 2011 boxes stack up against 2010 boxes running 2011 OS and apps, because some used boxes might be good values. To get a feel for the relative real-world performance of various boxes with various apps just go back in time to earlier tests over the years at BareFeats.com. Not the same as all on the lab bench at once, but IMO one can get a pretty good idea.

Final Cut Pro X on three different Macs

2011 MacBook Pro -- 3D gaming

2011 MacBook Pro -- Hi Rez 3D gaming

Lots more tests at BareFeats.com also exist over the years, one just needs to peruse the site for the info.

Two things that generally jump out are
• the generally excellent improvements of the Sandy Bridge generation and
• the overall poor relative performance of boxes with integrated graphics or with low end GPUs when running heavy graphics apps (Photoshop not in that category).

-Allen
 
SierraDragon Jul 26, 2011 06:57 PM
I repeat:

Lots more tests at BareFeats.com also exist over the years, one just needs to peruse the site for the info.
 
OreoCookie Jul 26, 2011 08:55 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by SierraDragon (Post 4097540)
Last year's MBPs were compared to this year's MBPs back in February:
Trust me, I've checked the site before posting. The claim that `machines with integrated graphics are not suitable for high-end graphics apps' is not substantiated or even tested. You post links to benchmarks of 3d performance as measured by games (and the results are outside of my claim).

In the FCP X test, it is not clear whether the difference between the 13" MacBook Pro and the other machines is due to the additional cores (2 vs. 4 or 6) or whether it's the additional CPU horsepower. Since the workloads they test (media encoding, filters) can be parallelized very well, you could explain the doubling in performance with the doubling in cores. Of course, that's a claim you should test, but if the gap would be significantly larger than 2x, then you couldn't explain it with the difference in the number of cores.

The other pages only have three benchmarks in common: Cinebench (CPU), encoding via Handbrake and Geekbench (although it is not clear whether they run the same version of Geekbench). Those three tests measure cpu performance only, so it has no implication on your claim. In either case, the Air stacks up as expected, beating the top-end 2010 MacBook Pro in two tests (Geekbench and encoding) and trailing closely behind in the other (Cinebench). Based on those numbers, it's fair to call the cpu performance of the two machines `comparable'. But they have no `heavy graphics app benchmarks' in common.

This means barefeats so far hasn't posted tests comparing 2011 and 2010 machines in similar benchmarks for `heavy graphics apps' nor have they run a the same `heavy graphics app' benchmark on a machine with both, an integrated and a discrete GPU. Again, I'd be very interested in the results and running tests would be very simple. Honestly, I don't understand why you wouldn't think of doing that yourself. But so far, they make claims without substantiating them with numbers.

See, this is my problem with barefeats:
(1) They have no fixed series of benchmarks, not even among machines of the current generation (so you can use the same software to ensure identical conditions). It's often hard to see whether the benchmarks they run are actually the same (compare the descriptions of the Geekbench results). Some benchmarks are not properly explained and it is not clear whether they stick to a particular setup across tests, sometimes they add version numbers and other details, sometimes they don't. OS versions aren't mentioned either.

(2) They don't test things that are obvious to me, e. g. how much do you gain in benchmark xyz if you use the integrated or discrete graphics on one machine (e. g. 15" MacBook Pros). This is a natural question that would merit an in-depth post. All they need, in principle, is one machine.

(3) Graphics performance in particular can vary (usually improve) with better drivers. Since the Airs run only Lion, it is not clear whether the graphics test results they print are comparable to earlier results (are the other machines running Lion or Snow Leopard?). They list the specs of the machines, but not the OS version or driver version they use.

(4) Some interpretations are plain inconsistent. Take this one, for instance: they run 2x2 = 4 3d graphics tests. In two of them (the Portal Demo tests), the integrated graphics chip is actually faster than the discrete graphics of the 2010 top-end MacBook Pro (perhaps Portal is CPU-bound rather than GPU-bound). Granted, in terms of raw power, the 2010 MacBook Pro's GPU is beefier than either the 320M or the HD 3000, but the conclusion (`see, discrete gpus are faster') is not coherent with their benchmarks (faster in half of them, slower in the other half).

These are things that can be fixed by improving the methodology. And the lack of care with these important details to me makes me question the overall competence of the person or team behind this website when it comes to benchmarking things.
 
OreoCookie Jul 26, 2011 09:00 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by accessoriesguy (Post 4097552)
anybody happen to have the benchmarks of the new air vs. late 2008 macbook pro? the first unibodys?
The fastest MacBook Air is comparable in the cpu-department to the fastest 2010 MacBook Pro -- which is substantially faster than earlier MacBook Pros. It will be a significant step upwards.
Quote, Originally Posted by accessoriesguy (Post 4097552)
I'm pretty sure the GT processor would take the integrated Intel 3000 GPU. But seeing all of the differences would be nice.
That depends on what you want to do with the machine. But overall, the integrated graphics of the MacBook Air is comparable to the entry-level graphics in the 2008 Mac Pro. So I reckon the Air would be a match in the graphics department for your machine. Additionally, the MacBook Air has an SSD that will just blow any physical hard drive out of the water.

