Filed under: MacBook Air
Macworld puts the MacBook Air through the paces
The MacBook Air is a sexy machine, there is no doubting that, but how does it perform? Our buddies at Macworld ran some preliminary tests and this thing isn't a speed demon. Macworld tested a stock MacBook Air 1.6GHz processor and the 80 gig harddrive and compared it to a stock MacBook (2Ghz Core 2 Duo), a MacBook Pro (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo), a Mac mini (1.83GHz Core 2 Duo), and a PowerBook (1.67GHz G4).How did the MacBook Air rate? Well, it beat the PowerBook and that's something, right? All the other Intel based Macs were faster than the MacBook Air, but these results aren't too shocking. If you're interested in a MacBook Air you aren't buying it for performance, but rather for its compact size.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Bruce Sherin said 12:42PM on 1-25-2008
It looks like they tested the hard drive model, not one of the solid state models. The solid state model might have a big speed boost.
Reply
bubbler said 12:55PM on 1-25-2008
So, Macworld tested a machine with a 1.6 GHz core 2 duo against machines with 1.8, 2.0. and 2.2 GHz core 2 duo processors and learned that the 1.6 GHz machine was slower.
And this is news, how??????
Reply
Scott said 1:14PM on 1-25-2008
...because Apple is marketing it as its latest and greatest new computer. The deficiencies in this model need to be clear to every single person who swoons over how thin it is. It's suitable as a second (or third) computer, for travel, unless you like to watch DVDs, or need to be wall-outletless for more than 5 hours. And ONLY if you're willing to spend nearly double the amount of a much more capable MacBook, because you're rich and have money to burn.
telem said 1:34PM on 1-25-2008
Not being marketed as the latest and greatest, but the smallest and thinnest.
I'm glad I'll get one of the first -- probably faster than my 1st gen MacBook.
Dave M. said 4:39PM on 1-25-2008
How does 2 lbs. of weight difference make the MacB00k Air an "ultra-portable" and the MacBook a general notebook computer?
I get a feeling that Apple made a mistake here too. a thinner MacBook that is slower just doesn't seem worth it. The MacBook is more than small enough to me. It would probably fit in that manilla folder that they keep pulling the MacBook Air from just fine.
If I'm going to spend $1800 for a notebook, I would rather get a MacBook Pro 15" and get the power rather than the size. Heck, even the MBP 15" is only 2.4 lbs. heaver than the MacBook Air!
The MacBook Air is a nice looking machine, but it's just not worth the money they are asking. Make it a 12" screen or maybe even an 11" and then we'll talk about sub-notebook.
starkruzr said 6:00PM on 1-25-2008
Not just slower, but MUCH slower, thanks to the HDD.
geochick said 1:25PM on 1-25-2008
Heck, if you added a SSD you end up paying almost 3K for a machine that might match the speed of the Mini at best. I think the Air is a neat machine but it just cost way too much for what you are getting. Nice idea but Apple missed he pricing structure on this one.
Reply
Welly said 1:56PM on 1-25-2008
While I haven't seen the MacBook Air in person, I've seen reviews and seen plenty of photos. The MacBook Air is undoubtedly thinner and lighter than the standard MacBook, however dimension-wise, that's all it has over the MacBook so really can you say "If you're interested in a MacBook Air you aren't buying it for performance, but rather for its compact size."?
Is it really that more compact than the MacBook? I can't help thinking this is a LOT of money for not a lot of machine. I'd rather have the extra 600 or so dollars in my pocket and deal with an extra inch of thickness.
Reply
robb said 2:49PM on 1-25-2008
The less than an inch of extra "thinness" isn't really the issue. It's the extra three pounds of "lightness."
Comparing the Air against the MB, MBP and mini is silly. How does it stack up against other subnotebooks?
Yes, there is a market for a light notebook. I won't be buying mine because my MBP is my main machine and I definitely use all the power it can give me. But if I were mainly running around checking e-mail and making presentations I'd be very interested in an Air.
OC said 3:45PM on 1-25-2008
Ah.. but this isn't another subnotebook robb. It's just a thin regular sized notebook trying to be a subnotebook and failing miserably.
I agree with Welly. Sure shedding off a few lbs is always a good thing, but how compact is it really when the footprint is just as big as the regular macbook? I might fit in briefcase and back pack, but then you're going to run into some problems and carrying this by hand would be a tedious affair because it's just too big.
I was anxiously waiting for Steve to introduce a true subnotebook (12-10 inches is the sweat spot) that would retire my beloved 12" powerbook without compromising too much on performance. I can live without an Optical Drive, firewire and maybe ethernet, but the specs on this thing just makes me remember how much of a magnificent device my 12" really is, and I'm sorry, if you're going to cripple both the external optical drive and remote disks, then why include it at all.
Welly said 4:02PM on 1-25-2008
Robb,
"But if I were mainly running around checking e-mail and making presentations I'd be very interested in an Air."
If that's all I was going to use a laptop for, I'd get myself a Dell for a couple of hundred dollars. $1800 is a lot to spend on a laptop you're going to mainly use to check email and making presentations.
I'm not doubting that the MBA will sell, because there's plenty of fashion-conscious rich folk about who will lap this kind of device up. But it really is terrible value for money for what you're getting. The multi-touch trackpad is cool, I like that and am envious of it but what selling points does it offer aside from that and the thinness factor? Not a great deal.