Overall, the current Air is a machine with a significantly faster cpu, significantly faster storage and at worst, comparable graphics.
 
OreoCookie Aug 2, 2011 05:06 AM
Anandtech has released benchmarks that include Aperture a 2 import benchmark. The high-end Air beats my machine by almost a factor of 3 (for the high-end 2010 MacBook Pro, it's a factor of 2.4). Interestingly, it also beats the Mac Pros by 60 %. Of course, that's one benchmark, but it's a clear indication that the combination of a fast SSD and a fast processor can give you better overall performance than a faster processor and slower IO -- also for `heavy graphics apps.'

I'd still like to see benchmarks that compare the performance of the same machine using the discrete graphics chip and the built-in graphics.
 
sdilley14 Aug 2, 2011 10:05 PM
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but how long does it usually take for new machines to hit the refurb store? I'm pretty much dead set on getting one of the new MBA, but I'd like to wait and get a refurb.
 
Brien Aug 2, 2011 11:25 PM
Give it a another month or two.

Personally, I'd love to see a 15" MBA with a better GPU/CPU, but keeping the super fast SSD as stock. Then we'll talk.
 
SierraDragon Aug 2, 2011 11:36 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4099087)
Anandtech has released benchmarks that include Aperture a 2 import benchmark...
Readers should take care not to interpret AnandTech's "Aperture 2 RAW Import Performance" chart as necessarily implying some relationship to real overall Aperture performance.

• Aperture Version 2 was tested. Version 3 made substantial speed changes and has been out for more than a year.

• How Masters and Previews are handled are not specified, and will have significant impact on performance.

• The RAW import rate reported by itself is a fairly unimportant measure and appears to be highly dependent on drive performance (RAW import rates may or may not correlate well with overall performance; that would be an interesting correlation to investigate) and varies based on Aperture settings. AnandTech did not specify which hard drives they used, but my 2.2 GHz 17" MBP with SSD imports straight RAW 12 MB NEFs at about 5 images per second as compared to the 2-3 images per second in the AnandTech graph; OTOH if I import RAW+JPEG using the camera JPEGs for Previews the rate is better than 10 images per second. Full import processing with my workflow takes a bit under a second per image.

In my case Aperture (3.1.2) on the 2011 17" MBP (OS 10.6.7, 8 GB RAM) with Apple's SSD imports 3 GB of RAW+JPEG images in much less than a minute and has those images fully processed in about 5 minutes. IMO hella fast. And edits (with both the Aperture Library and referenced Masters on the SSD) are essentially instant.

My expectation is that among 2011 SSD Macs the real MBA performance on Aperture will be poor relative to 2011 Macs with added GPUs, much like the poor FCP performance in the Anandtech tests.

-Allen
 
sdilley14 Aug 3, 2011 12:16 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Brien (Post 4099317)
Give it a another month or two.

Personally, I'd love to see a 15" MBA with a better GPU/CPU, but keeping the super fast SSD as stock. Then we'll talk.
Month or two...sounds like I'll be getting a new iPhone AND a new MBA around October!

15" MBA would be killer. I can only imagine how much something like that is going to cost. :( Is it anticipated that the rumored 15" MBA would replace the existing line or simply supplement the regular 15"/17" MBP?
 
OreoCookie Aug 3, 2011 01:16 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by SierraDragon (Post 4099322)
Readers should take care not to interpret AnandTech's "Aperture 2 RAW Import Performance" chart as necessarily implying some relationship to real overall Aperture performance.
That's true of any benchmark, they only capture aspects of performance. But at least it is a benchmark to start discussions about quantitative differences in performance rather than guesses. If you propose to me a benchmark I can run on my machine using Aperture 3, I will be more than happy to oblige and publish the results here on MacNN. I'll be running once with the discrete graphics core enabled and once more using the built-in Intel graphics (which is substantially slower than that of the Sandy Bridge Core i5s and i7s).
Quote, Originally Posted by SierraDragon (Post 4099322)
• Aperture Version 2 was tested. Version 3 made substantial speed changes and has been out for more than a year.
They have used Aperture 2 so that they could compare the new machines to older machines that were released before Aperture 3 was available.
Quote, Originally Posted by SierraDragon (Post 4099322)
My expectation is that among 2011 SSD Macs the real MBA performance on Aperture will be poor relative to 2011 Macs with added GPUs, much like the poor FCP performance in the Anandtech tests.
Again, you're making an unsubstantiated claim, namely that the difference in performance can be attributed to the GPU rather than the fact that the 15+" MacBook Pros have twice as many cores clocked at higher speeds. This question is relevant for people who are deciding to buy a Mac mini: should they go for a two-core model with faster graphics or with a four-core model with slower graphics?
 
OreoCookie Aug 3, 2011 01:22 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by sdilley14 (Post 4099413)
15" MBA would be killer. I can only imagine how much something like that is going to cost. :( Is it anticipated that the rumored 15" MBA would replace the existing line or simply supplement the regular 15"/17" MBP?
I reckon that the 15" MacBook `Air' will replace the current 15" MacBook Pro. The trend will be to go away from optical drives, probably also spinning hard drives and FireWire. They will only keep Thunderbolt. Depending on the weight, this machine might be very interesting. Hence, I think they'll keep the machine at its current price point.

I guess they'll keep the 17" MacBook Pro around for people who want a big, heavy and more featured machine.
 
Waragainstsleep Aug 3, 2011 03:05 PM
I'm curious to know if a 15" or 17" Air style enclosure would be able to provide the required heat dissipation for a full powered CPU and GPU. It might be easier to engineer a 17" MacBook Air Pro than a 15".

Maybe they'll ditch both and do a 16" version.
 
SierraDragon Aug 4, 2011 09:54 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4099422)
...at least it is a benchmark to start discussions about quantitative differences in performance rather than guesses.
My objection is that the initial implication is that the relative 2011 MBA performance on Aperture is good, whereas almost assuredly MBA Aperture performance relative to 2011 15/17 SSD MBPs will be similar to the results on FCP and on games, i.e. poor relatively. Import mostly tests the SSD so comparative tests should be against other SSD boxes - - like the FCP tests farther down the updated 8/1/2011 Anandtech page that show MBAs underperforming.

Quote
Again, you're making an unsubstantiated claim, namely that the difference in performance can be attributed to the GPU rather than the fact that the 15+" MacBook Pros have twice as many cores clocked at higher speeds.
Not true. When we cannot CTO a different configuration anyway what I care about is the relative performance of whole systems. I want to know how the whole systems compare, rather than "once with the discrete graphics core enabled and once more using the built-in Intel graphics." I do expect (not claim) that 2011 whole systems with discrete GPUs (and SSDs) will substantially outperform 2011 whole systems with only integrated graphics (and SSDs) on Aperture.

Quote
This question is relevant for people who are deciding to buy a Mac mini: should they go for a two-core model with faster graphics or with a four-core model with slower graphics?
SSDs, CPUs, GPUs and RAM all work together. I personally have no interest in separating out the GPU except when it is a user-configurable choice. The Mini is a perfect example: IMO overall performance of the two different configuration choices as delivered by Apple should be compared with different applications rather than trying to independently break out the GPU performance.

We agree I think that the impact of SSDs is large. IMO whenever SSDs are an option comparison testing should include SSDs.
 
Big Mac Aug 4, 2011 05:28 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OreoCookie (Post 4099425)
I reckon that the 15" MacBook `Air' will replace the current 15" MacBook Pro. The trend will be to go away from optical drives, probably also spinning hard drives and FireWire. They will only keep Thunderbolt. Depending on the weight, this machine might be very interesting. Hence, I think they'll keep the machine at its current price point.

I guess they'll keep the 17" MacBook Pro around for people who want a big, heavy and more featured machine.
That's interesting speculation, but unless you have some inside source, I strongly doubt a 15" MBA would replace the MBP. The 13" MBA hasn't replaced the 13" MBP. They serve different markets. The 15" MBP is many professional's computer of choice. I can't imagine Apple getting rid of it and only having the 17" as the sole fully featured Mac laptop. The MBPs will eventually get SSDs and lose their optical drives, obviously, but they'll remain Pros and not become Airs.
 
OreoCookie Aug 5, 2011 08:19 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Big Mac (Post 4099746)
That's interesting speculation, but unless you have some inside source, I strongly doubt a 15" MBA would replace the MBP.
I don't have an inside source, it's strictly my own opinion.
If you look at where Apple is moving, then a few things seem clear: first of all, the optical drive is dead. The Air already killed the MacBook and I have a feeling the 13" Pro is next. I just think the Pro and Air lines are going to merge (with the possible exception of the 17"). So you simply have a 11", 13" and 15" MacBook Pro/Air (the suffix is just a marketing moniker).
Quote, Originally Posted by Big Mac (Post 4099746)
The 13" MBA hasn't replaced the 13" MBP.
No, but if you ask me, the 13" Pro is much less attractive than the 13" Air. Unless someone really needs FireWire or large internal storage, I don't really see the appeal of the Pro over the Air. The Air has a better, higher-res screen, it is significantly lighter and more portable and battery life is more than good enough.

Things I would expect from a 15" MacBook `Air' (whatever it will be called) is user-replacable RAM. I currently have 8 GB and I don't intend to downgrade ;) I think we'll have to live with the fact that there won't be space for a (traditional) hard drive.
Quote, Originally Posted by Big Mac (Post 4099746)
They serve different markets. The 15" MBP is many professional's computer of choice. ... The MBPs will eventually get SSDs and lose their optical drives, obviously, but they'll remain Pros and not become Airs.
If the 15" (and 13") MacBook Pro lose their optical drives and get SSDs, how do you differentiate the Air line from the Pro line? (Besides, I know lots of `professionals' who use a MacBook Air.)
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:42 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2