Corey said 2:06PM on 1-25-2008
the Air is highly disappointing. period.
Reply
BRH said 3:50PM on 1-25-2008
I agree that this year's big announcement (the MB Air) was a real dissapointment. The pricepoint is ridiculous for the specs on this machine. I certainly see this going the way of the Cube unless there is a VERY quick price cut. For the specs, this machine should be priced about the same as the MacBook ($1000 to $1200 or so). But asking the buyer to pay $800 extra for a 1/4 inch less thickness and a pound or so of weight (combined with a slower processor, slower harddrive, no optical drive, no firewire, only one USB, etc.) is just nuts.
If they wanted to do a subcompact than they should have come out with something like the old 12" PowerBooks. They should have included all of the expected features and the latest processor and simply made the size and screen smaller. (I'd prefer the actual "compactness" in size over Apple's stupid "thinness" obsession.) Or even the long rumoured tablet would have been much more welcomed. (Also, why no touchscreen? Geez, they come up with this mindblowing innovation last year that everyone expected them to use in new products and instead they give us a goofy expanded trackpad. Someone else is going to pick up the ball and steal this away if Apple doesn't put it to use).
Anyway, I think this year's MacWorld was a let down compared to last years. And the MB Air is "neat" looking, and I guess I would play with it if given one, but there is no way on earth I would spend my own money on one. (Heck, you can get a refurb MB Pro for that price.... and it would blow this thing out of the water spec-wise.)
Reply
Ian said 3:54PM on 1-25-2008
I'll say it once and I'll say it again: ultraportables are a legitimate computer category. News flash: ultraportables are slower than normal computers. This is actually the fastest ultraportable out there by a very wide margin (1.33 GHz Core 2 Duo vs. 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 800 MHz FSB). Oh, and 1.6 Hz will be slower than 1.83 GHz...duh. However I'm willing to bet (seeing as how I'm getting that option) that the 1.8 GHz model is indeed faster than the 1.83 GHz Mac Mini, as the 945 series of chipsets and processing power, with a 667 MHz FSB, is slower clock for clock than the 965 series with its 800 MHz bus. Probably more than the 2% faster that would put the 1.8 GHz C2D in the Air on par with the (still highly capable) 1.83 GHz unit in the Mac Mini.
PLEASE people, you're comparing Apples to oranges here. The Macbook Air is an orange compared with Apple's current offering.
Reply
OC said 4:03PM on 1-25-2008
More like a lemon. It is a wide know fact that ultraportables are indeed slower than the average computer, but why would apple want to make it faster and compromise portability for it, specially if they are billing it as an ultraportable. And the aforementioned speed isn't really much to begin with yet they are charging too much for it. Everyday task wouldn't seem soooo much faster on the air than would on any other ultraportable.
If the optical drive was included at a $1400-$1550, then maybe then it would be passable. Maybe.
Welly said 4:04PM on 1-25-2008
It's not an ultraportable though. It's no more compact than the MacBook, it's just thinner.
There is no way that the MacBook Air could be described as an ultraportable; it's simply too big.
Mark d said 4:20PM on 1-25-2008
It goes faster that an powerbook? That's good enough for me... For anyone who wants the lightest/most portable supported mac os x for general needs (email, web browsing, typical office apps) this is great stuff. A G4 Powerbook is good enough for all that too, really.
I'm in total agreement that this computer will not handle being a primary machine. If/when I get one, I'll certainly be considering how to best manage the data on it in such a way that it integrates with my primary machine in some kind of syncing/portable home directory/etc type way though...
Reply
eric f. said 12:19PM on 1-26-2008
This is the perfect machine for business people/ people that spend the majority of their computing time writing and wed browsing, and are always on the move.
Lets be honest, most people that need more power are not using a laptop as their primary machine anyways, so why do so many of you make such a big deal about the processor speed? does a faster processor make you type faster?
The thinness and lightness + the aluminum body make this a perfect choice for professionals.
My sister is a professional and carries her iBook in her purse. I'm pretty sure she would much rather carry a Macbook air around and relieve her shoulder of that extra 3 lbs.
geochick said 5:38PM on 1-25-2008
Its one of the most expensive "ultraportables" I've seen... Dell makes a machine that's thin and weighs .97 lbs more and I can spec one with dedicated graphics, optical drive and faster processor for less than $1500... Its light enough for me to tout around although it does not run the beloved OS unless you are naughty enough to have a "jail-broken" version on there but again if you want to do everyday tasks you can with one of those...
Reply
Jay said 6:56PM on 1-25-2008
While I realize that Apple is marketing this as the thinnest and the lightest, I still fail to see its value compared to either MacBook or Macbook Pro.
What is different about Apple's laptop line-up from Dell or Sony is that MacBook and MacBook Pros are already very lightweight and yet powerful computers with great industrial design. You can't say that about most Dells or Sonys. For anyone willing to spend $1800, a Mac Book Pro is a much better value than the Air that lacks an optical drive. The number of people willing to splurge $1800 for a second laptop is going to be small. I think Apple missed out an opportunity to make the Macbook Air truly unique with software as well as hardware. The gesture interface on the keypad is cool but very limited. If this computer was running a different version of OS X with unique capabilities, then it would have been a much more appealing proposition for many buyers. Usually, when Apple releases something, I am tempted to upgrade immediately because the new product has so much value packed in it, not in this case.
Reply